2
10
18
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4b1ccb040bcaac0eca089c9aa41b95ab.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CAo-Z1y250HViEq1kD13qEFOHCfIypk7Fb3pQtBshV7ZkAMc2o2Pc9fJwgrllzMwH2RxuwRleJvyw5Bb3gf-Ov73VeICfeO6Z7ROGVQwcoJNSePzCpNa7P91WEohJTu9UfbQnr8ypeEUeYwZixkF4epCtKrB8HGORuEpRk8cjXVR5ZXLhRWCymjQjUiK7whQef-IClffyJIlbi5DPVfLwrBCxegEEGlsfRKcwJ5NEuMTBR-jgEqRW4vVkWvRLHeNHKI0sYP881vv9aoCeQEYdJRkEPtbCJ73rE4ho1VfEBQLud3UT0fgfYrDx-SOj-1oILFffV0zoIaixiAfG5vq3g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9f889775b7197b80f47aa7459243db99
PDF Text
Text
��8 on
bT2-52national secular society
LETTERS
TO
THE
CLERGY
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON;
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
1880.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
^28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�PR EFACE.
readers of the Freethinker, in which the
following Letters appeared at various dates, have
requested me to reprint them in a separate and
convenient form ; but as I always intended to do this,
I make no pretence of my natural modesty being
overcome by “ the urgent solicitation of friends,” nor
bespeak the reader’s “ kind indulgence?’ When a
writer of considerable practice deals with familiar
subjects, and takes pains with his composition,
he would be something worse than modest if he
imagined that what he wrote could be of no interest
to any section of readers. So far, indeed, am I from
imagining anything of the kind, that I frankly confess
to a belief that these Letters form a fairly all-round
statement of the Freethought positions in regard to
Christianity; and, as such, they will doubtless be
useful to many who would otherwise have to wade
through a great many volumes, without, perhaps,
obtaining the same satisfaction.
To instruct it is necessary to interest, and to procure
a hearing one must condescend to excite attention.
Manv
�iv.
Preface.
For this reason, among others, I adopted the epistolary
form of writing in the present instance. It gives an
air of nearness to the remote, and of reality to the
abstract; it imparts a feeling of personality, which I
hope has never run into virulence or abuse ; it endows a
papei’ warfare with some of the actuality and vividness
of a face-to-face encounter ; and, lastly, more perhaps
than any other form, it allows the writer to avail
himself of a great variety of rhetoric, and especially of
the apostrophe, which is the most striking of oratorical
arts, but is apt, in impersonal forms of composition, to
appear stilted and affected.
In order to correct the abuses of the epistolary style,
I have endeavored to fix my attention upon the argu
ments I was discussing, rather than the persons I
addressed. Most of these, indeed, were unknown to
me except by repute, and this made it the more easy
to avoid falling into mere personalities.
Open letters are little likely to elicit replies from .
the persons addressed, and my experience is no ex
ception to the rule. Besides, it is the fashion in
Christian circles to ignore the editors of Freethought
journals; the conspiracy of silence being, indeed, the
last resource of a tottering faith. As a matter of fact,
I expected no replies, and consequently I am not
disappointed. What I write will produce its proper
effect, whether it is replied to or not; and I have
obviously written for the general reader rather than
the ministers whose names decorate the tops of my
Letters.
�Preface.
vv
For the convenience of many readers, who may keep
this collection of Letters by them, and refer to it at
intervals, I have had it printed in large clear type.
There is a curious impression among the orthodox that
Freethinkers, for the most part, are frivolous young
persons ; but the chronology of this impression is on a
par with that of the Bible; in other words, it is an
arbitrary conjecture. Happily there are young Free
thinkers, and they are the hope of the future; but a
very large proportion are “ declined into the vale of
years,” and theii’ eyes will find the type of this little
volume a positive comfort.
I have not burdened my pages with footnotes or
references. Except from the work I was answering, I
have seldom had occasion to quote from living or dead
authors. Whenever I have done so I have indicated
the work, but I have not thought it necessary to give
the edition, volume, or page. In no single instance, I
believe, have I cited any author as an authority. I
have always appealed to the reason of my readers. I
pay them the compliment of supposing they think for
themselves. And in this case an apt quotation may
occasionally be indulged in, for the sake of its beauty
or felicity, without begging the question, or overawing
the reader’s judgment, by appealing to great names.
There are no authorities in the realm of thought.
Only that is true thinking which goes on 'in the indi
vidual brain. Every so-called belief which reposes on
external authority, may be acquiescence or prejudice,,
but never judgment or conviction.
�This is all I have to say in introducing this little
volume. I now leave it to destiny. Hope and fear,
perhaps, are alike unphilosophical; yet, as the future
is unseen, and imagination will seek to pierce the veil,
I fondly indulge a hope that if 1 do not succeed in
converting anyone to what I regard as the truth, I
may nevertheless excite an interest in questions that
underlie private and public life in every Christian
country. Indifference on such matters implies a want
of insight or seriousness, and I would fain stimulate
the temper which prompts us to look beyond the
■material or transient interests of life into the highei’
region of the spiritual and durable—the region where
intellect is free from the trammels of personal loss or
gain ; where imagination takes no shape of individual
hopes and fears ; where conscience is the august voice
of Humanity echoing through the chambers of our
hearts.
�LETTERS TO THE CLERGY.
��CREATION.
TO THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE.
My Lord,—
It seems strange that I should have to address
you, at least for the sake of courtesy, in such exalted
language. Your Lord and Savior hade his disciples
to call no man Master, and Lord is a still loftier title.
Yet you are legally entitled to this designation, and
you are a lord in reality as well as in name. You have
a seat, when you like to occupy it, in the House of
Peers; you reside in a palace; and, besides your
“ pickings,” the extent of which I have no means of
ascertaining, you enjoy a settled income of £4,500 a
year. I knew not how to. reconcile these things with
your profession as a minister of the gospel of poverty
and renunciation; but I presume your powers of
casuistry are equal to the task; and, after all, as
theology is full of mysteries, it is not unnatural that
there should be mysteries in the character and conduct
of theologians.
You have been good enough, my lord, to write a
a curious little volume on “ Creation.” It is the first
of a series entitled “ Helps to Belief,” which naturally
attracted my attention. I happen to require as much
help to belief as any man I know, and accordingly I
invested ninepence in a copy of your production.
Unfortunately it has not recompensed me for the out
lay. My unbelief is rather confirmed than shaken,
�10
Letters to the Clergy.
and I am farther off than ever from the repose which
is to be found on the pillow of faith. I have, however,
read your volume with great care, and I venture to
offer a few remarks upon it.
Let me first congratulate you on an admission.
You say—
“ The very difficulty, so to speak, with, regard to the theo
logical view of the opening of the book of Genesis is, that
theologians will not consent to regard the document as a lesson
addressed merely to the infancy of humanity, will not allow it
to be regarded as a childish thing to be put aside by the human
race in its manhood.”
Your language is skilfully guarded; it might be read
in either of two opposite ways ; yet I interpret you as
I would a Sibylline oracle, and take the most favorable
meaning. Regarded in that light, your description of
the Creation story is admirable; it does credit to your
candor and intelligence, as well as your style. I thank
you for the phrase. “ A childish thing ” is the finest
commentary on the first chapter of Genesis. The
very epithet “ childish ” is supremely felicitous. What
is childlike in infancy is childish in manhood; what
was excusable in an age of ignorance and barbarism is
contemptible in an age of science and civilisation.
Let me next indicate a few points on whieh I have
the honor to agree with you. “ Creation,” you state,
“ begins and ends with the formula ‘ God said/ ”
Yes, my lord, that is the alpha and omega of the
mystery. In the language of Hamlet it is “words,
words, words.” Logomachies, in theology and meta
physics, pass current for realities; but the first attempt
to define them in consciousness exposes their vacuity.
“ God said let there be light, and there was light,” is
the statement of Genesis; similarly the Hindu scrip
tures declare that “ Brahma said let there be worlds,
and there were worlds ”—and the one text is as true as
the other.
You affirm that Genesis makes “ no pretension to
being a scientific history.” The discovery is rather
�Creation.
11
late in the day, for your Church has, during the better
part of two thousand years, insisted on the contrary
doctrine; and from the days of Galileo until now it
has persecuted to the full extent of its power the
scientific men who, in the words of Professor Huxley,
have refused to degrade nature to the level of primitive
Judaism. Nevertheless, as you disclaim this .“ pre
tension/’ it may for the moment be dismissed. You
appear to admit that Genesis is not “ a scientific
history,” and the admission shows you are fully aware
that Hebrew mythology can no longer be opposed, as
a divine truth, to the teachings of Evolution.
You assert that such “ truths ” as the Incarnation
and the creation of man in God’s image “belong to a
high ethereal region to which it is impossible for either
philosophy or science to rise.” One half of this
sentence, my lord, is perfectly true. Philosophy and
science cannot breathe in the attenuated atmosphere
of faith, nor are they able to see through the clouds of
mystery. The very language you employ when you
speak as a theologian is foreign to them. “ Creation/’
you exclaim, “is a mystery, heaven and earth are
mysteries, but through all these there shines the light
of a living God—He, too, a mystery.” How one
mystery illuminates another mystery is a curious
problem which philosophy and science will gladly leave
to the “ high ethereal ” intellect of the pulpit. They
may accept your statement, however, without feeling
that it amounts to a revelation; for to the eyes of
reason a mystery is nothing but ignorance or selfcontradiction. A galvanic battery is a mystery to the
savage, the telephone is a mystery to country clergy
men, and the origin of life is still a mystery to biologists.
On the other hand, the Trinity is a mystery to the arith
metician, and and Almighty Goodness and Wisdom is a
mystery to those who see and feel the existence of evil.
In the one case, the mystery is an unexplained fact; in
the other case, it is a contradiction between a fact and
a theory. Mystery, in short, is mist; sometimes cloud,
�12
Letters to the Clergy.
and sometimes smoke. The cloud is ignorance, and
the smoke is theology.
Persons who deal in mystery, my lord, are apt to
contract a taint of insincerity. I am sorry to see you
referring to Moses as the author of Genesis, and still
more to see you referring to “ some ancient documents”
which he used in its composition. Surely your lord
ship is aware that no single scrap of the Old Testament
can be carried beyond the tenth century before Christ,
which is several hundred years from the supposed date
of Moses ; surely your lordship is aware that no Jewish
“ documents ” existed at the time of the Exodus.
You display the art of a professional pleader, my
lord, in dealing with Professor Haeckel’s remarks on
Genesis. While rejecting it as a “ divine revelation/’
this Great Evolutionist says it “ contrasts favorably
with the confused mythology of Creation current
amongst most of the other ancient nations.” You
subsequently allude to this as “ a striking tribute to its
scientific character.” Nay more, you convert most into
all, and exclaim “ From Moses to Linnseus! A
tremendous step j and before Moses no one.”
Without dilating on your perversion of Haeckel, I
would ask you, my lord, whether you are ignorant of
the fact that the Creation story in the first chapter of
Genesis was borrowed from the mythology of Babylon,
as the story of the Fall in the second and third chapters
was borrowed from the mythology of Persia? Should
you be ignorant, your ignorance is inexcusable ; should
you not be ignorant, your pretence of ignorance is
unpardonable.
You deal at considerable length with the word
“ create,” but you evade every difficulty it raises. You
rush off to the Greek, the Sanscrit, and so forth ; but
you never refer to the Hebrew, which is the original
language of “ inspiration.” The Hebrew hara does
not express absolute creation out of nothing, for such
a metaphysical absurdity never entered into the heads
of the ancient Jews. For this reason, perhaps, you
�Creation.
13
journeyed north, south, east, and west, instead of
staying at home, and consulted every language but the
one containing “ the oracles of God?'’ You do not
wish to be precise. You “ define creation as the em
bodiment of thought in an objective form,” which
leaves the matter indeterminate. An artist embodies
his conceptions by means of pre-existing materials. Do
you imply the same of God? If you do, you assume
the eternity of matter; if you do not, you assume
creation out of nothing. This is the doctrine upheld
by your Church, and you should plainly avow or
disclaim it. Bishop Pearson, whose Exposition of the
Creed is still a standard work in your colleges, gives
forth no uncertain sound. “ Antecedently to all things
beside,” he says, “ there was at first nothing but God,
who produced most part of the world merely out of
nothing, and the rest out of that which was formerly
made of nothing.” You, my lord, express yourself
more obscurely. You state that the material universe
—in contradistinction, I presume, to the immaterial
universe—points to “ some kind of origin.” And you
add that “ the existing cosmos testifies in a thousand
ways to a pre-existent chaos, out of which cosmos has
grown; according to modern language it has been
evolved; God created the chaos and evolved the
cosmos.”
This is what your lordship proffers as a help to
belief! Why did you not adduce one of those
“ thousand” testimonies to chaos ? Can you really
conceive chaos—a universal confusion, in which things
happen at random, and nothing is anything ? Do you
know of a single Evolutionist who teaches that matter
once existed without its properties? Are not the
properties of matter the same in a comet as in a planet ?
Do you know so little of the nebular hypothesis as to
suppose that Professor Tyndall’s ‘‘fiery cloud,”- of
which worlds are formed, is the primitive substance of
chaos ?
You refer to the nebular hypothesis, my lord, as
�1.4
Letters to the Clergy.
though you firmly embraced it; but you fail to
recollect, or you forget to mention, that the great
French astronomer Laplace, whose account of this
luminous theory you summarise, was a convinced
Atheist. You proceed to assert that there must have
been “ something ” behind this “ primitive cause of
the existing cosmos/’’
“ Whence,” you inquire,
“ came the particular constitution of the materials,
and the laws by which the constituent particles of the
matter are governed ? ” The sentence is extremely
vicious. You are guilty of tautology, for the “ con
stitution ” of matter and its “ laws” are the same
thing. You are also guilty of begging the question,
for in asking whence they came you assume their
advent, which you may justly be called upon to prove.
The petitio principii is a favorite fallacy with theolo
gians. I find a beautiful instance in another part of
your volume, where you innocently observe that “ we
cannot contemplate Creation, without regarding the
Creator.” The remark is a truism, my lord; Creator
and Creation imply each other, and by designating
the universe a Creation you beg the whole question
at issue.
That matter began to be, or will cease to exist, it is
easy to affirm, and as easy to deny ; but all analogy
points to its eternity. Science shows us that matter
cannot be destroyed any more than it can be created,
and force is never diminished although it assumes
different manifestations. The presumption, therefore,
is in favor of the everlasting existence of both,
whether in the ultimate analysis they are co-eternals,
or different aspects of the one infinite substance of
the universe. I say the presumption is in its favor,
and before that presumption can be shaken you must
give solid reasons for supposing that the universe had
a commencement. It is futile, my lord, to observe
that its eternity is inconceivable, since it is equally
impossible to conceive of its beginning or ending.
Where experience fails us reason moves but blindly,
�Greation.
15
ancl speculation lias no other guide than the light of
analogy. And what analogy lends the slightest color
to your hypothesis of Creation ? The highest mind
of which we have any knowledge is the mind of man,
and the mind of man cannot create, it can only con
ceive. The utmost man is able to do is to move
matter from one position to another. He does so in
conformity with his conceptions; but, like himself, his
“ creations ” are not imperishable.
The universe
which produced him finally absorbs him ; his proudest
“ creations ” may last for a few thousand years, but
the effacing hand of time is ever at work upon them,
and sooner or later they disappear, unable to resist
the claim of Nature who allows of no eternity but her
own.
Recurring for a moment to your treatment of
Genesis, I see you remark that “ to all persons capable
of forming an opinion, the chief doctrines of geology
are now beyond the range of controversy.”
You
admit the great antiquity of the globe and the slow
evolution of living forms, and you proceed as follows :—
“Many persons, perhaps at one time almost all thoughtful
persons, who read the account of Creation in the first chapter
of Genesis, concluded that the change from chaos to cosmos,
though gradual, was one soon brought about by several quickly
succeeding fiats of the Almighty will. Geology teaches with
irresistible force that this was not so.”
These thoughtful persons, my lord, who were never
theless mistaken, paid the Scripture the compliment
of supposing it meant what it said. They never sus
pected the wonderful elasticity of language in the
grasp of theologians. They took the Bible, as you,
my lord, are bound to take the Thirty-nine Articles,
in the “ literal and grammatical sense.” Geology,
therefore, was honestly resisted as impious, until a
new and more dexterous race of commentators arose,
in whose hands the time-honored language of Revela
tion became as plastic as clay in the hands of the
potter or the sculptor, and capible of being fashioned
�16
Letters to the Clergy.
into any form that suited the exigencies of the struggle
between Reason and Faith.
Your position is that there is no “ antagonism
between the hypothesis of Evolution and the truth of
Creation.” Admitting the justice of your language,
your position is impregnable. There cannot be antag
onism between Evolution and any truth. But I deny
the justice of your language. I say that you reverse
the proper order of words. Evolution is the “ truth/’
and Creation is the “hypothesis.” Thus regarded
they are not antagonistic, for there cannot be antag
onism where there is no contact. You are, of course,
free to assert, without even defining your terms, that
a “ spirit ” works through the process of Evolution.
You are likewise free to affirm that a “ spirit ” mixes
the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, and the
oxygen and hydrogen in water. Science is unable to
contradict these statements, just as science is unable
to dispute the meat-roasting power of the meat-jack.
But, on the other hand, it does not trouble about what
cannot be proved or refuted, and leaves metaphysical
entities and quiddities to the irony of Swift or the
raillery of Voltaire.
From Haeckel, my lord, you quote a strong pas
sage against “ purpose ” in Nature; and you might
have added that Darwin saw “ no more design in
Natural Selection than in the way in which the wind
blows.” Does it not occur to you that these lords of
science, these satraps of magnificent provinces in her
empire, know her more intimately than you do, and
that what escapes their vigilant attention is in all
probability rather fancy than fact ? Your unpractised
eye sees God everywhere ; their practised eyes fail to
detect his presence. Even other eyes than those of the
great English and German biologists have been unable
to perceive what to you is so obvious. Sir William
Hamilton, for instance, before Evolution challenged
the public mind, declared “ that the phenomena of
matter, taken by themselves, so far from warranting
�Greation.
17
any inference to the existence of Gocl, would, on the
contrary, ground even an argument to his negation?’
A very different writer, Cardinal Newman, confesses,
“ If I looked into a mirror and did not see my face, I
should have the same sort of feeling which actually
comes upon me when I look into this living busy world
and see no reflection of its Creator.” You, my lord,
look through Nature up to Nature’s God. I have your
word for it, but I doubt if your vision is so telescopic.
That “ volition originates,” as you allege, is only true
within certain limits. Volition does, indeed, originate
fresh collocations of matter, but it originates nothing
else. And when you say that volition “ has no cause
preceding itself,” you are simply alleging that all
volition is eternal, which is diametrically opposed to
your own doctrine that the human will, the only one of
which we have absolute knowledge, is a gift from God.
You will find, my lord, an admirable discussion of this
point in Mr. Mill’s Essay on Theism. Volition, as he
points out, only acts by means of pre-existing force,
first within the body, and afterwards outside it. It
does not answer, therefore, “ to the idea of a First
Cause, since Force must in every instance be assumed'
as prior to it; and there is not the slightest color,
derived from experience, for supposing Force itself to
have been created by a volition. As far as anything
can be concluded from human experience, Force has
all the attributes of a thing eternal and uncreated.”
Your argument for a First Cause is completely
answered in the same Essay. In reality, my lord, a
First Cause is a contradiction in terms. Causes and
effects only differ in their order of succession; both are
phenomenal changes; every cause has been an effect,
and every effect becomes a cause. Causation, indeed,
only applies to the changes in Nature, without affecting
its permanent substance.
Your whole remarks on
Causation betray an imperfect acquaintance with the
subject or a miserable trifling with your readers.
Certainly “ the idea of cause is in the mind itself,” but
�18
Letters to the Clergy.
how did it get there ? You deny that it is generated by
experience, and you add that “ a momenta consideration
will show that this cannot be so.” Do you really
suppose, my lord, that the Experiential philosophers,
from Locke to Bain, have not given a moment’s
consideration to the question ? Do you assert this of
Herbert Spencer ? Do you assert it of John Stuart
Mill 1 Have you read the fifth and twenty-third
chapters of the third book in Mill’s Logic 1 If you
have, I say you are taking advantage of your reader’s
ignorance; if you have not, you are unfitted for the
task you have undertaken.
Thus far, my lord, you have not arrived ata Creator,
since you have not proved Creation, nor even defined
it in intelligible language. Were I, for the sake of
argument, to grant that mind is an entity as well as
matter, the presumption would be in favor of their
eternal co-existence. Whatever Deity you affirm is
shorn of the attributes of infinity; he cannot be
infinite in power, at least, even if he be in wisdom
and goodness, for he has an everlasting rival or an
everlasting colleague. Nor are your difficulties ended
here. The benevolence of your Deity is imperilled.
It was the opinion of Plato that God is prevented
from realising his beneficent designs by the inherent
badness and intractable qualities of matter. But
this view is easily confronted by an opposite dogma.
Bentham was justified in saying, “ I affirm that the
Deity is perfectly and systematically malevolent, and
that he was only prevented from realising these
designs by the inherent goodness and incorruptible
excellence of matter. I admit that there is not the
smallest evidence for this, but it is just as well sup
ported, and just as probable as the preceding theory of
Plato.
From metaphysical arguments, my lord, I turn to
what you say on Design. “ The argument from
design,” you allege, “ is, in fact, one of the foundation
stones of natural theology, and remains unshaken.”
�Creation.
19
But I doubt if you really mean this, for if the argu
ment is “ unshaken” it is difficult to see what induced
you to support it afresh. “ Helps to Belief” is a title
which implies that belief is enfeebled.
You have the sense to drop Paley’s preposterous
illustration of the watch, and you dilate upon the
human eye, which is an optical instrument so “ delicate
and complicated ” that it must be held to “ indicate
design,” and to deny it is “ something like an absurdity.”
Again, my lord, 1 say you are begging the question.
However delicate and complicated an organ may be, if
we discover how it became so we have explained it; and
if the process, at every stage, has shown nothing but
the action of natural causes, what necessity is there
for a supernatural hypothesis ? When Napoleon said
to Laplace that his system left no room for God, the
great astronomer replied iC Sire, I have no need for
that hypothesis.” The law of parsimony forbids the
assumption of occult causes when known causes are
adequate to account for the phenomena.
Now, my lord, it is indisputable, and you are well
aware of the fact, that the human eye did not spring
into existence suddenly. We are able to trace the
evolution of this organ down to its beginnings in low
forms of life, where it is but a local susceptibility to
the stimulus of light. To this you reply that the
result is no “ less ingenious or an indication of design,
because you can trace the process by which the result
is attained,” The ingenuity, my lord, is not in the
result but in the process. You must find it there or
not at all. You seem to admit Natural Selection as
an established truth, but is it not incompatible with
Design, except in that universal sense in which Design
can only be an assumption 1 If adaptation can be
explained as a result, without introducing design as a
cause, theology has nothing to gain by pointing to any
organ however exquisitely developed. And if "Natural
Selection involves, as it does, the elimination by whole
sale massacre and torture of countless unfit specimens,
�20
Letters to the Glergy.
does not this conflict witli all our notions of the wise
use of materials and the intelligent adjustment of means
to an end 1
There is also, my lord, an aspect of the case which you
prudently conceal. According to your theory,God has
been making eyes for hundreds of thousands and per
haps millions of years. How is it, then, after such
long and extensive practice, that he produces so many
failures ? How do you account for short-sighted eyes,
and even blind eyes ? What is your explanation of
ophthalmic hospitals ? Would not any human workman
be laughed at who turned out such multitudes of mis
takes ?
You declare, my lord, in the language of Paley, that
££ a man cannot lift his hand to his head without finding
enough to convince him of the existence of God.” In
a certain sense the remark may be true. Should the
head be dirty, the man might find one of those objects
which satisfied the magicians of Egypt that Moses and
Aaron were inspired, and induced them to exclaim ££ this
is the finger of God.’’
For the purpose of your case you dwell upon the
greatness of man. Your language savors more of the
platform than the pulpit. Century after century your
Church has taught the doctrine of the Fall, and man’s
utter depravity. You, however, speak of his ££ front
sublime,” which, if the human race be taken as a whole,
is positively absurd; you speak of his ££ grand powers,”
which are difficult to find in a savage who can only count
three; and of his ££ exalted instincts,” which are not dis
coverable in countless millions of mankind. Thus you
praise “ God’s handiwork ” to prove his wisdom
and beneficence; while, in the pulpit, you go to
the other extreme to prove the doctrine of original
sin.
Pursuing the Design argument, you point to “ the
truth ” that££ every arrangement in a plant or animal
accomplishes some definite end.” What then, you ask,
is ££ the justifiable conclusion as to the origin of the
�Creation.
21
organism ? Is it not this, that the organ is the out
come of a creative mincl ?”
Supposing the statement to be true, your conclusion
is not a necessary one. In the struggle for existence
the superfluous is harmful, and its possessors would tend
to extinction. In the long run also, as organs grow
by use and atrophy from disuse, the useful organs would
flourish and the useless decay and disappear. There is
no magic in the process, and nothing magical in the
result.
But your statement is not true. Man himself possesses
rudimentary organs, which are of no service; they
fulfil no function, being useless relics of a long anterior
state. One of them, the vermiform appendage of the
cfficum, has been known to harbour seeds, which have
set up inflammation and caused death.
Man has a rudimentary tail; rudimentary muscles for
moving the ears and the skin; rudimentary hair over the
body; and rudimentary wisdom-teeth, which are a great
nuisance, and a common cause of neuralgia. Through
the. law of inheritance, likewise, the generative and
nutritive organs of one sex are partially transmitted to
Ahe other. Perhaps your lordship will be good enough
to inform me what “ definite end ” is served by the rudi
mentary mammae in men ?
You merely allude to these things, my lord, as
“ very exceptional cases,” as though a theory need not
cover all the facts. You even venture on the remark
that.“ exceptions prove rules,” which is not an admitted
law in any system of logic I am acquainted with.
You also observe that these “ exceptions ” only
raise “ a plausible objection ” to the Design argu
ment. Haeckel considers them “ a formidable obstacle,”
and I prefer his opinion to yours, especially when I
watch your curious attempt to explain away “ the
plausible objection.”
“ A friend once presented me with a warm garment of exceed' ingly ingenious construction, and hade me wear it during the
coming winter. I did so, and for some time I had two feelings
�22
Letters to the Clergy.
with regard to the garment: one, that of admiration of the
ingenuity of its construction; the other, that of gratitude to
my friend for thinking of me and trying to keep me warm.
But one day an observing neighbor, with a keen eye and much
penetration, discovered a button which appeared to be of no
use. I may say that the explanation of the button was that it
was an essential part of a garment, somewhat like mine, and
which my friend had originally intended to give me; but in
the course of the construction he had determined to adopt a
somewhat improved form, and so the tailor altered the pattern,
but omitted to remove the button. My observing neighbor
suspected that this was the case; for my own part I had no
strong opinion on the subject. It seemed to me that, button
or no button, the garment was admirably contrived, and that
the kindness of the giver was beyond a doubt.”
God then, my lord, forgets the buttons.’ It is a
poor compliment to his omniscience. He decided to
make things in one way, altered his mind, left in some
of the old pattern through inadvertence, and hence the
presence of rudimentary organs. How charming I
How pretty it would be in a nursery book ! Do you
really mean it, my lord; and do you really see any
analogy between the making of a coat and the growth
ot an organism r
Turning to the mental and moral aspects of the
world, you are confronted, my lord, with the existence
of evil. You are obliged to admit the presence of
“ phenomena which it seems difficult to reconcile with
the most obvious notions of perfect benevolence.”
You allow that God “ permits the existence of much
which is evil/’ and you are ashamed to fall back upon
the orthodox theory of Satan, who does all the harm
while the Deify does all the good. Accepting evolution,
at least up to the point of man’s “ soul/’ you must be
perfectly aware that pain and misery are not on the
surface of things but part of their very texture; and
that Natural Selection acts through a struggle for
existence which makes the earth a shambles. “ Kill
or be killed is a strange rule of life tor Beneficence
to impress on its creation. You see this, my lord, and
you have two ways of surmounting the difficulty.
�Creation.
23
First, you say that the abounding evil of this world
is “ inconsistent with certain conceptions which we
have formed.” It is to be presumed you mean that
God’s ways are not our ways. I concede the fact, my
lord, but how is it to be reconciled with youi’ theory ?
Why do you call the Deity “ good ” if you mean that
his goodness and ours are different “ conceptions ” ?
Can you expect me to worship a God whose beneficence
has to be vindicated by arts which insult my under
standing ? Let me remind you of the memorable
protest of Mr. Mill in his reply to Dean Mansel, whose
footsteps you follow with a faltering tread. “I will
call no being good/’ he said, “ who is not what I mean
when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures ; and
if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so
calling him, to hell I will go.”
Secondly, you suggest that God was hampered by
unfavorable conditions. “ Perhaps, if we knew all,”
you say, “ we should know, as in our ignorance it may
be permissible to guess, that the method of Creation
actually used by the Creator was the only one possible
in the nature of things.” You say again that God is
carrying out a purpose, and that he knows the best, or
“ perhaps the only way of doing it.” You also surmise
that “ he was pleased to submit himself to limitations.”
If the Deity submitted himself to limitations, who
imposed them ? If he had a choice, as your language
implies, is he not responsible for the selection ? Did
he not create “ the nature of things,” and if it was
unsuitable could he not create another “ nature of
things?”
Can you conceive any limitations of
Omnipotence ? Is it possible to imagine Omniscience
doing “ the best in the circumstances ” ? You trust
that “ somehow things will come right at the last.”
But is not this the language of blind faith 1 Is it not
also an admission that things are wrong at present ?
I see no force in your remark that “ he who does not
believe in God does not get rid of the evil and sorrow.”
He may try to lessen them, my lord; and he gets rid
�24
Letters to the Clergy.
of the belief in a monster. At the very worst “ The
grave s most holy peace is ever sure,” and meanwhile
it is a comfort to think that,
No Fiend with names divine
Made us and tortures us; if we must pine
It is to satiate no Being’s gall.
In your opinion “ Atheism is connected either with
the excessive ingenuity of a subtle intellect, or with
moral considerations of a perverse and morbid kind.”
I differ from you, my lord; but I allow that you have
cleverly dressed up the old fiction that every Atheist
is a fool or a rogue.
Atheists are not to be deceived by phrases. When
you say that “ life must have come from a fontal origin
of life” you are only making a “mystery” more
mysterious. When you say that “ the egg contains a
principle of life, which postulates a giver of life,” you
are once more begging the question.
You are an Evolutionist except at the beginning and
the end. You assume that God created life, and you
are loth to believe in the natural genesis of man. You
remark that the “ missing link ” is “ not to be found
in any of the geological records of the past ” How do
you know that ? The geological record is imperfect,
and the preservation of “missing links” is not a
natural necessity. Nor have geological investigations
been made in any part of the world where the human
race could have originated. You smile at Haeckel’s
belief that the remains of our early progenitors are
embedded in the depths of the Indian Ocean,” and
you remark that “ an imaginary continent is, of course,
not science, and does not really help us.” The conti
nent, however, is not so “ imaginary.” Certainly it is
not so imaginary as the supernatural theories you in
troduce to.account for what we do not understand, and
to contradict what we do. Nor is it so imaginary as
the “ distinction ” you find in Genesis between the life
of man and the life of the lower animals. The
�25
Creation.
Revised Version informs us that the “ living soul” or
“ breath of life ” was common to both.
The “ soul ” elicits one of your characteristic sen
tences. “ Here,” you say, et Science fails us altogether,
Philosophy speaks with a doubtful accent, and
Theology remains master of the field.” True, my lord;
theology is always master of the field of ignorance, and
where our knowledge ends our religion begins. What
we know is Nature, what we do not know is Gfod.
Science is ever widening the circle of light in which
we live and work, and on the border of darkness the
theologian plies his trade, passing off as the voice of
the Infinite the echo of his own babblings.
THE
BELIEVING
THIEF,
TO THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON.
Sir,—
You are one of the most popular preachers in
Christendom, you gather round you a congregation
of five thousand men and women, and your printed
sermons are said to be circulated in every part of
the world where the English language is spoken.
Nature has endowed you with a clear musical voice,
not the orator’s voice, which is capable of expressing
every emotion, from the soft whisper of pity to the
thunder of denunciation, but the preacher’s voice,
fitted to express the subdued and monotonous feelings
of Protestant theology. This gift, combined with a
fair command of homely English, and a Saxon capacity
for work, accounts for your remarkable success. You
are not an evangelist of new ideas. You have not to
C
�26
Letters to the Glergy.
create an appetite for what you supply. The material
upon which you work was produced in unlimited
quantities before you were born. Orthodox instincts,
orthodox sentiments, and orthodox ideas, were already
in existence, and you have only played upon them.
Out of the five million inhabitants of London, who are
mostly. Christians by training, temperament, and
profession, you have collected five thousand. This
proves you an able competitor against other preachers,
but it gives you no position as a leader of thought
or a general in the army of progress.
You have a certain vein of facetiousness, and a
reputation for telling “ good stories,” but your gifts in
this direction are heightened and exaggerated by
contrast. The pulpit is expected to be dull, or at least
decorous, and feeble witticisms from such a quarter
are apt to pass as potent; just as a somersault, which is
commonplace on the part of a street arab, would be
comic if cut by a clergyman.
Your private life is said to be exemplary. I have
no means of judging, but I am content to believe ; as
a man 1 value my own character, and I am ready to
respect yours. But I am unable to reconcile your mode
of living with your profession. I cannot understand
how anyone with a fair amount of sincerity can preach
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and above all the gospel of
the Sermon on the Mount, and at the same time
maintain an establishment like yours. When I hear
that your residence is one of the finest in the south of
England, that your grounds are magnificent, that your
live stock rivals the Queen’s at Windsor, that you
keep a splendid carriage and several fine horses, that
your table is well appointed and your cigars are
excellent, I am positively amazed at your Imitation of
Christ. At such a rate the cross is easy to be borne.
When I consider that you fully enjoy all the good
things of this life, which must be provided by" the
labor of others, and that you have in addition the
glorious assurance of a reserved seat in Paradise, I
�The Believing Thief.
27
cannot help reflecting that there is after all a profound
truth in the text that “ godliness is great gain.”
What a difference there is between the founder of
Christianity and its modern exponents! He had not
solved the problem of how to make the best of both
worlds. He drank to the dregs that bitter cup which
has furnished them with an easy theme for the
cheapest eloquence. He died upon the Cross, and
they live upon the Cross. I am not one of his devoted
admirers, but I turn from them to him with a sense of
relief. He looks pathetic, tragic, sublime, in com
parison with these who coin his blood into golden
shekels.
Nor am I able to reconcile your enjoyment of life
with your belief in predestination, hell, and the eternal
perdition of the majority of the human race. You do
not merely accept these doctrines ; you cling to them,
and you denounce your brethren who would desert
them for a sweeter faith. You see multitudes of your
fellow-creatures dancing along “ the primrose path to
the everlasting bonfire.” The friend whose hand you
clasp to-day may be in Hell to-morrow. Your own
children may fall into the place of torment. Yet you
smile, you crack jokes, you grow fat, you contract the
rich many’s disease of gout. Is this consistent1? Is it
honorable ? Is it humane ? If I believed your fright
ful creed I hope I should have the decency to be
solemn.
When your gout is acute you show your trust in
God, and your belief in the efficacy of prayer, by
taking a holiday at Mentone. You leave the congre
gation to pray for your recovery while you try the
effect of the air and sunshine of the Mediterranean.
Does it not occur to you that an Atheist might get
better in such circumstances? Why is it that God
does you more good in the South of Europe than in the
South of London ? Why is prayer offered up in one
place and answered in another ? Why does God help
you, and give no relief to the suffering thousands
�28
Letters to the Clergy.
within a mile of your Tabernacle, who do not earn a
splendid income by preaching “ Blessed be ye poor/’
who must bear their afflictions in the fetid atmosphere
of narrow streets, and languish and die for want of the
resources which keep you out of heaven.
This is a long exordium to a brief letter. Let me
now pass to the sermon I wish to eriticise. It was
preached on April 7, and is therefore an expression of
your ripest wisdom. Its title, The Believing Thief/’
attracted my attention. There are so many believing
thieves, and I wondered which of them you selected.
Six years ago 1 fell among thieves myself, and they
were all believers. An Atheist was a rara avis in
Holloway Gaol. There were Catholics and Protestants
by the thousand, during the twelve months I enjoyed
a seasonable relish of Christian charity, and I was fully
prepared to meet a believing thief. You have intro
duced one. You select the first on record, the thief
who begged a favor of Jesus on the cross. He was
the very first Christian who ever entered heaven, and
you “ think the Savior took him with him (I don’t
admire your grammar) as a specimen of what he meant
to do.” This fortunate gentlemen, you admit, was a
convicted felon, and perhaps a murderer, but he
believed on Jesus at his last gasp, and his soul soared
away from the cross to the realms of bliss and glory.
The other thief missed his opportunity, and that one
mistake made all the difference between heaven aud
hell. It seems a heavy penalty for a single blunder,
but everyone knows that the difference between heaven
and hell is no greater than the difference between
divine and human justice.
I cannot but admire the airy manner in which you
skim over the discrepancy in the gospel narratives.
Luke is the only one who relates the incident of the
believing thief; the others represent both thieves as
mocking Jesus. But instead of seeing a gross con
tradiction, as you would in any other history, you
suppose they both mocked Jesus at first, and one of
�The Believing Thiej.
29
them was converted while engaged in this pastime.
Such a method of interpretation would make a harmony
of the wildest discord.
According to Luke, Jesus said to the believing thief
“ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” You
dwell upon To-day with “ damnable iteration,” and you
affirm that the converted felon was in Paradise that
very evening. You decline to speculate “ as to where
our Lord went when he quitted the body which hung
upon the cross/’ though you must be aware of the
importance of this problem. The Creeds say that he
“ descended into hell.” This was the opinion of the
greatest Fathers, it is endorsed in the Church of
England articles, and it is countenancad by Peter and
Paul.
You shun the discussion of this point, and
indulge your foible of dogmatism.
Jesus died an
hour or two before the thief, and “ during that time
the eternal glory flamed through the underworld, and
was flashing through the gates of Paradise just when
the pardoned thief was entering the eternal world,” so
that the Savior and his “ specimen ” went through the
pearly gates together.
You add that “We know
Paradise means heaven, for the apostle speaks of such
a man caught up into Paradise, and anon he calls it
the third heaven.”
Your uncritical audience may swallow this as gospel,
but I can hardly suppose you so ignorant. You must
be aware that the matter is not so simple. Learned
divines have written at great length on the subject,
and although their speculations are not infallible, there
is still less infallibility in your dogmatism. Take up
so accessible a book as Bishop Beveridge’s Ecclesia
Anglicana Ecclesia Catholica, read his chapter on the
third Article, consult his learned and voluminous foot
notes, and then ask yourself whether it is honest to
veil the controversy from your congregation, and to
decide it for them peremptorily as though you were an
independent oracle of God.
Learning apart, sir, there is another reason against
�30
Letters to the Olergy.
your dogmatism, and that is the language of Scripture.
If Jesus went to heaven the very evening of his
Crucifixion, did he descend again to re-animate his
body on the Sunday morning ?
And why did he
undertake two such journeys ? Was it simply to fulfil
his promise to the believing thief?
Or was it to
settle with his Father the arrangements for his public
ascent ?
Not being inspired, you may decline to answer these
questions. But there is another question to which I
may demand a reply. According to your assertion,
Jesus went up to heaven on the Friday evening ; but
according to John (xx., 17), Jesus met Mary Magda
lene in the garden on the Sunday, and when she
would have approached him, he cried, Touch me not,
for I am not yet ascended to my Father. If Jesus did
not speak these words, we may as well sell our Bibles
for waste-paper; if he did speak them, you have been
preaching a falsehood.
I know the tricks of your
craft, but I refuse to be deceived. I take a sentence
in its plain and grammatical meaning. “ I am not yet
ascended unto my Father,” is as clear a sentence as
ever came from the lips of God or man. If Jesus
had visited “ the third heaven ” before, he would
have said “ I am now descended from the Father.’"’
You may answei' (what will not a minister answer ?)
that the “I” refers to Christ’s body, but this is flying in
the face of common sense. “ I ” may mean soul and
body, or soul without body, but it cannot mean body
without soul.
Three-fourths of your pretty rhetoric is thus ex
ploded. The believing thief was not in Paradise with
Jesus that very day. Forty days elapsed according to
one narrative—and you must accept it—before the
Lord ascended; and during that time the believing
thief must have hung about “ the pearly gates ” wait
ing for his Redeemer.
Let me press the dilemma.
If Jesus said “ To-day
shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” he was mistaken,
�Ute Believing Thief.
31
and if he was mistaken then, he may have been mis
taken on a hundred other occasions. If Jesus did not
say it, Luke is mistaken, and if Luke was mistaken
once, he may have been mistaken often. Nay, if Luke
was mistaken, Matthew, Mark, and John may have
been mistaken ; and your infallible Scripture is like a
dilapidated spider’s web ; or, if you prefer the simile,
like a leaky kettle, which lets out the water of inspira
tion, and puts out the fire of belief.
The lessons you deduce from the story of the be
lieving thief are not very edifying. First, you say, it
shows the Savior’s condescension; and as man, in your
view, is the riff-raff of creation, there is a great
solace in his stooping to the worst of sinners. “ It
gives me an assurance,” you exclaim, “ that he will
not refuse to associate with me.” I presume you would
call this modesty, but to my mind it is the pride which
apes humility. You cannot boast of being the chief of
sinners, for St. Paul seized upon that distinction.
Nevertheless you may pride yourself, with a humble
face, on being an excellent second. This attitude is
common among the elect. They are miserable worms ;
but how they rear their heads if others tell them so I
Several times in the course of your sermon, you posi
tively annex the Redeemer, calling him yours, and in
viting your fellow sinners to come to “ my Lord.” See,
sir, how tastes differ. You regard this as solemn ; to
me it is laughable. I smile at your masked pride, and
when you turn the seamy side of your cloak outwards
I observe that the purple is all the nearer your heart.
A great poet has satirised this “ humble ” posturing,
and you will forgive me for quoting his epigram.
Once in a saintly passion.
I cried with desperate grief
“ 0 Lord, my heart is black with guile,
Of sinners I am chief.”
Then stooped my guardian angel
And whispered from behind,
“ Vanity, my little man,
You’re nothing of the kind!”
�32
Letters to the Clergy.
The second lesson is the supremacy of grace over
works. According to your philosophy—borrowed chiefly,
I suspect, from Martin Luther’s commentary on
Galatians—our noblest virtues are only splendid rags,
that will make us burn all the better in Hell. Works
cannot save us. The best man on earth deserves ever
lasting torment every minute of his life. We are saved
by grace. And the crowning proof of it is the salva
tion of the believing thief. Death stared him in the
face; he was incapable of good works. The grace of
God entered into his heart, his soul was filled with
faith, and, notwithstanding his life of crime, he soared
from the cross into Paradise.
Let me ask you wiry the other thief was less fortu
nate. Why did the grace of God hold aloof from him ?
Without that grace we cannot have faith, and with
out faith we cannot be saved. Do you not see that
this makes God everything and man nothing; that it is
a gospel of fatalism, or arbitrary predestination; that
all your preaching is wasted, except as it procures you
a living ; and that it cannot possibly make the slightest
difference how men act in this world, since God imparts
grace or withholds it at his pleasure, saving whom he
will save and damning whom he will damn 1
The third lesson is that the vilest sinner, who has
led a life of selfishness orcrime—the thief, the seducer,
the adulterer, the murderer—may be saved at the very
last minute. “ In a single instant,” you declare, “ the
sins of sixty or seventy years can be absolulely forgiven/’’
“ If a man dies,” you say, “ five minutes after his
first act of faith, he is safe as if he had served the
Lord for fifty years.” The believing thief went to
Paradise through faith, and faith will enable the
heaviest sinner to fly up to the pearly gates.
Far be it from me to say that God, who made men,
should plunge them into Hell, or inflict upon them the
smallest suffering. I even deny his right to do so.
He would be infamous to punish his own failures.
Whatever responsibility there is in the case is from
�The Believing Thief.
33
God to man, not from man to God. The creator is
responsible, not the created.
Still, man is governed by motives, and your doctrine
is a premium on immorality. You set up a Heaven
and a Hell, you offer pleasure or pain hereafter, and
declare that a death-bed repentance will wash out a
life of sin. True, you stipulate that the repentance
shall be sincere, but the sinner will have little appre
hension on that account. You appeal to his personal
hopes and fears as to the future life; and you tell
him that, however wicked he may be, he stands as
great a chance of Heaven as the holiest saint, if he
only looks to Jesus at the last.
You call this a
glorious gospel.
I call it infamous.
It is not a
doctrine of mercy, but a doctrine of license. After
appealing to men’s selfishness, without regard to reason
■or humanity, it shows them an easy way of making
evil as profitable as good. Were I to adopt your own
language I might call it “ infamous bosh.”
You are in the habit of reading Flavel. From his
sermon on this very subject you borrow the case of
Marcus Caius Victorious, a heathen of the primitive
times, who was converted to Christianity in his old
age. But you dress up the story in an unscrupulous
manner. According to Flavel, the Christians would
not trust him for a long time, owing to “ the unusualfiess of a conversion at such an age.” Old age, however, is not enough for your purpose, so you turn him
into “a gross sinner.”
Your accuracy or honesty is a small matter. My
•object in citing Flavel is to point oat that he saw
the snare of death-bed repentance, and warned his
hearers against it. You are more accommodating, sir;
and in view of your belief, the more accommodating
you are the more you sap the foundations of morality.
Considering the company you picture in Heaven,
the believing thief being a “ sample ” of the “ bulk,”
I shall not be sorry if I am quartered elsewhere. I
■do not play the Pharisee, but, like every sensible and
�34
Letters to the Clergy.
self-respecting man, I choose my company.
If it.
makes no difference to the caterer, I prefer going
below in the society of honest and intelligent sceptics,
rather than above in the society of all the abject
scoundrels who earned salvation by crying “ I’m sorry.”
You appear to know a great deal about the invisible,,
and I venture to ask you a question. “ Heaven and
Hell,” you assert, “ are not places far away.” They
are very near; in fact, you say, we may be in one or
the other before the clock ticks again. Do you mean
that heaven and hell are in the atmosphere ? Or do
you mean that the soul, on leaving the body, flies with
such inconceivable rapidity that distance is annihilated ?'
Surely you have not stumbled on the truth that
heaven and hell are within us.
Let me conclude by asking you another question.
You talk much about the believing thief. Do you
know anything about the unbelieving one ? Daniel
O’Connell declared that Benjamin Disraeli was the
lineal descendant of the impenitent thief. Will you
tell me if this is true ? And if so, have you any
objection to preaching another sermon on the un
believing thief, and his unbelieving posterity ? At any
rate, it would be quite as instructive as your first
sermon, and probably far more amusing.
THE ATONEMENT,
TO THE BISROP OF PETERBOROUGH.
My Lord,—
Like your brother in God, the Bishop of
Carlisle, you have contributed a volume to the “ Helpsto Belief ” series; and as that volume is necessarily
�The Atonement.
35
addressed to as many of the public as it chances to
reach, I need not apologise for writing you this
letter.
According to the law, my lord, 1 am a member of
the Church of England, and I have a right to look to
you, as one of her Bishops, for spiritual guidance ;
and certainly you should be able to give it, for you are
paid the magnificent salary of £4,500 a year, which is
only a trifle less than that of the Prime Minister of
the British Empire. I can hardly suppose you take
such a salary without feeling you deserve it, especially
as it was part of the prospect before you when you
declared your belief that you were called to your
bishopric by the Holy Ghost. It is to be presumed,
therefore, that you will not resent my approach, or feel
aggrieved at my criticism of the help you have offered—at the cost of ninepence—to my belief.
First, my lord, let me deal with your Preface. You
remark that the Atonement is “ a subject the litera
ture of which would fill a library.” True, my lord;
the blood of Christ is nothing (in quantity) to the ink
which his priests and prophets have shed in explaining
it. After so many volumes on the subject one issurprised at the necessity for another. Ordinary blood
does not require such a colossal literature. But the
blood of Christ is a peculiar article, and its physiology
and chemistry seem to change like the combinations of
a kaleidoscope.
In one respect your Preface is an apology. You
observe that the “ large subject of the J ewish and Pagan
sacrifices in their relation to the sacrifice of Christ,,
could be only very inadequately dealt with.” But in
an age of Evolution, my lord, when everything is being
explained by the law of continuity and progression,
this is simply evading your principal duty.
You further observe that it was impossible to
“ discuss the exact force and value ” of such terms as
“ ransom,” “ redemption,” “ payment of debt,” and
“ reconciliation.” Now these terms, my lord, are
�36
Letters to the Clergy.
found in the New Testament, which, as you fre
quently assert, is the sole authority on the Atonement
or any other Christian doctrine. Why, then, did you
avoid what, as a preacher of the Word, you are chiefly
bound to unfold 1 It is not true, as you allege, that
you have confined yourself to the task of answering the
“most common and salient objections to the doctrine of
the Atonement/'’ for you devote but one chapter to
that object, and four to general exposition. This excuse,
therefore, fails utterly; indeed I can scarcely
understand it, except on the supposition that your
Preface was written before the volume.
Your readers, my lord, are “ entreated ” to believe
that you have “ endeavored to deal honestly with
objections.” Why should you “entreat” them to believe
this ? Does an honest man beg the world to acknow
ledge him as such ? Does he not rely on his character
speaking for itself 1 You have written and published
your volume, and why should you protest your sincerity
in the Preface? Had you a shrewd suspicion of its
necessity? I admit the difficulty of a man in your
position being honest—I mean intellectually. You
provide, not proofs, but excuses for faith. You confess
that you seek to help those who “ only doubt and yet
would fain believe.” Is not the veiy suggestion
immoral ? Why should we desire to believe anything ?
I do not deny the fact; it is a frailty of our nature;
but a public teacher should not pander to our infirmi
ties. Writing for those who would “ fain believe ” is
an easy occupation. Feeling ekes out the deficiencies
of reason, and premises are distorted to justify impos
sible conclusions.
That you have “ dealt tenderly with doubts and
difficulties ” I cheerfully admit. You smooth down
the feathers of doubt with a loving hand, and deal
tenderly—oh, so tenderly !—with every difficulty. I
shall not emulate you, my lord, in this, respect; and
perhaps you will find eventually that difficulties are
like nettles, that if you cannot grasp them will sting.
�The Atonement.
37
Your first chapter, my lord, opens with a piece of
advice, namely, that those who explain a Christian
doctrine should first “ state it in the very words of
Scripture itself/’ But you do not follow your own
recipe. You select a passage in which “ atonement,”
“ redemption,” or “ propitiation ” does not occur. I
admire your prudence and tenderness, but I wish you
had more courage. The passage you select is as
follows :—
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness” (1 Ep. St. John i., 8,9).
Now, my lord, I ask you frankly whether any theo
logian, except one who deals tenderly with difficulties,
would ever select this as his text for expounding the
Atonement. The passage does not contain a reference
to the doctrine. Would it not have been braver, and
more honest, to select a strong, downright passage from
Paul or Peter, to explain it, defend it, and stand by it
to the death ? Why should Revelation require the as
sistance of the most dexterous special-pleading ? Why
should God’s truth be championed with subterfuges ?
Why is it necessary to present the teachings of infi
nite Wisdom and Goodness in the least offensive man
ner ? To my mind, you had better leave the “ diffi
cult, abstruse mystery,” as you call it, to take care of
itself, than defend it by such specious arts.
Let me, however, follow your divagations. You
ask, What is sin ? and you define it as “ that tendency
in our nature which induces it to resent and rebel
against law ”—a definition which would delight the
Ozar of Russia or the late King Bomba of Naples.
You say that man is “ essentially lawless, and he is,
moreover, the only being in creation that is so.” Other
creatures live in harmony with their environment, but
in man there is a struggle between conscience and
desire.
There is little struggle, my lord, between conscience
�38
Letters to the Clergy.
and desire among the lowest savages. A Thug has
been known to feel remorse at having missed an
opportunity of assassination, but this illustration will
not serve your turn. As man ascends in the intel
lectual and moral scale, he is able to perceive the
law of reason, his sympathies are developed, and his
imagination “looks before and after?’ He forms
ideals, which he more or less strives to realise; and the
conflict in his nature, to which you point, is simply an
incident of his upward struggle. It is the antagonism
■of past and future in the arena of the present. To the
Evolutionist it is perfectly intelligible. Tiger passion,
or monkey lust, is no more a mystery than our rudi
mentary tail. They are marks of our descent. And
our ideals and aspirations are fore-gleams of the goal to
which we are ever advancing.
You make a mystery also of conscience, this monitor
44 which blames us when we transgress, which punishes
us for it, too, by a very sore penalty.” Not in all cases,
my lord. Remove the fear of discovery, and the dread
of punishment, and there is a small residuum of con
science in millions of Christians. I haye yet to learn
that the clergy themselves are more sensitive than their
neighbors. Thousands of Church livings are bought
and sold in the market as openly as any other
merchandise, yet every clergyman, on taking a benefice,
solemnly swears that he has not been a party to any
simoniacal contract. Do you mean to assert, my lord,
that this perjury ca.uses the hypocrites a single pang I
You desire the sceptic to inform you why man
blames himself for wrong-doing, and why he does not
blame himself for being stunted, sickly, dull, or stupid.
You ask how it is he feels no remorse because he
cannot write like Shakespeare or paint like Raphael.
Does it not occur to you that conscience deals with
conduct, and that conduct is determined by motives ?
One element of conscience, and perhaps the strongest,
is susceptibility to public opinion ; but public opinion,
while it may induce a man to act in one way rather
�The Atonement.
39
than another, cannot alter the limits of his nature. If
stature, health, good looks, and ability were amenable
to motives, conscience would have asserted its
supremacy over them. We only blamg ourselves for
what is blameworthy in others, and W reserve our
reproaches for what is alterable. We do not blame a
fchimney-pot for falling upon us, because it is useless.
For the same reason we do not blame a man for being
short or ugly. If our reproaches had any effect, there
would soon be a forceful pressure of public opinion on
little ill-looking people.
I have said, my lord, that we only blame ourselves
for what is blameworthy in others, and I add that
what condemns is in both cases the same. “I 33 and
44 me 33 are very convenient terms, but they sanction
a great deal of nonsense in philosophy and theology.
It is “ 133 who am selfish and “ I ” who am generous.
It is 133 who do wrong and “ I ” who repent. But
this 133 is a very complex being, and in reality it is
different parts of my nature that act in these various
ways. I have personal impulses and social instincts.
When I sin against the law of reason and humanity
my better feelings condemn the transgression, and
my remorse will be proportionate to their strength.
Were I to strike my child in a moment of anger (I
have never done it, and I hope I never shall), I should
have little to fear from public opinion, which still
sanctions such outrages; but I should suffer remorse,
because my love for my child, and my sense of personal
■dignity, would -utter their emphatic protest when my
passion subsided.
Where is the mystery, my lord, and why do you
assume that the Materialist is unable to account for
the facts'? Why should you tell us that God has
designed the sting of conscience as a punishment for
disobedience1? Is it a mark of divine wisdom that
the good should feel it most and the bad least ? Would
< cattle-drover prod the swift ox and leave the slow
ungoaded ?
�40
Letters to the Clergy.
Recurring to sin, my lord, I see you define it as “ an
offence against a person.” 1 agree with you; but I
differ from you when you say the person is God. I
cannot sin against God, because I cannot injure him;
although he can, sin against me, for he can make mo
happy or miserable. I can only sin against my fellow
men. This idea does not seem to have entered your
mind. You refer me to God for forgiveness. A cheap
philosophy, my lord I What of those I have wronged ?
Were I a pious bank director, who had feathered, his
own nest and ruined thousands, I might obtain God’s
forgiveness, but would it be any reparation to those I
had robbed? Would it restore the suicide to his
happy home? Would it drown the curses of my
victims ?
You admit yourself “how unavailing penitence
must be to remove the consequence of transgression.’*
But you draw a distinction between forgiveness as an
act and forgiveness as a sentiment. Nevertheless you
see that this will not serve your purpose, for the
doctrine of the Atonement involves the remission of
penalties. You therefore fall back upon “ something
strange, wonderful, not easy to understand or believe.”
You assert that Christ procures actual forgiveness
for us “in some mysterious way.”
You say it is
effected by a suspension of the laws of nature, which
“ in some way ” withdraws us from “ what would
otherwise be their inevitable and necessary operation.”
In other words, my lord, you take refuge in a miracle,
where I decline to follow you. You begin by appealing
to reason, and end by renouncing it. No wonder you
exclaim, a little later, when dealing with an objection,
that “ this is merely an intellectual difficulty I ”
When we plead to God for mercy, you tell us that
“ our cry is helped, is made more prevailing, by the
pleading for us of another, and that other Christ.”
You say that this is neither immoral nor absurd, for
“ friendly intercession is a familiar fact of our human
experience,” and if it is neither unnatural nor unworthy
�The Atonement.
41
as between man and man “ why should it be so as
between man and God ?” Do you not see that the
illustration is a poor compliment to. the Deity ? You
make the Son more merciful than the F^fther. And
as, according to the articles of your Church, it is all
settled beforehand, the whole business is a divine
comedy. I do not understand how “ there may be a
wrath of God that is kindled by the flame of love,’"’
but if you choose to picture the Father “nursing his
wrath to keep it warm,” and the Son cooling him
down and coaxing him into a good temper, I have no
right to quarrel with you. England is a free country
—especially for Christians.
“ Our repentance/’ you say, “ could not avail to
obtain our pardon were it not for what Christ has done
and is doing for us.” But what has he done, and what
is he doing ? He is the “ propitiation for our sins.”
But what does this mean “? You say it will “ help us
little to have recourse to grammar and dictionary.”
Perhaps so. But would it not help us to have recourse
to the language of Peter and Paul ? You studiously
avoid their utterances, and in my opinion you do so
because they teach a doctrine of the Atonement which
you desire to conceal. You repudiate their plainest
teaching. “ Where,” you ask, “ in the whole New
Testament is it alleged that Christ died in order to
appease an angry God ? Nowhere 1 ” Turn, my lord,
to Romans v., 9, and read—“ Being now justified by
his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him,”
or, according to the Revised Version, from “ the wrath
of God.” Again you say that “this idea of Christ
suffering the same, or an equivalent, penalty with that
which is due by us, and this suffering being a satisfaction
to the justice of God, is wholly indefensible.” Now
Peter says (1st, iii., 18) “ Christ also hath once suffered
for sins, the just for the unjust.” Paul says (1st Cor.,
vi., 20) “ For ye are bought with a price.” He repeats
this sentence in the next chapter. If words have any
meaning your “ indefensible ” doctrine is supported by
D
�42
Letters to the Clergy.
Scripture. Your own words that “ in the sacrifice of
Christ’s death there was an atoning, a propitiatoryefficacy,'” really concede the whole case you would
dispute. You hedge and trim, and talk mysteriously,
but you finally settle down on the good old orthodox
doctrine; the doctrine of Peter and Paul; the doctrine
of your standard authorities, Beveridge and Pearson;
the doctrine of your Book of Homilies; the doctrine
of the eleventh Article of the Church of England.
Adam fell, and we, his posterity, inherit his sinful
nature, which, as your ninth Article declares, “ in
every person born into this world deserveth God’s
wrath and damnation.” Christ came to be crucified,
as your second Article declares, in order “ to reconcile
his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for
original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.”
According to Scripture we must be saved by the name
of Jesus or not at all; wherefore your articles (10, 13,
17, and 18) distinctly affirm that only those are saved
who are “ chosen in Christ,” that our best deeds with
out “ the grace of Christ ” are displeasing to God, and
that the noblest men, outside the Christian pale,
whether heathen or unbelievers, are doomed to ever
lasting hell. Your heart, my lord, or your prudence,
revolts against this hideous doctrine. But why did you
sign the Thirty-nine Articles ? Why do you take
£4,500 a year to teach what you cannot believe?
Would it not be more manly to teach it plainly or
disown it publicly ?
You tell me that “ in some way Christ’s death has
removed an obstacle to our forgiveness; ” you say you
admit “ an Atonement ” but no “ particular theory of
the Atonement; ” you say “ we are wise if we refrain
from at all attempting to define; ” and finally you
appeal to Faith to justify your “strange, mysterious,
difficult, perplexing dogma.” Why should I believe
what is strange, mysterious, difficult, and perplexing ?
You have many good reasons for pretending to—a
bishopric, a seat in the House of Lords, social distinc
�The Atonement.
43
tion, and £4,500 a year. But what reason have I—a
poor, persecuted Freethinker—to believe what I cannot
understand; or what, so far as I do understand it, I
utterly detest and abhor 1
Pardon me, my lord, for introducing the name of
Thomas Paine ; but he was a great man, and his name
will outlive that of any member of the present bench of
Bishops.
My object in mentioning this illustrious
writer is to show you the impression made upon his
mind, in boyhood, by your doctrine of Atonement;
and I will give it in his own words from the Age of
Reason.
“ I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age,
hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great
devotee of the Church, upon the subject of what is called
redemption by the death of the Son of God. Aftei- the sermon was
ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the
garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at
the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself
that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man
that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself in any
other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did
such a thing, I did not see for what purpose they preached
such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts
that had anything in it of childish levity; it was to me a
serious reflection arising from the idea I had, that God was too
good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under
any necessity of doing it 1 believe in the same manner to
this moment: and I moreover believe that any system of
religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child,
cannot be a true system.”
I do not know whether God is too good to do such
an action, for I have less acquaintance with him than
Paine, who was a Deist; but, with that exception, I
have the honor to endorse every word in this passage.
You deny that the sacrifice of Christ was made “ to
appease the wrath of an angry God^” but you allow
that it was “ to effect the compassionate purpose of a
loving God.” What is this but juggling with words ?
It is not the form of expression I object to, but the
substance of the doctrine. However you state it, the
fact remains that God required the sacrifice of his own
�44
Letters to the Clergy.
son before he would be reconciled with his creatures.
Nor will it avail to plead that Christ was a willing
victim. This may prove his generosity, but it does not
save the reputation of his father. Whether Christ
came, as you affirm, or was ** sent,” as I read in St.
Paul, your Deity is equally cruel and detestable.
Calvinism boldly takes its stand on what it calls
divine justice, which is happily very unlike human
justice, and follows St. Paul in affirming God’s right
to do as he likes with his own. It is not for us to
question, but to obey. He is angiy with us for our sins,
which he regards as infinite because they are com
mitted against an infinite being; and as our sins, nay,
every one of them, deserves an infinite punishment, it
follows that we must suffer for them eternally. There
is, however, one way of escape. Being a trinity, God
is able to act in three different ways at once. Justice
is therefore wielded by the Father, mercy by the Son,
and grace by the Holy Ghost. The Father insists on
payment of his debt of damnation, the Son offers to
pay it all with his own sufferings, and the Holy Ghost
undertakes to supervise the contract.
Such is the time-honored doctrine of the Atone
ment, and although I regard it as a theological
pantomime, I am bound to confess that it hangs
together logically; .while your doctrine, if I may be
allowed a colloquialism, is neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor
good red herring.
I have already observed, however, that you use
language which implies the whole orthodox theory.
You allow the three ideas of propitation, sacrifice, and
atonement; and as an anatomist from a few bones, or
even one, will construct the entire skeleton of the
organism to which they belonged, so a skilful Calvinist
would develope his complete theory out of your
admissions. Your only escape from his remorseless
logic is to cry “ A mystery, a mystery ’ ” But it is
easy for the Calvinist to reply that, while the reason of
a process may be a mystery, the process itself is not so,
�The Atonement.
45
and that while the facts are uncertain, it is idle to
discuss their explanation.
Having tried to understand what you mean by
Sropitiation, I can discover nothing but this, that
esus Christ puts the Almighty in a good temper; but
you do not state how the operation is performed, or
why it is needed. You are equally hazy as to sacrifice.
You tell me that the death of Christ removed an
obstacle to our forgiveness, an “ obstacle existing not
on the human but on the Divine side.” But you
do not state the nature of the obstacle, or explain how
one part of the Trinity removes obstacles from the
mind of another part of the Trinity. As for atone
ment, you veil your meaning, if you have a meaning,
in a cloud of words. It is possible that you will im
pose or a number of invertebrate readers, but every
thinking person who yeads your essay will wonder
how it is that Christian doctrines are defended by
the method of emptying every leading term of the
meaning it has borne for nearly two thousand years.
The Christian ship is to be rebuilt and refitted, a fresh
cargo is to be chartered, new bunting is to be run
aloft, and all that is to be retained is the old figure
head 1
°
To my mind it is beyond a doubt that the Christian
doctrine of the Atonement is a sublimation of the
old Jewish and Pagan notions of sacrifice. This you
deny, and for various reasons. The first is that the
Pagan idea of sacrifice was “ the substitution of an
unwilling victim.” Not necessarily so, my lord; and
if you read the two stories attentively you will find
that Iphigenia was no more and no less an unwilling
victim than Jesus Christ. Your second reason is that
the immolation of victims was “ selfish and cowardly,”
and I presume you intend it to be inferred that it is
“ generous and brave ” on the part of Christians to
avail themselves of the sufferings of their Savior, and
that the beautiful hymn “ Throw it all upon Jesus ” is
the perfection of disinterestedness. I cannot admit
�46
Letters to the Clergy.
the inference, and I dispute the fact. The ancient
sacrifices were not necessarily “ selfish and cowardly.”
They were nearly always corporate ceremonies. There
was supposed to be a spiritual autonomy of the tribe
or nation, and if the gods were offended they plagued
the whole body of their worshippers. For this reason,
as is pointed out by Renan, the national gods were
always the most bloodthirsty and terrible, while the
domestic gods were merciful and benign. The sacri
fice, therefore, was made in the interest of the whole
people, to avoid pestilence, famine, or extermination.
It was not selfishness and cowardice, but a dark super
stition, which led the Jews to hang the sons of Saul in
order to arrest a famine. After three years’ suffer
ing they inquired of David, who inquired of the Lord,
and the Lord’s answer was singularly felicitous for
David’s ambition. “ It is fo» Saul,” said Jehovah.
The sons of the late king were then hanged, David
was relieved of the presence of seven possible pretend
ers to the throne, and “ God was entreated for the
land.”
Your third reason is no less unhappy. That the
Jewish mind could entertain the “abhorrent” Mea
of human sacrifice, which is involved in the death of
Christ, you say is inconceivable. But you forget two
important things; first, that Christianity spread chiefly
among Gentiles and Jews who lived in Gentile cities ;
second, that as the doctrine of the Atonement grew up
gradually, the sacrifice of Christ was at once mystical
and retrospective. His death was not the death of a
man, but the death of a man-god; and that very fact
is the secret of the Atonement.
You are discreetly silent, my lord, as to the Blood of
Christ, but it contains the whole mystery of the
Atonement. Being at once God and man, he was
proxy for both in a blood covenant, and thus the two
estranged parties were made at one with each other.
He was also a perfect sacrifice once for all, dispen
sing with the further immolation of men or animals.
�The Atonement.
47
Not only was his the ££ blood of the new covenant/’
it was “ shed for the remission of sin.” ££ Without
shedding of blood,” says St. Paul, “ there is no remis
sion/' and Christ fulfilled the whole of the conditions.
This is the meaning of propitiation, sacrifice, and
atonement. From beginning to end it is a doctrine of
blood. It is the final development of a superstition
which has prevailed in every part of the world, begin
ning in the blood covenant of savages, ascending into
the blood covenant of sacrifice in barbarous religions,
and reaching its acme in the bleeding figure of your
god-man Jesus Christ upon his sacrificial cross. His
bloody sweat, his blood-stained brows, his gory hands
and feet, and the blood-spurt from his wounded side,
are all designed to emphasise the central idea. It is
his blood that cleanses us from sin ; we have ££ redemp
tion through his blood
we are ££ justified by his
blood
he has ££ made peace through the blood of his
cross.'’ And every time you renew your covenant
with God at the communion table, you do so by drink
ing the blood of Christ. The passionate words of
Othello are a splendid summary of your creed—££ Blood,
blood, Iago, blood.”
Let me conclude, my lord, by reminding you of a
great distinction, and the only distinction, between the
Christian and the Pagan ideas of sacrifice. The
Pagans, and also the Jews, sacrificed animals, and
occasionally human beings, on the altars of their gods.
The Christians, however, conceived the idea of their
God becoming his own victim, and shedding his own
blood instead of theirs. The Pagans were ready to
die for their gods, but the Christians made their god
die for them. It was a brilliant conception; worthy of
the meekness which has walked the earth with fire
and sword, and the humility which has revelled in
dogma and persecution.
�48
.Letters to the Clergy.
OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY.
TO THE REV. EUSTACE R. CONDER, D.D.
Sir,—
You have undertaken a bold task, but I fear
your success will not be commensurate with your
courage. The defence of the morality of the Old
Testament is a forlorn hope. Victory is impossible.
The utmost you can do is to show your possession of
that virtue which is called fortitude in a king and
obstinacy in another animal.
The Present Day Tracts issued by the Religious
Tract Society are written by men of eminence and
ability. When the recent tenth volume fell into my
hands it excited my respectful attention. Your own
tract on “Moral Difficulties in the Old Testament
Scriptures ” appealed most directly to my curiosity. I
read it carefully, made copions annotations in the liberal
margin which seemed provided for the. purpose, and set
it aside for criticism in the Freethinker. I am now able
to carry out my intention in this open letter, which I
trust you will do me the honor of perusing. Should you
desire to answer my criticism, I will gladly place the
columns of my paper at your service.
Wishing to track you step by step, I will first notice
your introductory remarks. They exhibit your point
of view, contain your definitions, disclose the principles
that guide your judgment, and settle the ground on
which discussion must take place.
“ Mere intellectual difficulties,” you say, ought not to
surprise us and need not trouble us. You regard them
as natural, nay, inevitable, in the revelation of infinite
wisdom.
But “the case is otherwise with moral
difficulties,” and we are “ constrained to solve them.”
You define moral difficulties as “any such representa-
�Old Testament Morality.
49
tions of the character and dealings of God as we are at
a loss to reconcile with perfect rectitude, wisdom and
love/’ I accept the definition as excellent. Yet I
cannot agree with you that “ the supposition that the
character of God actually falls short of absolute excel
lence, or that his wisdom is fallible,” is to “ a sane and
virtuous mind inconceivable.” John Stuart Mill denied
the possibility of demonstrating the existence of a God
at once all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good, in face of
the tremendous evils that afflict and desolate the world.
The only God, in his opinion, consistent with the facts
of experience, is one of limited power, and perhaps of
limited intelligence and benevolence. What you declare
inconceivable he regarded as possible, or even probable;
and neither you nor your colleagues will find it easy to
induce the world to consider you more “sane and
virtuous ” than this illustrious philosopher.
There are two qualities you claim as indispensable to
a proper consideration of the subject—reverence and
honesty. You complain that “ reverence is reckoned
superfluous by some who pride themselves on their
honesty.” Sir, the complaint is unjust and illogical.
Honesty is all you have a right to require or reason to
expect. Reverence is not a preliminary; it should be
a result.
I decline to reverence your book, your
doctrines, or your deity, without examination. I must
discuss them openly, fearlessly, and completely. This
is the only honest plan. If at the end I find what
deserves my reverence, I shall yield it without solicita
tion. But were I to approach your views with a feeling
of reverence, the discussion would be decided before it
commenced. I cannot swathe the sword of criticism at
your bidding. Let it flash and cut; only falsehood
will suffer; truth is invulnerable.
It is idle to tell me that the Bible is “ the most
venerable, wonderful, and indestructible monument of
human thought.” If by venerable you mean ancient,
the statement is untrue; in any other sense you are
begging the question. Nor am I to be imposed upon
�50
Letters to the Clergy.
by your lavish chronology. The Bible has not been a
power and a consolation “ through thousands of years.”'
Even its oldest fragments are not to be carried beyond
the ninth century before Christ. The greater part of
the Old Testament is later than the Captivity. You
have thus a chronology of considerably less than three
thousand years; and during half that period the Bible
was a sealed book to the people. Until the Reformation
they were unable to read it in their vernacular tongues
and become acquainted with its contents.
You may regard me as “ coarse and vulgar ”—to
use your own polite language—but I cannot reverence
your “venerable documents.” Age is not necessarily
respectable. Old thieves are found in the dock, and
ancient superstitions in the human mind. Witchcraft
is older than Christianity; would you therefore treat
it with reverence if you heard the nurse teaching it to
your children ?
“ Coarse and vulgar ” are hard words, but I persist
with my objection. I cannot allow that “ the sceptic
is bound to keep a check on his hostile feeling” while
“ the Christian is not bound to suppress his love to the
Bible, or to affect an impossible impartiality.” If
impartiality is impossible on the one side, why demand
it so strenuously on the other? You speak of “pro
fessional ” assailants of Christianity. Are you not one
of its “ professional ” champions ? You frown at those
who are “ bent on making out a case.” Is not that the
object of your Tract? You say that the sceptical
objections to Scripture have been “ discussed, and more
or less satisfactorily disposed of, times without num
ber.” Might not the sceptic say the same of your
“ evidences ” ? You assert that the moral difficulties
of the Bible “ occupy but a small place in it,” and that
“ anywhere out of the Bible they would give us no
trouble.” Is this true ? Are there not bestial stories
in the Bible, voluptuous descriptions, and obscene
phrases, that would subject an ordinary volume to
prosecution, and its publisher to fine and imprisonment ?
�OtS, Testament Morality.
51
Another remark in your introduction remains to be
noticed. You declare that “ a real Christian ” is “ not
less, but more sensitive than a sceptic to moi al diffi
culties in the Bible.” Then, sir, the real Christian
has a miraculous power of concealing his perturbation.
Honest sceptics—even such eminent men as Voltaire
and Paine—have been insulted and persecuted. Their
criticisms met with no other answer until such replies
had ceased to be effective. According to my in
formation, the moral, as well as the “ merely intel
lectual ” difficulties of the Bible, have been exposed by
sceptics, and seldom, if ever, by Christians.
The
orthodox plan has been to commence with persecution
of the critics of Scripture; then to pass on through
successive stages of insult, denunciation, deprecation,
and silence; finally, to resort to labored and dis
ingenuous apologies, with the pretence that the world
is really indebted to Christians for its knowledge of
the “ apparent ” defects and deficiencies of Holy Writ.
I come now to your specific treatment of the moral
difficulties of Scripture. The first case is that of God’s
dealings with Adam and Eve. Whether the story be
literally true, or an allegory, you allow that the “ moral
and spiritual meaning ” is the same. Man, you say,
was “ endowed with a moral nature in which sin had no
place,” a statement which is belied by the fact that he
fell. He sinned; he was guilty of “ a deliberate viola
tion of known duty ; ” he disobeyed “ God’s positive
command;” he committed a breach of that “ law
written in the heart; ” and he suffered the inevitable
penalty.
Such is your argument, and nearly every word is
false. The fact is that Adam ate an apple, which he
was forbidden to touch. Millions of boys have done
the same thing since, but their parents have not damned
them everlastingly for such a trivial offence. You may
tell me that a parent’s command is one thing, and God’s
another. I answer that an act cannot be affected by
the greatness of the person who forbids it; otherwise
�52
Letters to the Clergy.
morality is nothing but submission to authority, and
the goodness or badness of conduct depends on the
disposition of lawgivers and executioners.
What could two beings in the position of Adam and
Eve know of duty? Mr. Gladstone himself, in his
reply to Colonel Ingersoll, is obliged to admit that this
unhappy couple had no “ ethical standard,” no rule of
“consciously perceived right and wrong,” but were
under the law of “ simple obedience.” “ Their con
dition,” he continues, “ was greatly analagous to that
of the infant, who has just reached the stage at which
he can comprehend that he is ordered to do this or that,
but not the nature of the thing so ordered.” In other
words, they were infants in knowledge, experience, and
wisdom, and they acted like infants in the presence of
a shining allurement. I know not whether you have
children, but, if you have, I suppose they have often
done what you told them not to do. Yet I have no
doubt you are too humane to turn them out of your
house, and if you did the law would make you support
them. It is a crime to strike a child, it is foolish to
punish. Love is the true discipline, and wisdom and
patience are its best instruments. I have a right to
show even a child that certain things annoy me, but
no right to beat it for a mistake, or to curse it for an
indiscretion. Even if it sometimes showed a bad dis
position, I should reflect that it probably derived it
from its parents, and feel all the more tender and
patient on that account. Nothing is more miserably
stupid than the mere imposition of one’s will, with no
other justification. Parents should guide, and in some
cases restrain; but it is a wretched egotism which
prompts them to say “Do this because I tell you to.”
Let us apply this truth to the story of the Fall.
Why did Jehovah act in a manner which I, as a
human parent, should consider disgraceful ? Why did
he steel his heart against his own creatures ? Why did
he curse his own children ? Why did he prohibit an
action in itself harmless ? Why did he plant a trap for
�Old Testament Morality.
53
two inexperienced beings, and punish them for falling
into it ? Would he not have shown more wisdom and
humanity if, instead of telling them not to eat apples,
he had told them to be just, kind, and merciful to
each other, fortifying the precept with his own
example ?
Let me ask you to consider the curse pronounced
by your God on his “ disobedient ” children for their
first “ offence/’ I pass the grotesque curse upon the
serpent who tempted them, and the ridiculous curse
upon the inanimate ground beneath their feet. What
remains is sufficient for my purpose.
Jehovah
sentenced the man to earn his bread by the sweat of
his brow. This may be regarded as a curse in hot
countries, where labor is irksome, and everything
invites to repose ; but in temperate climates like ours
it is a pleasant and wholesome discipline. There is a
great deal of truth in the observation of an American
humorist that “ doing nothing is hard work—if you
keep at it.” I admit, however, that the woman’s
sentence was far more serious, and a curse indeed. <f I
will greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception,” said
the Lord, “ in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.”
Such language is to mind infamous. I had a mother,
I have sisters, I have a wife. I know that a woman,
especially with her first child, needs all sympathy and
support during her confinement. Motherhood, as In
gersoll remarks, is the most pathetic fact in nature.
Surely, sir, if the woman merited punishment—which
I atn far from conceding—a merciful God would not
choose the most piteous crisis of her life to inflict it
upon her. A fiend sent to torment her at such a mo
ment might melt with compassion, and murmur “ Not
now, not now ! ” Am I, then, to worship a deity who
is too callous to relent? No, I will not. As the son
of a woman, as the husband of a woman, I say that if
there be a God who deliberately adds a pang to the
sufferings of a woman in childbirth, I hate him with
every drop of blood in my veins. Words are too feeble
�54
Letters to the Glergy.
to express my scorn and loathing. I would rather
have his room in Hell than his company in Heaven.
Why did Jehovah place a temptation in the way
of his inexperienced children if he knew that their
fall would involve such awful consequences'? Why
did he allow the Devil to heighten the temptation with
with all the arts of a consummate seducer ? Why did
he not not warn them against the wiles of their enemy ?
Why did he station a cherubim at the gate of Eden to
prevent them from returning after their expulsion ?
Would it not have been more considerate had he used
the same means to prevent the Devil from disturbing
their innocent serenity ?
You justify God’s inflicting the penalty of Adam’s
transgression upon his remote posterity. You say that
they were “involved in his sin/’ In what way, sir?
To tell me that Adam begat a son “ in his own image ”
is only to tell me that the son was his father’s child.
It does not justify the transmitted curse ? It does not
explain why a being of “ perfect rectitude, wisdom,
and love ” punishes millions of souls for the fault of
one soul milleniums before their birth. To my mind
it seems perfectly clear that, if each soul is to be saved
or damned alone, every soul should have a fair start.
I deny that I should be prejudiced by the sin of an
other. If God makes me responsible for the offences
of my ancestors, I suppose I must submit to his power,
but I will never acknowledge his justice.
Your own heart, sir, is evidently superior to your
creed. You perceive that the conduct of Jehovah
is incapable of justification on the ordinary principles
of human morality. You fall back, therefore, upon
the position of Bishop Butler, which is inexpugnable
to the attacks of Deists, but indefensible against the
attacks of a later scepticism. You ask whether the
Bible account of the Fall presents “any moral diffi
culty which does not meet us equally in daily expe
rience ? ” But this is not the argument you undertook
to maintain. You set yourself the task of reconciling
�Old Testament Morality.
55
the conduct of Jehovah with “ perfect rectitude, wisdom
and love.’'’ It is idle to point out that worse things
than those in the Bible happen in the ordinary course
of nature. The universe is not on trial, nor its ruler.
We are not, for the moment, concerned with the God
of Nature, if such a being exist, but with the God of
the Bible. It is useless to defend your Deity by saying
“Mine is as good as yours.” I have no deity to defend.
You have; and I must beg you to defend him on the
principles you accepted in your introduction.
Before I proceed further I will quote the following
passage from your essay :—“ We must understand
love and righteousness in God to mean substantially
the same thing with love and righteousness in man,
only free from all limitation and defect; otherwise,
neither objections nor replies have any meaning.”
This is youi’ own rule of judgment, and you cannot
complain if I rigorously apply it to the rest of our
“ moral difficulties.-”
With regard to the Deluge, you make the gratuitous
assertion that “ the substantial and weighty evidence
for its reality is often overlooked by those who ought
to know better.” After this somewhat pedagogic
utterance it is amusing to read the footnote, in which
you refer your readers “ for the bearing of geological
science on the question ” to a tract by Sir William
Dawson. I have read this tract, and the author argues
for a partial flood. To use his own words, it was “ one
of those submersions of our continents which, locally or
generally, have occurred over and over again, almost
countless times, in the geological history of the earth.”
Yet I find you asserting, in the very teeth of your
picked authority, that the Deluge “ stands alone ” by
reason of its “ stupendous scale.” May I conclude
that this is a dexterous way of steering between the
Scylla of the heterodox view of a local flood and the
Charybdis of the orthodox view of a universal flood ?
At any rate, you. commit yourself to neither, but
moralise on either side as it suits your purpose.
�56
Letters to the Clergy.
Let me also express my astonishment at the use you
make of an awkward text, which you would have shown
more discretion in avoiding. After drawing a dark
picture of the awful sin of the antediluvians, you quote
the sentence “ There were giants in the earth in those
days/’ and you ask the reader to imagine what might
have happened if men with the lust and cruelty of a
Nero or a Borgia, the strength of a Samson, and the
intellect of a Caesar, had lived for a thousand years.
De you believe in the reality of such prodigies ? That
they are conceivable I admit, but so is a centaur, a
dragon, or a satyr.
Such imaginary beings do not
trouble the heads of sensible men, nor are your
antediluvian prodigies any more entitled to respect.
You are ill-advised in introducing these “ giants.” As
the Revised Version discloses to the unlearned reader,
they were simply Nephilim, who, as the context in
dicates, were like the Gigantes of the Pagan mythology,
the mixed offspring of heaven and earth. You are a
devout believer in the existence of these fabulous
monsters, but the existence of tlie Pagan giants, as
Lempriere says, was also “ supported by all the writers
of antiquity, and received as an undeniable truth.”
Taking the Bible record as it stands, as you profess
to, with its Ci stupendous ” slaughter of men, women,
and children—in fact, the extermination of the whole
human race, with the exception of eight persons—what
is your excuse for the God who planned and executed
this unparalleled massacre ?
First, you remark that the same kind of thing fre
quently happens, although on a smaller scale. People
have been swallowed by earthquakes, swept away by
pestilence, and destroyed by floods. Volcanoes have
buried cities, the sea has engulphed myriads of ships
with their crews. But all this is beside the point.
As well might a murderer argue that his victim must
die at some time, and that cholera and small-pox kill
a great many more than he does. The only reply you
can possibly make is the one which St. Paul resorted
�Old Testament Morality.
57
to when he desired to silence the objectors to pre
destinate damnation ; namely, that God made us, and
has a right to do as he will with his own. But this
exalts his power at the expense of his beneficence, and
puts an end to all controversy on the subject.
You next observe that the antediluvians were
awfully wicked. Still, they were God’s creatures, and
surely the Maker could have reformed his own handi
work. Could not the being who said “ Let there be
light I and there was light,” as easily have said “ Let
all men be good—or decent” with a similar result?
No doubt you will reply with the argument from “ free
will.” But, for my part, I think it shocking to make
men what they are, to curse and torture them for being
so, and to offer them consolation or excuse in the shape
of a metaphysical puzzle. It is not thus that we reason
on any other subject than theology.
According to the story, God gave the devoted
multitude a warning. Noah, that “ preacher of
righteousness,” admonished them for the space of a
hundred and twenty years. But the Lord should have
selected a better prophet, or, if that were impossible,
he should have sent a capable missionary from heaven.
Noah’s character, as revealed by his conduct after the
Flood—when he indulged himself in drunkenness, in
decency, and indiscriminate cursing—was not calculated
to lend persuasion to his appeals. Indeed, I have often
wondered why Jehovah took the trouble to preserve
this precious specimen of his primitive creatures.
Admitting the necessity of a wholesale massacre, it
seems to me that the Lord should have completed the
work and left none of the old race surviving. This
would have enabled him to start with a fresh stock,
instead of re-peopling the world through Noah. Had
he followed this sensible method, it is to be presumed
that the world, a few centuries later, would not have
fallen into such wickedness that a whole city could not
yield a handful of righteous men to save it from
■destruction, while the elderly gentleman who was
E
�58
Letters to the Clergy.
spared on that occasion celebrated the event by getting
drunk and committing incest with his own daughters.
Suppose I grant you, for the sake of argument,
that the antediluvians were all incurably wicked, that
there was no room for gradations, that every man and
woman was full of infquity. Still, there remains the
fact ihat multitudes of children perished in thecatastrophe, who could not have sinned as they v ere
too young to be responsible. You are unable to dis
pute the fact, and your explanation is piepostero.is.
You declare that “ the suffering of the innocent with
the guilty, and on account of the guilty, is part of the
mysterious economy of human life?’ Do you seriously
mean that such bungling is a mark of “ perfect wisdom ”
and such indiscriminate slaughter a mark of “ perfect
rectitude and love ” ? Could not Jehovah have spared
the children as easily as the family of Noah? Was
there not wood enough to build a thousand arks, and
time enough for their construction ? No wonder you
close this section of your essay by deprecating further
criticism, and bidding your readers “ reverently bow
before the veil, and patiently wait till God’s own hand
withdraws it.” But if we have to await God’s con
venience, after all, it is a waste of time on yogr part
(not to use a harsher phrase) to offer temporary
explanations.
Were I not acquainted with the petrifying influence
of religious dogmas on the best feelings of the human
heart, and the feebleness of the human imagination
with respect to distant scenes and events, I should
marvel at the continued worship of a Deity who
could find no other method of dealing with his crea
tures than drowning them. It is easy to kill, it
is difficult to educate and develope ; the one shows
ignorance and brutality, the other wisdom and hi 'inan
ity. The destructive impatience of Jehovah—who,
like all barbaric gods, was fond of hurling his
thunderbolts—would be an intolerable anachronism
in our civilised jurisprudence. But what would be
�Old Testament Morality.
591
detestable in human practice is sacred in religious
theory. Men who would not hurt a child, and who
shudder at the sight of blood, ascribe wholesale
massacres and the most relentless cruelty to the God.
of their inherited faith. For the most part, I am
convinced, they never attempt to realise these horrors,
which, if vividly conceived, would drive them mad or
destroy their belief. But let it not be supposed that
it does the character no injury to harbor such notions
of the being one worships. The debasement of our
ideal must re-act upon our feelings, and it would startle
many a Christian philanthropist to recognise how much
of the brutal callousness of mankind is due to theworship of barbarous and bloodthirsty gods. Here and
there, indeed, worship is carried to the point of imita
tion, and the result is an Alva or a Torquemada. It
is even held by Dr. Forbes Winslow that if “Jack
the Ripper ” is ever caught, he will be found to be
suffering from religious mania, and perhaps to consider
himself charged with a murderous mission from
heaven.
Passing from the Deluge I come to the destruction
of the cities of the plain. You compare this event
with the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii,,
whose inhabitants you conjecture to have been
“ equally wicked.” What is your reason for saying
so ? There is nothing in the authentic records of
history to justify the conjecture. You are a thick-'
and-thin pleader for Jehovah, but you have no scruple
at libelling your fellow men. In any case, the analogy
is useless to your object. • Educated men—to whom, I
suppose, your tract is addressed—are not so super
stitious as to imagine that Mount Vesuvius is a provi
dential reservoir, which belches out its contents when
the Lord has someone to punish. Nor is there any
similarity between a volcanic eruption, which is as
natural as a thunderstorm, and the “ fire from heaven31
which the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah.
The one is natural, the other is miraculous. Some
�60
Letters to the Clergy.
perception of this difference must have been present to
yoor mind when you fell back upon the Abrahamic
exclamation “ Shall not the judge of all the earth do
right ?” This, you say, is “ the one reply ” to all such
difficulties, and “ it is adequate.'’"’ I deny its adequate
ness ; I call it a begging of the question. But I admit
it is “ the one reply ” of Bibliolators. They cry off
in the crisis of debate, close their eyes, and offer up a
prayer.
Scientific criticism of the Bible removes the
“ difficulty” in quite another fashion. The cities of
the plain are imaginary places. Ancient peoples
.associated legends with every striking aspect of nature.
Ignorant of geology, the Jews and other orientals
.ascribed a supernatural origin to the Dead Sea and its
volcanic surroundings. The story grew up of cities
that were destroyed on its site, and to this day the
natives believe they see fragments of buildings and
pillars rising from the bottom of the lake. Similarly,
the story of Lot and his daughters is legendary.
Moab and Ammon were for many centuries the
implacable enemies of the Jews, who libelled them
generically by tracing their origin to the incestuous
and prolific intercourse of a father with his own
offspring.
Let us now consider the case of the “heathen
nations” whose slaughter you admit to have been
“ authorised by God’s express command.” You pro
test against these massacres being judged by our
modern ideas of humanity, and this may be a fair
excuse for the Jew’s, but what-excuse is it for Jehovah ?
It is idle to talk of the barbarities of ancient times;
we are not discussing the morality of the ancient Jews,
but the morality of an “ inspired ” volume, which, if it
comes from a God such as you define, can never sink
below the loftiest benevolence, and still less shock the
common feelings of civilised men and women.
One of your observations on. the chosen people is
ludicrous, even as a piece of special pleading. Con
�Old Testament Morality.
61
sidering the cruelties of antiquity, you remark that the
“ Hebrews, far from being a ferocious and bloodthirsty
people, were marked by superior self-restraint and
humanity.” You seem astonished at their moderation.
But is it not obvious that the Jews were never treated
by their conquerors with the cruelty they displayed
towards their own victims ? Had they been so, they
would have been annihilated. The Assyrian govern
ment was coarse and brutal, but it never equalled the
ferocity of Jehovah’s warriors. So far were the Jews
from being ill-treated during the Captivity, that many
of them who had settled in Babylon refused to return,
to Palestine when they were free to do so. Even
under the Pharaohs, they had been allowed to multiply
enormously, and if they were compelled to work they
were not allowed to starve, for when they were sick of
the desert manna they bewailed their loss of the fleshpots of Egypt.
I can conceive of nothing more absurd, or more
immoral, than your plea that every man must die, and
that death by the sword is generally less painful than
death by disease. It is an outrage on common sense
and common humanity. It would justify every private
murder and every public massacre that ever was or
could be committed. I know that I must die, but I do
not wish a set of pious assassins to decide when and
how I shall expire; yet, according to your argument,
I should thankfully hold out my throat to any inspired
butcher who will do me the honor of cutting it.
Your next argument is that the nations, whose
territory the Jews requisitioned, were doomed to
extermination as “ the just punishment of their
outrageous wickedness.” You forget that the Jews
vexed the Lord more than the nations he drave out
before them. You also forget that the defeated side is
always in the wrong, and that the character of the
Canaanites is described for us by those who robbed and
murdered them.
That the Jews were God's executioners is open to
�62
Letters to the Clergy.
suspicion when we reflect on their interest in the
massacres. Nor is it tenable that in the extermination
of whole nations of men, women, and children, there
is “ no principle involved different from what is
involved in the execution of a single murderer for a
single crime.”
There are two objections to this
argument, and both of them unanswerable.
In the first place, it is quite inconceivable that
“ outrageous wickedness ” was universal.
Had it
been so, the Canaanites would have perished from
social anarchy, without waiting for “ God’s execu
tioners.” There must have been a moderate regard
for the primary laws of human society. Men must
have supported their wives and families, and mothers
must have cooed over their smiling babes. Yet we
read that the massacre of these people was universal
and promiscuous. Nay more, we read that the camels
and asses were involved in the slaughter, while the
horses were subjected to the infamous process of
houghing. You would cry £< Shame!” if this were
done by a desperate Irish peasant, but you ask me to
regard it as divine justice when it is done by Jewish
marauders in the name of their God.
In the next place, the object of individual punish
ment is not vengeance, but the protection of society.
It is a warning, an example, a deterrent; characters
which can never belong to massacre and extermination.
Edmund Burke professed himself unable to draw up
an indictment against a whole people; but you, sir,
are ready to draw up their indictment, pronounce their
sentence, and superintend their execution.
There is something worse than death. It is dis
honor. There is something worse than murder. It
is violation. I do not wonder at your silence on this
topic. You feel that a plea for the selection of virgins
for the Jewish conquerors would affront the conscience
of humanity. Yet I must remind you that this was
done by the express command of Jehovah. Youth and
beauty were sacrificed on the altar of lust. Maidens
�Old Testament Morality.
63
were handed over—loy your God—to the bloody em
braces of the murderers of their fathers and brothers.
Your treatment of the projected sacrifice of Isaac
by Abraham does not lessen its “ difficulties?’ That
human sacrifices were common at that time is pro
bable ; that parents had power of life and death
■over their children is certain. But what has this to do
with a divine command ? Was Jehovah unable to rise
above the morality of the age ? It may be that such
a sacrifice was not “ at variance either with Abraham’s
own conscience or with the ideas of morality then
universally prevailing.” But Abraham’s conscience is
a poor standard, and we are not bound by the moral
ideas of that period. You forget the real point at
issue. It is Jehovah who is on trial. Why did he tell
a father to slay his son, or lead him to suppose that
such a sacrifice could be acceptable ?
Should a father obey a voice from heaven command
ing him to kill his son 1 Not now, you reply, for the
voice would be a delusion. But that is your opinion.
The voice is not a delusion to the man who hears it.
If he acts in all sincerity is he justified ? I defy you
to answer this question without absolving him or con
demning Abraham. Twenty voices from heaven would
not induce a brave and tender man to commit a murder.
If Jehovah thundered in concert with all the gods of
the Pantheon, from the Himalayas to Olympus,
I would not dip my hands in blood at his bidding. I
would rather incur his vengeance than earn his rewards.
I would despise his heaven, and never fear his hell.
The cursing Psalms are another theme for your
sophistry. You quote a few of the mildest as though
they were fair samples of the rest. You cannot com
plain, therefore, if I quote one of the worst:—“ Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let
his children be continually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek
their bread also out of their desolate places. Let there be
none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to
favor his fatherless children.”
�'64
Letters to the Clergy.
Such infamous words would disgrace the lips of a
fiend ? Is it not strange to find them in “ an inspired
manual of devotion ■” ? Do you imagine that the study
of these curses upon the innocent wives and children
of one’s enemies is calculated to make men tender and
merciful 1 You allege that “ the persons denounced in
these Psalms were enemies of God, of religion, and of
the commonwealth,” but you admit that they were
“ also (at least in some cases) personal enemies of the
Psalmist.” Do you not see that this is a very con
venient way of gratifying malignity under the cloak
of religion
Will you also tell me how the “ widows ”
and the “ fatherless ” were the “ enemies of God, of
religion, and of the commonwealth ” ?
Your defence of David is labored and curious. With
regard to the very politic execution of Saul’s male
descendants to arrest a famine, you bid me remember
the old principle of blood-vengeance. Is the man after
God’s own heart to be judged by secular standards?
What is the use of the Grace of God if it leaves men
slaves to the foolish superstitions and coarse morality
of their age ? There is one point of the story which
you conveniently forget. After the execution of the
seven victims “ the Lord was entreated for the land ”
and the famine ceased. Does not this make Jehovah
an accomplice of David’s ? Will you ask me to excuse
David and Jehovah on the same grounds ?
David’s mean, treacherous, and cowardly murder of
Uriah, after vainly endeavoring to make him pass as
the father of Bathsheba’s bastard, it enough to damn
him in the eyes of every honest man. It reveals a
dreadful turpitude of character. It was not one act of
passion, bnt a series of calculated villainies. Yet all
you have to say in palliation is that David repented,
and you appear to think that repentance is higher than
innocence. I differ from you, but I will not argue the
point. I will merely say that David’s repentance was
rather fear than remorse. I read that he made atone
ment by going to war, and butchering his prisoners
�Old Testament Morality.
65
with every circumstance of horror. “ Where,” you ask,
“ shall we find a parallel to his repentance ?” I
answer—happily nowhere.
“ An exhaustive treatment ” of the moral difficulties
of the Old Testament is not your aim. You add that
“ perhaps no such treatment is possible.” Here, at
least, I have the honor to agree with you. No special
pleading, however able and subtle, can make the
Jewish scriptures anything but a record of barbarism,
with gleams of growing culture, and occasional
aspirations towards higher things. Some of the Old
Testament pages are filthy, some are brutal, and some
are disgusting. To defend these is to palter s with
conscience, and to sap the very foundations of morality.
INSPIRATION.
TO THE REV. ROBERT F HORTON, MA.
Sir,—
Sundry press notices drew my attention to your
work on Inspiration and the Bible. The Pall Mall
Gazette praised your “ able and courageous treatment
of the subject.” The Scotsman spoke, of its “ perfect
candor and fairness.” The Scottish Leader “ could
not but commend the book.” Canon Cheyne himself,
in addressing the last Church Congress, described your
volume as “ freshly-written and stimulating.” These
are good testimonials, as testimonials go, and I turned to
your book with curiosity and expectation.
What you have to sav is addressed to believers, and
I am not a believer. Why then, you may ask, do I
meddle with what does not concern me. 1 do so, first,
�66
Letters to the Clergy.
because the subject is interesting to every citizen of a
country in which the Bible is legally declared to be the
Word of God. I do so, secondly, because I have
suffered imprisonment for “ bringing the Holy
Scriptures into disbelief and contempt,’’ and I have a
personal interest in the question. I do so, thirdly,
because every man who publishes a book submits it to
public criticism. I do so, lastly, because you have not
scrupled to give your opinion of the “ modem infidel ”
and the “ poor Secularist/’
Pardon me for saying that you quite misunderstand
the “modern infidel” and the “poor Secularist/’
Dealing with what you are pleased to call the “ cast-iron
theory of inspiration,” you say:
“We have multitudes among us who have thrown their
Bibles away, or are using them only as corpus vile to flog and
to deride. We have only to glance at the literature which
issues from the infidel press to see that our working men at
least, the part of the community for whom Christ’s religion is
peculiarity adapted, the cast-iron theory has rendered no very
signal service. From it and it alone in almost every case comes
the. first difficulty to the young mechanic, who is just
beginning to think for himself. To it is due first the sceptical
suspicion and last the utter rejection of the Book; and when
the poor Secularist after years of vainly beating the air is
brought back again to truth and reality, it is by the living
Christ, whom he might have known and loved from the first.”
How many “ poor Secularists ” have you brought
back to “the living Christ”? How many have you
seen brought back by other preachers ? I suspect you
drew on your imagination for the facts, and so long as
they “ point a moral or adorn a tale ” there is nothing
to shock a mind accustomed to the time-honored
methods of Christian apology. From the earliest ages,
when fraud and forgery were rampant, down to the
present, when the silliest fictions are circulated in
religious tracts and periodicals, your Church has con
served the precious art of hoodwinking its devotees. I
say your Church, because the spirit and policy of every
sect has been essentially the same.
�Inspiration.
67
I observe in your preface that you “ hardly know an
argument waged at the present day on the Secularist
platforms which does not derive all its cogency from
the false impression which we have ourselves given
about the nature and claims of the Bible.” If you
honestly believe this, you are basking in afooPs paradise.
It is true that Secularists point out the self-contra
dictions, the absurdities, the immoralities, the in
decencies, and the scientific and historical blunders of
the Bible. But if you could purge the Bible of all
these, if you could abolish the peccant parts from
human memory, so that no one could ever know that
they existed, you would find the Secularist, or the
“ infidel,” ready with strong and plentiful arguments
against the inspiration of the rest. You cannot cheat
us by flinging overboard what you consider contraband.
We object to your ship, your flag, your figure-head,
and your cargo. We shall never be satisfied until the
Bible ranks with other books, and is judged by human
standards. We shall wage our battle against Chris
tianity until it ceases to exist. We are pledged to
oppose every species of supernaturalism, whether it
assumes the lordly air of infallible authority or the
humbler attitude of defence and apology.
You admit that Biblical criticism is very largely the
work of rationalists, though you “ do not refuse to
build a church because the masons employed are Free
thinkers.” The illustration is an unfortunate one. Do
you suppose the Freethinking masons are building for
you? Will the clergy play the part of architects,
while the materials are supplied and wrought by their
superiors ? You deceive yourself if you think so.
Scientific criticism has not finished its work on your
creed. Its solvent influence cannot be arrested. You
admit that much has been destroyed, and the fate of
the rest is equally certain. You are like a Russian
traveller, chased by wolves. What you fling to your
pursuers only whets their appetite for more. There is
no shelter in sight, the snowy steppe stretches out
�68
Letters to the Clergy.
illimitably, and the age of miracles is past. You will
be surrounded, and every bone will be neatly picked.
You waste your time in telling Agnostics and
Rationalists that there is a “ middle course ” between
the old doctrine of inspiration and the theory that the
Bible “ is not different from the Sacred Literatures of
other Religions.” Were your Scriptures a greater
monument of genius and power than its rivals, it would
still be open to the fundamental objections which apply
to all revelations. The rationalist rejects miracles in
literature as well as in physics. All the books in
existence were written by men, and all of them,
including the Bible, bear the unmistakeable marks of
their human origin.
You are too sagacious and well-informed not to seethat the Bible does bear these incontestible marks of a
human production. Consequently you are anxious to
get rid of the “ cast-iron theory of inspiration,” accord
ing to which every book, every chapter, and every
verse of Scripture is directly inspired by an infallible
mind. You declare it “ almost incredible that any
reasonable person could entertain ” such a theory.
But I must remind you that this is still the official
theory of nearly all the churches. Just as the Church
of England insists on its Articles being taken in the
“ plain grammatical sense,” so the ministers of almost
every denomination present the Word of God as textu
ally inspired. They make reservations in controversy,
and subtle distinctions in books for educated readers,,
but the “ cast-iron theory,” is implied in the majority
of their sermons, and openly taught in Sunday-schools.
There are, indeed, some eminent ministers who are
accounted “ reasonable persons,” and who nevertheless
teach what is “ almost incredible.” Mr. Spurgeon,
for instance, has recently declared his solemn con
viction that every word of the Bible, from Genesis to
Revelation, is absolutely true. It must be allowed,
however, that this view, is becoming more and more
impossible in these days of general education; and if
�Inspiration.
69
your Bible is to be saved out of the storm of debate,
it can only be by changing the old theory of inspiration,
Whether the change can be successfully made, or
whether the success can be permanent, is quite another
matter. You have your opinion, I have mine, and we
must agree to differ.
There is one aspect of the question which you over
look, and the point it involves is more vital than any
you have considered. If the Bible is inspired at all it
must be inspired in the original tongues. Those who
cannot read Greek and Hebrew are without an inspired
Bible. A translation is the work of fallible scholars.
However accurate they may be, they must make mis
takes ; however honest they may be, they will be
influenced by prepossessions; however learned they
may be, they must find it impossible to overcome the
difficulty which arises from the diverse genius of
different languages. Sir William Drummond was un
acquainted with any two Hebrew scholars who trans
lated any two consecutive verses alike; and although
Greek is more precise in construction, and less obscure
in consequence of its varied literature, there are a host
of conflicting readings of texts in the New Testament.
In any case, therefore, unless we meet with the miracle
of an inspired translator, it is absolutely impossible for
-an ordinary Englishman—who must be saved or
■damned in English—to have an inspired Bible. What
is revelation to the reader of Greek and Hebrew is
•only hearsay to the readers of translations. They may
catch gleams of the poetry, master the philosophy, and
understand the ethical teaching; but they can never
be sure of possessing an exact knowledge of the divine
or doctrinal parts of the revelation, which may lurk
unperceived or appear perverted in an ill-rendered text.
The Catholic has a way out of this difficulty, for the
voice of God remains with the Church, and enables
her to decide infallibly what is the right interpretation
-of Scripture. But the Protestant has no way of
-escape, and unless he is a Greek and Hebrew scholar
�70
Letters to the Clergy.
he is without an inspired book. You might call the'
English Bible an approximate revelation, but I regard
this as an absurdity. Revelation means certitude/ and
certitude has no degrees. Besides, it appears to me
that an omniscient God is able to speak in English,
and that he would do so if he had anything to com
municate to Englishmen. I cannot believe he would
send his message through foreign channels, and place
us at the mercy of translators and interpreters.
My own opinion is that not one Christian in a
thousand has ever given five minutes’ thought to the
question of inspiration. “The point which strikes us,”
you write, “ is that Christians are more certain that
the Bible is inspired than they are of the grounds of
their certainty.” What is this but saying that their
certainty is only acquiescence, and their belief only a
superstition ?
Before I deal with your definition of inspiration I
will go to the etymology of the word. I will ascertain
what it originally meant, and I will inquire what it
still means among savages and barbarians. There is
nothing like going to the roots of a question. A. religion,
which comes to us from a remote past cannot be
understood without a knowledge of its primitive
character.
The term Inspiration comes from the Latin in, and
spiro to breathe. From this also we derive the word
spint. Now, among barbarous people, the breath is a
symbol of the soul, which is supposed to go in and out
of the body, in trance or dreams, through the organsof respiration ; and there is nothing more certain than
that the primitive idea of inspiration was the actual
possession of a human organism by the spirit of the
god. “ The inspiration or breathing-in of a spirit intothe body of a priest or seer,” says Tylor, “ appears to
such people a mechanical action, like pouring water
into a jug.” The god enters the man’s body, and talks
with his voice, and “ the convulsions, the unearthly
voice in which the possessed priest answers in the-
�Inspiration.
71
name of the deity within, and his falling into stupor
when the god departs, all fit together, and in all
?uarters of the world the oracle-priests and diviners by
amiliar spirits seem really diseased in body and mind,,
and deluded by their own feelings, as well as skilled in
cheating their votaries by sham symptoms and cunning
answers.”
This view is supported by a study of the Old
Testament. Dr. Maudsley is of opinion that Ezekiel
and Hosea, to say nothing of other prophets, were
mad; and certainly no man in his senses would spend
nearly four hundred days besieging a tile, or marry a
degraded prostitute. When the Hebrew prophets
opened their mouths they said “ Thus saith the Lord/7
Their messages were plain and peremptory. It was
not they who spoke, but the Deity through their lips.
Coming to the New Testament, also, we find the
primitive theory still current. When the Holy Ghost
descended on the Apostles they spoke with strange
tongues. Paul himself is sometimes careful to dis
tinguish between his personal teaching and the direct
commands of God. He ridiculed, though he admitted,
the gift of tongues. Doubtless he heard too much of
what Tylor calls “ the unearthly voice,” which still
survives in the Christian pulpit, for artificial tones are
thought the proper vehicle for the language of inspira
tion.
Among the Arabs of the Soudan there is an implicit
belief in the primitive idea of inspiration. The deity
speaks through the dervishes, and the Mahdi, without
question, utters the authentic oracles of God. Similarly,
tne ancient Jews, who were a branch of the same
Semitic stem, and in very much the same stage of
religious culture, looked to their prophets as mouth
pieces of Jahveh. The contention is absurd that this
view of inspiration grew up after the time of Ezra. It
only became systematised and retrospective. Inspira
tion ceased to be current simply because a wellorganised theocracy set its face against unlicensed
�72
Letters to the Clergy.
traders, and because when the monarchy had disappeared
there was no longer room for prophetical dictators.
Having dealt with the primitive meaning of Inspira
tion, which you were perhaps too discreet to mention,
I come to the present use of the word. Not only is the
Bible said to be inspired, but the same is said of the
orator and the poet. This implies a gradual secularisa
tion of the idea. The teacher, the enthusiast, the
prophet, is no longer the. oracle of an indwelling
divinity. Genius has ceased to be what it once was, a
spirit attending a man and speaking through him; it
means no more than a natural exaltation of certain
mental or moral powers. It would seem that the time
is approaching when the word Inspiration will be
emptied of all supernatural meaning. When that time
arrives, as it assuredly will, I very much doubt if the
Bible will hold its place at the top of our literature.
There are splendid things, when adequately translated,
in the old Scriptures of India, and the great voices of
Greece and Rome carry a high message. Nor did the
vein of Inspiration close with the ancients. Poets,
thinkers, and moralists, as lofty as any of antiquity,
have been amongst us, and only require age to mellow
their golden reputations. One of them, the mightiest
in the roll of fame, the magisterial genius of this planet,
lived, died, and was buried in our own England. Upon
his brow sits the shadow of thought beyond the scope
of the bards of Israel; his eye has depth within depth,
until the beholder is lost in its profundity; every
passion trembles on his mobile lips; and in the corners
of his mouth there lurk the subtle sprites of wit and
humor—a wit as nimble as the lightning, a humor as
sweet and impartial as the sunshine. His very language
is divine, speaking every note from the whisper of love
to the tempest of wrath, from the mother’s lullaby to
the hero’s challenge, from the soft flutings of sylvan
peace to the thunder-roll of battle and death. Let
the poets and prophets of Israel approach. The
mighty palace of his genius shall find them all an
�Inspiration.
7.3
appropriate apartment, leaving a host of chambers to
spare, in some of which the decorations are too lovely
for their stern regard.
You contend, however, that Shakespeare was not
inspired. You claim Inspiration solely for the writers
of the Bible. The Book of Jonah is, in that sense,
more precious than “ Hamlet,” the Song of Solomon
than “ A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” the story of
Samson than the tragedy of Lear or Othello. What,
then, do you mean by Inspiration ? I seek in your
pages for a definition, and I cannot even find a descrip
tion. You move in a vicious circle, making no more
progress than a gin-horse. You remind me of Mr.
Micawber’s steed, who was all action and no go.
“ We mean by Inspiration,” you say, “ exactly those
qualities and characteristics which are the marks or
notes of the Bible.” This is vague enough for a Pagan
oracle. But you improve on it a few pages further on.
You there say—“ What is Inspiration? We have to
answer, precisely that which the Bible is.” In other
words, the Bible is inspired, and Inspiration is the
Bible.
You seem to me to be feebly following in the foot
steps of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. You have his
equivocalness without his genius, his mysteriousness
without his flashes of light. When he said certain
things in the Bible “find me ” he was expressing a real
truth, though in a mystical manner; but when you
speak of “ marks and notes ” of the Bible, without
telling what they are, or giving the slightest hint as to
how they may be recognised, you are only darkening
the obscurity you pretend to enlighten.
Your real drift is not to be discovered in your defini
tions, but in your incidental remarks. You say the
Bible “ reveals another Order, a Kingdom of Heaven,
a view of human nature and of human destiny which
lies quite beyond our ken.” Its writers are inspired
“as revealers of God, of God’s purposes, of God’s
methods.” The whole book is inspired because “by
F
�74:
Letters to the Clergy.
reading it and studying it we find our way to God, we
find His will for us, and we find out how we can conform
ourselves to His will.”
Does it not occur to you that the Mohammedans can
say the same of the Koran, the Brahmins of the
Vedas, the Buddhists of their many Scriptures, and
even the Mormons and the Jezreelites of Joe Smith's
gold tablets and James White's flying roll? Is it
not a fact that, taking the world as a whole, people
find their “ way to God ” through the Bibles of their
native lands? Is it not a matter of training and
habit? Can it be said that so many as one in a
thousand ever forsake the Scriptures of their fathers’
faith for the Scriptures of another creed ? If you had
been born and bred in Turkey, would you not have
defended the Koran by the same specious arguments
as you now employ in defence of the Bible ?
I cannot help saying that you treat the Bible as a
fetish. Y ou are ready to admit that the tales of its
manufacture are very questionable ; you are willing to
paint it afresh, and put it in a new light; but you
will not abandon the idol, and trust to your own reason
and conscience for guidance. You allow, for instance,
that Paul was not the author of several epistles that
bear his name. One of his disciples “ would not
hesitate to veil his own hand under the form of a letter
from his master,” and “ what we call forgery he would
call modesty.” But this does not interfere with the
inspiration of such documents; there they are in the
Blessed Book, a precious possession for ever!
Pardon me for holding that you are mistaken. I
do not believe your view will commend itself to the
common sense of mankind. Paul was believed to have
been miraculously converted, and selected to preach
the Gospel to the Gentiles. That belief gave a stamp
of authority to his writings. But if it is proved that
he never wrote many of the documents bearing his
name, they will inevitably lose that stamp of authority,
and come to be regarded as the writings of unknown
�Inspiration.
75
and irresponsible imitators. Nay, more, the whole
Bible will suffer from such exposure. A few chambers
may remain intact, but the rest of the edifice will be
in ruins.
What is really left in your theory of Inspiration ?
You concede that the Bible writers were fallible, that
they made gross mistakes in science and history, and
even blasphemed the Deity in their pitiable ignorance.
In what department then were they inspired? I
deduce your answer from a remark on the Epistles to
the Galatians, which displays “ inspired dealing with
ethical questions.’’’ You assert that Paul’s ideas had
not “ their genesis in the character or training of the
writer,” and “ can only be explained by referring them
to the Eternal Mind itself.”
Here then is your last plank. The Bible is ethically
inspired. You cling to Bible morality as your rock
of ages in the weltering sea of discussion. But the
event may prove you are trusting to a' treacherous
support. Modern criticism is not inclined to respect
your last refuge. It points to the moral crudities of
the Bible, which, on your own admission, make “ a very
pretty picture ” when they are collected together. But
that is not all. Were a similar collection made of all
its best teachings, its loftiest appeals and its wisest
apophthegms, every item could be amply paralleled in
the profane writings of antiquity; and some elements
of morality could be found in those writings which are
wanting in your Bible. Whoever asserts that the
Bible contains any ethical teaching at once new and
true, is an ignoramus or an impostor. Whoever, there
fore, asserts that the morality of the Bible is inspired,
occupies a position which, if he were wise, he would
never seek to justify by reason, but would only vin
dicate
faith.
�Letters to the Clergy.
76
THE CREDENTIALS OF THE GOSPEL.
TO
THE REV. PROFESSOR
JOSEPH AGAR
BEET.
Sir,—
I purpose to criticise your Fernley Lecture
delivered at Sheffield on the fifth of August, entitled
“ The Credentials of the Gospel: a Statement of the
Reason of the Christian Hope.” I understand the
Lecture is to he amplified into a volume, and
supported with an army of references. But, as it
stands, it contains the whole of your argument, and
a concise statement is preferable to a diffuse one as a
basis of discussion. It affords less opportunity for
deviating into side-issues, or getting lost in a crowd
of authorities.
Your lecture purports “ to test the firm and broad
foundation on which rests the Chistian hope.” It is
characteristic of the present state of religious con
troversy that you say nothing as to the Christian fear.
The doctrine of Hell is gradually disappearing. Heaven
is promised to believers, and in the words of Hamlet
“the rest is silence.’"’ I have no doubt that this com
promise will be serviceable for some time. But it
cannot be permanent. Heaven and Hell are logical
correlatives.
They are like the Siamese twins.
Destroy the one, and the other may linger for awhile,
but its doom is sealed. Hope and fear move forward
together. They are inseparably linked, and both are
extinguished by knowledge. Where we are certain,
we do not conjecture ; but where there is incertitude,
the imagination will play in all directions.
“ Our investigation,” you premise, “ shall be on
methods scientific and philosophical.’"’ I do not con
sider you have kept your promise. It is not scientific
to reiterate dogmas; it is not philosophic to ignore
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
77
replies, as the hunted ostrich ignores its pursuers. You
do not “ test ” the foundation of your faith. You
merely give a ground-plan of the building.
You affirm that “ the foundation and root and
source of all religion ” is “ the inborn moral sense.”
The metaphor is mixed, and the assertion is false.
Nothing is more certain than that religion and morality
are of separate origin and have no necessary connexion.
Such connexion as they have is formed gradually.
It is conspicuous in high civilisations, but almost
imperceptible in the lowest stages of culture. “ Many
religions of the lower races,” as Tylor says, “ have
little to do with moral conduct?’ The gods of an
American or African savage “ may require him to do
his duty towards them,” but “ it does not follow that
they should concern themselves with his doing duty to his
neighbor.” A robber, a brute, or even a murderer is
not necessarily hateful to the gods; in fact, suih
a man is often a great medicine-man or priest.
Among the lower moral strata of our European
population, two classes noted for piety are brigands
and prostitutes. Religion, as the practical recog
nition of invisible powers, is most prevalent among
savages and barbarians. In this sense modern Europe
is less religious than mediseval Europe, and the countries
which are most saturated with religion are the most
ignorant and degraded. The more progress men make
in mental and moral culture the less does religion over
shadow their lives. Ethical science emerges as reli
gious influence declines, and in the words of Lecky,
“ the formation of a moral philosophy is usually the
first step in the decadence of religions.”
The association of religion with morality is, indeed,
an inevitable concession of the dogmatic to the useful.
While self-preservation is the first law of nature, every
thing must yield to the necessities of personal and
social life. Natural selection weeds out the most
superstitious in the struggle for existence. The main
current of religion must accommodate itself to the
�78
Letters to the Olergy.
average conditions of contemporary civilisation. Appa
rently it is religion that dictates, but in reality it obeys,
just as the laws in a constitutional monarchy are
enacted by Parliament though executed in the name of
the Crown. Religion conforms to what it cannot
avert, and finally, after a long succession of changes, it
descends to the position of a servant of its old subject,
whose interests it pretends to safeguard, just as
the monarchy ends by posing as the bulwark of the
people’s liberties. By this time it has lost its once
imperial tones, it speaks in apologetic accents, and
instead of commanding earth in the name of heaven,
it proffers itself as an occult assistant of secular
interests. When we are told that religion is a powerful
aid to morality, we are also reminded that morality
occupies the seat of sovereignty.
With regard to our “ inborn moral sense/’ I admit
its reality, as I admit the reality of our musical sense
or our mathematical sense. But I deny its being
“ inborn ” except as inherited. It is a product of
evolution, like all the rest of our faculties, and it has
all degrees of development, from the incipiency of the
congenital criminal to the relative perfection of the
true philanthropist.
I am occupying no novel position. Giants . of
thought, such as Darwin and Spencer, to say nothing
of older writers, have laboriously constructed it, and
I do no more than take advantage of their labors.
While the books of such men are in the hands of edu
cated readers, it is idle, nay ludicrous, to go on assert
ing the old doctrines as though they were unchallenged.
It is undignified, no less than futile, to sit upon the
shore and ignore the flowing tide. Mrs. Partington
herself, sweeping back the Atlantic with her broom,
was less absurd; for her exertions were heroic, and she
kept on the safe side of the waves without beating a
sudden and ignominious retreat.
You begin the real argument of your lecture by
appealing to our “ moral judgments/’ which “ differ in
�The Credentials of the G-ospel.
79
kind and differ infinitely from all others?’ You assert
that this difference “ is revealed by the different
emotions worked in us by a great calamity and a great
crime.”
This is very vague language. What is it that
makes us regard calamities and crimes differently?
Is it not a question of agency? We feel no resent
ment against a flood or a fire. Why? Because they
are insensitive, and unamenable to motives. Men, on
the other hand,- are amenable to motives, and their
wrong-doing excites resentment; first, in those they
directly injure; and, secondly, in society at large. I
do not mean that the feeling is a simple one. It in
cludes hatred—which is only an intense form of dislike
— fear, wounded self-love, a sense of disturbance, and,
in many cases, though not in all, an imaginative per
ception of danger to the community.
So much for the feeling. The judgment is entirely
different. It is purely intellectual. Some cases are
perfectly obvious. The “ extreme cases ” you refer to
are as easy of decision as whether water is good to
drink or bread to eat. But the vaster multitude of
intermediate cases call for great exercise of the
mental powers. This is the reason why many persons
of excellent dispositions are so often p.erverse in their
moral judgments Even your moral judgment is
defective, or you would not instance as “ a villain of
very deep dye” a man who has “deliberately, and
without provocation, killed his mother.” I should say
that a man who murders his mother, without provocation,
is not a villain, but a lunatic.
“ These confident judgments,” you say, “ imply an
infallible standard of comparison.” What is an in
fallible standard ? I do not understand the adjective.
A standard is simply a standard. It may be applied
with all degrees of efficiency. A foot-rule is a foot
rule. One man uses it well, and another ill; one will
take the dimensions of a room with reasonable accu
racy, and another make exasperating blunders. '£he
�80
Letters to the Clergy.
“infallibility” must be in the application of the
standard.
Your confusion on this subject is such that I feel no
surprise at your silence as to the standard itself. You
do not say what it is. You call it infallible, but that
is no information. You speak of “ an eternal law of
right,” and of the “ voice ” within us. But the voice
is, in my opinion, only the echo of our own sentiments ;
while the “ eternal law of right” may mean anything
or nothing until it is explained. Words like eternal
and infallible do not enlighten me. I want to know
what is your “ law of right.” That is an indispensable
preliminary.
When you tell me that the moral judgment is
“ universal,” I must deny the proposition if it means
that “ all men everywhere know that treachery, lying,
theft, adultery and murder are condemned by a law
which speaks with an unerring voice of indisputable
authority.” The Hindu Thug deems it right to
murder, and the Thugs of your Church, in former
ages, thought it a pious duty to slay heretics and
infidels. Adultery among women is held to be wrong
in most countries, but millions of savages would laugh
at you if you told them that adultery among men was
either a crime or a vice. Theft and treachery are
wrong within the tribe or association, but frequently a
virtue if practised on outsiders. Lying is only a vice
within the same limits. These statements are indis
putable, and I understand why you shun such witnesses
as “ modern travellers or missionaries.” The breath
of a single one of them would shatter the very basis of
your argument.
In a certain sense, however, I agree with your
statement that “ to the mysterious tribunal within
appeals all external teaching, moral or religious.”
The only thing I object to is the epithet of “ mysteri
ous.” For the rest, your statement bears out my
contention that morality is primary, and not secondary
to religion. Our reason is the proper judge of
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
81
Revelation on the intellectual side, and our moral
sense its judge on the ethical side. But this makes a
clean sweep of every system which is based on faith.
“ The teaching of Jesus,” you say, “is no excep
tion.” I agree with you. But do you see the logical
result of this admission ? If my moral sense is the
judge of his teaching, in what sense can that teaching
be called divine ? If it be divine, my moral sense
must be diviner still. And if I have a faculty which
is able to sit in judgment on his teaching, I have a
faculty which would, in the course of time, enable me
to discover all that is best in it without his assistance.
“We wait with intense interest,” you say, “ to
hear the verdict and sentence on the gospel of Christ
pronounced by this unerring judge.” The attitude
would do you credit if it were not assumed. The fact
is, you are not waiting. You and your co-religionists
never did wait. You were brought up as Christians
because you were born in a Christian country, just as
you would have been brought up as Mohammedans if
you had been born in Turkey. You did not make up
your minds ; they were made up for you. Education
and authority have determined your creed. You were
prejudiced in favor of Christianity. You took sides
before you were able to judge. And you can only say
that you are waiting for a verdict on Christianity in
the sense in which an advocate is waiting for the
decision of the judge and jury.
How little you are waiting is seen from your very
next sentence. You declare that “The judgment is
decisive.” But you do not say whose judgement. You
affirm that “ The moral teaching of the New Testa
ment commends itself at once and irresistibly to our
moral sense as right and good.” Whose is our moral
sense ? I presume you mean the moral sense of
Christians. And why do you confuse “ the teaching of
Jesus” with “the moral teaching of the New Testa
ment ?” Does not the second half of the Bible con
tain the teaching of Peter, James, John, Paul, and
�82
Letters to the Clergy.
several unknown writers, as well as the teaching of
Jesus Christ ? Finally, how does the moral teaching
of the New Testament commend itself at once and
irresistibly to our moral sense, when thousands of books
and articles have been written by honest and able men
and women to show that Christian morality is often
imperfect.and sometimes pernicious1?
You are obviously addressing Christians, and Chris
tians only, when you assert that “ every moral excel
lence ” is “ but a feature ” in the “portrait’’ of Jesus
Christ. This is not a view which commends itself to
Freethinkers, nor does it seem to commend itself to
the Buddhists and Confucians among whom your missionaries labor. Unfortunately you do not enter into
details. Your panegyric is general, and I can only
raise a general objection. That the Jesus of the Gospels
was a bad man is not often maintained, nor is it likely that
his biographers would depict him as such, seeing he was
the object of their adoration. But there are many
degrees between badness and perfection, and Jesus does
not reach the ideal height. Many elements of greatness
were lacking in his character. The fact is, no man
that ever lived was perfect. It is a false hero-worship
which refuses to see most obvious failings. And the
arbitrary veneration of a single ideal must have the
effect of narrowing our sympathies and aspirations.
You tell me “ The Carpenter declares that he alone
knows God.” It is an assertion easily made, impossible
of proof, and impossible of refutation. You also say
that he makes other “unheard-of assumptions,” yet
calls himself “ meek and lowly of heart,” and “ strange
to say, we feel that these words are true.” Now
“ strange to say ” I do not feel that the words are
true. I cannot see the meekness of his denouncing
those he could not convince; or the meekness of his
extravagant railing against his religious rivals in the
capital; or the meekness of his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem amid the seditious plaudits of a fickle and
fanatical mob.
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
83
That “ we see him possessing infinite power” and
“ infinite resources,” is belied by his inability to work
wonders in certain cities because of their unbelief
(Matt, xiii., 58). Did he not also feel that virtue had
gone out of him when he was touched by a diseased
woman ? Do you mean that “ infinite power ” could
feel the loss of energy ? And do you think it was a
being of “infinite power” who cried out “ O my
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ? ”
Such a dream as the Gospel life of Jesus you say
was “ never dreamed before or since,” Indeed ! Are
you unacquainted with the life of Buddha ? Did he
not renounce the splendors of a royal court for a
beggar’s robes ? Did he not wander as a poor mendicant
through the land he might have ruled as king ? Did
he not practise every form of self-sacrifice 1 Do not
the stories describe him as giving up everything for
the love of others, even yielding himself to be eaten by
a tigress, out of pity for the emaciated creature and
her famished cubs ? How beautiful is this in com
parison with the callous exclamation of St. Paul—
“ Doth God care for oxen ? ” As “ a dream ” the life
of Buddha is, in my judgment, more pathetic and
inspiring than the life of Jesus.
I pass from your panegyric on Jesus to your
doctrine of sin. You say that the vision of Jesus
“brings to light our own deep pollution.'” Do you
think that language of this kind is true or useful ? It
is the historic language of your creed, I allow, but the
modern mind is turning from it with disgust.
Dwelling upon our moral infirmities is no more
wholesome than dwelling upon our physical ailments.
The man who made a public display of his ulcers, or
made them the theme of his conversation, W’ould be
regarded as a nuisance; but the man who makes a
public exhibition of his moral maladies, and talks about
his “ deep pollution,” is regarded as a promising
candidate for heaven. I protest against this morbid
spiritualism. It does not strengthen, it enervates us ;
�84
»
Letters to the Clergy.
and too frequently it leaves more nastiness than it
finds. Evolution shows us a better method of culture.
Our vices are not diminished by studying them; they
perish of inanition through the exercise of our virtues.
Our welfare lies, not in exploring our defects, but in
practising our powers.
The clergy have always cried up original sin, and
dwelt on our “ deep pollution.” The medical quack
behaves in the same way. His object is to make us
feel desperately ill, that we may fly to him for relief.
The deeper our sense of “ corruption,” the greater the
power of the priest. He battens, like a parasite, on
the decadent side of our nature. He trades on our
misery and our fears, allowing us as much hope as
keeps us alive to patronise his nostrums.
You dilate on our sense of sin, our apprehension of
future punishment, and our expectation of future
reward. Your philosophy is very lofty in its pretensions,
but very grovelling it its essence. You deny that
virtue is its own reward, or vice its own punishment.
Where, you ask, is the punishment of the successful
rogue ; where is the reward of the martyred hero ?
There must be a future retribution to balance the
account.
Beyond the grave “ there is absolute
recompense.”
Such is your teaching, and it involves a gross
assumption as to “ the future,” and a sad misreading of
human nature.
How do you know that the next life, if there be one,
will exactly rectify the injustices of this life? If there
be a governor of the universe, the presumption is that
the polity of this w'orld is a fair sample of his methods.
Analogy would lead us to believe that what goes on
here will be continued elsewhere. On the other hand,
your crude jurisprudence would create as many evils as
it rectified. The supposition is infantile that men may
be divided into two classes, the good and the bad, the
sheep and the goats.
We are all of us mixtures.
Human character is more diversified than the ever-
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
85
changing aspects of the external world. The best man
has his failings, and the worst his redeeming qualities.
A perfect adjustment, therefore, of consequence to
conduct in a future life, would necessitate not one, but
a million heavens and hells, each of them nicely varied
and graduated for their appropriate inmates. Even
then the balance would be fatally vitiated by the
eternal rectification of temporary disorders. In short,
the idea of “ absolute recompense ” in a future life is a
childish dream, which is seen to be grotesque the
moment we try to realise its details.
Do you not see, also, that the “ absolute recompense ”
you promise on the other side of death turns morality
into huckstering 1 On this principle, virtue is only
shrewd calculation, and vice a foolish mistake. The
main-spring of your ethic is personal profit. You look
with disdain on the utilitarian, but his philosophy is
infinitely superior to yours. He makes happiness the
goal of effort, but not the mere happiness of the
individual actor.
The welfare of society is his
criterion of right and wrong. His standard is not
personal but universal. In the presence of self-sacrifice
for the good of others he is not embarrassed by your
difficulties. He is not staggered, as you are, by “ the
case of a man who has lost his life by doing a noble
action.”
I have said, and I repeat, that you misread human
nature. Can you imagine a great dramatist depicting
a hero on youi' principles?
Were the dying hero to
exclaim “ I have done right, I have lost my reward,
but God will give it me in heaven,” he would at once
alienate our sympathies. We should feel that he had
been actuated by false motives, and our interest would
vanish with the confession of his selfishness.
Do you imagine that an Atheist soldier would shun
the post of danger any more than his Christian com
rade ? Would a regiment of Freethinkers fight less
gallantly than a regiment of priests ? Did the three
hundred Spartans die in the pass of Thermopylae for
�86
»
)
i
Letters to the Clergy.
patriotism or for reward ? Did they lay down their
lives less cheerfully because they had no thought of
“ future recompense’’ ? Do you seriously suppose that
an Atheist fireman would not do his duty amid the flame
and smoke"? Would he hesitate to save the lives of
women and children because he had no hope of heaven ?
Fortunately we act upon our impulses, and not upon
the momentary calculations of expediency. Our social
instincts are not at the mercy of the schools. They
have been developed in us by ages of evolution, and
they strengthen as civilisation advances.
Self
sacrifice is an expression of sympathy, and sympathy is
independent of religion. I will do the martyrs of your
faith more justice than to suppose they were always
animated by the hope of heaven; and, on the other
hand, I trust you will concede that the martyrs of my
faith have shown equal courage with your own.
Vanini and Bruno died at the stake, without hope of a
“ future recompense.” And have you not heard of
Milliere, who bared his breast to the bullets of the
Versailles troops, and fell upon the church steps with
the cry of Vive L’Humanite upon his lips "?
The pivot of your scheme, however, is rather fear
of punishment than hope of reward. You illustrate
the line of the Roman poet that all religion began in
terror. You say we “ cannot throw off the dark
foreboding that sin will be followed by punishment/’
that “ we are compelled to believe that retribution
awaits us elsewhere/’ that “forebodings of punish
ment ” trouble us as we approach “ the dark river of
death/’ and that “ we dread the penalty of our sins.”
I am tempted to remind you of Carlyle’s grim
remark on Ignatius Loyola. When this “ saint ” was
laid low by “ the Cookery-shop and the Bordel,” he
felt he was an awful sinner, but he recovered his
health, and his puriency took the new form of Jesuitism.
His sick repentance was only a shrinking from future
punishment. “ Had he been a good and brave man,”
says Carlyle, “ he should have consented at that point
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
87
to be damned—as was clear to him that he deserved to
be.” So I am inclined to say to any man who feels he
ought to be damned—“ Go and be damned, and take it
quietly.”
Such manliness, however, is not found in Christian
sinners. They want pardon, or “ deliverance from the
future penalty of past sins.” But “the moral law
knows nothing of pardon,” and the result would be
“ despair ” if it were not for “ the Gospel of Christ,”
which “ comes to us with a voice of mercy.” A sweet
and easy Gospel indeed! It is preached from our
pulpits, but set at naught in our criminal courts.
How selfish is this Gospel! Surely when a man has
done wrong his first thought should not be for himself,
but for the victims of his wrong-doing. But on this
matter you are silent. You point him to a way of
escape, while he leaves the real burden of his sins
behind him. Is this a gospel of strength or a gospel
of weakness “? For my part, I prefer the philosophy of
old Omar Khayyam.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
I admit this is not a gospel for knaves and weaklings
It is a gospel for brave and honest men. Conduct and
consequence are inseparable in this world. The bond
cannot be brdken. Any system that teaches otherwise
is false and pernicious.
According to your philosophy, Christ not only saves
4ftom the future penalty of past sins, but also from the
power of present sin. It is possible that you believe
this, but what evidence is there to prove it ? It is
clearly impossible to examine the lives of individuals,
or to penetrate the secret recesses of personal character.
We are able, however, to judge of a general influence
by average results, and an appeal to statistics does not
show us that Christians are morally superior to
unbelievers. I defy you to adduce a single reason for
�88
Letters to the Clergy.
believing that they are so. When I was imprisoned
for bringing your religion into “ disbelief and con
tempt,” I found it was taken for granted that every
criminal belonged to some form of faith. There were
a few Jews, many Catholics, and more Protestants.
Their religion was stated on the cards affixed to their
cell-doors, mine being accurately described as “ None.”
A chapel was maintained for their devotions, and a
clergyman to physic their souls. Surely, then, you
will not maintain that unbelievers fill our gaols, or
populate them even in proportion to their numbers.
Nor can it be maintained that they neglect their share
of positive duty. They recognise the law of “ thou
shalt ” as well as the law of “ thou shalt not.” You
will find them conspicuous in every advanced move
ment ; not, perhaps, in soup, blanket, and coal societies,
which only skin and film the ulcerous sore, but in those
radical associations whose object is rather justice than
charity, and the prevention of evil rather than its
mitigation.
It is idle to tell me that the “ wonderful fitness ”
of Christianity as a moral gospel has been “ tested by
thousands of men and women.” The advocates of
Buddhism, Brahminism, or Mohammedanism might
make a similar assertion. The “ fitness ” in every case
is the result of training. What men are “ fitted ” to is
fitted to them. Had you been born and bred outside
the pale of Christendom, you would have appreciated
the “ wonderful fitness ” of some other faith.
Thus far I do not see that you have established the
credentials of your creed. I will now follow you
through the remainder of your argument.
You erect a number of dogmas on the basis of our
ignorance of the origin of life and the evolution of
mind. But this is entirely illegitimate. We are not
entitled to reason from our ignorance. Every argu
ment must be based on what we know. And while
science is seeking a solution of new problems, I would
remind you that its solution of old problems was always
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
89
in opposition to religious dogmas. The clergy have
always been wrong, and the presumption is that they
are still wrong. I would also observe that the doc
trines of the existence of God and the immortality of
the soul prevailed for thousands of years before Chris
tianity was born, and are therefore no part of the
speciality of your faith.
You are more to the point in asserting that “ one
religion”—to wit, your own—“'occupies a place of
unique superiority.” Yet the statement is somewhat
vague. I understand “unique,” and I understand
“ superiority,” but I cannot put them together as
adjective and substantive. What is unique is not
superior, and what is superior is not unique.
You assert that “ all Christian nations stand im
measurably above all others.” Do you include
Abyssinia in “ all Christian nations,” and if not, why
not1? Or do you regard it as “immeasurably above”
Ceylon in morals or China in civilisation ?
What, also, do you mean by asserting that “ in spite
of tlieir many wars, the Christian nations of the world
form, in a very real sense, a political brotherhood ” ?
Where is the political brotherhood between France and
Germany, or England and Russia? Is it not a fact
that nine-tenths, at least, of the quarrels in the world
are between Christian nations? Have not Christian
nations carried the art of war to its highest develop
ment ? Do they not manufacture all the rifles, all the
cannon, and all the gunpowder, as well as all the rum,
brandy, gin, and whiskey? You yourself admit that
“ No army has the slightest hope of victory unless
armed with the weapons and directed by the strategy
of Christian nations.” You add triumphantly that
“ The sword has passed into the hands of those nations
who recognise the unique majesty of the lowly
Nazarene.”
This is the only part of your lecture with which I
have the honor to agree. I would remark, however,
that the military power of Christendom has nothing
G
e
�90
Letters to the Clergy.
whatever to do with Christianity. Where were the
“ weapons 33 and the “ strategy33 of your faith when it
vainly hurled crusade after crusade, for three centuries,
against the infidel Saracens ? Where were the
“ weapons 33 and the “ strategy ” of your faith in the
seventh and eighth centuries, when the successors of
Mohammed swept Christianity out of Asia and Africa ?
Did not the Cross go down before the Crescent on a
thousand battle-fields ? And what has turned the
tables ? What has put the power of the sword into
the hands of Christian nations ? Is it not that Science
which the Church fought tooth and nail, with the
vigilance of a sleuth-hound and the ferocity of a tiger?
Without Science, the British troops would not
have slaughtered the Soudanese. Without science,
England would have established no empire in India;
without science, the Anglo-Saxon race would never
have colonised the world. Had Christianity succeeded
in strangling Science, as she furiously endeavored,
Europe would still be plunged in barbarism, and would
have to hold its own against the hordes of Asia and
Africa by sheer physical valor.
It is well that civilisation gives us the means of
defending it. It is well that Europe is for ever safe
from the incursions of outer barbarians. But how
strange the eulogy of our military prowess sounds
from the lips of one who “ recognises the unique
majesty of the lowly Nazarene.” Did he not declare
that whoso took the sword should perish by the sword ?
Did he not teach the sinfulness of resisting evil ? Did
he not command his disciples to present their cheeks
humbly to the smiter ? Are you not glorifying Science
instead of Christianity ? Are you not riding roughshod
over the plainest teachings of your master ? How will
you present yourself at the Day of Judgment before
the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount ?
With respect to Art, you assert that it “owns, the
supremacy of Christ.” You remark that “ Non
Christian nations contribute nothing to our galleries of
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
91
painting and sculpture, or to the world's treasury of
music/' The grain of truth in these statements is
simply this, that Europe leads the world’s culture.
But it did this before Christianity appeared, and the
explanation is not religious but physical. Christianity
has not given the Abyssinians any ascendancy. It will
not give it to converted negroes or South Sea islanders.
The question of superiority is simply one of race and
climate.
Given the Caucasian, with his large and
complex brain, and his superior facial angle, and he is
bound to lead the march of progress.
Science,
literature, and art are not the product of Christianity ;
they are the product of the Caucasian brain. This
was true before Christianity appeared, and it will be
true when Christianity has vanished.
Your remarks on the impermanence of ancient civili
sation, as compared with the modern, are simply
amazing. Dating from the time of Charlemagne,
which is a very liberal concession, we find modern
Europe to be about eleven hundred years old; and
during a large portion of that period it is only by
courtesy that the West can be called civilised. The
existence of Rome, under the Republic and the Empire,
was nearly as prolonged, and the older civilisation of
Egypt stretched back into the deepest mists of
antiquity. It is true that Greece had but a brief
career of glory, for she fell under the mightier sway
of Rome. She was not conquered, however; or, if
she was, she avenged herself. She liberalised her
ostensible conquerors, and bequeathed the bases of our
modern civilisation. Dig where you will, you come to
Greece at last. Your very New Testament is written
in Greek, and it was the Grecian mind that gave Chris
tianity all its fecund power.
It is perfectly true that Christianity arose in an age
of decadence, and its doctrines and ethics savor of its
origin. But there is, as I have already urged, no
mystery in the remarkable progress of Europe after
the long night of the Dark Ages. You say that
�Letters to the Clergy.
“ this phenomenon ”—the advance of Christian
countries—“ demands explanation.”
I assert that
the explanation has been given. Modern civilisation
arose among the same race, and in the same part of
the world, as that in which the immediately preceding
civilisation had flourished.
The Renaissance itself
began in the very country which had been the seat of
the Roman empire. Your assertion, therefore, that
“ of the pre-eminence of the Christian nations, no
explanation can hr. found except in their Christianity
is a piece of baseless dogmatism.
Why the Turks have stagnated and decayed, while
the Hungarians have advanced and improved, is a more
complicated problem than you seem to imagine. If
Christianity made all the difference, I ask you why
Christianity did not civilise Abyssinia? There are
political and climatic differences of the highest im
portance, as will be admitted by every student of
history and ethnology.
With respect to Christianity itself, I know not. why
you should say that it “arose suddenly.” It is in
disputable that Jesus Christ—if he existed was born
in a particular year; but that is the only element of
“suddenness” in the history of your faith. Many
influences besides that of the Prophet of Nazareth
contributed to the formation of Christianity. This is
such a commonplace of criticism that I will not con
descend to ai'gue it. Your religion is as much a product
of evolution as any othei’ system with which we are
acquainted.
That Christianity “ overspread the mightiest empire
in the world” is undoubtedly true. It had converts in
all parts of the Roman empire. But they scarcely
numbered a twentieth of the population when it was
made the state religion by Constantine. From that
moment, it was not persuasion that made converts, but
wholesale bribery and persecution. Proscription, fine,
imprisonment, and murder, were the agencies by which
the triumph of Christianity was completely secured.
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
93
You assert that Christianity is “ now spreading to
the ends of the earth.” I deny it. The Christian
populations outside Europe are descended from
European emigrants. The extension is merely physical.
What impression have you made on the heathen
populations of Asia and Africa ? Is not the failure
of your missions a byeword 1
. Nor can I follow your assertion that “ The entire
history of man affords no example of personal influence,
and of devotion to and confidence in a person, which
can for a moment be compared to the influence exerted
by, and the devotion paid to, Jesus of Nazareth.” You
are only speaking as a Christian to Christians. The
names of Mohammed and Buddha are a sufficient
refutation of your statement.
I am astounded at your assertion that “ Paul’s firm
belief of the Gospel reveals the deep impression made
upon him by the personality of Jesus.” Is there the
slightest evidence that Paul ever saw or heard Jesus ?
Did he not despise and persecute his followers'? Was
he not converted by a miracle or a sunstroke ? And is
it not a fact that the Jesus of Paul’s epistles is far
more a doctrine than a person ? I appeal to every
one who has read his epistles apart from the four
Gospels.
Paul did, indeed, declare that Jesus had risen from
the dead. But what is his testimony worth ? Do not
his statements in Corinthians flatly contradict the
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ? Did he not
disbelieve the Resurrection on its intrinsic evidence ?
Is not the fact apparent from his persecution of its
believers before his strange experience near Damascus ?
Does he not place this “ appearance ” of Jesus on a
level with his appearances to the eleven ? And is not
his testimony vitiated by this hopeless confusion of the
subjective and the objective ?
Ci Was the dead body of Christ raised to life1?” you
ask ; and you add that “ upon this matter of historic
fact depend the highest hopes of man.” If you believe
�94
Letters to the Clergy.
this, as I have no doubt you do, it is natural that you
should make a little evidence go a very long way.
You make no attempt to prove the Resurrection.
You simply ask the sceptic “ How do you account for
this and that if he did not rise V’ And the this and
that are not facts of ordinary history, buty»ar£ of your
own records. You ask the sceptic to explain the
“ belief ” in the Resurrection. How do you explain
the belief of the Mormons in Joe Smith’s gold tablets ?
Mr, Froude tells us of Julius Caesar that “the
enthusiasm of the multitude refused to believe that he
was dead. He was supposed to have ascended into
heaven, not in adulatory metaphor, but in literal and
prosaic fact.” How do you explain that ?
You say that the story of Christas resurrection was
“ accepted by thousands of Jews.” The statement is
founded on your own dubious records, written long
after the time. But if it be true it proves nothing,
unless the Jews were men of unconquerable incredulity,
whereas they were grossly superstitious. If Jesus did
rise from the dead, the great wonder is that all the
Jews did not believe it. “It must be admitted,” says
Diderot, “ that the Jews were a wonderful people;
everywhere one has seen peoples deluded by a single
false miracle, and Jesus Christ was unable to impress
the Jews with an infinity of true ones.” The incre
dulity of the Jews is a greater miracle than thq
Resurrection.
What you have to say about the dead body of
Jesus shows a great want of historic perspective.
How can it be affirmed that “ the most powerful party
in Jerusalem had the strongest motive ” for disproving
the story of the resurrection ? They had put Jesus
out of the way, his disciples were a mere handful of
insignificant men, and what did it matter if they
talked about his having risen from the dead ? It
was a harmless craze, and the priestly party had other
matters to attend to. That they were “ exposed to a
deadly peril ” is a wild assumption, utterly at variance
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
95
with what is known of the very slight spread of
Christianity among the Jews. Had it spread like a
wildfire, and become threatening, and had the priests
been publicly challenged to produce the dead body,
there would be something in their silence. But
nothing of the sort happened. Even if it had, and
if after the lapse of months or years the sepulchre
had been found empty, the priests might justly have
answered that the body had not been buried by them,
but by one of Jesus’s disciples, and that the disappear
ance of a corpse, in such circumstances, was anything
but miraculous.
Still more absurd, if possible, is your plea that the
disciples would not have shown such courage in pro
pagating a delusion. The strength of a conviction is
no proof of its validity. History shows us that men
have displayed the most heroic courage in defending
falsehood and imposture. Self-sacrifice proves a man
to be in earnest, but does not prove him to be in the
right.
You say that the Resurrection “ has held captive
many of the most intelligent and cultured of men,
and now for many centuries nearly all the best of
men.” You forget that these meu have been trained
to believe it. VVith the exception of Paul, whose
conversion, as I have said, was due to a miracle or a
sunstroke, how many “ intelligent and cultured ” men
accepted the Resurrection in the primitive ages ? Is it
not a fact that Christianity spread among the poor, the
lowly and the illiterate ? Is it not aiso a fact, as
Gibbon observes, that the illustrious Pagans of that
period considered the Christians “ only as obstinate and
perverse enthusiasts, who exacted an implicit submis
sion to their mysterious doctrines, without Jbeing able
to produce a single argument that could engage the
attention of men of sense and learning ” “?
Passing to the question of miracles in general, you
admit that “miracles do not happen,” but you deny
the right of anyone to say that they never did.
�96
Letters to the Clergy.
Theoretically you may be correct, but practically you
are wrong. Men cannot help reading the past by the
present, and if miracles do not happen now the inevitable
presumption is that they never did happen. Against
this presumption you must bring an overwhelming array
of evidence in favor of any particular miracle, and such
an array of evidence is never produced. To talk about
the “mysteries of nature is nothing but jugglery. If
we cannot, at present, explain the origin of life, we" know
what kind of evidence is requisite to justify us in
believing that a man rose from the dead. And assuredly
you will never impress a man of ordinary culture by
telling him that when he lifts a weight he “ defies the
law of gravitation?"’
If the Resurrection be a delusion, you remark that
a delusion has saved the world. ” To prove this extra
ordinary . paradox, you paint in dark tints the
“corruption” of the Roman empire, and in light tints
the morality of Christendom. Does it not occur to you
that some progress might be expected in two thousand
years ? Is it fair, is it rational, to point to the im
proved morality of this sceptical age, and cry “ Behold
the fruits of eighteen centuries of Christianity ? ”
Turn to Mr. Cotter Morison’s book on The Service of
Man, and read his chapter on “ Morality in the Ages of
Faith.” Take the case of France alone, and see the
effect of Christianity on private and public life. “ The
court of the later Valois/’ says Mr. Morison, “ is
painted for us by the garrulous Brantome; and one
fails to see how it differed, except for the worse, from
the court of Caligula or Commodus."”
The same writer puts the whole question at issue in
a few sentences.
“Do we find, as a matter of fact, that the Ages of Faith were
distinguished by a high morality ? Were they superior in this
respect to the present age, which is nearly on all hands ac
knowledged not to be an age of Faith ? The answer must be
in the negative. Taking them broadly, the Ages of Faith
were emphatically ages of crime, of gross and scandalous
wickedness, of cruelty, and, in a word, of immorality. And it
�The Credentials of the Gospel.
97
is noteworthy that, in proportion as we recede backward from
the present age and return into the Ages of Faith, we find that
the crime and the sin become denser and blacker.”
The present age is the most unbelieving and the
most moral the world has ever seen. All you can
reply is that 44 anti-Christian teachers have themselves
been trained in a moral and intellectual atmosphere
formed by many centuries of Christian influences.”
This hardly applies to John Stuart Mill, for instance,
who was trained without any religion by his sceptical
father. Besides, it is a two-edged argument. Sup
pose 1 were to say that Christians are kept in check by
secular and social opinion. Suppose I were to say that
if it were not for the secular civilisation of our age
they would return, via, the Salvation Army, to the
primitive rites and doctrines of their faith, and show,
in anarchy and barbarism, the unadulterated fruit of
the Christian tree.
If you have established the 44 Credentials of the
Gospels,” you have only done so to the satisfaction of
believers. You regard your 44 proof ” as 44 complete,”
and I have no doubt it is as complete as you can make
it. But I am very much deceived if it succeeds in
convincing a single unbeliever.
Let me, in conclusion, say a few words on your
44 precious possessions.” You have 44 faith in Christ
and victory over sin.” Your faith in Christ is a sub
jective phenomenon and can neither be proved nor
disputed ; but your victory over sin will hardly bear
the test of examination. I fail to see that Christians
are morally superior to Freethinkers, and I defy you
to prove that they are so. On the other hand, you
hear 44 a voice from beyond the grave ” promising 44 to
all who believe it immortal life,” and you cannot doubt
44 these glad tidings of great joy.” I presume this is
the language of “the larger hope,” which dwells as
little as possible upon hell and as much as possible
upon heaven. But, for my part, I do not believe
that such a sentimental compromise can be permanent.
�98
Letters to the Clergy.
I have read the New Testament for myself, and I am
satisfied that its heaven and hell must stand or fall
together. Consequently I cannot accept your “ glad
tidings of great joy/’ which seem to me “ sad tidings
of great grief.33 I cannot believe your creed, nor do I
need its consolations, and I rejoice to be free from its
great horror of eternal torment. I am content to
follow my reason and obey my conscience. I may fail
in both, for who but a pharisee is perfect ? But I still
look calmly to the end. Should death be an everlasting
sleep, I shall know no sorrow or regret. Should it be
the entrance to a new life, I shall expect more sense
and justice from God or Nature than I see in the
dogmas of your faith.
MIRACLES.
*
TO THE REV. BROWNLOW MAITLAND M.A.
Sir,—
I have purchased and very carefully read your
little volume on “ Miracles 33 in the “ Helps to Belief”
series. I cannot say that you have in any way helped
my belief; though, perhaps, you may reply that I have
no belief to be assisted. On the contrary, I feel more
deeply than ever the hopelessness of a cause which has
to be defended by subtle shifts and elaborate special
pleading. What a difference between your plea for
Miracles and the simple, manly, straightforward argu
ment of Paley! I am well aware that the great
Archdeacon showed a little of the wisdom of the serpent
in his skilful illustrations, and that he sometimes
pressed his evidence unduly. But his argument is on
�Miracles.
99
the whole an honest one. . He appealed to reason and
experience, and admitted that, in the last resort,,
miracles, like everything else, must rest upon adequate
evidence. Your treatise, however, is essentially an
appeal against reason to faith. Your argument is
almost entirely a, priori, and can therefore have no
weight except with those who are already convinced.
You devote nearly ninety-three pages to your point of
view, to the antecedent objections to miracles, and to
the presumption in their favor—all of which Paley
dismisses with admirable brevity ; and you devote only
twenty pages to the direct evidence for the Christian
miracles. You give us a large and imposing portico to
a small and beggarly house. Three-fourths of your
time is employed in drugging the reader’s intelligence,
so that when he approaches the real question at issue
he may be easily deceived. With what contemptuous
laughter would a legal advocate be treated, who should
spend a whole day in opening his case, and devote an hour
or two to the examination of his witnesses ! Yet this is
piecisely the offence of which you are guilty. I am
confident that if you conducted your case in this way
before any tribunal, however loosely constituted, you
would be severely reprimanded for wasting the time of
the court, and peremptorily summoned to come to the
point.
As though anticipating such a criticism, you assert
in your Preface that “ the case on behalf of the
Christian miracles is considerably simplified by
declining to defend them on the ground chosen by the
sceptic/’ No doubt, sir; and the case would be still
more simplified by declining to defend them at all. It
would be simple and easy to assume the good old
orthodox attitude of the days when sceptics were not to
be reasoned with, but silenced by the resources of
Christian charity.
Why not declare at once that
Christianity is a divine religion, from battlement to
basement; that whosoever believes it will be saved, and
whosoever disbelieves it will be damned ; that to defend
�100
Letters to the Clergy.
it is absurd, seeing that God will take care of his own;
and that the cavils of the sceptic only proceed from his
corrupt and sinful heart ? But if you cannot take up
this attitude, you are bound to meet the sceptic, ay, and
on the very ground he chooses; for if you are defending
the holy garrison, instead of leaving the task to its
divine master, you have no choice but to repel attacks
at the very points where they are made. Nothing
could be more ludicrous than rushing off to the opposite
side, brandishing your weapons with immortal courage,
and declaring that, whatever may be going on else
where, the citadel at this point is absolutely invulner
able. If I cared for the honor of your church I might
also remind you that it is better to face the enemy than
to show him your rear. He will not spare you on
account of your cowardice, and if you must fall you
should at least fall with dignity.
Declining to meet the sceptic on his own ground,
you affirm that the miracles of Christianity are “ lifted
out of the mechanical into the moral sphere.” What
is this but saying that they are lifted out of the sphere
of reason into the sphere of faith ?
Your object
seems to be to reverse the natural order of things.
Instead of proving the foundations to be solid, and
afterwards examining the superstructure, you expatiate
on the wonderful character of the edifice and argue
that it largely guarantees the solidity of the basis,.
Permit me to say it does nothing of the sort, and to
add that no amount of declamation from the windows
will prevent the building from tumbling down.
How important is the question of Miracles, and how
absurd to treat it with subterfuge, like the ostrich who
buries his head to save his body from the hunters!
Your own words may be cited against yourself. After
pointing out that Christianity is “ from beginning to
end supernatural,” you declare that “ the only possible
alternatives are—a miraculous Christianity, or no
Christianity at all.” Reject the miraculous, you say,
and i( the entire Christian revelation would disappear
�Miracles.
101
with it. No Christ would in that case he left to us.
The man Jesus might remain ; but the Son of the
Father would have vanished, and the Gospel would
have shrunk into a fable. Christianity, thus deprived
of its cohesion, would fall to pieces, and become num
bered with the wrecks of worn-out beliefs.” True and
forcible words! I heartily agree with you, and I am
surprised at your making so feeble a defence for the
very life of your faith.
It is not my purpose to follow your remarks on the
peculiar solemnity and importance of the Christian
miracles. The argument is sentimental, and its force
depends on temperament and training. You are able
to see some subtle moral lesson in the cursing of a
barren fig-tree, and I dare say you would find it in the
cursing of a barren woman. You are able to discern a
lofty spiritual meaning in the trick of turning water
into -wine, or the production of half-crowns from the
mouth of a fish. But such things impress me very
differently. I regard them as childish stories, and
marvel at their appearance in a pretended revelation
from God.
You may draw convenient distinctions between
Christian and other miracles, but I can see none.
You smile at the prodigies of Paganism, and you allow
that no possible testimony could make the miracles of
Catholicism credible. I extend the same consideration
to the miracles of your faith. The scientific mind
places all miracles ip the same category, and the
historic mind views them as inevitable marks of inferior
stages of culture.
There is no necessity, either, to expatiate on the
existence of God and his moral governorship of the
universe; or on the doctrine of free-will, which you
curiously regard as indispensable to a belief in the
miraculous, as though Saint Augustine, Martin Luther,
John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards had never lived
or written. Whatever a miracle may be on its theo
retical side, on its practical side it is a matter of fact.
�102
Letters to the Clergy.
What is the use of an elaborate abstract argument to
prove that a prisoner stole a watch ? What would be
thought of a prosecuting counsel whose whole discourse
was a disquisition on human frailty ? The question at
issue is—Did the prisoner steal a particular watch at a
particular time and place ?—and this must be decided
by evidence. So with regard to the alleged resurrection
of a man from the dead, or his birth without the agency
of a human father. If such an event occurred, it must
have been at a particular time and place, and in
particular circumstances; and the fact must be
established before we ’are entitled to discuss the theories
of its explanation. You admit, yourself, in one of
your intervals of lucid common sense, that “ The
question whether it has ever occurred cannot be decided
in the negative, any more than in the affirmative, by
theoretical considerations, but must be solved by a
patient sifting of evidence.” Do you not see that this
admission condemns the whole plan of your book?
Have you not devoted five-sixths of your space to
“ theoretical considerations,” and only one-sixth to the
“ patient sifting of evidence ” ?
All you have to say about the antecedent prob
ability or improbability of miracles amounts to this,
that no one is entitled to say that miracles cannot
happen. But why such a painful demonstration of a
truism ? Neither Hume, Mill, nor Huxley, asserts the
impossibility of miracles. They simply regard them
as highly improbable, and you appear to be of the same
opinion- “ Of course,” you assert, “ the general
experience creates a presumption against the miraculous
—a presumption so great as to necessitate a most
rigorous scrutinity of the evidence, before an alleged
miracle can make good its claim on our belief.” With
this statement I concur; my only complaint is that you
do not appear to possess the slightest conception of
what is involved in the “ rigorous scrutiny of evidence.”
Whoever admits that miracles are possiblef&oes so
on the ground that anything is possible. I am not
�Miracles.
103
prepared to denv the possible existence of a planet
made of green cheese. I am ready to believe that a
man is able to jump over a moon. All I require,
before I believe in such prodigies, is the production of
proof. And who will venture to dispute the justice of
such a condition ?
Modesty forbids me to ask
more, and common sense forbids me to ask less.
You will see, then, that I am quite insensible to
the reproach that good men are the readiest to receive
the Christian miracles. No doubt the Brahmin and
the Buddhist would address you in the same vein.
You will allow me to smile at your statement that
“ the real touchstone was the doctrine,” and at your
implication that the disciples of Jesus were the best
men in all Palestine, while the rest of the population,
who declined to follow him, were either “ careless or
worldly” or “ thoroughly selfish and corrupt.” The
story of Gamaliel, in the fifth chapter of the Acts,
should alone have caused you to hesitate at perpetrating
a wholesale libel on the countrymen of your Master.
It seems as though the Christian apologist were under
the imperative necessity of balancing his exaggerated
praise of Jesus with the most unscrupulous defamation
of unbelievers.
I must also be permitted to smile at your reference
to “the self-satisfied and sensuous sceptic.” Jesus
forbade his disciples to indulge in the moral attitude of
“ I am holier than thou,” but it is a peculiarity of
Christians to neglect all the sensible teachings of their
Savior. Ncr can I maintain a serious face on reading
your description of Christianity as “ standing before
us with the unmistakable marks on its brow of super
natural energy, and filling the world with fruits which
the natural stock of humanity could never by itself
have borne.” What are “unmistakable signs” of
“ supernatural energy,” and why are they visible on
“ the brow ” ? I should also like to know whether you
reckon among the supernatural “ fruits ” of Christianity
such articles as racks, thumb-screws, wheels, and red-
�104
Letters to the Clergy.
hot iron boots ; and such phenomena as persecution,
proscription, religious wars, and holy massacres.
I will pass in a moment to your “ direct evidence of
the Christian miracles.” But, before I do so, I wish
to point out that you have forgotten to deal with, or
even to mention, some of the principal antecedent
objections to the miraculous. And yet, at least on one
occasion, they lay right in your path. Speaking of
the unbelieving Jews, who attributed the miracles of
Christ to the power of Beelzebub, or were provoked
by them into a passionate hatred, you say that “ To all
of these alike the miracles were real, according to the
testimony of the Gospels.” Surely the reflection must
have occurred to you, while you were writing thissentence, that it was not the custom, in those ages, to
dispute any body of miracles. Every religion, every
sect, had its special supply; and the question at issue
was, not which were real, but which were superior.
Satanic, as well as divine, miracles are recognised in
both the Old and the New Testament. Nor did the
primitive Christians, or even the Fathers, ever dream
of denying the miracles of Paganism. They ascribed
them to the agency of demons, and simply vaunted
their own as manifestations of the true God. It is
beyond question, therefore, that the belief in miracles
—good, bad, or indifferent—was then universal; and
extravagant stories derived from an age of such
abounding credulity, and gross ignorance of the laws
of nature, are antecedently improbable. I would also
observe that all the New Testament miracles, from the
Incarnation to the Ascension, and from the first prodigy
of Peter to the last prodigy of Paul, were believed and
related by Jews, a race of men famous for their super
stition, and laughed at on that account by the Boman
satirists. To accept a supernatural story on their
testimony would be like going to the madhouse for a
jury and to the gaol for a judge.
Not only have all religions had their miracles, but
the miracles of all religions diminish and finally dis
�Miracles.
105
appear in the light of science and civilisation. Then
we behold the spectacle of a people laughing at the
miracles of to-day, and staking their faith on the
miracles of yesterday. Distance lends enchantment to
the view. But only for a time. In the long run men
will argue that miracles do not happen, and therefore
they never did. The student of human culture will
see the miraculous in its true perspective, and under
stand the laws of its birth, development and decay;
but the ordinary man, who lives and thinks in the
present, will always use it to interpret the past and the
future. What happens, did happen; what happens,
will happen. Such is his logic, and in the main it is
sound. But whether sound or unsound, it cannot be
shaken by sermons or apologies.
You say there is a God. Let it be admitted for
the sake of argument. The question then arises,
why did he work miracles in the past ? The answei'
is, to prove and convince ; that is, to prove the doctrine
and convince the spectator. But does not the same
necessity for the miracles still exist? Is not the
doctrine more doubted, and even rejected, than ever ?
Are not the leading minds, in science and philosophy,
outside the fold of faith ? Are not the Darwins, Mills,
Huxleys, and Spencers as influential as the twelve
apostles? Why then are no miracles wrought to
convince them ? You can only reply that the Age of
Miracles is past. Yes, and the Age of Reason has
come.
I now come to the only pertinent chapter in your
little volume. Even there, however, you cannot refrain
from your besetting sin. In the very first paragraph
you seek to prejudice the reader’s mind in favor of
what you desire him to believe. You remark that the
miracles of Christianity are “ sufficiently probable to
be believed on such testimony as in other serious
matters would carry conviction with it.” The phrase
is an artful one, and does credit to your subtlety.
You insinuate that miracles are to be judged of like
�106
Letters to the Glergy.
“other serious matters,” as though there were no
degrees in seriousness, as though the testimony that
would convict a man of petty theft would suffice to
prove that he raised the dead. Surely you must be
aware that the more wonderful an allegation is, the
more rigorous is the evidence which is required to
substantiate it. Suppose, for instance, it were alleged
that a dead man had come to life again. Would not
the evidence of such an extraordinary occurrence need
to be, not only “ adequate ” but overwhelming, before
any sensible man would believe it 1 The testimony of
persons who saw him die, and who witnessed his being
placed in a tomb, would not suffice. Men have some
times been thought dead, a doctor has given a certificate,
the undertaker has made the coffin, and the “ corpse ”
has revived. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to
have positive proof that the man was really dead. On
this point the evidence of ordinary observers is utterly
worthless. “ Even medical evidence,” as Huxley says,
“ unless the physician is a person of unusual knowledge
and skill, may have little more value. Unless careful
thermometric observation proves that the temperature
has sunk below a certain point; unless the cadaveric
stiffening of the muscles has become well established;
all the ordinary signs of death may be fallacious.”
Now I ask you seriously—for these are “ serious
matters ”—whether any miracle of the New Testament
was ever subjected to such a scrutiny. According to
Hume, there is no miracle in human history which is
supported by the amount and kind of evidence that
would be requisite to establish it. No one has ever
refuted this assertion, and I challenge you to refute it
if you can. Set aside the prodigies of other faiths, and
take your pick of the miracles of Christianity. Select
the Resurrection if you will, and see whether you can
produce as much evidence as would gain you a serious
hearing in any court of law.
What is your “ direct evidence ” of the Christian
miracles ? You begin by passing over the Gospels, on
�Miracles.
107
account of “ the partial obscurity which is alleged by
critics of the modern sceptical school to envelope the
date and authorship of these records/’ You select the
four “ authentic ” epistles of St. Paul as “ documents
over which no manner of doubt hangs ;” and upon
these writings of a man who was not an eye-witness of
the miracles of Jesus, who hardly refers to any miracle
whatever except the Resurrection, and who, with
respect to this one, flatly contradicts the Gospels and
the Acts—you base the colossal edifice of Christian
supernaturalism !
Supposing there is any truth in the Acts, it is
incontestable that St. Paul disbelieved the Resur
rection on its merits. He regarded the followers of
Jesus with hatred and contempt. And how was his
conversion effected ? You audaciously assert that
“ he was won over to it [Christianity] by irresistible
evidence of its truth.” But what is the fact? His
conversion occurred on the road to Damascus. And
how ? Did he sit down and say to himself “ Paul, vou
had better think the matter over; this Jesus may be
God, his miracles may be real, his Resurrection a fact,
and his disciples the witnesses of truth; ponder the
evidence once more, and carefully, before you proceed
with your persecutions ” ? Did he calmly review the
whole case, and rise with a conviction that he had been
deceived ? Nothing of the sort. The “ irresistible ”
something which turned the current of his life was not
the weight of evidence or the power of argument. It
was apparently a miracle or a sunstroke ; whatever it
was, it was not an operation of reason. To assert,
therefore, that he was won over to Christianity by
“ the irresistible evidence of its truth,” is to fly in the
face of your own records, and to presume too openly
on the mental negligence of your readers.
St. Paul’s scepticism before this physical convulsion
is neglected in your argument. You simply dwell
on his subsequent belief. But is this ingenuous ? You
describe him as a man of “ powerful intellect.” How
�108
Letters to the Clergy.
was it, then, that his powerful intellect led him to
believe that Christianity was false ? Setting aside the
miracle, which you cannot assume, as miracles are the
question in dispute, what single scrap of fresh evidence
was presented to his mind during the rapid process of
his conversion? The evidences of the Resurrection
remained the same throughout. Before the shock, his
unbiassed mind regarded it as fabulous; after the
shock, he regarded it as true. But which of these
mental states is of the most importance to an unpre
judiced inquirer ? Assuredly, if you were not arguing
in favor of your prepossessions, you would allow that
the Resurrection was more damaged by St. Paul’s early
scepticism than benefited by his later belief.
In any case, St. Paul was not an eye-witness of the
Resurrection, and the testimony of eye-witnesses is
indispensable. For the rest, I have only to remark
that you are ill-advised in claiming those “ five hundred
of the brethren,” many of whom were known to St.
Paul as having “ seen Jesus alive after his death and
burial.” The statement is absolutely inconsistent with
the Gospels, and especially with the Acts, where we are
told (I., 15) that the total number of the brethren,
after the Ascension, was only “ about an hundred and
twenty.” You cannot expect to take advantage of a
point on which your own witnesses flatly contradict
each other.
There seems no limit, however, to the assumption of
Christian apologists. You not only claim those five
hundred brethren, but actually parade them as “ hun
dreds of persons who knew Jesus personally, and went
forth at the risk of their lives to testify of his Resur
rection,” and this in connection with a graphic picture
of the sufferings of the early Christians I Again I
complain of your disingenuousness. The Christians of
the first century must not be credited with the mar
tyrdoms of the second century. With the single
exception of Stephen, who lost his life in a religious
tumult, as thousands have done since, 1 defy you to
�Miracles.
109
prove that a single witness of the Resurrection, or a
single disciple of Jesus Christ, suffered martyrdom.
Upon this point the apologists of your faith have
systematically deceived theii' readers. If we reject the
fantastic legends of the travels, achievements, and
deaths of the twelve apostles, we are compelled to
doubt with Gibbon “whether any of those persons
who had been witnesses to the miracles of Christ were
permitted, beyond the bounds of Palestine, to seal with
their blood the truth of their testimony” Your own
records prove that the first Christians found the Roman
tribunals an assured refuge against their Jewish perse
cutors. Not until the reign of Nero (a.d. 64), more
than thirty years after the Resurrection, did the
Christians fall under the stroke of cruelty; and, as
Gibbon is persuaded, the “ effect, as well as the cause,
of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of
Rome.” The martyr-witnesses of the Resurrection,
therefore, are the mere offspring of imposture and
credulity.
The fact is, you cannot produce the testimony of a
single eye-witness, good, bad, or indifferent. You are
unable to trace the Gospels beyond a period “ early in
the second century,” and, although you refer to c< a
pre-existing narrative,” you are unable to tell us what
it was, or indeed to assure us that there were not a
dozen. Such documents, if they ever existed, which
I admit is probable, are irretrievably lost. The four
Gospels remain. Two of these do not profess to be
the account of eye-witnesses, and the other two—
Matthew and John—cannot be so in the light of your
argument.
You appear to think that the early Christian writers
could not be “ weak-minded enthusiasts, open to
hallucinations, or carried away by marvellous stories
which had no foundation in facts.” But why not ?
Why should they, and they only, be exempt from the
common frailty of their age When cultivated Greeks
and Romans were deluded by fables, and a grave
�■110
Letters to the Clergy.
Roman historian could relate a public miracle of the
emperor Vespasian, is it conceivable that the ignorant
and superstitious Galileans should be superior to such
weakness? You are ready to ascribe the ecclesiastical
miracles to “ignorance, superstition, or craft.” But
such miracles were unhesitatingly accepted by the very
Christian writers you must appeal to in support of
the antiquity of your Gospels. Miracles did not cease
with the apostles, but continued without interruption.
Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen,
Athanasius, and St. Augustine, all declared that
miracles were wrought in their ages. You believe they
were all mistaken, and I believe that the first Christians
were all mistaken. Honesty is quite consistent with
delusion. History shows us that the best men have been
deceived.
That the Gospels are “ free from any marks of con
scious embellishment ” I will not now dispute. Men
who honestly believe in miracles will relate them as
matters of fact. The supernatural is only “ dished
up ” when belief is waning. Simple-minded believers,
in former ages, were satisfied with the Gospels; but
in this age of refined credulity the Gospels have to be
manipulated by theological cooks. Hence the pon
derous Lives of Christ that are constantly streaming
from the press.
You conclude by remarking with regard to miracles
that “since the establishment of Christianity, they
have, as we believe, ceased to be wrought.” By roe,
of course, you mean Protestants; excluding the
Catholics, who form the majority of Christians, and
who believe that a stream of miracles has flowed
through the history of their Church. But although
you hold that miracles have ceased, you hint at the
possibility of their resumption. Should some “ terrible
anti-Christian power ” arise to persecute Christianity,
and “ muster the forces of earth and hell to crush it
out of existence/'’ you venture to hope that God will
“ bare his arm ” and come forth to “ avenge his own
�Miracles.
Ill
elect.” For my part, I smile alike at your fears and
hopes. Unbelief will not persecute youi’ Church, but
give it fair play, and let it live or die. You need be
under no apprehension of Freethought imitating the
vile example of Christianity. But, whatever happens,
I do not think you will be assisted by miracles. They
do not occur in an age of Science and Board Schools.
What Schopenhauei’ said of religions is particularly
true of miracles—they require darkness to shine in.
Science is daily revealing to us the most marvellous
truths, which dwarf the wonders of theology into
insignificance. Instead of raising one man from the
dead it saves millions of lives ; instead of curing one
blind man with clay ointment it places ophthalmic
hospitals at the service of a myriad sufferers; instead
of feeding a casual crowd, once in a millenium, by the
supernatural multiplication of loaves and fishes, it
enables us to carry on a gigantic system of commerce,
which sustains multitudes who would otherwise be
unable to exist; instead of smiting a rock, and calling
forth a spring for a single thirsty crowd, it brings a
regular supply of water, year after year, to the great
cities of our modern civilisation ; instead of enabling
one man to walk the waves in a tempest, it constructs
gigantic ocean steamers that ride the wildest storms,
and convey their passengers with comfort and safety
across the trackless ocean.
Truth is greater than fiction, and science is mightier
than miracle.
�112
Letters to the Clergy.
PRAYER.
TO THE REV. T. TEIGNMOUTH SHORE, M.A.
Chaplain-in-ordinary to the Queen.
Sir,—
Having read your little volume on Prayer in
the “ Helps to Belief ” series, I venture to address
some remarks to you upon it. I have read several
other volumes in this series without finding my faith
assisted: on the contrary, I have only wondered that
such flimsy arguments and paltry evasions could be put
forward by men of reputation in the Christian Church.
My wonder diminishes, however, when I reflect that
men did not become Christians by reason, but by early
training. Their faith is not a conviction, but a
prejudice ; and the least plausible answer to objections
is sufficient to preserve a belief which reposes on
authority instead of evidence. It was remarked by
Carlyle, in his essay on Diderot, that the usual
“ evidences ” of Theism never did, and never ought to,
convince any Atheist. The fact is, creeds are taught
first, and “ evidences ” manufactured afterwards; s»
that they are not the proofs but the excuses of faith.
I do not deny, therefore, that your volume may help
the belief of an otiose believer, who has heard that
there are objections to his creed, and is satisfied to see
some kind of printed rejoinder, in order to assure
himself that the ministers of religion are looking after
his faith. It will doubtless quiet his apprehensions,
and enable him to sleep in peace, while the sentinels
are watching at the gates. But I am perfectly positive
you will allay no single doubt in the mind of any
thinking Christian. Such a person, I am confident,
will be tempted to exclaim, “ If this is all that can be
said in reply to sceptical objections, I had better at
�Prayer.
,113
once regard my faith as untenable, and cry like the
Israelite of old—Ichabod, the glory is departed.”
According to your Preface, you have made “ an
attempt to put simply and plainly the answer which
may be given to the most ordinary difficulties which
are urged regarding Prayer/-’ I admit that you have
put the answers simply, but you have not put them
plainly. You have involved them in a great deal of
preaching, as though your purpose were rather exhorta
tion than discussion ; and, like the other writers in thia
series, you contrive to leave the real point at issue until
the last chapter, where you treat it with a very discreet,
if not judicious brevity.
You insist, at the outset, on the necessity of defini
tion, and ask the pertinent question—What is prayer ?
But instead of answering it at once, you occupy a
dozen pages in talking loosely upon the subject. When
you condescend to define, you say that Prayer is “ the
intercourse of the spirit of the child with the Father
of Spirits; it is the submission of the human will to
the Divine.” In a later part of the volume you observe
that you are not called upon to “ explain or to defend
parodies of Prayer offered up to travesties of God,” but
merely the “ reasonableness of Christian Prayer to the
God whom Christians worship.”
I venture to assert that your definition is the parody,
and that what you call the parody is the true doctrine
of prayer. It is true that, with the progress of science
and civilisation every religious doctrine becomes
attenuated, until at length it becomes a vague sentiment,
and finally disappears. But while Prayer has any real
existence it will always savor of its origin. Prayer is
not the submission of the human to the divine will.
That is worship. Prayer is a petition. It is an appeal
to God, who, as Jeremy Taylor says, loves to be held
in a sweet constraint. The man who prays asks for
something. He may do it as crudely as the converted
heathen, in Tylor’s Primitive Culture, who, on being
asked by the missionary to come to morning prayers,
�114
Letters to the Clergy.
replied, “ Thank you, I don’t want anything just now?’
Or he may do it as superfinely as a Queen’s chaplain.
But, however he does it, his prayer will be found to
contain a request for something, that would not arrive
in the ordinary course of nature. Even in the Lord’s
Prayer, between two thick slices of flattery, is
sandwiched a petition for daily bread; and when I
open the Prayer Book of your Church I find prayers
for rain and sunshine, for calm weather at sea, for
good harvests, for recovery from sickness, and for
grace, wisdom, and understanding ” for “ all the
nobility,” who certainly need it without ever appearing
to obtain it. What is all this but an appeal to God’s
goodness, and an attempt to influence his will ? You
admit this yourself in a subsequent chapter, and
therefore your definition is as childish in substance as
it is childish in expression.
Your definition having broken down, I must follow
you as closely as your tortuous course will permit.
You innocently observe that the efficacy of Prayer
must depend on our conception of God. If he answers
prayer, it is reasonable to pray ; if he does not it is
unreasonable. Exactly I If a shop sells bread, it is
reasonable to go there to purchase it; if not it is
unreasonable. But the question is—does the shop sell
bread ? And that, you will observe, is not a matter of
opinion, but a matter of fact.
When you assert that the efficacy of Prayer must
only be discussed in relation to “the idea of God”
which is expressed in “ the doctrine of the Church,”
you are begging the question most flagrantly. A
child might see through such a shallow artifice. Still
more absurd, if possible, is your later assertion that
“ Christianity as a whole is the true explanation and
the strongest defence _ of the doctrine of Christian
Prayer.” “ Admit the truth of Christianity,” you say,
“ and Prayer is perfectly intelligible.” Of course it is.
Swallow the whole box, and you will certainly have any
particular pill. Prayer is an integral part of
�Prayer.
115
Christianity, and telling me that if I admit Christianity
I accept Prayer, is informing me of a very obvious
truism. You can hardly regard this as an argument,
and its use implies a gross contempt for the in
of your readers.
Although your definition of Prayer is a lamentable
failure, you continue more or less in the spirit which
inspired it. You assert that “true Prayer cannot
flourish in an atmosphere of probability; it must
breathe the air of clear and certain confidence. Only
those can really pray who believe absolutely that
every true prayer is heard and answered by God.-”
This is a most convenient theory for the theologians.
If the prayer be not answered, they can always reply
that it was not a true prayer—whatever that may be
—or that the supplicator’s faith was not absolute.,
Nay, I observe that you go to a still greater length of
precaution. You assert that “ No is quite as much an
answer as Tes.” If we obtain what we pray for we
are answered; if we do not obtain it we are also
answered. What a beautiful theory ! How blandly
the theologian plays the innocent game of “ Heads we
win, and tails you lose.’’’ Your theory is quite
incapable of proof or disproof ; argument is useless on
the one side or the other; it can only be left to the
indignation of ^honesty and the derision of common
sense.
You say that desire and faith are the essential ele
ments of Prayer. But such a truism does not require
the elaboration you give it. You might as well dilate
■on the gastronomic truth that a good appetite is an
•essential element of a good dinner.
Forgetting that God is omniscient, or taking a
■singular view of that attribute, you say that we do well
to remind him of our wants, but our prayers must be
general and not particular. We shall show our modesty
by desiring him to oblige us, without stipulating how
he is to do it. We must leave that to him, for our
knowledge of how anything is to be accomplished in
�116
Letters to the Clergy.
the “ varied and complex conditions of life” is
“ partial and fragmentary,” while he is able to see and
foresee everything.
“ Thus, in regard to the legitimate ambitions of worldly life,
we may (subject to limitations, already and yet to be stated),
feel fully justified in praying for our own needs or those of
others; though to pray without reserve for any particular
promotion, or any definite success as the means of accomplishing
it, would scarcely be in harmony with the time spirit of
Prayer.”
It would therefore be quite right for an ambitious
Christian to say to God “please push me on,’-’ but
very improper to say, “ please give me this post.” But
I think you will find, on reflection, that the human
mind thinks by particulars, and that it is impossible to
dissociate the idea of advancement from the steps that
must be taken to gain it. If my house were on fire,
and my child in an upper room, which could not be
approached by the staircase; if I were to plant a
ladder against the wall, and saw that I must pass a
window through which flame and smoke were belching;
do you mean that it would be a true prayer if I said “ Let
me mount to the top and descend in safety /’ but a
false prayer if I said “ Let me pass and re-pass that
terrible window ’’’ ?
Your fine distinction seems to me perfectly chimerical.
To an omniscient mind every chain of causation,
whether extending through a day or a lifetime, is
equally finite; and if there be any presumption in the
case, it is as great if I ask for a prosperous life as if I
ask for a particular blessing. It is true that if God
exist he has a superior knowledge of means, but it is
also true that he has a superior judgment of ends; and
whether I ask for the end or the means, I am acting
with equal simplicity. To tell an omniscient God of
my wants is childish. Can it be more than childish to
ask him for a particular favor ?
Prayer necessarily proceeds upon the assumption
that man can influence the will of God, and you prove
�Prater.
117
this by your serpentine efforts to evade it. You draw
impossible distinctions between God’s ultimate and
immediate will. You talk of his unchanging purpose,
yet you speak of exciting his emotions of tenderness,
mercy, and love; as though, in the words of Ladv
Macbeth, we could screw him to the sticking place!
Such words as “ plead,” “ appeal,” “ beseech,” and
“ implore,” are unintelligible, except as exciting
emotion and influencing volition. Nor can I follow
your assertion that it would be “ a mockery ” to ask
God that the sun may not rise to-morrow, in order to
mitigate a scorching heat. This was not the belief of
the chosen people, who recorded the stoppage of the
sun, in order that they might slaughter their enemies.
It is idle to say “ we know it is God’s will that the sun
shall rise to-morrow.” We know nothing of the kind,
I admit we have a very good reason for believing it
will rise to-morrow, but we have as good—because it
is the very same—reason for believing that every law
of nature will be in perfect operation, without violation,
suspension, or accident. When you say that “ we do
not know in the least whether it may be God’s will
that a hurricane should die down at a particular
moment,” and present this as a reason why we should
pray for divine help in the crisis of a storm, you are
only saying that meteorology is not as well understood
as astronomy.
There was a time when Christians prayed against
an eclipse. Why ? Because they did not understand
its causes. They still pray, though with diminishing
heartiness, against bad weather. Why? Because
they do not understand its causes. When they do
understand its causes, they will cease praying against
it, and confine their supplications to what is still con
tingent.
Now contingency is nothing but ignorance. When
a coin is tossed into the air, men will bet on its falling
“ heads or tails.” But the uncertainty is only in their
. minds, for the fall of the coin was absolutely deter
�118
Letters to the Clergy.
mined on its leaving the tosser’s fingers. Similarly
next week’s weather, or next year’s harvest, is deter
mined already, only we do not possess the knowledge
that would enable us to foresee it. When we come to
the infinitely varied phenomena of human society, we
are only able to perceive a few broad sweeps of ten
dency. All the rest is uncertain to us, though certain
enough in itself; and it is this mighty realm of con
tingency that you shrewdly mark out as the future
preserve of Prayer.
“ I maintain,” you say, “ that in the regulation and
variation of these conditions by the human will and
choice there is a very wide margin for what I may call
contingency.” This is perfectly true ; but if contin
gency only means ignorance, and the consequent
incapacity of prevision, it is obvious that you are
reduced to the extremity of praying in the dark.
Where light obtains, you find we have nothing to do
but submit to the obvious will of God, or, in other
words, to the necessity of Nature.
The last quotation introduces a new factor—the
human will. You appear to regard this as an indepen
dent force, whereas it is the decisive action of a
number of concurrent forces. This is an operation
you do not appear to understand. You assert that
“ a child holding a stone in its hand is to a very real
and recognisable degree modifying the results of the
action of gravity itself.” Did you ever know of
gravity acting by itself1 The child no more modifies
?
the action ot gravity by holding up the stone, than
would a ledge upon which it had fallen. The law of
gravity is acting with unerring precision all the time,
as you will find by weighing the child, first with the
stone in his hand, and then without it. The difference
is the weight of the stone, and the weight of the stone
is the action of gravity.
You shrink from the cruder notions of prayer,
although you ultimately find yourself bound to
defend them, and maintain that God answers prayer
�Prayer.
m
by controlling “ the physical world indirectly, through
his action upon human thought and will.” According
to this theory, when Smith prays for anything, he is
asking God to influence Jones, Brown and Robinson.
Instead of desiring the forces of nature to be directed
towards his benefit, he is requesting that his fellow
creatures may be shuffled into a more favorable com
bination ; and as J ones, Brown, and Robinson are
praying at the same time for the reshuffling of Smith,
your doctrine terminates in a universal shuffle, and
human society becomes a mere transformation-scene
under the presiding genius of Prayer.
Having reduced the world to this condition, you
easily perceive whatever you desire. “We may then/’
you declare, “ pray for the recovery of a patient, and
if God guides the physician’s genius to a true appre
ciation of the nature and the proper remedy for the
cure of the disease, we may consider the cure so effected
in every true and reasonable sense a direct answer to
our Prayer.” You call this “ true and reasonable.”
I call it hocus-pocus. You are a Queen’s chaplain,
and a great deal more dexterous than the simpleminded Peculiar People, but I have a far higher
opinion of their honesty. I suspect, if the patient were
your wife or child, you would leave as little as possible
to the Lord. You would call in a skilful physician,
who required but a modicum of divine superintendence
and leave your poorer brethren, who can only afford
the services of an inferior practioner, to experience the
utmost efficacy of your celestial nostrum.
Instead of skulking behind ambiguous illustrations,
I invite you to take a simple one, and see whether it
confirms or contradicts your theory. Let us go to the
Prayer Book of your Church, which is a volume
that binds you as a clergyman. In the “ Forms of
Prayer to be Used at Sea” I find a special prayer
against storms, containing the following ejaculation :
“ O send thy word of command to rebuke the raging
winds and the roaring sea; that we, being delivered
�120
Letters to the Clergy.
from this distress, may live to serve thee, and to glorify
thy name all the days of our life.”
Let me ask you to explain how God’s acting upon
the physical world indirectly, through his action upon
human thought and will,” is likely to make a storm
subside. It seems to me that human volition cannot
break or bend a single law of nature, and that human
thought has no effect on the weather. The only way
to save a ship in a storm is to handle her well, and
throw overboard a few gallons of oil, which can be
done by Atheists as well as by Christians. Super
stition says that the will of God can control the winds
and waves by some mysterious process. The doctrine
is, of course, unintelligible, but you have undertaken
to teach it. Yet you did not undertake to explain or
defend it, and you are ill advised in attempting to do
either. Your safest course is to say “ God does still
storms in answer to prayer, but I do not know how he
does it.”
Not only does your theory of God’s control of the
physical world by human agency break down, but you
connect it with a metaphysical theory which has been
repudiated by the greatest doctors of your own faith.
Your argument stands or falls with the doctrine of
Free Will. You perceive unchanging law in the
external world, but you declare that the internal world
of man’s nature is “ another department where God
governs, not by Law, but through the freedom of the
human Will.”
I will not now discuss Free Will. There is no need to
do so. You are defending Prayer as a Christian, and
are not entitled to assume what many of the greatest
Christians have denied. A’theoryof Christian prayer
which would necessarily be rejected by Saint Augustine,
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards ;
a theory which flies in the face of the plainest teaching
of Saint Paul; a theory which is explicitly condemned
by the tenth and seventeenth Articles of your own
Church; such a theory, I say, is totally inadmissible
�Prayer.
121
unless you prove it in opposition to these preponderant
authorities ; and as you make no attempt to prove it,
but simply postulate it as though it were a Christian
axiom, I am justified in declining to accept it as a
basis of discussion.
The only question which is worth discussing, after
all, is this—Does God answer Prayer ? Or, in other
words—Is Prayer answered ? Now this is a question
of objective fact, for I have contended, and you tacitly
admit, that every one who prays asks for some
thing that would not happen in the ordinary
course of nature. It is idle to say that the lives of
praying men prove the efficacy of prayer. You your
self furnish the answer to this sophism, before
attempting a singularly feeble reply. It is downright
folly to assert that “ Christianity as a whole is the
true explanation, and the strongest defence of Chris
tian Prayer,” for that is assuming everything at first,
and proving it afterwards in detail by means of the
general assumption. The question is not whether
God might, could, would, or should answer Prayer,
but, in yom? own words, Does he do so ? Now the
only way to answer this question is to appeal to evi
dence. It has been proposed by Professor Tyndall,
on the suggestion, I believe, of Sir Henry Thompson,
that an experiment should be made in some hospital, by
especially praying for the patients in one ward, and
seeing whether it affords a greater percentage of cures.
Such a proposal is alarming to the professors of
mystery; for all religions die of being found out, and
experiment is fatal to their pretensions. Accordingly
you declare that this “ so-called experiment would, as a
matter of religion, be a blasphemy,” and that “ Prayer
made under such conditions could not have in it the
essentials of Prayer.” But of course you carefully
refrain from suggesting an experiment which would
conform to the true conditions, and which would, at
the same time, be a real experiment. Nor do you
explain why God should regard as “ blasphemy ” an
i
�122
Letters to the Clergy.
endeavor to ascertain the truth or falsity of a doctrine
taught by priests. It is only religion that cries
“ blasphemy I ” in the presence of investigation.
Professor Tyndall did not propose that Atheists or
unbelievers should pray for the patients in his special
ward. His proposal was that they should be prayed
for especially by every Christian congregation. Why
should you regard this as “ blasphemy ” ? Is not this
very thing allowed by your Prayer Book? In the
“ Collect or Prayer for all conditions of men, to be
used at such times when the Litany is not appointed
to be said/-’ I find these words:—“ Finally, we com
mend to thy fatherly goodness all those who are any
ways afflicted, or distressed, in mind, body, or estate;
[especially those for whom our prayers are desired}.”
And a marginal note to this clause orders :—“ This to
be said when any desire the Prayers of the Congre
gation.” It would seem, therefore, that the Church
itself commits the “ blasphemy ” of offering special
prayers for individuals, and is hardly entitled to cry
“ blasphemy 1” against others who propose to do the
same.
While waiting for your experiment, I look abroad in
the world, and find no practical recognition of the
efficacy of Prayer. No Life Assurance Company
would calculate a sovereign's life policy on the ground
that her subjects asked God to “ grant her in health
and wealth long to live.” No Fire Insurance Company
would grant a policy on a House of Prayer unless a
lightning conductor were run up to prevent the Deity
from making mistakes in a thunderstorm. Underwriters
never think of asking whether the captain prays or
swears, or whether he carries rum or missionaries.
And when the Peculiar People use prayer, without
mixing it with medicine, they are browbeaten by
Christian coroners and jurymen.
Let me advise you, sir, before you write again on this
subject to read Mr. Francis Galton's article on Prayer in
the Fortnightly Review for August, 1872. This keen,
�Prayer.
123
scientific writer points out that in all the medical
literature of modern Europe he has been unable to
discover “ any instance in which a medical man of any
repute has attributed recovery to the influence of
prayer.” Yet they are always on the watch for
sanative agencies, and if they do not strive to obtain
the healing influence of prayer for their patients •“ it is
not because their attention has never been awakened
to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary,
that although they have heard it insisted on from
childhood upwards, they are unable to detect its
influence.”
Mr. Galton finds a way, too, of dexterously passing
your wing and attacking you in the rear. Granted
that the future is uncertain—that is, unforeseeable—
there is still no uncertainty about the past. What has
been has been; and although God, as you suggest,
might frown upon and frustrate an attempt to make
him the subject of a scientific experiment, not even
Omnipotence can undo the past, and we may investigate
it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer has
been efficacious. Pursuing this line of inquiry, by the
aid of historical and statistical tables, Mr. Galton
discovers no trace of Prayer as an efficient cause.
For instance, it is presumable that pious parents pray
for their unborn offspring; as a still-birth is usually
regarded as a misfortune, and baptism is thought so
necessary to salvation that the Catholic Church provides
in extreme cases for the baptism of the child in the
womb. Yet Mr. Galton found, on analysis, that the
lists in the Times and the Record showed exactly the
same proportion of still-births to the total number of
deaths. And this is only one of a dozen illustrations
of the absolute nullity of your theological specific.
You give only two answers to Prayer, and they are
extremely ancient. Nay more, they are selected from
the Bible I 0 sancta simylicitas ! Moses prayed to
see “ the good land beyond Jordan,” and died without
seeing it; but fifteen hundred years or so afterwards
�124
Letters to the Clergy.
he saw it from “ the summit of Tabor ” when Christ
was transfigured. What a precious “ help to belief I ”
Paul also prayed God to remove his “thorn in the
flesh”—whatever that was; and, although the thorn
was not removed, God “ gave the grace to bear it.”
Well, if there be a God, let us hope he will give us
grace to bear the logic of theologians.
Pardon me, sir, for citing another answer to
Prayer; no more apocryphal than your instances, and
more recent and refreshing. In a Western State of
America—you see the story is not two thousand years
old—there was a long and unprecedented drought.
All the farmers were in despair, for if rain did not
soon fall there would be no crop in the locality. The
Baptists therefore resolved to hold a Prayer Convention.
Delegates assembled from all the churches and prayed
lustily for rain. After two hours’ wrestling with God
they received a telegram from a town with a large
annual rainfall. It ran thus—“ Stop praying at once,
we are flooded out.”
Pardon me, also, for citing another answer to Prayer.
The great Johnstown reservoir—a lake three miles by
one—burst in the early summer of 1889, and devastated
a populous valley, sweeping away houses, factories, and
churches, and drowning ten thousand people. When
the deluge had done its awful work, one bereaved
woman was found near a muddy pool looking for her
loved ones. On the rescuers approaching her she
cried, “ They are all gone. O, Heaven, be merciful to
them! My husband and my seven dear little children
all swept away, and I am left alone.” Her terrible
story is best told in her own words, as reported in the
papers at the time.
“We were driven by the awful floods into a garret, but the
water followed us there inch by inch. It kept rising until our
heads were crushing against the roof. It would have been
death to remain; so I raised the window and placed my
darlings, one by one, on some driftwood, trusting them to
Providence. As I liberated the last one, my little boy, he
looked at me and said, ‘ Mamma, you have always told me that
�Prayer.
125
the Lord would care for me ! Will he look after me now ?’
I saw him drift away with his loving face turned towards me,
and in the midst of my prayer for his deliverance he passed
from my sight for ever. The next moment the roof crashed in,
and I floated outside to be rescued fifteen hours later. If I
could only find one of my darlings I could bow to the will of
God, but they are all gone. I have lost everything on earth
now but my life, and I shall return to my old Virginia home
and lay me down for my last great sleep.”
That poor woman taught her darling a lie. She did
not think so; she took it on trust from the priest, who
taught it as a trade. The worth of the doctrine might
have been read on the boy’s dead face and the mother’s
bleeding heart.
Let me presume a little further on your patience.
You will remember, perhaps, that the Prince of Wales
was once stricken with gastric fever. Prayers were
offered up for him daily, and the newspaper articles
were nothing but sermons. But secular means were
not neglected.
The prince was tended by skilful
nurses and the most eminent doctors.
With their
assistance, and the aid of a good constitution, he
recovered. But the clergy insisted that his recovery
was due to prayer. Accordingly a national Thanks
giving Service was held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. God
was duly thanked, but the doctors were not forgotten.
One of them was knighted, and all were handsomely
rewarded.
Probably you would claim the Prince of Wales as a
living proof of the efficacy of Prayer. But before you
boast of it let us see what happened in America.
President Garfield was shot by a pious assassin. Week
after week Science fought with Death over his sick
bed, and the awful struggle was watched by a trembling
world. “ O God, let him live! ” prayed millions in
church and chapel. “ O God, spare him, my husband,
my darling ! ” cried the agonised wife. But his life
ebbed slowly away amidst a nation’s prayers for his
recovery.
�126
Letters to the Clergy.
If God saved the Prince of Wales, why did he not
save President Garfield ? Is he a respecter of persons
after all ?
Oi' does he love Monarchies and hate
Republics ? You are bound to give some answer ; for
what sensible man will let you prove the efficacy of
prayer by counting the hits and neglecting the misses ?
And I defy you to give any answer without confuting
your doctrine or dishonoring your God. •
In the little sermon with which you conclude, you
picture Christ standing “ amid the surging, weeping
throng of agonised humanity ”—all created by the
God of love—and hearing their cries for help from
“ sin.” But is it not a fact that all the alleged miracles
of Christ were physical ? Where in the whole of the
Gospels, did he make a single bad man good? “I
have chosen you twelve,” he said ; “ and one of you is
a devil.” He had, therefore, in Judas a fine subject
for one of his “ spiritual ” miracles. But did he work
it? No, the “devil” betrayed him, and Judas has
been cursed by Christians ever since.
Pursuing the same idea, in an earlier part of your
volume, you assert that “if Prayer, and answers to
Prayer, are sometimes concerned with material and
physical matters, it is only in connection with spiritual
and moral conditions.” If you mean that miracles
are always wrought in connection with religion, you
are only uttering a barren truism ; but if you mean
that Prayer is never answered for the merely temporal
welfare of men, you are flying in the face of the Bible
and the Prayer Book; and I must add that such a
trick of special-pleading is a curious commentary on
the airs the clergy give themselves as the divinely
called servants of “ the God of truth.”
Let us take the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, to say
nothing of the many material answers to prayer in the
Old Testament. Does it not contain a distinct request
for “ daily bread ” ? And what is there spiritual or
moral in this petition ? Is it not merely the voice of
self-preservation, a cry from the stomach, a plea from
�Prayer.
127
the animal nature? And is it not in strict conformity
with the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, where
we are told to take no thought for the morrow, what we
shall eat or what we shall drink, but to leave all such
things to^the care of God ?
Prayer, in its beginning, was purely material. In
the higher religions of civilised and moralised nations
other characteristics are found. The deity is besought
to diminish social evils, to redress wongs, to punish the
wicked, and to increase righteousness. But just as the
anthropoid in developing his brain did not lose his
stomach, so the loftier developments of Prayer overlay
without destroying this primitive stock. In its earlier
stage, as Tylor says, it was “ unethical.” Look at this
prayer, offered bj the head of a family in the Samoan
Islands, when tha^ibation of ava was poured out at the
evening meal.
“ Here is ava for you, O Gods I Look kindly towards this
family : let it prosper and increase ; and let us all be kept in
health. Let our plantations be productive : let food grow;
and may there be abundance of food for us, your creatures.
Here is ava for you, our war gods !' Let there be a strong and
numerous people for you in this land.”
So the Gold Coast negro prays, “ God, give me to-day
rice and yams, gold and agries, give me slaves, riches,
and health, and that I may be brisk and swift.” Here
is a* Vedic prayer—“What, Indra, has not yet been
given by thee, Lightning-hurler, all good things bring
us hither with both hands . . . with mighty riches fill
me, with .wealth of cattle, for thou art great.” This
is a Moslem prayer—“ O, Allah I make this town to be
safe and secure, and blessed with wealth and plenty.”
So your Church Service bids 'the congregation pray on
behalf of the Queen, “ grant her in health and wealth
long to live.” And so the Lord’s Prayer sums up all
these material petitions in one compendious phrase—
“ Give us this day our daily bread.” “ Throughout the
rituals of Christendom,” as Tylor observes, “ stand an
endless array of supplications unaltered in principle
�128
Letters to the Clergy.
from savage tiAes—that the weather -may be adjusted
to our local needs, that we may have the victory over
all our enemies, that life and* health and wealth and
happiness may be ours?’
Your Prayer Book contains special forms of prayer
against storms at sea, against sickness, for rain, for
fine weather, and similiar mercies. What have these
to do with “spiritual and moral conditions?” They
are all bodily or material, and have nothing to do
with “ the soul?’ That you are well aware of them
goes without saying, for, as a clergyman of the Church
of England, you must have uttered them frequently;
and the Prayer Book is not so large a volume that
a minister might plead ignorance of its contents.
Your own ritual is thus a clear and flagrant proof that
supplications are made to God for material blessings,
quite independently of any other reMlts.
Obviously, then, to assert that Prayer, even in
Christian circles, is always connected with spiritual
and moral conditions, is quite unwarrantable; and
especially so on the part of a clergymen of the Church
of England.
Here I take leave of your volume. You have not
“helped” my “belief.” You have said nothing to
convince a doubter of the efficacy of Prayer. But
you have shown me, once more, that Christianity has
in its service a number of intelligent, accomplished,
and well-paid men, who juggle and chop straw for a
living. If I prayed at all, I would pray that they
might despise the wretched business, and earn even a
scantier allowance of bread in a more honest avocation.
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Letters to the clergy
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: vi, [7]-128 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Replies to material published by several bishops and theologians. First published in The Freethinker. 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
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N252
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
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 (Letters to the clergy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d5b9d6559203c491aacf1dea8831141c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=n0ayGawpkki5a1oAdmXAgEWwRm%7E1XV5fMdl%7EYlZ%7EIlTsDNO418qHQiNoxbZ1F7ldwKiu2Fq-72DEM8paRSiZYUjprrlPU5iXKS00CD%7E2KZ6uw3qBQscDiz23vTWE%7EcoAJUqetgIKi8PzO-dnjHsrJii8OwxL8eTNt8Q%7E-Fi2wP2YXmZh0jcuxaZd6B2YW6dgMk35KW%7ETYWLAsmP1O7DTfkmUJEwcRM%7EpfH7pBbs9OEht7JRY5Ce1wax-kuYLeOwmgxK11B9QOV6pe1SkCbb0rduVlFAQwnGrEDarphcsra26Pqb41X4jWx2ZwuKJNhi8dW8DtrNYnyepOe9-veL1qg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4f9e44abb0eec6a906f722add7bbf5ad
PDF Text
Text
1 f
z
THE
Essence
of
Religion
BY
LUDWIG FEUERBACH
["From
the
German.'
“No one has demonstrated and explained the purely human
origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig Feuerbach.”
—Buchner.
“ I confess that to Feuerbach I owe a debt of inestimable grati
tude. Feeling about in uncertainty for the ground, and finding
everywhere shifting sands, Feuerbach cast a sudden blaze in the
darkness and disclosed to me the way.”
—Rev, S. Baring-Gould.
ONE SHILLING.
^foiibou:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
��national secular society
THE
ESSENCE OF RELIGION
GOD THE IMAGE OF MAN.
MAN’S DEPENDENCE UPON NATURE
THE LAST AND ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGION.
BY
LUDWIG FEUERBACH
(Author of “ The Essence of Christianity,” <£•<?.)
TRANSLATED BY
ALEXANDER LOOS.
^onboix:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�LUDWIG
FEUERBACH.
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.
---------- o------ —
Ludwig Feuerbach was the fourth of the five sons of
th celebrated German criminalist Anselm von Feuer
bach, and born July 28, 1804, at Landshut in Bavaria.
The vicissitudes of his simple life do not present any
sensational features, and neither his position in life,
nor his inclination, tended to bring him prominently
before the public. His life was eminently a life of
thought, and his writings are his real biography.
What Feuerbach was at any time of his life, he was
with his whole soul. In his youth, as a pupil of the
Gymnasium at Anspach, he was a pious Christian—
pious with all the energy of his character. In the
fervor of his piety, he devoted himself from free
choice to the study of theology at the University of
Heidelberg, but without finding there any satisfactory
nourishment for the restless cravings of his aspiring
mind. He therefore left Heidelberg in 1824 for Berlin,
whence he wrote to his father as follows : “ I have
abandoned theology, not, however, wantonly or reck
lessly or from dislike, but because it does not satisfy
me, because it does not give me what I indispensably
need. I want to press Nature to my heart, from whose
depth the cowardly theologian shrinks back ; I want
to embrace man, but man in his entirety.” Feuerbach
�iv.
LUDWIG FEUERBACH.
could not resist the power with which Hegel then
attracted the young students; but he possessed too
independent a mind to swear upon the master’s word,
and gradually not only emancipated himself from
Hegel’s philosophy, but determined to throw off specu
lative philosophy altogether, and to exclusively devote
himself to the only true science, that of Nature. But
the death of King Max the First of Bavaria, whose
liberal patronage had enabled Anselm von Feuerbach
to give to each of his five talented sons a liberal educa
tion, frustrated this intention, and prevented Ludwig
Feuerbach from continuing his studies. He accordingly
settled in 1828 as a private tutor at the University of
Erlangen and lectured on Logic and Metaphysics, but
he soon realised that the prevailing scholasticism of
a royal university was not a congenial atmosphere for
his independent mind, and throwing up all official
connection with licensed institutions and systems, he
retired into the rural solitude of Bruckberg, a small
village near Anspach, where Nature and Science
absorbed all the fervor of his enthusiasm and inspired
him, during a residence of twenty-five years, with the
most important of his literary creations—a residence that
was interrupted only by a short visit at Heidelberg in
1848, whither he had been invited by the student
youth to give a course of lectures before a promiscuous
audience on “ The Essence of Religion.” The feelings
with which he hailed this self-emancipation from the
thraldom of office and scholastic influences can best be
realised from the words in which he gave vent to his
exultation, when in 1838 he had been united in blissful
wedlock to the sister-in-law of the friend who had
secured for him the asylum at Bruckberg: “ Now I
can do homage to my genius ; now I can devote myself
independently, freely, regardlessly to the development
of my own being ! ”
�LUDWIG FEUERBACH.
V.
Among his writings which have been published in a
uniform edition comprising ten volumes, the following
deserve especially to be mentioned : Thoughts on
Death and Immortality (1830); History of Modern
Philosophy from Bacon of Verulam to Spinoza (1833) ;
Representation, Development and Criticism of
Leibnitz's Philosophy (1837) ; Pierre Bayle (1838) ;
Essence of Christianity (1841, second edition 1843,
third edition 1848 — translated by George Eliot);
Essence of Religion (1845). This last-named work
which is here for the first time presented to the
English public in translation, forms the principal
basis for the thirty lectures on “ The Essence of
Religion,” which Ludwig Feuerbach, as before stated,
held in the winter of 1848-1849 at Heidelberg before
a promiscuous audience, and in which he endeavored
to fill a gap left in his Essence of Christianity, by
enlarging the argument of the latter, according to
which “ all theology is anthropology ” by the addition
of “ and physiology,” so that his doctrine and conception
of religion is embraced in the two words Nature and
Man. The last principal work of Ludwig Feuerbach
is Theogony according to the sources of Classic, Hebrew
and Christian antiquity, which forms the ninth
volume of his works; the tenth volume (1866)
consisting of a promiscuous collection of essays on
“ Deity, liberty, and immortality from the stand-point
of anthropology.”
Afterwards Feuerbach transferred his residence from
Bruckberg to Rechenberg near Nuremberg, where he
lived exclusively to his family and a small circle of
intimate friends. Solely devoted as he had been to
the service of science, he had not hoarded up any
riches and in consequence suffered toward the evening
of his life from severe and annoying deprivations. A
due sense of gratitude on the part of his contemporaries
�vi.
LUDWIG FEUERBACH.
in Europe and America, secured the success of a
national subscription, intended to relieve him and
his family from want and cares for the rest of his life.
But his health, undermined by severe mental labor
and deprivation, failed more and more rapidly and
disabled him even from fully realizing the enjoyment
of a nation’s grateful recognition, when a repeated
stroke of apoplexy overshadowed his existence with
the gloom of partial unconsciousness, until, on the 12th
of Sept., 1872, he died at Rechenberg.
In trying to briefly point out, in conclusion, the sub
stance of Ludwig Feuerbach’s writings in general and
of the subsequent argument in particular, we do not
know how to do this better or more strikingly, than in
his own words in which he speaks of his life-work as
follows :
“ My business was, and above everything is, to
illumine the dark regions of religion with the torch of
reason, that man at last may no longer be a sport to
the hostile powers that hitherto and now avail them
selves of the mystery of religion to oppose mankind.
My aim has been to prove that the powers before
which man crouches are creatures of his own limited,
ignorant, uncultured, and timorous mind, to prove
that in special the being whom man sets over against
himself as a separate supernatural existence is his own
being. The purpose of my writing is to make men
an#iropologians instead of ^eologians ; man-lovers
instead of God-lovers ; students of this world instead
of candidates of the next; self-reliant citizens of the
earth instead of subservient and wily ministers of a
celestial and terrestrial monarchy. My object is
therefore anything but negative, destructive, it is
positive ; I deny in order to affirm. I deny the
illusions of theology and religion that I may afinmthe
substantial being of man.”
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION
GOD THE IMAGE OF MAN
man’s dependence upon nature
the last and
ONLY SOURCE OF RELIGION.
-------- «-------1. That being which is different from and inde
pendent of man, or, which is the same thing, of God,
as represented in the Essence of Christianity,—the
being without human nature, without human qualities
and without human individuality is in reality nothing
but Nature.1
2. The feeling of dependence in man is the source
of religion ; but the object of this dependence, viz.,
that upon which man is and feels himself dependent,
is originally nothing but Nature. Nature is the first
original object of religion, as is sufficiently proved by
the history of all religions and nations.
3. The assertion that religion is innate with and
natural to man, is false, if religion is identified with
Theism ; but it is perfectly true, if religion is con
sidered to be nothing but that feeling of dependence
by which man is more or less conscious that he does
not and cannot exist without another being, different
from himself, and that his existence does not originate
in himself. Religion, thus understood, is as essential
1 Nature, according to my conception, is nothing but a general
word for denoting those beings, things, and objects which man
distinguishes from himself and his productions, and which he
embraces under the common name of “ Nature,” but by no means
a general being, abstracted and separated from the .real objects
and then personsified into a mystical existence.
�8
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
to man as light to the eye, as air to the lungs, as food
to the stomach. Religion is the manifestation of man’s
conception of himself. But above all man is a being
who does not exist without light, without air, without
water, without earth, without food,—he is, in short, a
being dependent on Nature. This dependence in the
animal, and in man as far as he moves within the
sphere of the brute, is only an unconscious and
unreflected one ; but by its elevation into consciousness
and imagination, by its consideration and profession,
it becomes religion. Thus all life depends on the
change of seasons; but man alone celebrates this
change by dramatic representations and festival acts.
But such festivals, which imply and represent nothing
but the change of the seasons, or of the phases of the
moon, are the oldest, the first, and the real confessions
of human religion.
4. Man, as well as any individual nation or tribe
considered in its particularity, does not depend on
nature or earth in general, but on a particular locality,
not on water generally, but on some particular water,
stream, or fountain. Thus the Egyptian is no Egyptian
out of Egypt; the Indian is no Indian out of India.
For this very reason those ancient nations which were
so firmly attached to their native soil, and not yet
attained to the conception of their true nature as mem
bers of mankind, but which clung to their individuality
and particularity as nations and tribes, were fully jus
tified in worshiping the mountains, trees, animals,
rivers and fountains of their respective countries as
divine beings ; for their whole individuality and
existence were exclusively based upon the particularity
of their country and its nature—just as he who recog
nises the universe as his home, and himself as a part
of it, transfers the universal character of his being into
his conception of God.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
9
5. It is a fantastic notion that man should have
been enabled only by “ Providence,” through the
assistance of “ superhuman ” beings, such as gods,
spirits, genii and angels, to elevate himself above the
state of the animal. Of course man has become what
he is not through himself alone ; he needed for this
the assistance of other beings. But these were no
supernatural creatures of imagination, but real, natural
beings—no beings standing above but below himself ;
for in general everything that aids man in his con
scious and voluntary actions, commonly and pre
eminently called humaD, every good gift and talent,
does not come from above, but from below ; not from
on high, but from the very depths of Nature. Such
assistant beings, such tutelary genii of man, are
especially the animals. Only through them man raised
himself above them ; only by their protection and
assistance, the seed of human perfection could grow.
Thus we read in the book of Zendavesta, and even in
its very oldest and most genuine part, Vendidad:
“ Through the intellect of the dog is the world upheld.
If he did not protect the world, thieves and wolves
would rob all property.” This importance of the
animals to man, particularly in times of incipient
civilisation, fully justifies the religious adoration with
which they are looked upon. The animals were
necessary and indispensable to man; on them his
human existence depended—but on what his life and
existence depends, that is his God. If the Christian
no longer adores Nature as God, it is only because in
his belief his existence does not depend on Nature,
but on the will of a being different from Nature ; but
still he considers and adores this being as a divine, i.e.
supreme being, only because he deems it to be the
author and preserver of his existence and life. Thus
the worship of God depends only on the self-adoration
�10
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
of man, and is nothing but the manifestation of the
latter : for suppose I should despise myself and my
life—and man originally and normally does not make
any distinction between himself and his life—how
should I praise and worship that upon which such
pitiful and contemptible life depends? The value
which I consciously attribute to the source of life
reflects therefore only the value which I unconsciously
attribute to life and myself. The higher therefore the
value of life, the higher also the value and dignity of
those who give life, viz., of the gods. How could the
gods possibly be resplendent in gold and silver, unless
man knew the value and the use of gold and silver ?
What a difference between the fulness and love of life
among the Greeks, and the desolation and contempt of
life among the Indians—but at the same time what
a difference between the Greek and Indian mythology,
between the Olympian father of the gods and of man
and the huge Indian opossum or the rattlesnake—the
ancestor of the Indians !
6. The Christian enjoys life just as much as the
heathen, but he sends his thankoflferings for the
enjoyments of life upward to the Father in Heaven ;
he accuses the heathen of idolatry for the very reason
that they confine their adoration to the creature and
do not rise to the first cause as the only true cause of
all benefits. But do I owe my existence to Adam, the
first man ? Do I revere him as my parent ? Why
shall I not stop at the creature ? Am I myself not a
creature ? Is not the very nearest cause which is
equally defined and individual with myself, the last
cause for me, who myself am not from afar, as I
myself am a defined and individual being ? Does not
my individuality, inseparable and undistinguishable
as it is from myself and my existence, depend on the
individuality of my parents ? Do I not, if I go further
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
11
back, at last lose all traces of my existence ? Is there
not a necessary limit to my thus going back in search
of the first cause ? Is not the beginning of my
existence absolutely individual ? Am I begotten and
conceived in the same year, in the same hour, with the
same disposition, in short under the same internal and
external conditions as my brother ? Is not therefore
my origin just as individually my own as my life
without contradiction is my own life ? Shall I there
fore extend my filial love and veneration back to
Adam? No, I am fully entitled to stop with my
religious reverence at those things which are nearest
to me, viz., my parents, as the cause of my existence.
7. The uninterrupted series of the finite causes or
objects, so-called, which was defined by the Atheists of
old as an infinite and bv the Theists as a finite one,
exists only in the thoughts and the imagination of man,
like time, in which one moment follows another
without interruption or distinction. In reality the
tedious monotony of this causal series is interrupted
and destroyed by the difference and individuality of
the objects, which individuality causes each by itself
to appear new, independent, single, final, and absolute.
Certainly water, which in the conception of natural
religion is a divine being, is on the one hand a
compound, depending on hydrogen and oxygen, but
at the same time it is something new, to be compared
to itself only, and original, wherein the qualities of its
two constituent elements, as such, have disappeared
and are destroyed. Certainly the moonlight, which the
heathen, in his religious simplicity, adored as an inde
pendent light, is derived from the immediate light of
the sun, but at the same time, different from the latter,
the peculiar light of the moon, changed and modified
by the moon’s resistance, and therefore a light which
could not exist without the moon, and whose particu
�12
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
larity has its source only in her. Certainly the dog,
whom the Persian addresses in his prayers as a
beneficial and therefore divine being on acconnt of his
watchfulness, his readiness to oblige and his faithful
ness, is a creature of Nature, which is not what he is
through himself ; but still it is only the dog himself,
this particular and no other being, which possesses
those qualities that call for my veneration. Shall I
now in recognition of these qualities look up to the
first and general cause, and turn my back on the dog ?
But the general cause is without distinction just as
much the cause of the friendly dog as of the hostile
wolf, whose existence I am obliged to destroy, in spite
of the general cause, if I will sustain the better right
of my own existence.
8. The Divine Being which is revealed in Nature, is
nothing but Nature herself, revealing and representing
herself with irresistible power as a Divine Being.
The ancient Mexicans adored among their many gods
also a god (or rather a goddess) of the salt. This god
of the salt may reveal to us in a striking exemplification
the God of Nature in general. The salt (rock-salt)
represents in its economical, medicinal and other
effects, the usefulness and beneficence of Nature, so
highly praised by the Theists ; in its effect on the eye,
in its colors, its brilliancy and transparency, her
beauty; in its crystalline structure and form, her
harmony and regularity; in its composition of
antagonistic elements, the combination of the opposite
elements of Nature into one whole—a combination
which by the Theists was always considered as an
unobjectionable proof for the existence of a ruler of
Nature, different from her, because in their ignorance
of Nature they did not know that antagonistic elements
and things are most apt to attract one another and
combine into a new whole. But what now is the god
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
13
of the salt ? That god whose domain, existence, mani
festation, effects and qualities are contained in the salt ?
Nothing but the salt itself which appears to man on
account of its qualities and effects as a divine, i.e., as
a beneficent, magnificent, praiseworthy and admirable
being. Homer expressively calls the salt divine.
Thus, as the god of the salt is only the impression and
expression of the deity or divinity of the salt, so also
is the God of the world or of Nature in general, only
the impression and expression of Nature’s divinity.
9. The belief that in Nature another being is mani
fested, distinct from Nature herself, or that Nature is
filled and governed by a different from herself, is in
reality identical with the belief that spirits, demons,
devils, etc., manifested themselves through man, at
least in a certain state, and that they possess him ; it is
in very truth the belief, that Nature is possessed by a
strange, spirtual being. And indeed Nature, viewed
in the light of such a belief, is really possessed by a
spirit, but this spirit of man, his imagination, his soul,
which transfers itself involuntarily into Nature and
makes her a symbol and mirror of his being.
10. Nature is not only the first and original object
but also the lasting source, the continuous, although
hidden background of religion. The belief that God,
even when he is imagined as a supernatural being,
different from Nature, is an object existing outside of
man, an objective being, as the philosophers call it ;
this belief has its only source in the fact, that the
objective being, which really exists outside of man,
viz., the world or Nature, is originally God. The
existence of Nature is not, as Theism imagines, based
upon the existence of God, but vice versa, the existence
of God, or rather the belief in his existence, is only
based upon the existence of Nature. You are obliged
to imagine God as an existing being, only because you
�14
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
are obliged by Nature herself to pre-suppose the
existence of Nature as the cause and condition of your
existence and consciousness, and the very first idea
connected with the thought of God is nothing but the
very idea that he is the existence preceding your own
and presupposed to it. Or the belief that God exists
absolutely outside of man’s soul and reason, no matter
whether man exists or not, whether he contemplates
him or not, whether he desires him or not—this belief
or rather its object, does not reflect anything to your
imagination but Nature, whose existence is not based
upon the existence of man, much less upon the action
of the human intellect and imagination. If, therefore,
the theologians, particularly the Rationalists, find the
honor of God pre-eminently in his having an existence
independent of man’s thoughts, they may consider
that the honor of such an existence likewise must be
attributed to the Gods of blinded heathenism, to the
stars, stones and animals, and that in this respect the
existence of their god does not differ from the
existence of the Egyptian Apis.
Those qualites which imply and express the difference
between the divine being and the human being or at
least the human individual, are originally and im
plicitly only qualities of Nature. God is the most
powerful or rather the almighty being, z.e., he can do
what man is not able to do, what infinitely surpasses
his powers, and what therefore inspires him with the
humiliating feeling of his limitedness, weakness and
nullity. “ Canst thou,” says God to Job, “bind the
sweet influences of Pleiades or loose the bands of
Orion ? Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go
unto thee and say here we are ? Hast thou given the
horse strength ? Does the hawk fly by thy wisdom ?
Hast thou an arm like God, or canst thou thunder with
a voice like him?” No, that man cannot do, with the
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
15
thunder the human voice cannot be compared. But
■what power is manifest in the power of the thunder,
in the horse’s strength, in the flight of the hawk, in
he restless course of the Pleiades? The power of
N ature.
God is an eternal being. But in the Bible itself we
read: “ One generation passeth away and another
generation cometh : but the earth abideth forever.”
In the books of Zendavesta, sun and moon are expres
sively called “ immortal,” on account of their duration
And a Peruvian Inca said to a Dominican monk, “ You
adore a God who died on the cross, but I worship the
Sun, which never dies.”
God is the all-kind being, “ for he maketh the sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjustbut that being which
does not distinguish between good and evil, between
just and unjust, which distributes the enjoyments of
life not according to moral merits ; which in general
imp resses man as a kind being, because its effects, such
as for instance the refreshing sunlight and rain-water
are the sources of the most beneficial sensations : that
being is Nature.
God is an all-embracing, universal and unchangeable
being ; but it is also one and the same sun which
shines for all men and beings on the earth ; it is one
and the same sky which embraces them all ; one and
the same earth which bears them all. “ That there is
one God,” says Ambrosius, “ is proved by common
Nature ; for there is only one world.” “ Just as the sun
the sky, the moon, the earth and the sea are common
to all,” says Plutarch, “although they are differently
called by each one, so exists also one spirit, who rules
the universe, but he has different names and is wor
shipped in different ways.”
God “ dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”
�16
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
but Nature neither. Who can enclose the light, the
sky, the sea, within human limits ? The ancient
Persians and Germans worshipped only Nature, but
they had no temples. The worshipper of Nature finds
the artificial, well-measured halls of a temple or of a
church too narrow, too sultry ; he feels at his ease only
under the lofty, boundless sky which appears to the
contemplation of his senses.
God is that being which cannot be defined with
human measure, a great, immeasurable, infinite being ;
but he is such a being only because his work, the
universe, is great, immeasurable and infinite, or at
least appears to be so. The work praises its master :
the magnificence of the creator has its origin only in
the magnificence of his product. “ How great is the
sun, but how much greater is he who made it ! ”
God is a superterrestrial, superhuman, supreme
being, but even this supreme being is in its origin and
basis nothing but the highest being in space, optically
considered : the sky with its brilliant phenomena. All
religions of some imagination transfer their gods into
the region of the clouds, into the ether of the sun,
moon and stars : all gods are lost at last in the blue
vapor of heaven. Even the spiritual God of Christianity
has his seat, his basis above in heaven.
God is a mysterious, inconceivable being, but only
because Nature is to man, especially to religious man,
a mysterious inconceivable being. “ Dost thou know,”
says God to Job, “ the balancings of the clouds ? Hast
thou entered into the springs of the sea ? Hast thou
perceived the breadth of the earth ? Hast thou seen
the treasures of the hail ? ”
Finally, God is that being which is independent of
the human will, unmoved by human wants and
passions, always equal to himself, ruling according to
unchangeable laws, establishing his institutions un
�17
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
changeable for all time. But this being again is
nothing but Nature, which remains the same in all
changes, never exhibiting the vacillations of an
arbitrary, wilful ruler, but subject in all her mani
festations to unalterable laws : inexorable, regardless
Nature.2
12. Although God, as the author of Nature, is
imagined and represented as a being different from
Nature, still what is implied and expressed by this
being, its real contents, is nothing but Nature. “Ye
shall know them by their fruits,” we read in the Bible,
and the apostle Paul points expressively to the world
as to the work wherein God’s existence and being can
be understood, for what one produces, that contains
his being and shows what he is able to do. What we
have in Nature, that we have in God, only imagined as
the author or cause of Nature—therefore no moral and
spiritual, but only a natural, physical being. A
worship founded only upon God as the author of
Nature, without attributing to him any other qualities,
derived from man, and without imagining him at the
same time as a political and moral, i.e. human lawgiver
— such worship would be a mere worship of Nature.
Ic is true that the author of Nature is thought to be
endowed with intellect and will; but what his will
desires, what his intellect thinks, is just that which
es no will nor intellect, but only mechanical,
2 All those qualities which originally are derived only from the
contemplation of Nature, become in later times abstract, meta
physical qualities, just as Nature herself becomes an abstraction
or creation of human reason. On this later standpoint, where
man forgets the origin of God in Nature, when God no longer is
an object of the senses, but an imaginary being, we must say : God
without human qualities, who is to be distinguished from the
properly human God, is nothing but the essence of reason. So
much as regards the relation between this work and my former
ones, Luther and The Essence of Christianity.
B
�18
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
physical, chemical, vegetable and animal forces and
impulses.
13. As little as the formation of the child in the
womb, the pulsations of the heart, digestion and other
organic functions are effects of the intellect and
will, so little is Nature in general the effect or
production of a spiritual being, i.e, of a being that
wills and knows or thinks. If Nature was originally
a product of mind, and therefore a manifestation
of mind, then also the natural phenomena of the
present time would be spiritual effects and
manifestations.
A supernatural commencement
necessarily requires a supernatural continuation. For
man thinks intellect and will to be the cause of
Nature only where the effects defy his own will, and
surpass his intellect, where he explains things only
through human analogies and reasons, where he knows
nothing of the natural causes, and therefore derives
also the special and present phenomena from God, or—
as for instance the movements of the stars which he
cannot understand—from subordinate spirits. But if
now-a-days the fulcrum of the earth and of the stars
is no longer the almighty word of God, and the motive
of their movement no spiritual or angelic but a
mechanical one : then the first cause of this movement
is also necessarily a mechanical, or, in general, a natural
one. To derive Nature from intellect and will, or in
general from the mind, is to reckon without the host,
is to bring forth the savior of the world from the virgin
without the co-operation of a man, through the Holy
Ghost—is to change water into wine—is to appease
storms with words, to transfer mountains with words,
to restore sight to the blind with words. What weak
ness and narrow-mindedness does it betray to do away
with the secondary causes of superstition, such as
miracles, devils, spirits, etc., in explaining the pheno
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
19
mena of Nature, but to leave untouched the first cause
of superstition!
14. Several of the ancient ecclesiastical writers assert,
that the Son of God is not a product of God’s will,
but of God’s nature ; that the product of Nature is
earlier than the product of the will, and that, therefore,
the act of begetting, as an act of Nature, precedes the
act of creation as an act of will. Thus the acknowledg
ment of Nature and her omnipotent laws prevails even
within the sphere of the belief in the supernatural
God, although in the plainest contradiction of his own
will and being. The act of begetting is presupposed
to the act of the will ; the activity of Nature is con
sidered as preceding the activity of thought and will.
This is perfectly true. Nature must necessarily exist
before anything exists which distinguishes itself from
Nature, and which places Nature, as an object of the
act of thinking and willing, in opposition to itself.
The true way of philosophy leads from the want of
intelligence to intellect; but the direct way into the
madhouse of theology, goes from the intellect to the
want of intellect. To base the mind not upon Nature,
but, vice versa, Nature upon the mind, is the same as
to place the head, not upon the abdomen, but the latter
upon the former. Every higher degree of development
presupposes the lower one, not vice versa3, for the
simple reason, that the higher one must have something
below it, in order to be the higher one. And the
higher a being stands and the greater its value or
dignity is, the more it presupposes. For this very
reason not the first being, but the latest, the last, the
most depending, the most needful, the most compli
cated being is the highest one, just as in the history of
3 This may be true in a iogical sense, but never as far as the
real genesis is concerned.
�20
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
the earth’s formation, not the oldest and first works,
such as the slate and granite, but the latest and most
recent products, such as the basalts and the dense lavas,
are the heaviest and weightiest ones. A being which
has the honor of presupposing nothing, has also the
honor of being nothing. But it is true that the Chris
tians understand well the art of making something out
of nothing.
15. “ All things come from and depend upon God,”
so the Christian says in harmony with his godly faith
“ but,” he adds immediately with his ungodly intellect,
“ only indirectly.” God is only the first cause after
which comes the endless host of subordinate gods, the
regiment of intermediate causes. But the intermediate
causes, so-called, are the only real and effective ones,
the only objective and sensible causes. A God who
no longer casts down man with the arrows of Apollo,
who no longer arouses the soul with Jove’s thunder
and lightning, who.no longer threatens the sinner with
comets and other fiery phenomena, who no longer
with his own high hand attracts the iron to the load
stone, produces ebb and tide, and protects the
continent against the overbearing power of the waters
which always threaten another deluge—in short, a God
driven from the empire of the intermediate causes is
only a cause by name, a harmless and very modest
creature of imagination—a mere hypothesis for the
purpose of solving a theoretical problem, for explain
ing the commencement of Nature or rather of organic
life. For the assumption of a being different from
Nature, with the purpose of explaining her existence,
has its origin only in the impossibility—although this
is only a relative and subjective one—of explaining
organic and particularly human life from Nature,
inasmuch as the Theist makes his inability to explain
life through Nature, an inability of Nature to produce
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
21
life out of herself, and thus extends the limits of his
intellect to limits of Nature.
16. Creation and preservation are inseparable. If,
therefore, a being different from Nature—a God—is
our creator, he is also our preserver, and not the power
of the air, of heat, of the water, or of bread, but the
power of God sustains and preserves us. “ In him we
live and move and have our being.” “Not bread,’’
says Luther, “ but the word of God nourishes also the
body naturally, as it creates and preserves all things.”
“ Because it exists, he (God) nourishes by it and under
it, so that we do not see it, and think that the bread
does it. But where it does not exist, he nourishes
without the bread, through his word only, as he does it
by the bread.” “In fine, all creatures are God’s masks
and mummeries which he permits to assist him in all
kind of work that he otherwise can, and really does
perform without their co-operation.” But if, instead
of Nature, God is our preserver, Nature is a mere
disguise of the Deity, and, therefore, a superfluous and
imaginary being, just as vice versa God is a superfluous
and imaginary being if Nature preserves us. But now
it is manifest and undeniable that we owe our preserva
tion only to the peculiar effects, qualities, and powers
of natural beings, therefore we are not only entitled,
but compelled, to conclude that we owe also our origin
to Nature. We are placed right in the midst of Nature,
and should our beginning, our origin, lie outside of
Nature ? We live within Nature, with Nature, by
Nature, and should we still not be of her ? What a
contradiction I
17. The earth has not always been in its present
state ; on the contrary, it has come to its actual condi
tion through a series of developments and revolutions,
and geology has discovered that in the different stages
of its development several species of plants and animals
�22
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
existed, which no longer exist nor even have existed
for ages. Thus, for instance, there exist no longer any
Trilobites nor any Encinites or Ammonites or
Pterodactyles or Ichthyosauri, or Plesiosauri, or
Megatheria or Dinotheria, etc.
And why not?
Apparently because the condition of their existence no
longer exists. But if the end of any life coincides
with the end of its conditions, then also the beginning,
the origin of such life coincides with the origin
of its conditions.
Even now-a-days where plants,
at least those of higher organisations, come to
life only by organic procreation, they can—in
a very remarkable, yet unexplained manner—be seen
to appear in numberless multitudes as soon as the
peculiar conditions of their life are given. The origin
of organic life cannot, therefore, be thought of as an
isolated act, as an act after the origin of the conditions
of life, but rather as the act by which and the moment
in which the temperature, the air, the water, the earth
in general, received such qualities, and oxygen, hydro
gen, carbon, nitrogen entered into such combinations
as were necessary for the existence of organic life—
this moment must also be considered as the moment
when these elements combined for the formation of
organic bodies. If, therefore, the earth, by virtue of its
own nature, has in the course of time developed and
cultivated itself to such a degree that it adopted a
character agreeable to the existence of man and suitable
to man’s nature, or so to say, a human character : then
it could produce man also by its own power.
18. The power of Nature is not unlimited like the
power of God, i.e., the power of human imagination ;
she cannot do everything at all times and under all
circumstances—her productions and effects on the
contrary are dependent on conditions. If therefore,
Nature now-a-days cannot or does not produce any
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
23
organic bodies by generatio cequivoca, this is no proof
that she could not do it in former times. The present
character of the earth is that of stability ; the time of
revolutions is gone by, the earth has done raging. The
volcanos only are some single turbulent heads which
have no influence on the masses, and which therefore
do not disturb the existing order of things. Even the
grandest volcanic event within the memory of man,
viz., the rising of Jorullo in Mexico, was nothing but
a local rebellion. But as man manifests only in extra
ordinary times extraordinary powers, or as he can do
only in times of the highest exaltation and emotion
what at other times is impossible for him, and as the
plant only at certain epochs, such as the period of
germinating, blooming and impregnation produces
heat and consumes carbon and hydrogen, thus ex
hibiting an animal function, which is directly in con
tradiction to its ordinary vegetable functions ; so also
the earth only in the time of its geological revolutions,
when all its powers and elements were in a state of
highest fermentation, ebullition and tension, developed
its power of producing animals. We know Nature
only in its present state ; how, then, could we co nclude
that what does not happen now by Nature, might not
happen at all—even at entirely different times, under
entirely different conditions and relations ?4
19. The Christians have not been able to express
with sufficient strength their astonishment that the
4 It is self-evident that I do not intend to finally dispose in
these few words of the great problem of the origin of organic life ;
but they are sufficient for my argument, as I give here only the
indirect proof that life cannot have any other source but Nature.
As regards the direct proofs of natural science, we are still far
from the end, but in comparison with former times—especially in
consequence of the lately proved identity of organic and inorganic
phenomena—at least far enough to be able to be convinced of the
natural origin of life, although the manner of this origin is yet
unknown to us, or even if it never should be revealed to us.
�24
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
heath en adored created beings as divine ones, but they
might rather have admired them on that account, for
such adoration was based on a perfectly true contem
plation of Nature. To be produced, to come into life,
is nothing else but to be individualised. All individual
beings are produced, but the general fundamental
elements or beings of Nature which have no individu
ality are not produced. Matter is not produced. But
an individual being is of a higher, more divine quality
than that without individuality. It is true that birth
is disgraceful and death painful, but he who does not
wish to begin and to end may resign the rank of a
living being. Eternity excludes life, and life excludes
eternity. Certainly does the individual presuppose
another being which produces it; but the latter does
not stand above, it stands below its product. True,
the producing being is the cause of existence and in
that respect the first being ; still it is at the same time
the mere means and material ; the basis of another
being’s existence, and therefore a subordinate being.
The child consumes the mother, disposes of her
strength and of her substance to his own advantage,
paints his cheeks with her blood. And the child is
the mother’s pride ; she places it above herself, sub
ordinating her existence and welfare to that of the
child ; even the animal mother sacrifices her own life
for that of her young ones. The deepest disgrace of
any being is death, but the source of death is the act
of begetting. To beget is nothing but to throw one’s
self away, to make one’s self common, to be lost among
the multitude, - to sacrifice one’s singleness and ex
clusiveness to other beings. Nothing is more full of
contradiction, more perverse and void of sense, than to
consider the natural being as produced by a supreme,
perfectual being. According to such a process, and in
consistency with the creature’s being only an image of
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
25
the creator, also the human children ought not to
originate in the disgraceful, lowly placed organ of the
womb, but in the highest organisation, the head.
20. The ancient Greeks derived all springs, wells,
streams, lakes and oceans from Oceanos ; and the
ancient Persians made all mountains of the earth
originate in the mountain Albordy. Is the derivation
of all beings from one perfect being anything different
or better ? No, it is based upon the same manner of
thinking. As Albordy is a mountain like all those
which have their origin in it, so also the divine being,
as the source of those derived from it, is like them, not
different from them as to species ; but as the Albordy
is distinguished from all other mountains by
preserving their qualities pre-eminently, i.e. in a
degree exaggerated by imagination to the utmost, up to
heaven, beyond the sun, moon and stars, so also the
divine being is distinguished from all other beings.
Unity is unproductive ; only dualism, contrast,
difference is productive. That which produces the
mountains is not only different from them, but some
thing manifold in itself. And those elements which
produce water, are not only different from the water,
but also from themselves, nay, even antagonistic to
one another. Just as genius, wit, acumen and
judgment are produced and developed only by
contrasts and conflicts, so also life was produced only
by the conflict of different, nay, of antagonistic
elements, forces and beings.
21. “ How should he who made the ear not hear ?
How should he who made the eye not see ?” This
biblical or theistical derivation of the being endowed
with the senses of hearing and seeing from another
being endowed with the same senses, or to use an
expression of the modern, philosophic language, the
derivation of the spiritual and subjective being from
�26
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
another spiritual and subjective being, is based upon
the same foundation, and expresses the same as the
biblical explanation of the rain from heavenly masses
of water collected beyond or in the clouds, or the
Persian derivation of the mountains from the
original mountain, Albordy, or the Grecian explanation
of fountains and rivers from Oceanos. Water from
water, but from an immensely great and all-embracing
water ; mountain from mountain, but from an infinite
all-embracing mountain ; so spirit from spirit, life
from life, eye from eye—but from an infinite,
all-embracing eye, life and spirit.
22. When children inquire about the origin of babes,
we give them the explanation that the nurse takes
them from the well where they swim like fishes. The
explanation which theology gives us of the origin of
organic or natural beings in general is not much
different. God is the deep or beautiful well of
imagination in which all realities, all perfections, all
forces are contained, in which all things swim already
made like little fishes. Theology is the nurse who
takes them from this well, but the chief person,
Nature, the mother who brings forth the children with
pangs, who bears them during nine months under her
heart, is left entirely out of consideration in such an
explanation, which originally was only childlike, but
now-a-days is childish. Certainly such an explanation
is more beautiful, more pleasant to the heart, easier,
more intelligible and conceivable to the children of
God than the natural way, which only by degrees and
through numberless obstacles rises from darkness to
light. But also the explanation which our pious
forefathers gave of hailstorms, epidemics among cattle,
drought and thunderstorms, by tracing them to the
agency of weather-makers, sorcerers, and witches, is
far more practical, easier, and, to uneducated men even
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
27
now-a-days much more intelligible than the explanation
of these phenomena from natural causes.
23. “ The origin of life is inexplicable and incon
ceivable.” Be it so ; but this incomprehensibility does
not justify us in drawing from the superstitious conse
quences which theology draws from the deficiencies
of human knowledge, nor in going beyond the sphere
of natural causes : for we can only say, “ we cannot
explain life from these natural phenomena and causes
which are known to us, or as far as they are known to
us ”—but we cannot say, “ life cannot be explained at
all from Nature,” without pretending to have exhausted
already the ocean of Nature even to the last drop.
This incomprehensibility does not justify us in explain
ing the inexplicable by the supposition of imagined
beings, and in deceiving and deluding ourselves and
others by an explanation which explains nothing. It
does not justify us in changingan ignorance of natural
material causes into a non-existence of such causes,
and in deifying, personifying, representing our ignor
ance in a being which is to destroy such ignorance,
and which yet does not express anything but the
nature of such ignorance, the deficiency of positive,
material reasons of explanation. For what else is the
immaterial, incorporeal, non-natural, extra-mundane
being to whom we thus try to trace back all life, but
the precise expression of the intellectual absence of
material, corporeal, natural, cosmical causes ? But
instead of being so honest and modest as to say
frankly : “We do not know any reason, we do not
know how to explain it, we have no data nor materials,”
you change these deficiencies, these negations, these
vacancies of your head by the activity of your
imagination into positive beings, into immaterial
beings, «.e., into beings which are not material nor
natural, because you do not know of any material or
�28
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
natural causes. While ignorance, however, is contented
with immaterial, incorporeal, unnatural beings, her
inseparable companion, wanton imagination, which
always and exclusively indulges in the intercourse
with beings of the highest perfection, immediately
elevates these poor creatures of ignorance to the rank
of supermaterial, supernatural beings.
24. The idea that Nature or the universe in general
has a real beginning, and that consequently at some
time there was no Nature, no universe, is a narrow idea,
which seems acceptable to man only as long as he has
a narrow, limited conception of the world. It is an
imagination without sense and foundation—this
imagination that at some time nothing real existed, for
the universe is the totality of all reality. All qualities
or definitions of God which make him an objective,
real being are only qualities abstracted from Nature,
which presuppose and define Nature, and which there
fore would not exist if Nature did not exist. It is true,
if we abstract from Nature ; if in our thoughts or our
imagination we destroy her existence, i.e., if we shut
our eyes and extinguish all images of natural things
reflected by our senses, and conceive Nature not with
our senses (not in concrete as the philosophers say),
there is left a being, a totality of qualities such as
infinity, power, unity, necessity, eternity ; but this
being which is left after deducting all qualities and
phenomena reflected by our senses is in truth nothing
but the abstract essence of Nature, or Nature “ in
abstract," in thought. And such derivation of Nature
or the universe from God is therefore in this respect
nothing but the derivation of the real essence of
Nature, as it appears to our senses, from her abstract,
imagined essence, which exists only in our idea—a
derivation which appears to be reasonable because in
the act of thinking we are accustomed to consider the
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
29
abstract and general as that which is nearer to thought,
and which therefore must be presupposed to the
individual, the real, the concrete, as that which is
higher and earlier in thought,, although in reality just
the reverse takes place, inasmuch as Nature exists
before God, i.e., the concrete before the abstract, that
which we conceive with our senses before that which
is thought. In reality, where everything passes on
naturally, the copy follows the original, the image the
thing which it represents, the thought its object—but
on the supernatural, miraculous ground of theology,
the original follows the copy, the thing its own like
ness. “ It is strange,” says St. Augustine, “ but never
theless true, that this world could not exist if it was
not known to God.” That means : the world is known
and thought before it exists ; nay, it exists only because
it was thought of—the existence is a consequence of
the knowledge or of the act of thinking, the original a
consequence of the copy, the object a consequence of
its likeness.
25. If we reduce the world or Nature to a totality of
abstract qualities, to a metaphysical, i.e., to a merely
imagined object, and consider this abstract world as the
real world, then it is a logical necessity to consider it as
finite. The world is not given to us through the act of
thinking, not at least through the metaphysical and
hyperphysical thinking which abstracts from the real
World and founds its true and highest existence upon
such abstraction—the world is given to us through life,
by perception, by the senses. For an abstract being
which only thinks there exists no light, because it has
no eyes, no warmth, because it has no feeling, in
general no world because it has no organ for its
perceptions ; for such a being there exists in reality
nothing. The world, therefore, exists for us only
because we are no logical or metaphysical beings,
�30
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
because we are other beings, because we are more
than mere logicians and metaphysicians. • But just
this plus appears to the metaphysical thinker, as a
minus, this negation of the art of thinking as an abso
lute negation. Nature to him is nothing but the
opposite of mind. This merely negative and abstract
definition he makes her positive definition, her essence.
Consequently it is a contradiction to consider as a
positive being that being, or rather that nonentity
which is only the negation of the act of thinking,
which is an imagined thing, but according to its nature
an object of the senses, that is antagonistic to the act
of thinking and to the mind. The being which exists
in thought is for the thinker the true essence, therefore
it is self-evident to him that a being which does not
exist in thought cannot be a true, eternal, original
essence. It implies already a contradiction for the
mind to think only of its opposite ; it is only in
harmony with itself when it thinks only itself (on the
standpoint of metaphysical speculation), or at least
(on the standpoint of theism) when it thinks an essence
which expresses nothing but the nature of the act of
thinking, which is given only by thought, and which
therefore in itself is nothing but an imagined being.
Thus Nature disappears into nothing. But still she
exists, though according to the thinker she neither can
nor should be. How then does the metaphysician
explain her existence ? By a self-privation, a self
negation, a self-denial of the mind which apparently
is a voluntary one, but which in very truth is
contradictory to, and only enforced upon his inner
nature. But if Nature on the standpoint of abstract
thinking disappears into nothing, on the other hand on
the standpoint of the real observation and contempla
tion of the world, that creative mind disappears into
nothing. On this standpoint all deductions of the
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
31
world from. God, of Nature from the mind, of physics
from metaphysics, of the real from the abstract, are
proved to be nothing but logical plays.
26. Nature is the first and fundamental object of
religion, but she is such an object even where she is
the direct and immediate object of religious adoration,
as e.g. in the natural religions so-called, not as such, as
Nature, i.e., in the manner and in the sense in which
we regard her from the standpoint of theism or of
philos ophy and of the natural sciences. Nature is to
man originally, i.e., where he regards her with a
religious eye, rather an object of his own qualities, a
per sonal, living, feeling being. Man originally does
not distinguish himself from Nature, nor consequently
Nature from himself, therefore the sensations which
any object in Nature excites in him appear to him
im mediately as qualities of the object. The beneficial,
go od sensations and effects are caused by good and
benevolent Nature ; the bad, painful sensations, such
as heat, cold, hunger, pain, disease, by an evil being,
or at 1 east by Nature in a state of evil disposition, of
mal evolence, of wrath. Thus man involuntarily and
unc onsciously, i.e., necessarily—although this necessity
is only a relative and historical one—transforms the
essence of Nature into a feeling, i.e., a subjective, a
human being.
No wonder that he then also
expressively, knowingly and willingly transforms her
into an object of religion, of prayer, i.e., an object
which can be influenced by the feelings of man, his
prayers, his services. Really, man has made Nature
already subservient and subdued her to himself by
assimilating her to his feelings and subduing her to his
passions. Besides, uneducated natural man does not
only presuppose human motives, impulsesand passions
in Nature, he sees even real men in natural bodies.
Thus the Indians on the Orinoco thi nk the sun, the moon
�32
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
and the stars, to be men, “those up there,” they say “are
men like unto us ; ” the Patagonians think the stars to
be “ former Indians ; ” the Greenlanders think the
sun, moon and stars, to be their ancestors, who at a
particular occasion were translated into heaven. Thus
also the ancient Mexicans believed that the sun and
the moon which they adored as gods had been men in
former times. Behold thus' the assertion made in my
“ Essence of Christianity ” that man in religion is in
relation to an intercourse with himself only, and that
his God in reality reflects only his own essence—this
assertion is confirmed even by the most uncultivated,
primary manifestations of religion ; where man adores
things the most distant from and most unlike to him
self, such as stars, stones, trees, nay, even the claws of
crabs, and snail shells; for he adores them only
because he transfers himself into them, because he
believes them to be such beings, or at least to be
inhabited by such beings as himself. Religion there
fore exhibits the remarkable contradiction, which
however is easily understood, nay, even necessary,
that, while on one hand (from the standpoint of theism
or anthropologism) she worships the human essence as
a divine one, because it appears to her as different
from man, as an essence not human—on the other
hand (from the materialistic standpoint) she adores
vice versa the essence which is not human as a divine
one, because it appears to her as a human one.
27. The mutability of Nature, especially in those
phenomena which most of all cause man to feel his
dependence on her, is the principal reason why she
appears to man as a human, arbitrary being, and why
she is religiously adored by him. If the sun stood
always in the sky, he would never have kindled the
fire of religious passion in man. Only when he dis
appeared from man’s eye and inflicted upon him the
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
33
terrors of night, and when again he re-appeared, man
fell down on his knees before him, overcome by joy at
his unexpected return. Thus the ancient Apalachites
in Florida greeted the sun with hymns at his rising
and setting, and prayed to him at the same time that
he might return and bless them with his light. If the
earth always produced fruits, where would there be a
motive for religious celebrations of the time of sowing
and harvesting ? Only in consequence of her now
opening, now closing her womb, her fruits appear to
be her voluntary gifts which oblige man to be grateful.
The changes in Nature make man uncertain, humble,
religious. It is uncertain, whether the weather to
morrow will be favorable to my undertakings ; it is
uncertain whether I shall harvest what I sow, and
therefore I cannot depend upon the gifts of Nature as
upon a tribute due, or an infallible consequence. But
where mathematical certainty is at an end, there
theology commences, even now-a-days, in weak minds.
Religion is the conception of the necessary—or of the
accidental—as of something arbitrary, or voluntary.
The opposite sentiment, that of irreligion and ungod
liness, on the other hand, is represented by the Cyclops
of Euripides, when he says : “ Earth must produce
grass for feeding my flock, whether she be willing to
do so or not.”
28. The feeling of dependence upon Nature in com
bination with the imagination of her as of an arbitrarily
acting, personal being, is the motive of the sacrifice,
the most essential act of natural religion. The depend
ence upon Nature is particularly sensible to me by my
want of her. The want is the feeling and expression of
my nothingness without Nature ; but inseparable from
want is enjoyment, the opposite feeling, the feeling of
my self-existence, of my independence in distinction
from Nature. Want, therefore, is pious, humble, relic
�34:
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
gious—but enjoyment is haughty, ungodly, void of
respect, frivolous. And such frivolity, or at least want
of respect in enjoyment, is a practical necessity for
man, a necessity upon which his existence is founded
—but a necessity which is in direct contradiction to
his theoretical respect for Nature as for an egotistic,
sensible being, which suffers as little as man that any
thing be taken from her. The appropriation or the
use of Nature appears therefore to man, as if it were
an encroachment upon her right, as an appropriation
of another one’s property, as an outrage. In order
now to propitiate his conscience as well as the
object of his imaginary offence ; in order to sho w that
his robbery has its origin in want, not in arrogan ce, he
diminishes his enjoyment and returns to the object a
part of its plundered property. Thus the Greeks
believed that if a tree were cut down, its soul, the
Dryad, lamented and cried to Fate for revenge against
the trespasser. Thus no Roman ventured to cut down
a tree on his ground without sacrificing a farrow for
the propitiation of the god or goddess of this grove.
Thus the Ostiaks, after having slain a bear, suspend its
skin on a tree, pay to it all sorts of reverences, and
apologise as well as they can to the bear for having
killed him. “ They believe in this manner politely to
avert the damage which the spirit of the animal possibly
could inflict upon them.” Thus North American tribes
by similar ceremonies propitiate the departed souls of
slain beasts. Thus the Phillippines asked the plains
and mountains for their permission, if they wished to
cross them, and deemed it a crime to cut down any
old tree. And the Brahmin hardly dares to drink water
or to tread upon the ground with his feet, because each
step, each draught of water causes pain and death to
sentient beings, plants as well as animals, and he must
therefore do penance “ in order to atone for the death
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
35
of creatures which he possibly, although unconsciously,
might destroy by day or night.”5
29. The sacrifice makes perceptible to the senses
the whole essence of religion. Its source is the feeling
of dependence, fear, doubt, the uncertainty of success,
of future events, the scruples of conscience on account
of a sin committed ; but the result, the purpose of the
sacrifice, is self-consciousness, courage, enjoyment, the
certainty of success, liberty and happiness. As a ser
vant of Nature I observe the sacrifice ; as her master
I depart from it. Therefore, although the feeling of
dependence upon Nature is the source and motive of
religion : its very purpose and end is the destruction
of such feeling, the independence from Nature. Or,
although the divinity of Nature is the basis, the
foundation of religion generally and of Christian reli
gion in particular, still its end is the divinity of man.
30. Religion has for its presupposition the contra
diction between will and ability, desire and satisfaction,
intention and success, imagination and reality, thought
and existence. In his desire, in his imagination, man
is unlimited, free, almighty—God ; but in his ability,
in reality, he is bound, dependent, limited—man ; man
in the sense of a finite being, in contradistinction from
God. “ Man proposes, God disposes,” as the saying is.
“ Man plans and Jove accomplishes it differently.”
The thought, the will is mine ; but what I think and
will is not mine, is outside of me, does not depend on
me. The destruction of such a contradiction is the
tendency, the purpose of religion ; and that being in
which it is destroyed, and wherein that which I wish
5 Under this head we may also mention the many rules of
etiquette which the ancient religions lay upon man in his inter
course with Nature,in order not to pollute or to violate her. Thus,
e.g., no worshipper of Ormuzd was permitted to tread barefoot on
the ground, because earth was sacred; no Greek was allowed to
ford a river with unwashed hands.
�36
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
and imagine as possible, which, however, my limited
power proves to be impossible for me, is possible, nay
even real—that being is the divine being.
31. That which is dependent from the will and the
knowledge of man is the original, proper, characteristic
cause of religion—the cause of God. “ I have planted,”
says Paul, “ Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither
he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.”
And Luther says: “ We must praise and thank God
that he suffers grain to grow, and acknowledge that it
is not our work, but his blessing and his gift, if grain
and wine and all sorts of fruit grow which we eat and
drink to satisfy our wants.” And Hesiod says, that
the industrious husbandmen will richly harvest if
Jove grants a good end. The tilling of the soil then,
the sowing and watering of the seed, depends on me,
but not the success. This is in God’s hand, therefore
it is said : “ God’s blessing is the main thing.” But
what is God ? Originally nothing but Nature, or the
essence of Nature ; but Nature as an object of prayer,
as an exorable and consequently willing being. Jove
is the cause or the essence of meterorological
phenomena ; but this does not yet constitute his divine,
his religious character ; also he who is not religious
assumes a cause of the rain, of the thunderstorm, of
the snow. He is God only, because and in so far as
these phenomena depend on his good will. That
which is independent of man’s will is, therefore, by
religion, made dependent upon God’s will as far as the
object itself is concerned (objectively); but subjectively
(as far as man is concerned) it is made dependent on
prayer, for what depends on will is an object of
prayer and can be changed. “Even the gods are
pliable. A mortal can change their minds by incense
and humble vows, by libations and perfume.”
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
37
32. The only or at least the 'principal object of
religion is an object of human purposes and wants, at
least where man has once risen beyond the unlimited
arbitrariness, helplessness and accidentalness of
Fetishism proper. For this very reason those
natural beings which are most necessary and
indispensable to man enjoyed also the most general
and the highest religious adoration. But whatever is
an object of human wants and purposes, is for the same
reason an object of human wishes. I need rain and
sunshine for the successful growth of my seeds.
In times of continuous drought I therefore wish for
rain ; in times of continuous rain I wish for sunshine.
This wish is a desire whose gratification is not within
my power ; a will, but without the might to prevail,
although not absolutely so, yet at least at a given time,
under certain circumstances and conditions, and such
as man wishes it on the stand point of religion. But
just what my body, my power in general, is unable to
do, is within the power of my wish. What I ask and
wish for, that I enchant and inspire by my wishes.6
While under the influence of an affect—and religion
roots only in affect, in feeling—man places his
essence without himself; he treats as living what is
without life, as arbitrary what has no will ; he
animates the object with his sighs, for he cannot
possibly in a state of affect address himself to an
insensible being. Feeling does not confine itself
within the limits prescribed by intellect; it gushes
over man; his breast is too narrow for it; it must
communicate itself to the outer world and by so doing
make the insensible essence of Nature a sympathetic
one. Nature enchanted by human feeling, Nature agree
* The expression for to wish is in the ancient German language
the same as that for to " enchant.”
�38
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
ing with and assimilated to man’s feeling, i.e., N ature
herself endowed with feeling, is Nature such as she is
an object of religion, a divine being. The wish is the
origin, the very essence of religion the essence of the
gods is nothing but the essence of the wish.7 The gods
are superhuman and supernatural beings ; but are not
wishes also of a superhuman and supernatural nature ?
e.g., am I in my wish, in my imagination still a man if I
wish to be an immortal being, free from the fetters of
the earthly body ? No ! He who has no wishes has no
gods either. Why did the Greeks lay such a stress
upon the immortality and happiness of the gods ?
Because they themselves did not wish to be mortal
and unhappy. Where no lamentations about man’s
mortality and misery are heard, no hymns are heard in
honor of the immortal and happy gods. Only the
water of tears shed within the human heart evaporates
in the sky of imagination into the cloudy image of the
divine being. From the universal stream, Ocean os,
Homer derives the gods ; but this stream abounding
with gods is in reality only an efflux of human feelings.
33. The irreligious manifestations of religion are
best adapted to disclose in a popular manner the origin
and essence of religion. Thus it is an irreligious
manifestation of religion and therefore most severely
criticised already by the pious heathen, that as a gene
7 The gods are blissful beings. The blessin g is the result, the
fruit, the end of an action which is independent fiom, but desired
by me. “ To bless,” says Luther, “ means to wish something good.”
“If we bless, we do nothing else but to wish something good, but we
cannot g ve what we wish; but God’s blessing sounds fulfilment and
soon proves its effect.” That means: men are desiring beings;
the gods are those beings which fulfil th desire. Thus even in
common fife the wor.l God. so frequently used, is nothing but the
expression of a wish. “ May God grant you childrenI” That
means: I wish you children, with the only difference that the
latter expression contains the wish as a subjective, not religious
one, while the former implies it as an objective religious one.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
39
ral thing man takes recourse to religion, that he applies
to God and thinks of him, only in times of misfortune ;
but this very fact reveals to us the source of religion.
In times of misfortune or distress, no matter whether
it be his own or another one’s, man realises the painful
experience of his inability to do what he wishes—he
finds his hands tied. But the palsy of the motory
nerves is not at the same time also the palsy of the
sensory nerves ; the fetters of my physical power are
not also at the same time the fetters of my will, of my
heart. On the contrary, the more my hands are tied,
the more boundless are my wishes, the more ardent is
my desire for redemption, the more energetic my strife
after freedom, my will not to be limited. The power
of the human heart or will which by the influence of
distress has been exaggerated and over-excited to a
superhuman one, is the power of the gods for whom
there is no necessity nor limit. The gods are able to
do what man desires, i.e., they obey the laws of the
human heart. What man is only in regard, to his soul,
the gods are also physically ; what he can do only
within his will, his imagination, his heart, i.e., mentally,
as e.g., to be in the twinkling of an eye at a distant
place, that the gods are able to do physically. The
gods are the embodied, realised wishes of man—the
natural limits of man’s heart and will destroyed—
creatures of the unlimited will, creatures whose
physical powers are equal to those of the will. The
irreligious manifestation of this supernatural power of
religion is the practice of witchcraft among uncivilised
nations, where in a palpable manner the mere wilj
of man appears as God, commanding over Nature.
But when the God of Israel at Joshua’s command
bids the sun stand still or suffers it to rain in com
pliance with Elijah’s prayer, and when the God
of the Christians for the sake of proving his divinity,
�42
the essence of religion.
essence9 of Nature, or at least what appears to them
as such. Upon the standpoint of natural religion man
declares his loves to a statue, to a corpse ; no wonder
therefore, that in order to make himself heard he
resorts to the most desperate, most insane means ; no
wonder that he divests himself of his humanity in
order to render Nature humane, that he even sheds the
blood of man in order to inspire her with human
feelings.
Thus the northern Germans believed
expressly that “sanguinary sacrifices were apt to
bestow human language and feel ings to wooden idols
and to endow with the gifts of language and divination
the stones which they adored in the houses devoted to
gory sacrifices.” But in vain are all attempts to imbue
her with life ; Nature does not respond to man’s
lamentations and questions ; she throws him inexorably
back upon himself.
36. As the limits which man imagines or at least
such as he imagines them on the standpoint of
religion (as e.g. the limit which is the cause that he
does not know the future, or does not live forever, or
does not enjoy happiness without interruption and
molestation, or has no body withou t weight, or cannot
fly like the gods, or cannot thunde r like Jove, or cannot
add anything to his size nor make himself invisible at
will, or cannot, like the angels, live without sensual
wants and impulses, or in short cannot do what he
wills and desires)—as all these limits are such only in
his imagination and mind, while in reality they are
no limits, because they have their necessary foundation
in the essence, in the nature of things ; so also is that
being which is free from such limits, the unlimited
divine being, only a creature of imagination, of
reflection, and of a mental disposition which is
9 Under this head we may also consider the adoration of per
nicious animals.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
43
governed by imagination Whatever therefore may
be the object of religion, be it even only a snail shell
or pebble, it is such an object only in its quality as a
creature of the heart, of reflection, of imagination.
This justifies the assertion that men d o not adore the
stones, the trees, the animals, the rivers themselves,
but the gods within them, their manitous, their spirits.
But these spirits of natural objects are nothing but
their reflected images or they as reflected objects, as
creatures of imagination in distinction from them as
real, sensual objects, just as the spirits of the dead are
nothing but the imagined images of the dead which
live in our remembrance—beings that once really
existed, as imagined beings, which however by
religious man, i.e., by him who does not discriminate
between the object and its idea, are considered to be
real, self-existing beings. Man’s pious, involuntary
self-deception upon the standpoint of religion is
therefore within the natural religion an apparent, selfevident truth ; for here man gives to his religious
object eyes and ears which he knows and sees to be
artificial eyes and ears of stone or wood, and yet
believes to be real eyes and ears. Thus religious man
has his eyes only in order not to see, to be stone blind,
and his reason only in order not to reason, to be block
headed. Natural religion is the manifest contradiction
between idea and reality, between imagination and
truth. What in reality is a dead stone or log, is in the
conception of natural religion a living individual;
apparently, no God, but something entirely different,
yet invisibly, according to belief, a God. For this
reason, natural religion is always in danger of being
most bitterly undeceived, as it requires only a blow
with an axe in order to satisfy her, e.g., that no blood
flows from adored trees, and that therefore no living,
divine beiug dwells within them. But how does
�44
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
religion escape these strong contradictions aud dis
appointments to which she is exposed by adoring
Nature ? Only by making her object an invisible, not
sensual one, by making it a being that exists only in
faith, reflection, imagination—in short, within the
mind, which therefore itself is a spiritual being.
37. As soon as man from a merely physical being
becomes a political one, or in general a being dis
tinguishing himself from Nature, and concentrating
himself within himself, his God is also changed from
a merely physical being into a political one, different
from Nature. That which leads man to a distinction
of his essence from Nature, and in consequence to a
God distinguished from Nature, is therefore only his
association with other men to a commonwealth, wherein
the objects of his consciousness and of his feeling of
dependence are powers distinguished from those of
Nature and existing only in thought or imagination ;
political, moral, abstract powers, such as the power of
law, of public opinion,1 of honor, of virtue—while his
physical existence is subordinated to his human,
political or moral existence, and where the power of
Nature, the power over death and life, is degraded to
an attribute and instrument of political or moral power.
Jove is the God of lightning and thunder; but he
possesses these terrible weapons only in order to crush
those who disobey his commandments, the perjurer,
the perpetrators of violence. Jove is father of the
kings—“ from Jove are the kings.”
With lightning and thunder, therefore, Jove sustains
the power and dignity of the Kings.2 “ The King,”
1 Hesiod expressly says; also pheme (i.e., fame, rumor, public
opinion) is a deity.
* The original kings, however, are well to be distinguished from
the legitimate ones, so-called. The latter, except in some extra
ordinary instances, are ordinary individuals, insignificant in
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
45
we read in the law-book of Menu, “ burns eyes and
hearts like the sun, therefore no human creature upon
earth is able even to look upon him. He is fire and
air, he is sun and moon, he is the God of criminal laws.
Fire burns only a single one who by carelessness may
have approached too near to it, but a King’s fire when
he is in wrath burns a whole family with all their
cattle and property ... In his courage dwelleth con
quest and death in his wrath.” In a similar manner
the God of the Israelites commands amid lightning
and thunder his people to walk in all ways which he
has commanded them “ in order that they may prosper
and live long in the land.” Thus the power of Nature
as such and the feeling of dependence on her disappears
before political or moral power ! Whilst the slave of
Nature is so blinded by the brilliancy of the sun, that
he like the Katchinian Tartar daily prays to him ; “4o
not kill me,” the political slave on the other hand is so
much blinded by the splendor of royal dignity, that he
prostrates himself before it as before a divine power,
because it commands over death and life. The titles
of the Roman Emperors, even still among the Chris
tians were : “ Your divinity,” “ Your eternity.” Nay,
even now-a-days among Christians “Holiness” and
“ Majesty,” the titles and attributes of Deity, are titles
and attributes of kings. It is true the Christians try
to justify this political idolatry with the notion that
the king is nothing but God’s representative upon earth,
themselves, while the former were extraordinary, dis tinguished,
historical individuals. The deification of distinguished men,
especially after their death, forms therefore the most natural
transition from the properly naturalistic religions to the mytho
logical and anthropological ones, although it may also take place
at the same time with natural adoration. The worshipping of
distinguished men, however, is by no means confined to fabulous
times. Thus the Swedes deified their king Erich at the time of
Christianity and sacrificed unto him after his death.
�46
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
God himself being the King of kings. But such a
justification is only a self-deception. Not considering
that the king’s power is a very sensible, direct, and
sensual one which represents itself, while that of the
King of kings is only an indirect and reflected one—
God is defined and regarded as the world’s ruler, as a
royal or political being in general, only where the
royal being occupies, influences and rules man so as to
be considered by him as the supreme being. “ Brahma,”
says Menu, “formed in the beginning of time for
his service the genius of punishment with a body of
pure light as his own son, nay even as the author of
criminal justice, as the protector of all things created.
Fear of punishment enables this universe to enjoy its
happiness.” Thus man makes even the punishment of
his criminal code divine, world-governing powers, the
criminal code itself the code of Nature. No wonder
that he makes Nature to sympathise most warmly with
his political sufferings and passions, nay, that he even
makes the preservation of the world dependent on the
preservation of a royal throne or of the Holy See.
What is important to him naturally is also of import
ance for all other beings ; what dims his eye, that also
dims the brilliancy of the sun ; what agitates his heart,
that also moves heaven and earth—his being to him is
the universal being, the world’s being, the being of
beings.
38. Why has the East not a living, progressive history
such as the West ? Because in the East to man Nature
is not concealed by man, nor the brilliancy of the
stars and precious stones by the brilliancy of the eye,
nor the meteorological lightning and thunder by the
rhetorical “ lighting and thunder,” nor the course of
the sun by the course of daily events, nor the change
of the year’s seasons by the change of fashion. It is
true, the eastern man prostrates himself into the dust
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
47
before the magnificence of royal, polical power and
dignity, but this magnificence itself is only a reflex of
the sun and the moon ; the king is an object of his
adoration not as an earthly and human, but as a
heavenly and divine being. But man disappears by
the side of a God ; only where the earth is depopulated
of gods, where the gods ascend into heaven and change
fr om real beings to imagined ones ; only there men
have space and room for themselves, only there they
can show themselves without any restraint as men and
put themselves forward as such. The eastern man
bears the same relation to the western man as the
husbandman to the inhabitants of the city. The
former depends on Nature, the latter on man ; the
former is led by the barometer, the latter by the state
of the stock-market ; the former by the ever equal
constellations of the zodiac, the latter by the ever
fluctuating signs of honor, fashion and public opinion.
Only the inhabitants of cities, therefore, make up
history, only human “ vanity ” is the principle of
history, only he who can sacrifice Nature’s power to
that of opinion, his life to his name, his physical
existence to his existence in the mouth and in the
remembrance of generations to come—he only is
capable of historical deeds.
39. According to Athenseus, the Greek writer of
comic plays, Anaxandrides addresses the Egyptians as
follows : “ I am not fit for your society ; our manners
and laws do not agree,—you adore the ox which I
sacrifice to the gods ; the eel to you is a great god, but
to me a great dainty ; you shun pork, I enjoy it with a
relish ; you revere the dog, I beat him if he snaps a
morsel from me ; you are startled if something is the
matter with the cat, I am glad of it and strip off her
skin ; you give a great deal of importance to the shrewmouse, I none.” This address perfectly characterises
�48
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
the contrast between the bound and the unbound, z'.e.,
between the religious and irreligious, free, human con
sideration of Nature. There Nature is an object of
adoration, here of enjoyment; there man exists for
Nature’s sake, here Nature for man’s sake ; there she
is the end, here the means ; there she stands above,
here below man.8 For this very reason man is there
eccentric, out of himself, out of the sphere of his des
tination, which points him only to himself ; here, on
the other hand, he is considerate, sober within himself,
self-conscious. There man degrades himself con
sistently even to coition with animals (according to
Herodotus), in order to prove his religious humility
before Nature ; but here he rises in the full conscious
ness of his power and dignity up to amalgamation with
the gods as a striking proof that even in the heavenly
god’s courses no other than human blood, and that the
peculiar ethereal blood of the gods, is only a poetical
imagination which does not hold good in reality and
practice.
40. As the world, as Nature appears to man, so she
is, i.e. for him, according to his imagination ; his sen
sations and imaginations are to him directly and
unconsciously the measure of truth and reality ; and
Nature appears to him just as he is himself. As soon
as man perceives that in spite of sun and moon, heaven
and earth, fire and water, plants and animals, man’s
life requires the application and even the just applica
tion of his own powers ; as soon as he perceives that
“the mortals unjustly complain of the gods, and that
they themselves, in spite of faith, through imprudence,3
3 I range here the Greeks with the Israelites, while in my
Essence of Christianity I contrast them with each other. This is
by no means a logical contradiction, for things which, when com
pared with one another are different, coincide in co nparison with
a third thing. Besides, enjoyment of Nature includes also her
aesthetic, theoretical enjoyment.
�49
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
produce their misery,” that the consequences of vice
and folly are disease, unhappiness and death, but those
of virtue and wisdom, health, life and happiness, and
that, therefore, those powers which influence man’s
destiny are intellect and will ; as soon, therefore, as
man, no more like the savage, is a being governed by
the habits of momentary impressions and effects, but
becomes a being which decides himself by principles,
rules of wisdom, laws of reason—i.e., a thinking,
intelligent being—then also Nature, the world, appears
and is to him a being dependent on, and influenced by,
intellect and will.
41. When man with his will and intellect rises above
Nature and becomes a supernaturalist, then also God
becomes a supernatural being. When man established
himself as a ruler “ over the fishes in the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
over the earth,” then the Government of Nature is to
him the highest idea, the highest being ; the object of
his adoration, of his religion therefore, the creator of
Nature, for creation is a necessary consequence, or
rather presupposition, of Government. If the Lord of
Nature is not also her author, then she is independent
of him as to her origin and existence, his power is
limited and deficient;—for if he had been able to
create her, why should he not have created her ?—his
government is only an usurped one, no inherent, legal
one. Only what I produce and make is entirely within
my power. Only from authorship the right of
property is to be derived. Mine is the child, because I
am his father. Therefore, only in creation government
is acknowledged, realised, exhausted. The gods of the
heathen were also already masters of Nature, it is true,
but no creators of hers, therefore they were only
constitutional, limited, not absolute monarchs of
D
�50
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
Nature, i.e. the heathen were not yet absolute,
unconditional, radical supernaturalists.
42. The Theists have declared the doctrine of the
unity of God a revealed doctrine of supernatural origin,
without considering that the source of Monotheism is
in man, that the source of God’s unity is the unity of
the human conscience and mind. The world is spread
before my eyes in endless multitude and diversity, but
still all these numberless and various objects : sun,
moon and stars, heaven and earth, the near and the
distant, the present and the absent, are embraced by
my mind, my head. This being of the human mind
or conscience, so wonderful and supernatural for
religious, i.e. uneducated man, this being which is not
restrained by any limits of time or space, which is not
limited to any particular species of things, and which
embraces all things and beings without being himself
an object or visible being—this being is, by Monotheism,
placed at the head of the world, and made its cause
God speaks, God thinks the world and it is, he says
that it is not, he thinks and wills it not, and it does
not exist, i.e. I can in my imagination cause at will all
things and consequently also the world itself to come
and to disappear, to originate and to pass away. That
God has also created the world from nothing, and, if
he will, thrusts it again into nothing, is nothing but
the personification of the human power of abstraction
and imagination, which enables me at will to imagine
the world as existing or not existing, and to affirm or
deny its existence. This subjective or imagined
non-existence of the world, is by Monotheism made
its objective, real non-existence. Polytheism and
natural religion in general make the real objects
imagined ones. Monotheism, on the other hand,
makes imagined objects and thoughts real objects, or
rather the essence of intellect, will and imagination
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
51
the most real, absolute, supreme being. The power of
God, says a theologian, extends as far as the imaginative
power of man, but where is the limit of this power ?
What is impossible to imagination ? I can imagine
everything that is, as not existing, and everything
that does not exist as real ; thus I can imagine “ this ”
world as not existing, and on the other hand, number
less other worlds as existing. What is imagined as
real is possible. But God is the being to whom
nothing is impossible, he is the creator of numberless
worlds, as far as his power is concerned, the possibility
of all possibilities, of everything that can be imagined ;
i.e. in reality, he is nothing but the realisation or
personification of human imagination, intellect and
reflection, thought or imagined as real, nay, as the
most real, as the absolute being.
43. Theism, properly so-called, or Monotheism,
arises only where man refers Nature only to himself,
because she suffers herself to be used without will
and consciousness, not only to his necessary, organic
functions, but also to his arbitrary, conscious purposes
and enjoyments, and where he makes this relation her
essence, consequently making himself the purpose, the
centre and unity of Nature.4 Where Nature has her
end outside of herself, she necessarily has also her
cause and beginning without herself ; where she exists
only for another being, she necessarily exists also by
another being, and that by a being whose intention or
end at the time of her creation was man, as that being
who was to enjoy and to use Nature for his good.
4 An ecclesiastical writer expressively calls man “ the tie of all
things” (syndesmon hapantori), because God in him wished to
embrace the universe into a unity, and because, therefore, in him
all things as in their end are combined, and result in his advantage.
And certainly man, as Nature's individualised essence, is her con
clusion, but not in the anti-natural and supernatural sense o:
teleology and theology.
�52
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
The beginning of Nature coincides therefore with God
only where her end coincides with man, or in other
words, the doctrine that God is the creator of the
world has its source and sense in the doctrine that man
is the end of creation. If you feel ashamed of the
belief that the world is created, made for man, then
you must feel ashamed of the belief that it is created,
made at all. Where it is written : “ In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth,” there it is also
written : “ God made two great lights. He made the
stars also, and set them in the firmament of the heaven,
to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day
and the night.” If you declare the belief in man as
the end of Nature to be human pride, then you must
also declare the belief in the creator of Nature to be
human pride. That light only which shines on
account of man is the light of theology, that light only
which exists exclusively on account of the seeing being,
presupposes also a seeing being as its cause.
44. The spiritual being which man places above
Nature and pre-supposes as her founder and creator, is
nothing but the spiritual essence of man himself,
which, however, appears to him as another one,
different from and incomparable to himself, because
he makes it the cause of Nature, the cause of effects
which man’s mind, will, and intellect cannot produce,
and because he consequently combines with that
spiritual essence of man the essence of Nature, which
is different.® It is the divine spirit who makes the
grass grow, who forms the child in the womb, who
holds and moves the sun in his course, who piles up
6 This union, or the amalgamation of the "moral’’ and
“physical ” of the human and not human being, produces a third,
which is neither Nature nor man, but which participates of both,
like an amphibial, and which, for this very mystery of its nature,
is the idol of mysticism and speculation.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
53
the mountains, commands the winds, encloses the sea
within its limits. What is the human mind compared
with this spirit! How small, how limited, how vain !
If, therefore, the rationalist rejects God’s incarnation,
the union of the divine and human nature, he does so
particularly because the idea of God in his head hides
only the idea of Nature, especially of Nature such as
she was disclosed to the human eye by the telescope
of astronomy. How should—thus, he exclaims, pro
voked—how should that great, infinite, universal
being, which has its adequate representation and effect
only in the great, infinite universe, descend for man’s
sake upon the earth, which certainly disappears into
nothing before the immeasurable greatness and fulness
of the universe ? What unworthy, mean, “ human ”
imagination ! To concentrate God upon earth, to
plunge God into man, is about the same as to try to
condense the ocean into one drop, to reduce the ring
of Saturn into a finger-ring. Truly it is a rather
narrow idea to think the universal being as limited
only to earth or man, and to believe that Nature exists
only on his account, that the sun shines only on account
of the human eye. You do not see, however, short
sighted rationalist, that it is not the idea of God, but
the idea of Nature, which within yourself objects to
a union of God and man, and shows it to be a non
sensical contradiction ; you do not see that the centre
of union, tertium comparationis, between God and
man is not that being to which you directly or indi
rectly attribute the power and effects of Nature, but
rather that being which sees and hears because you
see and hear ; which possesses consciousness, intellect,
and will because you possess these faculties, or, in
other words, that being which you distinguish from
Nature because you distinguish yourself from her.
What, then, can you really object if this being finally
�54
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
appears as a real man before your eyes ? How can
you reject the consequences if you adhere to the pre
mises ? How can you deny the son if you acknow
ledge the father ? If the God-man to you is a creature
of human imagination and self-deification, then you
must acknowledge also the creator of Nature to be a
creature of human imagination and self-exaltation over
Nature. If you wish for a being without any anthro
pomorphism, without any human additions, be they
additions of the intellect, or the heart, or of imagina
tion, then be courageous and consistent enough to give
up God altogether, and to appeal only to pure, naked,
godless Nature as to the last basis of your existence.
As long as you admit a difference, so long you incar
nate in God your own difference, so long you incor
porate your own essence and nature in the universal
and primary being ; for as you do not have nor know
in distinction from human nature any other being
than Nature, so, on the other hand, you neither have
nor know any other being in distinction from Nature
than the human one.
45. The conception of man’s essence as an objective
being different from man, or, in short, the personifica
tion of the human essence, has for its pre-supposition
the incarnation of the objective being which is dif
ferent from man, i.e., the conception of Nature as of a
human being.6 Will and intellect therefore appear to
man as the primary powers or causes of Nature only
because the unintentional effects of Nature appear to
him in the light of his intellect as intentional ones, as
ends and purposes ; Nature herself consequently as an
6 Viewed from this standpoint the creator of Nature istherefore
nothing but the essence of Nature, which, by means of abstracting
from Nature, has been distinguished and abstracted from Nature,
and such as she is an object of the senses and by the power of
imagination has been changed into a human or man-like being,
and thus popularised, anthropomorphised, personified.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
55
intelligent being (or at least as a mere thing of intel
lect). As everything is seen by the sun—the God of
the sun, “ Helios,” hears and sees everything—
because man sees everything in the sunlight, so every
thing in itself has been thought, because man thinks
it; a work of intellect, because for him an object of
his intellect. Because he measures the stars and their
distances, they are measured; because he applies
mathematics in order to understand Nature and her
laws, they have also been applied to her production;
because he sees the end of a certain motion, the result
of a certain development, the function of a certain
organ, this end, function, or result is in itself a fore
seen one ; because he can imagine the opposite of the
position or direction of a heavenly body, nay even
numberless other directions, while at the same time
he perceives that if this direction were changed, also
a series of fruitful, benevolent consequences would be
made impossible, so that he considers this series of
consequences as the motive of that very direction :
therefore such direction has really and originally been
selected with admirable wisdom, and only with regard
to its benevolent consequences, from the multitude of
other directions which also exist only in man’s head.
Thus the principle of thinking is to man, directly
and without discrimination, the principle of existence ;
the thing thought, the thing existing ; the idea of the
object, its essence (the a posteriori the a^rzon). Man
thinks Nature otherwise than she really is; no wonder
that he also pre-supposes as her cause and the cause of
her existence another being than herself, a being
which exists only in his mind—nay, which is even
only the essence of his own mind. Man reverses the
natural order of things ; he founds the world in the
very sense of the word upon its head, he makes the
apex of the pyramid its basis—the first thing in or for
�56
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
the head, the reason, why something is, the first thing
in reality, the cause through which it exists. The
motive of a thing precedes in the mind the thing
itself. This is the reason why to man the essence of
reason or intellect, the essence of thinking not only
logically but also physically, is the first, the primary
being.
46. The mystery of teleology is based upon the con
tradiction between the necessity of Nature and the
arbitrary will of man, between Nature such as she
really is and such as man imagines her. If the
earth were placed somewhere else, if e.g. it were
placed where Mercury now is, everything would
perish in consequence of insupportable heat. How
wisely, therefore, is the earth placed just where
it appears best according to its quality. But in
what does this wisdom consist ? Only in the con
tradiction, in the contrast to human folly, which arbi
trarily in thought places the earth somewhere else than
where it is in reality. If you first tear asunder what
in Nature is inseparable, as for instance, the astronomi
cal place of a heavenly body from its physical quality,
then certainly the unity in Nature must afterwards
appear to you as expediency, necessity of plan, the real
and necessary place of a planet which agrees with its
nature in contrast to the unfit one which you have thought
of and chosen as the reasonable one which has been
justly chosen and wisely selected. “ If the snow had
a black color, or if such color prevailed in the arctic
regions, all the arctic countries of the earth would be
a gloomy desert, unfit for organic life. Thus the
arrangement of the colors of bodies offers one of the
most beautiful proofs for the wise arrangement of the
world.” Certainly, if man did not change white into
black, if human folly had not disposed arbitrarily of
Nature, no divine wisdom would rule over Nature.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
57
47. “ Who has told the bird that it has only to raise
its tail if it wants to fly downward, or to depress it, if
it wants to ascend ? He must be perfectly blind who,
in observing the flight of birds, does not perceive any
higher wisdom that has thought in their stead.” Cer
tainly he must be blind, not for Nature, but for man,
who makes his nature the original of Nature, the
power of intellect the original power, who makes
the birds’ flight dependent upon the insight into the
mechanical laws of flying, and who elevates his ideas
abstracted from Nature into laws which the birds apply
to their flight, just as the rider applies the rules of the
art of riding, or the swimmer the rules of the art of
swimming ; with the only difference that to the birds
the application of the art of flying is created with them.
But the flight of birds is founded on no art. Art is
only where also the opposite of art is to be found,
where an organ performs a function which is not
directly and necessarily connected with it, which does
not exhaust its essence, and is only a particular function
by the side of many other real or possible functions of
the same organ. But the bird cannot fly otherwise
than it does, nor is it at liberty not to fly ; it must fly.
The animal always knows how to do only that which it
is able to do, and for this very reason it can do this
one thing so perfectly, so masterly, so unsurpassably,
because it does not know anything else, because its
power is exhausted in this one function, because this
one function is identical with its nature. If we there
fore are unable to explain the actions and functions of
the animals, especially those of the lower ones, which
are endowed with certain artistic impulses, without
presupposition of an intellect which has thought in
their stead, this is only because we think that the
objects of their activity are objects to them in the same
manner as they are objects to our consciousness and
�58
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
intellect. As soon as we consider the works of the
animals as work of art, as arbitrary works, we must
necessarily also consider the intellect as their cause,
for a work of art presupposes choice, intention, in
tellect, and consequently, as we know by experience
that animals do not think themselves, another beingas thinking in their behalf.7 “Do you know how
to advise the spider how it is to carry and to fasten
the threads from one tree to another, from one house
top to another, from a height this side of the water to
another one on the other side ?” Certainly not ; but
do you indeed believe that there is any advice needed
in this instance, that the spider is in the same condition
in which you would be, if you were to solve this
problem theoretically, that for it, as well as for you,
there is any difference between “ this side ” and “ that
side ?” Between the spider and the object to which it
fastens the threads of its net, there is as necessary a
connection as between your bone and muscle ; for the
object without it is for it nothing but the support of
its thread of life, as the support of its fangs. The
spider does not see what you see ; all the separations,
differences and distances which, or at least such as
7 Thus, generally, in all syllogisms from Nature to a God, the
antecedent, the presupposition is a human one; no wonder therefore
that their result is a human being or being similar to man. If the
world, is a machine there must necessarily be an architect. If the
natural beings are as indifferent toward one another as the human
individuals which can be employed and united only by means of
higher power for any arbitrary purpose of state, as for instance
war, there must naturally also be a ruler, a governor, a chief
general of nature—a captain of the cloud—if she shall not' be
dissolved into nothing. Thus man first makes Nature un
consciously a human work, i.e., he makes his essence her funda
mental essence, but as he afterwards or at th t same time perceives
the difference between the works of Nature and those of human
art, his own essence appears to him as another, but analogous,
similar one. All arguments for God’s existence have therefore
cnly a logical or rather anthropological signification, since also
the logical forms are forms of human nature.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
591
your intellectual eye perceives them, do not at all
exist for it. What therefore to you is an insolvable
theoretical problem, that is done by the spider without
any intellect, and consequently without all those
difficulties which exist only for your intellect. “ Who
has told the vine-fretters that they find their food
in the fall of the year in greater abundance at the
branch and at the bud than at the leaf ? Who has
shown them the way to the bud and to the branch ?
For the vine-fretter which was born upon the leaf, the
bud is not only a distant but an entirely unknown
province. I adore the creator of the vine-fretter and
of the cochineal and remain silent.” Certainly you
must be silent if you make the vine-fretters and
cochineals preachers of Theism, if you endow them
with your thoughts, for only to the vine-fretter viewed
from the standpoint of man is the bud a distant and
unknown province, but not to the vine-fretter itself, to
which the leaf and the bud are objects not as such, but
only as matter which can be assimilated and is chemi
cally related to it. It is therefore only the reflex of
your eye which shows you Nature as the work of an
eye, which obliges you to derive the threads the spider
draws from its hind part, from the head of a thinking
being. Nature is for you only a spectacle, a delight of
the eye ; therefore you think that what delights your
eye, also rules and moves Nature. Thus you make the
heavenly light in which she appears to you, the
heavenly being which has created her ; the rays of the
eye the lever of Nature ; the optic nerve the motory
nerve of the universe. To derive Nature from a wise
creator is to produce children with a look ; to satisfy
hunger with the perfume of food ; to move rocks by
the harmony of sounds. If the Greenlander derives
the shark’s origin from human urine because it smells
to man like it, this zoological genesis has the same
�€0
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
foundation as as the cosmological genesis of the Theist,
when he derives Nature from intellect, because she
makes upon man the impression of intellect, and
intention. Certainly the manifestation of Nature for
us is reason, but the cause of such manifestation is as
little reason as the cause of light is light.
48. Why does Nature produce monsters ? Because
the result of a formation to her is not the object of a
pre-existing purpose. Why supernumerary limbs ?
Because she does not number. Why does she place at
the left hand side what generally lies on the right
hand side, and vice versa ? Because she does not know
what is right or left. Monsters are therefore popular
arguments, which for this very reason have been
insisted on already by the Atheists of old, and even by
such Theists as emancipated Nature from the guardian
ship of theology, in order to prove that the productions
of Nature are unforeseen, unintentional, involuntary
ones ; for all reasons which are adduced for the sake
of explaining monsters, even those of the most modern
naturalists, according to which they are only
consequences of diseases of the foetus, would be
done away with, if with the creative or pro
ductive power of Nature at the same time will,
intellect, forethought and consciousness were connected.
But although Nature does not see, she is not therefore
blind; although she does not live (in the sense of
human, that is subjective, sensible life) she is not dead;
and although she does not produce according to
purposes, still her productions are not accidental ones ;
for where man defines Nature as dead and blind, and
her productions as accidental ones, he defines her only
so in contrast to himself, and declares her to be deficient
because she does not possess what he possesses. Nature
works and produces everywhere only in and with conconnection—a connection which is reason for man, for
�THE ESSENCE OF RELTGION.
61
wherever he perceives connection, he finds sense,
material for thinking, “ sufficient reason;” system—
only from and with necessity. But also the necessity
of Nature is no human, i.e., no logical, metaphysical or
mathematical, in general no abstracted one ; for natural
beings are no creatures of thought, no logical or mathe
matical figures, but real sensual individual beings ; it is
a sensual necessity and therefore eccentric, exceptional,
irregular, which in consequence of these anomalies of
human imagination, appears even as freedom, or at
least as a product of free will. Nature generally can be
understood only through herself ; she is that being
whose idea depends on no other being ; she alone
admits of a discrimination between what a thing is in
itself and what it is for our conception ; she alone
cannot be measured with any human measure, although
we compare and designate her manifestations with
analogous human manifestations in order to make them
intelligible for us, and although in general we apply,
and are obliged to apply to her, human expressions and
ideas, such as order, purpose, in accordance with the
nature of our language, which is founded only upon
the subjective appearance of things.
49. The religious admiration of divine wisdom in
Nature is only an incident of enthusiasm ; it refers only
to the means, but is extinguished in reflecting on the
purposes of Nature. How wonderful is the spider’s web,
how wonderful the funnel of the ant-lion in the sand !
But what is the purpose of these wise arrangements ?
Nothing but nourishment—a purpose which man in
regard to himself degrades to a mere means. “Others,”
said Socrates—but these others are animals and brutish
men —“ others live in order to eat, but I eat in order to
live.” How magnificent is the flower, how admirable
its structure ! But what is the purpose of this structure,
of this magnificence ? Only to magnify and protect the
�62
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
genitals which man in himself either hides from shame,
or even mutilates from religious zeal. “ The creator of
the vine-fretters and of the cochineals ” whom the
naturalist, the man of theory adores and admires, who
has only natural life for his purpose, is therefore not
the God and creator in the sense of religion. No ! only
the creator of man, and that of man such as he dis
tinguishes himself from Nature, and rises above Nature,
the creator in whom man has the consciousness of
himself, in whom he finds represented the qualities
which constitute his nature in distinction from external
Nature, and that in such a manner as he imagines them
in religion, is the God and creator such as he is an
object of religion.
“ The water,” says Luther, “ which is used in baptism
and poured over the child is also water not of the creator
but of God the Savior.” Natural water I have in common
with animals and plants, but not the water of baptism ;
the former amalgamates me with the other natural
beings, the latter distinguishes me from them. But
the object of religion is not natural water, but the
water of baptism ; consequently not the creator or
author of natural, but of baptismal water, is an object
of religion. The creator of natural water is neces
sarily himself a natural, and therefore no religious,
i.e., supernatural being. Water is a visible being,
whose qualities and effects therefore do not lead us to
a supernatural cause; but the baptismal water is no
object for the corporeal eye ; it is a spiritual, invisible,
supersensuous being, i.e, one that exists and works
only for faith, in thought, in imagination—a being
which therefore requires also for its cause a spiritual
being that exists only in faith and imagination.
Natural water cleanses me only of my physical, but
baptismal water of my moral impurities and diseases ;
the former only quenches my thirst for this temporal,
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
63
transient life, but the latter satisfies my desire for life
eternal; the former has only limited, defined, finite
effects, but the latter infinite, all-powerful effects
which surpass the nature of water, and which there
fore represent and show the nature of the divine
being, which is bound by no limit of Nature, the un
limited essence of man’s power to believe and to
imagine, bound to no limit of experience and reason.
But is not also the creator of baptismal water the
creator of natural water ? In what relation therefore
does the former stand to the latter ? In the very same
as baptismal to natural watei’ ; the former cannot exist
if the latter does not exist; this one is the condition,
the means of that one. Thus the creator of Nature is
only the condition for the creator of man. How can
he who does not hold the natural water [in his hand
combine with it supernatural effects ? How can he
who does not rule over temporal life give life eternal ?
How can he whom the elements of Nature do not
obey, restore my body turned to dust ? But who is
the master and ruler of Nature unless it be he who
had power and strength to produce her from naught
by his mere will? He, therefore, who declares the
union of the supernatural essence of baptism with
natural water a contradiction, without sense, may
also declare the union of the supernatural essence of
the creator with Nature such a contradiction ; for
between the effects of baptismal and common water
is just as much or as little connection as between the
supernatural creator and natural Nature. The creator
comes from the same source from which the super
natural, wonderful water of baptism gushes forth.
In the baptismal water we see only the essence of the
creator, of God, in a sensible illustration. How,
therefore, can you reject the miracle of baptism and
other miracles if you admit the essence of the creator,
�64
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
i.e., the essence of the miracle ? Or, in other words,,
how can you reject the small miracle if you admit the
great miracle of creation ? But it is in the world of
theology as in the political world : the small thievesare hanged, the great ones are suffered to escape.
50. That providence which is manifested in the
order, conformity to purpose and lawfulness of Nature,
is not the providence of religion. The latter is based
upon liberty, the former upon necessity ; the latter isunlimited and unconditional, the former limited,
depending on a thousand different conditions; thelatter is a special and individual one, the former isextended only over the whole, the species, while the
individual is left to chance. A Theistic naturalist
says : “ Many (or rather all those in whose conception.
God was more than the mathematical, imagined origin
of Nature) have imagined the preservation of the
world, and especially of mankind, as direct and special,
as if God ruled the actions of all creatures, and led
them according to his pleasure. But, after the con
sideration of the natural laws, we are unable to admit
such a special government and superintendence over
the actions of men and other creatures. . . . We learn
this from the little care which Nature takes of single
individuals.8 Thousands of them are sacrificed
without hesitation or repentance in the plenty of
» Nature however “ cares” just as little for the species or genus.
The latter is preserved because it is nothing but the totality of
tl e individuals which by coition propagate and multiply them
selves. While sin le individuals are exposed to accidental,
destructive influences, others escape them. The plurality is thus
preserved. But still, or rather from the same reasons which
cause the single ii dividual to perish, even species die away. Thus
the Dronte has disappeared, thus the Irish gigantic deer, thus
even nowadays many animal species disappear in consequence of
man’s persecution and of the evermore extending civilisation
from regions where they once or even a short time ago still
existed in great numbers, as, e.g. the seal from some inlands; and
in time will disappear entirely from the earth.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
65
Nature. . . . Even with regard to man we make the
same experience. Not one half of the human race
reach the second year of their age, but die almost
without having known that they ever lived. We
learn this very thing also from the misfortunes and
mishaps of all men, the good as well as the bad, which
cannot well be made to agree with the special pre
servation or co-operation of the creator.”
But a government, a providence which is no special
one, does not answer to the purpose, the essence, the
idea of providence; for providence is to destroy acci
dent, but just that is upheld by a merely general
providence, which therefore is no better than no pro
vidence at all. Thus, e.g., it is a “ law of divine order
in nature,” i.e., a consequence of natural causes, that
according to the number of years also the death of
man occurs in a definite ratio ; that, for instance, in
the first year one child dies out of from three to four
children, in the fifth year one out of twenty-five, in
the seventh one out of fifty, in the tenth one out of
one hundred ; but still it is accidental, not regulated
by this law, depending on other accidental causes, that
just this one child dies, while those three or four
others survive. Thus marriage is an “ institution of
God,” a law of natural providence, in order to multiply
the human race, and consequently a duty for me.
But whether I am to marry just this one, whether she
is not perhaps in consequence of an accidental
organic deficiency unfit or unproductive, that I am
not told. But just because natural providence, which
in reality is nothing but Nature herself, does not come
to my assistance when I come to apply the law to the
special, single case, but leaves me to myself just in
the critical moment of decision, in the pressure of
necessity; I appeal from her to a higher court, to the
supernatural providence of the gods whose eye shines
�66
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
upon me just where Nature’s light is extinguished ;
whose rule begins just where that of natural provi
dence is at an end. The gods know and tell me, they
decide what Nature leaves in the darkness of igno
rance and gives up to accident. The region of what
commonly, as well as philosophically, is called acci
dental, “ positive,” individual, not to be foreseen, not
to be speculated upon, is the region of the gods, the
region of religious providence. And oracles and
prayer are the religious means by which man makes
the accidental, obscure, uncertain, an object of cer
tainty, or at least of hope.9
51. The gods, says Epicurus, exist in the intervals
of the universe. Very well ; they exist only in the
void space, in the abyss which is between the world
of imagination and the world of reality, between the
law and its application, between the action and its
result, between the present and the future. The gods
are imagined beings, beings of imagination which
therefore owe also their existence, strictly speaking,
not to the present, but only to the future and the
past. Those gods who owe their existence to the
past are those who no longer exist, the dead ones,
those beings which live only in mind and imagina
tion, whose worship among some nations constitutes
the whole religion, and with most of them an important
essential part of religion. But far more mightily than
by the past, is the mind influenced by the future ; the
former leaves behind only the quiet perception of re
membrance, while the latter stands before us with the
terrors of hell or the happiness of heaven. The gods
which rise from the tombs are therefore themselves
only shades of gods; the true living gods, the
rulers over rain, and sunshine, lighting and
9 Compare in regard to this matter the expresions of Socrates
in Xenophon’s writings as to oracles.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
67
thunder, life and death, heaven and hell, owe their
existence likewise only to the powers of fear and
hope, which rule over life and death, and which
illuminate the dark abyss of the future with beings of
the imagination. The present is exceedingly prosaic,
ready made, determined, never to be changed, final,
exclusive ; in the present, imagination coincides with
reality ; in it therefore there is no place for the gods ;
the present is godless. But the future is the empire of
poetry, of unlimited possibility and accident—the
future may be according to my wishes or fears ; it is
not yet subject to the stern lot of unchangeableness ; it
still hovers between existence and non-existence, high
over “ common ” reality and palpability; it still belongs
to another “ invisible ” world, which is not put in
motion by the laws of gravitation, but only by the
sensory nerves. This world is the world of the gods.
Mine is the present, but the future belongs to the gods.
I am now; this present moment, although it will
immediately be past, cannot be taken any more from
me by the gods ; things that have happened cannot be
undone even by divine power, as the ancients have
already said. But shall I exist the next moment?
Does the next moment of my life depend on my will,
or is it in any necessary connection with the present
one ? No ; a numberless multitude of accidents ; the
ground under my feet, the ceiling over my head, a flash
of lightning, a bullet, a stone, even a grape which
glides into my wind pipe instead of passing into the
aesophagus, can at any moment tear for ever
the coming moment from the present one. But
the good gods prevent this violent breach; they
fill with their external, invulnerable bodies, the pores
of the human body which are accessible to all possible
destructive influences ; they attach the coming
moment to the one that is past ; they unite the future
�68
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
with the present; they are, and possess in uninterrupted
continuity, what men—the porous gods—are and
possess, only in intervals and with interruptions.
52. Goodness is an essential quality with the gods ;
but how can they be good if they are not almighty and
free from the laws of natural providence, z.e., from the
fetters of natural necessity, if they do not appear in the
individual instances which decide between life and
death, as masters of nature, but as friends and benefac
tors of men, and if they consequently do not work any
miracles? The gods, or rather Nature, has endowed man
with physical and mental powers in order to be able to
sustain himself. But are these natural means of sustain
ing himself always sufficient ? Do I not frequently come
into situations where I am lost without hope if no super
natural hand stops the inexorable course of natural order?
The natural order is good, but is it always good ? This
continuous rain or drought e.g., is entirely in order ; but
must not I or my family, or even a whole nation, perish
in consequence of it, unless the gods give their aid and
stop it ?1 Miracles therefore are inseparable from the
divine government and providence ; nay, they are the
only proofs, manifestations and revelations of the gods,
as of powers and beings distinguished from Nature ;
to deny the miracles is to deny the gods themselves.
By what are gods distinguished from men ? Only by
their being without limits, what the latter are in a
limited manner, and especially by their being always
what the latter are only for a certain time, for a
i The Christians pray likewise to their God for rain as the
Greeks did to Jove, and believe that they are heard with such
prayers. “ There was,” says Luther, in his table-discourses, « a
o-reat drought, as it had not rained for a long time, and the grain
?n the field began to dry up when Dr. M. L. praye I continually
and said finally with heavy sighs: 0, Lord, pray regard our
petition in behalf of thy promise........... I know that we cry to
thee and sigh desirously: why dost thou not hear us ? And the
very next night came a very fine fruitful rain.”
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
69
moment.2 Men live—living existence is divinity,
essential quality and primary condition of the Deity—
but alas ! not for ever ; they die—but the gods are the
immortal ones who always live ; men are also happy,
but not without interruption as the gods ; men are
also good but not always, and just this constitutes
according to Socrates the difference between Deity and
and humanity, that the former is always good ; accord
ing to Aristotle, men also enjoy the divine happiness
of thinking, but their mental activity is interrupted by
other functions and actions. Thus the gods and men
have the same qualities and rules of life, only that the
former possess them without, the latter with limitations
and exceptions. As the life to come is nothing but the
continuation of this life uninterrupted by death, so the
divine being is nothing but the continuation of the
human being uninterrupted by Nature in general—the
uninterrupted, unlimited nature of man. But how are
miracles distinguished from the effects of Nature?
Just as the gods are distinguished from men. The
miracle makes an effect or a quality of Nature which
in a given case is not good, a good or at least a harmless
one ; it causes that I do not sink and drown in the
water, if I have the misfortune of falling into it; that
fire does not burn me ; that a stone, falling upon my
head, does not kill me—in short, it makes that essence
which now is beneficent, then destructive, now
philanthropic, then misanthropic, an essence always
good. The gods and miracles owe their existence only
to the exceptions of the rule. The Deity is the
destruction of the deficiencies and weaknesses in man
which are the very causes of the exceptions; the miracle
is the destruction of the deficiencies and limits in
Nature. The natural beings are defined and con
2 It is true the omission of the limits has increase and change
for its consequences; but it does not destroy the essential identity.
�70
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
sequently limited beings. This limit of theirs is in
some abnormal cases the cause of their injuriousness
to man ; but in the sense of religion it is not a
necessary one, but an arbitrary one, made by God and
therefore to be destroyed if necessity, i.e., the welfare of
man requires it. To deny the miracles under the pre
text that they are not becoming to God’s dignity and
wisdom in virtue of which he has fixed and deter
mined everything from the beginning in the best
manner, is to sacrifice man to Nature, religion to
intellect, is to preach Atheism in the name of God. A
God who fulfills only such prayers and wishes of men
as can be fulfilled also without him, the fulfilment of
which is within the limits and conditions of natural
causes, who therefore helps only as long as art and
Nature help, but who ceases helping as soon as the
materia medica is at an end—such a god is nothing but
the personified necessity of Nature hidden behind the
name of God.
53. The belief in God is either the belief in Nature
(the objective being) as a human (subjective) being, or
the belief in the human essence as the essence of nature.
The former is the natural religion, polytheism ;3 the
latter, spiritual or human religion, monotheism. The
polytheist sacrifices himself to Nature, he gives to the
human eye and heart the power and government over
Nature ; the polytheist makes the human being depend
ent on Nature, the monotheist makes Nature dependent
on the human being ; the former says : if Nature does
not exist, I do not exist; but the latter says vice versa:
if I do not exist, the world, Nature does not exist. The
first principle of religion is : I am nothing compared
with Nature, everything compared with me is God ;
3 The definition of polytheism generally and without further
explanation as natural religion, holds good only relatively and
comparatively.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
71
everything inspires me with the feeling of dependence ;
everything can bring me, although only accidentally,
fortune and misfortune, welfare and destruction (but
man originally does not distinguish between cause and
accidental motive) ; therefore everything is a motive
of religion. Religion on the standpoint of such noncritical feeling of dependence is fetishism so-called,
the basis of polytheism. But the conclusion of religion
is : everything is nothing compared with me—all the
magnificence of the stars, the supreme gods of poly
theism disappear before the magnificence of the human
soul ; all the power of the world before the power of
the human heart; all the necessity of dead unconscious
Nature, before the necessity of the human, conscious
being ; for everything is only a means for me. But
Nature would not exist for me, if she existed by her
self, if she were not from God. If she were by herself
and therefore had the cause of her existence in herself,
she would for this very reason have also an indepen
dent essence, an original existence and essence without
any relation to myself, and independent from me.
The signification of Nature according to which she
appears to be nothing for herself, but only a means for
man, is therefore to be traced back only to creation ;
but this signification is manifested above all in those
instances where man—as, e.g., in distress, in danger of
death—comes into collision with Nature, which, how
ever, is sacrificed to man’s welfare—in the miracles.
Therefore the premiss of the miracle is creation ; the
miracle is the conclusion, the consequence, the truth of
creation. Creation is in the same relation to the miracle
as the species to the single individual; the miracle is the
act of creation in a special single case. Or, creation is
theory ; its practice and application is the miracle.
God is the cause, man the end of the world, i.e., God is
the first being in theory, but man is the first being in
�72
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
practice. Nature is nothing for God—nothing but a
plaything of his power—but only in order that in an
exigency, or rather generally, she is and can do nothing
against man. In the creator man drops the limits of
his essence, of his “ soul,” in the miracle the limits of
his existence, of his body ; there he makes his invisible,
thinking and reflected essence, here his individual,
practical, visible essence, the essence of the world ;
then he legitimates the miracle; here he only performs
it. The miracle accomplishes the end of religion in a
sensual, popular way—the dominion of man over
Nature, the divinity of man becomes a palpable truth.
God works miracles, but upon man’s prayer, and
although not upon an especial prayer, still in man’s
sense, in agreement with his most secret innermost
wishes. Sarah laughed when in her old age the Lord
promised her a little son, but nevertheless even then
descendants were still her highest thought and wish.
The secret worker of miracles therefore is man, but
in the progress of time—time discloses every secret—
he will and must become the manifest, visible worker
of miracles. At first man receives miracles, finally
he works miracles himself ; at first he is the object
of God, finally God himself ; at first God only in heart,
in mind, in thought, finally, God in flesh. But thought
is bashful, sensuality without shame ; thought is silent
and reserved, sensuality speaks out openly and frankly ;
its utterances therefore are exposed to be ridiculed
if they are contradictory to reason, because here the
contradiction is a visible, undeniable one. This is the
reason why the modern rationalists are ashamed to
believe in the God in the flesh, i.e., in the sensual,
visible miracle, while they are not ashamed to believe
in the not-sensual God, i.e., in the not sensual, hidden
miracle. Still, the time will come when the prophecy
of Lichtenberg will be fulfilled, and the belief in God
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
73
in general, consequently also the belief in a rational
God will be considered as superstition just as well as
already the belief in the miraculous Christian God in
flesh is considered as superstition, and when, therefore,
instead of the church light of simple belief, and instead
of the twilight of rationalistic belief, the pure light of
Nature and reason will enlighten and warm mankind.
54. He who for his God has no other material than
that which natural science, philosophy, or natural
o bservation generally furnishes to him, who therefore
construes the idea of God from natural materials and
considers him to be nothing but the cause or the prin
ciple of the laws of astronomy, natural philosophy,
geology, mineralogy, physiology, zoology and anthro
pology, ought to be honest enough also to abstain from
using the name of God, for a natural principal, is
always a natural essence and not what constitutes the
idea of a God.4 As little as a church which has been
turned into a museum of natural curiosities, still is and
can be called a house of God, so little is a God really a
God, whose nature and efforts are only manifested in
astronomical, geological, anthropological works. God
is a religious word, a religious object and being, not a
physical, astronomical, or in general a cosmical one.
“ Dues et cultus” says Luther, in his table discourses,
“ sunt relativa.” God and worship correspond to one
4 Arbitrariness in the use of words is unbounded. But still no
words are used so arbitrarily, nor taken in such contradictory
significations as the words God and religion. Whence this
arbitrariness and confusion ? Because people from reverence or
from fear to contradict opinions sanctioned by age, retain the old
names (for only the name, the appearance, rules the world, even the
world of believers in God), although they connect entirely different
ideas with them which have been gained only in the course of
time. Thus it was in regard to the Grecian gods which in the
course of time received tbe most contradictory significations;
thus in regard to the Christian God, Atheism calling itself theism
is the religion, anti-Christianity calling itself Christianity is the
true Christianity of the present day.—Mundus vult decipi.
�74
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
another, one cannot be without the other, for God must
ever be the God of a man or of a nation and is always
in praedicamento relationis, both being in mutual
relation to each other. God will have some who adore
and worship him ; for to have a God and adore him
correspond to each other, sunt relativa, as man and
wife in marriage—neither can be without the other.”
God therefore presupposes men who adore and worship
him; God is a being the idea or conception of whom
does not depend on Nature but on man, and that on
religious man ; an object of adoration is not without
an adoring being, i.e., God is an object whose existence
coincides with the existence of religion, whose essence
coincides with the essence of religion, and which,
therefore, does not exist apart from religion, different
and independent from it, but in whom objectively is
contained no more than what religion contains subjec
tively.5 Sound is the objective essence, the God of
the ear ; light is the objective essence, the God of the
eye ; sound exists only for the ear, light only for the
eye ; in the ear we have what we have in sound:
trembling, waving bodies, extended membranes, gela
tinous substances ; but in the eye we have organs of
light. To make God an object of natural philosophy,
astronomy or zoology, is therefore just the same thing
as making sound an object of the eye. As the tone
exists only in the ear and for it, so God exists only
in religion and for it, only in faith and for it. As
sound or tone as the object of hearing expresses only
the nature of the ear, so God as an object which is
only the object of religion and faith, expresses the
5 A being therefore which is only a philosophical principle, and
consequently only an object of philosophy, but not of religion, of
worship, of prayer, of the heart; a being that does not accomplish
any wishes, nor hear any prayers, is only a nominal God, but not
a God in reality.
�THE ESSENCE OF BELIGION.
75
nature of religion and faith. But what makes
an object a religious one ? As we have seen, onlyman’s imagination and mind. Whether you wor
ship Jehovah or Apis, the thunder or the Christ,
your shadow, like the negro on the coast of Guinea, or
your soul like the Persian of old, the flatus ventris or
your genius—in short, whether you worship a sensual
or spiritual being, it is all the same ; something is an
object of religion only in so far as it is an object of
imagination and feeling, an object of faith ; for just
because the object of religion, such as it is its object,
does not exist in reality, but rather contradicts the
latter, for this very reason it is only an object of faith.
Thus, e.g., the immortality of man, or man as an
immortal being is an object of religion, but for this
very reason only an object of faith, for reality shows
just the contrary, the mortality of man. To believe,
means to imagine that something exists which does not
exist; e.g., to imagine that a certain picture is a living
being, that this bread is flesh, wine blood, i.e., some
thing which it is not. Therefore it betrays the greatest
ignorance of religion if you hope to find God with the
telescope in the sky of astronomy, or with a magnifying
glass in a botanical garden, or with a mineralogic
hammer in the mines of geology, or with the anatomic
knife and microscope in the entrails of animals and
men. You find him only in man’s faith, imagination
and heart; for God himself is nothing but the essence
of man’s imagination and heart.
55. “ As your heart, so is your God.” As the wishes
of men, so are their gods. The Greeks had limited
gods—that means, they had limited wishes. The
Greeks did not wish to live for ever, they only wished
not to grow old and die, and they did not absolutely
wish not to die, they only wished not to die now—
unpleasant things always come too soon for man—only
�76
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
not in the bloom of their age, only not of a violent,
painful death ;6 they did not wish to be saved in
heaven, only happy, only to live without trouble and
pain ; they did not sigh as the Christians do, because
they were subject to the necessity of Nature, to the
wants of sexual instinct, of sleep, of eating and
drinking ; they still submitted in their wishes to the
limits of human nature ; they were not yet creators
from nothing, they did not yet make wine from water,
they only purified and distilled the waters of Nature
and changed it in an organic way into the blood of the
gods ; they drew the contents of divine and blissful
life not from mere imagination, but from the materials
of the real world; they built the heaven of the gods
upon the, grounds of this earth. The Greeks did not
make the divine, i.e., the possible being, the original
and end of the real one, but they made the real being
the measure of the possible one. Even when they had
refined and spiritualised their gods by means of
philosophy, their wishes were founded upon the
ground of reality and human nature. The gods are
realised wishes ; but the highest wish, the highest
bliss of the philosopher, of the thinker as such, is to
think undisturbed. The gods of the Greek philosopher
at least of the Greek philosopher par excellence, of the
philosophical Jove, of Aristotle—are therefore un
disturbed thinkers; their happiness, their divinity,
• While therefore in the paradise of Christian phantasms man
could not die and would not die if he had not sinned, with the
Greeks man died even in the blissful age of Kronos, but as easily
as if he fell asleep. In this idea t ie natural wish of man is
realised. Man does not wish for imm irtal life : he only wishes
for a long life of physical and mental health and a painless death
agreeable to Nature. To resign the belief in immortality
requires nothing less than an inhuman Stoic re ignation it
requires nothing but to be convinced that the articles of the
Christian creed are founded only upon supernaturalistic, fantastic
wishes, and to return io the simple real nature of man.
�THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
77
consists in the uninterrupted activity of thinking.
But this activity, this happiness is itself a happiness,
real within this world, within human nature—
although here limited by interruptions—a defined,
special, and therefore, in the conception of Christians,
limited and poor happiness which is contradictory
to the essence of true happiness; for Christians
have no limited but an unlimited God, surpassing
all natural necessity, superhuman, extramundane,
transcendental, i.e., they have unlimited, transcendental
wishes which go beyond the world, beyond Nature,
beyond the essence of man—i.e., absolutely fantastic
wishes. Christians wish to be infinitely greater and
happier than the gods of the Olympus ; their wish is
a heaven in which all limits and all necessity of Nature
are destroyed, and all wishes are accomplished ;7 a
heaven in which there exists no wants, no sufferings,
no wounds, no struggles, no passions, no disturbances,
no change of day and night, light and shade, joy and
pain, as in the heaven of the Greeks. In short, the
object of their belief is no longer a limited, defined
god, a god with the determined name of Jove, or Pluto,
or Vulcan, but God without appellation, because the
object of their wishes is not a named, finite, earthly
happiness, a determined enjoyment, such as the enjoy
ment of love, or of beautiful music, or of moral liberty,
or of thinking, but an enjoyment which embraces all
enjoyments, yet which for this very reason is a trans
cendental one, surpassing all ideas and thoughts, the
enjoyment of an infinite, unlimited, unspeakable, in
describable happiness. Happiness and divinity are the
’ Luther e.g. says: “But where God is (i.e. in heaven) there
must also be all good things which even we may possibly wish
for.” Thus in the Koran, according to Savary’s translation it is
said of the inhabitants of Paradise: “ Tous lews desirs seront
comblfs,” (All their wishes will be accomplished.) Only their
wishes are of a different kind.
�78
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION.
same thing. Happiness as an object of belief, of
imagination, generally as a theoretical object, is the
Deity, the deity as an object of the heart, of the will,8
of the wish as a practical object generally, is happiness.
Or rather, the deity is an idea, the truth and reality of
which is only happiness. As far as the desire of
happiness goes, so far, and no further, goes the idea of
the deity. He who no longer has any supernatural
wishes, has no longer any supernatural beings either.
8 The will, however, especially in the sense of the moralists,
does not constitute the specific essence of religion; because what
I can attain by my will, for that I need no gods. To make
morals the essential cause of religion is to retain the name of
religion, but to drop its essence. One can be moral without God,
but happy—in the supernaturalistic, Christian sense of the word
—one cannot be without God; for happiness in this sense lies
beyond the limits and the power of Nature and mankind, it
therefore presupposes for its realisation a supernatural being
which is and can do, what is impossible to Nature and mankind.
If Kant therefore made morals the essence of religion, he was in
the same or at least a similar relation to Christian religion as
Aristotle to the Greek religion, when the latter made theory the
essence of the gods. As little as a god who is only a speculative
being, nothing but intellect, still is a God, so little a merely moral
being or a “personified law of morals” is still a God. It is true,
Jove already is also a philosopher, when he looks smilingly down
from Olympus upon the struggles of the gods, but he is still
infinitely more; certainly also the Christian God is a moral
being but still infinitely more ; morals are only the condition of
happiness. The true idea which is at the bottom of Christian
happiness, especially in c ntrast to philosophic heathenism, is
however no other than the one, that true happiness can be found
only in the gratification of man’s whole nature, for which reason
Christianity admits also the body, the flesh, to the participation
in the divinity or what is the same thing, in the enjoyment of
happiness. But the development of this thought does not belong
here, it belongs to the Essence of Christianity.
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The essence of religion : God the image of man. Man's dependence upon nature the last and only source of religion
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Feuerbach, Ludwig [1804-1872]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: vi, [7]-78 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: First published in German in 1845. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N211
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Loos, Alexander (tr)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
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 essence of religion : God the image of man. Man's dependence upon nature the last and only source of religion), 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
Natural Theology
NSS
Religions
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/40046674e3800d115e995cd2b9cb5b9c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Amgo8f%7EOVwJxaCU3aI76lMEISSdE0T4a4ATduBKyLIyMEoSKWOCIgjuCCUyTYtEl%7Ecs%7EiDtTxXggoCoQKFQ7OMlu7zBdtiqy5U2%7EFrdsPfPVwFtGsEIwjOt4sq%7EAuygNzEJZIxF6PzGQPceMgkloJacrxXbSdS9L8fELv3akSBAzAqQ92%7Ezi1Pr0hqqnGh2eKqcbWP4d5fGvt5Q3wuVIXq9I%7E5gLpJmydFFsCuM8qQYRkbeGz4rp4%7Eo-vOhDmgm8rMijhJSG13vZW5h-NvjyGQhUWS08meXHgJ-DSOsq5kgXrmAI8VvbDos0flMGfAuG2DrNhQ4lHsh7YAp-mj--nQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfda06568c88fc6c0257c224f761b4e7
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
MORTALITY
OB'
the soul
BY
. DAVID HUME.
Reprinted from the Original Edition of liS->
WITH
An Introduction
by
G. AV. Foote.
Price Twopence.
LONDON
progressive PUBLISHING company,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
1890.
�LONDON:
TRUSTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE
AT 2ft STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�1
’’W'W
N T RO DUCT I ON.
By G. W. FOOTE.
à
i
'I
I
3
i
1
q
rl
u
q
»
fi.
it
Referring to David Hume, in his lecture on the Physical
m
ine rny
Basis of Life, Professor Huxley speaks of “ the vigor of thought
and the exquisite clearness of style of the man whom I make
bold to term the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century
—even though that century produced Kant.”* Even Carlyle
assigns Hume a place “ among the greatest,”! which for a
writer like Carlyle to a thinker like Hume is a remarkable
tribute. No less clearly is the Scotch philosopher’s greatness
acknowledged by Joseph de Maistre, the foremost champion of
the Papacy in this century. “ I believe,” he says, “taking all
into account, that the eighteenth century, so fertile in this
respect, did not produce a single enemy of religion who can be
compared with him. His cold venom is far more dangerous
than the foaming rage of Voltaire. If ever, among men who
have heard the gospel preached, there has existed a veritable
Atheist (which I will not undertake to decide) it is he. +
Hume’s influence has been felt through the whole course of
philosophy since his day, and the writings of such a man—so
lucid, yet so profound; so acute, yet so comprehensive—can
never be neglected. Upon religious topics, no less than on
political and philosophical, he was singularly penetrative. His
Essay on Miracles is the starting-point of all subsequent dis
cussions of that most vital element of the Christian faith; his
Natural History of Religion strikingly anticipates many of
the teachings of modern Evolution; and his Dialogues on
* Lay Sermons and Addresses, p. 141.
t Essays (People’s Edition), vol. iv., p. 130.
t Lettres sur I’Inquisition, pp. 147, 148.
�iv.
Introduction.
Religion turn the arguments of Theism in every possible
light, leaving little but elaboration to his successors.
In the ordinary editions of Hume’s Essays the following
reprint is not to be found. This essay was published for- the first
time after his death, at Edinburgh, in 1789, by C. Hunter, Par
liament Square. It was the second of two posthumous essays,
the first being a remarkable essay on Suicide. A copy of the
original edition has been faithfully followed in this reprint.
Not a word has been changed, but such forms as “ ’tis ” have
been brought into accord with the sedater fashion of to-day,
and the frequent dashes in the midst of long passages have
been treated as the marks of fresh paragraphs.
Professor Huxley, whose thoroughness is apparent to all who
follow him, gives the title of this essay On the Immortality of
the Soul, but the word used on the original title-page is
mortality, which indicates the author’s argument. This is a
mere inadvertence, however, for Huxley is well acquainted
with the essay, and gives long extracts from it in his splendid
little volume on Hume. He calls it a “ remarkable essay,”
*
and “ a model of clear and vigorous statement.” It long
remained but little known, but “ possibly for that reason its
influence has been manifested in unexpected quarters, and its
main arguments have been adduced by archiépiscopal and
episcopal authority in evidence of the value of revelation. Dr.
Whately, sometime Archbishop of Dublin, paraphrases Hume,
though he forgets to cite him ; and Bishop Courtenay’s elabo
rate work, dedicated to the Archbishop, is a development of
that prelate’s version of Hume’s essay.”
Anyone who turns to the first essay in Whately’s Some
Peculiarities of the Christian Religion will perceive the truth
of these remarks, at least with respect to the Archbishop.
Sometimes he follows Hume step by step, and even uses his
very illustrations. But Hume himself had doubtless profited
by the arguments of Anthony Collins in his replies to Dr.
Samuel Clarke’s letters to Dodwell. Clarke argued for the
Immateriality of the Soul, and Collins for its Materiality ; and,
as Huxley elsewhere admits, Collins had by far the best of the
discussion. He wrote, says Huxley, with “ wonderful power
and closeness of reasoning,” and “in this battle the Goliath of
* Hume, English Men of Letters Series.
�Introduction.
V.
Freethinking overcame the champion of what was considered
*
Orthodoxy.
Some readers may notice one omission in Hume’s essay. He
does not refer, as Huxley remarks, to “ the sentimental argu
ments for the immortality of the soul which are so much in
vogue at the present day,” and a perhaps he did not think
them worth notice.” But he does fence them by anticipation
in saying thata All doctrines are to be suspected which are
favored by our passions.” Nothing but man’s overweening
egotism could induce him to think that he will live for ever
because he would like to; and that such an argument for a future
life should be put forward by theologians, only proves what is so
obvious on many other grounds, that religion, with all its fine
pretences, is constantly appealing to the blind irrationality of
individual selfishness.
We must conclude this Preface with a word of warning to
the reader. Let him not be misled by the opening and closing
paragraphs of Hume’s essay into supposing that the great
sceptic deferred to the authority of Revelation. They are only
his ironical bows to orthodoxy. He indulges in the same
gestures in his Essay on Miracles. This has brought upon
him, as it brought upon Gibbon, a charge of disingenuousness.
But both of those masters of irony were perfectly aware that
every sensible man understood them. If they wore a mask, it
was transparent, and did not conceal their features; and those
who upheld the Blasphemy Laws for the persecution of
Freethinkers, had no right to complain when conformity was
yielded with an expressive grimace.
Critiques and Adresses, “ The Metaphysics of Sensation.’
��The Mortality of the Soul.
By DAVID HUME.
By the mere light of reason it seems difficult to prove
the Immortality of the Soul; the arguments for it are
commonly derived either from metaphysical topics, or
moral or physical. But in reality it is the Gospel and
the Gospel alone, that has brought 'ft/e and immor
tality to light.
I. Metaphysical topics suppose that the Soul is
immaterial, and that it is impossible for thought to
belong to a material substance. But just metaphysics
teach us that the notion of substance is wholly confused
and imperfect, and that we have no other idea of any
substance, than as an aggregate of particular qualities,
inhering in an unknown something. Matter, there
fore, and spirit, are at bottom equally unknown, and
we cannot determine what qualities inhere in the one
or in the other. They likewise teach us that nothing
can be decided a priori concerning any cause or effect
and that experience being the only source of our judg
ments of this nature we cannot know from any other
principle, whether matter by its structure or arrange
ment, may not be the cause of thought. Abstract
reasonings cannot decide any question of fact or
existence. But admitting a spiritual substance to be
dispersed throughout the universe, like the etherial fire
of the Stoics, and to be the only inherent subject of
�8
The Mortality of the Soul.
thought, we have reason to conclude from analogy that
nature uses it after the same manner she does the other
substance matter. She employs it as a kind of paste or
clay; modifies it into a variety of forms and existences ;
dissolves after a time each modification, and from its
substance erects a new form. As the same material
substance may successively compose the body of all
.animals, the same spiritual substance may compose
their minds. Their consciousness, or that system of
thought which they formed during life may be con
tinually dissolved by death. And nothing interests
them in the new modification. The most positive
assertors of the morality of the Soul, never denied the
immortality of its substance. And that an immaterial
substance as well as a material, may lose its memory
or consciousness appears in part from experience, if the
Soul be immaterial.
Reasoning from the common course of nature,
and without supporting any new interposition of
the supreme cause, which ought always to be excluded
from philosophy, what is incorruptible must also be
ingenerable. The Soul therefore, if immortal, existed
before our birth; and if the former existence no
ways concerned us, neither will the latter.
Animals undoubtedly feel, think, love, hate, will,
and even reason, though in a more imperfect manner
than men ; are their Souls also immaterial and
immortal ?
II. Let us now consider the moral arguments, chiefly
those derived from the justice of God, which is sup
posed to be farther interested in the farther punish
ment of the vicious and reward of the virtuous.
But these arguments are grounded on the supposition
that God has attributes beyond what he has exerted in
this universe, with which alone we are acquainted.
Whence do we infer the existence of these attributes ?
�The Mortality of the Soul.
9
It is very safe for us to affirm that whatever we know
the Deity to have actually done, is best; but it is very
dangerous to affirm, that he must always do what
to us seems best. In how many instances would
this reasoning fail us with regard to the present
world ?
But if any purpose of nature be clear, we may affirm,
that the whole scope and intention of man’s creation,
so far as we can judge by natural reason, is limited to
the present life. With how weak a concern from the
original inherent structure of the mind and passions,
does he ever look farther ? What comparison either
for steadiness or efficacy, betwixt so floating an idea,
and the most doubtful persuasion of any matter of fact
that occurs in common life. There arise indeed in
some minds some unaccountable terrors with regard to
futurity; but these would quickly vanish were they
not artificially fostered by precept and education.
And those who foster them ; what is their motive ?
Only to gain a livelihood, and to acquire power and
riches in this world. Their very zeal and industry
therefore is an argument against them.
What cruelty, what iniquity, what injustice in
nature, to confine all our concern, as well as all our
knowledge, to the present life, if there be another
scene still waiting us, of infinitely greater consequence ?
Ought this barbarous deceit to be ascribed to a benificent
and wise being ?
Observe with what exact proportion the task to be
performed and the performing powers are adjusted
throughout all nature. If the reason of man gives
him a great superiority above other animals, his neces
sities are proporti onably multiplied upon him ; his
whole time, his whole capacity, activity, courage,
passion, find sufficient employment in fencing against
the miseries of his present condition, and frequently,
�10
The Mortality of the Soul.
nay almost always, are too slender for the business
assigned them.
A pair of shoes perhaps was never yet wrought to
the highest degree of perfection which that commodity
is capable of attaining. Yet it is necessary, at least very
useful, that there should be some politicians and
moralists, even some geometers, poets and philosophers
among mankind. The powers of men are no more
superior to their wants, considered merely in this life,
than those of foxes and hares are, compared to their
wants, and to their period of existence. The inference
from parity of reason is therefore obvious.
On the theory of the Soul’s mortality, the inferiority
of women’s capacity is easily accounted for. Their
domestic life requires no higher faculties, either of
mind or body.
This circumstance vanishes and
becomes absolutely insignificant, on the religious
theory : The one sex has an equal task to perform as
the other ; their powers of reason and resolution ought
also to have been equal and both of them infinitely
greater than at present. As every effect implies a
cause, and that another, till we reach the first cause of
all, which is the Deity ; everything that happens is
ordained by him, and nothing can be the object of his
punishment or vengeance.
By what rule are punishments and rewards dis
tributed ? What is the divine standard of merit and
demerit? Shall we suppose that human sentiments
have place in the Deity ? How bold that hypothesis.
We have no conception of any other sentiments.
According to human sentiments, sense, courage, good
manners, industry, prudence, genius, etc., are essential
parts of personal merits. Shall we therefore erect an
asylum for poets and heroes like that of the ancient
mythology ? Why confine all rewards to one species
of virtue? Punishment without any proper end or
�The Mortality of the Soul.
11
purpose is inconsistent with our ideas of goodness and
justice, and no end can be served by it after the whole
scene is closed. Punishment according to our concep
tion, should bear some proportion to the offence. Why
then eternal punishment for the temporary offences of
so frail a creature as man ? Can anyone approve of
Alexander's rage, who intended to exterminate a whole
nation because they had seized his favorite horse
Bucephalus ?
*
Heaven and Hell suppose two distinct species of
men, the good and the bad ; but the greatest part of
mankind float betwixt vice and virtue.
Were one to go round the world with an intention of
giving a good supper to the righteous, and a sound
drubbing to the wicked, he would frequently be
embarrassed in his choice, and would find that the
merits and demerits of most men and women scarcely
amount to the value of either.
To suppose measures of approbation and blame
different from the human confounds everything.
Whence do we learn that there is such a thing as moral
distinctions, but from our own sentiments ?
What man who has not met with personal provocation
(or what good natured man who has) could inflict on
crimes, from the sense of blame alone, even the com
mon. legal, frivolous punishments ? And does anything
steel the breast of judges and juries against the senti
ments of humanity but reflection on necessity and
public interest? By the Roman law those who had
been guilty of parricide and confessed their crime,
were put into a sack along with an ape, a dog, and a
serpent and thrown into the river. Death alone was
the punishment of those who denied their guilt, how
ever fully proved. A criminal was tried before
Quint. Curtius lib. vi., cap. 5.
�12
The Mortality of the Soul.
Augustus and condemned after a full conviction, but
the humane emperor when he put the last interrogatory,
gave it such a turn as to lead the wretch into a denial
of his guilt. “ You surely (said the prince) did not
kill your father.”* This lenity suits our natural ideas
of right even towards the greatest of all criminals, and
even though it prevents so inconsiderable a sufferance.
Nay even the most bigoted priest would naturally
without reflection approve of it, provided the crime
was not heresy or infidelity ; for as these crimes hurt
himself in his temporal interest and advantages,
perhaps he may not be altogether so indulgent to them.
The chief source of moral ideas is the reflection on
the interest of human society. Ought these interests
so short, so frivolous, to be guarded by punishments
eternal and infinite ? The damnation of one man is an
infinitely greater evil in the universe than the sub
version of a thousand millions of kingdoms. Nature
has rendered human infancy peculiarly frail and
mortal, as in were on purpose to refute the notion of a
probationary state ; the half of mankind die bfore they
are rational creatures.
III. The Physical arguments from the analogy of
nature are strong for the mortality of the soul, and are
really the only philosophical arguments which ought
to be admitted with regard to this question, or indeed
any question of fact.
Where any two objects are so closely connected that
all alterations which we have ever seen in the one, are
attended with proportional alterations in the other ; we
ought to conclude by all rules of analogy, that, when
there are still greater alterations produced in the
former, and it is totally dissolved, there follows a total
dissolution of the latter.
* Suet. Augus. cap. 3.
�The Mortality of the Soul.
13
Sleep, a very small effect on the body, is attended
with a temporary extinction, at least a great confusion
of the soul.
The weakness of the body and that of the mind in
infancy are exactly proportioned, their vigor in man
hood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness, their
common gradual decay in old age. The step further
seems unavoidable ; their common dissolution in death.
The last symptoms which the mind discovers are dis
order, weakness, insensibility, stupidity, the fore
runners of its annihilation. The farther progress of
the same causes increasing, the same effects totally
extinguish it. Judging by the usual analogy of nature,
no form can continue when transferred to a condition
of life very different from the original one, in which
it was placed. Trees perish in the water, fishes in the
air, animals in the earth. Even so small a difference
as that of climate is often fatal. What reason then to
imagine, that an immense alteration such as is made
on the soul by the dissolution of its body and all its
organs of thought and sensation can be effected with
out the dissolution of the whole ? Everything is in
common betwixt soul and body. The organs of the
one are all of them the organs of the other. The
existence therefore of the one must be dependent on
that of the other.
The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal;
and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of
men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a
very strong argument. Their bodies are not more
resembling ; yet no one rejects the argument drawn
from comparative anatomy. The Metempsychosis is
therefore the only system of this kind that philosophy
can hearken to.
Nothing in this world is perpetual, everything
however seemingly firm is in continual flux and change,
�14
lhe Mortality of the Soul.
the world itself gives symptoms of frailty and dis
solution.
How contrary to analogy, therefore, to
imagine that one single form, seemingly the frailest of
any, and subject to the greatest disorders, is immortal
and indissoluble ? What a daring theory is that; how
lightly, not to say, how rashly entertained! How to
dispose of the infinite numbers of posthumous exist
ences ought also to embarrass the religious theory.
Every planet in every solar system, we are at
liberty to imagine peopled with intelligent mortal
beings, at least we can fix on no other supposition. For
these then a new universe must every generation
be created beyond the bounds of the present universe,
or one must have been created at first so prodigiously
wide as to admit of this continual influx of beings.
Ought such bold suppositions to be received by any
philosophy, and that merely on the pretext of a bare
possibility ? When it is asked whether Agamemnon,
Thersites, Hannibal, Varro, and every stupid clown
that ever existed in Italy, Scythia, Bactria or Guinea
are now alive ; can any man think, that a scrutiny of
nature will furnish arguments strong enough to answer
so strange a question in the affirmative ? The want of
argument without revelation sufficiently establishes
the negative.
“Quante facilius (says Pliny
}
*
certius que sibi
quemque credere, ac specimen securitatis antigene tali
sumere experimento." Our insensibility before the
composition of the body, seems to natural reason a
proof of a like state after dissolution.
Were our horror of annihilation an original passion,
not the effect of our general love of happiness, it would
rather prove the mortality of the soul. For as nature
does nothing in vain, she would never give us a horror
* Lib. 7, cap. 55.
�The Mortality of the Soul.
15
against an impossible event. She may give us a horror
against an unavoidable event provided our endeavors,
as in the present case may often remove it to some
distance. Death is in the end unavoidable; yet the
human species could not be preserved had not
nature inspired us with an aversion towards it. All
doctrines are to be suspected which are favored by
our passions, and the hopes and fears which gave rise
to this doctrine are very obvious.
It is an infinite advantage in every controversy to
defend the negative. If the question be out of the
common experienced course of nature, this circum
stance is almost if not altogether decisive. By what
arguments or analogies can we prove any state of
existence, which no one ever saw, and which no way
resembles any that ever was seen ? Who will repose
such trust in any pretended philosophy as to admit
upon its testimony the reality of so marvellous a
scene ? Some new species of logic is requisite for that
purpose, and some new faculties of the mind that may
enable us to comprehend that logic.
Nothing could set in a fuller light the infinite
obligations which mankind have to divine revelation,
since we find that no other medium could ascertain
this great and important truth.
�Free Will and Necessity.
A Philosophical Inquiry concerning Human Liberty.
By ANTHONY COLLINS.
First Published in 1715. Now Reprinted", with Preface and Annotations,
by G-. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by J. M. Wheeler.
“ I do not know of an^fcqg thartrhas been advanced by later writers in
support of the scheme of Nece^ity^of which the germ is not to be found
in the Inquiry of Collins.”—Prof. Dugald Stewart.
.
“ColUns states "the arguments against human freedom with a logical
force unsurpassed by any Necessitarian. —Prof A. C. Eraser.
_ „
“ Collins writes with -wonderful power and closeness of reasoning.
P“°"CoE^was one of the most terrible enemies of the Christian
religion.”—Voltaire.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
- Superior Edition, printed on
and b°Und ™ Cl°™’
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter St., London, E.C.
The Essence of Religion?
GOD THE IMAGE OF MAN.
MAN’S DEPENDENCEWDN NATDRE^THE LAST AND ONLT
By LUDWIG- FEUERBACH.
price
one
shilling.
“ No one has demonstrated and explained the purely human oilgin o
the idea of God better than Ludwig Feuerbach. —Buchnei.
■
confess that to Feuerbach I owe a debt of inestimable gratitude.
FeeUne about in uncertainty for the ground, and finding everywhere
SS§g sands, Feuerbach cast a sudden blaze in the darkness and dis
closed to me the way.”—Rev. S. Baring Gould.________ _
_____________
me
Rev- 8. Bating Gould.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM
EXAMINED.
By JEREMY BENTHAM.
With a Biographical Preface by J. M. WHEEI^R.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
also
. Ä
.
UTILITARIANISM.
By JEREMY BENTHAM.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
“A place must be assigned to Bentham among the masters of wisoom.
—John Stuart Mill.
.
IffÄ&ÄÄ admltog a„a
11» P® «too the M « Mr. Benthem
iS ÄÄÄSeft It a .etoeer-^a,.,«
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The mortality of the soul
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hume, David [1711-1776]
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the original edition of 789. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Includes bibliographical references. 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
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N316
Subject
The topic of the resource
Soul
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 mortality of the soul), 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
Immortality
NSS
Soul
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The God idea : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lennstrand, Viktor
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Translated from the Swedish. "For delivering which the Author was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for Blasphemy in Sweden" [Title page]. Lennstrand (1861-95) was a Swedish freethought activist and writer.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N437
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini [1850-1898]
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The God idea : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f9fe47d40888fe02e8b874ed9f29e73.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gR-XPup41aKgtyrvgDt1zg7Xe7s4UPVUE9K0C5j-ltYEW1mecNBY6B4y3n8BY92xVPc3MnosRQbPa6Y5TFtH2x603NiXEgjKZMbrwRw7jobQR7hW0HfG%7ELb6wTXqdNrsfM6jLDqRSVLUO9vM1l-e2oEYwDw7QZmNRMDtJc0zR9QYFxOb61sq0eyG2ufDBR13OiQK7W6ft3t06Ja2kcH9omjVJbopTxJYkcwVz2tftMuoTGh2doJ3EA4kLG%7E1XrHMEyIOVyeQpdgqpADJWpW5ZpIMuUmPoQ4BsA2ZnPXX3UOPvBZ7Kmw5ruyxBu0MWiFef%7EtjBmVBJje12MwC6hYUjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a799d29086be6a1b6e4f3c0a895bc41a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
/O '
/ Z/0-&
FAITH AND FACT
A LETTER TO
THE BEV. HENBY M. FIELD, D.D.
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
------- «-------
REPRINTED PROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�FAITH AND FACT,
My Dear Mr. Field,—T answer your letter because it is manly
candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the
gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in
terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often
malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your
brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief,
tends to show that those who love God are not always the
friends of their fellow men.
Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be
eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and
that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro
gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ” ? And
yet “some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous,
rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect
to receive as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the inno
cence of honest error—as to the right to express an honest
thought.
You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im
portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the
advocates of protection, there are honest Democrats and sincere
Republicans. How do you account for these differences ? Edu
cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions
capable of solution—'questions that the mind can grasp, concern
ing which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be
with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this ? If such
differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those
who differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining
different views on subjects about which nothing can be positively
known P
You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ”
do. How do you account for this difference ? Of course, your
brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian
God—are governed by charity and love. They do not regard
me as. a monster because I have committed an infamous crime,
but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest
thoughts.
What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great
care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only
�4
FAITH AND FACT.
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty
to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? W^as it my duty to
remain, silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined
the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word
of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a
monster ? Has religion had control of the world so long that an
honest man seems monstrous?
According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same
being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain,
and sowed within those wondrous fields the seeds of every
thought and deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it
as a, guide to all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the
brain. And yet there are millions who do not believe in the
inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best
have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian
ever stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He
was familiar with nature from the sands to stars, and gave his
thoughts, his discoveries and conclusions, “ more precious than
the tested gold,” to all mankind. Yet he not only rejected the
religion of your brethren, but denied the existence of their God.
Certainly Charles Darwin was one of the greatest and purest of
men—as free from prejudice as the mariner’s compass—desiring
only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance the star of
truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the intel
lectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate con
clusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of mankind.
In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest and
The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion becomes a
gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest,
thoughtful, brave, and generous man.
Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, and
the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of
Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and
tell me, candidly, which in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even
your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished
for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy,
or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of
the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular
hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and
yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same free
dom of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason
is the supreme and final test.
If God has made a revelation to man it must have been
addressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could
even decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and
feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the star
less night—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is
the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains.
�FAITH AND FACT.
5
You. draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call
“ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo
mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com
mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ?
What is your opinion of Jehovah himself? Is not the sacrifice
of a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ?
Why should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Why should
the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg
of the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the
envy of the source of light !
You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her
child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care
of the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through
a false belief on the part of the mother. She breaks her heart
for love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian
mother who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a con
vict in the eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from
which none escape ? What do you say of those Christians who
believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstacy that
all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred rela
tions of life and all the passions of the heart will fade and die, so
that they will look with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the
miseries of the lost ?
You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be dis
tinguished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime
which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.”
Let us test your religion by this rule.
Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is
it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and
is it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also
another question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of
ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise ?
According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved,
and those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you
condemn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say,
for acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—
do you not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when
you reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that
which happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not
make that a virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do
you not bring your own religion exactly within your own defini
tion of superstition ?
The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his
thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We
believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is
a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales
turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of
being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The
�6
FAITH AND FACT.
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must believe,
or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.
That which must be, has the right to be.
We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart
beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old
accustomed ways.
The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that
being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest
thoughts ? You certainly have the right to express yours, and
you have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who
regard me as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question
now is,, have I the right to express mine ? In other words, have
I the right to answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me
which is a. virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition
of superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to
me is simply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right
to express your honest thoughts P When, and where, and how
did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you on a subject about which neither of us knows
anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a
proof of the depravity of man. You are far better than your
creed. You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing
the frightful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw
are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon
whom they are used, that the religion of those who use them
was founded by a god of infinite compassion. You will admit
that he who now persecutes for opinion’s sake is in famous. And
yet, the God you worship will, according to your creed, torture
through all the endless years the man who entertains an honest
doubt. A belief in such a God is the foundation and cause of all
religious persecution. You may reply that only the belief in a
false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you must admit
that the Jews believed in a true God, and you are forced to say
that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they cruci
fied the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was com
mitted, not in spite of their religion, but in accordance with it.
They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the
followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have
denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on ac
count of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their
fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless
Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for
the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At
this point absurdity becomes infinite.
Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making
it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torque-
�FAITH AND FACT.
7
mada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of
death. And this you call a “ consolation.”
You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea
of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those
entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are
not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the
gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the
Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks
doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your
Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the
salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According
to your creed a man must believe in your god. All the nations
dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and
Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris and Brahma prayed and sacrificed
in vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were
not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe
in any one of the heathen gods.
What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and
to put forth arguments that even Christians have answered?
The Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty,
and at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian
replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the
Bible. This answer was complete.
I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have
been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the
supernatural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and
purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous
myths. Yet a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make
men charitable or just. For most people, Theism is the easiest
solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that
there must be a being who created and who governs the world.
But the universality of a belief does not tend to establish its
truth. The belief in the existence of a malignant devil has been
as universal as the belief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent
men will say that the universality of this belief in an in finite
demon even tends to prove his existence. In the world of thought
majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with
the few.
Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has
been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance
and hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man
has sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and
child; he has fasted and prayed; he has suffered beyond the
power of language to express, and yet he has received nothing
from the gods—they have heard no supplication, they have
answered no prayer.
You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and
�8
FAITH AND FACT.
on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to
all alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the
just and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his
cyclones rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest
and the criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is
cruel to all alike? In other words, do they not demonstrate the
absolute impartiality of the divine negligence?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelli
gence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better
than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts or
floods; the props would not be permitted to wither and die, while
rain was being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good
man with power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones?
Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the
lightning ?
Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the
good, and preserve the vile? Why should he treat all alike here,
and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should
your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by
his enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the
noble, to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ?
Does it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of
shame when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of
her babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with
sobs, commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ?
It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed,
you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci
tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence
of God. Now, if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of
the soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity?
Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You
seem to think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in
order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain
qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for
the Atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do
you quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose
being he so passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon
—one of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely
strung that he was sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you
driven to the necessity of proving the existence of one tyrant by
the words of another ? Personally, I have but little confidence in
a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his
ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans. In
regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast
amount of testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of
Charles Darwin, and then denied the correctness of these
theories—preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few days
to the lasting applause of the intellectual world.
�FAITH AND FACT.
9
I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but
that everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there
is no way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me,
the crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constella
tions. But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the
universe by the mystery of God, you do not even exchange
mysteries—you simply make one more.
Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.
The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of
God.. That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so
that it cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is
beyond the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that
man can be convinced by any evidence of the existence of that
which he cannot in any measure comprehend. Such evidence
would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible
fact sought to be established by it, and the intellect of man can
grasp neither the one nor the other.
You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God,
is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship
the inflexible? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ?
You say that your God “ does not bend to human thought any
more than to human will,” and that “ the more we study him,
the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to be.”
So that after all, the only thing you are really certain of in
relation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is
it not almost absurd to insist that such a state of mind is
necessary to salvation, or that it is a moral restraint, or that it
is the foundation of a social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the
Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian
nation more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ?
Certainly you must know that what you call religion has pro
duced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the sword all
the natural ties that produce “ the unity and married calm of
States.” Theology is the fruitful mother of discord; order is
the child of reason. If you will candidly consider this question,
if you .will for a few moments forget your preconceived opinions,
you will instantly see that the instinct of self-preservation holds
society together. People, being ignorant, believed that the gods
were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms
that demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony,
phantoms that , could be flattered by praise and changed by
prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve themselves,
they supposed that they could in this way avoid pestilence and
famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do you not see
that self-preservation lies atjthe foundation of worship ? Nations,
like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like
�10
FAITH AND FACT.
individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplish
ment of certain ends.. Men defend their property because it i s
of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire
to live, and for that reason murdei’ is a crime. Fraud is hateful
to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce the
necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to
retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the
instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of
value. This is the foundation of social order, and this holds
society together.
Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs
the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its
votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The
effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together.
Of what consequence is any thing in this world compared with
eternal joy P
You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and
that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in
other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by
your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes
and preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your
God is responsible for the government of this world. Does he
preserve order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did
he establish the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of
the Inquisition.
You answer all these questions by calling my attention to
“ the retributions of history.” What are 'the retributions of
history ? The honest were burned at the stake; the patriotic,
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons;
whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of
their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They
who committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified
these infamies were adorned with the tiara.
You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg
said : “ Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.”
Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he
says—speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—
“ If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the
lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must
be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.’ ” But admitting that you are correct in the asser
tion, let me ask you one question : Could one standing over the
body of Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman’s
wound, have truthfully said: “ Just and true are thy judg
ments, Lord God Almighty ” P
Do you really believe that this world is governed by an
infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even your
self of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ?
�FAITH AND FACT.
11
Why should the loving be tortured P Why should the noblest
be destroyed ? Why should the world be filled with misery,
with ignorance and with want ? What reason have you for
believing that your God will do better in another world than he
has done and is doing in this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he
have more power ? Will he be more merciful ?
When I say “ your God,” of course I mean the God described
in the Bible and Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I
say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of
the existence of an Infinite Being.
An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason
there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any
possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being
so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an
Infinite Being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do
nothing for a Being who wants nothing. A conditioned being
can be made happy or miserable by changing conditions, but the
conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and effect.
I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a
God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can
be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and
that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an
infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe
God as “ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind,
is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no
experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I
am acquainted, and I was surprised to find in your letter the
expression that “ perhaps others are better acquainted with that
of which I am so ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say
that you know anything of any other state of existence—that
you have inhabited some other planet—that you lived before
you were born, and that you recollect something of that other
world, or of that other state ?
Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unin
tentionally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have
never uttered “ a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a
thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality,
that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with
its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores
and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any
creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and
it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of
doubt and darkness as long as loves kisses the lips of death.
I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not
know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the
beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or
the folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an
endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one.
�12
FAITH AND FACT.
The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had
lived, and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been
laid in love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven
of the New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, after
they were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word
was said to have been uttered by Christ—nothing philosophic,
nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the
cloud of doubt.
According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was
dead for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection,
why did not some one of his disciples ask him where he had
been P Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ?
There was the opportunity to “ bring life and immortality to
light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had leftspeechless as the stone that angels had rolled away.
How do you account for this? Was it not infinitely cruel to
leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could
have filled time with hope and light ?
The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have
climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not
supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long
as men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the
human heart.
All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope
and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look
have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those
who hope to live again—for those who bend above their dream
of life to come. But I have denounced the selfishness and heart
lessness of those who expect for themselves an eternity of joy,
and for the rest of mankind predict, without a tear, a world of
endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible than such a
hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of
the human race.
When I say that I do not know—when I deny the existence
of perdition, you reply that “ there is something very cruel in
this treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures.”
You have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which
a mother bends and weeps for her only son. I accept your
invitation. We will go together. Do not, I pray you, deal in
splendid generalities. Be explicit. Remember that the son for
whom the loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer
in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus
Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for some star
of hope in the midnight of her grief. What must you say P Do
not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a
�FAITH AND FACT.
13
portion of the Presbyterian confession of faith ? Will you read
this?
“ Although, the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man
inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of
his will which is necessary to salvation.”
Or, will you read this ?
“ By the decree of God, for the manifestation 'of his glory, some men and
angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to ever
lasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and
definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say :
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” WouldJyou then put this
serpent in her breast ?—
“ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other
way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives according
to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin.
There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation. Works done by un
regenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which
God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others, are sinful
and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God.”
And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What
has become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still
read from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism,
this P—
“ The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment
and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. At the last
day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the wicked shall be
cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable i torment, both of body and
soul, with the Devil and his angels for ever.”
If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted,
would you thrust this dagger in her heart ?
“ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds,
shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and
acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.”
If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would
you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul
of Christ ?—
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe
not shall be damned ; and these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil and his angels.”
Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell
this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and
among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of
paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “ Your son lived
in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach.
He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son
�14
FAITH AND FACT.
is for ever lost. You. can meet your son again only by dying in
your sins; but if you will give your heart to God you can never
clasp him to your breast again.”
What could I say ? Let me tell you.
“ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of
another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply
Btated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear.
If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you
are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him,
according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he
gave his life for him; and why should that love be changed to
hatred the moment your son was dead ?
“ My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no
rewards—there are consequences; and of one thing you may
rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere
it may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing
right.
“ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you
weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not
within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is
something. Your son does not suffer. Hext to a life of joy is
the dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox
Christianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in thiB world, where every
human being is enshrouded in cloud and mist —where all lives
are filled with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is
it “ a consolation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal
pain ” ? It is possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from
the doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If
that doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why
should he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer for
ever P Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Com
pared with this crime, any crime that any man can by any
possibility commit is a virtue.
Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite
penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal
turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this
infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a
scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth
part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world
remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was
made.
If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un
justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God
accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of
the guilty ?
According to your theory, this infinite being by his mere will,
makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong
�FAITH AND FACT.
15
exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man,
and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature
is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.”
I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural
effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment,
nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con
sequences; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness
of man; and the consequences must be borne.
A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be
pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own
well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power.
The laws of the State are made, and being made, can be changed;
but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation
of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all
power, and consequently there is no analogy between the laws of
the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not
change the relation between the diameter and circumference of
the circle.
A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny
the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of
the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be
to suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in
Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end
that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all:
Nature cannot pardon.
You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is
to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with
the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest
hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another
must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition
must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can
be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has
by his perfidy broken a loving and confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no
atonement.
But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if
you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a
man may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven
to insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships
strain at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught
that this poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of
infinite compassion. This is not all that you have taught. You
have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would
not listen to her wailing cry—who would not even stretch
forth his hand to catch her fluttering garments—you have
said to him : “ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall
be happy forever; you shall live in the realms of infinite delight,
�16
FAITH AND FACT.
from which' you can, without a shadow falling upon your face,
observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the agonies of
hell.” You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how
an angel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed
on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any
decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand of God,
should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave heaven
itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of the
damned.
You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence
ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—
that he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You
seem to have forgotten the line which you emphasised with
italics : “ The, effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause
is eternal.” In the light of this sentence, where do you find a
place for your forgiveness—for your atonement ? Where is a
way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal ? Do you
not see that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your
hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theo
logical. You have put “ new wine into old bottles,” and the
predicted result has followed. Will the angels in heaven, the
redeemed of earth, lose their memory? Will not all the
redeemed rascals remember their rascality ? Will not all the
redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ? Will not
the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and
the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the
redeemed be. as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ?
If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if
the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain
and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly
happy; and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the
kind actions, the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the
memory of good deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost
can never be perfectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a
good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one ? _ So
that the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying
pain, and the undying memory of those in hell brings undying
pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done good and bad,
the future can have neither a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ?
I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must
bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly
saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness
of another.
If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice,
the effects following a noble and disinterested action; if you
mean that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect
upon the human race—which your letter seems to show—then
there is no question between us. If you have thrown away the
�FAITH AND FACT.
17
old and barbarous idea that a law had been broken, that God
demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered
up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our
place, then I congratulate you with all my heart.
It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly
joyous to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens,
and its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the
globe, so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men.. Accord
ing to your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here,
the vicious may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here,, a
few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in
your future state, for countless millions of the human race, there
will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible
gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see
that your future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem
to mistake the glare of hell for the light of morning.
Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us
“ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of
this life.”
You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject .for
caricature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration,
you mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in
the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility,
and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, and concludes to
act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regenera
tion, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regenera
tion in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There
is some mysterious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency,
called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the
heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under
the control, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and
whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regene
ration that I have attacked.
You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born
among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates
or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying,
“ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live
and die on the earth.”
I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that
Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter
of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said
nothing against the institution of slavery ; nothing against the
tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals;
nothing about education, about intellectual progress; nothing
of art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the
rightB and duties of nations.
You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as
you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this
�18
FAITH AND FACT.
is necessary to educate the human race. Is it not enough to say
to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question
still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in
the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny.
Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue
the right of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the
world.
Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of
camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of
hundreds of millions of human beings P How is it that he con
quered and overran more than half of the Christian world?
How is it that on a thousand fields the banner of the cross went
down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ?
How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor
floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ?
Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius,
whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired
-—this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has
been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of
millions of his fellow-men P How do you account for Buddha,
in many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has
ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he
who was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was
born, to declare the universal brotherhood of man, great enough
to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising
mankind ? How do you account for him, who has had more
followers than any other ? Are you willing to say that all success
is divine ? How do. you account for Shakespeare, born of
parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of
ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do
you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the
wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human
thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly acquainted with the
human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and
in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of all experience,
and a prophecy of all to be; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty
and depth of whose, words increase with the intelligence and
civilisation of mankind ? How do you account for this miracle P
Do. you believe that any founder of any religion could have
written Lear or Hamlet ? Did Greece produce a man who could
by any possibility have been the author of Troilus and Cressida ?
Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Borne
an intellect that could have written the tragedy of Julius Caesar ?
Is. not the play of Antony and Cleopatra as Egyptian as the
Nile ? How do you account for this man, within whose veins
there seemed to be the blood of every race, and in whose brain
there were the poetry and philosophy of a world p
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
�FAITH AND FACT.
19
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “ My God, why hast thou forsaken me P”—
for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me
say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is
holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I
gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was
a reformer in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theo
logical mask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New
Testament, I see a great and genuine man.
It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course
pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness
“ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there
was something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his
fellow-creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a
“ generation of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepul
chres.” How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ?
They go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others.
They tell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only
that their religion is a lie, not only that their Gods are myths,
but that the ancestors of these people, their fathers and mothers,
who never heard of God, of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in
perdition. Is not this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow
creature ?
A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack
with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain.
A religion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out:
“ Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my
feelings,” is fit only for asylums.
You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power.
While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these things
because he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to
establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was
actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ?
Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he
not, with a touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power
to give sight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not
exercise it, what would be thought of you ? What is the differ
ence between one who can and will not cure, and one who causes
diseases.
Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet
her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of
her body like morning on the desert. What would I think
of myself had I the power by a word to send the blood
through all her withered limbs freighted again with life, should
I refuse ?
Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been
produced by and are really the children of religion.
�20
FAITH AND FACT.
Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties
and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct
by means of which happiness can be attained in another world.
The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular.
They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and
are of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest,
courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure
without being religious—that is to say, without any belief in the
supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the
same time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is
to say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the
scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes
in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a man
who is kind and loving to his family may or may not believe in
the Bible.
In order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessary to call your attention to the
fact that your Bible shows that the Devil himself is a believer in
the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures
and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these
things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains
a devil still.
Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural
goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super
stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the
heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Chris
tianity—or at least crimes that involved the commission of all
others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made
blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in
the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship
was called “ The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds,
the fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ
to crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just
before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of
the Most High.
As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention
to an incident.
You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The
Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of
having all things in common. Their followers, who had some
thing, were to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds
over to these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and
Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking
the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals,
concluded to keep a little—just enough to keep them from star
vation if the good and pious bankers should abscond.
When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he
had kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not;
�FAITH AND FACT.
21
whereupon God, the compassionate, struck him dead.. As soon
as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They
did not tell hei- that her husband had been killed. They deli
berately set a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough
or noble enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to
believe that hei’ husband had told his story, and that she was
free to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that
they were giving more than they could afford, and, with the
instinct of a woman, wanted to keep a little. She denied that
any part of the price had been kept back. That moment the
arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart.
Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles
in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime
than mendacity.
\ ou have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give
me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and
that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you
really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you
really wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army
should send word to the general of the other that his men were
firing too high, do you think the general would be misled ? Can
you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the
message P
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not
in the interest of freedom. It never entered their minds that
other men had the same right to worship God according to the
dictates of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment
they had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison
and burn. They did not believe in religious freedom. They had
no more idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah.
I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and
martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now
have was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of
these martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or
assassinated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in
fighting the hordes of religious superstition.
Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed
in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire.
He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There
was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white
ness of his soul.
For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church
was a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many
centuries with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been
ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the
earth.
Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold
�22
FAITH AND FACT.
sneer—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on house
hold worship.”
Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that
they are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of
sunshine in this life, and who thank God for the little they have
enjoyed, have my entire respect. Never have I said one word
against the spirit of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of
the man who gathers his family about him after the storm, or
after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours out his heart
in thankfulness to the supposed God who has protected his fire
side. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol
of stone, or his fetish of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one
nor of the other that I respect, it is the goodness and thankful
ness that prompt the prayer.
I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my
objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon
this subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that
the roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the
soft, cool clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads
its bosom to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its perfume to
the air. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily
with a heart of fire, the fairest flower in all this world.
What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home p
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifi
cation of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that
Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happi
ness in another to those who would desert their wives and
children and follow him P What effect has that promise had
upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Chris
tianity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ,
and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that.
Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife to
desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the
miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled
souls.
It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to love
God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ.
It is better io serve your neighbour than to serve your God—
even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing
for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can
add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the path
way of another.
It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is
true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to
the service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion
can be understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why
�FAITH AND FACT.
23
should he waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same
thoughts repeated again and again ?
Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The
mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust,
the laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul
in his body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich,
may go to the village church which you have described. They
answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this
village church ? Is it that God is the father of the human race;
is that all ? If that were all, you never would have heard an
objection from my lips. That is not all. If all ministers said:
Bear the evil of this life; your Bather in heaven counts your
tears; the time will come when pain and death and grief will
be forgotten words—I should have listened with the rest. What
else does the minister say to the poor people who have answered
the chimes of your bell ? He says “ The smallest sin deserves
eternal pain.” “ A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer
the wrath of God for ever.” He fills the present with fear and
the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the
many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to
heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,” and a great
highway worn with countless feet that leads to everlasting
death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real
savages.. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would
I turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get
acquainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange
civilities with your neighbors; and gladly would I see the
church in which such sermons are preached changed to a place
of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox
sermons—the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in
crevices and corners—driven out by the glorious music of
Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the Sunday-school,
where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed to a happy
dance upon the village green.
Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades.
Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.
You do not believe that general morality can be upheld with
out the sanctions of religions.
Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit.
It has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all.
Of course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not
murder;” but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of
escape; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,-and thou shalt be
saved.” I insist that such religion is no restraint. It is far
better to teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every
human being must bear the consequence of his acts.
The first great step toward national reformation is the uni-
�24
FAITH AND FACT.
versai acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the
consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their
country homes into a city filled with temptations, may be
restrained by the thought of father and mother. This is a
natural restraint. They may be restrained by their knowledge
of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its consequences,
and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot conceive of
such a man being more liable to temptation because he has
heard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only
good is happiness—that the only way to attain that good is by
doing what he believes to be right. I cannot imagine that his
moral character will be weakened by the statement that there is
no escape from the consequences of his acts. You seem to think
that he will be instantly led astray—that he will go off under
the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. Do you think the
Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent this would you
recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament?
Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ? Do you
think this would enable him to withstand temptation ? Would
it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts, so
that he may know exactly thé physical consequences of such
acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ?
Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ?
You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and
that the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves.
You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering
at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious
and profligate.
The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of
Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have
entertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say
to you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has
nothing to do with religion. Moralily does not depend upon
the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of
miracles. Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It
cares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality
depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something
known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no
priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom
of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded
upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has to do
with this world, and with this world alone.
My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the
gaoler of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is so say,
the supernatural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a
convict. Under the government of a personal deity, conse
quences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards.
�FAITH AND FACT.
25
Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments
and rewards are simply consequences. Nature does not punish.
Nature does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the
storm comes, I do not think : “ This is being done by a tyrant.”
When the sun Bhines, I do not say: “This is being done by a
friend.” Liberty means freedom from personal dictation. It does
not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in
Nature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Tem
perance walks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain
from the body puts an additional responsibility upon the soul.
Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit yourself; you
increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a question of
intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or to
infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those
you injure, and to none other.
I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power
above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do
that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any
extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or
that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature.
There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which
happens must happen. The present is the child of all the past,
the mother of all the future.
Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is
some God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence
have they on which to found this belief? When has any God
listened to the prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold
freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven
falls—when and where has the prayer of man been answered ?
Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of
prayer? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United
States. The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell
upon their knees and asked God to spare the life of one man.
You know the result. You know just as well as I that the
forces of Nature produce the good and bad alike. You know
that the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You
know that the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking
to death the honest man that it does or would in striking the
assassin with his knife lifted above the bosom of innocence.
Did God heai’ the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the
prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear
the prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling them
selves his followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of
glorious men ? Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of
those whose hearts were his ? Why should any man depend on
the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing
that they would suffer eternal grief?
The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate
�26
FAITH AND FACT.
or manly or womanly sentiment of love and7honor”—is the
faith that nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought
an honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith be
cause those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ?
You say to me: “There is a hell. A man advocating the
opinions you advocate will go there when he dies.” I answer :
“ There is no hell. The Bible that teaches that is not
true.” And you say: “ How can you hurt my feelings ?”
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of Ids
parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother.
Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers
and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity
heartless sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the
Apostles ? Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of
their fathers and mothers ? Did they not join with him who
denounced their people as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they
not follow one who offered a reward to those who would desert
father and mother ? Of course you have only to go back a few
generations in your family to find a Field who was not a Pres
byterian. After that you find a Presbyterian. Was he base
enough and. infamous enough to heap contempt upon the
religion of his father and mother ? All the Protestants in the
time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion of their
fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is a
prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and
mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his
mother a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not see that your
doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of for
giveness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and
the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree
with you when you say that “ Christ is Christianity and that it
stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the
foundation of your religion. If it should be established beyond
doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Chris
tianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that
we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as
mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who
painted or chiseled the greatest pictures and statues so long as
we have the pictures and statues. When he who has given the
world a truth passes from the earth the truth is left. A truth
dies only when forgotten by the human race. Justice, love,
mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in
the human heart, were known and practised for uncounted ages
before the birth of Christ.
You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abj’ect terror ’*
—does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.”
Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the
�FAITH AND FACT.
27
names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible
to tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive
a worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the
race ? Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ”
who believes your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere
women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have com
mitted “ the unpardonable sin ”—a sin to which your God has
attached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to
describe the offence ? Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the
penalty of eternal pain for the violation of a law not written,
not known, but kept in the secrecy of infinite darkness ? How
much happier it is to know nothing about it, and to believe
nothing about it! How much better to have no God.
You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so
that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer
elements of character, conduce to our future happiness.’’ This
is an old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is,
that this world is a school in which man becomes educated
through tribulation—the muscles of character being developed
by wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this
life in order to develop character, in order to become worthy of
a better world, how do you account for the fact that millions of
the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this
necessary education and development ? What would you think
of a schoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his
scholars during the first day, before they had even an oppornity to look at A ?
You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for
righteousness.”
If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of
nature ? If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ”
that man as he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not
only takes advantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit,
but perceives more and more clearly that if he be happy he must
live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony
with the fact by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the
relations he sustains to others and to things; if this is what
you mean, then there is “ a power making for righteousness.”
But if you mean that there is something supernatural at the
back of nature directing events, then I insist that there can by
no possibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power.
The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall.
There is a limit to the life of a race; so that it can be said of
every nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the
foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and
virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteous
ness, and that there came a time when this nation became a
spendthrift, when it ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the
�28
FAITH AND FACT.
labors of its youth, and passed from strength and glory to the
weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb.
The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only
power that makes for righteousness.
You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give
as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two
thousand years before I was born, and that it will live two
thousand years after I am dead.
Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself?
Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this
to Christ? Could he not have said: “The religion of Jehovah
began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it
will live two thousand years after you are dead ? ” Could not a
follower of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a mission
ary from Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say:
“ You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha
began to be twenty-five hundred years before you were born, and
hundreds of millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s
shrine ? ”
Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two
thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on
and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider
that the survival of the fittest ?
Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during
the Middle Ages ? Is it the same Christian religion that founded
the Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no
difference between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards
and the Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is
the same Christianity that has been living all these years ?
Have you noticed any change in the last generation ? Do you
remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a
passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in
the Bible are exceeding anxious to prove its truth by some fact
that science has demonstrated ? Do you know that the standard
has changed ? Other things are not measured by Bible, but the
Bible has to submit to another test. It no longer owns the
scales. It has to be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing
lighter and lighter every day. Do you know that only a few
years ago “ the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a
descriptions of hell ? Do you know that nearly every intelligent
minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about it,
or to talk about it ? Is there any change ? Do you know that
but few ministers now believe in “ the plenary inspiration ” of
the Bible, that from thousands of pulpits people are now told
that the creation according to Genesis is a mistake, that it never
was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of the Old Testa
ment are considered simply as myths or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
�FAITH AND FACT.
29
as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ?
What will there be left of the supernatural ?
It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many
years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the
Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness
upheld polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people
to massacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands
and fathers to persecute wives and daughters unto death for
opinion’s sake.
It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah,
the cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the
creator and preserver of the universe.
Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a
world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours
and is devoured? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Inno
cence is not a certain shield ?
It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment.
If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.
Day after day there are mournful processions of men and
women, patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the
word Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving
lips, driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian
snow. These men, these women, these daughters go to exile
and slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death.
Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” Bees all
this and sits as silent as a god of stone ?
And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to
your inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another
procession, in which are the noblest and the best, in which you
will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the
human race, the teachers of their fellow men, the greatest
soldiers that ever battled for the right; and this procession of
countless millions in which you will find the most generous and
the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on
the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony
becomes immortal.
How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe
this infinite lie P
Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After
all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all
mistakes and all crimes were simply necessities? Is it not
possible that out of this perception may come not only love and
pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual ?
May we not find that every soul has, like Mazeppa, been lashed
to the wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of
fate ?
You ask me to take the “ sober second thought.” I beg of you
�30
FAITH AND FACT.
to take the first, and if you do you will throw away the Presby
terian creed; you will instantly perceive that he who commits
the “ smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who
does the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss; you will
become convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of
men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years
is an infinite demon; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with
its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is
but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and
cannot exist.
Bor you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest
respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not
to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a creed that
should be shrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle
as terrible as the coffin. Preach I pray you, the gospel of intel
lectual hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take
from loving hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow
men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose tears are
falling on the pallid faces of these who died in unbelief. Pity
the erring, wayward, suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim
as “tidings of great joy” that an Infinite Spider is weaving
webs to catch the souls of men.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC.
��WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... 1f>
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
... 0 0
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
...
...
... 0 4
With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 0
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ................ 0 3
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
THE DYING CREED
...
...
... 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
DO I BLASPHEME?
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
0 2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
0 1
LIVE TOPICS
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
0 1
SOCIAL SALVATION
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE .
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
0 2
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part H
Progressive Publishing Co, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N345
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), 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
Faith
NSS
Reason
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e07b6265fc8ef6667be503f111fabea1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kKpt-ZGFkr79F1etuXT2xm9vxr5rHyrJ0qqTHVlcjEvZF41ufB0Zr0xAePkewyU%7E1u5KMn1vPgtK%7EM0T7VsfeOV8ZuTR0rYvQF4mEJW6jPXMJabr9MWEkf2NnPmoo9-iNcaajavz1PTGaPdMqS9CDn9U-gz6EoghuUbH1%7EzFKNzmrf4yHyYlBBAjgxzN5DBSWcCamr4WwyQ%7E-S0FPkabV0MA6%7Ew5Y07JDDopnRJ7H5y50ti6iwepciMtDy9U0w0sazeIk0Q5uWWT%7E2zbzNzgyVyCH727hfgP4J5NuA9OalsRpof2v4hxNRZ3BNV3mDR4BLz9O90a4ofkZvwn%7EhQ8-A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0e524e98d43bfff1aa9d4ede6903c20
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CRI
S
AGAINST
CRIMINALS
AN ADDRESS
Delivered before the State Bar Association of New York,
January 21, 1890.
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
Price Threepence.
Xonbon :
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,.
28 Stonecutter Street, E.U.
1890.
�LONDON
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. KOOTK,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALSIn this brief address, the object is to suggest, there
being no time to present arguments at length. The
subject has been chosen for the reason that it is one
that should interest the legal profession, because that
profession to a certain extent controls and shapes the
legislation of our country, and fixes definitely the scope
and meaning of all laws.
Lawyers ought to be foremost in legislative and
judicial reform, and of all men they should understand
the philosophy of mind, the causes of human action,,
and the real science of government.
It has been said that the three pests of a com
munity are—A. priest without charity, a doctor w ithout
knowledge, and a lawyer without a sense of justice.
I.
All nations seem to have had supreme confidence in
the deterrent power of threatened and inflicted pain.
They have regarded punishment as the shortest road to
reformation. Imprisonment, torture, death, consti
tuted a trinity under whose protection society might
feel secure.
In addition to these, nations have relied on confisca
tion and degradation, on maimings,whippings, brandings
�4
Grimes against Criminals.
and" exposures to pubic ridicule and contempt. Con
nected with the court of justice was the chamber of
torture. The ingenuity of man was exhausted in the
construction of instruments that would surely reach the
most sensitive nerve. All this was done in the interest
of civilisation for the protection of virtue, and the
well-being of States. Curiously enough, the fact is
that, no matter how severe the punishments were, the
crimes increased.
It was found that the penalty of death made little
difference. Thieves and highwaymen, heretics and
blasphemers, went on their way. It was then thought
necessaiy to add to this penalty of death, and conse
quently, the convicted were tortured in every conceivable
way before execution. They were broken on the wheel—
their joints dislocated on the rack. They were suspended
by their legs and arms, while immense weights were
placed upon their breasts. Their flesh was burned and
torn with hot irons. They were roasted at slow fires.
They were buried alive—given to wild beasts—molten
lead was poured in their ears—their eye-lids were cut off
and the wretches placed with their faces toward the
sun—others were securely bound, so that they could
move neither hand nor foot, and over their stomachs
were placed inverted bowls ; under these bowls rats
were confined; on top of the bowls were heaped coals
of fire, so that the rats in their efforts to escape would
gnaw into the bowels of the victims. They were staked
out on the sands of the s^a, to be drowned by the
slowly rising tide—and every means, by which human
nature can be overcome slowly, painfully and terribly,
were conceived and carried into execution. And yet
the number of so-called criminals increased.
For petty offences men were degraded—given to the
�Crimes against Criminals.
5
mercy of the rabble. Their ears were cut off, their
nostrils slit, their foreheads branded. They were tied
to the tails of carts and flogged from one town to
another. And yet, in spite of all, the poor wretches
obstinately refused to become good and useful citizens.
Degradation has been thoroughly tried, with its
mannings and brandings, and the result was that these
who inflicted the punishments became as degraded as
their victims.
Only a few years ago there were more than two
hundred offences in Great Britain punishable by death.
The gallows-tree bore fruit through all the year, and
the hangman was the busiest official in the kingdom—
but the criminals increased.
Crimes were committed to punish crimes, and crimes
were committed to prevent crimes. The world has been
filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips,
with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks,
with hangmen and headsmen—and yet these frightful
means and instrumentalities and crimes have accom
plished little for the preservation of property or life.
It is safe to say that governments have committed far
more crimes than they have prevented.
Why is it that men will suffer and risk so much for
the sake of stealing ? Why will they accept degrada
tion and punishment and infamy as their portion ?
Some will answer this question by an appeal to the
dogma of original sin ; others by saying that millions
of men and women are under the control of fiends,
that they are actually possessed by devils ; and others
will declare that all these people act from choice—that
they are possessed of free wills, of intelligence—that
they know and appreciate consequences, and that, in
spite of all, they deliberately prefer a life of crime.
�6
Crimes against Criminals.
II.
Have we not advanced far enough intellectually to
deny the existence of chance ? Are we not satisfied
now that back of every act and thought and dream
and fancy is an efficient cause ? Is anything, or can
anything, be produced that is not necessarily produced ?
Can the fatherless and motherless exist ? Is there not
a connection between all events, and is not every act
related to all other acts ? Is it not possible, is it not
probable, is it not true, that the actions of all men are
determined by countless causes over which they have
no positive control ?
Certain it is that men do not prefer unhappiness to
joy. It can hardly ‘be said that man intends per
manently to injure himself, and that he does what he
does in order that he may live a life of misery. On
the other hand, we must take it for granted that man
endeavors to better his own condition, and seeks,
although by mistaken ways, his. own well-being. The
poorest man would like to be rich—the sick desire
health—and no sane man wishes to win the contempt
and hatred of his fellow-men. Every human being
prefers liberty to imprisonment.
Are the brains of criminals exactly like the brains
of honest men ? Have criminals the same ambitions,
the same standards of happiness or of well-being ? If
a difference exists in brain, will that in part account for
the difference in character? Is there anything in
heredity 1 Are vices as carefully transmitted by
Nature as virtues ? Does each man in some degree
bear burdens imposed by ancestors'? We know that
diseases of flesh and blood are transmitted—that the
child is the heir of physical deformity. Are diseases
�Crimes against Criminals.
7
of the brain—are deformities of the soul, of the mind,
also transmitted ?
We not only admit, but we assert, that in the physical
world there are causes and effects. We insist that
there is and can be no effect without an efficient cause.
When anything happens in that world, we are satisfied
that it was naturally and necessarily produced. The
causes may be obscure, but we as implicitly believe in
their existence as when we know positively what they
are. In the physical world we have taken the ground
that there is nothing miraculous—that everything is
natural—and if we cannot explain it, we account for
our inability to explain, by our own ignorance. Is it not
possible, is it not probable, that what is true in the
physical world is equally true in the realm of mind—in
that strange world of passion and desire ? Is it possible
that thoughts, or desires, or passions are the children
of chance, born of nothing ? Can we conceive of
Nothing as a force, or as a cause ? If, then, there is
behind every thought and desire and passion an efficient
cause, we can, in part at least, account for the actions
of men.
A certain man under certain conditions acts in a
certain way. There are certain temptations that he,
with his brain, with his experience, with his intelligence,
with his surroundings, cannot withstand. He is irre
sistibly led to do, or impelled to do, certain things; and
there are other things that he cannot do. If we change
the conditions of this man, his actions will be changed.
Develop his mind, give him new subjects of thought,
and you change the man; and the man being changed,
it follows as a necessity that his conduct will be
different.
In civilised countries the struggle for existence is
�8
Crimes against Criminals.
severe—the competition far sharper than in savage
lands. The consequence is that there are many
failures. These failures lack, it may be, opportunity,
or brain, or moral force, or industry, or something
without which, under the circumstances, success is
impossible. Certain lines of conduct are called legal,
and certain others criminal, and the men who fail in
one line may be driven to the other. How do we know
that it is possible for all people to be honest ? Are we
certain that all people can tell the truth 1 Is it possible
for all men to be generous, or candid, or courageous ?
I am perfectly satisfied that there are millions of
people incapable of committing certain crimes, and it
may be true that there are millions of others incapable
of practising certain virtues. We do not blame a man
because he is not a sculptor, a poet, a painter, or a
statesman. We say he has not the genius. Are we
certain that it does not require genius to be good ?
Where is the man with intelligence enough to take into
consideration the circumstances of each individual
case ? Who has the mental balance with which to
weigh the forces of heredity, of want, of temptation—
and who can analyse with certainty the mysterious
motions of the brain ?
Where and what are the
sources of vice and virtue ? In what obscure and
shadowy recesses of the brain are passions born ? And
what is it that for the moment destroys the sense of
right and wrong ? Who knows to what extent reason
becomes the prisoner of passion—of some strange and
wild desire, the seeds of which were sown, it may be,
thousands of years ago in the breast of some savage ?
To what extent do antecedents and surroundings affect
the moral sense ?
Is it not possible that the tyranny of governments,
�Crimes against Criminals.
9
the injustice of nations, the fierceness of what is called
the law, produce in the individual a tendency in the
same direction 1 Is it not true that the citizen is apt
to imitate his nation ? Society degrades its enemies—
the individual seeks to degrade his. Society plunders
its enemies, and now and then a citizen has the desire
to plunder his. Society kills its enemies, and possibly
sows in the heart of some citizen the seeds of murder.
III.
Is it not true that the criminal is a natural product,
and that society unconsciously produces these children
of vice ? Can we not safely take another step, and say
that the criminal is a victim, as the diseased and insane
and deformed are victims ? We do not think of punish
ing a man because he is afflicted with disease—our
desire is to find a cure. We send him, not to the peni
tentiary, but to the hospital, to an asylum. We do this
because we recognise the fact that disease is naturally
produced—that it is inherited from parents, or the
result of unconscious negligence, or it may be of reck
lessness—but instead of punishing, we pity. If Lhere are
diseases of the mind, of the brain, as there are diseases
of the body ; and if these diseases of the mind, these
deformities of the brain, produce, and necessarily pro
duce, what we call vice, why should we punish the
criminal, and pity those who are physically diseased 1
Socrates, in some respects at least one of the wisest
of men, said: “ It is strange that you should not be
angry when you meet a man with an ill-conditioned
body, and yet be vexed when you encounter one with
an ill-conditioned soul.”
We know that there are deformed bodies, and we
are equally certain that there are deformed minds.
�10
Orimes against Oriminals.
Of course, society has the right. to protect itself, no
mattei' whether the persons who attack its well-being
are responsible or not, no matter whether they are sick
in mind, or deformed in brain. The right of selfdefence exists, not only in the individual, but in society.
The great question is, How shall this right of selfdefence be exercised ? What spirit shall be in the
nation, or in society—the spirit of revenge, a desire to
degrade and punish and destroy, or, a spirit born of the
recognition of the fact that criminals are victims ?
The world has thoroughly tried confiscation, degra
dation, imprisonment, torture and death, and thus far
the world has failed. In this connection I call your
attention to the following statistics gathered in our
own country :
In 1850 we had 23,000,000 of people, and between
six and seven thousand prisoners.
In 1860—31,000,000 of people, and 19,000 prisoners.
In 1870—38,000,000 of people, and 32,000 prisoners.
In 1880—50,000,000 of people, and 58,000 prisoners.
It may be curious to note the relation between in
sanity, pauperism and crime :
In 1850 there were 15,000 insane; in 1860, 24,000;
in 1870, 37,000; in 1880, 91,000.
In the light of these statistics we are not succeeding
in doing away with crime.
There were in 1880,
58,000 prisoners, and in the same year 57,000 home
less children, and 66,000 paupers in almshouses.
Is it possible that we must go to the same causes for
these effects?
IV.
There is no reformation in degradation. To mutilate
a criminal is to say to all the world that he is a criminal,
�Crimes against Criminals.
11
and to render his reformation substantially impossible.
Whoever is degraded by society becomes its enemy.
The seeds of malice are sown in his heart, and to the
day of his death he will hate the hand that sowed the
seeds.
There is also another side to this question. A punish
ment that degrades the punished will degrade the man
who inflicts the punishment, and will degrade the
government that procures the infliction. The whipping
post pollutes, not only the whipped, but the whippet,
and not only the whipper, but the community at large.
Wherever its shadow falls it degrades.
If, then, there is no reforming power in degradation
—no deterrent power—for the reason that the degrada
tion of the criminal degrades the community, and in this
way produces more criminals, then the next question is,
Whether there is any reforming power in torture ? The
trouble with this is, that it hardens and degrades to the
last degree the ministers of the law. Those who are
not affected by the agonies of the bad will in a little
time care nothing for the sufferings of the good. There
seems to be a little of the wild beast in men—a some
thing that is fascinated by suffering, and that delights
in inflicting pain. When a government tortures, it is
in the same state of mind that the criminal was when
he committed his crime. It requires as much malice in
those who execute the law to torture a criminal, as it
did in the criminal to torture and kill his victim. The
one was a crime by a person, the other by a nation.
There is something in injustice, in cruelty, that tends
to defeat itself. There were never as many traitors in
in England as when the traitor was drawn and quar
tered—when he was tortured in every possible way—
when his limbs, tom and bleeding, were given to the
�12
Crimes against Criminals.
fury of mobs or exhibited pierced by pikes or hung in
chains. These frightful punishments produced intense
hatred of the government, and traitors continued to
increase until they became powerful enough to decide
what treason was and who the traitors were, and to
inflict the same torments on others.
Think for a moment of what man has suffered in the
cause of crime. Think of the millions that have been
imprisoned, impoverished, and degraded because they
were thieves and forgers, swindlers, and cheats. Think
for a moment of what they have endured—of the
difficulties under which they have pursued their calling,
and it will be exceedingly hard to believe that they
were sane and natural people, possessed of good brains,
of minds well poised, and that they did what they did
from a choice unaffected by heredity and the countless
circumstances that tend to determine the conduct of
human beings.
The other day I was asked these questions :—“ Has
there been as much heroism displayed for the right as
for the wrong ? Has virtue had as many martyrs as
vice ?”
For hundreds of years the world has endeavored to
destroy the good by force. The expression of honest
thought was regarded as the greatest of crimes. Dun
geons were filled by the noblest and the best, and the
blood of the bravest was shed by the sword or con
sumed by flame. It was impossible to destroy the
longing in the heart of man for liberty and truth. Is
it not possible that brute force and cruelty and revenge,
imprisonment, torture, and death are as impotent to do
away with vice as to destroy virtue ?
In our country there has been for many years a
growing feeling that convicts should neither be
�Grimes against Criminals.
13
degraded nor tortured. It was provided in the Con
stitution of the United States that “ cruel and unusual
punishments should not be inflicted.”
Benjamin
Franklin took great interest in the treatment of
prisoners, being a thorough believer in the reforming
influence of justice, having no confidence whatever in
punishment for punishment’s sake.
To me it has always been a mystery how the average
man, knowing something of the weakness of human
nature, something of the temptations to which he him
self has been exposed—remembering the evil of his
life, the things he would have done had there been
opportunity, had he absolutely known that discovery
would be impossible—should have feelings of hatred
toward the imprisoned.
Is it possible that the average man assaults the
criminal in a spirit of self-defence ? Does he wish to
convince his neighbors that the evil thought and impulse
were never in his mind ? Are his words a shield that
he uses to protect himself from suspicion ? For my
part, 1 sympathise sincerely with all failures, with the
victims of society, with those who have fallen, with the
imprisoned, with the hopeless, with those who have
been stained by verdicts of guilty, and with those who,
in the moment of passion, have destroyed, as with a
blow, the future of their lives.
How perilous, after all, is the state of man. It is
the work of a life to build a great and splendid cha
racter. It is the work of a moment to destroy it
utterly, from turret to foundation stone. How cruel
hypocrisy is !
V.
Is there any remedy î Can anything be done for
the reformation of the criminal ?
�14
Crimes against Criminals.
He should be treated with kindness. Every right
should be given him, consistent with the safety of
society. He should neither be degraded nor robbed.
The State should set the highest and noblest example.
The powerful should never be cruel, and in the breast
of the supreme there should be no desire for revenge.
A man in a moment of want steals the property of
another, and he is sent to the penitentiary—first, as it
is claimed, for the purpose of deterring others ; and,
secondly, of reforming him. The circumstances of each
individual case are rarely inquired into. Investigation
stops when the simple fact of the larceny has been
ascertained.' No distinctions are made, except as
between first and subsequent offences. Nothing is
allowed for surroundings.
All will admit that the industrious must be protected.
In this world it is necessary to work. Labor is the
foundation of all prosperity. Larceny is the enemy of
industry. Society has the right to protect itself. The
question is, Has it the right to punish ?—has it the
right to degrade ?—or should it endeavor to reform the
convict ?
A man is taken to the penitentiary. He is clad in the
garments of a convict. He is degraded—he loses his name
—he is designated by a number. He is no longer treated
as a human being—he becomes the slave of the State.
Nothing is done for his improvement—nothing for his
reformation. He is driven like a beast of burden ;
robbed of his laboi’; leased, it may be, by the State to
a contractor, who gets out of his hands, out of his
muscles, out of his poor brain, all the toil that he can.
He is not allowed to speak with a fellow-prisoner. A.t
night he is alone in his cell. The relations that should
exist between men are destroyed. He is a convict.
�Crimes against Criminals.
15
He is no longer worthy to associate even with’ his
keepers. The jailor is immensely his superior, and the
man who turns the key upon him at night regards him
self, in comparison, as a model of honesty, of virtue
and manhood. The convict is pavement, on which
those who watch him walk. He remains for the time
of his sentence, and when that expires he goes forth a
branded man. He is given money enough to pay his
fare back to the place from whence he came.
What is the condition of this man? Can he get
employment ? Not if he honestly states who he is and
where he has been. The first thing he does is to deny
his personality, to assume a name. He endeavors by
telling falsehoods to lay the foundation for future good
conduct. The average man does not wish to employ
an ex-convict, because the average man has no con
fidence in the reforming power of the penitentiary. He
believes that the convict who comes out is worse than
the convict who went in. He knows that in the peni
tentiary the heart of this man has been hardened—
that he has been subjected to the torture of perpetual
humiliation—that he has been treated like a ferocious
beast; and so he believes that this ex-convict has in his
heart hatred for society, that he feels he has been
degraded and robbed. Under these circumstances,
what avenue is open to the ex-convict
If he changes
his name, there will be some detective, some officer of
the law, some meddlesome wretch, who will betray his
secret. He is then discharged. He seeks employment
again, and he must seek it by again telling what is not
true. He is again detected, and again discharged.
And finally he becomes convinced that he cannot live
as an honest man. He naturally drifts back into the
society of those who have had a like experience; and
�16
Crimes against Criminals.
the result is that in a little while he again stands in
the dock, charged with the commission of another crime.
Again he is sent to the penitentiary—and this is the
end. He feels that his day is done, that the future has
only degradation for him.
The men in the penitentaries do not work for them
selves. Their labor belongs to others. They have no
interest in their toil—no reason for doing the best they
can—and the result is that the product of their labor is
poor. This product comes in competition with the
work of mechanics, honest men, who have families to
support, and the cry is that convict labor takes the
bread from the mouths of virtuous people.
VI.
Why should the State take without compensation
the labor of these men; and why should they, after
having been imprisoned for years, be turned out with
out the means of support ? Would it not be far better,
far more economical, to pay these men for their labor,
to lay aside their earnings from day to day, from month
to month, and from year to year—to put this money
at interest, so that when the convict is released after
five years of imprisonment he will have several hundred
dollars of his own—not merely money enough to pay
his way back to the place from which he was sent, but
enough to make it possible for him to commence a busi
on his own occount, enough to keep the wolf of crime
from the door of his heart ?
Suppose the convict comes out with five hundred
dollars. This would be to most of that class a fortune.
It would form a breast-work, a fortress, behind
which the man could fight temptation. This would
give him food and raiment, enable him to go to some
�\
Crimes against Criminals.
17
other State or country where he could redeem himself.
If this were done, thousands of convicts would feel under
immense obligation to the government. They would
thihk of the penitentiary as the place in which they
were saved—in which they were redeemed—and they
would feel that the verdict of guilty rescued them
from the abyss of crime. Under these circumstances,
the law would appear benificent, and the heart of the
poor convict, instead of being filled with malice, would
overflow with gratitude. He would see the propriety
of the course pursued by the government. He would
recognise and feel and experience the benefits of this
course, and the result would be good, not only to him,
but to the nation as well.
If the convict worked for himself, he would do the
best he could, and the wares produced in the peni
tentiary would not cheapen the labor of other men.
VII.
There are, however, men who pursue crime as a
vocation—as a profession—men who have been convicted
again and again, and who still persist in using the
liberty of intervals to prey upon the rights of others.
What shall be done with these men and women ?
Put one thousand hardened thieves on an island—
compel them to produce what they eat and use—and I
am almost certain that a large majority would be
opposed to theft. Those who worked would not permit
those w’ho did not to steal the result of their labor. In
other words, self-preservation would be the dominant
idea, and these men would instantly look upon the idlers
as the enemies of their society.
Such a community would be self-supporting. Let
women of the same class be put by themselves. Keep
�Crimes against Criminals.
the sexes absolutely apart. Those who are beyond the
power of reformation should not have the liberty to
reproduce themselves. Those who cannot be reached
by kindness—by justice—those who under no circum
stances are willing to do their share, should be separated.
They should dwell apart, and dying, should leave no
heirs.
What shall be done with the slayers of their fellow
men—with murderers ? Shall the nation take life?
It has been contended that the death penalty deters
others that it has far more terror than imprisonment
for life. What is the effect of the example set by a
nation ? Is not the tendency to harden and degrade
not only those who inflict and those who witness, but
the entire community as well ?
A few years ago a man was hanged in Alexandria
(Virginia). One who witnessed the execution, on that
very day, murdered a pedlar in the Smithsonian grounds
at Washington. He was tried and executed, and one
who witnessed his hanging went home, and on the same
day murdered his wife.
The tendency of the extreme penalty is to prevent
conviction. In the presence of death it is easy for a
jury to find a doubt. Technicalities become important,
and absurdities, touched with mercy, have the appear
ance for a moment of being natural and logical. Honest
and conscientious men dread a final and irrevocable
step. If the penalty were imprisonment for life, the
jury would feel that if any mistake were made it could
be rectified; but where the penalty is death a mistake
is fatal. A conscientious man takes into consideration
the defects of human nature—the uncertainty of tes
timony, and the countless shadows that dim and darken
�>
Crimes against Criminals.
19.
the understanding, and refuses to find a verdict that, if
wrong, cannot be righted.
The death penalty, inflicted by the government, is a
perpetual excuse for mobs.
The greatest danger in a Republic is a mob, and as
long as States inflict the penalty of death mobs will
follow the example. If the State does not consider
life sacred, the mob, with ready rope, will strangle the
suspected. The mob will say : “ The only difference
is in the trial; the State does the same—we know the
man is guilty—why should time be wasted in techni
calities ?” In other words, why may not the mob do
quickly that which the State does slowly?
Every execution tends to harden the public heart—
tends to lessen the sacredness of human life. In many
States of this Union the mob is supreme. For certain
offences the mob is expected to lynch the supposed
criminal. It is the duty of every citizen—and as it
seems to me, especially of every lawyer—to do what he
can to destroy the mob spirit. One would think that
men would be afraid to commit any crime in a com
munity where the mob is in the ascendency, and yet,
such are the contradictions and subtleties of human
nature, that it is exactly the opposite. And there is
another thing in this connection—the men who con
stitute the mob are, as a rule, among the worst, the
lowest and the most depraved.
A few years ago, in Illinois, a man escaped from jail,
and, in escaping, shot the sheriff. He was pursued,
overtaken—lynched. The man who put the rope
around his neck was then out on bail, having been
indicted for an assault to murder. And after the poor
wretch was dead, another man climbed the tree from
which he dangled and, in derision, put a cigar in the
�20
Crimes against Criminals.
mouth of the dead; and this man was on bail, havinw
been indicted for larceny.
°
Those who are the fiercest to destroy and hang their
fellow-men for having committed crimes, are, for the
most part, at heart, criminals themselves.
As long as nations meet on the fields of war—as long
as they sustain the relations of savages to each other—
as long as they put the laurel and the oak on the brows
of those who kill—just so long will citizens resort to
violence, and the quarrels of individuals be settled by
dagger and revolver.
J
VIII.
If we are to change the conduct of men, we must
change their conditions. Extreme poverty and crime
go hand in hand. Destitution multiplies temptations
and destroys the finer feelings. The bodies and souls
of men are apt to be clad in like garments. If the
body is covered with rags, the soul is generally in the
same condition. Self-respect is gone—the man looks
down—he has neither hope nor courage. He becomes
sinister—he envies the prosperous, hates the fortunate,,
and despises himself.
As long as children are raised in the tenement and
gutter, the prisons will be full. The gulf between the
rich and the poor will grow wider and wider. One will
depend on cunning, the other on force. It is a great
question whether those who live in luxury can afford to
allow others to exist in want. The value of property
depends, not on the prosperity of the few, but on the
prosperity of a very large majority. Life and property
must be secuie, or that subtle thing called 44 value 31
takes its leave. The poverty of the many is a per
petual menace. If we expect a prosperous and peaceful
�Crimes against Criminals.
21
country, the citizens must have homes. The more
homes, the more patriots, the more virtue, and the more
security for all that gives worth to life.
We need not repeat the failures of the old world.
To divide lands among successful generals, or among
favorites of the crown, to give vast estates for services
rendered in war, is no worse than to allow men of great
wealth to purchase and hold large tracts of land. The
result is precisely the same—that is to say, a nation
composed of a few landlords and of many tenants—the
tenants resorting from time to time to mob violence,
and the landlords depending upon a standing army.
The property of no man, however, should be taken for
either private or public use without just compensation
and in accordance with law. There is in the State
what is known as the right of eminent domain. The
State reserves to itself the power to take the land of
any private citizen foi’ a public use, paying to that
private citizen a just compensation to be legally ascer
tained. When a corporation wishes to build a railway,
it exercises this right of eminent domain, and where
the owner of land refuses to sell a right of way or land
for the establishment of stations or shops, and the cor
poration proceeds to condemn the land to ascertain its
value, and when the amount thus ascertained is paid,
the property vests in the corporation. This power is
exercised because in the estimation of the people the
construction of a railway is a public good.
I believe that this power should be exercised in
another direction. It would be well, as it seems to me,
for the Legislature to fix the amount of land that a
private citizen may own, that will not be subject to be
taken for the use of which I am about to speak. The
amount to be thus held will depend upon many local
�Crimes against Criminals.
circumstances, to be decided by each State for itself.
Let me suppose that the amount of land that may be
held for a farmer for cultivation has been fixed at 160
ames and suppose that A has several thousand acres.
B wishes to buy 160 acres or less of this land, for the
purpose of making himself a home. A refuses to sell.
JSTow, I believe that the law should be so that B can
invoke this right of eminent domain, and file his peti
tion, have the case brought before a jury, or before
■commissioners, who shall hear the evidence and deter
mine the value, and on payment of the amount the
land shall belong to B.
I would extend the same law to lots and houses in
cities and villages—the object being to fill our country
with the owners of homes, so that every child shall
have a fireside, every father and mother a roof, pro
vided they have the intelligence, the energy and the
industry to acquire the necessary means.
Tenements and flats and rented land are, in my
judgment, the enemies of civilisation. They make the
rich richer, and the poor poorer. They put a few in
palaces, but they put many in prisons.
I would go a step further than this. I would exempt
homes of a certain value not only from levy and sale,
but from every kind of taxation, State and National—
so that these poor people would feel that they were
in partnership with Nature—that some of the land was
absolutely theirs, and that no one could drive them
from their home—so that mothers could feel secure.
If the home increased in value, and exceeded the limit,
then taxes could be paid on the excess; and if the home
was sold, I would have the money realised exempt for
a certain time in order that the family should have the
privilege of buying another home.
�Crimes against Criminals.
23
The home, after all, is the unit of civilisation, of
good government; and to secure homes for a great
majority of our citizens, would be to lay the founda
tion of our government deeper and broader and stronger
than that of any nation that has existed among men.
IX.
No one places a higher value upon the free school
than I do; and no one takes greater pride in the pros
perity of our colleges and universities. But at the same
time, much that is called education simply unfits men
successfully to fight the battle of life. Thousands to-day
are studying things that will be of little importance
to them or to others. Much valuable time is wasted
in studying languages that long ago were dead, and
histories in which there is no truth.
There was an idea in the olden time—and it is not
yet dead—that whoever was educated ought not to
work; that he should use his head and not his hands.
Graduates were ashamed to be found engaged in manual
labor, in ploughing fields, in sowing or gathering grain.
To this manly kind of independence they preferred the
garret and the precarious existence of an unappreciated
poet, borrowing their money from their friends, and
their ideas from the dead. The educated regarded the
useful as degrading—they were willing tc stain their
souls to keep their hands white.
The object of all education should be to increase the
usefulness of man—usefulness to himself and others.
Every human being should be taught that his first duty
is to take care of himself, and that to be self-respecting
he must be self-supporting. To live on the labor of
others, either by force which enslaves, or by cunning
�24
Grimes against Criminals.
which robs, or by borrowing or begging, is wholly dis
honorable. Every man should be taught some useful
art. His hands should be educated as well as his head.
He should be taught to deal with things as they are—
with life as it is. This would give a feeling of inde
pendence, which is the firmest foundation of honor, of
character. Every man knowing that he is useful,
admires himself.
Tn all the schools children should be taught to work
in wood and iron, to understand the construction and
use of machinery, to become acquainted with the great
forces that man is using to do his work. The present
system of education teaches names, not things. It is
as though we should spend years in learning the names
of cards, without playing a game.
In this way boys would learn their aptitudes—would
ascertain what they were fitted for—what they could
do. It would not be a guess, or an experiment, but a
demonstration.
Education should increase a boy’s
chances for getting a living. The real good of it is to
get food and roof and raiment, opportunity to develop
the mind and the body and live a full and ample life.
The more real education, the less crime—and the
more homes, the fewer prisons.
X.
The fear of punishment may deter some, the fear of
exposure others ; but there is no real reforming power
in fear or punishment. Men cannot be tortured into
greatness, into goodness. All this, as I said before,
has been thoroughly tried. The idea that punishment
was the only relief, found its - limit, its infinite, in the
old doctrine of eternal pain; but the believers in that
�Crimes against Criminals.
25
dogma stated distinctly that the victims never would
be, and never could be, reformed.
As men become civilised, they become capable of
greater pain and of greater joy. To the extent that
the average man is capable of enjoying or suffering to
that extent he has sympathy with others. The average
man, the more enlightened he becomes, the more apt
he is to put himself in the place of another. He
thinks of his prisoner, of his employee, of his tenant—
and he even thinks beyond these : he thinks of the
community at large. As man becomes civilised he
takes more and more into consideration circumstances
and conditions. He gradually loses faith in the old
ideas and theories that every man can do as he wills,
and in the place of the word “ wills,” he puts the word
“ must.” The time comes to the intelligent man when
in the place of punishments he thinks of consequences,
results—that is to say, not something inflicted by some
other power, but something necessarily growing' out of
whatisdone. The clearer men perceive the consequences
of actions, the better they will be. Behind conse
quences we place no personal will, and consequently do
not regard them as inflictions or punishments. Conse
quences, no matter how severe they may be, create in
the mind no feeling of resentment, no desire for
revenge. We do not feel bitterly toward the fire
because it burns, or the frost that freezes, or the flood
that overwhelms, or the sea that drowns—because we
attribute to these things no motives, good or bad. So,
when through the development of the intellect man
perceives not only the nature but the absolute certainty
of consequences, he refrains from certain actions, and
this may be called reformation through the intellect—
and surely there is no better reformation than this.
�Crimes against Criminals.
Some may be, and probably millions have been reformed
through kindness, through gratitude—made better in
the sunlight of charity. In the atmosphere of kind
ness the seeds of virtue burst into bud and flower.
Cruelty, tyranny, brute force, do not and can not
by any possibility better the heart of man. He who is
forced upon his knees has the attitude, but never the
feeling, of prayer.
I am satisfied that the discipline of the average
piison haidens and degrades. It is for the most part
a perpetual exhibition of arbitrary power. There is
really no appeal. The cries of the convict are not
heard beyond the walls. The protests die in cells, and
the poor prisoner feels that the last tie between him
and his fellow-men has been broken. He is kept in
ignorance of the outer world. The prison is a cemetery,
and his cell is a grave.
In many of the penitentaries there are instruments
of torture, and now and then a convict is murdered.
Inspections and investigations go for naught, because
the testimony of a convict goes for naught. He is
generally prevented by fear from telling his wrongs;
but if he speaks, he is not believed—he is regarded as
less than a human being, and so the imprisoned remain
without remedy. When the visitors are gone, the
conxict who has spoken is prevented from speaking1
again.
Every manly feeling, every effort towards real
reformation, is trampled under foot, so that when the
convict’s time is out there is little left on which to
build. He has been humiliated to the last degree, and
his spirit has so long been bent by authority and fear
that even the desire to stand erect has almost faded
from the mind. The keepers feel that they are
�Crimes against Criminals.
27
safe, because no matter what they do, the convict
when released will not tell the story of his wrongs,
for if he conceals his shame, he must also hide their
guilt.
Every penitentiary should be a real reformatory.
That should be the principal object for the establish
ment of the prison. The men in charge should be of
the kindest and noblest. They should be filled with
divine enthusiasm for humanity, and every means
should be taken to convince the prisoner that his good
is sought—that nothing is done for revenge—nothing
for a display of power, and nothing for the gratification
of malice. He should feel that the warden is his
unselfish friend. When a convict is charged with a
violation of the rules—with insubordination, or with
any offence, there should be an investigation in due and
proper form, giving the convict an opportunity to be
heard. He should not be for one moment the victim
of an irresponsible power. He would then feel that he
had some rights, and that some little of the human
remained in him still. They should be taught things
of value—-instructed by competent men. Pains should
be taken, not to punish, not to degrade, but to benefit
and ennoble.
We know, if we know anything, that men in the
penitentaries are not altogether bad, and that many out
are not altogether good ; and we feel that in the brain
and heart of all there are seeds of good and bad. We
know, too, that the best are liable to fall, and it maybe
that the worst, under certain conditions, may be
capable of grand and heroic deeds. Of one thing we
may be as assured—and that is, that criminals will
never be reformed by being robbed, humiliated, and
degraded.
�28
Grimes against Criminals.
Ignorance, filth and poverty are the missionaries of
crime. As long as dishonorable success outranks
honest effort—as long as society bows and cringes
before the great thieves, there will be little ones enough
to fill the jails.
XI.
All the penalties, all the punishments, are inflicted
under a belief that man can do right under all circum
stances—that his conduct is absolutely under his con
trol, and that his will is a pilot that can, in spite of
winds and tides, reach any port desired. All this is, in
my judgment, a mistake. It is a denial of the integrity
of nature. It is based upon the supernatural and
miraculous, and as long as this mistake remains the
cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, reformation will
be impossible.
We must take into consideration the nature of man
—the facts of mind—the power of temptation—the
limitations of the intellect—the force of habit—the
result of heredity—the power of passion—the domina
tion of want—the diseases of the brain—the tyranny
of appetite—the cruelty of conditions—the results of
association—the effects of poverty and wealth, of help
lessness and power.
Until these subtle things are understood—until we
know that man in spite all, can certainly pursue the
highway of the right, society should not impoverish and
degrade, should not chain and kill, those who, after all,
may be the helpless victims of unknown causes that are
deaf and blind.
We know something of ourselves—of the average
man—of his thoughts, passions, fears, and aspirations—
something of his sorrows and his joys, his weak-
�Crimes against Criminals.
29
ness, his liability to fall — something of what he
resists—the struggles, the victories, and the failures of
his life. We know something of the tides and cur
rents of the mysterious sea—something of the circuits
of the wayward winds—-but we do not know where the
wild storms are born that wreck and rend. Neither do
we know in what strange realm the mists and clouds
are formed that dim and darken all the heaven of the
mind, nor from whence comes the tempest of the brain
in which the will to do, sudden as the lightning’s flash,
seizes and holds the man until the dreadful deed is done
that leaves a curse upon the soul.
We do not know. Our ignorance should make us
hesitate. Our weakness should make us merciful.
I cannot more fittingly close this address than by
quoting the prayer of the Buddhist:—“ I pray thee to
have pity on the vicious—thou hast already had pity on
the virtuous by making them so.’'’
���WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
■------------------ o------------------ -
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... j g
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
...0
Five Hours’ Speech at theTrial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
0
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
...
...
With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
FAITH AND FACT.
GOD AND MAN.
0
4
Reply to Cardinal Manning
ROME OR REASON ?
...
0
4
0
2
Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
Second Reply to Dr. Field
THE DYING CREED
...
0 2
...
...
...
0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
....
o 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
...
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Ooudert an 1
Gov. S. L. Woodford.
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
...
DO I BLASPHEME?
...
...
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
THE GREAT MISTAKE
LIVE TOPICS
...
2
0
..02
0
\ ...
...
...
...
2
0 1
0 x
...
...
... 0 1
... 0 x
MYTH AND MIRACLE
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
...
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
...
0 2
...
...
...
...
0 2
0 2
...
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
GOD AND THE STATE
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
...
...
0
2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
Part II.
...
0
2
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street. E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Crimes against criminals : an address, delivered before the State Bar Association of New York, January 21, 1890
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1896]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 29 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 13b in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N329
Subject
The topic of the resource
Crime
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 (Crimes against criminals : an address, delivered before the State Bar Association of New York, January 21, 1890), 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
Crime and Punishment
Criminal Law
Criminals-United States
NSS
Prison Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f3d3fa9c261062655f6f78dba7ebd9e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sKYtST8PTxKAfq42i92vWV0rkMLm0mHsVy2t%7E89gSa2f2-l4PVpfPhNVK6n95iReMs%7EKNi53TDnFadCwvm%7E3dA2awbUDgkJ1S19x%7EQMEcIMTZDSkzjhu6dLc8kZ4a%7EtezJ1Dy727SSHZWrAyaprE8QoIRbAA1ll2tb1HWt5ysHJcoDk-hcgB6zp4pve5NNkIEBTcd7Q1vzTc3egGPvwvbdBfYHY%7ERbp1FiQkwZoxUi9bfmBhyf1AQ%7Ee47F4IfOEhOsarYveaOgTQ8Bgh5x94flj5awsUnsoam-BNt7%7E06phBdbsO5aIqfXLA6kCAb1DVfc68kyd7mQVKq0OKg9i8DA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e8f27ac8093d5c12985dae562ffc105a
PDF Text
Text
P
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD AND THE STATE
BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Verbatim from the New York “ Arena."
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�KT5S3
GOD AND THE STATE.
All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.
In this country it is admitted that the power to govern
resides in the people themselves ; that they are the
only rightful source of authority. For many centuries
before the formation of our government, before the
promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the
people had but little voice in the affairs of nations.
The source of authority was not in this world ; kings
were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre
was not held by the consent of the governed. The
king sat on his throne by the will of God, and for that
reason was not accountable to the people for the
exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people
obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner,
the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of
earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. God
was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law,
and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth, whose
will was law. The God in heaven had inferior beings
to do his will, and the king on earth had certain
favorites and officers to do his. These officers were
accountable to him, and he was responsible to God.
The feudal system was supposed to be in accordance
with the divine plan. The people were not governed
by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by
rewards and punishments. No effort was made to
enlighten the common people; no one thought of
educating a peasant—of developing the mind of a
�( 4 )
laborer. The people were created to support thrones
and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey—to
work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts
and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children
must expect no more. In the presence of the king
they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they
grovelled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided
his earnings with the state, because he imagined it
protected his body ; he divided his crust with the
church, believing it protected his soul. He was the
prey of throne and altar—one deformed his body, the
other his mind—and these two vultures fed upon his
toil. He was taught by the king to hate the people of
other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers
in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all
people except his own. He had no sympathy with the
peasants of other lands enslaved and plundered like
himself. He was kept in ignorance, because education
is the enemy of superstition, and because education is
the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.
The intelligent and good man holds in his affections
the good and true of every land—the boundaries of
countries are not the limitations of his sympathies.
Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who
speak other languages and worship other gods.
Between him and those that suffer, there is no
impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the
hand of friendship to the human race. He does not
bow before a provincial and patriotic God—one who
protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of
mankind.
Through all the ages of superstition, each nation has
insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true God,
and that it alone had the true religion—that the gods
of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other
religions were wicked, ignorant, and absurd. In this
way the seeds of hatred have been sown, and in this
way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have
had no sympathy with those of a different complexion,
with those that knelt at other altars and expressed
their thoughts in other words—and even a difference
in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others.
�( 5 )
Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the
excuse for hatred.
The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by
commerce, People became somewhat acquainted, and
they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly
distributed.
At last subjects became somewhat
acquainted with kings—peasants had the pleasure of
gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the
differences were mostly in rags and names.
In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods
from politics. They declared that “ all governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed.” This was a contradiction, of the then
political ideas of the world ; it was, as many believed,
an act of pure blasphemy—a renunciation of the deity.
It was in fact, a declaration of the independence of
the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests
that thereafter mankind would govern and protect
themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and
denied the authority of every “sacred book,” and
appealed from the providence of God to the Providence
of Man.
Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a
Constitution for the great Republic.
What was the office or purpose of that Constitution ?
Admitting that all power came from the people, it
was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for
the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people ;
and second, it was proper and convenient to designate
certain departments that should exercise certain powers
of the government. There must be the legislative, the
judicial, and the executive department. Those who
make laws should not execute them. Those who
execute laws should not have the power of absolutely
determining their meaning or their constitutionality.
For these reasons, among others, a constitution was
adopted.
The constitution also contained a declaration of
rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so
that in the excitement of passion men shall not go
beyond the point designated in the calm moment of
reason.
�( 6 )
When man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject
to reason, it is well he should define the limits of
power, so that the waves driven by the storm of
passion shall not overbear the shore.
A constitution is for the government of man in this
world. It is the chain the people put upon their
servants as upon themselves. It defines the limit of
power and the limit of obedience.
It follows, then, that nothing should be in a consti
tution that cannot be enforced by the power of the
state—that is, by the army and navy. Behind every
provision of the constitution should stand the force of
the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon
should be there.
Suppose, then, that we amend the constitution and
acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God—
what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how
is this amendment to be enforced ? A constitution
does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by
appropriate legislation. Will it be a crime to deny
the existence of this Constitutional God ? Can the
offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts ?
Can his lips be closed by the power of the state ?
Would not this be the inauguration of religious
persecution ?
And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God
in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as
to which God is to have this honor. Shall we select
the God of the Catholics—he who has established an
infallible church presided over by an infallible pope,
and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and
placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common
Latin ? Is it the God of the Presbyterian, with the
Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough
to harmonise necessity and responsibility, and who
in some way justifies himself for damning most of
his own children ? Is it the God of the Puritan, the
enemy of joy—of the Baptist, who is great enough
to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the
destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it
inhabited was immersed or sprinkled ?
�( 7 )
What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution ?
Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a
believer in slavery and who justified polygamy ? If
slavery was right then, it is right now ; and if Jehovah
was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we
to have the God who issued a commandment against
all art—who was the enemy of investigation and of
free speech? Is it the God who commanded the
husband to stone his wife to death because she differed
with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have
a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish
hundreds of offences with death ? What court, what
tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who
is to make known his will ? In his presence laws
passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of
courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known
the will of this supreme God? Will there be a
supreme tribunal composed of priests ?
Of course all persons elected to office will either
swear or affirm to support the Constitution. Men who
do not believe in this God, cannot so swear or affirm.
Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of
trust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not inter
fere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a
provision will only exclude honest and conscientious
believers. Intelligent people know that no one knows
whether there is a God or not. The existence of such
a being is merely a matter of opinion. Men who
believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die
for the honor of their country, will be excluded from
taking any part in the administration of its affairs.
Such a provision would place the country under the
feet of priests.
To recognise a deity in the organic law of our
country would be the destruction of religious liberty.
The God in the Constitution would have to be pro
tected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws
against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against
carrying books and papers in the mails, in which this
constitutional God should be attacked. Our land
would be filled with theological spies, with religious
eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the
�( 8 )
lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious authority,
would uncoil and crawl.
It is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the
lawful and rightful governor of nations—the one who
ordained the powers that be. If this God is really the
governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge
him in the Constitution. This would not add to his
power. If he governs all nations now, he has always
controlled the affairs of men. Having this control,
why did he not see to it that he was recognised in the
Constitution of the United States ? If he had the
supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the
Constitution, is not this, at least, prima facie evidence
that he did not desire to be there ?
For one, I am not in favor of the God who has
“ ordained the powers that be.” What have we to say
of Russia—of Siberia ? What can we say of the per
secuted and enslaved ? What of the kings and nobles
who live on the stolen labors of others ? What of the
priest and cardinal and pope, who wrest even from the
hand of poverty the single coin thrice earned ?
Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitu
tional amendment?
The “Confederate States” ac
knowledged God in their constitution, and yet they
were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law
no reference to God is made. All the kings of the
earth acknowledge the existence of God, and God is
their ally ; and this belief in God is used as a means to
enslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people
whom they call their subjects.
The government of the United States is secular.
It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a
government with which God has nothing whatever to
do—and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the
fundamental fact that the people are the source of
authority, should be abandoned. In this country there
should be no oaths—no man should be sworn to tell
the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal
to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath
appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant
jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness
should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should
�( 9 )
be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and
Presidents should not issue religious proclamations.
They should not call upon the people to thank God. It
is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and
beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States to justify this
religious impertinence.
For many years priests have attempted to give to our
government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded
in putting the legend upon our money : “ In God we
Trust
and we have chaplains in the army and navy,
and legislative proceedings are usually opened with
prayer.
All this is contrary to the genius of the Re
public, contrary to the Declaration of Independence,
and contrary really to the Constitution of the United
States. We have taken the ground that the people can
govern themselves without the assistance of any super
natural power. We have taken the position that the
people are the real and only rightful source of authority.
We have solemnly declared that the people must
determine what is politically right and what is wrong
and that their legally expressed will is the supreme
law. This leaves no room for national superstition—
no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings—
and this does away with the necessity for political
prayers.
The government of God has been tried. It was tried
in Palestine several thousand years ago, and the God of
the Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and
the people governed by this God lost their nationality.
Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God
was the governor—the Pope was his agent, and every
priest and bishop and cardinal was armed with cre
dentials from the most high—and the result was that
the noblest and best were in prisons, the greatest and
grandest perished at the stake. The result was that
vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped
naked through the streets.
The result was that
hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while
honesty languished in the dungeons of the Inquisi
tion.
�( 10 )
The government of God was tried in Geneva when
John Calvin was his representative ; and under this
government of God the flames climbed around the
limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus,
because he dared to express an honest thought. This
government of God was tried in Scotland, and the
seeds of theological hatred were sown that bore,
through hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and
assassination. This government of God was established
in New England, and the result was that Quakers were
hanged or burnt—the laws of Moses re-enacted and the
■“ witch was not suffered to live.” The result was that
investigation was a crime, and the expression of an
honest thought a capital offence. This government of
God was established in Spain, and the Jews were
expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were
exterminated, and nothing left but the ignorant and
bankrupt worshippers of this monster. This govern
ment of God was tried in the United States,when slavery
was regarded as a divine institution, when men and
women were regarded as criminals because they sought
for liberty by flight, and when others were regarded
as criminals because they gave them food and shelter.
The pulpit of that day defended the buying and
selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave
traders were filled with passages of scripture defending
and upholding the traffic in human flesh.
We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the
century of man. Every effort to really better the con
dition of mankind has been opposed by the worship
pers of some God. The church in all ages and among
all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human
race. Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the
liberty of thought and expression. It has been the
«worn enemy of investigation and of intellectual de
velopment. It has denied the existence of facts the
tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has
always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.
It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the
dungeon for thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church
is as much opposed as it ever was, to the mental free
dom of the human race.
�(11)
Of course there is a distinction made between
churches and individual members. There have been
millions of Christians who have been believers in
liberty and the freedom of expression—millions who
have fought for the rights of man—but churches as
organisations have been on the other side. It is true
that churches have fought churches—the Protestants
battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased
to call the freedom of conscience ; and it is also true
that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil
power, they denied this freedom of conscience to
Others.
Let me show you the difference between the theo
logical and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred
years ago, one of the noblest of the human race,
Giordano Bruno, was burnt at Rome by the Catholic
church—that is to say by the “ Thriumphant Beast.”
This man had committed certain crimes—he had
publicly stated that there were other worlds than
this —other constellations than ours. He had ventured
the supposition that other planets might be peopled.
More than this, and worse than this, he had asserted the
heliocentric theory—that the earth made its annual
journey about the sun. He had also given it as his
opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was
found unworthy to live, and about his body were piled
the fagots of the Catholic church. This man, this
genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth
century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The
Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They
take into consideration the ignorance and brutality of
the times.
They remember then the world was
governed by a God who was then the source of all
authority.
This is the charity of Infidelity—of
philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless,
is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for
the murdered.
This is the difference between Theocracy and
Democracy—between God and man.
If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must
abdicate. There is no room for both. If the people of
the great republic become superstitious enough and
�( 12 )
ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the
United States, the experiment of self-government will
have failed, and the great and splendid declaration
that “ all governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed ” will have been denied,
and in its place will be found this : All power comes
from God ; priests are his agents, and the people are
their slaves.
Religion is an individual matter, and each soul
should be left entirely free to form its own opinions
and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme
being. With religion, government has nothing what
ever to do. Government is founded upon force, and
force should never interfere with the religious opinions
of men. Laws should define the rights of men and
their duties toward each other, and these laws should
be for the benefit of man in this world.
A nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel—a
nation is incapable of having opinions upon these
subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all the citizens
go to heaven ? If it is not, will they all be damned ?
Of course it is admitted that the majority of citizens
composing a nation may believe or disbelieve, and
they may call the nation what they please. A nation
is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying “ it has
no soul.” There can be no such thing as a Christian
Corporation. Several Christians may form a corpora
tion, but it can hardly be said that the corporation
thus formed was included in the atonement. For
instance : seven Christians form a corporation—that is
to say, there are seven natural persons and one
artificial—can it be said that there are eight souls to
be saved ?
No human being has brain enough, or knowledge
enough, or experience enough, to say whether there is,
or is not, a God. Into this darkness science has not
yet carried its torch. No human being has gone
beyond the horizon of the natural. As to the existence
of the supernatural, one man knows precisely as much,
and exactly as little as another. Upon this question,
chimpanzees, and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon
exact equality. The smallest insect discernible only
�( 13 )
by the most powerful microscope, is as familiar with
this subject as the greatest genius that has been
produced by the human race.
Governments and laws are for the preservation of
rights and the regulation of conduct. One man should
not be allowed to interfere with the liberty of another.
In the metaphysical world there should be no inter
ference whatever. The same is true in the world of
art. Laws cannot regulate what is, or what is not,
music—what is or what is not beautiful—and constitu
tions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfec
tion of statues, the value of paintings, or the glory and
subtlety of thought. In spite of laws and constitutions
the brain will think. In every direction consistent
with the well-being and peace of society, there should
be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt
the theology of another ; neither should a minority
however small, be forced to acquiesce in the opinions
of a majority, however large.
If there be an infinite being, he does not need our
help—we need not waste our energies in his defence.
It is enough for us to give to every other human being
the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may
not be a supreme ruler of the universe—but we are
certain that man exists, and we believe that freedom is
the condition of progress, that it is the sunshine of the
mental and moral world, and that without it man will
go back to the den of savagery and will become the
fit associate of wild and ferocious beasts
We have tried the government of priests, and we
know that such governments are without mercy. In
the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of
torture have been invented. If any man wishes to
have God recognised in the Constitution of our country,
let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him
remember that hundreds of millions of men, women,
and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath
nr win the approbation of this God.
There has been in our country a divorce of Church
and State. This follows as a natural sequence of the
declaration that “ governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed.” The priest was no
�( 14 )
longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction
of the principle on which the Republic was founded.
He represented, not the authority of the people, but of
some “power from on high,” and to recognise this
other power was inconsistent with free government.
The founders of the Republic at that time parted com
pany with the priests, and said to them : “ Y ou may
turn your attention to the other world—we will attend
to the affairs of this.” Equal liberty was given to all.
But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this ; he
wishes to destroy the liberty of the people ; he wishes
a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to
the end that the Church may become the supreme
power.
But the sun will not be turned backward. The
people of the United States are intelligent. They no
longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion.
They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels
of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free
school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They
are believers in education, in the free play of thought,
and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian,
is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the
astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of
the black art.
We have already compared the benefits of theology
and Science. When the theologian governed the world,
it was covered with huts and hovels for the many,
palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the
children of men reading and writing were unknown
arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins—they
devoured crusts and gnawed bones. The day of
Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are
the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks
of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies
than the princes and kings of the theological times.
But above and over all of this, is the development of
the mind. There is more of value in the brain of an
average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a
chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there
was in the brain of the world four hundred years
ago.
�( 15 )
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These
benefits did not crop from the outstretched hands of
priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind
altars—neither were they searched for with holy
candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes
of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious
supplication. They are the children of freedom, the
gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for
them all man is indebted to man.
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of
Lincoln : Let us insist that this, the Republic, is
“ a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.”
�Works by Colonel Ingersoll.
Mistakes of Moses
...
...
...
Superior edition, in cloth
...
...
Only complete edition published in England.
i o
i 6
Defence of Freethought
...
...
0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds
for Blasphemy.
. Reply to Gladstone
...
...
With Biography by J. M. Wheeler,
...
0 4
Rome or Reason ? Reply to Cardinal Manning
0 4
Faith, and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
0 2
Second Reply to Dr. Field ...
0 2
God and Man.
The Dying Creed
...
The Household of Faith
...
...
0
2
...
...
0
2
...
0
2
The Limits of Toleration
...
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Courdert
and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
...
...
0 2
Marriage and Divorce...
...
...
0 2
Do I Blaspheme?
...
...
0 2
The Clergy & Common Sense...
...
Art and Morality
...
...
0
2
Social Salvation
...
...
...
0 2
The Great Mistake
...
...
' ...
0 1
Live Topics
... *
...
...
0 1
Myth and Miracle
...
...
...
0 1
Real Blasphemy
...
...
...
0 1
...
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street,
London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God and the state
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the New York "Arena." "Works by Colonel Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 27d in Stein checklist, but with different date and pagination (later printing?). Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N353
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (God and the state), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church and State
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e525589c0d6a239b8c3b18b8baae6f15.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PZIKoZmtTE10r9Zrn0pS7T8dgYzkIzGn0DMAeFfotjqMpCCuuhRd5lVPu4d2hh4H7XOE%7EfMM2C6Ter7hsV3U5T%7EwkZye4R1cQr4VKq2BY3sWhliDkHaLMguX6iw8DyCqdFbWNDiq3ncllj75WWJoosKNOKWnTQHOuLhgci3fqzavIz3BvvJ0xHrl9SlYYYFO8Dc0xqcSmvO8ZqkDGLRoEcx-BCNq3-NZwzlasuMrmvB5ulVIeR6KGONvgMf%7E5z%7EpY%7E115QsIIltSq581RMEvuCCz0fHSbOLWFCRTL5qfbmC49EPVJOOnPdx82c9WADHZkKQNgsk55qVpzK2Im8%7E51w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce27ec953701855640c55040a9e4efa4
PDF Text
Text
. SATIRES
PROFANITIES
AND
BY
•
JAMES
THOMSON (B.V.f
(Author of “The City o¥ Dreadful Night”)
With a Preface by G. W. Foote.
A New Edition.
The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
Religion in the Rocky Mountains
The Devil in the Church of England
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy
The One Thing Needful
The Athanasian Creed
ONE SHILLING.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
-28 Stonecutter Street, E.C,
1890.
��63'2X>5
MC3?
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SATIRES
AND
PROFANITIES
BY
JAMES
THOMSON (B.V.)
(Author of “ The City
of
Dreadful Night”)
With a Preface by G. W. Foote.
A New Edition.
LONDON
progressive PUBLISHING company,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. BOOTH
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C,
�CONTENTS
PASS
Preface ...
...
...
5
The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
...
...
7
Religion in the Rocky Mountains
...
...
21
The Devil in the Church of England...
..
..
36
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles...
...
...
47
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty
...
...
58
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy
..
...
...
66
The One Thing Needful
...
...
...
...
71
The Athanasian Creed
..
...
..
..
75
...
...
...
...
�..................
�EDITOR’S PREFACE.
Under the title of Satires and Profanities I collected and
published, in 1884, twenty-three prose pieces of James
Thomson’s, contributed by him at various times to Freethought
journals, namely, the National Reformer, edited by Mr. Brad
laugh, and the Secularist, edited by myself. After the sale of
about five hundred copies, the remaining sheets were destroyed
by a fire at the publisher’s premises. It was a pity that such
a book should be out of print, but complete republication was
impossible. The enterprise would have been a heavy financial
loss. There is, however, a possibility of realising one’s invest
ment in a smaller collection of the principal pieces, and I
venture to issue it in the present form.
Thomson was a born satirist as well as a born poet. I do
not think anyone can read these pieces without feeling that
Thomson enjoyed the writing of them. They reveal a side of
his genius which only found occasional expression in his verse.
He allowed me to publish two of them as pamphlets before any
collection of his poems was given to the world. Some of his
admirers, who scarcely share his convictions, are in the habit
of depreciating these satires on the current theology. But he
would have smiled at their soreness. “ Thomson’s satire,” as
I wrote in the preface to Satires and Profanities,“ was always
bitterest, or at any rate most trenchant, when it dealt with
Religion, which he considered a disease of the mind, engendered
by folly and fostered by ignorance and vanity. He saw that
spiritual superstition not only diverts men from Truth, but
induces a slavish stupidity of mind, and prepares the way for
every form of political and social injustice. He was an Atheist
first and a Republican afterwards. He derided the idea of
making a true Republic of a population besotted with religion,
paralysed with creeds, cringing to the agents of their servitude,
and clinging to the chains that enthral them.”
No doubt the cry of “Blasphemy!” will continue to be
raised against Thomson’s religious satires, as against every
pointed, and therefore “painful,” attack on Christianity.
�▼i.
Editor's Preface.
But Thomson has justified himself in this respect. Defending
a certain 11 outburst of Rabelasian laughter,” which was de
nounced by the Saturday Review in 1867, he wrote
The
Grecian mythology is dead, is no longer aggressive in its
absurdities ; the priestcraft and the foul rites have long since
perished, the beauty and the grace and the splendor remain.
But your composite theology is still alive, is insolently
aggressive, its lust for tyrannical dominion is unbounded;
therefore we must attack it if we would not be enslaved by it.
The cross is a sublime symbol; I would no more think of
treating it with disrespect while it held itself aloft in the
serene heaven of poetry than of insulting the bow of Phoebus
Apollo or the thunderbolts of Zeus; but if coarse hands will
insist on pulling it down upon my back as a ponderous wooden
reality, what can I do but fling it off as a confounded burden
not to be borne ?” Thomson also pointed out that “ For the
Atheist, God is a figment, nothing: in blaspheming God he
therefore blasphemes nothing. A man really blasphemes
when he mocks, insults, pollutes, vilifies that which he really
believes to be holy and awful.” He admitted that there
might be a hundred Christians in England who really believed
in the Christian God, and they could be guilty of blaspheming
him; but “ speaking philosophically, an honest Atheist can no
more blaspheme God than an honest Republican can be disloyal
to a King, than an unmarried man can be guilty of conjugal
infidelity.”
There is no need to say more. Thomson’s “blasphemy”
and its justification are here together. Every purchaser of
this brochure is warned in the preface what to expect, and
if his nerves are too weak for an Atheist’s satire he can give
it to a robuster friend.
May, 1890.
G. W. FOOTE.
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm
[Written in 1866.]
Many thousand years ago, when the Jews first started
in business, the chief of their merchants was a venerable
and irascible old gentleman named Jah. The Jews
have always been excellent traders, keen to scent
wealth, subtle to track it, unweary to pursue it, strong
to seize it, tenacious to hold it ; and the most keen,
subtle, untiring, strong, tenacious of them all, was this
Jah. The patriarchs of his people paid him full
measure of the homage which Jews have always eagerly
paid to wealth and power, and all their most important
transactions were carried out through him. In those
antique times people lived to a very great age, and Jah
is supposed to have lived so many thousands of years
that one may as well not try to count them. Perhaps
it was not one Jah that existed all this while, but the
house of Jah : the family, both for pride and profit,
preserving through successive generations the name of
its founder. Certain books have been treasured by
the Jews as containing exact records of the dealings of
this lordly merchant (or house) both with the Jews
themselves and with strangers. Many people in our
times, however, have ventured to doubt the accuracy of
these records, arguing that some of the transactions
therein recorded it would have been impossible to
transact, that others must have totally ruined the
richest of merchants, that the accounts often contradict
each other, and that the system of book-keeping
generally is quite unworthy of a dealer so truthful and
clear-headed as Jah is affirmed to have been. The
records are so ancient in themselves, and they treat of
matters so much more ancient still, that it is not easy
to find other records of any sort with which to check
�8
Satires and Profanities.
their accounts. Strangely enough the most recent
researches have impugned the accuracy of the most
ancient of these records ; certain leaves of a volume
called the “ Great Stone Book ” having been brought
forward to contradict the very first folio of the ledger
in which the dealings of Jah have been posted up
according to the Jews. It may be that the first few
folios, like the early pages of most annals, are somewhat
mythical ; and the present humble compiler (who is
not deep in the affairs of the primaeval world, and who,
like the late lamented Captain Cuttie with his large
volume, is utterly knocked up at any time by four or
five lines of the “ Great Stone Book ”) will prudently
not begin at the beginning, but skip it with great
comfort and pleasure, especially as many and learned
men are now earnest students of this beginning. We
will, therefore, if you please, take for granted the facts
that at some time, in some manner, Jah created his
wonderful business, and that early in his career he met
with a great misfortune, being compelled, by the
villainy of all those with whom he had dealings, to
resort to a wholesale liquidation, which left him so poor,
that for some time he had not a house in the world,
and his establishment was reduced to four male and as
many female servants.
He must have pretty well recovered from this severe
shock when he entered into the famous covenant or
contract with Abraham and his heirs, by which he
bound himself to deliver over to them at a certain,
then distant, period, the whole of the valuable landed
property called Canaan, on condition that they should
appoint him the sole agent for the management of
their affairs. In pursuance of this contract, he con
ducted that little business of the flocks and herds for
Jacob against one Laban ; and afterwards, when the
children of Abraham were grown very numerous, he
managed for them that other little affair, by which
they spoiled the Egyptians of jewels of silver and
jewels of gold ; and it is even asserted that he fed and
clothed the family for no less than forty years in a
country where the commissariat was a service of
extreme difficulty.
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
9
At length the time came when he was to make over
to them the Land of Canaan, for this purpose evicting
the several families then in possession thereof, ihe
whole of the covenanted estate he never did make over
to them, but the Jews freely admit that this was through
their own fault. They held this land as mortgaged to
him, he pledging himself not to foreclose while, they
dealt with him faithfully and fulfilled all the conditions
of the covenant. They were to pay him ten per cent,
per annum interest, with sundry other charges, to put
all their affairs into his hands, to have no dealings what
soever with any rival merchants, etc., etc. Under this
covenant the Jews continued in possession of the fine
little property of Canaan for several hundred years,
and they assert that this same Jah lived and conducted
his business throughout the whole period. But, as I
have ventured to suggest, the long existence of the
house of Jah may have been the sum total of the lives
of a series of individual Jahs. The Jews could not
have distinguished the one from the other ; for it is a
strange fact that Jah himself, they admit, was never
seen. Perhaps he did not affect close contact with
Jews. Perhaps he calculated that his power over them
would be increased by mystery ; this is certain, that he
kept himself wholly apart from them in his private
office, so that no one was admitted even on business.
It is indeed related that one Moses (the witness to the
execution of the covenant) caught a glimpse of him
from behind, but this glimpse could scarcely have
sufficed for identification ; and it is said, also, that at
certain periods the chief of the priesthood was admitted
to consultation with him ; but although his voice was
then heard, he did not appear in person—only the
shadow of him was seen, and everyone will allow that
a shadow is not the best means of identification. And
in further support of my humble suggestion it may be
noted that in many and important respects the later
proceedings attributed to Jah differ extremely in chal’acter from the earlier ; and this difference cannot be
explained as the common difference between the youth
and maturity and senility of one and the same. man,
for we are expressly assured that Jah was without
�10
Satires and Profanities.
change—by which we are not to understand that
either through thoughtlessness or parsimony he never
had small cash in his pocket for the minor occasions of
life ; but that he was stubborn in his will, unalterable
in his ideas, persistent in his projects and plans.
The records of his dealings at home with the Jews,
and abroad with the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the
Philistines, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Edomites,
and other nations, as kept by the Jews themselves, are
among the strangest accounts of a large general busi
ness which have ever been put down in black on
white. And in nothing are they more strange than in
the unsullied candor with which the Jews always admit
and proclaim that it was their fault, and by no means
the fault of Jah, whenever the joint business went
badly, and narrate against themselves the most astonish
ing series of frauds and falsehoods, showing how they
broke the covenant, and attempted to cheat the other
party in every imaginable way, and, in order to ruin
his credit, conspired with foreign adventurers of the
worst character—such as MM. Baal, Ashtaroth, and
Moloch. Jah, who gave many proofs of a violent and
jealous temper, and who was wont to sell up other
debtors in the most heartless way, appears to have been
very patient and lenient with these flagitious Jews.
Yet with all his kindness and long-suffering he was
again and again forced to put executions into their
houses, and throw themselves into prison ; and at
length, before our year One, having, as it would seem,
given up all hope of making them deal honestly with
him, he had put certain strict Romans in possession of
the property to enforce his mortgage and other rights.
And now comes a sudden and wonderful change in
the history of this mysterious Jah. Whether it was
the original Jah, who felt himself too old to conduct
the immense business alone, or whether it was some
successor of his, who had not the same self-reliance
and imperious will, one cannot venture to decide ; but
we all know that it was publicly announced, and soon
came to be extensively believed, that Jah had taken
unto himself two partners, and that the business was
thenceforth to be carried on by a firm, under the style
�Story of a Famous Old Jswish Firm.
11
of Father, Son, and Co. It is commonly thought that
history has more of certainty as it becomes more
recent ; but unfortunately in the life of Jah, uncertainty
grows ten more times uncertain when we attain the
period of this alleged partnership, for the Jews deny it
altogether ; and of those who believe in it not one is
able to define its character, or even to state its possi
bility in intelligible language. The Jews assert roundly
that the alleged partners are a couple of vile impostors,
that Jah still conducts his world-wide business alone,
that he has good reasons (known only to himself) for
delaying the exposure of these pretenders ; and that,
however sternly he has been dealing with the Jews for
a long time past, and however little they may seem to
have improved so as to deserve better treatment, he
will yet be reconciled to them, and restore them to
possession of their old land, and exalt them above all
their rivals and enemies, and of his own free will and
absolute pleasure burn and destroy every bond of
their indebtedness now in his hands. And in support
of these modest expectations they can produce a
bundle of documents which they assert to be his
promissory notes, undoubtedly for very large amounts ;
but which, being carefully examined, turn out to be all
framed on this model: “ I, the above-mentioned A. B.”
(an obscure or utterly unknown Jew, supposed to have
lived about three thousand years ago), “ hereby promise
in the name of Jah, that the said Jah shall in some
future year unknown, pay unto the house of Israel the
following amount, that is to say, etc.” If we ask,
Where is the power of attorney authorising this dubious
A. B. to promise this amount in the name of Jah ? the
Jews retort : “If you believe in the partnership, you
must believe in such power, for you have accepted all
the obligations of the old house, and have never refused
to discount its paper : if you believe neither in Jah
nor in the partnership, you are a wretch utterly with
out faith, a commercial outlaw.” In addition, however,
to these remarkable promissory notes, the Jews rely
upon the fact that Jah, in the midst of his terrible
anger, has still preserved some kindness for them. He
threatened many pains and penalties upon them for
�12
Satires and Profanities,
breach of the covenant, and many of these threats he
has carried out ; but the most cruel and horrific of all
he has not had the heart to fulfil : they have been
oppressed and crushed, strangers have come into their
landed property, they have been scattered among all
peoples, a proverb and a by-word of scorn among the
nations, their religion has been accursed, their holy
places are defiled, but the crowning woe has been spared
them (Deut. xxviii., 44) ; never yet has it come to pass
that the stranger should lend to them, and they should
not lend to the stranger. There is yet balm in Gilead,
a rose of beauty in Sharon, and a cedar of majesty on
Lebanon ; the Jew still lends to the stranger, and does
not borrow from him, except as he “borrowed ” from
the Egyptian—and the interest on money lent is still
capable, with judicious treatment, of surpassing the
noble standard of “ shent per shent.”
And even among the Gentiles there are some who
believe that Jah is still the sole head of the house, and
that the pair who are commonly accounted junior
partners are in fact only superior servants, the one a
sort of manager, the other general superintendent and
agent, though Jah may allow them a liberal commission
on the profits, as well as a fixed salary.
But the commercial world of Europe, in general,
professes to believe that there is a bond fide partnership,
and that the three partners have exactly equal authority
and interest in the concern ; that, in fact, there is such
thorough identity in every respect that the three may,
and ought to be, for all purposes of business, considered
as one. The second partner, they say, is really the son
of Jah ; though Jah, with that eccentricity which has
ever abundantly characterised his proceedings, had this
son brought up as a poor Jewish youth, apparently the
child of a carpenter called Joseph, and his wife Mary.
Joseph has little or no influence with the firm, and we
scarcely hear of a transaction done through him, but
Mary has made the most profitable use of her old liaison
with Jah, and the majority of those who do business
with the firm seek her good offices, and pay her very
liberal commissions. Those who do not think so
highly of her influence, deal with the house chiefly
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
13
through, the Son, and thus it has come to pass that poor
Jah is virtually ousted from his own business. He
and the third partner are little more than sleeping
partners, while his mistress and her son manage every
affair of importance.
This state of things seems somewhat unfair to Jah ;
yet one must own that there are good reasons for it.
Jah was a most haughty and humorous gentleman,
extremely difficult to deal with, liable to sudden fits of
rage, wherein he maltreated friends and foes alike,
implacable when once offended, a desperately sharp
shaver in a bargain, a terrible fellow for going to law.
The son was a much more kindly personage, very
affable and pleasant in conversation, willing and eager
to do a favor to any one, liberal in promises even
beyond his powers of performance, fond of strangers,
and good to the poor ; and his mother, with or without
reason, is credited with a similar character. Moreover,
Jah always kept himself invisible, while the son and
mother were possibly seen, during some years, by a
large number of persons ; and among those who have
never seen them their portraits are almost as popular
as photographs of the Prince and Princess of Wales.
With the real or pretended establishment of the
Firm, a great change took place in the business of Jah.
This business had been chiefly with the Jews, and even
when it extended to foreign transactions, these were all
subordinate to the Jewish trade. But the Firm lost
no time in proclaiming that it would deal with the
whole world on equal terms : no wonder the Jews
abhor the alleged partners I And the nature of the
contracts, the principal articles of trade, the mode of
keeping the accounts, the commission and interest
charged and allowed, the salaries of the agents and
clerks, the advantages offered to clients, were all
changed too. The head establishment was removed
from Jerusalem to Rome, and branch establishments
were gradually opened in nearly all the towns and
villages of Europe, besides many in Asia and Africa,
Bnd afterwards in America and Australia. It is worth
noting that in Asia and Africa (although the firm arose
in the former) the business has never been carried on
�14
Satires and Profanities.
very successfully; Messrs. Brahma, Vishnu, Seeva
and Co., the great houses of Buddha and Mumbo
Jumbo, various Parsee firms, and other opposition
houses, having among them almost monopolised the
trade.
The novel, distinctive, and most useful article -which
the Firm engaged to supply was a bread called par
excellence the Bread of Life. The Prospectus (which
was first drafted, apparently in perfect good faith, by
the Son ; but which has since been so altered and ex
panded by successive agents that we cannot learn what
the original, no longer extant, exactly stated) sets forth
that the House of Jah, Son and Co. has sole possession
of the districts yielding the corn whereof this bread is
made, the sole patents of the mills for grinding and
ovens for baking, and that it alone has the secret of the
proper process for kneading. The Firm admits that
many other houses have pretended to supply this in
valuable bread, but accuses them all of imposture or
poisonous adulteration. For itself, it commands the
genuine supply in such quantities that it can under
take to feed the whole world, and at so cheap a rate
that the poorest will be able to purchase as much as he
needs ; and, moreover, as the firm differs essentially
from all other firms in having no object in view save
the benefit of its customers, the partners being already
so rich that no profits could add to their wealth, it will
supply the bread for mere love to those who have not
money!
This fair and beautiful prospectus, you will easily
believe, brought vast multitudes eager to deal with the
firm, and especially large multitudes of the poor,
ravished with the announcement that love should be
henceforth current coin of the realm ; and the business
spread amazingly. But at the very outset a sad mis
chance occurred. The Son, by far the best of the
partners, was suddenly seized and murdered and buried
by certain agents of the old Jewish business (furious
at the prospect of losing all their rich trade), with the
connivance of the Roman installed as inspector. At
least, these wretches thought they had murdered the
poor man, and it is admitted on every side that they
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
15
buried him ; but the dependants of the Firm have a
strange story that he was not really killed, but arose
out of his tomb after lying there for three days, and
slipped away to keep company with his father, the
invisible Jah, in his exceedingly private office ; and
they assert that he is still alive along with Jah, molli
fying the old man when he gets into one of his furious
passions, pleading for insolvent debtors, and in all
things by act and counsel doing good for all the clients
of the house. They, moreover, assert that the third
partner, who as the consoling substitute for the absent
Son is commonly called the Comforter, and who is
very energetic, though mysteriously invisible in his
operations, superintends all the details of the business
in every one of the establishments. But this third
partner is so difficult to catch, that, as stated before,
the majority of the customers deal with the venerable
mother, as the most accessible and humane personage
belonging to the house.
Despite the death or disappearance of the Son, the
firm prospered for a considerable time. After severe
competition, in which neither side showed itself very
‘scrupulous, the great firm of Jupiter and Co., the old
Greek house, which had been strengthened by the
amalgamation of the wealthiest Roman firms, was
utterly beaten from the field, sold up and extinguished.
In the sale of the effects many of the properties in
most demand were bought in by the new firm, which
also took many of the clerks and agents into its em
ployment, and it is even said adopted in several impor
tant respects the mode of carrying on business and the
system of book-keeping. But while the firm was thus
conquering its most formidable competitor, innumerable
dissensions were arising between its own branch esta
blishments ; every one accusing every other of dealing
on principles quite hostile to the regulations instituted
by the head of the house, of falsifying the accounts,
and of selling an article which was anything but the
genuine unadulterated bread. There were also inter
minable quarrels among them as to relative rank and
importance.
And whether the wheat, as delivered to the various
�16
Satires and Profanities.
establishments, was or was not the genuine article
which the firm had contracted to supply, it was soon
discovered that it issued from the licensed shops adul
terated in the most audacious manner. And, although
the prospectus had stated most positively that the
bread should be delivered to the poor customers of the
firm without money and without price (and such seems
really to have been the good Son s intention), it was
found, in fact, that the loaves, when they reached the
consumer, were at least as costly as ever loaves of any
kind of bread had been. It mattered little that the
wheat was not reckoned in the price, when agents r
commissioners’, messengers fees, bakers charges, and
a hundred items, made the price total so enormous.
When, at length, the business was flourishing all over
Europe, it was the most bewildering confusion of con
tradictions that, perhaps, was ever known in the com
mercial world. Eor in all the establishments the
agents professed and very solemnly swore that they
dealt on principles opposed and infinitely superior to
the old principles of trade ; yet their proceedings (save
that they christened old things with new names) were w
identical with those which had brought to shameful
ruin the most villainous old firms. The sub-managers,
who were specially ordered to remain poor while in the
business, and for obedience were promised the most
splendid pensions when superannuated, all became rich
as princes by their exactions from the clients of the
house ; the agents, who were especially commanded to
keep the peace, were ever stirring up quarrels and
fighting ferociously, not only with opposition agents
but with one another. The accounts, which were tn
be regulated by the most honest and simple rules, were
complicated in a lawless system, which no man could
understand, and falsified to incredible amounts, to the
loss of the customers, without being to the gain of the
firm. In brief, each establishment was like one ot
those Chinese shops where the most beautiful and noble
maxims of justice and generosity are painted in gilt
letters outside, while the most unblushing fraud and
extortion are practised inside. When poor customers
complained of these things, they were told that the
�17
Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
system was perfect, that the evils were all from the
evil men who conducted the business ! but the good
people did not further explain how the perfection of
the system could ever be realised, since it must always
be worked by imperfect men. Complainants thus
mildly and vaguely answered were very fortunate ;
others, in places where the firm was very powerful,
were answered by imprisonment or false accusations, or
by being pelted and even murdered by mobs. Many
who thought the bread badly baked were themselves
thrust into the fire.
Yet so intense is the need of poor men for some
bread of life, so willing are simple men to believe fair
promises, that, in spite of the monstrous injustice and
falsehood and cruelty and licentiousness of the
managers and sub-managers and agents of the firm,
the business continued to flourish, and all the wealth
of Europe flowed into its coffers. And generations
passed ere some persons bethought them to think
seriously of the original Deed of Partnership and th©
fundamental principles of the Firm. These documents,
which had been carefully confined in certain old dead
languages which few of the customers could read, were
translated into vulgar tongues, which all could read or
understand when read, and everyone began studying
them for himself. This thinking of essentials, which,
is so rare a thought among mankind, has already pro
duced remarkable effects, and promises to produce
effects yet more remarkable in a short time.
Behold a few of the-questions which this study of the
first documents has raised.—The Father, whom no one
has seen, is there indeed such a personage ? The Son,
whom certainly no one has seen for eighteen hundred
years, did he really come to life again after being
brutally murdered ? The junior partner, whom no one
has ever seen, the Comforter, is he a comforter made of
the wool of a sheep that never was fleeced ? Th©
business, as we see it, merely uses the names, and
would be precisely the same business if these names
covered no personages. Do the managers and sub
managers really carry it on for their own profit, using
these high names to give dignity to their rascality, and
B
�18
Satires and Profanities.
to make poor people believe that they have unbounded
capital at their back ? One is punished for defamation
of character if he denies the existence of the partners,
yet not the very chief of all the managers pretends to
have seen any of the three !
And the vaunted Bread of Life, wherein does it
differ from the old corn-of-Ceres bread, from the baking
of the wheat of Mother Hertha ? Chiefly in this, that
it creates much more wind on the stomach. It is not
more wholesome, nor more nourishing, and certainly
not more cheap ; and it does us little good to be told
that it would be if the accredited agents were honest
and supplied it pure, when we are told, at the same
time, that we must get it through these agents. It is
indeed affirmed that, in an utterly unknown region
beyond the Black Sea, the genuine wheat may be seen
growing by anyone who discovers the place ; but, as
no one who ever crossed the sea on a voyage of
discovery ever returned, the assertion rests on the bare
word of people who have never seen the corn-land any
more than they have seen the partners of the firm ;
and their word is bare indeed, for it has been stripped
to shame in a thousand affairs wherein it could be
brought to the test. They tell us also that we shall all
in time cross the Black Sea, and if we have been good
customers shall dwell evermore in that delightful land,
with unlimited supplies of the bread gratis. This may
be true, but how do they know ? It may be true that
in the sea we shall all get drowned for ever.
These and similar doubts which, in many minds, have
hardened into positive disbelief, are beginning to affect
seriously the trade of the firm. But its interests are
now so inextricably bound up with the interests of
thousands and millions of well-to-do and respectable
people, and on its solvency or apparent solvency depends
that of so large a number of esteemed merchants, that
we may expect the most desperate struggles to postpone
its final bankruptcy. In the great Roman establish
ment the manager has been supported for many years
by charitable contributions from every one whom he
could persuade to give or lend, and now he wants to
borrow much more. The superintendent of the shops
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
19
in London is in these days begging for ten hundred
thousand pounds to assist the poor firm in its difficulties.
It seems a good sum of money ; but, bless you, it is but
a drop in the sea compared with what the business has
already absorbed, and is still absorbing. Scattered
shops in the most distant countries have only been sus
tained for many years by alms from customers here.
The barbarians won’t eat the bread, but the bakers sent
out must have their salaries. A million of pounds are
being begged here ; and people (who would prosecute a
mendicant of halfpence) will give it no doubt! Yet, 0
worthy manager of the London Shops, one proved loaf
of the real Bread would be infinitely more valuable,
and would infinitely more benefit your firm ! The
villainy of the agents was monstrous, generation after
generation, the cost of that which was promised without
money and without price was ruinous for centuries ; but
not all the villainy and extortion multiplied a hundred
fold could drive away the poor hungry customers while
they had faith in the genuineness of the bread. It was
the emptiness and the wind on the stomach after much
eating, which raised the fatal doubts as to the bona fides
of the whole concern. The great English managers
had better ponder this ; for at present they grope in
the dark delusion that more and better bakers salaried
with alms, and new shops opened with eleemosynary
funds, will bring customers to buy their bran cakes as
wheaten loaves. A very dark delusion, indeed ! If
the pure promised bread cannot be supplied, no amount
of money will keep the business going very long. Con
sider what millions on millions of pounds have been
subscribed already, what royal revenues are pouring in
still; all meant for investment in wholesome and
nourishing food, but nearly all realised in hunger and
emptiness, heartburn and flatulence. The old Roman
shrewdly calculated that the House of Olympus would
prove miserably insolvent if its affairs were wound up,
if it tried honestly to pay back all the deposits of its
customers. As for this more modern firm, one suspects
that, in like case, it would prove so insolvent that it
could not pay a farthing in the pound. For Olympus
was a house that dealt largely in common worldly
�20
Satires and Profanities.
goods, and of these things really did give a considerable
quantity to its clients for their money ; but the new
firm professed to sell things infinitely more valuable,
and of these it cannot prove the delivery of a single
parcel during the eighteen hundred years it has been
receiving purchase-money unlimited.
The humble compiler of this rapid and imperfect
summary ought, perhaps, to give his own opinion of the
firm and the partners, although he suffers under the
disadvantage of caring very little for the business, and
thinks that far too much time is wasted by both the
friends and the enemies of the house in investigation
of every line and figure in its books. He believes that
Jah, the grand Jewish dealer, was a succession of
several distinct personages ; and will probably continue
to believe thus until he learns that there was but one
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, but one Bourbon, King of
France, and that the House of Rothschild has always
been one and the same man. He believes that the Son
was by no means the child of the Father, that he was
a much better character than the Father, that he was
really and truly murdered, that his prospectus and
business plans were very much more wise and honest
and good than the prospectus as we have it now, and
the system as it has actually been worked. He believes
that the Comforter has really had a share in this as in
every other business not wholly bad in the world, that
he has never identified his interests with those of any
firm, that specially he never committed himself to a
partnership of unlimited liability with the Hebrew Jah,
that he undoubtedly had extensive dealings with the
Son, and placed implicit confidence in him while a
living man, and that he will continue to deal profitably
and bountifully with men long after the firm has
become bankrupt and extinct. He believes that the
corn of the true bread of life is sown and grown,
reaped, ground, kneaded, baked and eaten on this side
of the Black Sea. He believes that no firm or company
whatever, with limited or unlimited liability, has the
monopoly for the purveyance of this bread, that no
charters can confer such monopoly, that the bread is
only to be got pure by each individual for himself, and
�Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm.
21
that no two individuals of judgment really like it pre
pared in exactly the same fashion, but that unfor
tunately (as his experience compels him to believe)
the bulk of mankind will always in the future, no less
than in the past, persist in endeavoring to procure it
through great chartered companies.
Finally, he
believes that the worthy chief baker in London with
his million of money is extremely like the worthy
Mrs. Partington with her mop against the Atlantic.
Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
Top of Pike’s Peak, March Mh, 1873.
Honored with your special commission, I at once
hurried across to Denver, and thence still westward
until I found myself among the big vertebrae of this
longish backbone of America. I have wandered to and
fro among the new cities, the advanced camps of civili
sation, always carefully reticent as to my mission,
always carefully inquiring into the state of religion
both in doctrine and practice. You were so hopeful
that high Freethought would be found revelling trium
phant in these high free regions, that I fear you will be
acutely pained by this my true report. Churches and
chapels of all kinds abound—Episcopalian, Methodist
Episcopal (for the Methodists here have bishops), Pres
byterian, Baptist, Congregational, Roman Catholic, etc.
Zeal inflaming my courage, three and even four times
have I ventured into a Church, each time enduring the
whole service ; and if I have not ventured oftener, cer
tainly I had more than sufficient cause to abstain. For
�22
Satires and Profanities.
as I suffered in my few visits to churches in your Eng
land, so I suffered here ; and such sufferings are too
dreadful to be frequently encountered, even by the
bravest of the brave. Whether my sensations in church
are similar to those of others, or are peculiar to myself,
I cannot be sure; but I am quite sure that they are
excruciating. On first entering I may feel calm,
wakeful, sane, and not uncomfortable, except that here
I rather regret being shut in from the pure air and
splendid sky, and in England rather regret having come
out through the raw, damp murk, and in both regret
that civilisation has not yet established smoking-pews ;
but the Church is always behind the age. It is pleasant
for awhile to note the well-dressed people seated or
entering ; the men with unctuous hair and somewhat
wooden decorum ; the women floating more at ease,
suavely conscious of their fine inward and outward
adornments. It is pleasant to keep a hopeful look-out
for some one of more than common beauty or grace,
and to watch such a one if discovered. As the service
begins, and the old, old words and phrases come floating
around me, I am lulled into quaint dream-memories of
childhood ; the long unthought-of school-mates, the
surreptitious sweetstuff, the manifold tricks and
smothered laughter, by whose aid (together with total
inattention to the service, except to mark and learn the
text) one managed to survive the ordeal. The singing
also is pleasant, and lulls me into vaguer dreams.
Gradually, as the service proceeds, I become more
drowsy ; my small faculties are drugged into quiet
slumber, they feel themselves off duty, there is nothing
for which they need keep awake. But, with the com
mencement of the sermon, new and alarming symptoms
arise within me, growing ever worse and worse until
the close. Pleasure departs with tranquillity, the irrita
tion of revolt and passive helplessness is acute. I cannot
find relief in toffy, or in fun with my neighbors, as
when I was a happy child. The old stereotyped phrases,
the immemorial platitudes, the often-killed sophistries
that never die, come buzzing and droning about me
like a sluggish swarm of wasps, whose slow deliberate
stinging is more hard to bear than the quick keen
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
23
stinging of anger. Then the wasps, penetrating through
my ears, swarm inside me ; there is a horrid buzzing in
my brain, a portentous humming in my breast ; my
small faculties are speedily routed, and disperse in blind
anguish, the implacable wasps droning out and away
after them, and I am left void, void ; with hollow skull,
empty heart, and a mortal sinking of stomach ; my
whole being is but a thin shell charged with vacuity
and desperate craving ; I expect every instant to col
lapse or explode. It is but too certain that if anyone
should then come to lead me off to an asylum for idiots,
or a Young Men’s Christian Association, or any similar
institution, I could not utter a single rational word to
save myself. And though all my faculties have left
me, I cannot attempt to leave the church ; decorum,
rigid and frigid, freezes me to my seat ; I stare stonily
in unimaginable torture, feebly wondering whether the
sermon will outlast my sanity, or my sanity outlast the
sermon. When at length released, I am so utterly
demoralised that I can but smoke furiously, pour much
beer and cram much dinner into my hollowness, and
so with swinish dozing hope to feel better by tea-time.
Now, though in order to fulfil the great duties you
entrust to me, I have cheerfully dared the Atlantic,
and spent long days and perilous nights in railroad cars,
and would of course (were it indeed necessary) face
unappalled mere physical death and destruction, I
really could not go on risking, with the certainty of
ere long losing, my whole small stock of brains ; espe
cially as the loss of these would probably rather hinder
than further the performance of the said duties. For
suppose me reduced to permanent idiocy by church
going, become a mere brazen hollowness with a riotous
tongue like Cowper’s church-going bell ; is it not most
likely that I would then turn true believer, renouncing
and denouncing your noble commission, even as you
would renounce and denounce your imbecile commis
sioner ?
Finding that I could not pursue my inquiries in the
churches and chapels, I was much grieved and per
plexed, until one of those thoughts occurred to me
which are always welcome and persuasive, because ill
�24
Satires and Profanities.
exact agreement with our own desires or necessities.
I thought of what I had remarked when visiting your
England : how the churches and chapels and lecture
halls, each sect thundering more or less terribly against
all the others, made one guess that the people were
more disputatious than pious ; how one became con
vinced, in spite of his infidel reluctance, that the people
were indeed, as a rule, thoroughly and genuinely
religious, by mingling freely with them in their com
mon daily and nightly life. I asked myself, What really
proved to me the pervading Christianity of England ?
the sermons, the tracts, the clerical lectures, the mis
sionary meetings ? the cathedrals and other theatres
and music-halls crowded with worshippers on Sunday,
while the museums and other public-houses were empty
and shut? No, scarcely these things ; but the grand
princeliness of the princes, the true nobleness of the
nobles, the lowliness of the bishops, the sanctity of the
clergy, the honesty of the merchants, the veracity of
the shopkeepers, the sobriety and thrift of the artisans,
the independence and intelligence of the rustics ; the
general faith and hope and love which brightened the
sunless days, the general temperance and chastity which
made beautiful the sombre nights ; the almost universal
abhorrence of the world, the flesh, and the Devil ; the
almost universal devotion to heaven, the spirit, and God.
I thereupon determined to study the religion out
here, even as I had studied it in England, in the ordinary
public and private life of the people ; and you will
doubtless be sorely afflicted to learn that I have found
everywhere much the same signs of genuine, practical
Christianity as are so common and patent in the old
country. The ranchmen have sown the good seed, and
shall reap the harvest of heavenly felicity ; the stockmen will surely be corraled with the sheep, and not
among the goats, at the last day ; not to gain the whole
world would the storekeepers lose their own souls ; the
pioneers have found the narrow way which leadeth unto
life ; the fishermen are true disciples, the trappers catch
Satan in his own snares, the hunters are mighty before
the Lord; bright are the celestial prospects of the
prospectors, and the miners are all stoping-out that
�Religion in the Boclcy Mountains.
25
hidden treasure which is richer than silver and much
dine gold. As compared with the English, these
Western men are perchance inferior in two important
points of Christian sentiment; they probably do not
fear God, being little given to fear anyone ; they cer
tainly do not honor the king, perhaps because they
unfortunately have none to honor. On the other
hand, as I have been assured by many persons from
the States, and the old country, they are even superior
to the English in one important point of Christian
conduct. Christ has promised that in discharging the
damned to hell at the Day of Judgment, he will fling
.at them this among other reproaches, “ I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in ” ; and this particular rebuke
seems to have wrought a peculiarly deep impression in
these men perhaps because they have much more to
do with strangers than have people ih the old settled
countries, so much, indeed, that the wrord “ stranger
is continually in their mouths. The result is (as the
said persons from England and the States have often
solemnly assured me) that any and every stranger
arriving in these regions is most thoroughly, most
beautifully, most religiously taken in. So that should
any of these fine fellows by evil hap be among the
accursed multitude whom Christ thus addresses, they
will undoubtedly retort in their frank fashion of
•speech : “ Wall, boss, it may be right to give us hell
on other counts, but you say you was a stranger and
we' didn’t take you in. What we want to know is,
Did you ever come to our parts to trade in mines or
stock or sich ? If you didn't, how the Devil could we
take you in ? if you did, it’s a darned lie, and an insult
to our understanding to say we didn't."
But though the practical life out here is so veritably
'Christian, you still hope that at any rate the creeds and
doctrines are considerably heterodox. I am sincerely
sorry to be obliged to destroy this hope. In the ordinary
-talk of the men continually recur the same or almost
the same expressions and implications of orthodox
belief, as are so common in your England, and
throughout Christendom. Why such formulas are
.generally used by men onlj, I have often been puzzled
�26
Satires and Profanities.
to explain ; it may be that the women, who in all lands
attend divine service much more than do the men, find
ample expression of their faith in the set times and
places of public worship and private prayer ; while
the men, less methodical, and demanding liberal scope,
give it robust utterance whenever and wherever they
choose. These formulas, as you must have often
remarked, are most weighty and energetic ; they avouch
and avow the supreme personages and mysteries and
dogmas of their religion ; they are usually but brief
ejaculations, in strong contrast to those long prayers of
the Pharisees which Jesus laughed to scorn ; and they
are often so superfluous as regards the mere worldly
meaning of the sentences in which they appear, that it
is evident they have been interjected simply to satisfy
the pious ardor of the speaker, burning to proclaim in
season and out of season the cardinal principles of his
faith. I say speaker, and not writer, because writing,
being comparatively cold and deliberate, seldom flames
out in these sharp swift flashes, that leap from living
lips touched with coals of fire from the altar.
I am aware that these fervid ejaculations are apt tobe regarded by the light-minded as trivial, by the coldhearted as indecorous, by the sanctimonious as even
profane ; but to the true philosopher, whether he be
religious or not, they are pregnant with grave signi
ficance. For do not these irrepressible utterances burst
forth from the very depths of the profound heart of
the people ? Are they not just as spontaneous and
universal as is the belief in God itself ? Are they not
among the most genuine and impassioned words of man
kind ? Have they not a primordial vigor and vitality ?
Are they not supremely of that voice of the people which
has been well called the voice of God ? Thus when your
Englishman instead of “ Strange !” says “ The Devil !”
instead of “Wonderful!” cries “Good Heavens!” instead
of “ How startling !” exclaims “ 0 Christ 1” he does
more than merely express his emotions, his surprise, his
wonder, his amaze ; he hallows it to the assertion of
his belief in Satan, in the good kingdom of God, in
Jesus; and, moreover, by the emotional gradation
ranks with perfect accuracy the Devil lowest in the
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains,
27
scale, the heavens higher, Christ the loftiest. When
another shouts “ God damn you ! he not only con
demns the evil of the person addressed ; he also takes
occasion to avow his own strong faith in God and
God’s judgment of sinners. Similarly
God bless
you
implies that there is a God, and that from him
all blessings flow. How vividly does the vulgar
hyperbole “ Infernally hot,” prove the general belief
in hell-fire? And the phrase “God knows! not
merely declares that the subject is beyond human
knowledge, but also that an all-wise God exists. Here
in the West, as before stated, such brief expressions
of faith, which are so much more sincere than. long
formularies repeated by rote in church, are quite as
common as in your England. When one has sharply
rebuked or punished another, he says, “ 1 gave him
hell.” And that this belief in future punishment per
vades all classes is proved by the fact that even a
profane editor speaks of it as a matter of course. lor
the thermometer having been stolen from his sanctum,
the said worthy editor announced that the .mean cuss
who took it might as well bring or send it back (no
questions asked) for it could not be of any use to him
in the place he was going to, as it only registered up
to 212 degrees. The old notion that hell or Hades is
located in the middle of the earth (which may have a
scientific solution in the Plutonic theory that we dwell
on the crust of a baked dumpling full of fusion and
confusion) is obviously tallied by the miner s assertion
that his vein was true-fissure, reaching from the grass
roots down to hell. The frequent phrase A Go damned liar,” “A God-damned thief,” recognises God
as the punisher of the wicked. I have heard a man
complain of an ungodly headache, implying first, theexistence of God, and secondly, the fact that the God1 Is it not time that we wrote such words as this damn at lull
length, as did Emily Bronte, the Titaness, whom Charlotte just y
vindicates in this as in other respects; instead of putting oni y
initial and final letters, with a hypocritical fig-leaf dash m the
middle, drawing particular attention to what it affects to conceal ? These words are in all men’s mouths, and many ot
em
are emphatically the leading words of the Bible.
�58
Satires and Profanities.
head does not ache, or in other words is perfect.
Countless other phrases of this kind might be alleged,
a few of them astonishingly vigorous and racy, for new
countries breed lusty new forms of speech ; but the
few already given suffice for my present purpose. One
remarkable comparison, however, k cannot pass over
without a word : it is common to say of a man who has
too much self-esteem, He thinks himself a little tin
Jesus on wheels. It is clear that some profound sug
gestion, some sacrosanct mystery, must underlie this
bold locution ; but what I have been hitherto unable
to find out. The connection between Jesus and tin
may seem obvious to such as know anything of bishops
and pluralists, pious bankers and traders. But what
about the wheels ? Have they any relation to the
opening chapter of Ezekiel ? It is much to be wished
that Max Muller, and all other such great scholars, who
(as I am informed, for it’s not I that would presume to
study them myself) manage to extract whatever noble
mythological meanings they want, from unintelligible
Oriental metaphors and broken phrases many thousand
years old, would give a few years of their superfluous
time to the interpretation of this holy riddle. Do not,
gentlemen, do not by all that is mysterious, leave it to
the scholars of millenniums to come ; proceed to probe
and analyse and turn it inside out at once, while it is
still young and flourishing, while the genius who
invented it is still probably alive, if he deceased not in
his boots, as decease so many gallant pioneers.
And here, before afflicting you further, 0 muchenduring editor, let me soothe you a little by stating
that some particles of heresy, some few heretics, are to
be found even here. I have learned that into a very
good and respectable bookstore in a city of these
regions, certain copies of Taylor’s Diegesis have pene
trated, who can say how ? and that some of these have
been sold. A living judge has been heard to declare
that he couldn’t believe at all in the Holy Ghost outfit.
It has also been told me of a man who must have held
strange opinions as to the offspring of God the Father,
though certainly this man was not a representative
pioneer, being but a German miner, fresh from the
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
29“
States. This Dutchman (all Germans here are Dutch,
doubtless from Deutsche, the special claims of the
Hollanders being ignored) was asked solemnly by a
clergyman, “ WIio died to save sinners ?” and answered
“Gott.” “What,” said the pained and pious pastor,
“Don’t you know that it was Jesus the Son of God ?”
“ Ah,” returned placidly the Dutchman, “ it vass one
of te boys, vass it ? I always dought it vass te olt man
himselben.” This good German may have been misled
by the mention of the sons of God early in Genesis,
yet it is strange that he knew not that Jesus is the only
son of God, and our Savior. A story is moreover told
of two persons, of whom the one boasted rather too
often that he was a self-made man, and the other at
length quietly remarked that he was quite glad to hear
it, as it cleared God from the responsibility of a darned
mean bit of work. Whence some have inferred the
heresy that God is the creator of only a part of the
universe, but I frankly confess that in my own opinion
the reply was merely a playful sarcasm.
The most decided heresy which has come under my
own observation was developed in the course of a chat
between two miners in a lager-beer saloon and billiardhall ; into the which, it need scarcely be remarked, I
was myself solely driven by the fierce determination
to carry out my inquiries thoroughly. Bill was
smoking, Dick was chewing ; and they stood up
together, at rather rapidly decreasing intervals, for
drinks of such “fine old Bourbon” rye whiskey as
bears the honorable popular title of rot-gut. The fre
quency with which the drinking of alcoholic liquors
leads to impassioned and elevated discussion of great
problems in politics, history, dog-breeding, horse
racing, moral philosophy, religion and kindred
important subjects, seems to furnish a strong and
hitherto neglected argument against teetotalism. There
are countless men who can only be stimulated to a
lively and outspoken interest in intellectual questions
by a series of convivial glasses and meditative whiffs.
If such men really take any interest in such questions
at other times, it remains deplorably latent, not exer
cising its legitimate influence on the public opinion of
�.'30
Satires and Profanities.
the world. Our two boys were discussing theology ;
and having had many drinks, grappled with the doctrine
of the triune God. “ Wall,” said Bill, “ I can’t make
out that trinity consarn, that three’s one and one’s three
outfit.” Whereto Dick : “ Is that so ? Then you
warn’t rigged out for a philosopher, Bill. Look here,”
pulling forth his revolver, an action which caused a
•slight stir in the saloon, till the other boys saw that he
didn’t mean business ; “ look here, I’ll soon fix it up
for you. Here’s six chambers, but it’s only one pistol,
with one heft and one barrel; the heft for us to catch
hold of, the barrel to kill our enemy. Wall, God
a’mighty’s jest made hisself a three-shooter, while he
remains one God; but the Devil, he’s only a single-shot
derringer : so God can have three fires at the Devil for
one the Devil can have at him. Now can’t you figure
it out ?” “ Wall,” said Bill, evidently staggered by
the revolver, and feeling, if possible, increased respect
for that instrument on finding it could be brought to
bear toward settlement of even such a difficulty as the
present; “Wall, that pans out better than I thought
it could : but to come down to the bed-rock, either
God's a poor mean shot or his piece carries darned
light ; for I reckon the Devil makes better play
with his one chamber than God with his three.”
“ Maybe,” replied Dick, with calm candor, strangely
indifferent to the appalling prospects this theory held
out for our universe ; “ some of them pesky little
things jest shoot peas that rile the other fellow without
much hurting him, and then, by thunder, he lets day
light through you with one good ball. Besides, it’s
likely enough the Devil’s the best shot, for he’s been
consarned in a devilish heap of shooting more than
God has ; at any rate”—perchance vaguely remember
ing to have heard of such things as “ religious wars ”—
“ of late years, between here and ’Frisco. Wall, I
guess I don’t run the creation. Let’s liquor
mani
festly deriving much comfort from the consciousness
that he had no hand in conducting this world. Bill
acquiesced with a brief “ Ja,” and they stood up for
another drink. I am bound to attest that, in spite or
because of the drinks, they had argued throughout
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
31
-with the utmost deliberation and gravity, with a
dignified demeanor which Bishops and D.Ds. might
■envy, and ought to emulate.
Having thus comforted you with what little of heresy
and infidelity I have been able to gather, it is now my
painful duty to advance another class of proofs of the
general religiousness here ; a class of which you have
very few current specimens in England, unless it be
among the Roman Catholic. All comparative mythologists—indeed, all students of history—are said to
agree that the popular legends and myths of any race
at any time are of the utmost value, as showing what
the race then believed, and thus determining its moral
and intellectual condition at that period ; this value
being quite irrespective of the truth or untruth to fact
■of the said legends. Hence in modern times collections
of old traditions and fairy tales have been excellently
well received, whether from the infantile literature of
ancient peoples, as the Oriental and Norse, or from the
■senile and anile lips of secluded members of tribes
whose nationality is fast dying out, as the Gaelic and
Welsh. And truly such collections commend them
selves alike to the grave and the frivolous, for the
scientific scholar finds in them rich materials for
•serious study, and the mere novel-reader can flatter
himself that he is studying while simply enjoying
strange stories become new from extreme old age. All
primitive peoples, who read and write little, have their
most popular beliefs fluidly embodied in oral legends
and myths ; and in this respect the settlers of a new
region, though they may come from the oldest countries,
resemble the primitive peoples. They are too busy
with the tough work of subduing the earth to give
much time to writing or reading anything beyond their
local newspapers ; they love to chat together when not
working, and chat, much more than writing, runs into
stories. Thus religious legends in great numbers circu
late out here, all charged and surcharged with faith in
the mythology of the Bible. Of these it has been my
sad privilege to listen to not a few. As this letter is
already too long for your paper, though very brief for
the importance of its theme, I will subjoin but a couple
�32
Satires and Profanities.
of them, which I doubt not will be quite enough to
indicate what measureless superstition prevails in
these youngest territories of the free and enlightened
Republic.
It is told—on what authority no one asks, the legend
being universally accepted on its intrinsic merits, as.
Protestants would have us accept the Bible, and Papists
their copious hagiology—that St. Joseph, the putative
father of oui’ Lord, fell into bad habits, slipping almost
daily out of Heaven into evil society, coming home
very late at night and always more or less intoxicated.
It is suggested that he may have been driven into these
courses by unhappiness in his connubial and parental
relations, his wife and her child being ranked so much
above himself by the Christian world, and the latter
being quite openly attributed to another father. Peter,
though very irascible, put up with his misconduct for
a long time, not liking to be harsh to one of the Royal
Family ; and it is believed that God the Father sym
pathised with this poor old Joseph, and protected him,
being himself jealous of the vastly superior popularity
of Mary and Jesus. But at length, after catching a
violent cold through getting out’ of bed at a prepos
terous hour to let the staggering Joseph in, Peter told
him roundly that if he didn’t come home sober and in
good time, he must just stay out all night. Joseph,
feeling sick and having lost his pile, promised amend
ment, and for a time kept his word. Then he relapsed
the heavenly life proved too slow for him, the continual
howling of “all the menagerie of the Apocalypse”
shattered his nerves, he was disgusted at his own
insignificance, the memory of the liaison between his
betrothed and the Holy Ghost filled him with gall and
wormwood, and perhaps he suspected that it was still
kept up. So, late one night or early one morning,.
Peter was roused from sleep by an irregular knocking
and fumbling at the gate, as if some stupid dumb
animal w.ere seeking admittance. “Who’s there?”
growled Peter. “ It’s me—Joseph,” hiccoughed the
unfortunate. “You’re drunk,” said Peter, savagely.
“ You’re on the tear again ; you’re having another
bender.” “Yes,” answered Joseph, meekly. “Wall,”
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
33
said Peter, “you jest go back to where you come from
and spend the night there; get.” “I can’t,” said
Joseph. “They’re all shut up; they’ve turned me
out.” “ Then sleep outside in the open air ; it’s whole
some, and will bring you round,” said Peter. After
much vain coaxing and supplicating, old Joe got quite
mad, and roared out, “ If you don’t get up and let me
in at once, by God I’ll take my son out of the outfit
and bust up the whole consarn!” Peter, terrified by
this threat, which, if carried out, would ruin his pro
spects in eternal life by abolishing his office of celestial
porter, caved in, getting up and admitting Joseph, who
ever since, has had a latch-key that he may go and
come when he pleases. It is to be hoped that he will
never when tight let this latch-key be stolen by one of
the little devils who are always lurking about the
haunts of dissipation he frequents ; for in that case the
consequences might be awful as can be readily imagined.
Again it is told that a certain miner, a tough cuss,
who could whip his weight in wild cats and give points
to a grizzle, seemed uncommonly moody and lowspirited one morning, and on being questioned by his
chum, at length confessed that he was bothered by a
very queer dream. “ I dreamt that I was dead,” he
explained ; “ and a smart spry pretty little angel took
me up to heaven.” “Dreams go by contraries,” sug
gested the chum, by way of comfort. “ Let that slide,”
answered the dreamer ; “ the point isn’t there. Wall,
St.. Peter wasn’t at the gate, and the angel critter led
me on to pay my respects to the boss, and after travelling
considerable we found him as thus. God the Father,
God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and Peter, all as large
as life, were playing a high-toned game of poker, and
there was four heavy piles on the table—gold, not shin
plasters, you bet. I was kinder glad to see that they
played poker up in heaven, so as to make life there not
onbearable ; for *it would be but poor fun singing
psalms all day ; I was never much of a hand at singing,
more particularly when the songs is psalms. Wall, we
waited, not liking to disturb their game, and I watched
the play. I soon found that Jesus Christ was going
through the rest, cheating worse than the heathen
C
�34
Satires and Profanities.
Chinee at euchre ; but of course I didn’t say nothing,
not being in the game. After a while Peter showed
that he began to guess it to, if he wasn’t quite sure ; or
p’raps he was skeared at up and telling Christ to his
face. At last, however, what does Christ do, after a
bully bluff which ran Pete almost to his bottom, dollar,
but up and show five aces to Pete’s call; and ‘ What’s
that for high ?’ says he, quite cool. ‘ Now look you,
Christ,’ shouts Pete, jumping up as mad as thunder, and
not caring a cent or a continental what he said to any
body ; ‘ look you, Christ, that’s too thin ; we don’t want
any of your darned miracles here !’ and with that he
grabbed up his pile and all his stakes, and went off in a
mighty huff. Christ looked pretty mean, I tell you, and
the game was up. Now you see,” said the dreamer, sadly
and thoughtfully, “ it’s a hard rock to drill and darned poor
pay at that, if when you have a quiet hand at poker up
there, the bosses are allowed to cheat and a man can’t
use his deringer or put a head on ’em ; I don’t know
but I’d rather go to the other place on those terms.”
Not yet to be read in books, as I have intimated, but
circulating orally, and in versions that vary with the
various rhapsodists, such are the legends you may hear
when a ring is formed round the hotel-office stove at
night, in shanties and shebangs of ranchmen and
miners, in the shingled offices of judge and doctor, in
railroad cars and steamboats, or when bumming around
the stores ; whenever and wherever, in short, men are
gathered with nothing particular to do. The very
naivete of such stories surely testifies to the child-like
sincerity of the faith they express and nourish. It is
the simple unbounded faith of the Middle Ages, such
as we find in the old European legends and poems and
mysteries, such as your poetess Mrs. Browning well
marks in Chaucer—
“ the infantine
Familiar clasp of things divine.”
Many of the so-called Liberal clergy complain of the
gulf which yawns in this age of materialistic science
between religion and every-day life, this world and the
next, heaven and earth, God and man. The higher
things are treated as mere thin abstractions, they say ;
�Religion in the Rocky Mountains.
35
and only the lower things are recognised as real. These
pious pioneers, in the freshness and wonderfulness of
their new life, overleap this gulf without an effort,
realising heaven as thoroughly as earth. How could
the communion and the human nature of saints be
better exhibited than in St. Joseph falling into dissipa
tion and St. Peter playing poker ? How could the
manhood as well as the Godhead of Jesus Christ be
more familiarly brought home to us than by his taking
a hand at this game and then miraculously cheating.
When generations have passed away, if not earlier, such
legends as these will assuredly be gathered by earnest
and reverent students as quite invaluable historical
relics. They must fill the Christian soul with delight;
they must harrow the heart of him who hath said in
his heart, There is no God.
In conclusion, I must again express my deep regret
at being forced by the spirit of truth to give you so
favorable an account of the state of religion out here,
both in creed and practice. I trust that you will lose
no time and spare no exertion in attacking, and if pos
sible, routing out the Christianity now entrenched in
these great natural fortresses. Be your war-cry that
of the first pioneers, “ Pike’s Peak or bust ” ; and be
not like unto him found teamless half-way across the
plains, with the confession on his waggon-tilt, “ Busted,
by thunder.” For you can come right out here by
railroad now. As for myself, I climbed wearily and
with mortal pantings unto the top of this great moun
tain, thinking it one of the best coigns of vantage
whence to command a comprehensive view of the
sphere of my inquiries, and also a spot where one
might write without being interrupted or overlooked
by loafers. Unfortunately I have not been able to dis
cover any special religious or irreligious phaenomena ;
for, though the prospect is indeed ample where not
intercepted by clouds or mist, very few of the people
and still fewer of their characteristics can be made out
distinctly even with a good glass. How I am to get
down and post this letter puzzles me. The descent
will be difficult, dangerous, perhaps deadly. Would
that I had not come up. After all there is some truth
�36
Satires and Profanities.
in the Gospel narrative of the Temptation : for by
studying the general course of ecclesiastical promotion
and the characters of the most eminent churchmen, I
was long since led to recognise that it is indeed Satan
who sets people on pinnacles of the temple ; and I am
now, moreover, thoroughly convinced that it is the
Devil and the Devil only that takes any one to the top
of an exceeding high mountain.
The Devil in the Church of England.
[Whitten
in
1876.]
The Judical Committee of the Privy Council has
delivered judgment in the case of Jenkins v. Cook.
Many of the highest personages in the realm, including
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the great law-lords,
were present to give weight and solemnity to the
decision, which was read by the Lord Chancellor. It
was reported at full length in the Times of the follow
ing day, Feb. 17, 1876, the length being two columns
of small print.
I must try to indicate briefly the main facts of the
case, before hazarding any comments on it. Mr. Jen
kins, of Christ Church, Clifton, brought an action
against his vicar, the Rev. Flavel S. Cook, for refusing
him the Sacrament of the Holy Communion. Mr.
Cook justified the refusal on the ground that Mr. Jen
kins did not believe in the Devil, all passages relating
to the Devil and evil spirits having been excluded from
a bulky volume published by Mr. Jenkins, entitled
Selections from the Old and New Testaments. By
�The Devil in the Church of England.
37
the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins, who attempted an amic
able arrangement, it appears that Mr. Cook said to her :
“Let Mr. Jenkins write me a calm letter, and say he
believes in the Devil, and I will give him the Sacra
ment.” Whereupon Mr. Jenkins wrote on July 20,
1874: “With regard to my book, Selections from the
Old and New Testaments, the parts I have omitted,
and which has enabled me [[meaning, doubtless, and
the omission of which has enabled mej to use the book
morning and evening in my family are, in their present
generally received sense, quite incompatible with
religion or decency (in my opinion). How such ideas
have become connected with a book containing every
thing that is necessary for a man to know, I really
cannot say ; I can only sincerely regret it.” Mr. Cook
replied in effect: “ Then you cannot be received at
the Lord’s table in my church.” Mr. Jenkins, a
regular communicant, and admittedly a man of exem
plary and devout life, answered: “ Thinking as you do,
I do not see what other course you could consistently
have taken. I shall, nevertheless, come to the Lord’s
table as usual at ‘your’ church, which is also mine.”
Accordingly he presented himself, and was repelled,
whereupon he brought an action against Mr. Cook.
The case was first tried in the Court of Arches, and
the dean dismissed the suit and condemned Mr. Jen
kins in costs, saying, “ I am of opinion that the avowed
and persistent denial of the existence and personality
of the Devil did, according to the law of the Church,
as expressed in her canons and rubrics, constitute the
promoter [Mr. JenkinsJ ‘ an evil liver, and ‘ a depraver
of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of
the Sacraments,’ in such sense as to warrant the defen
dant in refusing to administer the Holy Communion to
him until he disavowed or withdrew his avowal of the
heretical opinion, and that the same consideration
applies to the absolute denial by the promoter of the
doctrine of the eternity of punishment, and, of course,
still more to the denial of all punishment for sin in a
future state, which is the legitimate consequence of
his deliberate exclusion of the passages of scripture
referring to such punishment.”
�38
Satires and Profanities.
So far, so well; the Church of England was assured
of the Devil and the eternal punishment it has always
held so dear. But Mr. Jenkins appealed to the highest
court, and this has reversed the decision of the lower,
admonished Mr. Cook for his conduct in the past,
monished him to refrain from the like offence in
future, and condemned him in the costs of both suits.
Do you think, then, that the Church of England is
authoritatively deprived of her dear Devil and her
beloved eternal punishment? Not at all ; the really
important problem is evaded with consummate lawyer
like wariness ; the points in dispute are most shiftily
shifted like slides of a magic lantern ; we have a new
decision essentially unrelated to that which it cancels ;
we have a judgment which concerns not the Devil—
except that he would chuckle over the too clever
unwisdom which fancies it can extinguish “ burning
questions ” with legal wigs.
Their most learned lordships in the first place
observe that the learned judge of the Court of Arches
appears to have considered that the canon and the
rubric severally warrant the repulsion from the Lord’s
table of “ an evil liver,” and “ a depraver of the Book
of Common Prayer,” whereas the terms are “ an open
and notorious evil liver,” and “ common and notorious
depravers.”
This is a most pregnant distinction,
teaching us that an evil liver and a depraver of the
said book, as long as he is not notoriously such, is fully
entitled to the Holy Communion, fully entitled to the
privilege of “ eating and drinking damnation to him
self
a privilege from which the notorious evil liver
and depraver is righteously debarred.
Now, their most learned lordships find that there is
absolutely no evidence that the appellant was an evil
liver, much less an open and notorious evil liver. The
question follows, Was he a common and notorious
depraver of the Book of Common Prayer ? It was
contended that the Selections, coupled with the letter
of July 20, proved him to be this. But the letter was
not written spontaneously. He was invited by the
respondent, Mr. Cook, to write it. It was a friendly
and private, as well as a solicited, communication.
�lhe Devil in the Church of England.
39
Therefore, whatever be the construction of the letter,
and even if there be in it a depravation of the Book of
Common Prayer, still it would be impossible to hold
that the writing of such a letter in such circumstances
could make the appellant “ a common and notorious
depraver.” Whence it is clear that a man may deprave
the Book of Common Prayer as much as he pleases m
private conversation and letters, yet retain the precious
privilege of “ eating and drinking damnation to him
self ” in the Holy Communion ; he can only forfeit
this by common and notorious depravation of that
blessed book—for instance, by a depravation repeatedly
published in a newspaper, or persistently proclaimed
by the town-crier.
So far the law seems most clear, and the judgment
quite incontestible. But leaving the strait limits of
the law, and looking at the facts in evidence, there is
one part of the judgment which to the common lay
mind is simply astonishing. Their most learned lord
ships “ desire to state in the most emphatic manner that
there is not before them any evidence that the appellant^
entertains the doctrines attributed to him by the Dean of
Archeswherefore their most learned and subtle
lordships “ do not mean to decide that those doctrines
are otherwise than inconsistent with the formularies of
the Church of England.” Nor, of course, do they mean
to decide that those doctrines are inconsistent with
those formularies. No, “ This is not the subject for
their lordships’ present consideration.” Indeed, “If
they were [Nad been ] called upon to decide that
[whether] those opinions, or any of them, could be
entertained or expressed by a member of the Church,
whether layman or clergyman, consistently with the
law and with his remaining in communion with the
Church, they would have looked upon this case with
much greater anxiety than they now feel in its
decision •
Mr. Jenkins compiles and publishes a book of
Selections from the Bible, carefully . excluding all
passages relating to the Devil and evil spirits. The
book is bulky ; and, in fact, though this is not expressly
stated, seems to contain pretty well all the Bible except
�40
Satires and Profanities.
such passages. He farther exhibits in the case a book
of selections from the liturgy of the Church of England,
apparently compiled on the same principle of exclusion.
Mr. Cook sends through Mrs. J. a message : “ Let
Mr. J. write me a calm letter, and say he believes in
the Devil and I will give him the Sacrament.” Mr. J.
replies, as we have seen, that the parts he has omitted
are, in his opinion, quite incompatible with religion
or decency, in their generally received sense; such
generally received sense being evidently (to all of us
save their most learned and subtle lordships) that in
which the Church of England receives them. Mr. C.
replies, “ Then I must refuse to you the Communion.”
Mr. J. answers, “ Thinking as you do, I do not see
what other course you could consistently have taken
and resolves to test the question of legality. With
these facts staring them in the face, their most learned
and most subtle lordships can, with the utmost
solemnity, and in the most emphatic manner, declare
that there is not any evidence before them that
Mr. Jenkins does not believe in the Devil in the com
mon Church of England sense ! What the eyes of
laymen, however purblind, cannot help seeing clearly,
their far-sighted lordships, putting on legal spectacles,
dim with the dust of many ages, manage not to discern
at all.
The question cannot be left thus undecided. As
matters stand, the poor Church does not know whether,
legally, it has a Devil or not. Its Devil, its dear and
precious old Devil, is in a state of suspended animation,
neither dead nor alive ; a most inefficient and burden
some Devil. He must either be restored to full health
and vigor, or buried away decently for ever ; decently
and solemnly, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the
presence of all their lordships of the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council, reading the appropriate
Church service over his grave. That would be touch
ing and impressive !—“ Forasmuch as it hath pleased
Almighty God (with the sanction and authority of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) of his great
mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother
here departed, we therefore commit his body to the
�The Devil in the Church of England.
41
ground ; earth, to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal
life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” At present it
appears that every clergyman and layman in the
Church has the legal right to sing as a solo in private,
especially if solicited, Beranger’s refrain, “ lhe Deml
is dead! The Devil is dead!" while it is doubtful
whether he is at liberty to chant it publicly and in
chorus—a state of things anomalous beyond even the
normal anomalism of all things in this our happy
England. It is urgent that some one, lay or cleric,
should compel the decision which the suit of Mr. Jen
kins has failed to obtain.
.
In considering the question whether disbelief m the
Devil would “deprave” the Prayer Book, we must
refer to this book itself. It contains three creeds—the
Apostles’, the Nicene, and that called of Athanasius.
Of these the Nicene (the creed in the Communion
Service, by the way) mentions neither the Devil nor
Hell; the Apostles’ and the so-called Athanasian men
tion Hell but not the Devil. In No. Ill of the Thirtynine Articles hell is solidly established, but again there
is no mention of the Devil. It may be argued that
hell implies the Devil, as a fox-hole implies a fox ; but
his existence is not authoritatively averred. . Strangely
enough, the only personage who, according to the
creeds and articles, has certainly been in hell, is Jesus
Christ himself : “ He descended into hell ; the third
day he rose again from the dead ; he ascended into
heaven.” What took him to hell ? The Prayer Book
does not inform us. But we learn from the Epistle
called 1 Peter, chap, iii., 19, 20, and chap, iv., 6_: f By
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is
eight souls, were saved by water. ... For this cause
was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the
flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Whence
it appears that the spirits in prison were not the Devil
and his angels, but the spirits of those who were
�42
Satires and Profanities.
drowned in the Flood for disobedience ; and it further
more appears that these spirits were saved by the
preaching of Christ ; so that in this famous harrying
of hell, he seems to have left it as empty as the moss
troopers in their forays left farmsteads. It is true
that No. VI. of the Articles settles the canon of the
Old and New Testaments, and that anyone daring to
exclude from belief anything in this canon might be
convicted of depraving the Prayer Book. But in that
case all the best scholars and divines of the Church are
guilty of this dreadful sin ; and not only guilty, but
openly, commonly and notoriously guilty ; and there
fore all merit repulsion from the Lord’s table. Let
the truly faithful clergy, those who believe all wuthout
question or distinction, do their duty to the Articles of
religion of their Church (the Creeds, as I have pointed
out, are neutral), and they will shut out from their
Communion nearly all the intelligent piety and learn
ing which lend it whatever dignity it still retains „
Granted the canon in its integrity, and the existence of
a personal Devil, and the doctrine of eternal punish
ment cannot be fairly disputed. Without multiplying
texts, I may refer to Revelation, chap, xx., as decisive
on these points.
From these considerations it follows that if the
Church of England is bound by her own articles she
will hold fast to the Devil and hell, and deny the
privilege of her Communion to any one who depraves
the Prayer Book by common and notorious disbelief
in them. And for my own part, I do not see how the
Church could get on at all without a Devil and hell,
especially in competition with the other Christian sects,
which make unlimited use of both. The Devil is in
fact as essential to the Christian scheme as a leader
of the opposition to that great political blessing,
government by party. If he were to die, or be deposed,
it would be necessary to elect another to the vacant
dignity. You cannot put the leadership in commission
as the unfortunate Liberals were taunted with doing
in their demoralisation after their disasters of the
General Election, and Mr. Gladstone’s sudden retire
ment. Just as Mr. Disraeli lamented the withdrawal
�The Devil in the Church of England.
43
of Mr. Gladstone, complaining of the embarrassment
caused to the Government by having no responsible
leader opposed to it, so we can imagine dear God
lamenting the absence of a Devil, and declaring that
the Christian scheme could not work well without one.
His utter loss would make the government of the
world retrograde from an admirably balanced consti
tutional monarchy to a mere Oriental absolute
despotism. You must choose some one to lead, if only
in name and for the time, as the Whigs chose Lord
Hartington. But though Lord Hartington is still
tolerated by us English, a Lord Hartington of a Devil,
be it said with all respect to both his lordship and his
Devilship, would scarcely be tolerated by either the
celestial or the infernal benches.
In Beranger’s authentic record, already alluded to, of
“ The Death of the Devil ’’—which, however, relates
only to the Church of Rome—we read how, on
learning the catastrophe :—
“ The conclave shook with mortal fear;
Power and cash-box, adieu! they said;
We have lost our father dear,
The Devil is dead ! the Devil is dead ! ”
But while they were in this passion of grief and
despair, St. Ignatius offered to take the place of the
dead Devil ; and none could doubt that he with his
Jesuits for imps would prove a most efficient substitute.
Wherefore the Church threw off its sorrow and
welcomed his offer with holy rapture :—
“ Noble fellow! cried all the court,
We bless thee for thy malice and hate.
And at once his Order, Rome’s support,
Saw its robes flutter Heaven’s gate.
Prom the Angels tears of pity fell:
Poor man will have cause to rue, they said;
St. Ignatius inherits Hell.
The Devil is dead! the Devil is dead.”
Thus matters continued well for the Church of Rome,
and, in fact, became even better than before. But if
the Devil should die in the Church of England, whom
has she that could efficiently take his place ? She has
no saints except the disciples and apostles of the New
�44
Satires and Profanities.
Testament, and these have long since gone to glory.
Would Mr. Gladstone undertake the office? or Mr'
Beresford Hope, with the Saturday Review for his
infernal gazette ? or the editor of the Rock ? or he of
the Church Times ? or the man who does religion for
the Daily Telegraph? Each of these distinguished
gentlemen might well eagerly accept the candidature
for a post so lofty : but I fear that none of them
could be considered equal to its functions. Perhaps
Mr. Disraeli has the requisite genius, and probably he
would be very glad to exchange the Premiership of
little England for that of large hell: but unfortunately
he has already committed himself to the side of the
angels, meaning by angels the humdrum Tory angels
of heaven—for, as Dr. Johnson said, the Devil was the
first Whig. On the whole, the Church of England had
better keep loyal to its ancient and venerable Devil,
being too impoverished in intellect and character to
supply a worthy successor.
■ I have ventured to compare the government of the
world in the Christian scheme, by a God and a Devil,
with our own felicitous government by party. There
is, however, or rather there appears to be, a striking
difference between the two. In our government, when
the Prime Minister finds himself decidedly in a minority,
he goes out of office, and the Leader of the Opposition
goes in; in the Government of the World the
Leader of the Opposition seems to have always had
an immense majority (and his majority in these days
is probably larger than ever before, seeing that
sceptics and infidels have multiplied exceedingly),
yet the other side is supposed to retain permanent
possession of office. I say “ supposed,” because the
Bible itself suggests that this popular opinion is a
mistake, the Devil (if there be a Devil) being entitled
by it the prince of this world, which surely implies his
accession to power.
Although the Godhead or governing power of the
world, according to the Christian scheme, is usually
spoken and written of as a trinity, it is in fact, qua
ternary oi’ fourfold fcr Protestants, and quinary or
fivefold for Roman Catholics. The former have God
�The Devil in the Church of England.
45
the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and
God the Devil; the latter supplement these with
Goddess the Virgin Mary. Both formally acknow
ledge the first three as collectively and severally
almighty, but Protestants implicitly acknowledge the
fourth, and Roman Catholics the fifth, as more almighty
still (these solecisms of dogma cannot be expressed
without solecisms of language.) With the Roman
Catholics I am not concerned here. With regard to
the Protestants, and those especially professing the
Protestantism of the Church of England, I may safely
affirm that the Devil is not less essential to their
theology than is any person of the Trinity, or, in fact,
than are the three persons together. Indeed, the
Father and the Holy Ghost have been practically dis
pensed with, leaving Christ and Satan to fight the
battle out between themselves.
As this is a gloriously scientific age, nobly enamored
of the exact sciences, I will endeavor to expound this
sublime subject of the divinity of the Church of Eng
land mathematically, even after the manner of the
divine Plato in Book VIII. of “ The Republic,” treat
ing of divine and human generation; and in the
“ Timseus,” treating of the creation of the universal
soul. His demonstrations, indeed, are so divinely
obscure as to confound all the scholiasts ; my demon
stration, however, shall be so translucent that even the
most learned and subtle lords of the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, with their legal spectacles on,
shall not be able to help seeing through it. And
whereas the figures, which are shapes, are more intel
ligible to most people than the figures which are
numbers, let the exposition be geometrical. We will
say, then, that the Church of old conceived the divinity
in the form of an equilateral triangle, whereof the base
was Christ as the whole system was founded on belief
in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father and the Holy
Ghost were the two sides, leaning each on the other ;
and the Devil was the apex, as opposed to, and farthest
from, our blessed Savior. But in course of time the
theologians (perhaps merely wanting some occupation
for their vigorous talents, perhaps deeming it undig-
�46
Satires and Profanities.
nified to have two persons of the Godhead supporting
each other obliquely like a couple of tipsy men, perhaps
simply in order to make matters square) set to work,
and pushed up the two sides, so that each might stand
firm and perpendicular by itself. This process had two
unforeseen results ; it expanded the apex, which was a
very elastic point, so that it became the crowning side
of the square, and it so unhinged the sides that after a
brief upright existence they lost their balance, and
were carried to Limbo by the first wind of strange
doctrine which blew that way ; and the Devil and
Christ, or Christ and the Devil (arrange the precedence
as you please), were left alone confronting each other.
These two are of course equal and parallel, the main
distinction between them being that Christ is below,
and the Devil above, or, in other words, that the Devil
is superior and Christ is inferior(theDevil seems entitled
to the precedence). Thus matters have continued even
to the present time, the divinity showing itself, as we
may say, without form and void ; and we are free to
speculate on the momentous questions : Will the crown
(which is the Devil) fall into the base (which is Christ)?
Will the base float up into the crown ? Will the two
coalese half way ? Will they both, unknit from their
sides, be carried away to Limbo by some blast of strange
doctrine ? One thing is certain, they cannot long remain
as they are. Rare Ben Johnson chanted the Trinity, or
Equilateral Triangle ; rare Walt Whitman has chanted
the Square Deific (with Satan for the fourth side); no
poet can care to chant the two straight lines which, in
the language of Euclid, and in the region of intelli
gence, cannot enclose a space, but are as a magnified
symbol of equal—to nothing.
PS.—It may be appropriately added that the books
of Euclid are really symbolic and prophetic expositions
of most sublime and sacrosanct mysteries, though in
these days few persons seem aware of the fact. Thus
the very first definition, “ A point is position without
magnitude,” exactly defines every point of difference
between the theologians. So a line, which is as the
prolongation of a point, or length without breadth,
represents in one sense (for each symbol has manifold
�The Devil in the Church of England.
47
meanings) the history of any theological system. An
acute angle is, say, Professor Clifford ; an obtuse
angle, Mr. Whalley ; a right angle, the present writer :
non angeli sed Angli. The first proposition, “ To erect
an equilateral triangle upon a given finite straight line,”
indicates the problem solved by Christianity, when it
erected the Trinity on the basis of the man we call
Jesus. This pregnant subject should be worked out in
detail through the whole eight books.
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
[Written
in
1866.]
Poor dear God sat alone in his private chamber,
moody, melancholy, miserable, sulky, sullen, weary,
dejected, supernally hipped. It was the evening of
Sunday, the 24th of December, 1865. Waters con
tinually dripping wear away the hardest stone ; year
falling after year will.at length overcome the strongest
god : an oak-tree outlasts many generations of men ;
a mountain or a river outlasts many celestial dynasties.
A cold like a thick fog in his head, rheum in his eyes,
and rheumatism in his limbs and shoulders, his back
bent, his chin peaked, his poll bald, his teeth decayed,
his body all shivering, his brain all muddle, his heart
all black care ; no wonder the old gentleman looked
poorly as he cowered there, dolefully sipping his
Lachryma Christi. “I wish the other party would
lend me some of his fire,” he muttered, “ for it is
horribly frigid up here.” The table was crowded and
the floor littered with books and documents, all most
�48
Satires and Profanities.
unreadable reading : missionary reports, controversial
divinity, bishops’ charges, religious periodicals, papal
allocutions and encyclical letters, minutes of Exeter
Hall meetings, ponderous blue books from the angelic
bureaux—dreary as the humor of Punch, silly as the
critiques of the Times, idiotic as the poetry of AU the
Year Round. When now and then he eyed them
askance he shuddered more shockingly, and looked at
his desk with loathing despair. For he had gone
through a hard day’s work, with extra services appro
priate to the sacred season ; and for the ten-thousandth
time he had been utterly knocked up and bewildered
by the Athanasian Creed.
While he sat thus, came a formal tap at the door,
and his son entered, looking sublimely good and re
spectable, pensive with a pensiveness on which one
grows comfortably fat. “ Ah, my boy,” said the old
gentleman, '• you seem to get on well enough in these
sad times : come to ask my blessing for your birthday
fete ?” “ I fear that you are not well, my dear father ;
do not give way to dejection, there was once a man—”
“ 0, dash your parables I keep them for your disciples ;
they are not too amusing. Alack for the good old times!”
“ The wicked old times you mean, my father ; the times
when we were poor, and scorned, and oppressed ; the
times when heathenism and vain philosophy ruled
everywhere in the world. Now, all civilised realms
are subject to us. and worship us.” “ And disobey us.
You are very wise, much wiser than your old worn-out
father ; yet perchance a truth or two comes to me in
solitude, when it can’t reach you through the press of
your saints, and the noise of your everlasting preaching
and singing and glorification. You knowhow I began
life, the petty chief of a villainous tribe. But I was
passionate and ambitious, subtle and strong-willed, and,
in spite of itself, I made my tribe a nation ; and I
fought desperately against all the surrounding chiefs,
and with pith of arm and wile of brain I managed to
keep my head above water. But I lived all alone, a
stern and solitary existence. None other of the gods
■was so friendless as I ; and it is hard to live alone when
memory is a sea of blood. I hated and despised the
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
r
4J
Greek Zeus and his shameless court; yet I could not
but envy him, for a joyous life the rogue led. So I,
like an old fool, must have my amour ; and a pretty
intrigue I got into with the prim damsel Mary ! Then
a great thought arose in me : men cannot be loyal to
utter aliens ; their gods must be human on one side,
divine on the other ; my own people were always
deserting me to pay homage to bastard deities. I
would adopt you as my own son (between ourselves, I
have never been sure of the paternity), and admit you
to a share in the government. Those infernal Jews
killed you, but the son of a God could not die ; you
came up hither to dwell with me ; I the old absolute
king, you the modern tribune of the people. Here you
have been ever since ; and I don’t mind telling you
that you were a much more lovable character below
there as the man Jesus than you have proved above
here as the Lord Christ. As some one was needed on
earth to superintend the executive, we created the
Comforter, prince royal and plenipotentiary ; and
behold us a divine triumvirate ! The new blood was
I must own, beneficial. We lost Jerusalem, but we
won Rome ; Jove, Neptune, Apollo, Bacchus, and the
rest, were conquered and slain ; our leader of the
opposition ejected Plato and Pan. Only I did not
bargain that my mistress should more than succeed to
Juno, who was, at any rate, a lawful wife. You
announced that our empire was peace ; you announced
likewise that it was war; both have served us. Our
power extended, our glory rose ; the chief of a miser
able tribe has become emperor of Europe. But our
empire was to be the whole world ; yet instead of signs
of more dominion, I see signs that what we have is
falling to pieces. From my youth up I have been a
man of war; and now that I am old and weary and
wealthy, and want peace, peace flies from me. Have
we not shed enough blood ? Have we not caused
enough tears ? Have we not kindled enough fires ?
And in my empire what am I ? Yourself and my
mistress share all the power between you ; I am but a
name at the head of our proclamations. I have been a
man of war, I am getting old and worn out, evil days
•
D
�50
Satires and Profanities.
are at hand, and I have never enjoyed life ; therefore
is my soul vexed within me. And my own subjects
are as strangers. Your darling saints I cannot bear.
The whimpering, simpering, canting, chanting block
heads ! You were always happy in a pious miserable
ness, and you do not foresee the end. Do you know
that in spite of our vast possessions we are as near
bankruptcy as Spain or Austria ? Do you know that
our innumerable armies are a Chinese rabble of cowards
and traitors ? Do you know that our legitimacy (even
if yours were certain) will soon avail us as little as that
of the Bourbons has availed them ? Of these things
you are ignorant : you are so deafened with shouts and
songs in your own praise that you never catch a whisper
of doom. I would not quail if I had youth to cope
with circumstance ; none can say honestly that I ever
feared a foe ; but I am so weak that often I could not
walk without leaning on you. Why did I draw out my
life to this ignominious end ? Why did I not fall
fighting like the enemies I overcame ? Why the Devil
did you get born at all, and then murdered by those
rascally Jews, that I who was a warrior should turn
into a snivelling saint ? The heroes of Asgard have
sunk into a deeper twilight than they foresaw; but
their sunset, fervent and crimson with blood and with
wine, made splendid that dawnless gloaming. The
joyous Olympians have perished, but they all had lived
and loved. For me, I have subsisted and hated. What
of time is left to me I will spend in another fashion.
Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” And he
swallowed hastily a bumper of the wine, which threw
him into convulsions of coughing.
Serene and superior, the son had let the old man run
on. “ Do not, I entreat you, take to drink in your old
age, dear father. You say that our enemies lived and
loved ; but think how unworthy of divine rulers was
their mode of life, how immoral, how imprudent, how
disreputable, how savage, how lustful, how un-Christian! What a bad example for poor human souls
“ Human souls be blessed ! Are they so much improved
now ? . . . Would that at least I had conserved Jove’s
barmaid ; the prettiest, pleasantest girl they say (we
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
51
know you are a Joseph, though you always had
three or four women dangling about you) ; fair-ankled
was the wench, bright-limbed ; she might be unto me
evfen as was Abishag, the Shunammite, unto my old
friend David.” “ Let us speak seriously, my father, of
the great celebration to-morrow.” “ And suppose I am
speaking very seriously, you solemn prig ; not a drop
of my blood is there in you.”
Here came a hurried knocking at the door, and the
angelic ministers of state crawled in, with super
elaborate oriental cringings, to deliver their daily
reports. “ Messages from Brahma. Ormuzd, etc., to
congratulate on the son’s birthday.” “ The infidels!
the mockers I” muttered the son. “Good words,” said
the father ; “ they belong to older families than ours,
my lad, and were once much more powerful. You are
always trying to win over the parvenus.” “ A riot in
the holy city. The black angels organised to look after
the souls of converted negroes having a free fight with
some of the white ones.” “ My poor lambs !” sighed the
son. “ Black sheep,” growled the father; “ what is
the row ?” “ They have plumed themselves brighter
than peacocks, and scream louder than parrots ; claim
precedence over the angels of the mean whites ; insist
on having some of their own hymns and tunes in the
programme of to-morrow’s concert.” “Lock ’em all
up, white and black, especially the black, till Tuesday
morning ; they can fight it out then—it’s Boxing Day.
We’ll have quite enough noise to-morrow without ’em.
Never understood the nigger question, for my part :
was a slave-holder myself, and cursed Ham as much as
pork.” “ New saints grumbling about lack of civilised
accommodation : want underground railways, steamers
for the crystal sea, telegraph wires to every mansion,
morning and evening newspapers, etc., etc. ; have had
a public meeting with a Yankee saint in the chair, and
resolved that heaven is altogether behind the age.”
“ Confound it, my son, have I not charged you again
and again to get some saints of ability up here ? Bor
years past every batch has been full of good-for-nothing
noodles. Have we no engineers, no editors at all?”
“ One or two engineers, we believe, sire, but we can’t
�52
Natives and Profanities.
find a single editor.” “ Give one of the Record fellows
the measles, and an old I' Univers hand the cholera, and
bring them up into glory at once, and we’ll have two
daily papers. And while you are about it, see whether
you can discover three or four pious engineers—not
muffs, mind—and blow them up hither with their own
boilers, or in any other handy way. Haste, haste, post
haste !” “ Deplorable catastrophe in the temple of the
New Jerusalem : a large part of the foundation given
way, main wall fallen, several hundred workmen
bruised.” “ Stop that fellow who just left; counter
mand the measles, the cholera will be enough ; we will
only have one journal, and that must be strictly official.
If we have two, one will be opposition. Hush up the
accident. It is strange that Pandemonium was built
so much better and more quickly than our New Jeru
salem !” “ All our best architects and other artists have
deserted into Elysium, my lord ; so fond of the
company of the old Greeks.”
"When these and many other sad reports had been
heard, and the various ministers and secretaries savagely
dismissed, the father turned to the son, and said : “ Did
I not tell you of the evil state we are in ?” “ By hope
and faith and charity, and the sublime doctrine of selfrenunciation, all will yet come right, my father.”
“ Humph ! let hope fill my treasury, and faith finish the
New Jerusalem, and charity give us peace and quiet
ness, and self-renunciation lead three-quarters of your
new-fangled saints out of heaven ; and then I shall
look to have a little comfort.” “ Will you settle to-mor
row’s programme, sire ? or shall I do my best to spare
you the trouble ?” “ You do your best to spare me the
trouble of reigning altogether, I think. What pro
gramme can there be but the old rehearsal for the
eternal life (I wish you may get it) ? 0, that horrible
slippery sea of glass, that bedevilled throne vomiting
thunders and lightning, those stupid senile elders in
white nightgowns, those four hideous beasts full of
eyes, that impossible lamb with seven horns and one
eye to each horn ! 0, the terrific shoutings and harpings and stifling incense! A pretty set-out for my
time of life! And to think that you hope some time
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
53
or other to begin this sort of thing as a daily amuse
ment, and to carry it on for ever and ever! Not much
appearance of its beginning soon, thank goodness—•
that is to say, thank badness. Why can’t you have a
play of Aristophanes, or Shakespeare, or Molidre ? Why
should I meddle with the programme ? I had nothing
to do with first framing it. Besides, it is all in your
honor, not in mine. You like playing the part of the
Lamb ; I’m much more like an old wolf. You are
ravished when those beasts give glory and honor and
thanks ; as for me, I am utterly sick of them. Behold
what I will do; I must countenance the affair, but I
can do so without disturbing myself. I’ll not go
thundering and roaring in my state-carriage of the
whirlwind ; I’ll slip there in a quiet cloud. You cant
do without my glory, but it really is too heavy for my
aged shoulders ; you may lay it upon the throne ; it
will look just as well. As for my speech, here it is all
ready written out ; let Mercury, I mean Raphael or
Uriel, read it; I can’t speak plainly since I lost so
many teeth. And now I consider the matter, what
need is there for my actual presence at all ? Have me
there in effigy ; a noble and handsome dummy can
wear the glory with grace. Mind you have a hand
some one ; I wish all the artists had not deserted us.
Your pious fellows make sad work of us, my son.
But then their usual models are so ugly ; your saints
have good reason to speak of their vile bodies. How
is it that all the pretty girls slip away to the other
place, poor darlings ? By the bye, who are going on
this occasion to represent the twelve times twelve
thousand of the tribes of Israel ? Is the boy Mortara
dead yet ? He will make one real Jew.” “We are
converting them, sire.” “Not the whole gross of thou
sands yet, I trust ? Faugh ! what a greasy stench there
would be—what a blazing of Jew jewelry ! Hand me
the latest bluebook, with the reports. . . . Ah, I see ;
great success ! Power of the Lord Christ! (always you,
of course). Society flourishing. Eighty-two thousand
pounds four shillings and twopence three-farthings last
year from Christians aroused to the claims of the lost
sheep of the House of Israel. (Very good.) Five con-
�54
Satires and Profanities.
versions !! Three others have already been persuaded
to eat pork sausages. (Better and better.) One, who
drank most fervently of the communion wine suffered
himself to be treated to an oyster supper. Another,
being greatly moved, was heard to ejaculate ‘ 0 Christ!’
. . . Hum, who are the five ? Moses Isaacs : wasn’t he
a Christian ten years ago in Italy, and afterwards a
Mahommedan in Salonica, and afterwards a Jew in
Marseilles ? This Mussulman is your oyster-man, I
presume ? You will soon get the one hundred and fortyfour thousand at this rate, my son ! and cheap too 1”
He chuckled, and poured out another glass of
Lachryma Christi ; drank it, made a wry face, and then
began coughing furiously. “ Poor drink this for a god
in his old age. Odin and Jupiter fared better. Though
decent for a human tipple, for a divinity it is but
am&rosze stygiale, as my dear old favorite chaplain
would call it. I have his devotional works under lock
and key there in my desk. Apropos, where is he ?
Left us again for a scurry through the more jovial
regions ? I have not seen him for a long time.” “ My
father! really, the words he used, the life he led ; so
corrupting for the young saints ! We were forced to
invite him to travel a little for the benefit of his health.
The court must be kept pure, you know.” “ Send for
him instantly, sir. He is out of favor because he likes
the old man and laughs at your saints, because he can’t
cant and loves to humbug the humbugs. Many a fit
of the blues has he cured for me, while you only make
them bluer. Have him fetched at once. 0, I know
you never liked him ; you always thought him laughing
at your sweet pale face and woebegone airs, laughing
‘ en horrible sarcasm et sanglante derision ’ (what a
style the rogue has I what makes that of your favorite
parsons and holy ones so flaccid and flabby and hectic ?)
‘ Physician, heal thyself 1’ So, in plain words, you
have banished him ; the only jolly soul left amongst
us, my pearl and diamond and red ruby of Chaplains,
abstracter of the quintessence of pantagruelism ! The
words he used ! I musn’t speak freely myself now,
and the old books I wrote are a great deal too coarse
for you ! Michael and Gabriel told me the other day
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
55
that they hacl just been severely lectured on the
earnestness of life by one of your new proteges; they
had to kick him howling into limbo. A fine set of
solemn prigs we are getting !” “ My father, the holi
ness of sorrow, the infiniteness of suffering!” “ Yes,
yes, I know all about it. That long-winded poet of
yours (he does an ode for you to-morrow ?) began to
sermonise me thereon. By Jupiter, he wanted to
arouse me to a sense of my inner being and responsi
bilities and so forth. I very soon packed him off to
the infant school, where he teaches the alphabet and
catechism to the babies and sucklings. Have you sent
for my jovial, joyous, jolly Cure of Meudon ?” “I
have ; but I deeply regret that your Majesty thinks it
fitting to be intimate with such a free-liver, such a
glutton and wine-bibber and mocker and buffoon.”
“Bah ! you patronised the publicans and sinners your
self in your younger and better days. The strict ones
blamed you for going about eating and drinking so
much. I hear that some of your newest favorites
object to the wine in your last supper, and are going to
insist on vinegar-and-water in future.”
Whereupon entered a man of noble and courtly
presence, lively-eyed and golden bearded, ruddy complexioned, clear-browed, thoughtful, yet joyous, serene,
and unabashed. “Welcome, thrice welcome, my beloved
Alcofribas,” cried the old monarch; “ very long is it
since last I saw you.” “ I have been exiled since then,
your Majesty.” “ And I knew nothing of it!” “And
thought nothing of it or of me until you wanted me.
No one expects the King to have knowledge of what
is passing under his eyes.” “ And how did you manage
to exist in exile, my poor chaplain?” “Much better
than here at court, sire. If your Majesty wants a little
pleasure, I advise you to get banished yourself. Your
parasites and sycophants and courtiers are a most
morose, miserable, ugly, detestable, intolerable swarm
of blind beetles and wasps ; the devils are beyond
comparison better company.” “ What ! you have
been mixing with traitors ?” “ Oh, I spent a few
years in Elysium, but didn’t this time go into the
lower circles. But while I sojourned as a country
�56
Satires and Profanities.
gentleman on the heavenly borders,’ I met a few
contrabandists.
I need not tell you that large, yea,
enormous quantities of beatitude are smuggled out of
your dominions.” “ But what is smuggled in ?” “ Sire,
I am not an informer ; I never received anything out
of the secret-service money. The poor angels are glad
to run a venture at odd times, to relieve the tedium of
everlasting Te Deum. By the bye, I saw the Devil
himself.” “ The Devil in my kingdom ? What is
Uriel about ? he’ll have to be superannuated.” “ Bah !
your Majesty knows very well that Satan comes in and
returns as and when he likes. The passport system
never stops the really dangerous fellows. When he
honored me with a call he looked the demurest young
saint, and I laughed till I got the lockjaw at his earnest
and spiritual discourse. He would have taken yourself
in, much more Uriel. You really ought to get him on
the list of court chaplains. He and I were always good
friends, so if anything happens. . . . It may be well for
you if you can disguise yourself as cleverly as he.
A revolution is not quite impossible, you know.”
The Son threw up his hands in pious horror ; the
old King, in one of his spasms of rage, hurled
the blue-book at the speaker’s head, which it
missed, but knocked down and broke his favorite
crucifix. “Jewcy fiction versus crucifixion, sire;
magna est veritas et prevalebit! Thank Heaven,
all that folly is owfeide my brains ; it is not the first
book full of cant and lies and stupidity that has been
flung at me. Why did you not let me finish ? The
Devil is no fonder than your sacred self of the new
opinions ; in spite of the proverb, he loves and dotes
upon holy water. If you cease to be head of the
ministry, he ceases to be head of the opposition ; he
wouldn’t mind a change, an innings for him and an
outings for you ; but these latest radicals want to crush
both Whigs and Tories. He was on his way to confer
with some of your Privy Council, to organise joint
action for the suppression of new ideas. You had
better be frank and friendly with him. Public oppo
sition and private amity are perfectly consistent and
praiseworthy. He has done you good service before
�Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles.
57
now ; and you and your Son have always been of the
greatest assistance to him.” “ By the temptation of
Job ! I must see to it. And now no more business.
I am hipped, my Rabelais ; we must have a spree. The
cestus of Venus, the lute of Apollo, we never could
find; but there was sweeter loot in the sack of
-Olympus, and our cellars are not yet quite empty. We
will have a petit souper of ambrosia and nectar.” “ My
father! my father! did you not sign the pledge
to abstain from these heathen stimulants ?” “ My
beloved Son, with whom I am not at all well pleased,
go and swill water till you get the dropsy, and permit
me to do as I like. No wonder people think that I am
failing when my child and my mistress rule for me 1”
The Son went out, shaking his head, beating his
breast, scrubbing his eyes, wringing his hands, sobbing
and murmuring piteously. “ The poor old God ! my
dear old father 1 Ah, how he is breaking! Alack, he
will not last long 1 Verily his wits are leaving him 1
Many misfortunes and disasters would be spared us
were he to abdicate prudently at once. Or a regency
might do. But the evil speakers and slanderers would
say that I am ambitious. I must get the matter judi-ciouslv insinuated to the Privy Council. Alack I
alack !”
“ Let him go and try on his suit of lamb’s wool for
to-morrow,” said the old monarch. “ I have got out of
the rehearsal, my friend ; I shall be conspicuous by my
.absence ; there will be a dummy in my stead.” “ Rather
perilous innovation, my Lord ; the people may think
that the dummy does just as well, that there is no need
to support the original.” “ Shut up, shut up, 0, my
'Cure ; no more politics, confound our politics ! It is
Bunday, so we must have none but chaplains here.
You may fetch Friar John and sweet Dean Swift and
the amiable parson Sterne, and any other godly and
-devout and spiritual ministers you can lay hold of ;
but don’t bring more than a pleiad.” “ With Swift for
the lost one ; he is cooling his ‘ sseva indignatio ’ in
the Devil’s kitchen-furnace just now, comforting poor
Addison, who hasn’t got quit for his death-bed brandy
jet.” “ A night of devotion will we have, and of in-
�58
Satires and Profanities.
extinguishable laughter ; and with the old liquor we
will pour out the old libations. Yea, Gargantuan shall
be the feast ; and this night, and to-morrow, and all
next week, and twelve days into the new year the
hours shall reel and roar with Pantagreulism. Quick,
for the guests, and I will order the banquet1” “ With
all my heart, sire, will I do this very thing. Parsons
and pastors, pious and devout, will I lead back, choice
and most elect souls worthy of the old drink delectable.
And I will lock and double bolt the door, and first
warm the chamber by burning all these devilish books ;
and will leave word with the angel on guard that we
are not to be called for three times seven days, when
all these Christmas fooleries and mummeries are long
over. Amen. Selah. Aurevoir. Tarry till I come.”’
A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
[Written
in
1866.]
The subjects for our solemn consideration are the
seclusion of her Most Gracious Majesty, and the com
plaints thereanent published in several respectable
journals. In order to investigate the matter thoroughly,
we constituted ourselves (the unknown number rr) into
a special Commission of Inquiry. We are happy to
state that the said Commission has concluded its
arduous labors, and now presents its report within
a week of its appointment; surely the most prompt and
rapid of commissions. The cause of this celerity we
take to be the fact that the Commissioners were un-
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
salaried ; we being unanimously of opinion that had .we
received good pay for the inquiry throughout the period
of our session, we could have prolonged it with certain
benefit, if not to the public yet to ourselves, for a.gr.eat
number of years. If, therefore, you want a commission
to do its work rapidly vote no money for it. And do
not fear that the most headlong haste in gathering
evidence and composing the report will diminish the
value of such report; for when a Commission has lasted
for years or months it generally rises in a quite different
state of the subject matter from that in which it first
sat, and the report must be partly obsolete, partly a
jumble of anachronisms. In brief, it may be fairly
affirmed as a general rule that no Commission of
Inquiry is of any value at all; the appointment, of one
being merely a dodge by which people who don’t want
to act on what they and everybody else see quite well
with their naked eyes, set a number of elderly gentle
men to pore upon it with spectacles and magnifying
glasses until dazed and stupid with poring, in the hope
that this process will last so long that ere it is finished
the public will have forgotten the matter altogether.
And now for the result of our inquiries on this subject,
which is not only immensely important, but is even
sacred to our loyal hearts.
A West-end tradesman complains bitterly that
through the absence of the Court from Buckingham
Palace, and the diminished number and splendor of
royal pomps and entertainments, the “ Season ” is for
him a very poor season indeed. The Commissioners
find that the said tradesman (whose knowledge seems
limited to a knowledge of his business, supposing he
knows that) is remarkably well off ; and consider that
West-end tradesmen have no valid vested interest in
Royalty and the Civil List, that at the worst they do a
capital trade with the aristocracy and wealthy classes
(taking good care that the punctual and honest shall
amply overpay their losses by the unpunctual and dis
honest) ; and if they are not satisfied with the West
end, they had better try the East-end and see how
that will suit them ; and, in short, that this tradesman
is not worth listening to.
�60
Satires and Profanities.
Numerous fashionable and noble people (principally
ladies) complain that they have no Court to shine
in. The Commissioners think that they shine a great
■deal too much already, and in the most wasteful
manner, gathered together by hundreds, light glittering
■on light; and that if they really want to shine
beneficially in a court there are very many dark courts
in London where the light of their presence would be
most welcome.
It is complained on behalf of their Royal Highnesses
the Prince and Princess of Wales that they have to
perform many of the duties of royalty without getting
a share of the royal allowance. The Commissioners
think that if the necessary expenses of the heir to the
throne are really too heavy for his modest income, and
are increased by the performance of royal duties, he
had better send in yearly a bill to his Mamma for
expenses incurred on her account, and a duplicate of
the same to the Chancellor to the Exchequer ; so that
in every Budget the amount of the Civil List
shall be equitably divided between her Majesty
and her Majesty’s eldest son, doubtless to their com
mon satisfaction.
It is complained on behalf of various foreign royal or
ruling personages that while they in their homes treat
generously the visiting members of our royal family,
they are treated very shabbily when visiting here. The
Commissioners think that Buckinghan Palace, being
seldom or never wanted by the Queen, and very seldom
wanted for the reception of the English Court, should
be at all times open for such royal or ruling visitors ;
that a Lord Chamberlain, or other such noble domestic
servant should be detailed to attend on them, and see
to their hospitable treatment in all respects ; and that
to cover the expenditure on their account a fair
deduction should be made from her Majesty’s share
of the Civil List, which deduction, being equitable,
her Majesty would no doubt view with extreme
pleasure.
It is complained on the part of her Majesty’s
Ministers, that when they want the royal assent and
signature to important Acts of Parliament, they have
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
61
to lose a day or two and undergo great fatigue (which
is peculiarly hard on men who are mostly aged, and
all overworked) in travelling to and from Osborne or
Balmoral. The Commissioners think the remedy plain
and easy, as in the two preceding cases. Let a law be
passed assuming that absence, like silence, gives
consent; so that whenever her Majesty is not in town,
the Speaker of the Commons or the Lord Chancellor,
or other great officer of State, be empowered to seal
and sign in her name, and generally to perform any of
her real and royal duties, on the formal demand of the
Ministry, who always (and not the Queen) are respon
sible to Parliament and the country for all public acts.
A Taxpayer complains that for fourteen years her
Majesty has been punctually drawing all moneys
allotted to support the royal dignity, while studiously
abstaining from all, or nearly all, the hospitalities and
other expensive functions incident to the support of the
said dignity. The Commissioners consider that her
Majesty is perchance benefiting the country more (and
may be well aware of the fact) by taking her money
for doing nothing than if she did something for it ;
that if she didn’t take the said money, somebody else
would (as for instance, were she to abdicate, the Prince
of Wales, become King, would want and get at least as
much); so that while our Government remains as it is,
the complaint of the said taxpayer is foolish.
Another Taxpayer, who must be a most mean-minded
fellow, a stranger to all sacred sympathies and hallowed
emotions, says : “ If a washerwoman, being stupified by
the death of her husband, neglected her business for
more than a week or two, she would certainly lose her
custom or employment, and not all the sanctity of con
jugal grief (about which reverential journalists gush)
would make people go on paying her for doing nothing ;
and if this washerwoman had money enough of her own
to live on comfortably, people would call her shameless
and miserly if she asked for or accepted payment while
doing nothing ; and if this washerwoman had a large
family of boys and girls around her, and shut herself
up to brood upon her husband’s death for even three or
four months, people would reckon her mad with selfish
�62
Satires and Profanities.
misery.” The Commissioners (as soon as they recover
from the stupefaction of horror into which this blas
phemy has thrown them) consider and reply that there
can be no proper comparison of a Queen and a washer
woman, and that nobody would think of instituting one,
except a brute, a Republican, an Atheist, a Communist’
a fiend in human form ; that anyhow if, as this wretch
says, a washerwoman would be paid for a week or two
without working, in consideration of her conjugal
affliction, it is plain that a Queen, who (it will be uni
versally allowed) is at least a hundred thousand times
as good as a washerwoman, is therefore entitled to at
least a hundred thousand times the “ week or two ” of
salary without performance of duty—that is, to at least
1,923 or 3,846 years, whereas this heartless and ribald
reprobate himself only complains that our beloved
Sovereign has done nothing for her wage throughout
“ fourteen years.” The Commissioners therefore eject
this complainant with ineffable scorn ; and only wish
they knew his name and address, that they might
denounce him for prosecution to the Attorney-General.
A Malthusian (whatever kind of creature that may
be) complains that her Majesty has set an example of
uncontrolled fecundity to the nation and the royal
family, which, besides being generally immoral, is
likely, at the modest estimate of £6,000 per annum per
royal baby, to lead to the utter ruin of the realm in a
few generations. The Commissioners, after profound
and prolonged consideration, can only remark that
they do not understand the complaint any better than
the name (which they do not understand at all) of the
“ Malthusian ” ; that they have always been led to
believe that a large family is a great honor to a legiti
mately united man and woman ; and that, finally, they
beg to refer the Malthusian to the late Prince Consort.
A devotedly loyal Royalist (who unfortunately does
not give the name and address of his curator) complains
that her Majesty, by doing nothing except receive her
Civil List, is teaching the country that it can get on
quite as well without a monarch as with one, and might
therefore just as well, and indeed very much better,
put the amount of the Civil List into its own pocket
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
63
and call itself a Republic. The Commissioners remark
that this person seems the most rational of the whole
lot of complainants (most rational, not for his loyalty,
but most rational as to the grounds of his complaint,
from his own point of view) ; in accordance with the
dictum, “ A madman reasons rightly from wrong pre
mises ; a fool wrongly from right ones
and that his
surmise is very probably correct—namely, that her
Majesty is really a Republican in principle, but not
liking (as is perfectly natural in her position) to publicly
profess and advocate opinions so opposed to the worldly
interests of all her friends and relatives, has been con
tent to further these opinions practically for fourteen
years past by her conduct, without saying a word on
the subject. The Commissioners, however, find one
serious objection to this surmise in the fact that if her
Majesty is really a Republican at heart, she must wish
to exclude the Prince of Wales from the throne ; while
it seems to them that the intimate knowledge she must
have of his wisdom and virtues (not to speak of her
motherly affection) cannot but make her 1661 that no
greater blessing could come to the nation after her
death than his reigning over it. As this is the only
complaint which the Commissioners find at once wellfounded and not easy to remedy, they are happy to
know that it is confined to the very insignificant class
of persons who are “ devotedly loyal Royalists.”
The Commissioners thus feel themselves bound to
report that all the complaints they have heard against
our beloved and gracious sovereign (except the one
last cited, which is of no importance) are without
foundation, or frivolous, or easily remedied, and that
our beloved and gracious Sovereign (whom may
Heaven long preserve!) could not do better than she is
now doing, in doing nothing.
But in order to obviate such complaints, which do
much harm, whether ill or well founded, and which
especially pain the delicate susceptibilities of all respec
table men and women, the Commissioners have thought
it their duty to draw up the following project of a Con
stitution, not to come into force until the death of our
present beloved and gracious Sovereign (which may
�64
Satires and Profanities.
God, if it so please him, long avert!), and to be
modified in its details according to the best wisdom of
our national House of Palaver.
DRAFT.
Whereas it is treasonable to talk of dethroning a
monarch, but there can be no disloyalty in preventing
a person not yet a monarch from becoming one :
And whereas it is considered by very many, and
seems proved by the experience of the last...................
years that the country can do quite well without a
monarch, and may therefore save the extra expense of
monarchy :
And whereas it is calculated that from the accession
of George I. of blessed memory until the decease of the
most beloved of Queens, Victoria, a period of upwards
of a century and a half, the Royal Family of the House
of Guelph have received full and fair payment in every
respect for their generous and heroic conduct in
coming to occupy the throne and other high places of
this kingdom, and in saving us from the unconstitu
tional Stuarts :
And whereas the said Stuarts may now be considered
extinct, and thus no longer dangerous to this realm :
And whereas the said Royal Family of the House of
Guelph is so prolific that the nation cannot hope to
support all the members thereof for a long period tn
come in a royal manner :
And whereas the Dukes of this realm are accounted
liberal and courteous gentlemen :
And whereas the constitution of our country is so
far Venetian that it cannot but be improved in har
mony and consistency by being made more Venetian
still :
Be it enacted, etc., That the Throne now vacant
through the ever-to-be-deplored death of her late most
gracious Majesty shall remain vacant. That the mem
bers of what has been hitherto the Royal Family keep
all the property they have accumulated, the nation re
suming from them all grants of sinecures and other
salaried appointments. That no member of the said
Family be eligible for any public appointment whatever
for at least one hundred years. That the Dukes in the
�A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty.
65
order of their seniority shall act as Doges (with what
ever title be considered the best) year and year about,
under penalty of large fines in case of refusal, save
when such refusal is supported by clear proof of poverty
(being revenue under a settled minimum), imbecility,
brutality, or other serious disqualification. That no
members of a ducal family within a certain degree of
relationship to the head of the house be eligible for any
public appointment whatever ; the head of the house
being eligible for the Dogeship only. That the duties
of the Doge be simply to seal and sign Acts of Parlia
ment, proclamations, etc., when requested to do so by
the Ministry ; and to exercise hospitality to royal or
ruling and other representatives of foreign countries,
as well as to distinguished natives. That a fair and
even excessive allowance be made to the Doge for the
expenses of his year of office. That the royal palaces
be official residences of the Doge. That the Doge be
free from all political responsibility as from all political
power ; but be responsible for performing liberally and
courteously the duties of hospitality, so that Bucking
ham Palace shall not contrast painfully with the Man
sion House. Etc., etc.
God preserve the Doge !
The Commission of Inquiry having thus trium
phantly vindicated our beloved and gracious Sovereign
against the cruel aspersions of people in general, and
having moreover drafted a plan for obviating such
aspersions against any British King or Queen in future,
ends its Report, and dissolves itself, with humble
thankfulness to God Almighty whose grace alone has
empowered it to conclude its arduous labors so speedily,
and with results so incalculably beneficial.
�66
Satires and Profanities.
A Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
[Whitten in 1876.]
The old theory of “ The right divine of kings to
govern wrong,” and the much-quoted text, “Fear God
and honor the king,” seem to have impressed many
good people with the notion that the Bible is in favor
of monarchy. But “ king ” in the text plainly has the
general meaning of “ruler,” and would be equally
applicable to the President of a Republic. In
Romans xiii., 1—3, we read : “ Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God : and they that resist shall receive
to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror
to good works, but to the evil.” Without stopping to
discuss the bold assertion in the last sentence, we may
remark that the real teaching of this passage is that
Christians ought to be indifferent to politics, quietly
accepting whatever government they find in power ; for
if the powers that be are ordained of God, or in other
words, if might is right, all forms of government are
equally entitled to obedience so long as they actually
exist. Of course Christians are not now, and for the
most part have not been for centuries, really indifferent
to politics, because for the most part they now are and
long have been Christians only in name ; but it is easy
to understand from the New Testament itself why the
first Christians , naturally were thus indifferent, and
why Christianity, has never afforded any political
inspiration. Nothing can be clearer to one who reads
the New Testament honestly and without prejudice
than the fact that Christ and his apostles believed that
the end of the world was at hand. Thus in Matt, xxiv.,
Jesus after foretelling the coming to judgment of the’
son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory,"when the angels shall gather the elect from
�A Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
67
the four winds, adds, v. 34, “Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled.” This is repeated in almost the same words
in Mark xiii., and Luke xxi., and a careful reading
of the Epistles shows that their writers were profoundly
influenced by this prophecy. But with the world
coming to an end so soon, it would be as absurd to take
any interest in its politics as for a traveller stopping
two or three days in an inn to concern himself
with schemes for rebuilding it. when about to leave
for a far country where he intends settling for life. If
therefore, we want any political guidance from the
Holy Scriptures, we must go to the Old Testament, not
to the New.
Now the first lesson on Monarchy, which we re
member made us think even in childhood, is the fable
of the trees electing a king, told by Jotham, the son of
Gideon, in Judges ix. The trees in the process of this
election showed a judgment much superior to that
which' men usually show in such a business. It is
true that they did not select first the most strong and
stalwart of trees, the cedar or the oak, but they had
the good sense to choose the most sweet-natured and
bountiful, the olive, then the fig, then the vine. But
the bountiful trees thus chosen had good sense too, and
would not forsake the fatness and the sweetness and the
wine which cheereth God and man, to rule over their
fellow trees. Then the poor trees, like a jilted girl who
marries in spleen the first scamp she comes across,
asked the bramble to be their king ; and that barren
good-for-nothing of course accepted eagerly the crown
which the noble and generous had refused, and called
upon the trees to put their trust in its scraggy shadow,
“ and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and
devour the cedars of Lebanon.” Young as we were
when this fable first caught our attention, we mused a
good deal over it, and even then began to learn that
those most eager for supremacy, the most forward
candidates in elections, are nearly always brambles, not
olives or fig-trees or vines ; and that the first thought
of a bramble, when made ruler over its betters, is
naturally to destroy with fire the cedars of Lebanon.
�68
Satires and Profanities.
But God himself in the case of the Israelites has
vouchsafed to us a very clear judgment on the question
of Monarchy. In the remarkable constitution for that
people -which he gave to Moses, he did not include a
king, and Israel remained without a king for more
years than it is worth while endeavoring to count here.
We read, 1 Samuel viii., how ‘‘All the elders of Israel
gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel
unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold thou art old,
and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a
king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing
displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to
judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And
the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice
of the people in all that they say unto thee : for
they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
... Now therefore hearken unto their voice : how
beit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show
them the manner of the king that shall reign over
them.” Some students of the Bible may have thought
that God’s severe condemnation of the Israelites for
wanting a king arose chiefly from wounded pride, from
the fact that they had rejected him, and we cannot
affirm that this feeling did not inflame his anger, for
he himself has said that he is a jealous God ; but the
protest which he orders Samuel to make, and the
exposition of the common evils of kingship, prove
clearly that God did not (and therefore, of course, does
not) approve this form of government. And, indeed,
it is plain that if he had approved it, he would have
given it to his chosen people at first. For although
divines have termed the form of government under
which the Jews lived before the kings a theocracy,
God did not then rule immediately, but always through
the medium of a high-priest or judge, and could have
governed through the medium of a king had he thought
it well so to do. And he who reads the history of the
Jews under the Judges, as contained in the Book of
Judges, and especially the narratives in chapters xvii.
to xxi. which illustrate the condition of Jewish society
in those days when “there was no king in Israel:
�J Bible Lesson on Monarchy.
69
every man did that which was right in his own eyes,”
will see that God must have thought a Monarchy very
vile and odious indeed when he was angry at the
request for it, and implied that it was actually worse
than that government by Judges alternated with bond
age under neighboring tribes which the theologians call
a theocracy. Samuel warned the people of what a
king would do, and doubtless thought he was warning
them of the worst, but kings have far outstripped all
that the prophet could foresee. The king, he said, will
take your sons to be his warriors and servants ; and
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and
cooks, and bakers. This was the truth, and nothing
but the truth, but it was not the whole truth ; for the
sons have been taken to be far worse than mere
warriors and servants, and the daughters for much viler
purposes than cooking and baking. Samuel goes on :
“ And he will take your fields, and your vineyards,
and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give
them to his servants ”—when he does not keep them
for himself might have been added. “ And he will
take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards,
and give to his officers, and to his servants.” Surely
much more than a tenth, 0 Samuel! We will not
quote the remainder of this wise warning. Like most
wise warnings it was ineffectual ; the foolish people
insisted on having a king, and in the following chapters
we read how Saul the Son of Kish, going forth to seek
his father’s asses, found his own subjects.
The condemnation of Monarchy by God, as we read
it in this instance, is so thorough and general that we
feel bound to add a few words on an exceptional case
in which a king is highly extolled in the Scriptures,
without any actions being recorded of him, as in the
instances of David and Solomon, to nullify the praise.
The king in question was Melchizedek, King of Salem,
and priest of the most high God, who met Abram
returning from the defeat of the four kings and blessed
him, and to whom Abram gave tithes of all, as we read
in Genesis xiv. But this short notice of Melchizedek
in. Genesis does not by any means suggest to us the
fall wonderfulness of his character, though we natu-
�70
Satires and Profanities.
rally conclude from it that he was indeed an important
personage to whom Abram gave tithes of all. The
New Testament, however, comes to our aid, and for
once gives us a most valuable political lesson, though
the inspired writer was far from thinking of political
instruction when he wrote the passage. In Hebrews
vi., 20, and vii., 1 to 3, we read : “ Jesus, made an High
Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec. For
this Melchisedec, King of Salem, priest of the most
high God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him ; to whom also
Abraham gave a tenth part of all ; first being by inter
pretation King of righteousness, and after that also
King of Salem, which is King of peace ; without father,
without mother, without descent, having neither be
ginning of days nor end of life ; but made like unto
the Son of God ; abideth a priest continually.” Now
he to whom Jesus is compared, and who is like the Son
of God, is clearly the noblest of characters ; and there
fore, as the history in the first book of Samuel teaches
us that Monarchy is generally to be avoided, these fine
verses from the Epistle to the Hebrews delineate for
us the exceptional king whose reign is to be desired.
The delineation is quite masterly, for a few lines give
us characteristics which cannot be overlooked or mis
taken. This model monarch must be a priest of the
most high God—a king of righteousness and king of
peace; without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days nor end of life ; but
made like unto the Son of God. Whenever and
wherever such a gentlemen is met with, we would
advise even the most zealous Republicans to put him
forthwith upon the throne. But in the absence of
such a gentleman we can hardly do wrong if we follow
the good advice of Samuel dictated by God Almighty,
and manage without any monarch.
�The One Thing Needful.
71
The One Thing Needful.
[Whitten
in
1866.]
When I survey with pious joy the present world of
Christendom, finding everywhere that the true believers
love their neighbors as themselves and are specially
enamored of their enemies ; that no one of them takes
thought for the morrow, what he shall eat or what he
shalfdrink, or wherewithal he or she shall be clothed ;
that all the pastors and flocks endeavor to outstrip each
other in laying not up for themselves treasures upon,
earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves
break through and steal ; and all are so intensely eager
to quit this earthly tabernacle and become freeholders
of mansions in the skies ; when I find faith as universal
as the air, and charity as common as cold water ; I
sometimes wonder, how it is that any misbelievers and
unbelievers are left, and feel astonished that the New
Jerusalem has not yet descended, and hope that the
next morning’s Times (rechristened The Eternities) will
announce the inauguration of the Millennium.
What delayeth the end ? Can there indeed be any
general hindering sin or imperfection among the pure
saints, the holy, unselfish, aspiring, devout, peaceful,
loving men and women who make up the population of
every Christian land ? Can any error infect the
teachings of the innumerable divines and theologians,
who all agree together in every particular, drawing all
the same doctrines from the same texts of the one un
varied Word of God ? I would fain believe that no
such sin or error exists, not a single inky spot in the
universal dazzling whiteness ; but then why have we to
deplore the continued existence of heathens and
infidels ? why is the New Jerusalem so long a-building ?
why is the Millennium so long a-coming ? why have
we a mere Sardowa instead of Armageddon ?
After long and painful thought, after the most
serious and reverent study, I think I have found the
�72
Satires and Profanities.
rock on which the ship of the Church has been wrecked ;
and I hasten to communicate its extreme latitude and
interminable longitude, that all Christian voyagers may
evade and circumvent it from this time forward.
The error which I point out, and the correction
which I propose, have been to a certain extent, in a
vague manner, pointed out and proposed before. A
clergyman named Malthus, not in his clerical capacity,
but condescending to the menial study of mundane
science, is usually considered the first discoverer. But
mundane science is conditioned, limited, vague, its
precepts are full of hesitation ; while celestial science
is absolute, unlimited, clear as the noonday sun, and its
precepts are imperiously forthright.
It seems to me that the one fatal error which has
lurked in our otherwise consummate Christianity, and
which demands immediate correction is this, that the
propagation of children is reconcileable with the pro
pagation of the faith—an error which while it lasts
adjourns sine die the day of judgment, and begins the
Millennium with the Greek Kalends.
One need not quote the numerous texts throughout
the New Testament (let Matthew xix., 12, suffice)
proving that Jesus and the epistolary apostles ac
counted celibacy essential to the highest Christian life.
One only of the disciples, so far as we know, was
married ; and he it was who denied his master ; and
most of the more profound divines consider that Peter
was justly punished for marrying, when Christ cured
his mother-in-law of that fever which might else have
carried her off.
But many modest people may be content with a
respectable Christian life which is not of the very
highest kind. They may think that as husbands and
wives they will make very decent middle-class saints in
heaven, after a comfortable existence on earth, leaving
the nobler crowns of holiness for more daring spirits.
Humility is one of the fairest graces, and we revere it;
but there is a consideration, most momentous for the
kind Christian heart, which such good people must
have overlooked—very naturally, since it is very
obvious.
�The One. Thing Needful.
73
Jesus tells us that many are called but few are
chosen; that few enter the strait gate and travel
€^narrow way, while many take the broadwaythat
leadeth to destruction. In other words, the 1 g
majority of mankind, the large majority of even those
who have the gospel preached to them, must be damn .
When a human soul is born into the world the odds
«re at least ten to one that the Devil will get it. Can
any pious member of the Church who has thought o
this take the responsibility of becoming a Parent. 1
thoroughly believe not. I am convinced that we have
so many Christian parents only because this very con“nous aspect of the case ^s not caught their vie
■ If the parents could have any assurance that the piety
of their offspring would be in proportion to their own
they would be justified in wedding m holiness But
alas7; we all know that some of the most religious
parents have had some of the most wicked children.
Dearly beloved brethren and sisters, pause and calcu
late that for every little saint you give to heaven, you
beget and bear at least nine sinners who will eventually
g The remedy proposed is plain and simple as a gospel
precept : let no Christian have any child at ail—a
rule which, in the grandeur of its absoluteness makes
the poor timid and tentative Malthusianism very
ridiculous indeed. For this rule is drawn immediately
from the New Testament and cannot but be perfect as
its source.
, . ,
7,
Let us think of a few of the advantages which would
flow from its practice. The profane have sometimes
sneered that Jesus and his disciples manifestly thought
that the world would come to an end, the millennium
be inaugurated, within a very few years from the public
ministry of Jesus. Luckily the profane are always
ignorant or shallow, or both. For, as the New Jeru
salem is to come down while Christians, are alive, and
as Christians in the highest sense or Christians without
offspring must have come to an end with the first gene
ration, it is plain that the belief which has been sneered
at was thoroughly well founded ; and that it has been
disappointed only because the vast majority of Cnris-
.
�74
Satires and Profanities.
,n°tbeen Christians in the highest senseat
all, but in their ignorance have continued to propagate
like so many heathen proletarians.
Now, supposing the very likely case that all Chris
tians now living reflect upon the truth herein expounded, and see that it is true, and, therefore, always
act upon it, it follows that, with the end of our now
young generation, the whole of Christendom will be
translated into the kingdom of heaven. Either the
mere scum of non-Christians left upon the earth will
be wholly or m great part converted by an example so
splendid and attractive, and thus translate all Christen
dom in the second edition in a couple of generations
more; or else the world, being without any Christianitv
a matter of course, be so utterly vile and evil
that the promised fire must destroy it at once, and so
bring m the New Heavens and New Earth.
Roman Catholic Christians may indeed answer that,
although the above argument is irresistible to the
Protestants, who have no mean in the next life between
Heaven and Hell, yet that it is not so formidable tn
them, seeing that they believe in the ultimate salvation
of nearly every one born and reared in their com
munion, and only give a temporary purgatory to the
worst of their own sinners. And I admit that such
reply is very cogent. Yet, strangely enough, the
Catholics even more than the Protestants, recognise and
cultivate the supreme beatitude of celibacy ; their
legions of unwedded priests, and monks, and nuns and
saints are so many legions of concessions to the truth
of my main argument.
I am aware that one of the most illustrious dignitariesof our own National Church, the very reverend and
reverent Dr. Swift, Dean of St. Patrick’s, has advo
cated on various grounds, and with impressive force of
reasoning, the general eating of babies : and I antici
pate that some prudent Christians may, therefore, argue .
that it is better to get babies and eat them than to have *
none &t a^’ s^nce th© souls of the sweet innocents
would surely go to heaven, while their bodies would be
very nourishing on earth. Unfortunately, however
the doctrine of Original Sin, as expounded and illus-
�The One Thing Needful.
75
trated by many very thoughtfui theologians and specially theologians of the most determined Protestant
Ze makes it very doubtful whether the souls of
iX “are not damned. It will surely be better, then,
for good Protestants to have no infants at all:
The Athanasian Creed.
[Written
in 1865.]
ON Christmas Day, as on all other chief holidays of theyear, the ministers and congregations of our National
Church have had the noble privilege and pleasure o
standing up and reciting the creed commonly called of
St. Athanasius. The question of the authorship does
not concern us here, but a note of Gibbon (chapter 37)
is so brief and comprehensive that we may as well cite
it •_ “ But the three following truths, however strange
thev may seem, are now universally acknowledged.
1 St Athanasius is not the author of the creed which
is so frequently read in our churches. 2. It does not
appear to have existed within a century after his death.
3 It was originally composed in the Latin tongue,
and consequently in the western provinces. Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, was so much amazed
by this extraordinary composition, that he frankly pro
nounced it to be the work of a drunken man.
(Ihis
Gennadius, by the bye, is the same whom Gibbon
mentions two or three times afterwards in the account
of the siege and conquest of Constantinople by the
Whoever elaborated the Creed, and whether he did
it drunk or sober, the Church of England has made it
thoroughly her own by adoption.
�76
Satires and Profanities.
Yet it must be admitted that many good churchmen
and perhaps even a few churchwomen, have not loved
th? adopted child of their Holy Mother as warmly as
their duty commanded. The intelligently pion?
Tillotson wishes Mother Church well rid of the bant
ing ; and poor George the Third himself, with all his
immense genius for orthodoxy, could not take kindly
to it. He was willing enough to repeat all its expres
sions of theological faith—in fact, their perfect non
sense, their obstinate irrationality, must have been
exquisitely delightful to a brain such as his?but he
was not without a sort of vulgar manhood, even when
worshipping m the Chapel Royal, and so rather choked
its denunciations—“ for it do curse dreadful.” He
am d mu'
faith Whole and ^defiled by reason, yet
did not like to assert that all who had been and were
and should in future be in this particular less happy
than himself, must without doubt perish everlastingly.
^OnS6 ^her.hand °ne of our most liberal Church
men, Mr. Maurice, has argued that this creed is essen
tially merciful, and that its retention in the Book of
Common Prayer is a real benefit. Mr. Maurice, how
ever, as we all know, interprets “perish everlastingly”
into a meaning very different from that which most
members of the Church accept. And his opinions lose
considerably in weight from the fact that no man save
himself can infer any one of them from any other.
? -°U T C^eered UP a bit by bis notions
?tern.al, a?d “ Everlasting,” you are soon
depressed again by his pervading woefulness. Of all
the rulers we hear of—the ex-king of Naples, the king
of Prussia the Elector of Hesse-Cassel, Abraham
Lincoln, and the Pope included—the poor God of Mr.
Maurice is the most to be pitied : a God whose world
is m so deplorable a state that the good man who owns
him lives in a perpetual fever of anxiety and misery
m endeavoring to improve it for him.
What part of this creed shocks the pious who are
shocked at. all by it ? Simply the comprehensive
damnation it deals out to unbelievers, half-believers,
and all except whole believers. For we do not hear
that the pious are shocked by the confession of theo-
�The Athanasian Creed.
77
logical or theo-illogical faith, itself. Their reverence
bowsand kisses the rod, which we cool outsiders mibht
fairly have expected to be broken up and. flung out
doors in a fury of indignation. Their sinful human
nature is shocked on account of their fellow-men ; their
divine religious nature is not shocked on account o
their God : yet does not the creed use God as badly as
m A chemist secures some air, and analyses it into its
ultimate constituents, and states with precise numerals
the proportions of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbonic acid
therein Just so the author of this creed secures the
Divinity and analyses it into Father, Son, and Ho y
Ghost, and just as precisely he reports the relations
these A mathematician makes you a problem of a
certain number divided into three parts in certain ratios
to each other and to the sum, from which ratios you
are to deduce the sum and the parts Just so the
author of this creed makes a riddle of his God dividing
him into three persons, from whose inter-relations you
are to deduce the Deity. An anatomist gets hold of
a dead body and dissects it, exposing the structure and
functions of the brain, the lungs, the hearts, etc. Just
so the author of this creed gets possession of the corpse
of God (he died of starvation doing slop-work toi
Abstraction and Company ; and the dead body .was
nurveved by the well-known resurrectionist Priest
craft), and cuts it open and expounds the generation
and functions of its three principal organs. But the
chemist does not tell- us that oxygen, nitrogen, and
carbonic acid are three gases and yet one gas, that each
of them is and is not common air, that they have each
peculiar and yet wholly identical properties; the
mathematician does not tell us that each of the three
parts of his whole number is equal to the whole, and
equal to each of the others, and yet less than the whole
and unequal to either of the others ; the anatomist does
not tell us that brain and lungs and heart are each dis
tinct and yet all the same in substance, structure, and
function, and that each is in itself the whole body and
at the same time is not : while the author of this creed
goes tell us analogous contradictions of the tnree
�78
Satires and Profanities.
aMe and tolerant as human nature can hope to be •
while the author of this creed aims at and manages to’
reach an almost super-human unreason and intnlpran™
™ W®re a sample of air, a certain number,
a dead body This humble-minded devotee, who knows
+£ Tn? c
1S finite and that God is infinite, and
that the finite cannot conceive, much less comprehend
SS exPress ibe infinite, yet expounds this Infinite
with the most complete and complacent knowledge
turns it inside out and upside down, tells us all about
it, cuts it up into three parts, and then glues it together
again with a glue that has the tenacity of atrocious
wrongheadedness instead of the coherence of logic puts
his mark upon it, and says, “ This is the only genuine
thing in the God line. If you are taken in by any
other why, go and be damned
and having done all
this finishes by chanting “ Glory be to the Father, and
to the Son, and to the Holy Ghcst !” And the pious
are not shocked by what they should abhor as horrible
sacrilege and blasphemy ; they are shocked only by
the Go, and be damned,” which is the prologue and
epilogue of the blasphemy. Were the damnatory
clauses omitted, it appears that even the most devout
worshippers could comfortably chant the Glory be to
the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost ”
immediately after they had been thus degrading Father
Son, and Holy Ghost to the level and beneath the level
ot their low human understanding. And these very
people are horrified by the lack of veneration in
�The Athanasian Creed.
79
Atheists and infidels! What infidel ever dealt with
God more contemptuously and blasphemously than this
creed has dealt with him ? Can it be expected that
Xe and sensible men, who have out-grown the pre
judices sucked in with their mothers milk, will be
reconverted to reverence a Deity whom his votaries
■dare to treat in this fashion ?
..
Ere we conclude, it may be as well to anticipate a
probable objection. It may likely enough be urged
that the author and reciters of the creed do not pretend
to know the Deity so thoroughly as we have ass^med’
since they avouch very early in the creed that the
three persons of the Godhead are one and all incom
prehensible. If the word incomprehensible, thus used
means (what it apparently meant in the author s mind)
unlimited as to extension, just as the word eternal
means unlimited as to time, the objection is altogether
wide of the mark. But even if the word incompre
hensible be taken to mean (what it apparently means
in the minds of most people who use the creed) beyond
the comprehension or capacity of the human intellect,
still the objection is without force. lor in the same
sense a tuft of grass, a stone, anything and everything
in the world is beyond the capacity of the human
intellect : the roots of a tuft of grass stride as deeply
into the incomprehensible as the mysteries of the Deity
Relatively this creed tells us quite as much about God
as ever the profoundest botanist can tell us about the
grass ; in fact, it tells relatively more, for it implies
a knowledge of the Final Cause of the subsistence of
God, which no future botanist can tell or imply of the
grass.
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Satires and profanities : with a preface by G. W. Foote
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 79 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. First published 1884: see Preface. Satires previously published in the National Reformer and the Secularist.
Contents: The story of a famous old Jewish firm -- Religion in the Rocky mountains -- The Devil in the Church of England -- Christmas eve in the upper circles -- A commission of inquiry on royalty -- A Bible lesson on monarchy -- The one thing needful --The Athanasian creed.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thomson, James [1834-1882]
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
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N639
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
Free thought
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 (Satires and profanities : with a preface by G. W. Foote), 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
Athanasian Creed
Church of England
Monarchy
NSS
Rationalism
Satire