1
10
8
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dbbccb730ff36c526a8ddf14e02617c9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=B%7Exik2-QJ3og5hpVBU44KQSLGvz8Jkh-ia6nQ0qFRT9USwxdrzESRl-c6Hk73jRvrnvzGUsoCt9SlnSh%7EOC8mnIr4wZsX%7E73MK5J64CzUe1nydptYcfLILit7t1MsWcNDiiJTlxuTn1KJC3UiWMnT3RVjaWQ-7L5Ex0c3baPUzIj9Si0N0N0Bx-kudlYSgbKWnmdMW5OtmzFJLf5wTxWhmwskcSBaXA1AL-%7EBeL00xgqIne0jPBM2X2qqcBJp57aDTh-36K6zGDi13UFbpRxb%7EELAputGPoy6h4usSpW2n88WqJ58YzyYNm8NvftRvzTSh1l0mYEdbjT4rDpkkGCsA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
925564b80f29f004b39b58ef1b374308
PDF Text
Text
f nationalsecular society
WHY WOMEN SHOULD
BE SECULARISTS.
21 Cecture,
•*
BY
LOUISA
SAMSON.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
$
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891
��B 3118
A-
®II)D Women shoulJr be Secularists,
has been said that “ every nation has got the government it deserves.’
The same might, perhaps, be as truthfully, or as untruthfully, stated
regarding its religion. I am inclined to question the veracity of that
proverb. If we had, in the past, taken such an axiom for granted, all
great progressive movements would have been impossible. We must re
member, however, that reforms, political, religious or social, have always
originated with minorities—they have generally been fought for in the
face of popular scorn, derision, or laughter, worked for amid persecution
and hardship, accomplished finally by dint of stern resolve and noble
self-sacrifice. And when these great reforms or progressions have be
come accomplished facts, the people have looked back shudderingly at
what, before, they were content to accept without grudge; and come to
regard, perhaps, as barbaric and repulsive, what at one time was con
sidered natural and convenient. The emancipation of the slaves might
never have been accomplished, if the individual desires of the slaves
themselves had been first consulted. Long years of slavery and of
oppression had rendered thousands of them apathetic and indifferent to
freedom. Had it not been for such men as Rousseau, Voltaire, and
Montesquieu, France might never have shaken herself free from the
grinding oppression of the monarchy; while to Mazzini and Garibaldi,
the prophets and liberators of Italy, is due, perhaps, the turning point
in that country’s history. Political and religious freedom go hand in
hand—the women of England need both. To-day they are pleading for
political rights—for a voice in the making of the laws they are compelled
to obey, and in the levying of the taxes for which they are made
responsible ; to-morrow they will throw oft the shackles of superstition,
and breathe the pure air of religious liberty of thought.
I am addressing myself particularly to women to-night, because we
are told, and I admit with truth, that women are the backbone of the
Christian Churches to-day. The congregations of our churches and
chapels are composed mainly of women, while among Freethought
audiences and societies women are decidedly in the minority. However
much we regret the fact, it is nevertheless true. And the reason is not
far to seek. Through long ages the education of women has been
neglected. Their need for mental progress has been entirely ignored.
t
I
�4
The Church, which owes so much to woman, has always been the one
to insist upon her position as the chattel and the slave of man ; to deny
to her intellectual liberty, to oppress her with the chains of servitude
and the bonds of ignorance.
It is an admitted fact, and I do not suppose the most devout or
bigoted Christian would attempt to deny it, that superstition has always
been the handmaid of ignorance. The Christian creed had its origin in
mythological tales, its first followers were drawn from the uneducated
classes, its teachers were illiterate men; its devotees from then until
now have been composed, to a large extent, of men and women who
have been ready to accept, without thought, the teachings of its priests,
while those who have rejected it have usually been men who have
studied science and the phenomena of nature. And so heresy has
spread wherever science has set her foot, honest unbelief has flourished
in proportion as education has advanced, and those who have been denied
the benefits of scientific culture have remained correspondingly in the
grasp of ignorance and religious credulity.
In order to understand the state of mental poverty which, until
recently, women occupied, it will be necessary to take a glance into the
past, and to consider, for a short time this evening, the conditions and
surroundings of the women of the Old and New Testaments. In the
second and third chapters of Genesis, we are introduced to the “first
woman,” who, according to that account, was made by God, as a sort
of after-thought, out of the rib of Adam as he lay sleeping. She is
taught, almost at the commencement of her career that she is an in
ferior animal: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee” (Gen. iii. 16). The book of Genesis then goes on to recount
how this inferior creature, this woman, held a conversation with a ser
pent (and evidently animals had the power of speech in those wonderful
days), and that in accordance with the directions of the serpent (who
seems to have had far more knowledge of the world than either she or
Adam), she picked an apple and handed one to her husband, who “like
wise did eat,” and who, as soon as he was found out, after skulking be
hind the trees, threw, like a coward, all the blame upon his wife.
Throughout the Old Testament women are treated with contempt.
They are bought and sold in the same way as other objects of merchan
dise. Rebekah was bought with precious things by Abraham’s servant
for Isaac. The account of the purchase is given in Genesis xxiv. 53.
Jacob paid seven years’ service to Laban for each of his two first wives
(Gen. xxix. 15-28). In the twenty-first chapter of Exodus, from the
seventh to the tenth verses, permission is given for men to sell their
daughters into slavery. We find also that, in many cases, there were
�5
actually no formalities of marriage. Sarah made a present of Hagar,
her maidservant, to Abraham ; in the words of the Bible, “she gave her
to her husband Abraham to be his wife ”; and when he was tired of her
he sent her away, with her child, into the wilderness, with the magni
ficent present of a piece of bread and a bottle of water from his stores
of wealth. And this, we are told in the twenty-first chapter of Genesis
and the twelfth verse, was with the express permission of God.
In Exodus xxi. 4 it is related that in the case of a man being a slave,
and having married during his term of slavery, when he went free he
had to leave behind his wife and his children; he had to “go out by
himself,” while his wife and family became the property of his master.
A little farther on (Deut. xxiv. 1) we find that after a man had taken a
wife, if she found no favor in his eyes, he might “ write her a bill of
divorcement, give it into her hand and send her out of his house.”
After he had turned her out, she might, if she liked, go and be another
man’s wife; and as nothing at all is said about giving her money, or
food, or clothes, it is probable that she would have to do that or starve.
After she had been cast adrift a few times, it is just as likely she would
prefer starvation. It is just as well to notice, too, that the woman had
no appeal. The husband was the accuser, the judge, and the jury. All
he had to do was to write out his sentence of divorce, give it to his wife
and send her away into the wide world. Women might also be taken as
captives of war, outraged and then cast aside. Express directions for
this kind of treatment are given in the twenty-first chapter of Deuter
onomy from the tenth to the fourteenth verses. Polygamy was general
among the peoples of the Bible ; perhaps the most remarkable example
of a much married man is that of Solomon, “the wisest man who ever
lived,” one of whose acts of wisdom was the possession of 700 first-class
and 300 second-class wives. But we do not need to rely only upon the
teachings of the Old Testament to find proof of the low estimation in
which women have always been held in Biblical times.
In Corinthians it is stated, “For the man is not of woman, but the
woman of the man; neither was man created for the woman, but the
woman for the man,” and again, “Let the women keep silence in the
churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they
will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a
shame for women to speak in the church.” If a woman has a healthy
desire for information, it is nipped in the bud. If her husband be as
ignorant as herself, she must be content, and ask nothing further.
But this is not all. In the 5th chapter of Ephesians we read: “Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the
�6
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
Church, and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the Church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands
in everything.” Nothing is said here about the beautiful doctrine
of forbearance one with another—no suggestion of mutual friend
ship and comradeship, which should exist in all true marriages.
Peter, in fact, commands the wives to couple their conversation
with fear. The New Testament looks upon marriage as a sort of
necessary evil. St. Paul taught that it was only to be adopted
as a concession to the weakness of man’s animal nature. That
purity and dignity of life, or that intellectual and sympathetic com
panionship should be the attributes of marriage never seems to have
occurred to the New Testament teachers. Mr. Lecky, in his History of
European Morals, says that marriage, under Christian rule, was viewed
in the most degraded form. The notion of its impurity, too, took many
forms, and exercised for some centuries an extremely wide influence
over the Church.
There is not one word in the New Testament condemnatory of poly
gamy. The restriction to one wife appears only to apply to bishops and
deacons (1 Tim. iii., 2, 12). Writing of the mediaeval Christians, Lecky
says: “ Christianity had assumed a form as polytheistic, and quite as
idolatrous as the ancient Paganism.” Sir William Hamilton, too, in his
Discussion of Philosophy and Literature, dealing with later Christianity,
and speaking particularly of Luther and Melancthon, says : “ They
promulgated opinions in favor of polygamy, and went to the extent of
vindicating to the spiritual minister the right to a private dispensation,
and to the temporal magistrate the right of establishing the practice, if
he chose, by public law.”
Professor George Dawes tells us that on December 19, 1539, at
Wittenberg, Luther and Melancthon drew up the famous Concillium,
authorising Phillip of Hesse to have a plurality of wives. This impor
tant document bears the names of nine of the most prominent men of
the Protestant Reformation. I find, from the same authority, that
John of Leyden established the practice of polygamy at Munster, and
drove from their homes all those who dared to oppose the odious custom;
and other Protestants followed his example. Until quite lately, the
Mormons, who are an extremely religious sect, practised polygamy.
The Mormons take the Bible as their moral guide, and are so sancti
monious that even their dances and festivities are opened and closed
with prayer.
It is instructive to compare the treatment of women under the rule
of Christianity with that of the ancient Romans. Moncure Conway,
�7
in one of his able discourses in South Place Institute some years ago
said, “ there was not a more cruel chapter in history than that which
records the arrest, by Christianity, of the natural growth of European
civilization as regards woman. In Germany it found woman partici
pating in the legislative assembly, and sharing the interests and counsels
of man, and drove her out and away, leaving her to-day nothing of her
ancient rights but the titles that remain to mark her degradation. In
the Pagan countries of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, woman’s position was
far higher than under Christian sway. The Egyptians neither degraded
her by polygamy nor kept her secluded. The Greeks, who at first treated
their women almost as slaves, gradually improved their condition, and
learnt from the Egyptians the arts of humanity and justice towards
women.” Lecky, in his Position of Women, says: “On the whole,
it is probable that the Roman matron was from the earliest period a
name of honor; that the beautiful sentence of a jurisconsult of the
Empire, who defined marriage as a lifelong fellowship, of all
divine and human rights, expressed most faithfully the feelings of the
people, and that female virtue had, in every age, a considerable place in
Roman biographies.” Long before the era of Christianity, the great
poetess Sappho flourished, of whom Plato spoke in such high terms of
honor. In ancient Greece, women taught in the philosophical schools,
and lectured on scientific and literary subjects. The last prominent
popular representative was Hypatia, the daughter of Theon, the
mathematician, who not only expounded the doctrines of Plato and
Aristotle, but commented upon the writings of Apollonius. But just at
this time Christianity was coming into power, and one of its apostles
was St. Cyril, who succeeded Theophilus to the Bishopric of Alexandria.
Hypatia was a heretic, St. Cyril was a Christian. One day as Hypatia
was proceeding to her lecture hall, she was set upon by a mob of monks
who, under the religious direction of Cyril, stripped her naked, dragged
her into a church, and there murdered her. They afterwards cut her
body to pieces, scraped the flesh from her bones with shells, and cast
the remnants into the fire. St. Cyril, the pious minister of Christ, was
never called to account for this terrible crime. In fact, to the Christians
the extermination of heretics was no crime, and so philosophy was
stamped out and destroyed, just as the great Alexandrian Library was
destroyed by Theophilus, the uncle of this St. Cyril, who for fear of the
heresy which inevitably accompanies knowledge, did away with the
grand array of literature which had been collected by the Ptolemys—
the Ptolemys who, in the words of Draper, “ recognized that there is
something more durable than the forms of faith, which, like the
organic forms of geological ages, once gone, are clean gone for ever, and
�8
have no restoration, no return. They recognized that within this world
of transient delusions and unrealities, there is a world of truth; and
that that world is not to be discovered through the vain traditions that
have brought down to us the opinions of men who lived in the morning
of civilization, nor in the dreams of mystics, who thought that they
were inspired. It is to be discovered by the investigations of geometry,
and by the practical interrogation of nature. These confer on humanity
solid, and innumerable, and inestimable blessings.”
I have endeavored to show that Christianity has always been the
enemy of education and of science. Such men as Galileo and Giordano
Bruno have fallen victims to its bigotry and intolerance. Servetus was
roasted to death over a slow fire, by order of Calvin, because he had the
audacity to think for himself upon religious matters. Dr. Draper, in
his Conflict between Religion and Science, says of the Inquisition, that
“ in general terms, its commission was to extirpate religious dissent by
terrorism, and surround heresy with the most horrible associations;
this necessarily implied the power of determining what constitutes
heresy. The criterion of truth was thus in possession of this tribunal,
which was charged to discover, and to bring to judgment, heretics
lurking in towns, houses, cellars, woods, caves, and fields. With such
savage alacrity did it carry out its object of protecting the interests of
religion that between 1481 and 1808, it had punished 340,000 persons,
and of these nearly 32,000 had been burnt.”
It has often been argued that persecution only emanated from the
Catholic Church. But Protestants have persecuted Catholics ; both of
these Christian sects have fallen upon each other whenever they have
had the chance. Not much more than 300 years ago, in the reign of
Elizabeth, who boasted of her religious tolerance, within twenty years
more than 200 Catholic priests were executed, while a yet greater num
ber perished in the filthy and fever-stricken gaols into which they were
plunged (Green’s Short History of the English People).
Whenever the Church has been most powerful, she has been most in
tolerant, and by “ the Church” I mean all communities whose thoughts
are bound by religious creeds. To-day the Church is losing her power
with the spread of education, and she is becoming more tolerant. One by
one, the old doctrines are slipping from under her feet. Priests of the
Established Church, like Archdeacon Farrar, have rejected Eternal
Punishment by Hell Fire; and the Inspiration of the Bible, the Birth
of the World 6,000 years ago, the Universal Flood: all these things which
at one time it was death at the stake to deny, are not now insisted upon
by many ministers of the gospel, who claim to be of the Broad School
of Christianity. And why are these things not as true to-day as they
�9
were a hundred years ago ? Simply because the pure light of science
has streamed upon them, and civilization is crumbling to atoms the
theories which have descended from primitive and barbaric times ; be
cause men and women are profiting by the experiences of the ages
because the inventions of railways and the telegraph, of newspapers,
and of the postal system are placing within reach of the poorest the
knowledge which, in the past, was withheld from them.
Now, it may be asked, What do I mean by Secularism? I mean,
the religion of this life. Secularists are constantly charged with
“negativeness.” We are charged with pulling down with one hand,
and building up nothing with the other—or rather we are accused
of expending all our energies upon the work of destruction, and with
constructing nothing—because, say the Christians, we have “nothing
to construct.” Let us see, therefore, what code of morals our Secular
ism embraces. Secularism sees only this world. It does not pretend
to waste valuable time, which might be employed in practical work
for the good of humanity, in discussing whether there may or may
not be, in some far off misty region, which has never yet been defined,
another world where all the ills of this one may be set right. Our
experience of this world has never proved to us, by any possible
method of reasoning, that another one, which at best must be an im
aginative one, will be any improvement on the present. We are content
to place the mythologies of the Bible upon a par with the mythologies
of Greece, or of Rome; to read the writings of the Biblical prophets
only as we might read the literature of other and more ancient reli
gions ; to study the welfare of our fellow creatures, to do right for the
love of rectitude, and not for the hope of a future reward, or the fear of
a future punishment. We hold that only by making happiness for
those around us, and by endeavoring, individually, to make the world
a little brighter for our having lived in it, can we hope to gain happi
ness for ourselves. We believe in the liberty of thought and of speech,
but we do not believe in any individual attempting to explain the
workings of some supposed cause, outside the universe of which, like
us, he knows nothing. We believe in concentrating our efforts upon
the improvement of this world, which is all the world we know of.
If this other world, with which Christians are apparently so well ac
quainted, should really exist; according to their own creed, only a very
few people are to get there. “ Strait is the gate and narrow the way,
and few there be that find it.” There will be no room for the heretics,
for the great reformers and inventors of all ages, for such men as
Galileo, or Bruno, or Spinoza. Truly the Secularist would rather seek
immortality in the hearts of men, the Secularist would rather recognise
�10
the eternity of great works accomplished, of liberties won, of all those
influences which can never die, than he would sigh for the paltry glory
of never-ending psalm-singing and knee-bending. But, alas, with all
our progress, with the gradual rejection of creeds among men, we
women, the larger part of the community, are still bound by the fetters
of the Church. Yet, as we gather by slow degrees the advantages of
education, which have until recently been withheld from us, so surely
shall we begin to think, to reason, and so to doubt. The great cry against
women is, that they “do not think.” Yes! but you have not let us
think. You have withheld from us the means by which we should have
been taught to think. We have only been thrown the crumbs which
fell from the table of knowledge. In an excellent article by Dr. Fitch,
in the latest edition of Chambers' Encyclopaedia, upon Education, he
says, speaking of endowed schools of the 18th, and the beginning of the
present century: “It is to be observed that while schools of the charity
class were open to girls, the whole of the grammar school education
was provided for boys only. There is scarcely a record in all the
voluminous reports of later charity commissions, of any school whose
founder deliberately contemplated a liberal education for girls ; certainly
not one which fulfilled such a purpose, whether it was contemplated by
the founder or not. A girl was not invited to the university or grammar
school; but she might, if poor, be needed to contribute to the comfort
of her ‘ betters,’ as an apprentice or a servant, and therefore the
charity schools were open to her.” It is only recently that some of the
Universities have partially thrown open their doors to women ; the
secular University of London led the way. Even now, when women,
as in the case of Miss Fawcett, outstrip the men in intellectual attain
ments, they are not allowed to receive the honorable rewards of their
work.
Fortunately, the emancipation of women has begun, the spirit of the
age points to freedom, and by and bye, when the myths and super
stitions of religious creeds shall have taken their places far back amid
the shadows, women shall stand side by side with all honest men, work
ing hand in hand with them in the arena of life for the commonweal,
given the same opportunities, the same rewards, the same inducements
for effort. And I would have you bear in mind that in order to have
strong intellectual men, in order that the race may grow in mental as
well as in physical vigor, it is necessary that the minds of women
should be cultivated.
The ancient Spartans, who were remarkable for the wondrous vigor
and strength of their men, recognised this necessity, at any rate as
regards the physical education of their women. They desired men of
�11
strong bodily configuration ; their ideal heroes were hardy, daring, and
resolute. Professor James Donaldson, writing in the Contemporary
Review, in 1878, says of the Spartans: “ The one function which
woman had to discharge was that of motherhood. But this function
was conceived in the widest range in which the Spartans conceived
humanity. In fact, no woman can discharge effectively any one of
the great functions assigned her by nature without the entire culti
vation of all parts of her nature. And so we see in this case. The
Spartans wanted strong men: the mothers therefore must be strong.
The Spartans wanted brave men; the mothers therefore must be
brave. The Spartans wanted resolute men—men with decision of
character: the mothers must be resolute. They believed with in
tense faith that, as are the mothers, so will be the children. And they
acted on this faith. They first devoted all the attention and care they
could to the physical training of their women. From their earliest
days the women engaged in gymnastic exercises ; and when they reached
the age of girlhood, they entered into contests with each other in
wrestling, racing, and throwing the quoit, and the javelin.” Farther
on in his essay, Professor Donaldson says: “ Such was the Spartan
system. What were the results of it ? For about four or five hundred
years there was a succession of the strongest men that possibly ever
existed on the face of the earth. The legislator was successful in his
main aim. And I think that I may add that these men were among
the bravest. They certainly held the supremacy in Greece for a con
siderable time, through sheer force of energy, bravery, and obedience to
law. And the women helped to this high position as much as the men.
They were themselves remarkable for vigor of body and beauty of form.”
Dealing with the education of the Spartan women, Donaldson says:
“Many of the wives were better educated than their husbands, and the
fact was noticed by others. ‘ You of Lacedemon,’ said a stranger lady
to Gorgo, wife of Leonidas, ‘ are the only women in the world that rule
the men.’ ‘ We,’ she replied, ‘ are the only women that bring forth
men.’ There is a great deal of point in what Gorgo said. If women
bring forth and rear men, they are certain to receive from them respect
and tenderness, for there is no surer test of a man’s real manhood than
his love for all that is noblest, highest, and truest in women, and his
desire to aid her in attaining to the full perfection of her nature.”
And so even now, late in the day as it is, we have begun to learn the
lesson that it is necessary, if men would advance, the women should
advance also.
Ah ! but we are told, women are not logical like men, they are more
impulsive, they are naturally more sentimental and superstitious. I
�12
admit it, but I contend that their position in these respects is the result
of their past training, or, rather, neglect of training. Does not the
tree of ignorance always bear the fruit of superstition? And just in
proportion as women become educated so do they become logical and
self-reliant. No one, however, pretends to deny that the highest
education and belief in Christianity often go together. But one must
remember, also, that part of the doctrine of Christianity is “to become
as little children ”—or, in other words, when dealing with religious
questions, it is necessary to accept the Bible narratives, with the simple
credulity of children. When an educated person comes, therefore, to
deal with Christianity—if he wishes to remain true to his faith—he
must necessarily put inductive and deductive reasoning out of sight; he
must be prepared to swallow whole, miracles, resurrections, marvellous
births, and other wonders, without the slightest attempt at mental
mastication. In dealing with these matters, the educated Christian is
compelled to throw reason and logic to the winds, or his belief would
falter. But it is impossible to settle these matters without the use of
reason. The Christian must therefore be content to shelve them, and
he finds the usual hackneyed phrase very useful at this crisis: “ These
are mysteries, ive do not attempt to understand them.” Now, that is where
the Secularist differs radically with the Christian. The Secularist main
tains that it is the duty of every man and woman to reason out, upon
the lines of experience, each and every question which affects the pro
blem of life. Secularists cannot see tl^e necessity of making exceptions
to this rule whenever religion is concerned. Naturally, women who
have always been kept in subjection—who have been taught that blind
unquestioning obedience and servile submission are qualities which
they should possess, are more readily adaptable to religious dogmas than
men, who have always enjoyed a wider freedom than women. Sub
mission to the rule of the Church, and humble reverence for its mini
sters have always been part and parcel of religious teachings.
As I have said, too, men are, by their training in the past, and in the
present, more logical in thought than women. It has often occurred
to me that this is one reason, out of many, why women are more
devoted to the Christian faith than men. It, however, only partially
explains it, because, as we have just seen, a vast number of people are
content to put into the background their logic and reason when they
come to deal with questions of belief.
And by following this plan they are, as they think, honestly able to
accept Christianity in its entirety, and to regard belief in such matters
as the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement as essential to their
salvation. Individuals of this school, like Jonathan Edwards, or, to
�13
take examples of the present period, men like Mr. Spurgeon or Dr.
Talmage, are, as far as their religion is concerned, perfectly consistent;
and for my part I would far more respect men of this type than those
who belong to what is called the Broad school of Christianity, the men
who are neither true to Christianity nor Secularism; but who, to use a
vulgar phrase, run with both hare and hounds, and endeavor to keep
within distance of the advanced thought of the nineteenth century
while at the same time they pander to the superstitions of a creed
which is barbarous and unfit for a civilised community. I am not con
tending, however, that consistent Christians are not honest. I know
that great names are cited upon the side of Christianity, such as those
of Mr. Gladstone, Cardinal Newman or Sir Isaac Newton; and that, on
the other hand, Secularists can refer to such men as Charles Darwin,
Herbert Spencer, or Colonel Robert Ingersoll as having rejected the
Christian dogma. The real fact is that great names prove nothing so
far as individual thought is concerned. What we need to do is to
think for ourselves,—what we have no right to do is to control the
thought of others.
Mothers have no right to take advantage of the plasticity of their
children’s minds to instil into them doctrines which by and bye they
will have to unlearn. Of all confidences there is none greater, none
more unfaltering, than that of the child in its parent. Long before
reason has grown, the myths of the Bible have been related as veritable
facts to the infant mind. Slowly but surely the child is moulded for
the Church prison, and its impressionable nature stamped with creed
and dogma. What a terrible responsibility is this! and yet it is under
taken every day and every hour by the mothers of our nation, under
taken as a duty, as a labor of love—undertaken, too, with honesty and
sincerity. And so the child is sent out into the world, handicapped at
the outset; his mind warped with the narrow tenets of the Christian
faith. He goes forth to take his part in the world’s struggle wrapped
round with the mantle of superstition, which clings and drags around
his mental form, impedes the free movement of his thought, and
obstructs his reasoning faculties. And for this, as I have said, the
mother—nay, the education of the mother—is responsible. Well, in
deed, if women were taught to
Then would the wider field of
duty appear; the individuality of the child would not be sacrificed to
the authority of the parent; the spirit of enquiry would be nurtured
and stimulated; and the child would gain in self-reliance and percep
tion, while he would be untrammelled with delusions and faiths. We
have no right to bind the intellects of our children. We have no right
to pollute their minds with the horrible doctrines of Everlasting Dam
�14
nation and of the natural depravity of man; we have no right to
describe to them the barbarous and bloodthirsty actions of the men of
the Bible, and fill their youthful minds with horror at the awful doom
awaiting those who will not accept these stories as divine.
One duty at least we owe to our children—to give them fair play. I
do not mean, by that, that we are to bring them up in ignorance of
Biblical knowledge. Such knowledge is necessary and useful. But so
also is a knowledge of other religions of the world. The history and
development of Buddhism, of Hinduism, of Muhammadanism, and of
other ancient or modern faiths are of value to every thinking individual,
inasmuch as something may be learned from each oHthem. But if we
place before our children the religion of the Bible, it is surely our duty
to acquaint them with the important fact that it is but one out of
many religions ; and that having special prominence in this country, it
is perhaps necessary to study in particular its history and methods.
I think it is generally admitted that women are both practical and
sympathetic. If the great majority of women were Secularists, how
much more temporal work might be done. The time spent in praying
to the God of the Christians to grant favors or to avert disasters, to
alter decrees which, at the same time, he is supposed to have immut
ably determined, might be occupied in useful work; the hours spent at
the confessional or at the altar might be employed in the discharge of
the duties of citizens; the days given to Scripture reading would be
spent in the search for truth; the observance of religious rites and
forms would give place to following after the teachings of science; the
inmates of nunneries, at present shut away from the world, and offici
ating only in the solitudes of the cell, as the brides of Christ, would
become earnest, active workers, helping to spread the doctrine of intel
lectual freedom.
Let us look for a moment at some of the work that is being accom
plished to-day in the name of Christianity; and it may be as well to
bear in mind that women are always to the front whenever practical
work is to be done. Let us take, for instance, the British Women’s
Temperance Association. Perhaps no organisation for reform is more
energetic or can show better results than this society. But what I
want to draw special attention to is that the work is said to be done in
the, name of Christianity. Now, putting aside the fact that the founder
of Christianity on more than one occasion clearly sanctioned the prac
tice of wine-drinking, it must be obvious to anyone jwho at all seriously
considers the matter, that the drink question has absolutely nothing
whatever to do with any distinctive creed. In order to reform a drunk
ard he must be brought to see that excessive drinking is injurious to
�15
himself; that unless it be given up it will sooner or later end in the de
struction of his body. (I say nothing about the soibl because, according
to Christians, the repentance of an hour is sufficient to atone for the
sins of a lifetime, and is a certain passport to glory.) I say, then, that
the acceptance or non-acceptance of a creed has nothing to do with the
drink question. In fact, the followers of Muhammad set the Christian
bishops and priests a good example, for one of the Muhammadan rules
is abstention from intoxicating liquors, and the Muhammadans have no
taverns or gaming houses. Christians, too, are in the habit of sending
out batches of missionaries to preach the gospel of Christ to the poor
deluded heathen; and the same ships that carry the missionaries are
loaded with barrels of vile, adulterated rum which it is intended they
should consume in the intervals of digesting the good news which these
Christian ministers preach to them. The North American Indians are
indebted to Christianity for the introduction of drunkenness among
them! Then there is the great Peace Movement, started in this country
chiefly by the Quakers. Both the Peace Society and the International
Peace and Arbitration Society has its Female Committee, a band of
women who are pledged to support arbitration and use their influence
to put down war in the name of Christianity! And yet the Archbishop
of the Christian Church, as by law established, publicly consecrates the
flags of the army, and in times of war the Christian priests pray to the
God of the Christians to bless the murderous work of hewing down their
fellow creatures or blowing out their brains. Take, for instance, the
case of the Zulu war, when thousands of Zulus, fighting in defence of
their own country, and with only assegais to defend themselves against
the scientific weapons of civilised England, were butchered wholesale by
the English soldiers; who, upon their return to this Christian land, were
publicly applauded for their heroic deeds, and upon whose breasts her
Most Gracious Majesty the Queen pinned medals of honor. And then
the drums rolled and the trumpets played, and the ministers of the
Christian Church offered public thanksgiving to God for this glorious
victory. And the women—the peace-loving women of England—knelt
within the Church pews and joined devoutly in the national thanks
giving. And yet the Peace Movement is called a Christian movement!
and the religion which has been responsible for centuries of oppression
and bloodshed poses as affording its blessing and sanction to English
Peace Societies.
But I might go on interminably enumerating the great reform move
ments of the age which have been engendered by the spirit of progress
and of humanity, and which are totally distinct from any question of
creed or belief. I maintain that all great progressions tending towards
�16
political or social freedom, all noble endeavors to better the conditions
and surroundings of mankind have been undertaken in spite of and not
as a consequence of Christianity. I do not need to remind you of the
prominent place that women have taken in the secular work of the
Salvation Army. I am endeavoring to show how much the secular
work of women is impeded, and not advanced, by the Christian creed.
If the women of the Salvation Army devoted themselves entirely to
secular work, so much the more would their services be of value to the
community. But it is at least one step nearer truth when religionists
of the nineteenth century admit practically, if not theoretically, that
the salvation of the body is of more urgent necessity than that of the
soul; it is at least one point gained when secular work comes first and
spiritual work second; it is a significant sign of the times when Chris
tians are forced to admit that the only way in which it is to-day possible
to keep alive their creed among the poorest classes is to sandwich the
Atonement in between a good supper and a night’s rest, and silver the
pill of Eternal Damnation with a coating of material help. The Chris
tian women of the Salvation Army have, -in spite of themselves, had
to reject at least one of the teachings of the New Testament. If they
had followed the advice of St. Paul in one particular respect they could
not have undertaken the positions of preachers; they would have had
to “keep silence”; and if the women had kept silence, I will venture to :i
say the Army would not have become the big thing it has turned out to 'f
be. Mr. Stead, in his article in the Review of Reviews for October, ’.A
1890, says that the Salvation Army was “largely founded by a woman,”
i
and that “the extent to which the Salvation Army has employed women 2
in every department of its administration has been one of the great J.:
secrets of its strength.” I am not quoting this remark in order that
women may appear to take special credit, but only as proving the truth 'J;
of the assertion that women possess, perhaps in particular, the faculty ,
of persuasion.
The conversion, therefore, of women to Secularism will mean the.ijBft
increase of Secularism among men, and among the children who will be
the men and women of the future; it will mean the gradual relinquish
ing of prayer for helpful work; it will mean the abandonment of peni
tent submission for the display of energy in improving the surroundings
of life; it will mean the closing of the eye of faith in the supernatural
and the increase of confidence in noble self-effort; it will mean the ulti
mate death of .tyranny and fear and the beautiful realisation of the
Brotherhood of Man.
J .
j.
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
Why women should be secularists : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Samson, Louisa
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N604
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why women should be secularists : 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
NSS
Secularism
Women
Women Freethinkers
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cf232bde6f905c13d9bcf19dff3cb5ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=avQkUIUh54Ug21cUurZqF-9ZNMqw0cv8oPA2GtGPst5kXnV8CYuO3O24caarKJdZZbSW33UHbgQdSxvRezy075L0XVrdPFfYGwdYf8nyFGkZ89-O4mykJKS6xfQ-qOM2YoODo3Y7TyXMs-q7gXypbSYgy2ncKnvb3XfUdw%7E5QBA3OC1dU9OBXNyHkKYT3u2MLYOn0s670iv94YQHyhNL899Z7XhUsJulCq4NgrD82zFDSogDoeXBixiGKgeLZkomH47PCQtU2%7EoCwzYqQ8HO5iQnsKkM0%7Evo8q8FjBAMI0ZSCbaKTV0fvWEtqNgN%7EY%7EjIn7JPM6GbS9btL9yhhEoOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9f37cacf4164b30b92fcf53d5c74d5d3
PDF Text
Text
I
REMINISCENCES
OF
CHARLES BRADLAUGH
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
■V
AND
Editor of “ The Freethinker."
I
f
Price Sixpence.
Xtnibeu:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
REMINISCENCES
OF
CHARLES BRADLAUGH
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
AND
Editor of “ The Freethinker.”
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
�LONDON I
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCJETY
INTRODUCTION.
THE following pages are reprinted, with some altera
tions and additions, from the columns of the
Freethinker.
They are neither methodical nor
exhaustive. I had the privilege of knowing Mr.
Bradlaugh more or less intimately for twenty years.
I have worked with him in the Freethought movement
and stood by his side on many political platforms. It
seemed to me, therefore, that if I jotted down, even in
a disjointed manner, some of my recollections of his
great personality, I should be easing my own mind and
conferring a pleasure on many readers. Beyond that
I was not ambitious. The time for writing Mr. Brad
laugh’s life is not yet, but when it arrives my jottings
may furnish a point or two to his biographer.
G. W. FOOTE,
March 30, 1891.
��Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
----------- ♦-----------
When I came to London, in January, 1868, I was
eighteen years of age. I had plenty of health and very
little religion. While in my native town of Plymouth
I had read and thought for myself, and had gradually
passed through various stages of scepticism, until I
was dissatisfied even with the advanced Unitarianism
of a preacher like the Rev. J. K. Applebee. But I
could not find any literature in advance of his position,
and there was no one of whom I could inquire.
Secularism and Atheism I had never heard of in any
definite wray, although I remember, when a little boy,
having an Atheist pointed out to me in the street.
Naturally I regarded him as a terrible monster. I did
not know what Atheism was except in a very vague
way; but I inferred from the tones, expressions, and
gestures of those who pointed him out to me, that an
Atheist was a devil in human form.
Soon after I came to London I found out an old
school-fellow, and went to lodge with his family.
They were tainted with Atheism, and my once pious
playmate was as corrupt as the rest of them. They
took me one Sunday evening to Cleveland Hall, where
I heard Mrs. Law knock the Bible about delight
fully. She was not what would be called a woman of
culture, but she had what some devotees of “ culchaw”
do not possess—a great deal of natural ability ; and she
appeared to know the “blessed book” from cover to
�6
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
cover. Her discourse was very different from the
Unitarian sermons I had heard at Plymouth. She
spoke in a plain, honest, straightforward manner, and
I resolved to visit Cleveland Hall again.
Three or four weeks afterwards I heard Mr. Brad
laugh for the first time. It was a very wet Sunday
evening, but as ’bus-riding was dearer then than it is
now, and my resources were slender, I walked about
three miles through the heavy rain, and sat on a back
less bench in Cleveland Hall, for which I think I paid
twopence. I was wet through, but I was young, and
my health was flawless. Nor did I mind the dis
comfort a bit when Mr. Bradlaugh began his lecture.
Fiery natural eloquence of that sort was a novelty in
my experience. I kept myself warm with applauding,
and at the finish I was pretty nearly as dry outside as
inside. From that time I went to hear Mr. Bradlaugh
whenever I had an opportunity. He became the
“ god ” of my young idolatry. I used to think of him
charging the hosts of superstition, and wish I could
be near him in the fight. But it was rather a dream
than any serious expectation of such an honor.
When the new Hall of Science was opened I became
a pretty regular attendant. I heard Mr. Charles Watts,
who was then as. now a capital debater; Mr. G. J.
Holyoake, Mr. C. C. Cattell, Mr. Austin Holyoake. and
perhaps one or two other lecturers whom I have for
gotten. Mr. Austin Holyoake frequently took the
chair, especially at Mr. Bradlaugh’s lectures, and a
capital chairman he was, giving out the notices in a
pleasant, graceful manner, and pleading for financial
support like a true man. He was working hard for the
success of the enterprise himself, and had a right to
beg help from others.
Mr. Bradlaugh, however, was the great attraction
in my case. Perhaps I was more impressionable at
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
1
that time, but I fancy he was then at his best as an
orator. In later life he grew more cautious under a
sense of responsibility ; he had to think what he should
not say as well as what he should. He cultivated the
art of persuasion, and he was right in doing so. But
at the earlier period I am writing of he gave a full
swing to his passionate eloquence. His perorations
were marvellously glowing and used to thrill me to the
very marrow.
Gradually I began to make acquaintances at the
Hall. I got to know Mr. Austin Holyoake and his
charming wife, Mr. and Mrs. Bayston, Mr. Herbert
Gilham, Mr. It. 0. Smith, and other workers. By and
bye I was introduced to Mr. Bradlaugh and shook
hands with him. It was the proudest moment of my
young life. I still remember his scrutinising look. It
was keen but kindly, and the final expression seemed
to say, “ We may see more of each other.”
In 1870 I wrote my first article in the National
Reformer. For a year or two I wrote occasionally,
and after that with tolerable frequency. I was also
engaged in various efforts at the Hall; helping to carry
on a Secular Sunday School, a Young Men’s Secular
Association, etc. Naturally I was drawn more and
more into Mr. Bradlaugh’s acquaintance, and when he
found himself unable to continue the Logic Class he
had started at the Hall he asked me to carry it on for
him. Of course I was proud of the invitation. But
the Class did not live long. It was not Logic, but Mr.
Bradlaugh, that had brought the members together.
Nor do I think they would have learnt much of the
art from Mr. Bradlaugh, except in an empirical way.
He had a very logical cast of mind, but as far as I
could see he had little acquaintance with formal
Logic as it is taught by Mill and Whately, whom I
select as typical masters of Induction and Deduction,
�8
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
without wishing to depreciate the host of other autho
rities. Mr. Bradlaugh really gave his class lessons in
Metaphysics; his talk was of substance, mode, and
attribute, rather than of premises and conclusions.
Mr. Bradlaugh and I were brought into closer
acquaintance by the Republican agitation in England
after the proclamation of the present French Republic.
I attended the Republican Conference at Birmingham
in 1871, when I first met my old friend Dr. Guest of
Manchester, Mr. R. A. Cooper of Norwich, Mr. Daniel
Baker, Mr. Ferguson the Glasgow Home Ruler, and
other veterans of reform. We held our Conference
on Sunday in the old meeting-place of the Secular
Society, which was approached by very abrupt steps,
and being situated over stables, was not devoid of
flavor. On Monday the Conference was continued in
one of the rooms under the Town Hall. A long poli
tical programme was concocted. I was elected Secre
tary, and had the honor of speaking at the public
meeting in the large hall. It was my first appearance
in such a perilous position. I was apprehensive, and
I said so. But Mr. Bradlaugh put his hand on my
shoulder and told me not to fear. His kind looks and
words were an excellent tonic. When I rose to speak
I thought next to nothing about the audience. I
thought “ Mr. Bradlaugh is listening, I must do my
best.” And now as I am writing, I recall his encou
raging glance as I looked at him, and the applause he
led when I made my first point. He was my leader,
and he helped me in an elder-brotherly way. Nothing
could exceed his considerate generosity. Other people
did not see it, but I remember it, and it was typical of
the man.
One incident at the Conference is worth noting. It
occurred in the afternoon, when Mr. R. A. Cooper (I
think) was in the chair. The question of Free Educa-
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
fJ
lion was being discussed. Mr. Bradlaugh did not
quite like it, nor did I. He asked me to go with him
into an ante-room and consider an amendment. What
it was I can hardly remember, although I recollect that
Mr. Cooper was very sarcastic about it. Since then my
own opinion has changed, as I dare say Mr. Bradlaugh’s
had changed; and the incident would not be worth
recalling if it did not throw a light upon Mr. Brad
laugh’s philosophy. He was always in favor of self
help and individual responsibility, and he was naturally
hostile to everything that might weaken those precious
elements of English life.
During the years immediately after the opening of
the Hall of Science, Mr. Bradlaugh was there a good
deal. Sometimes he attended the week-night enter
tainments and gave a reading from Shelley or
Whittier or some other poet. The audience applauded
as a matter of course. They always applauded Mr.
Bradlaugh. But he was no reader. He delivered his
lines with that straightforward sincerity which
characterised his speeches. He cultivated none of
the graces or dexterities of the elocutionist. Besides,
he was too original to be a successful echo of othei’
men. I think he only did justice to Shelley’s lines
“ To the Men of England.” But this is a piece of
simple and vigorous declamation ; very fine, no doubt,
but rather rhetoric than poetry.
Mr. Bradlaugh was anything but a cold man. I
should say he was electric. But his tastes, so far as I
could discover, did not lie in the direction of poetry.
Certainly I heard him once, in those old days, read a
great part, if not the whole of Shelley’s “ Sensitive
Plant.” He loved Shelley, however, as an Atheist
and a Republican, and I suppose he took Shelley’s
poetry on trust. But I do not think, though I speak
under correction, that he cared very much for poetry
�10
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
■cis such. I could never discover from his conversation
-or writings that he had read a line of Shakespeare—
the god of Colonel Ingersoll. His mind was of the
practical order, like Oliver Cromwell’s. He had a
.genius for public affairs. He was not only a born
orator, but a born ruler of men. Naturally he had, as
the French say, the defects of his qualities. And it
may be that the terrible stress of his life tended to
repress the poetical side of his nature, and less
•developed his subtlety than his strength. Yet his
feelings were deep, and his heart was easily touched.
When William O’Brien delivered that great speech
in the House of Commons after his imprisonment by
Mr. Balfour, with all its needless indignities, there
were two men who could not restrain their tears.
■One was an Irish member. The other was Charles
Bradlaugh. One who witnessed the scene told me it
was infinitely pathetic to see that gigantic man,
■deemed so hard by an ignorant world, wiping away
his tears at the tale of a brave man’s unmerited
suffering.
Mr. Bradlaugh used to attend the social parties
pretty often in those old days. He did not dance
and he stood about rather awkwardly. It must have
been a great affliction, but he bore it with exemplary
fortitude. Once or twice I saw Mrs. Bradlaugh there.
She had a full-blown matronly figure. Miss Alice and
Miss Hypatia came frequently. They were not then
living in the enervating air of London, and they
looked extremely robust. I also remember the boy
'Charles, of whom Mr. Bradlaugh seemed very proud.
He was a remarkably bright lad, and full of promise.
But he was carried off by a fever. Only a day or two
:after the lad’s death Mr. Bradlaugh had to lecture at
ithe Hall. I was away, and I wondered whether he
would fulfil the engagement. He did fulfil it. A
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
11
friend wrote to me that Mr. Bradlaugh walked through
the hall and mounted the platform with a face as
white and rigid as that of a statue. He made no
reference or allusion to his loss, but all could see he
carried a bleeding heart. His lecturing in such cir
cumstances was characteristic. Weaker men would
have indulged their grief ; he was made of sterner
stuff, and would not let it interfere with what he
deemed his duty.
Splendid as was his eloquence at that time, Mr.
Bradlaugh did not draw the large audiences that
flocked around him a few years later. The Hall of
Science was at first but half its present size, the
platform standing on the right as you entered, with
a small gallery on the opposite side. Its holding
capacity could not have been more than half what it
is at present, yet I have seen the place far from full.
But the audiences grew larger and larger, and
eventually the hall was increased to its present pro
portions, although for a long time there was not cash
enough to put on a proper roof, and the building was
defaced by a huge unsightly beam, on each side of
which there was an arch of corrugated iron.
Those were glorious times. Difficulties were great,
but there was a spirit at the Hall that laughed at
them. How the foremost men about the place did
work! Mr. R. 0. Smith and Mr. Trevilion, senior,
could a tale unfold. Whenever Freethinkers are at
all dejected they should have a chat with one of
those gentleman. Perhaps it would make them
ashamed of their dejection, and fill them with the
spirit of the heroic days.
Friends have told me with what energy Mr. Brad
laugh fought the battles of the old Reform League.
I know with what energy he threw himself into the
Republican agitation that followed the downfall of
�12
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Napoleon III. He tried to get to Paris but failed. Jules
Favre and his friends did not want him. Favre
himself was an eloquent histrion, and no doubt he felt
afraid of a man like Mr. Bradlaugh. But if Mr. Brad
laugh could not get to "Paris he fought hard for France
in London. Meetings at the Hall of Science did not
suffice. There was money from French sources and
St. James’s Hall was taken for a big demonstration.
The Positivists shared in the proceedings. Their
chief man was Mr. Frederic Harrison. Mr. Bradlaugh
and he were a tremendous contrast. In fact a London
paper (I think the Echo) remarked that Mr. Brad
laugh spoke as well as Mr. Harrison wrote, and Mr.
Harrison spoke as badly as Mr. Bradlaugh wrote.
There was some truth in this, though like most
epigrams it was not all true. Mr. Bradlaugh was a
born orator, but not a born writer. Yet he often
wrote with a forthright power, nakdd and unadorned,
which could dispense with the aid of literary artifices.
During this English agitation on behalf of France,
held firmly under German feet, Mr. Bradlaugh came
into contact with a French countess, who, I believe,
either supplied or was the channel of supplying the
necessary funds. As the lady is mentioned in Mr
Headingley’s Life of Charles Bradlaugh, which was
published with Mr. Bradlaugh’s sanction, there is no
reason why I should not refer to her. She came
several times to the Hall of Science, and I was intro
duced to her. She had been a beauty, and although
time was beginning to tell on her, she retained a good
deal of charm and distinction, which, like a true
Frenchwoman, she heightened by the art of dressing.
Then as now, of course, foul tongues wagged in foolish
heads, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies were not slow to
point to the French countess with prurient grimaces.
Unable to understand friendship between man and
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
13
woman, owing to their Puritan training or incurable
rankness, they invited the orthodox in religion and
politics to note this suspicious connection. Something
of this malicious folly must have reached Mr. Brad
laugh’s ears, but I imagine he was too proud and selfcontained to let it disturb him.
After the Birmingham meeting, and the founding
of the Republican League, of which Mr. Bradlaugh
became president, and I secretary, he visited Spain on
private business, taking with him a message from the
Conference to Senor Castelar, the leading spirit of the
short-lived Spanish Republic. I remember writing
out the message in a clear, bold hand, and addressing
the foolscap envelope in the same way. When Mr.
Bradlaugh fell among the Carlists he cursed my caligraphy. Happily, however, the officer who scrutinised
that envelope could not read at all, and Mr. Bradlaugh
escaped the consequences of being known to carry
about letters addressed to the devilish Castelar.
During Mr. Bradlaugh’s first visit to America I was a
frequent contributor to his journal, and I corresponded
with him privately. I went down to Northampton
and delivered a lecture at his request, under the auspices
of his electoral committee. The old theatre—a dirty,
ramshackle place as I recollect it—was crowded, and I
had my first taste of the popularity of Mr. Bradlaugh
in the borough. Every mention of his name excited
the wildest enthusiasm.
While Mr. Bradlaugh was lecturing in the States a
general election took place in England. It was
impossible for him to return in time, but his friends
looked after his interests. A committee was formed
at the Hall of Science to raise the necessary funds, and
Mr. Charles Watts and I went down to Northampton
to conduct the election. We addressed outdoor meet
ings in the day, and crowded indoor meetings at night.
�14
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Again I saw what a hold Mr. Bradlaugh had on his
Northampton followers. They sang “Bradlaugh for
Northampton ” in the Circus with all the fervor of
Scotch Covenanters on their hillsides “rolling the
psalm to wintry skies.”
Mr. Watts and I did not win the seat for Mr. Brad
laugh, nor did he win it himself at the next election,
but we managed to increase his vote, and he expressed
his pleasure at the result.
Soon after the election Mr. Bradlaugh returned to
England. Mr. Watts and I went down with him to
Northampton. There was a crowded public meeting,
I believe in the Circus ; and I saw’Mr. Bradlaugh, for
the first time, in the presence of his future constituents.
They were simply intoxicated with excitement. The
shouts of “ Bradlaugh ” and “ Charley ” were deafen
ing. Hats and handkerchiefs were waved in the air.
The multitude rose to its feet and gave its hero a
splendid welcome, Then we settled down to speech
making, but all that followed was somewhat tame
and flat after that first glorious outburst of populai'
devotion.
The next election came quickly. It resulted in the
return of a Tory majority for Benjamin Disraeli, and
Mr. Gladstone went off to sulk in his tent. Two Tories
were returned for Radical Northampton. Mr. Brad
laugh let them in. He was determined to have one of
the Northampton seats. To get it he had to make
himself inevitable. He had to prove that if North
ampton wanted two Liberal members, one of them
must be Charles Bradlaugh. It took him thirteen
years to demonstrate this, but he succeeded, as he
succeeded in most things. At last, in 1880, he ran as
official Liberal candidate with Mr. Labouchere, and
both were returned.
I assisted Mr. Bradlaugh during his second (1874)
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
15-
election. It was then that I first saw Mrs. Besant. She
had not yet taken to the platform, but she was writing
for the National Reformer, and her pen was active*
during the contest. Mr. Watts was also there. Another
figure I remember was Mr. George Odger, who labored
among the Trade Unionists of Northampton in Mr..
Bradlaugh’s interest. George Odger was one of the
ablest of all the working-class leaders I have ever met.
He came from my own county, Devonshire, being born
at Horrabridge, on the road between Plymouth and1
Tavistock. He was honest to the heart’s core, as well
as very able, but he was incurably indolent. You
never could be sure of him at a public meeting. He
had to be looked up beforehand, or he might forget the
engagement and spend his time more agreeably. He
was passionately fond of the theatre, and could talk by
the hour on famous performances of old actors and
actresses. During the daytime at Northampton I had
long chats with him. He objected to fine hotels, and
he. objected to walking ; so I had to sit with him in
the garden of a semi-rural public-house, where our'
conversation was altogether out of proportion to our
liquor. Odger liked beer; not much of it, but just
enough ; it suited his palate and his purse ; and as I
drank next to nothing, the landlord must have thought
us unprofitable customers.
Mr. Bradlaugh had rooms at the George Hotel. It
was the Tory house, but he preferred it, and Mrs,
Besant, Mr. Watts, and the rest of us, fed and slept
there during the election. This gave rise to a good
deal of silly talk among Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies.
One evening we were returning from a Town Hall
meeting, and the Tories had been holding a small
me eting at the “ George.” As we reached the foot of
the stairs, we encountered a knot of Tories. One of
them was Mr. Merewether, the Tory candidate. He
�16
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
was nearly of the same height as Mr. Bradlaugh, and
well built. His friends were holding him back, but
he broke from them, exclaiming, “ Hang it! I ivill
have a look at him.” He stood at the very foot of the
■staircase and looked hard at Mr. Bradlaugh ascending.
His expression was one of good-tempered insolence.
After a long look at Mr. Bradlaugh, he returned to his
friends, shouting, “ Well, I’m damned if he’s as badlooking as I thought.”
I left Northampton before the close of the poll.
Mr. Bradlaugh’was leaving the same night for America,
having barely time to catch the boat at Liverpool. I
drove round with him before leaving, on a visit to
■some of the polling stations. He had paid me a modest
sum for my services, but he found he had hardly
■enough to take him across the Atlantic, and he asked
me to lend him what money I had. I fished seven or
•nine pounds out of my pocket—I forget which—and
handed it to him. It was paid back to me by his order
a few weeks subsequently ; and the incident would
not be worth mentioning if it did not throw a light on
the libellous nonsense of Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies that
he was rolling in wealth.
While at Northampton with Mr. Bradlaugh, and on
other occasions, I saw something of his personal tastes
and habits. He struck me as an abstemious man. He
was far from a great eater, and I never noticed him
■drink anything at dinner but claret, which is not an
intoxicating beverage. On the whole, I should say, it
is less injurious to the stomach and brain than tea or
Coffee. He was rather fond of a cup of tea seventeen
years ago, and latterly his fondness for it developed
into something like a passion. More than once I
found him at St. John’s Wood drinking a big cup of
pretty strong tea, and was seduced by his genial invita
tion into joining him in that reckless indulgence.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
17
He used to smoke too in the old days, but he
cafterwards gave up the practice for several years.
About seven years ago, however, he resumed it. I
do not think he ever attained to the dignity of a pipe.
He smoked cigars. Some time in April, 1889, 1 spent
.an hour with him at the House of Commons. He got
the Speaker’s leave to take me into the lower smokeroom, and we “ discussed ” a cigar and some claret
while discussing some Freethought business. The
-claret he seemed indifferent to, but he puffed the cigar
with an air of enjoyment.
During the Northampton election times I used to
take a good stiff daily walk. All through my youth
I had plenty of exercise in the open air, and I still
.grow desperately fusty without a brisk tramp at least
once in the twenty-four hours. Mr. Bradlaugh genea’ally took a drive, and I remember telling him with
youthful audacity that he ought to walk for his
health’s sake. Of course it was difficult for him to
walk in the streets. His stature and bulk made him
itoo noticeable, and mobbing was very unpleasant.
But he might have driven out of town and trudged a
mile or two on the country roads. My opinion is that
his neglect of physical exercise helped to shorten his
life. Occasional bouts of fishing were very well in
their way, but daily ^exercise is the necessary thing.
I do not forget the tremendous labor, physical as well
as mental, of lecturing on burning questions to large
.audiences. All that, however, goes on in hot, crowded
rooms, full of vitiated air ; and it gives no proper
■exercise to the legs and loins or the lower vital organs.
After one of my remonstrances Mr. Bradlaugh
invited me to play a game of billiards. It was the
only time I ever played with him. His style with the
■cue was spacious and splendid. The balls went flying
.about the board, and I chaffed him on his flukes. He
B
�18
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
had not the temperament of a billiard-player. Still, I
have heard that he played a fair game at St. Stephen’s ?
but I can hardly believe it without first-hand testi
mony. I am willing to believe, however, that he was
a good chess-player. Certainly he had a head for it.But chess is a vile game for a brain-worker, whose
recreations should never involve a mental strain.
When I first knew Mr. Bradlaugh he was living at
Tottenham. I never visited him there, but I often
called on him at his later lodgings in Turner-street,
Commercial-road. He occupied the ground floor,
consisting of two rooms. The back was his bedroom,
and the front his library and workshop. It was what
the Americans call a one-horse affair. Shelves all
round the room were filled with books. Mr. Bradlaugh
sat at a desk with his back to the fireplace. On his
right was the door communicating with his bedroom,
facing him the door opening on the passage, and on
his right the street window. The room itself could
hardly have been more than twelve or thirteen feet
square. I once told him he was too near the fireplace,
and he said it was sometimes good to have the poker
handy. At that I stared, and he told me the following
story.
One day a gentleman called on him and was invited
to take a chair. He sat down facing Mr. Bradlaugh,
and explained that he wanted advice on a very par
ticular matter. God Almighty had told him to kill'
someone, and he had a difficulty in selecting a victim.
Mr. Bradlaugh put his hand behind him and quietly
grasped the poker. The inspired gentleman put the
problem as a knotty one, and begged the assistance of
the clever Iconoclast. “ Well,” said Mr. Bradlaugh,
keeping quite cool, “ what do you say to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury ? ” “ The very man 1 ” exclaimed
the inspired gentleman. He got Mr. Bradlaugh to
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
19
give him the Archbishop’s address, and said, “ Goodday,” with a profusion of thanks. Mr. Bradlaugh
went to the door to look for a policeman, but none was
visible, and the inspired gentleman was soon out of
sight.
“ So you see,” said Mr. Bradlaugh, “ It’s good to
have the poker handy. I never saw or heard of the
man again, and I knew he couldn’t get near the Arch
bishop. There are too many flunkeys in the way.”
Those were my struggling days, and Mr. Bradlaugh
was very kind to me. I remember the Sunday evening
when I told him I thought of taking to the Freethonght
platform. He pointed out the hard and thorny path I
should have to tread, but when he saw I was resolved
on the attempt, he put his hand on my shoulder and
said, “ There is no young man in the movement I
would sooner welcome.”
In the very same room, on another Sunday evening
a little later, I first saw James Thomson. He came
down to the Hall of Science with Mr. Bradlaugh, in
whose employment he then was, and I gave him the
article I had brought for the National Reformer. He
shook hands very cordially, and I was delighted to
meet one for whose poetry I had a profound admiration.
It was also at the Hall of Science, about the same •
time, that I met the eccentric Mr. Turberville, brother
to Mr. Blackmore, the novelist. He was a man of
parts with a bee in his bonnet. He claimed kinship
with Turberville, a minor poet of the sixteenth
century, and he loved to talk of poetry. His know
ledge of Shakespeare was profound and minute. He
admired Mr. Bradlaugh’s perorations immensely, as
well as his bold defence of Freethought. He made
out a will in Mr. Bradlaugh’s favor, but he subse
quently made another will, and died in circumstances
that necessitated an inquest. By agreement, however,
�20
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Mr. Bradlaugh obtained £2,500 from the estate, and the
windfall came opportunely, for his Struggles and litiga
tions had involved him in considerable debt. I know
he often had to borrow money on heavy interest. One
day, at Turner-street, he told me that a creditor of this
species had coolly invited him to dinner. “ Hang it,”
he said, “ you can’t dine with a man who charges you
sixty per cent.”
Another recollection I have of Mr. Bradlaugh is in
connexion with the funeral of Mr. Austin Holyoake.
The death of this gentleman was a great loss to the
Freethought cause. He was highly respected by all
who knew him. The geniality of his disposition was
such that he had many friends and not a single
enemy. For some years he was Mr. Bradlaugh’s
printer and publisher, and a frequent contributor to
his journal. He was foremost in every good work,
but he was one of those modest men who never get
the credit of their labors. He died at 17 Johnson’scourt, Fleet-street, in an upstairs room above the
printing office, where his devoted wife had for many
weeks nursed his flickering life. The funeral was a
notable event. Those of us who could afford it rode
in the undertaker’s coaches, and the rest walked in
procession to Highgate Cemetery. I can still see
Mr. Bradlaugh in my mind’s eye, bustling about on
the ground floor, taking everything as usual on his
own shoulders. He sorted us in fours for the coaches,
my vis a vis being James Thomson. At the grave
side, after the reading of Austin Holyoake’s own
funeral service by Mr. Charles Watts, Mr. Bradlaugh
delivered a brief address which he had written for
the occasion. On the whole it was too much a com
position, but one sentence was true “ Bradlaugh,” and
it sounds in my ears still:—“ Twenty years of friend
ship lie buried in that grave.” -
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugli.
21
How such scenes are impressed on one’s memoryI
As I write I see the set face of Charles Bradlaugh. I
behold the sob-shaken back and bowed head of
Herbert Gilham just in front of me. I hear and feel
the cool, rustling wind, like a plaintive requiem over
the dead.
Once again, years afterwards, I saw Mr. Bradlaugh
in the same cemetery, supporting the helpless figure
of Mrs. Ernestine Rose as she left the open grave of
th® dear partner of her long life of labor for the cause
of human redemption.
Owing to circumstances, into which I need not enter,
I saw little of Mr. Bradlaugh between 1875 and 1880.
When he was returned for Northampton I rejoiced,
and when he was committed to the Clock Tower I saw
my duty sun-clear. It was to participate as I could,
and might, in the struggle. My contributions to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s journal were resumed, and I spoke at
meetings in his behalf. In May, 1881, I started the
Freethinker, my oldest living child. Mr. Bradlaugh
acted with his natural generosity. He advertised my
bantling gratuitously in his own journal, and gave it
every possible facility. This .was not known at the
time, but I ought to state it now.
Throughout that long, terrible struggle with the
House of Commons I was with Mr. Bradlaugh on every
point. If he made a single mistake I have yet to
see it indicated. My article in the first number of the
Freethinker was entitled “ Mr. Bradlaugh’s Advisers.”
Its object was to show the absurdity of the plentiful
advice offered him, and the absolute justice of the
course he was pursuing.
Three weeks afterwards the bigots convened a ticket
meeting at Exeter Hall. The chief promoters were
Earl Percy, Sir Bartie Frere, an I butcher Varley. Mr.
Bradlaugh was afraid the meeting would have a pre
�22
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
judicial effect on. public opinion in the provinces.
The fact of the tickets would be kept back, and the
report would go forth that a vote was unanimously
passed against him at a big London demonstration. It
was necessary, therefore, that the meeting should be
spoiled. And it ivas. Mr. Bradlaugh gave me the task
of moving an amendment. We had a chat in his
library at St. John’s Wood, and as we parted he said,
“ I rely on you, Foote.” He looked at me steadily,
holding my eyes as though to read the depths.
We got tickets somehow. But the Protestant Alli
ance smelt mischief, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s supporters
had to fight their way in. Two hundred and fifty
police were not enough to keep them all out. I
was naturally a marked man, and fighting had to be
supplemented by diplomacy. When the noble Smithson (Earl Percy), had drivelled for a few minutes
as chairman, and the resolution against Mr. Brad
laugh had been proposed and seconded by Sir John
Kennaway and Canon Taylor, I rose to move an
amendment. But the amendment was refused. The
resolution was put, and the Christians stood up and
voted, while the organ played “ God Save the Queen.”
Then, at a signal, our people jumped on the forms, and
rent the air with cheers for “ Bradlaugh.” At another
signal they all trooped out, went off to Trafalgar-square
with the big crowd outside, and passed resolutions in
Mr. Bradlaugh’s favor. The bigots’ meeting was com
pletely spoiled. They had to barricade the doors and
keep out their own people as well as the enemy ; the
hall was never half full, and their resolution was
passed after refusing an amendment, amidst loud
execrations. Such a lesson was taught the bigots that
they never made another attempt. Mr. Bradlaugh had
trusty lieutenants and stern supporters, and the bigots
knew he would spoil every private meeting that pro-
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
23
fessed to be public. He acted with wisdom and deter
mination, and the result showed he knew the stake he
was playing for when he said, “ I rely on you,” with
that steady Napoleonic look.
Mr. Brad laugh’s legal exploits, if properly recorded,
would fill a good-sized volume. When his life is
adequately written, as it will be some day, this depart
ment will have to be entrusted to a skilled lawyer,
No other person could do anything like justice to a
most important part of the career of one whom the
Tories used to call “ that litigious man,” when they
were trying to ruin him in the law courts and he was
only defending himself against their base attacks.
Those who had only known Mr. Bradlaugh as a
platform orator had some difficulty in recognising him
when they first met him in one of our “halls of justice.”
His whole manner was changed. He was polite,
insinuating, and deferential. His attitude towards the
judges was admirably calculated to conciliate their
favor. I do not mean that he calculated. He had
quite a superstitious veneration for judges. It was
perfectly sincere and it never wavered. . He would not
hear a word against them. When he pleaded before
them his personal sentiments ran in a line with his
best interests ; for although judges are above most
temptations, their vanity is often sensitive, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s manner was intensely flattering.
Had he followed the legal profession, Mr. Bradlaugh
would have easily mounted to the top and earned a
tremendous income. I have heard some of the cleverest
counsel of our time, but I never heard one to be com
pared with him in grasp, subtlety and agility. He
could examine and cross-examine with consummate
dexterity. In arguing points of law he had the tenacity
of a bull-dog and the keenness of a sleuth-hound. He
�24
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
always fortified himself with a plethora of “ cases.’7
The table in front of him groaned with a weight of
law. Here as elsewhere he was “ thorough.” An
eminent jurisprudist once 'remarked to me, “ there islittle gleaning to be done after Bradlaugh.”
As a pleader before juries, however, I doubt whether
he would have achieved a great success. He was toomuch of a born orator. He began well, but he soon
forgot the limited audience of twelve, and spoke to a
wider circle. This is not the way to humor juries.
They like to feel their own importance, and he succeeds
best who plays upon their weakness. “ Remember,”
their looks say, “ you are talking to us; the other
gentlemen listen accidentally ; we make you or damn
you.”
My first recollection of Mr. Bradlaugh in the law
courts is twenty-two years old. How many survivorsare there of the friends who filled that dingy old court
at Westminster where he argued before a full bench of
judges in 1869 ? He was prosecuted for not giving
sureties in the sum of £400 against the appearance of
blasphemy or sedition in his paper. The law was
resuscitated in his single case to crush him ; but he
fought, as he said he would, to the bitter end, and the
Gladstone Government was glad to repeal the obsolete
enactments. The Crown retired from the suit with a
stet processus, and Mr. Bradlaugh was left with the
laurels—and his costs.
I obtained an hour or two’s leave from my employ
ment, and heard a portion of Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
It gave me a new conception of his powers. That is
the only impression I retain. The details have dropped
out of my memory, but there remains as fresh as ever
the masterful figure of Charles Bradlaugh.
The best view I ever had of Mr. Bradlaugh in
litigation was in the old Court of Queen’s Bench on
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
25'
Tuesday and Wednesday, July 19 and 20, 1881, when
he cross-examined poor Mr. Newdegate. For a good
deal of the time I sat beside him, and could watch him
closely as well as the case. By raising the point
whether the writ against him for penalties had been
issued before or after he gave his vote in the House, he
was able to put all the parties to the prosecution into
the witness-box and make them give an account of
themselves. Mr. Newdegate was one of the victims,
and the poor man made confessions that furnished'
Mr. Bradlaugh with ground for a successful action
against him under the law of Maintenance.
‘ Mr. Newdegate was a hard-mouthed witness, but hewas saddled, bridled, and ridden to the winning-post.
His lips opened literally, making his mouth like the
slit of a pillar-box. Getting evidence from him was
like extracting a rotten cork from the neck of a bottle,
but it all came out bit by bit, and the poor man must
have left the witness-box feeling that he had delivered'
himself into the hands of that uncircumcised Philistine.
His cross-examination lasted three hours. It was likeflaying alive. Once or twice I felt qualms of pity for
the old man, he was such an abject figure in the handsof that terrible antagonist. Every card he held had to
be displayed. Finally he had to produce the bond of
indemnity he had given the common informer Clarke
against all the expenses he might incur in the suit.
When this came out Mr. Bradlaugh bent down to me
and said, “I have him.” And he did have him.
Despite the common notion that the old law of Main
tenance was obsolete, Mr. Bradlaugh pursued him
under it triumphantly, and instead of ruining “ Brad
laugh,” poor Newdegate was nearly ruined himself.
What a contrast to Mr. Newdegate was Mr. Bradlaugh'
He was the very picture of suppressed fire, of rampant
energies held in leash : the nerves of the face playing
�"26
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
like the ripple on water, the whole frame quivering,
and the eyes ablaze. It was wonderful how he
managed to keep his intellect alert and his judgment
steady. Six hours of such work as he had in court
that day were enough to tax the greatest strength.
Before it was over I saw bodeful blood-rims under his
eyes. It did not surprise me, on meeting him at the
Cobden Workmen’s Club the next evening, to learn
that he had been frightfully ill. “ Mr. Bradlaugh,” I
wrote at the time, “ is a wonderfully strong man, but
the Tories and the bigots are doing their best to kill
him, and if this sort of thing is to continue very much
longer they may succeed.” Alas, they did succeed*
That terrible struggle killed him. No man ever lived
who could have passed through it unbroken.
Mr. Bradlaugh was clearly right on the point raised,
but the jury went against him, apparently out of sheer
prejudice. When he went out into Westminster Hall
he was loudly cheered by a crowd of sympathisers,
who, as the Times sneered, “ applauded as lustily as
though their champion had won.” Precisely so. Their
applause would have greeted him in the worst defeat.
He was not a champion on whom they had “ put their
money.” He represented their principles, and the
Times forgot, if it ever knew, that men are devoted to
leaders in proportion to the depth of the interests they
•espouse. Conviction “ bears it out even to the edge of
doom.”
Now let me mention something that shows Mr.
Bradlaugh’s tact and consideration. My work on the
Freethinker brought me no return. I had just read
the proof of an article for Mr. Bradlaugh’s paper.
While we were waiting for the jury’s verdict he referred
to the article, and guessing my need he said, “ Shall I
give you the guinea now ?” My answer was an
■expressive shrug and a motion of the eye-brows.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
27
Taking the two coins out of his pocket, he wrapt them
in a piece of paper under the table, and presently
slipped the packet into my hand. The whole proceed
ing touches me deeply as I recall it. He might well
have thought only of himself in that time of suspense ;
hut he thought of me too, and the precautions he took
against being seen to pay me money were expressive
•of his inbred delicacy. Reader do not say the incident
is trivial. These little things reveal the man.
Little did I dream, as I watched Mr. Bradlaugh
fighting bigotry in the law courts, that the time would
come when he and I would be included in a common
-indictment and stand in a criminal dock together. But
as the French say, it is always the unexpected that
happens. Early in July, 1882, I was served with a
summons from the Lord Mayor of London, ordering
me to appear at the Mansion House on the following
Tuesday and take my trial on a charge of Blasphemy.
Two other gentlemen were included in the summons,
and all three of us duly appeared. We were all
■members of the National Secular Society, and Mr.
Bradlaugh attended to render any possible assistance.
The case was adjourned to the following Monday, by
which time a summons had been served on Mr. Brad
laugh, who took his place beside us in the dock. After
.an animated day’s proceedings we were committed for
trial at the Old Bailey.
The object of this prosecution was, of course, to stab
Mr. Bradlaugh in the back. He had fought all the
bigots face to face, and held them all at bay ; so they
put a stiletto into Sir Hardinge Giffard’s hands, and
paid him his blood-money to attack the hero from
behind.
Mr. Bradlaugh had to play the fox again. He wanted
■to gain time, and he wanted to be tried, if at all, in the
Court of Queen’s Bench. He always told me that
�28
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
being tried at the Old Bailey was going like a lamb to
the slaughter, and that a verdict of guilty there would
certainly mean twelve months’ imprisonment. The
obvious resource, therefore, was to obtain a writ of
certiorari removing our indictment to the superior
court. Happily it was in the long vacation, and appli
cation had to be made to a judge in chambers. By
another piece of good luck, it was Mr. Justice Stephen
who sat behind the table on the fatal morning when
the writ had to be finally granted or refused. It wasobtained on July 29, 1882. Poor Mr. Maloney, who
represented the prosecution, was no match for Mr.
Bradlaugh, who treated him like a child, and only let
him say a word now and then as a special favor.
Roaming the law courts with Mr. Bradlaugh, I was
able to see his intimate knowledge of legal practice.
He threaded the labyrinth with consummate ease and.
dexterity. We went from office to office, where every
thing seemed designed to baffle suitors conducting
their own cases. Our case, too, was somewhat peculiar
obsolete technicalities, only half intelligible even toexperts, met us at every turn ; and when we got out
into the open air I felt that the thing was indeed done,
but that it would puzzle omniscience to do it in
exactly the same way again. Seven pounds was spent
on stamps, documents, and other items, and securitiesfor costs had to be given to the extent of six hundred
pounds. As I walked home I pondered the great truth,
that England is a free country. I had seen with my
own eyes that there is one law for rich and poor. But
I could not help reflecting that only the rich could,
afford it, and that the poor might as well have no law
at all.
Mr. Bradlaugh next moved to quash the indictment..
He argued that the public prosecutor’s fiat was bad, asit did not name the persons who were to be proceeded
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
29
against, and thus resembled a general warrant, which
in the famous Wilkes case the judges had held to be
invalid. On this point, however, two judges, one of
them being Sir James Stephen, gave judgment against
him. The case was argued on Mr. Bradlaugh’s part,
the judges said, with “great power and learning.” For
my part, I think he showed a greater knowledge of
cases ” than both the legal luminaries on the bench,
who laid their heads close together over many a knotty
point of th® argument.
Beaten on the main issue, Mr. Bradlaugh was
successful, however, on the subsidiary one. Two
counts were struck out of the indictment. The excision
mad® no difference to me, but a great deal of difference
to him. Two numbers of the Freethinker were thus
disposed of bearing the imprint of the Freethought
Publishing Company—under which name Mr. Bradiatlgh and Mrs. Beasant traded—and owing to the lapse
of time it was impossible to open a fresh indictment. Of
course I saw what Mr. Bradlaugh was driving at, and I
could not but admire the way in which he made light of
this point, arguing it baldly as a formal matter on which,
as their lordships would see at a glance, he was abso
lutely entitled to a judgment. They would see that
he was still open to all the other counts of the indict
ment, and therefore it might make very little difference,
but right was right and law was law. Under the spell
of his persuasive speech, it was amazing to see the
judges smoothing their wrinkled fronts. I fancy they
gave him his second point the more readily because
they were against him on the first; indeed, they
seemed to think it a pity, if not a shame, that all his
learning and ability should be displayed for nothing.
Qur indictment went into the list of Crown Cases
Reserved, and did not come on for trial till the following
April. Meanwhile I was prosecuted again, and failing
�30
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
to get a writ of certiorari, owing to the flagrant bigotry
of Baron Huddleston and Justice North, I was tried at
the Old Bailey, and sentenced to twelve months’’
inprisonment like a common thief—as Mr. Bradlaugb
had predicted.
During my trouble Mr. Bradlaugh lent me every
assistance, furnishing me with legal books and advice,,
and visiting me in Newgate between the first and
second trials, while Judge North’s underlings were
preparing a more pliant jury than the one which had
declined to return a verdict of guilty.
In Holloway Gaol I lost sight of Mr. Bradlaugh and
everyone else, except persons I had no desire to see.
But one morning, early in April, 1883, the Governor
informed me that Mr. Bradlaugh was going to pay me
a visit, having the Home Secretary’s order to see me on
urgent business. The same afternoon I was marched
from my cell into one of the Governor’s offices,
where Mr. Bradlaugh was waiting. Compared with
the pale prisoners I saw day by day, he looked
the very picture of health. Fresh, clean-shaven,
neatly dressed, he was a most refreshing sight to eyesaccustomed to rough faces and the brown convict’s
garb. And it was a friend too, and I could take his
hand and exchange human speech with him. How
vivid is my recollection of him at that moment! He
seemed in the prime of life, little the worse for his
terrible struggles, only the gray a trifle more decided
about the temples, but the eyes full of light, and the
mobile mouth full of vitality. And now he is dead 1
Dead! It is hard to realise. But I rang the muffled
bell as he lay fighting his last battle, and I followed
his corpse to the grave ; and I know that the worm is
busy about those leonine features, and the rain trickles
through with a scent of faded flowers. Yes, it is true ;
he is dead. Dead like the king and dead like the
�Reminiscences of Charles Rradlaugh.
31
clown ; yet living truly beyond the dust of death in
the lives of others, an inextinguishable light, a vivify
ing fire, a passionate hope, an ardent aspiration.
Till the Future dares
Forget the Past, his fate and fame shall be
An echo and a light unto eternity.
On the morning of April 10, 1883, I put on my own
clothes and was driven in a four-wheeler from Holloway
Gaol to the Law Courts, in company with Warder Smith,
who superintended the wing of the prison in which a
grateful country lodged and boarded me at its own
expense. It was lovely spring weather, and I felt like
a man new-born.
Inside the court where the great Blasphemy case was
to be tried I found Mr. Bradlaugh with his usual load
of law books. The court was crowded with friends of
the defendants and legal gentlemen anxious to witness
the performance.
Mr. Bradlaugh applied for a separate trial, on theground that as there was no charge of conspiracy it was
unjust to prejudice his case by evidence admitted
against his co-defendants ; and Lord Coleridge, who
obviously meant to see fair play, granted the application,
Mr. Bradlaugh’s position was, in one sense, the most
perilous he had ever stood in. Just as his long litiga
tion with respect to his seat in Parliament was drawing
to a close, and as he believed to a successful close, he
had to defend himself against a charge which, if he
were proved guilty, would entail upon him the penalty
of imprisonment. Of course it would not have been
such imprisonment as I was suffering, for Queen’s
Bench prisoners are generally sent to the civil side of
Holloway Gaol. But any imprisonment at such a
moment gravely imperilled his prospects of success in
the mighty struggle with wealth, bigotry, and political
�:32
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
prejudice. A sense of this fact weighed heavily upon
him, but it did not impair his energy or intellectual
alertness ; indeed, he was one of those rare men whose
faculties are sharpened by danger.
I need not dwell upon the evidence of the prosecu
tion. It was most unsatisfactory, and failed to connect
Mr. Bradlaugh with the Freethinker. Sir Hardinge
Giffard, therefore, almost entirely confined himself to
playing upon the prejudices of the jury.
Mr. Bradlaugh was perfection itself in examining
.and cross-examining, and was soon on the windward
side of the judge, but his address to the jury was too
boisterous. He felt too much. His adversary was not
under this disadvantage, and Sir Hardinge Giffard’s
address to the jury, considered merely as a tactical
display, was better than Mr. Bradlaugh’s.
On the second day of the trial (it lasted for three
-days) there occurred a curious episode. Just before
the adjournment for luncheon Mr. Bradlaugh intimated
that when the Court re-assembled he would call his
■co-defendants as witnesses. Lord Coleridge replied
in a low, suggestive tone. “ Do you think it neces
sary ? ” Mr. Bradlaugh rose and for the first time I
saw him tremble. “ My lord,” he said, “ you put upon
me a grave responsibility.” “ I put no responsibility
upon you,” said Lord Coleridge, “it is for you to
■decide.” And the stately judge glided away in his
robes of office.
If Mr. Bradlaugh put his co-defendants in the
witness-box, one of two things might happen. They
might decline to give evidence, as every answer would
tend to criminate themselves ; or they might exculpate
Mr. Bradlaugh and procure their own damnation.
I do not blame Lord Coleridge for looking at the
matter in this way. But I naturally looked at it in
a different light. Mr. Bradlaugh was my general, and
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
33
I was his lieutenant, and it was clearly my duty to
sacrifice myself. I could release him from danger
with half a dozen words, and why should I hesitate to
say them or he to exact them ? I was already in
prison, and another conviction could add little to my
misfortune, whereas he was still free, and his continued
freedom was just then absolutely indispensable to our
Common cause. For my part, I ’had not a moment’s
hesitation. But Lord Coleridge’s words sank into Mr.
Bradlaugh’s mind, and after luncheon he announced
that he would not call his co-defendants. His lordship
looked pleased, but how he frowned when Sir Hardinge
Giffard complained that he was deprived of an oppor
tunity 1 Lord Coleridge did not say, but he looked—
II Have you no sense of decency ? ” Sir Hardinge
Giffard, however, was thick-skinned. H6 relied on
Mr. Bradlaugh’s sense of honor, and made it the basis
of an artificial grievance. He even pretended that Mr.
Bradlaugh was afraid to call his co-defendants. But
he overreached himself by this hypocrisy, and obliged
Mr. Bradlaugh to put his co-defendants into the
witness-box. We were formally tendered as wit
nesses, Mr. Bradlaugh going no further, and leaving
Sir Hardinge Giffard to do as he would. Of course he
was obliged to interrogate us, or look foolish after his
braggadocio, and in doing so he ruined his own case
by giving us the opportunity ’■ of declaring that Mr.
Bradlaugh was never in any way connected with the
Freethinker.
Mr. Bradlaugh, of course, did not in any sense sacri
fice me. It would have been contemptible on my
part to let him bear any responsibility for my own
deliberate action, in which he was not at all implicated,
and if I had not been tendered as a witness I should
have tried to tender myself.
After half an hour’s deliberation the jury found Mr.
�34
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Bradlaugh not guilty. Standing up for the verdict,
with pale set face, the grateful little “ not ” fell upon
his ear, and his rigidity relaxed. Tears started to
my eyes, and I saw the tears in his eyes as I squeezed
his hand in speechless congratulation.
My own trial followed Mr. Bradlaugh’s, and I was
not found guilty. Three members of the jury held
out against a verdict that would have disgraced a free
country ; and as the prosecution despaired of obtaining
a verdict while Lord Coleridge presided at the trial,
the Attorney-General was asked to allow the abandon
ment of proceedings. This he granted, the case was
struck off the list, and I returned to my prison cell at
Holloway.
Let me now go back to the crowning incident of
that long struggle between Charles Bradlaugh and the
House of Commons. On May 10, 1881, the House
passed a resolution authorising the Sergeant-at-Arms
to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from entering. On June 20,
the jury gave a verdict in Mr. Newdegate’s favor for
the £500 penalty and costs. A motion for a new trial
failed, and Mr. Bradlaugh appealed to the country.
Enthusiastic meetings were held in his behalf, and
he prepared a fresh coup. It had to be something
striking, and it was. On the morning of August 3
Palace Yard and Westminster Hall were thronged with
his supporters. Every one was armed with a petition,
which he had a legal right to take to the House of
Commons. Mr. Bradlaugh himself drove up in a
hansom cab, and entered the precincts of the House
by the private door. He made his way to the door of
the House itself and tried to enter by a sudden effort,
but he was seized by fourteen officials and stalwart
policemen, picked for the work, and thrust back
through the private passage into Palace Yard. Not
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
35
expecting such indignity, he contested every inch of
the ground. Inspector Denning said he never thought
that one man could have offered such resistance. The
small muscles of both his arms were ruptured, and a
subsequent attack of erysipelas put his life in jeopardy.
When he was finally thrust on to the pavement in
Palace Yard his coat was torn and the rest of his
garments were disarranged. His face was livid with
the intense exertion when I saw him a minute after
wards. There he stood, a great mass of panting,
valiant manhood, his features set like granite, and his
eyes fixed upon the doorway before him. He seemed
to see nothing but that doorway. I spoke to him, and
he seemed not to hear. I believe a mighty struggle
was going on within him, perhaps the greatest struggle
of his life. He had suffered a frightful indignity, he
must have been tempted to avenge it, and he had but
to hold up his hand to bring around and behind him
the myriads who stood outside the railings. The
action would have been impolitic, but what a tempta
tion he crushed down, and what an effort it necessitated I
Never was his heroic nature more sorely tried. He
justified his mastery of others by his mastery of him
self. How small in comparison seemed the mob of
his enemies ! I never admired him more than at that
moment. He was superb, sublime. They had wound
their meshes about him, and the lion had burst them.
One swift, daring stroke had frustrated all their plans.
He who was to be quietly suppressed by resolutions of
the House had cut the knot of their policy asunder,
made himself the hero of the hour, and fixed the
nation’s eyes on his splendid audacity.
Reaction set in after that terrible struggle, and he
accepted a chair that was brought him. Several
members passed as he sat there. One of them was the
coward, Frank Hugh O’Donnell. He« had a lady on
�36
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
his arm, and he passed with her between himself and
Mr. Bradlangh, so that her dress trailed over the hero’s
feet. It was a wretched display of insolence and
cowardice. But the lady must be exonerated. She
looked annoyed, her cheeks reddened, and her eyelids
fell. It is so hard for a woman to resist the attraction
of courage, and the coward by her side must have
suffered in her estimation.
There was a crowded meeting that evening at the
Hall of Science, at which I had the honor of speaking.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s greeting was tremendous. Two days
afterwards he was seriously ill.
During that great constitutional struggle I was
present at many “ Bradlaugh ” meetings, and I never
witnessed such enthusiasm as he excited. No man of
my time had such a devoted following.
The last “ Bradlaugh ” demonstration I attended
was on February 15, 1883, in Trafalgar-square.
Seventy or eighty thousand people were present.
There were four speakers, and three of them are dead,
Joseph Arch being the sole survivor. Mr. Adams,
of Northampton, lived to see his old friend take his
seat and do good work in the House of Commons,
became himself Mayor of Northampton, and died
universally respected by his fellow-townsmen ; Wil
liam Sharman, a brave, true man, is buried at Preston ;
and Charles Bradlaugh sleeps his long sleep at Woking.
For another twelve months I attended no public
meetings except the silent ones on the exercise ground
of Holloway Gaol. But I saw Mr. Bradlaugh at several
demonstrations on various subjects after my imprison
ment, and I could perceive no abatement of his
popularity. He had his enemies and detractors, but
the spontaneous outburst of feeling at his death proved
his hold on the popular heart.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
37
I must now leap forward to that dreadful illness
which left him a broken man. Years before, in 1882,
when we were roaming the Law Courts together, he
tapped his chest as he coughed, and seeing my anxious
expression he told me that he brought up a good deal
of phlegm in the morning, and that strangers who
heard him clearing his chest would fancy he was very
ill. But he looked so well that I soon dismissed the
unpleasant fact, though it returned before his break
down when I saw he was obliged to cancel engage
ments. I heard in 1884, though not from himself,
that he had some heart trouble. But I was far from
prepared for the shattering illness that laid him low
in October, 1889.
When I called to see him after his partial recovery
I was shocked by his appearance. He looked twenty
years older, grey, and infirm. I sat down half-dazed.
Theoretically I knew he was mortal, but I did not
realise it as a fact until I saw him thin and pale from
the valley of the shadow of death. His mind was
clear enough, however; and although everything
about him was pathetic he was quite self-collected.
One thing he said to me I shall never forget. There
had been talk of his wavering in his Freethought,
and as he referred to this folly he spoke in grave
impressive tones. Pointing to the humble bed, he
said, “ When I lay there and all w’as black the thing
that troubled me least was the convictions of my life.”
Words and accents were alike solemn. The cold
shadow of death seemed to linger in the room. A
moment or two later he said with a broken voice,
“The Freethought party is a party that I love.”
The memory of that interview will always be a
precious possession. I treasure it with the sacred
things of my life. I had seen and touched the naked
sincerity of a great soul.
�38
.Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugli.
When Mr. Bradlaugh returned from India I called on
him, and found him greatly improved by his voyage.
I waited for him a few minutes in his library, as he
was at lunch, and the doctors attached great importance
to regularity in his meals. He came into the room
with a most genial smile. His air was fresh and
buoyant, and he walked over to me quickly, holding
out his hand all the way. I took it heartily, and had
a good look at him, which satisfied and yet dissatisfied
me. He was certainly better, but I could not help
feeling that his constitution was irrecoverably broken.
Never again could I hope to see the grand Bradlaugh
of the old fighting days. His mind was as brave and
■alert as ever, but the body was too obviously disabled.
He showed me some of his Indian presents, of
which he was justly proud, and then we sat down to
chat. He was full of his voyage and the kindness he
had experienced on every side. His reception in
India had exceeded his highest anticipations, and he
was looking forward to work in the House of Commons
on behalf of our great Dependency.
Speaking of his financial prospects, he told me he
had received offers of work from several magazine
editors. But he added, “ one doesn’t know how long
it will last; ’tis a precarious business.” His face
clouded for a moment, and I saw he was more troubled
than he cared to say.
One thing he told me which I had no right to repeat
while he lived, but I may repeat it without a breach of
confidence now that he is dead.
, During his brief stay in India he could have had
plenty of money if he had been less scrupulous. There
was nothing very dishonourable in accepting money
from rich Hindoos, for he was poor and broken in
health, and he was fighting for their best interests. But
he was too proud to take it, and when wealthy natives
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
39
were calling on him, he always took the precaution to
have an English friend in the room.
“ No,” he said to me, “ I cannot do that. I’ll live
like the old Bradlaugh, or I’ll go under.”
He lived like the old Bradlaugh, and he went under.
He took to the platform again to earn a livelihood, and
it killed him, as his doctors had foreseen. I implored
him at the time not to resume the lecturing. He was
going to fulfil an old-standing engagement at Man
chester in the vast St. James’s Hall, and I begged him
to cancel it. He replied that he could not afford to
forfeit twenty pounds. “ What is that to your life ? ”
I asked. He only smiled grimly. His mind was made
up, and he was not to be bent by advice.
On Sunday morning, February 16, 1890, Mr. Brad
laugh resigned his presidency of the National Secular
Society, which he had held for so many years. The
Hall of Science was packed with members, chiefly
from the London district, but many of them from the
provinces.
The scene was infinitely pathetic. One sentiment
reigned in every heart. The Old Guard was taking
leave of its General. Some of them had fought around
him for thirty years, and the farewell was a mutilation
of their very lives. Tears were streaming down
strong faces ; and they coursed down the strongest
face of all, the face of Charles Bradlaugh, and plashed
on the table before him. For a while he let them fall,
and then he controlled his grief and rose to speak.
But the words would not come. His frame shook
with a great sob, and he sat down again. A second
time he rose and failed. But the third time his strong
will prevailed, and he began to speak in low, trembling
tones.
- Never was I so struck with his oratorical powers as
on this occasion. Without once lifting his voice above
�40
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
the note of conversation, he swayed the meetingjfor a
full half-hour, as easily and universally as the wind
billows a cornfield.
In resigning the presidency he thought it his duty
to nominate a successor, and his choice was ratified by
the meeting. He handed me the president’s hammer
after a solemn, impressive apostrophe, in which he
expressed his hope that he might thank me, after
many years, for good, loyal work as leader ; and when
I had acknowledged the lofty honor he rose to vacate
the chair. Naturally I declined to let him do anything
of the kind, and for a moment the two Presidents
stood together in friendly altercation. But for once he
gave way, and Charles Bradlaugh filled the chair to
the last.
Resigning the Presidency did not mean retirement
from the National Secular Society. At his own sug
gestion Mr. Bradlaugh was elected a life-member. He
was thus a member of the Society up to the last
moment of his life. Nor was he an inactive one. I
frequently had occasion to consult him, and one of
his last bits of work was the drawing up of a long
document for the Society on Secular Burials.
Months rolled by, and the evening came for the great
debate on the Eight Hours Bill between Mr. Bradlaugh
and Mr. Hyndman. St. James’s Hall was packed to
suffocation. I sat on the platform near my old leader,
and I saw how the effort was telling on him. His
opponents in the meeting behaved with incredible bru
tality. Some of them laughed aloud when he said,
“ Believe me, this has tried me more than I had
thought.” But now the hero they laughed at is dead,
and they know that he spoke the truth.
The last time I saw Mr. Bradlaugh in public was on
Wednesday evening, December 10, 1890, when he lec
tured at the Hall of Science on behalf of the Forder
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
41
Testimonial Fund. I believe that was the last lecture
he delivered there, if not the last lecture he delivered
anywhere. He dealt with the Evidences of Chris
tianity, in reference to Archdeacon Watkins’ lectures
on the Fourth Gospel, and assuredly he was as firmly
sceptical as ever. At the close of the lecture he spoke
of his theological position, and declared that he could
not conceive of any such change of mind as glib
gossipers were asserting of him.
The weather was extremely foggy, and Mr. Brad
laugh was ill. He ought not to have been there at all.
After struggling painfully through the lecture, he sat
down and waited for discussion. A Christian opponent
rose, and Mr. Bradlaugh replied ; but, being in the
chair, I would not allow a second speech, and I was
glad to see him well wrapt-up, and once more in the
care of his devoted daughter.
Having concluded my reminiscences of Charles
Bradlaugh in relation to the [events of his life, I shall
wind up with a little personal talk of a more general
character.
I have already referred to Mr. Bradlaugh’s extra
ordinary knowledge of the law. This was strikingly
illustrated after the so-called Trafalgar-square riots.
The Tories made a wanton aggression on the right of
public meeting in London, and found a ready instru
ment of tyranny in Sir Charles Warren. No doubt
there is much to be said against promiscuous meetings
in Trafalgar-square at all hours of the day and night,
but it was a high-handed act of brutality to prohibit all
meetings directly it was known that the London
Radicals were convening a Sunday demonstration on
the Irish question. While the Radicals were chafing
under this insult they held several stormy meetings to
discuss their best policy, and at last a Committee was
�42
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
appointed to find out, if possible, the legal rights of
the people and the Crown. I was a member of that
committee, and I am able to state that although we
waited on several eminent lawyers, it was only from
Mr. Bradlaugh that we obtained any light. The others
talked vaguely about the right of public meeting, and
the primary and secondary uses of public thorough
fares, but Mr. Bradlaugh gave us the facts of the case.
Trafalgar-square was Crown property, its control was
vested in the Commissioner of Works, and at any
moment it could be absolutely closed to the British
public.
This had escaped the other lawyers, who did not
find it in the Statutes at Large, from which the Tra
falgar-square Act, probably as being a private one, had
been excluded. Nor was it known to the Government
when Sir Charles Warren issued his first proclamation.
As Chief Commissioner of Police he had no authority
over the Square, and until he obtained the order of its
proper guardians, which he did a week later, his
proclamation was only a piece of waste paper. Mr.
Bradlaugh saw this, though he said nothing, when the
demonstration committee called upon him a few days
before Bloody Sunday. He told them that he had an
engagement in the provinces on that day, but if they
would postpone the demonstration until the following
Sunday he would himself lead it to Trafalgar-square.
His offer was not accepted, however ; for the committee
resented the condition he stipulated, namely, that he
should have absolute control of the arrangements.
They thought he was taking too much upon himself.
They did not reflect that if he who takes power without
responsibility is a despot, he who takes responsibility
without power is a fool. It was their action, and not
his, that lost the battle.
Mr. Bradlaugh made no public parade of his brave
�JReminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
43
offer. It was not his way. But it is due to his
memory that it should be put on record, so that
posterity may know the extent of his generous courage.
There can be no doubt, I think, that Mr. Bradlaugh
was less popular with the working-classes in London
after he took peaceable possession of his seat in
•Parliament. The London masses love a fighter, and
while he was battling for his seat he was, in my
opinion, the most popular figure in the metropolis.
The Radical workmen never tired of his demonstrations.
He could bring fifty or a hundred thousand of them
together at a few days’ notice. And the other speakers
were, for the most part, only padding to fill up the
time. It was “ Bradlaugh ” the multitude came for.
They waited to hear him speak, they applauded him
to the skies, and when he had done they dispersed.
And on such occasions he was magnificent. No one
can conceive the power of the man who never saw
him at one of these demonstrations. He stood like a
Pharos, and the light of his face kindled the crests of
the living waves ar ound himBut he was out of sympathy with the Socialist move
ment, which began to spread just as he took his seat ;
and being assiduous in Parliament, he was drawn more
and more from “ the Clubs,” where his libellers and
detractors wagged their tongues to some purpose. His
strong individualism, as well as his practical good sense,
made him bitterly hostile to the mildest proposals for
putting the people’s industrial interests into the hands
of Government departments. And being a man of
most positive quality, it was natural that he should
excite the hatred of the more fanatical Socialists.; a
sentiment which, I cannot help thinking, he exaspe
rated by his apparent denial of the generosity of their
aims. There are men in the Socialist camp (and I say
it without being a Socialist) who are neither “ poets ”
�44
Reminiscences of Charles Bracllaugh,
nor “ fools ”—though it is no disgrace to be the former?
men who have studied with severity and sincerity,
who have made sacrifices for conviction, and who were
sometimes hurt by his antipathy. But, on the other
hand, he was bitterly goaded by Socialist adversaries,
who denied his honesty, and held him up to unde
served scorn as the hireling of “ the classes ”—a charge
which the more sensitive among them must now
repent, for his death has revealed his poverty.
Mr. Bradlaugh was naturally irritable, but the
irritability was only on the surface. The waves were
easily raised, but there was plenty of quiet sea beneath.
Though giants are often phlegmatic, his big frame
embedded highly-strung nerves. When he was put
out he could storm, and he was misunderstood by
those who took the mood for the man. Had they seen
him in the melting mood they would have learnt that
Charles Bradlaugh was a more composite personality
than they imagined.
During the last year or two of his life he underwent
a wonderful softening. A beautiful Indian-summer
light rested upon him. He was like a granite rock,
which the sweet grass has overgrown, and from whose
crevices peep lovely wild flowers.
As President of the National Secular Society he did
a great work. I do not think he had a pronounced
faculty for organisation. But he was a firm, sagacious
leader, with the personal magnetism to attract devotion.
That he was never overbearing I will not affirm. But
it is easy to organise sheep. One good dog will do it.
Mr. Bradlaugh had to hold together a different species,
with leaping legs, butting horns, and a less gregarious
tendency.
He was a splendid chairman to push through a mass
of business, but he shone less on ordinary occasions.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
45
An ideal chairman, when not promoting his own
schemes, should be like a midwife ; he should aim at
a quick delivery and a safe birth. Mr. Bradlaugh did
not always observe this rule. But every man has the
defects of his qualities, and even the sun must be
taken with its spots.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s speeches at the annual Conferences
of the National Secular Society are better reading than
his political speeches. Being less in the world of
practice there, and more in the world of principle, he
gave play to his ideal nature, his words took color, and
metaphors flashed like jewels in the sword of his
orations. It was a signal proof of his power, that after
a whole day’s exhausting work, both to himself and
his audience, he never failed to rouse the wildest
enthusiasm.
Now that Mr. Bradlaugh is dead I do not hesitate to
repeat what I said during his lifetime, that his Freethought work was the most fecund and important.
Even his great battle against the House of Commons
was for religious freedom against bigotry, and his one
great legislative achievement was the Act dealing with
Oaths and Affirmation. His staunchest political sup
porters were his Freethought followers. His lectures,
his personal influence, and his reputation, leavened
the public mind more than his orthodox enemies
suspected, and he created a vast quantity of raw
material to be utilised by his successors in Secular
organisation.
In the foregoing pages I have attempted no complete
sketch of Charles Bradlaugh. I have written, not a
monograph, but a number of rough jottings. Yet I
hope I have conveyed an impression of the man, in
some degree faithful, to those who may have been
imperfectly acquainted with him ; and I trust the
�46
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
features I have presented, however baldly outlined,
will be recognised by those who knew and loved him.
When all is said and done, I think the final impres
sion one retains of Charles Bradlaugh is his heroism.
His was cast in a great mould of mind and character,
as well as body. Like every hero the world has ever
seen, he had his defects and failings, for it is given to
no man to be perfect. But positive excellence, with
all its drawbacks, is far above negative merit. “ Thou
shalt ” is loftier virtue than “ thou shalt not,” and the
hero is superior to the saint.
Charles Bradlaugh was a colossus of manhood. He
was one to design, and dare, and do. The beaten path
of mediocrity had no attraction for that potent spirit.
He belonged to the heroic type which seeks perilous
ways and fresh conquests. Like the hero of one of
Browning’s poems, he was “ ever a fighter.” In stormy
times he naturally rose to the top. He was one of the
select few, not of those who enrich the world with
great discoveries, or new principles, or subtle percep
tions of beauty—but those who appeal to the heroism
of man’s nature, without which he is at best but a
splendid beast, and who minister to that sense of
dignity which is the supreme necessity of our race.
The elements
So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “ This was a man 1”
����FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED
By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by
J. M. Wheeler -------FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations by
G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by J. M.
Wheeler.
Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach
IS SOCIALISM SOUND? Four Nights’Public Debate between
Annie Besant and G. W. Foote
Superior edition, in cloth ------CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J. McCann Superior edition, in cloth ------DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote
Superior edition, in cloth ------INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. Second edition.
Much enlarged ---Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp. BTRT.E HEROES. By G. W. Foote. First series, in elegant
wrapper
- ---BIBLE HEROES. Second series, in elegant wrapper
BIBLE HANDBOOK FOR FREETHINKERS and INQUIRING
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Complete,
paper covers
-------Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. V<1. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.
SATIRES AND PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of all
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Handsomely bound
in cloth
--------DEFENCE OF FREE THOUGHT. A five hours’ speech at the
Trial of C. B.Reynolds for Blasphemy. By Col.R.G. Ingersoll
LIBERTY AND NECESSITY. By David Hume A REFUTATION OF DEISM. In a Dialogue. By Shelley.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote Complete Catalogue post free on application.
R. FORDER, 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
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: First published in The Freethinker. Publisher's list (R. Forder) on back cover. 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N260
G4591
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37030fdc50cf7ef8b82735dfcc231fbe.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r0ByLj2D2xUJNscsK7BF%7E6b5lvyUj69Fygo75hJJyBcvPMB3JOaIp1SSmBo%7EKKXnKie6Cb-%7Eqg6SwYIBCL1vDUikHEIwo8uLpzLVIqqiOn%7EQ5WxY3e5tzqUfNlUTLpPBhmMZM2LcDBhPivijQ8O5Vbxtif1yW3OtDIpfXoW2KCbR%7E7oqKEAaTkWDL-OD9oc5GHyrihvqMjaZbBy8GHz6ud2IniBhgm5GPK3YkA16z4xK2GUAvlbqs3Gnh3Rje-V2V6SDEL9kLQHkMZuYIl6rEbm18G1YOL1skDlYkYCqudyNOB83-NPvgCXcpYsTW60%7E7Srf9-BGzQZtqcbzq42IcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
344af4593d9c30f28792f215a536f48b
PDF Text
Text
A,
j^TIONALSECULARSOCSETÏ
'
V ^y*
CREEDS
AND
SPIRITUALITY
ROBERT C. INGERSOLL.
---------------- 4----------------
Price One Penny.
/
LONDON :
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28’ Stonecutter Street, E.O.
1891.
*.
»>
�CREEDS.
(From the “ New York Morning Advertiser.”)
[Whateveb may be said of his belief in revealed religion,
Robert G. Ingersoll is respected by all intellectual antagonists
for thorough sincerity, absolute fairness in debate, and un
questionable ability in ti.e presentation of his argument.
His views, therefore, on the recent attitude of the general
assembly at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs, the alleged
heretical utterances of the Rev. Heber Newton, and the
desertion of one creed for another by the Rev. Dr. Bridgman,
are of peculiar interest just at this time. Colonel Ingersoll
has just returned from a trip through the west, and in speaking
of these incidents, he said :—]
There is a natural desire on the part of every intelli
gent human being to harmonise his information—to
make his theories agree—in other words, to make what
he knows, or thinks he knows, in one department
agree with, and harmonise with, what he knows, or
thinks he knows, in every other department of human
knowledge.
The human race has not advanced in line, neither
has it advanced in all departments with the same
rapidity. It is with the race as it is with an individual.
A man may turn his entire attention to some one
subject—as, for instance, to geology—and neglect other
sciences. He may be a good geologist, but an exceed
ingly poor astronomer ; or he may know nothing of
politics or of political economy. So he may be a
successful statesman and know nothing of theology.
But if a man, successful in one direction, takes up
some other question, he is bound to use the knowledge
he has on one subject as a kind of standard to measure
what he is told on some other subject. If he is a
chemist, it will be natural for him, when studying
some other question, to use what he knows in chemistry ;
that is to say, he will expect to find cause, and every
where succession and resemblance. He will say : It
�( 3 )
must be in all other sciences as in chemistry—there
must be no chance. The elements have no caprice.
Iron is always the same. Gold does not change.
Prussic acid is always poison—it has no freaks. So he
will reason as to all facts in nature. He will be a
believer in the atomic integrity of all matter, in the
persistence of gravitation. Being so trained, and so
convinced, his tendency will be to weigh what is
called new information in the same scales that he has
been using.
Now for the application of this. Progress in reli
gion is the slowest, because man is kept back by
sentimentality, by the efforts of parents, by old asso
ciations. A thousand unseen tendrils are twining
about him that he must necessarily break if he
advances. In other departments of knowledge induce
ments are held out and rewards are promised to the
one who does succeed—to the one who really does
advance—to the man who discovers new facts. But in
religion, instead of rewards being promised, threats are
made. The man is told that he must not advance ;
that if he takes a step forward it is at the peril of his
soul; that if he thinks and investigates, he is in danger
of exciting the wrath of God. Consequently religion
has been of the slowest growth. Now, in most depart
ments of knowledge man has advanced ; and coming
back to the original statement—a desire to harmonise
all that we know—there is a growing desire on the
part of intelligent men to have a religion fit to keep
company with the other sciences.
THE MAKING OF CREEDS.
Our creeds were made in times of ignorance. They
suited very well a flat world, and a God who lived in
the sky just above us, and who used the lightning to
destroy his enemies. This God was regarded much as
a savage regarded the head of his tribe—as one having
the right to reward and punish. And this God, being
much greater than a chief of the tribe, could give
greater rewards and inflict greater punishments. They
knew that the ordinary chief, or the ordinary king,
punished the slightest offences with death. They also
knew that these chiefs and kings tortured their victims
�( 4 )
as long as the victims could bear the torture. So when
they described their God, they gave to this God power
to keep the tortured victim alive for ever, because they
knew that the earthly chief, or the earthly king, would
prolong the life of the tortured for the sake of increas
ing the agonies of the victim. In those savage days
they regarded punishment as the only means of pro
tecting society. In consequence of this they built
heaven and hell on an earthly plan, and they put God
—that is to say, the chief, that is to say, the king—on
a throne-like an earthly king.
Of course, these views were all ignorant and
barbaric ; but in that blessed day their geology and
astronomy were on a par with their theology. There
was a harmony in all departments of knowledge, or
rather of ignorance. Since that time there has been a
great advance made in the idea of government—the
old idea being that the right to do came from God to
the king, and from the king to the people. Now
intelligent people believe that the source of authority
has been changed, and that all just powers of govern
ment are derived from the consent of the governed.
So there has been a great advance in the philosophy
of punishment—in the treatment of criminals. So,
too, in all the sciences. The earth is no longer flat;
heaven is not immediately above us ; the universe has
been infinitely enlarged, and we have at last found
that our earth is but a grain of sand, a speck on the
great shores of the infinite. Consequently there is
a discrepancy, a discord, a contradiction between our
theology and the other sciences. Men of intelligence
feel this. Dr. Briggs concluded that a perfectly good
and intelligent God could not have created billions of
sentient beings knowing that they were to be eternally
miserable. No man could do such a thing, had he the
power, without being infinitely malicious. Dr. Briggs
began to have a little hope for the huinan race—began
to think that maybe God is better than the creed
describes him.
And right here it may be well enough to remark
that no man has ever been declared a heretic for think
ing God bad. Heresy has consisted in thinking God
�( 5 )
better than the church said he was. The man who
said God will damn nearly everybody was orthodox.
The man who said God will save everybody was
denounced as a blaspheming wretch, as one who
assailed and maligned the character of God. I can
remember when the Universalists were denounced as
vehemently and maliciously as the Atheists are to-day.
THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS.
Now, continued Colonel Ingersoll, Dr. Briggs is
undoubtedly an intelligent man. He knows that
nobody on the earth knows who wrote the five books
of Moses. He knows that they were not written until
hundred of years after Moses was dead. He knows
that tw’O or more persons were the authors of Isaiah.
He knows that David did not write to exceed three or
four of the Psalms. He knows that the book of Job is
not a Jewish book. He knows that the songs of
Solomon were not written by Solomon. He knows
that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by a Free
thinker. He also knows that there is not in existence
to-day—so far as anybody knows—any of the manu
scripts of the Old or New Testament.
So about the New Testament, Dr. Briggs knows
that nobody lives who has ever seen an original manu
script, or who ever saw anybody that did see one, or
that claims to have seen one. He knows that nobody
knows who wrote Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John.
He knows that John did not write John, and that
gospel was not written until long after John was dead.
He knows that no one knows who wrote the Hebrews.
He also knows that the book of Revelation is an insane
production, Dr. Briggs also knows the way in which
these books came to be canonical, and he knows that
the way was no more binding than a resolution passed
by a political convention.
He also knows that many books were left out that
had for centuries equal authority with those that were
put in. He also knows that many passages—and the
very passages upon which many churches are founded
—are interpolations. He knows that the last chapter
of Mark, beginning with the sixteenth verse to the
end, is an interpolation ; and he also knows that neither
�( 6 )
Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke, ever said one word
about the necessity of believing on the Lord Jesus
Christ, or of believing anything—not one word about
believing in the Bible or joining the church, or doing
any particular thing in the way of ceremony to ensure
salvation. He knows that, according to Matthew, God
agreed to forgive us when we would forgive others,!
Consequently he knows that there is not one particle
of what is called modern theology in Matthew, Mark,
or Luke. He knows that the trouble commenced in
John, and that John was not written until probably one
hundred and fifty years—possibly two hundred years—
after Christ was dead. So he also knows that the sin
against the Holy Ghost is an interpolation; that “ I
came not to bring peace but a sword,” if not an inter
polation, is an absolute contradiction.
Knowing those things, and knowing, in addition
to what I have stated, that there are 30,000 or 40,000
mistakes in the Old Testament, that there are a great
many contradictions and absurdities, that many of the
laws are cruel and infamous, and could have been
made only by a barbarous people, Dr. Briggs has con-«
eluded that, after all, the torch that sheds the serenest
and divinest light is the human reason, and that we
must investigate the Bible as we do other books. At
least, I suppose he has reached such conclusion. He
may imagine that the pure gold of inspiration still runs
through the quartz and porphyry of ignorance and
mistake, and that all we have to do is to extract the
shining metal by some process that may be called
theological smelting; and if so I have no fault to find.
Dr. Briggs has taken a step in advance—that is to say,
the tree is growing, and when the tree goes the bark
splits ; when the new leaves come the old leaves are
rotting on the ground.
AS TO PRESBYTERIANISM.
The Presbyterian Creed is a very bad creed. It
has been the stumbling block, not only of the head,
but of the heart for many generations. I do not know
that it is, in fact, worse than any other orthodox creed ;
but the bad features are stated with an explicitness
and emphasised with a candor that render the creed
�( 7 )
absolutely appalling. It is amazing to me that any
man ever wrote it, or that any set of men ever produced
it. It is more amazing to me that any human being
thought it wicked not to believe it. It is more amazing
still than all the others combined that any human
being ever wanted it to be true.
#
This creed is a relic of the middle ages. It has m
the malice, the malicious logic, the total depravity, the
utter heartlessness of John Calvin, and it gives me a
great pleasure to say that no Presbyterian was ever as
bad as his creed. And here let me say, as I have said
many times, that I do not hate Presbyterians—because
among them I count some of my best friends but i
hate Presbyterianism. And I cannot illustrate this
any better than by saying, I do not hate a man because
he has the rheumatism, but I hate the rheumatism
because it has a man.
The Presbyterian Church is growing, and is growing
because, as I said at first, there is a universal tendency
in the mind of a man to harmonise all that he knows
or thinks he knows. This growth may be delayed.
The buds of heresy may be kept back by the north
wind of Princeton and by the early frost called Patton.
In spite of these souvenirs of the dark ages the church
must continue to grow. The theologians who regard
theology as something higher than a trade tend toward
Liberalism. Those who regard preaching as a business,
and the inculcation of sentiment as a trade, will stand
by the lowest possible views. They will cling to the
letter and throw away the spirit. They prefer the
dead limb to a new bud or to a new leaf. They, want
no more sap. They delight in the dead tree, in its
unbending nature, and they mistake, the stiffness of
death for the vigor and resistance of life.
.
Now,“ as with Dr. Briggs, so with Dr. Bridgman,
although it seems to me that he has simply jumped
from the frying-pan into the fire ; and why he should,
prefer the Episcopal creed to the Baptist is more than I
can imagine. The Episcopal creed is, in. fact, just as
bad as the Presbyterian. It calmly and .with unruffled
brow utters the sentence of eternal punishment on the
majority of the human race, and the Episcopalian
�(8)
expects to be happy in heaven, with his son or his
daughter or his mother or his wife in hell.
Dr. Bridgman will find himself exactly in the
position of the Rev. Mr. Newton, provided he expresses
his thought. But I account for the Bridgmans and the
Newtons by the fact there is still sympathy in the
human heart, and that there is still intelligence in the
human brain. For my part I am glad to see this
growth in the orthodox churches, and the quicker
they revise their creeds the better. I oppose nothing
that is good in any creed—I attack only that which
is only ignorant, cruel and absurd, and I make the
attack in the interest of human liberty and for the
sake of human happiness.
ORTHODOXY THE MASTER.
What do you think of the action of the Presbyterian
General Assembly at Detroit, and what effect do you
think it will have on the religious growth ?” was
asked.
That. General Assembly was controlled by the ortho
dox within the Church, replied Colonel Inge rsoll,
by the strict constructionists and by the Calvii ists;
by the gentlemen who not only believe the creed, not
only believe that a vast majority of people are going to
hell, but are really glad of it; by gentlemen who, when
they feel a little blue, read about total depravity to
cheer up, and when they think of the mercy of God
as exhibited in their salvation, and the justice of God
as illustrated by the damnation of others, their hearts
burst into a kind of effloresence of joy.
These gentlemen are opposed to all kinds of amuse
ments except reading the Bible, the Confession of
Faith and the Creed and listening to Presbyterian
sermons and prayers. All these things they regard as
the food of cheerfulness. They warn the elect against
theatres and operas, dancing and games of chance.
Well, if their doctrine is true, there ought to be no
theatres, except exhibitions of hell; there ought to be
no operas, except where the music is a succession of
wails for the misfortunes of man. If their doctrine is
true, I do not see how any human being could ever
�( 9 )
smile again—I do not see how a mother conld welcome
her babe ; everything in nature would become hateful
—flowers and sunshine would simply tell us of our
fate.
My doctrine is exactly the opposite of this. Let us
enjoy ourselves every moment that we can. The love
of the dramatic is universal. The stage has not simply
amused, but it has elevated mankind. The greatest
genius of our world poured the treasures of his soul
into the drama. I do not believe that any girl can be
corrupted, or that any man can be injured, by becoming
acquainted with Isabella, or Miranda, or Juliet, or
Imogene, or any of the great heroines of Shake
speare.
So I regard the opera as one of the great civilisers.
No one can listen to the symphonies of Beethoven or
the music of Schubert, without receiving a benefit.
And no one can hear the operas of Wagner without
feeling that he has been ennobled and refined.
Why is it the Presbyterians are so opposed to music
in this world, and yet expect to have so much in
heaven ? Is not music just as demoralising in the sky
as on the earth, and does anybody believe that Abra
ham, or Isaac, or Jacob, ever played any music com
parable to Wagner ?
Why should we postpone our joy to another world ?
Thousands of people take great pleasure in dancing,
and I let them dance. Dancing is better than weeping
and wailing over a theology born of ignorance and
superstition.
And so with games of chance. There is a certain
pleasure in playing games, and the pleasure is of the
most innocent character. Let all these games be played
at home and children will not prefer the saloon to the
society of their parents. I believe in cards and billiards,
and would believe in progressive euchre were it more
of a game—the great objection to it is its lack of com
plexity. My idea is to get what little happiness you
can out of this life, and to enjoy all sunshine that
breaks through the clouds of misfortune. Life is poor
enough at best. No one should fail to pick up every
jewel of joy that can be found in his path. Every one
�( W )
should be as happy as he can, provided he is not happy
at the expense of another.
So let us get all we can of good between the cradle
and the grave—all that we can of the truly dramatic,
all that we can of enjoyment; and if, when death
comes, that is the end, we have at least made the best
of this life, and if there be another life, let us make the
best of that.
I am doing what little I can to hasten the coming
of the day when the human race will enjoy liberty—
not simply of body, but liberty of mind. And by
liberty of mind I mean freedom from superstition, and,
added to that, the intelligence to find out the conditions
of happiness ; and, added to that, the wisdom to live
in accordance with those conditions.
�(11)
SPIRITUALITY.
If there is an abused word in our language, it is
“ spirituality.”
It has been repeated over and over for several
years by pious pretenders and snivellers as though it
belonged exclusively to them.
In the early days of Christianity the “spiritual”
renounced the world, with all its duties and obliga
tions. They deserted their wives and children. They
became hermits and dwelt in caves. They spent
their useless years praying for their shrivelled and
worthless souls.
They were too “ spiritual ” to love women, to build
homes and to labor for children.
They were too “ spiritual ” to earn their bread, so
they became beggars, and stood by the highway of
life and held out their hands and asked alms of
industry and courage.
They were too “ spiritual ” to be merciful. They
preached the dogmas of eternal pain and gloried in
“ the wrath to come.”
They were too “ spiritual ” to be civilised, so they
persecuted their fellow-men for expressing their
honest thoughts.
They were so “spiritual” that they invented in
struments of torture, founded the Inquisition, ap
pealed to the whip, the rack, the sword and the fagot.
They tore the flesh of their fellow-man with hooks
of iron, buried their neighbors alive, cut off their
eyelids, dashed out the brains of babes and cut off
the breasts of mothers.
�( 12 )
These “ spiritual ” wretches spent day and night
on their knees praying for their own salvation and
asking God to curse the best and noblest in the
world.
John Calvin was intensely “spiritual” when he
warmed his fleshless hands at the flames that consumed
Servetus.
John Knox was constrained by his “spirituality”
to utter low and loathsome calumnies against all
women. All the witch-burners and quaker-maimers
and mutilators were so “ spiritual ” that they constantly
looked heavenward and longed for the skies.
These lovers of God—these haters of men—looked
upon the Greek marbles us unclean, and denounced
the glories of art as the snares and pitfalls of perdition.
These “ spiritual ” mendicants hated laughter and
smiles and dimples, and exhausted their diseased and
polluted imagination in the effort to make love loath
some.
_ From almost every pulpit was heard the denuncia
tion of all that adds to the wealth, the joy, and glory
of life. It became the fashion for the “ spiritual ” to
malign every hope and passion that tends to humanise
and refine the heart. Man was denounced as totally
depraved. Woman was declared to be a perpetual
temptation—her beauty a snare, and her touch pollu
tion.
Even in our own time and country some of the
ministers, no matter how radical they claim to be,
retain the aroma, the odor, or the smell of the
“ spiritual.”
They denounce some of the best and greatest—some
of the benefactors of the race—for having lived on a
low plane of usefulness, and for having had the pitiful
ambition to make their fellows happy in this world.
Thomas Paine was a grovelling wretch because he
devoted his life to the preservation of the rights of
man, and Voltaire lacked the “spiritual” because he
abolished torture in France, and attacked with the
enthusiasm of a divine madness the monster that was
endeavoring to drive the hope of liberty from the heart
of man.
�( 13 )
Humboldt was not “ spiritual ” enough to repeat
with closed eyes the absurdities of superstition, but
was so lost to all the “ skyey influences ” that he was
satisfied to add to the intellectual wealth of the world.
■Darwin lacked “ spirituality,” and in its place had
nothing but sincerity, patience, intelligence, the spirit
of investigation, and the courage to give his honest
conclusions to the world. He contented himself with
giving to his fellow men the greatest and the sublimest
truths that man has spoken since lips have uttered
speech.
But we are now told that these soldiers of science,
these heroes of liberty, these sculptors and painters,,
these singers of songs, these composers of music,
lacked “ spirituality ”’and after all were only common
clay.
This word “ spirituality ” is the fortress, the breast
work, the riflepit of the Pharisee. It sustains the same
relation to sincerity that Dutch metal does to pure gold.
There seems to be something about a pulpit that
poisons the occupant—that changes his nature—that
causes him to denounce what he really loves and to
laud with the fervor of insanity a joy that he never
felt—a rapture that never thrilled his soul. Hypnotised
by his surroundings, he unconsciously brings to market
that which he supposes the purchasers desire.
In every church, whether orthodox or radical, there
are two parties—one conservative, looking backward ;
one radical, looking forward—and generally a minister
“ spiritual ” enough to look both ways.
A. minister who seems to be a philosopher on the
street, or in the home of a sensible man, cannot with
stand the atmosphere of the pulpit. The moment he
stands behind a Bible cushion, like Bottom, he is
“ translated ” and the Titania of superstition “ kisses
his large, fair ears.”
Nothing is more amusing than to hear a clergyman
denounce worldliness—ask his hearers what it will
profit them to build railways and palaces and lose their
own souls—inquire of the common folks before him
why they waste their precious years in following
trades and professions, in gathering treasures that
�( 14 )
moths corrupt and rust devours, giving their days to
the vulgar business of making money—and then see
him take up a collection, knowing perfectly well that
only the worldly, the very people he has denounced,
can by any possibility give a dollar.
“ Spirituality,” for the most part, is a mask worn by
idleness, arrogance, and greed.
Some people imagine they are “ spiritual ” when
they are sickly.
It may be well enough to ask—What is it to be
really spiritual ?
The spiritual man lives up to his ideal. He
endeavors to make others happy. He does not despise
the passions that have filled the world with art and
glory. He loves his wife and* children—home and
fireside. He cultivates the amenities and refinements
of life. He is a friend and champion of the oppressed.
His sympathies are with the poor and the suffering.
He attacks what he believes to be wrong, though
defended by the many, and he is willing to stand for
the right against the world.
He enjoys the beautiful.
In the presence of the highest creations of Art his
eyes are suffused with tears. When he listens to the
great melodies, the divine harmonies, he feels the
sorrows and the raptures of death and love. He is
intensely human. He carries in his heart the burdens
of the world. He searches for the deeper meanings.
He appreciates the harmonies of conduct, the melody
of a perfect life.
He loves his wife and children better than any
God.
He cares more for the world he lives in than for any
other. He tries to discharge the duties of this life, to
help those that he can reach. He believes in being
useful—in making money to feed and clothe and
educate the ones he loves—to assist the deserving and
to support himself. He does not want to be a burden
on others. He is just, generous, and sincere.
Spirituality is all of this world. It is a child of this
earth, born and cradled here. It comes from no
heaven, but it makes a heaven where it is. There is
�( 15 )
no possible connection between superstition and the
spiritual, or between theology and the spiritual.
The spiritually-minded man is a poet. If he does
not write poetry, he lives it. He is an artist. If he
does not paint pictures or chisel statues, he feels them
and their beauty softens his heart. He fills the temple
of his soul with all that is beautiful and he worships at
the shrine of the ideal.
In all the relations of life he is faithful and true.
He asks for nothing that he does not earn. He does
not wish to be happy in heaven if he must receive
happiness as alms. He does not rely on the goodness
of another. He is not ambitious to become a winged
pauper.
.
Spirituality is the perfect health of the soul. It is
noble, manly, generous, brave, free-spoken, natural,
•SupGrl)»
Nothing is more sickening than the “spiritual”
whine—the pretence that crawls at first and talks about
humility, and then suddenly becomes arrogant and
says : “ I am ‘ spiritual ’—I hold in contempt the
vulgar jovs of this life. You work and toil and build
homes and sing songs and weave your delicate robes.
You love women and children and adorn yourselves.
You subdue the earth and dig for gold. You have
your theatres, your operas, and all the luxuries of life ;
but I, beggar that I am, Pharisee that I am, am your
superior because I am ‘ spiritual.’ ”
Above all things, let us be sincere.
Printed by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
s. d.
r
MISTAKES OF MOSES
Superior edition, in cloth ...
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
Five Hours’ Speech, at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Man ning
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ...
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
...
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count To lstoi
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
•••
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
...
THE DYING CREED
DO I BLASPHEME ?
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
...
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
GOD AND THE STATE
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
...
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
...
ART AND MORALITY
...
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
...
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
LIVE TOPICS
MYTH AND MIRACLE
...
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.C.
1
1
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 '2
0 2
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Creeds and spirituality
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: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the New York Morning Advertiser. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 12a 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N328
Subject
The topic of the resource
Spiritualism
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 (Creeds and spirituality), 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
Creeds
NSS
Religion
Spirituality
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f0e4585d60aa2179290b74cf0b1e26c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=eQShzWdzEUoX3Fu8TGGJ2ib1t7aGRnfiwtg0kFIwR3kEvJ3W6GVyiLTNZ8elUy28IJFwvfOYY%7EznBBkJNdqlmIuJlJdnxBaQN%7EFRV2Svk6oMtN4D61N9qAI0IffAQLEV8Y-ILm2V4d%7Edq4tGZ1V031FV20le8iG3QBDr7-nXt0WDAUDgF87MqwMP5Zg8NaSXV48Iohy2%7EhsmsilPoGMygO7jSALU5qOaXgM5QdqqkDsfklmtdrGBkrS%7EBJzlXQ48W-1p8XshF4FShPOZ3-dQhmVwxncHIwv-lVIoYSQAIL80FOsOUXvcrsnnNh5b0GzMxzx8dH6PAE8%7E20-wVZiRuw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e1c780589e754e237b87862de4beff71
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING
COMPANY’S
CATALOGUE.
ATI Orders to be sent, with remittance to R. Forder, S8 Stonec tter
Street, London, E.C. Rate of postage—Orders under 3d., one halfpenny ;
orders under 6d., one penny. Orders over 6d. post free.
SEPTEMBER, 1891.
AVELING, DR. E. B.
Darwin Made Easy. Cloth
...
..
...10
Dr. Aveling is a Fellow of the London University, and
this is the best popular exposition of Darwinism extant.
BACON, LORD
Pagan Mythology; or, the Wisdom »f the Ancients 1
0
BENTHAM, JEREMY
The Church of England Catechism Examined.
A
Utilitarianism ...
...0
trenchant analysis, in Bentham’s best manner, show
ing how the Catechism is calculated to make chil
dren hypocrites or fools, if not worse. Sir Samuel
Romilly was of opinion that the work would be
prosecuted for blasphemy, though it escaped that
fate in consequence of the writer’s eminence. With
a Biographical Preface by J. M. Wheeler ...
... 1
...
...
. .
“A place must be assigned to Bentham among the
masters of wisdom.”—John Stuart Mill.
“A man of first-rate genius.”—Edward Dicey
“ It is impossible to know Bentham without admiring
and revering him ”—Sir Samuel Romilly.
“ Everything that comes from the pen or from the mind
of Mr. Bentham is entitled to profound regard.”—James
Mill.
“ He found jurisprudence a gibberish and left it a
science.”—Macaulay.
0
3
�COLLINS, ANTHONY
Free Will and Necessity.
A Philosophical Inquiry
concerning Human Liberty. First published in
1715. Now reprinted with Preface and Annotations
by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction
by J. M. Wheeler
...
...
...
... 1 0
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 2 (b
“ I do not know of anything that has been advanced by
later writers in support of the scheme of Necessity, of
which the germ is not to be found in the Inquiry of
Collins.”—Prof. Dugald Stewart.
“ Collins states the arguments against human freedom
with a logical force unsurpassed by any .Necessitarian.”—
Prof. A. C. Fraser.
“ Collins writes with wonderful power and closeness of
reasoning.”—Professor Huxley.
“ Collins was one of the most terrible enemies of the
Christian religion.”—Voltaire.
DIDEROT & D’HOLBACH
The Code of Nature
...
...
...
... o 2
FEUERBACH, LUDWIG
The Essence of Religion.
God the Image of Man,
Man’s Dependence upon Nature the Last and Only
Source of Religion
..
...
...
... 1 0
“ No one has demonstrated, and explained the purely
human:origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig Feuer
bach.”—Buchner.
“ I confess that to Feuerbach I owe a debt of inestimable
gratitude. 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.
FOOTE, G. W.
The Grand Old Book. A Reply to the Grand Old Man.
An Exhaustive Answer to the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone’s “Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture ”10
Bound in cloth ...
...
...
...
... 16
Contents:—Preface—Preliminary View—The Creation
Story—The Fall of Man—The Psalms—The Mosaic Legis
lation — Corroborations of Scripture — Gladstone and
Huxley—Modern Scepticism.
Is Socialism Sound?
Four Nights’ Public Debate
...
...
... ’ o
...
...
... 2 6
Christianity and Secularism. Four Night’s Public
Debate with the Rev. Dr. James McCann...
... I 0
Superior Edition, in cloth
...
...
... ] <>
with Annie Besant
...
Superior Edition, in cloth
�Darwin on God ...
...
Superior Edition, in cloth
...
...
...
...
... 0 6
... 1 0
Contents :—Darwin’s Grandfather—Darwin’s Father—
Darwin’s Early Piety—Almost a Clergyman—On Board
the “ Beagle ”—Settling at Down—Death and Burial—
Purpose of Pamphlet—Some Objections—Darwin Aban
dons Christianity — Deism—Creation — Origin of Life—
Origin of Man—Animism—A Personal Creator—DesignDivine Beneficence—Religion and Morality—Agnosticism
and Atheism.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh
...
... 0 6
Infidel Death-Beds. Second Edition, much enlarged
0 8
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 1 3
List of Freethinkers dealt with : Lord Amberley, Baskerville,
Bayle, Bentham, Bert, Lord Bolingbroke, Broussais, Bruno,
Buckle, Byron, Carlile, Clifford, Clootz, Collins, Comte,
Condorcet, Cooper, D’Alembert, Danton, Charles and .
Erasmus Darwin, Delambre, Diderot, Dolet, George Eliot,
Frederick the Great, Gambetta, Garibaldi, Gendre, Gibbon,
Godwin, Gcethe, Grote, Helvetius, Hetherington, Hobbes,
Austin Holyoake, Hugo, Hume, Littr6, Harriet Martineau,
Jean Meslier, James and John Stuart Mill, Mirabeau, Robt.
Owen, Paine, Palmer, Rabelais, Read, Mdme. Roland, George
Sand, Schiller, Shelley, Spinoza, Strauss, Toland, Vanini,
Voltaire, Volney, Watson, John Watts, Woolston.
Letters to the Clergy. First Series. 128pp.
...
1, Creation, to the Bishop of Carlisle; 2, The
Believing Thief, to the Rev. 0. H. Spurgeon;
3, The Atonement, to the Bishop of Peterborough;
4, Old Testament Morality, to the Rev. E.
Conder, D.D.; 5, Inspiration, to the Rev. R. F.
Horton, M.A.; 6, Credentials of the Gospel, to
the Rev. Prof. J. A. Beet; 7, Miracles, to the Rev.
Brownlow Maitland; 8, Prayer, to the Rev. T.
Teignmouth Shore, M.A.
Defence of Free Speech. Three Hours’ Address to the
Jury before Lord Coleridge. With a Special Pre
face and many Footnotes
.»
...
...
Letters to Jesus Christ ...
.
...
...
Philosophy of Secularism
...
...
...
The Bible God............................
The Folly of Prayer
...
...
...
•••
Christianity and Progress. Reply to Mr. Gladstone
Mrs Besant’s Theosophy. A Candid Criticism.
...
Secularism and Theosophy. A Rejoinder to Mrs.
Besant
...
The New Cagliostro.
Blavatsky
...
...
...
...
•••
1 0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
0 2
An Open Letter to Madame
...
...
...
0 2
�The Impossible Creed.
An Open Letter to Bishop
Magee on the Sermon on the Mount
..
... o 2
Salvation Syrup; on, Light on Darkest England.
A Reply to General Booth
...
...
... o 2
What Was Christ? A Reply to J. S. Mill ...
... 0 2
“ Christian Evidence writers make the passage on Christ
their stock reliance, and Mr. Foote thoroue-blv disses a^d
The Shadow of the Sword. A Moral and Statistical
Essay on War...
An ably written pamphlet, exposing the horrors of war
the burden imposed upon the people by the war systems
of Europe. —Echo.
A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone
should read.’ — Weekly Times.
J
Royal Paupers.
Showing what Royalty does for the
People, and what the People do for Royalty
.
The Dying Atheist. A Story
...
...
...
Was Jesus Insane ? A searching inquiry into the
mental condition of the Prophet of Nazareth
...
Is the Bible Inspired? A Criticism on Lux Mundi
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 1
The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes’s Converted Atheist
A Lie in Five ChaDters...
singly
(12) Professor Samson.
0 *.
I
1 •
a
One Penny each
I •
�( 5 )
Id.; (12) Bible Animals, Id.; (13) A Virgin Mother,
2d.; (14) The Resurrection, 2d.; (15) The Cruci
fixion, Id. ; (16) John’s Nightmare, Id.
G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. Complete, paper covers
1 4
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 2 0
Sold also in separate Parts as follows—
1. Bible Contradictions. The Contradictions are printed
in parallel columns
2. Bible Absurdities. All the chief Absurdities from
Genesis to Revelation, conveniently and strikingly
arranged, with appropriate headlines, giving the
point of each absurdity in a sentence
3. Bible Atrocities. Containing all the godly wicked
ness from Genesis to Revelation. Each infamy has
a separate headline for easy reference
4. Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities,
Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies
0 4
0 4
0 4
0 4
G. W. FOOTE & J. M. WHEELER
The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher Toldoth
Jeshu, or Book of the Generation of Jesus. With
an Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes
... 0 6
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 1 0
“ Messrs. G. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the
Freethought party under great obligation by the careful
manner in which they have collected and stated the informa
tion on a very doubtful and difficult subject...... We have no
hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and
sometimes very erudite notes.”—National Reformer.
Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.
Hundreds of exact References to Standard Autho
rities. No pains spared to make it a complete,
trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of
Christianity ...
...
...
...
... 2 6
Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine ; (2) Constan
tine to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries;
(5) Pious Frauds ; (6) Rise of the Papacy; (7) Crimes
of the Popes ; (8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The
Crusades.
Crimes of Christianity.
_ ‘‘ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are
given with exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of
the greatest use to the opponents of Christianity.”—Naiionai
Reformer.
�“The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole
correct.”— Weekly Times.
“ The book h is a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”
Huddersfield Examiner.
“ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves?’—
Ironclad Age (U.S.A.)
HUME, DAVID
The Mortality of the Soul. With an Introduction by
G. W. Foote, This essay was first published after
Hume’s death. It is not included in the ordinary
editions of the Essays. Prof. Huxley calls it “ A
remarkable essay ” and “ a model of clear and
vigorous statement ” ...
Liberty and Necessity. An argument against Free
Will and in favor of Moral Causation
INGERSOLL, COL. ROBERT G.
Some Mistakes of Moses. The only complete ed’lion
in England. Accurate as Colenso, and fascii iting
as a novel. 132pp.
Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
Defence of Freethought. A five hours’ speech at the
Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy ...
Reply to Gladstone. With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler
Rome or Reason? A Reply to Cardinal Manning
Crimes against Criminals
Why am I an Agnostic ? Parts I. and II., each ...
Faith and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field . .
God and Man. Second Reply to Dr. Field ...
The Dying Creed...
The Household of Faith ...
The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with the
Hon. F. D. Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford
Art and Morality
Do I Blaspheme?
The Clergy and Common Sense ...
Social Salvation...
God and the State
Marriage and Divorce. An Agnostic’s View
The Great Mistake
•••
•••
«»*
Live Topics
• ••
•«•
Myth and Miraole ‘
•••
•••
�( 7 )
Real Blasphemy ...
Repairing the Idols
0 4
0 I
Whole of the above Works of Ingersoll bound in two
volumes, cloth, 7s.
Oration on Walt Whitman
Love the Redeemer
0 3
0 2
NEWMAN, of Cardinal Newman.)
CHARLES ROBERT
(Brother
Essays in Rationalism. With Preface by George Jacob
Holyoake and Biographical Sketch by J. M. Wheeler 1 6
PAINE, THOMAS
The Age of Reason.
G. W. Foote ...
New edition, with Preface by
...
...
...
... i 4
Miscellaneous Theological Works...
./
1 ®
Rights of Man. With a Political Biography by J. M.
Wheeler. Paper covers
Bound in cloth ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
1 $
2 F
SHELLEY
A Refutation of Deism.
In a Dialogue. With an
Introduction by G. W. Foofe
...
...
... 0 4
THOMSON, JAMES (B.V.)
Satires and Profanities. New edition
...
... 1 $
Contents The Story of a Famous Old Jewish
Firm (Jehovah, Son & Co.)—The Devil in the Church
of England—Religion in the Rocky Mountains—
Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles—A Commission
of Inquiry on Royalty—A Bible Lesson on Monarchy
—The One Thing Needful.
“ It cannot be neglected by any who are interested in one
of the most pathetic personages of our time”—Academy.
“As clever as they are often profane”—CArisJian World.
“Well worth preserving”—Weekly Dispatch.
“Reminds one of the genius of Swift.”— Oldham. Chronicle.
WHEELER, J. M.
Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers of all Ages
and Nations. Handsomely bound in cloth
... 7 <
“ The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the
compiler deserves the thanks of the Freethought party.”—
National Reformer.
“The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought.
�( 8 )
“ At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing
those Chrisians who are continually inquiring for our great
men, asserting that all great men have been on the side of
Christianity.’'—Truthseeker (New York).
“The most important Freethought work published this
year.”—De Dageraad (Amsterdam).
“A good and useful work that was much needed.”—
CowmonweaL
Letters from Heaven
...
... o 1
Picture of the Statue of Bruno at Rome...
... 0 2
“FREETHINKER” TRACTS. Per hundred
... 0 6
...
...
MISCELLANEOUS
Post free in Letts’s case, 3d.
Post free 7d. One thousand carriage free. Sample
packet of 20 (one of each tract) post free
... 0 2
I. Salvation by Faith (Ingersoll); 2, Death of
Adam (Nelson); 3, Bible Blunders (Foote); 4, The
Bible and Teetotalism (Wheeler); 5, Bible Har
mony (Holy Ghost); 6, Which is the Safe Side?
(Foote); 7, Voltaire's DesiF-Bed ; 8, The Parson's
Creed (verse); is Prephecy Tested (Ball); 10, Chris
tianity and the Family (Ingersoll); 11, Thomas
Paine's Death-Bed; 12, Shelley's Religion; 13,
J. S. Mill on Christianity ; 14, J. Golden Oppor
tunity (facetious) ; 15, Darwin's Religious Views ;
16, Atheists and Atheism; 17, Good Friday at
Jerusalem; 18, Parsons on “Smut" (Foote); 19,
Mrs. Eve (Foote); 20, New Testament Forqeries
(Wheeler).
Mr. G. W. Foote’s Portrait by Amey. Cabinet size.... 1 0
Post free and carefully packed, Is. Id.
Imperial Size, very fine ...
...
...
... 3 0
Post free and carefully packed, 3s. 2d.
“THE FREETHINKER’’
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
The Only Penny Freethought Paper in England.
Circulates throughout the World.
Published every Thursday.
Printed and Published by G-. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street,
London, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Progressive Publishing Company's catalogue, September 1891
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Progressive Publishing Company
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N545
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 (The Progressive Publishing Company's catalogue, September 1891), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought-Bibliography
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/90fbbd460e4a1378317a42716292533b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CuKyrbWgFtk8wk2fTC4fow4rxcv-VRPBWTLw-zrZiheuvno39HoY6P6O7fy4BxYsmOzORksibrvXNZjYy8ErGbJUnIHFtYfhsDaUoHlQTSp1D5Jf8Iz8fzPocvglNIDMYqhfbn09THUNpln9L2RPAkZsLpSEnH-IEQK2d6iIQIt4MYNKf4Cb1v-XHe6mIuChsBwxbNbSbgp2jT2lqxNGtP15RFCTOMlwmUN%7E2gG88R23v3vNhTmFNrAg87uuVrgoE7yj2Xl8ywwJanvBlhbNXPYOBrjOm0eZ%7E1AgDngoWBa4ZGmHCATm3xaw3nDUvYc3culBb0SRQpU4FNkuGURuJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f0f7121a0d29afdaa7fc055d4b16f237
PDF Text
Text
�I sHiLr JBI
�$9+7
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
GRAND OLD BOOK
A REPLY TO
THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE’S
“ THE IMPREGNABLE BOCK OF HOLY SCRIPTURE »
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
�LONDON:
PRTNTED AND PUBLISHED DY G. W. POOLE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE....................................................................... -
-
v
PRELIMINARY VIEW......................................................................... 1
THE CREATION STORY........................................................... 17
THE FALL OF MAN
------
THE PSALMS...........................................................
34
-
44
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION -----
51
...
64
....
71
CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY
MODERN SCEPTICISM
-
�k
�PREFACE
There is something exhilarating in Mr. Gladstone’s
vivacity at an age when most men are but the relics
or shadows of their former selves. His restless
energy, and his unflagging interest in so many pur
suits, are at least the indications of a wide sympathy
and a strenuous intelligence. But nature, while
endowing him with a magnetic and commanding per
sonality, did not include originality in his intellectual
gifts. As a statesman he has always followed the
thought of his age, and as a theologian he lags
behind it.
The late Dr. Dollinger placed Mr. Gladstone in the
front rank of English theologians. “ I do not think,”
said the great German scholar, “ that you have in
your Church any superior to him.” But this state
ment should probably be taken with a large grain of
salt. When one Grand Old Man praises another
Grand Old Man, who happens to be his personal
friend and admirer, we must allow a liberal margin
for the warmth of sentiment. For our part, we should
say that Mr. Gladstone does not shine as a theologian,
although his style is prelatical enough for an arch
bishop. His early work on Church and State was cut
to mincemeat by Lord Macaulay. His famous pam
phlet on the Vatican Decrees was courteously, calmly,
but most remorselessly, reduced to shreds and tatters
by Cardinal Newman. His recent tilt with Colonel
�vi.
Preface.
Ingersoll was an egregious and almost ignominious
failure, while his controversies with Professor Huxley
have shown the futility of the methods of parlia
mentary discussion in the domain of science and
scholarship.
Assuredly there are better theologians than Mr.
Gladstone in England, but they are too discreet to
risk a battle for their faith. Mr. Gladstone rushes in
where they feai’ to tread. He is filled with a sense of
security because he does not understand the real
nature and force of sceptical objections. What is
admirable, is not his fitness for the task, but his
irrepressible courage. Even this has been questioned
by cynics, who point out that whereas his previous
defences of orthodoxy have been made in reviews
where he might be replied to, his latest defence has
been made in a religious magazine where reply is im
possible.
Mr. Gladstone’s articles in Good Words have been
collected, and published after revision and enlarge
ment in the form of a volume, called “ The Impregnable
Rock of Holy Scripture.” This is a sufficiently
sonorous title, which would sound well from a pulpit,
but it lies open to an easy criticism.
If the Rock of Holy Scripture is impregnable, why
is it so earnestly defended ? Who is anxious about a
really impregnable position ? All its occupants have
to do is to sit still and watch the enemy with amuse
ment. The moment fire is opened on the besiegers,
the impregnability of the position is surrendered—as
the position itself may be at the end of the battle.
Mr. Gladstone may reply that his object is not so
much to repel scepticism as to reassure belief; not so
much to thin the ranks of the enemy as to prevent
�Preface.
vii.
them from being swelled by deserters from the impreg
nable citadel. But his appeal cannot be so restricted.
It is necessarily made in the hearing of both forces,
and in so far as it fails to answer the arguments of
scepticism it will loosen the allegiance he seeks to
confirm.
In replying to Mr. Gladstone’s defence of Scripture,
a critic is entitled to lose sight of his eminence as a
statesman. There is equality of citizenship in the
democracy of thought, and there are no authorities in
the republic of reason. Nor does a writer’s eminence
in one department of mental activity give him a right
to be deferred to in another. Whoever publishes his
opinions, of necessity challenges criticism, and it is the
business of a true critic to be overawed by no man’s
greatness, but to canvas his views and arguments as
fearlessly and impartially as if they were advanced by
the humblest and most obscure controversialist.
This principle must be the justification, if any
justification is needed, for the freedom with which the
present writer has expressed himself in opposition to
Mr. Gladstone. If he has evei’ trespassed beyond an
allowable freedom, he begs pardon of Mr. Gladstone
and the reader. At the same time he ventures to
suggest that mere politeness is a virtue in which
knaves often excel; that it may be medicinal to
speak plainly when the flatterers of a great man
mislead him; and that the world is so much in need of
truth—the one sure friend of humanity—that a single
grain of it should outweigh all the dross with which it
happens to be surrounded.
��THE GRAND OLD BOOK.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY VIEW.
With an admirable and engaging ingenuousness Mr.
Gladstone tells us, at the outset, what are his quali
fications for the task he has undertaken. He does not
understand Hebrew, but that is a trifling disadvantage
in the present stage of controversy. There are very
few persons who understand Hebrew, and some of
them understand nothing else. Nor will the inspira
tion of Scripture, with the masses of thoughtful people,
stand or fall on the discussion of Hebrew texts. In
this country they think in English, and must be saved
or damned in English. The question will be decided,
so far as they are concerned, not on grounds of arch
aeology or minute scholarship, but on the broad ground
of science and common sense. Whitman’s advice to
every reader is, “ Dismiss what affronts your own soul,”
and men can and will do this while the pundits are
wrangling over textual obscurities and subtle problems
of syntax and style.
Secondly, Mr. Gladstone believes, what is true, that
“ there is a very large portion of the community whose
opportunities of judgment have been materially smaller
than his own.” But this is only saying that the oneeyed man will be king among the blind. Thirdly, he
has devoted a great part of his leisure during forty
years to “ the earnest study^of pre-historic antiquity
�2
The Grand Old Book.
and its documents in regard to the Greek race,” and
here he flings in the perilous statement that “ the early
Scriptures may in the mass be roughly called contem
porary with the Homeric period.” But the most pro
found study of Greek antiquities would scarcely confer
any special fitness for a judgment on the antiquities of
a people so dissimilar as the Jews. The real fact is
that Mr. Gladstone has the same qualifications, perhaps
a little heightened, as ordinary educated Englishmen.
He is at the mercy of specialists like the rest of us,
and only argues from the obvious results of their
labors.
A much less acute man than Mr. Gladstone would
see that those obvious results have effectually dispose d
of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. It is not sur
prising, therefore, that he warns the Spurgeon-Denison
school against their danger. He sums up the difficul
ties of their position under seven heads. He says
“ there may possibly have been ”—
1. Imperfect comprehension of that which was communi
cated.
2. Imperfect expression of what had been comprehended.
3. Lapse of memory in oral transmission.
4. Errors of copyists in written transmission.
5. Changes with the lapse of time in the sense of words.
6. Variations arising from renderings into different tongues,
especially as between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint,
which was probably based upon MS. older than the compilers
of the Hebrew text could have had at their command.
7. There are three variant chronologies of the New Testa
ment, according to the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Sama
ritan Pentateuch, and it would be hazardous to claim for any
one of them the sanction of a Divine revelation.
“ That in some sense,” Mr. Gladstone says, “ the
Holy Scriptures contain something of a human element
�The Grand Old Booh.
a
is clear, as to the New Testament, from diversities of
reading, from slight conflicts in the narrative, and
from an insignificant number of doubtful cases as to
the authenticity of the text.” This admission is honest,
but is made with considerable discretion. “ An insig
nificant number of doubtful cases” is a very judicious
expression; while “ slight conflicts in the narrative ”
is perhaps a trifle more than judicious. There are three
contradictory accounts, for instance, of such an ex
tremely important event as the conversion of Saint
Paul; and although the inscription on the cross of
Christ was written in Greek, as well as in Latin
and Hebrew, the Holy Ghost inspired the four evange
lists (in Greek) so accurately that they copied it in
four different ways. These instances are only a sample
of a monstrous mass of “ slight conflicts.” We must
further add that “diversities of reading” is a very
mild expression of the fact that there are a hundred
and fifty thousand various readings of texts even in
the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
This does not exhaust Mr. Gladstone’s admissions.
He refers, with apparent approval, to Dr. Driver’s,
article in the Contemporary Review, in which it is
shown “ with great clearness and ability that the basis ”
of continental criticism is “ sound and undeniable.”
Then he writes as follows :
“ It has long been known, for example, that portions of the
historical books of the Old Testament, such as the Books of
Chronicles, were of a date very far later than most of the events
which they record, and that a portion of the prophecies included
in the Book of Isaiah were later than his time. We are now
taught that, according to the prevailing judgment of the learned,
the form in which the older books of the Old Testament have
come down to us does not correspond as a rule with their
titles, and is due to later though still, as is largely held, remote
�4
The Grand Old Booh.
periods; and that the law presented to us in the Pentateuch is
not an enactment of a single date, but has been formed by a
process of growth, and by gradual accretions.”
Mr. Gladstone says that these are “ disturbing an
nouncements/"’ and they would be far more “ disturb
ing ” if he made them as complete as he might find
warrant for in the pages of Dr. Driver, Canon Cheyne
and Archdeacon Farrar. Nevertheless, the Grand Old
Man does not lose his equanimity. He was brought up
a believer, he has lived a believer, and he will die a
believer. So far from being dismayed, he is in a per
fect state of jubilation. The more the old Book is
turned about in the kaleidoscope of scientific criticism,
the more it shifts into new forms, the better he likes
it. If the old arrangement showed it was inspired,
the new arrangement shows it still more. He rejoices
to think that no “ weapon of offence” has “yet been
forged ” which can impair the “ efficiency ” of Scripture
for “practical purposes.” Let destructive criticism do
its worst, we “ yet may hold firmly, as firmly as of old,”
to the impregnable rock.
Such words sound like and are a challenge “ to accept
the Scriptures on the moral and spiritual and historical
ground of their characters in themselves, and of the
work which they, and the agencies associated with them
have done and are doing in the world.” But this is
the introduction of a fresh argument. For the present
at any rate, Mr. Gladstone is bound to argue in the
light of Cardinal Newman’s aphorism, “ A true religion
is a religion founded on truth; a false religion is a
religion founded on falsehood.”
Mr. Gladstone goes even farther. He is ready to be
on with the new love as soon as he is off with the old
one. He surmises that “ this destructive criticism, if
�The Grand Old Booh.
5
entirely made good, would, in the view of an inquiry
really searching, comprehensive, and philosophical,
leave as its result not less but greater reason for
admiring the hidden modes by which the great Artificer
works out his designs.” In other words, the Lord
may have been keeping us in a fog for two thousand
years in order to make us appreciate the change when
he brings us into the daylight. But this is not the
method adopted by human parents towards their chil
dren ; and any Board School teacher who followed it
would be soon amongst the unemployed.
The argument indeed—if it be an argument—is a
pawky one ; for, if Mr. Gladstone thinks the new view
of the Bible is likely to increase our faith, why does he
not accept it unhesitatingly? His attitude is really
that of a man who has made up his mind to cling to
the Bible in any circumstances, and he is obviously
writing for readers who are filled with a similar deter
mination.
Mr. Gladstone is so far, indeed, from yielding with
out reserve to the conclusions of destructive criticism,
that he warns his readers against an excessive alarm.
“ Those conclusions,” he says, “ appear to be in a great
measure floating and uncertain, the subject of manifold
controversy, and secondly they seem to shift and vary
with rapidity in the minds of those who hold them.”
Then, with the dexterity of the old parliamentary
hand, he introduces a lecture by Mr. Margoliouth, the
Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who thinks it
possible to reconstruct the Semitic original of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, and who is for giving Rabbinical
Hebrew a greater antiquity than is usually assigned to
it. This would, of course, involve a greater antiquity
for Middle and Ancient Hebrew, and by such means
�The Grand Old Book.
the Pentateuch and the ‘k historical ” books might be
made a century or two older than is allowed in the
current chronology. Here, then, says Mr. Gladstone,
there is “ war, waged on critical grounds, in the critical
camp ”; and he thinks the spectator will be “ the more
hardened in his determination not to rush prematurely
to final conclusions.”
This bit of dexterity is perhaps an effective piece of
ad populum rhetoric. But is it worthy of Mr. Glad
stone I His friend, Professor Max Muller, in the first
volume of his Gifford lectures, utters an anticipative
protest against this infatuation. “ To say that critics
disagree among themselves/’ he remarks, “ and that
they need not be listened to till they agree, is one of
those lazy commonplaces which no true scholar would
dare to employ.” It is true that Mr. Gladstone does
not quite go to this length, but that is where his
observations will lead the orthodox reader.
We have called Mr. Gladstone’s attitude “infatua
tion.” It is a strong word, but is it not justified ? No
one doubts that critics disagree. But do they not also
agree ? Is it not a fact that, in the mass, they move
farther and farther from the orthodox position ?
Certainly they debate many points as they progress,
but they keep moving in the same direction ; and it is
worse than idle for Mr. Gladstone to obscure this fact
by directing attention to their discussions along the
road. He forgets that perfect harmony is not to be
expected. It has not been arrived at in regard to the
Greek classics—for instance, Homer—which have been
discussed with the greatest freedom, as well as by the
keenest intellects, ever since the Renaissance; and how
could it be hoped for in regard to the Bible, which has
only been scientifically studied during the last half
�The Grand Old Booh.
7
century 1 Another difficulty is that most of the critics
have eaten orthodox bread, and have thus been deterred
from free and fearless movement by the severe law of
self-preservation.
The word “ infatuation,” as applied to Mr. Glad
stone’s attitude, is further justified by a cursory view
of the problem which the critics are solving. The Old
Testament, if we except the so-called Apocrypha, is
the whole extant Jewish literature before the time of
Christ. Probably there were hundreds, posssibly thou
sands, of other writings, but they have all perished.
The consequence is that comparative Hebrew is a very
different study from comparative Greek. All the
Jewish books treat of one subject—religion. This
dreadfully narrows the field of research. And it is
stilP further narrowed, as well as obscured, by the
absence of a mass of contemporary writings in any one
age, that would throw light upon each other. Thus
the study of comparative Hebrew is almost entirely
internal to the Bible, and its difficulties are immense.
Were not the critics testing the foundations of the
greatest historic religion, their labors—so recondite, so
painful, and so minute—would be a frightful waste of
human energy.
Well, these critics, working at such a task, which is
not half finished, are not quite harmonious. But with
what an ill grace does this come from a politician like
Mr. Gladstone 1 The Irish problem, for intricacy and
obscurity, is nothing to the problem of the date and
authorship of the Old Testament books. Yet although
it has been before Mr. Gladstone ever since he entered
Parliament; although it has been a burning question
during the fifty years of his public life ; and although
the data for a solution were always at hand; he has
�8
The Grand Old Booh.
only “ found salvation ” at the eleventh hour. He
might reply, of course, that he has always been moving
in one direction. But that is precisely what may be
said of the body of destructive critics.
The very illustration Mr. Gladstone gives of the
“ floating and uncertain conclusions ” of these gentle-?
men is damnifying to his argument. Wellhausen, in
editing the work of Bleek, accepted “ in a great degree
the genuineness of the Davidic Psalms contained in
the First Book of the Psalter,” but he has since
abandoned this position, and he “ brings down the
general body of the Psalms to a date very greatly
below that of the Babyionic exile.” Now if Wellhausen
had first held the Psalms to be modern, and after
wards held them to be ancient, he would have served
Mr. Gladstone’s purpose. But Wellhausen’s move
ment has been in the opposite direction. Like other
Biblical critics, the farther he goes the farther he leaves
the orthodox position behind him. Surely the old
parliamentary hand must have nodded when he
introduced this fatal illustration.
But Mr. Gladstone’s girds at the critics are, after all,
only reassuring asides to his readers. He does not
seriously contest that the Bible must henceforth be
regarded in a new light, and he sets himself to the task
of showing that the grand old book is still as safe and
sound as ever. To this end he calls upon his readers
to (i look broadly and largely at the subject of Holy
Scripture.” “ I ask them,” he repeats,£< to look at the
subject as they would look at the British Constitution
or at the poetry of Shakespeare.” But this overlooks
the vast difference between revelation and the produc
tions of human genius. We may respect the British
Constitution as fairly good in the circumstances. We
�The Grand Old Book.
9
may revere the work of Shakespeare in spite of its
imperfections. But does Mr. Gladstone mean that we
can. adopt such an attitude towards the revelation of
God ? It is idle to tell us that God's method with us
is “ one of sufficiency not of perfection.” The Bible
is no more sufficient than it is perfect. It may, of
course, be sufficient for those who read into it the
mental and moral discoveries of later ages. But taken
as it stands it is clearly insufficient. Neither slavery
nor polygamy, for instance, does it ever mention with
the slightest disapproval. We have outgrown both,
not by means of the Bible, but in spite of it. On the
other hand, the “ sacred volume ” contains a host of
cruel, brutal, and filthy passages, which a wise and
good Being would never have inserted in a revelation
which he intended for future ages of refinement. This
is a truth which Mr. Gladstone perceives, and he
attempts to drown it in a torrent of rhetoric.
“ Even the moral problems, which may be raised as to
particular portions of the volume, and which may not have
found any absolute and certain solution, are lost in the com
prehensive contemplation of its general strain, its immeasurable
loftiness of aim,” etc., etc.
What is this, however, but a palpable evasion of the
sceptic’s argument ? Loftiness of aim is obvious in the
works of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Spinoza,
and other great writers ; and “ immeasurable ” is simply
a question-begging epithet. Besides, no one contends
that the Bible was written for the purpose of teaching
immorality. Then, as to “ comprehensive contempla
tion,” we suspect it means seeing what you want to see,
and missing everything else. A prisoner in the dock,
charged with murder, and clearly proved guilty, might
demand to be tried by a “ comprehensive contemplation ”
�10
The Grand Old Book.
■of his whole life, and offer to produce a hundred
witnesses to show that on ever so many other days than
the one on which he committed the crime he was an
honest and respectable citizen. But the plea would not
prevent a verdict of Guilty.
It is a pity that Mr. Gladstone did not give a few
illustrations of this “ broad view ” and “ comprehen
sive contemplation.” He does, however, deal slightly
with the Book of Genesis.
“ With regal'd to the Book of Genesis, the admission which
has been made implies nothing adverse to the truth of the
traditions it embodies, nothing adverse to their antiquity,
nothing which excludes or discredits the idea of their having
formed part of a primitive revelation, simultaneous or succes
sive. The forms of expression may have changed yet the
substance may remain with an altered literary form, as some
scholars have thought (not, I believe rightly) that the diction
and modelling of the Homeric Poems is comparatively modern?
and yet the matter they embody may belong to a remote
antiquity.”
Now it is difficult to think that Mr. Gladstone, when
he wrote this passage, had the details of the problem
in his mind. If the Book of Genesis was written many
centuries after the time of Moses by unknown hands,
it is certainly open for any person to assert that its
statements may nevertheless be true. There is no limit
to the license of affirmation. But where is the evi
dence? We venture to say there is not a tittle. On
the contrary, there is the strongest negative evidence
against the assertion. Never once, in the history of
the Judges, or the reigns of the early kings, including
David and Solomon, is allusion made to the mythology
of Genesis, any more than to the Mosaic law. Mr.
Gladstone has therefore not only to produce some
�The Grand Old Book.
11
positive evidence of his “ may be/’ but to dispose of
the strong negative evidence to the contrary. For the
rest, “ traditions ” are not revelation, nor is their truth
proved by their “ antiquity ”; and a primitive revelation
is an idle dream in the light of Evolution.
Nothing is clearer than that the mythology of
Genesis and the chief part of the Mosaic law belong
to the post-exile period. The Jews were never an
inventive people. They did invent the synagogue,
which is the original of the Christian church or chapel;
but what else can they claim as theirs ? They con
tributed to Christianity its spirit of fanaticism and its
apparatus of the Sunday meeting-place. All the rest
was contributed, directly or indirectly, by Babylon,
Persia, Egypt, and Greece.
We can only stand aghast at the concluding state
ment that “the operations of criticism, properly so
called, affecting as they do the literary form of the
books, leave the questions of history, miracle, revelation,
substantially where they found them.” This is
equivalent to saying that writings which come into
existence hundreds of years after the events they
record are as good as contemporary documents. It is
like saying that traditions about Julius Caesar, written
down for the age of Charlemagne, would have the
value of Suetonius, the Speeches and Letters of
Cicero, and Caesar’s “ Commentaries.” It is, further,
an assumption, which is unspeakably monstrous, that
the gossip of centuries is excellent evidence of the
truth of a miracle.
We must likewise point out the wild rhetoric of the
assertion that “the Bible invites, attracts,and commands
the adhesion of mankind.” It does not command the
adhesion of Mr. Gladstone’s first political lieutenant,
�12
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. John Morley. It does not command the adhesion
of 160,000,000 Hindus, 155,000,000 Muhammedans,
and 500,000,000 Buddhists. It does command the
adhesion—such as it is—of 350,000,000 Christians.
And that adhesion is “attracted” by the well-nigh
irresistible force of early training, and “invited” by
the political and social ostracism—if not the active
persecution—of every open dissenter. With such
advantages “ Jack the Giant Killer ” might command
the adhesion of mankind.
. Mr. Gladstone refers to the scepticism or indifference
of the working classes. There is an impression that
they have largely lost their hold upon the Christian
creed. But, while admitting that this is to some extent
true, Mr. Gladstone denies that, amongst us, they have
“ lost respect for the Christian religion, or for its
ministers; or that they desire their children to be
brought up otherwise than in the knowledge and
practice of it.” Their perversion simply means that
“their positive, distinct acceptance of the articles of
the Creed, and their sense of the dignity and value of
the Sacred Record, are blunted or effaced.” But this
is a grandiose way of saying that they are neither
Bibliolators nor Christians.
Curiously enough, Mr. Gladstone does' not find this
scepticism or indifference among the “leisured and
better provided, classes.” Surely he must be basking
in a kind of fool’s paradise. It may be that his
acquaintances are chary of troubling him with heterodox
opinions. Even Mr. Morley may eschew Diderot and
Voltaire in conversing with his orthodox chief. Yet it
is clear that educated society is honeycombed with
scepticism. And Mr. Gladstone has an inkling of the
fact. Why else should he refer to “ the wide dis
�The Grand Old Booh.
13
paragement of the Holy Scriptures recently observable
in the surface currents of prevalent opinion” ?
It is, indeed, to rebuke and diminish this “ wide
disparagement” of the Bible that Mr. Gladstone
assumes the role of Defender of the Faith. He
believes this disparagement to be. founded on “ sup
positions ” which are “ erroneous,” and he sums them
up under five heads for the purpose of refutation.
I. That the conclusions of science as to natural objects have
shaken or destroyed the assertions of the early Scriptures with
respect to the origin and history of the world, and of man, its
principal inhabitant.
II. That their contents are in many cases offensive to the
moral sense, and unworthy of an enlightened age.
III. That our race made its appearance in the world in a
condition but one degree above that of the brute creation, and
only by slow and painful but continual progress has brought
itself up to the present level of its existence.
IV. That men have accomplished this by the exercise of
their natural powers; and have nevei' received the special
teaching and authoritative guidance, which is signified under
the name of Divine Revelation.
V. That the more considerable among the different races and
nations of the world have devised, and established from time
to time, their respective religions; and'have in many cases
accepted the promulgation of sacred books, which are to be
considered as essentially of the same character with the Bible.
A sixth “ supposition ” is indicated, namely, that the
Old Testament books are not contemporary records,
but “ comparatively recent compilations from’uncertain
sources.” This has, however, been partially dealt
with already, although, as will be seen .hereafter, Mr.
Gladstone returns to it in a subsequent chapter.
These five “ suppositions,” set forth in extenso, are
what Mr. Gladstone promises to demolish. The wider
.suppositions of Atheism or Agnosticism are “ foreign ”
�14
The Grand Old Book.
to his “ present purpose.” Each of the fatal five has“ a
literature of its own, which may be termed scientific.”
Mr. Gladstone deems it necessary to say, therefore,
that while he hopes his remarks will be “ rational and
true,” they will not be “ systematic and complete, but
popular and partial only.” And, in a certain sense,
the description must be admitted. Mr. Gladstone’s
treatment of destructive criticism and its results is
certainly not “systematic and complete.” But it is
“ popular,” in its resemblance to partisan harangues
on political platforms, where the speaker voices the
prejudices of his audience, and is confident that all his
illogicalities and evasions will be taken in a lenient
spirit. Nor can it be disputed that his treatment is
ct partial.” It is not too much to say that Mr. Glad
stone’s method, apart from his literary style, is that of
the street-corner champions of orthodoxy. He betrays
hardly any acquaintance with the works and the points
of the chief destructive critics. Even Renan’s Histoira
du Peuple d’Israel, a recent and as yet uncompleted
work, at once learned and brilliant, and presenting
some of the best results of Biblical scholarship, is
utterly neglected; while, on the scientific side, suchauthorities as Darwin, Haeckel, Eyell, and Huxley, are
almost absolutely ignored, and appeals are made topurely orthodox authorities like Dana and Dawson,
without the least suggestion to the half-educated reader
that his ignorance and credulity are thus egregiously
imposed upon. This may, indeed, be the sort of
argumentation which is suited to party politics; but
who will seriously defend it as anything but repre
hensible when applied to the subject of the present
discussion?
How far Mr. Gladstone’s purpose is served by these
�The Grand Old Book,
15
methods we shall see as we proceed.
Meanwhile
we must notice a point in his view of the spread
of scepticism in our midst. Mr. Gladstone is struck
by the fact that the “poor” who first welcomed
Christianity are now so indifferent to it. He says
it “ affords much matter for meditation.”
But
he has himself unconsciously solved the problem.
He remarks that there were few obstacles in the
way of the poor becoming Christians in the primitive ages.
“They had by contrast,” he says,
“ more palpable interests in the promise of the life tocome, as compared with the possession of the life that
now is.” Precisely so. They eagerly embraced the
fine promises of Christianity, and, as happiness seemed
impossible for them on earth, they welcomed the
prospect of it in heaven. Those who mourned and
those who hungered were to be comforted and filled—
in the sweet by-and-bye. But the “ poor ” have found,
out the trick; and now, instead of yearning for the
celestial shadow, they are trying to secure the earthly
substance. On the other hand, the wealthy are averse
to change. Many of them have as much “ faith ” as
the present writer, but they support Christianity as
the strongest conservative agent. They resemble old
Lord Eldon, who denied being a pillar of the Church,
and exclaimed, “No, I am a buttress, I prop it up
outside.”
Here we leave Mr. Gladstone standing on his im
pregnable rock. It has been disintegrated by all sorts
of mines and explosives during the past century;
Science, scholarship, morality, and common sense have
all been busily at work; and, although there is no great,
outward solution of continuity, and the rock will last
Mr. Gladstone’s time, the collapse is approaching.
�16
The Grand Old Boole.
.
*
Mi Gladstone hears the rumbling and cracking, or he
would not strive to reassure the faithful; and those
who are familiar with the agencies at work know that
the “ impregnable rock ” bears within itself all the
elements of ruin. Even its temporary defence must
be attempted on other principles than Mr. Gladstone’s.
A writer like the Rev. Charles Gore, the editor of
Lux Mundi, sees very clearly that a new theory of
Inspiration is the only means whereby the growing
dissatisfaction with large portions of the letter of the
Bible, even within the most orthodox Churches, can be
wholly or partially allayed. By thus altering their
theory so as to cover almost any amount of difficulty,
the more astute champions of the Bible may weather
their present embarrassments, although their security
can only be short-lived. But Mr. Gladstone’s method
■of defence is perfectly futile, and could never have
been selected if he had possessed a fuller acquaintance
with the real state of the controversy.
�17
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER II.
THE
CREATION
STORY,
The Creation Story is a subject which from the Chris
tian point of view is of the highest importance. This
story stands at the very threshold of the Bible, and if
it be a fiction it inevitably throws discredit on all that
follows. But this is not all, nor even the worst. The
story of Creation is inseparably connected with the
story of the Fall. They stand or perish together.
And if the Fall is to be regarded as a myth, what
becomes of Christianity? The Christian scheme of
salvation is unintelligible without the antecedent
doctrine of the fall of man. It is the Garden of Eden
which gives meaning to Gethsemane, the curse upon
Adam and Eve which gives meaning to the tragedy of
Calvary. Without the Fall, and the ensuing curse, the
Atonement is a baseless dogma, and the Incarnation,
the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are but tre
mendous mistakes.
The Creation Story opens the first of the five books
commonly thought to have been written by Moses,
although, as Professor Max Muller says, no scholar
believes anything of the kind.
*
Even Mr. Glad
stone himself, who honestly disclaims any preten
sion to Biblical scholarship, does not venture to
speak of Moses as an author. He designates the
writer of the Creation Story as “ the Mosaist or the
Mosaic writer,” and thus leaves the whole question of
Natural Religion, p. 56.
B
�18
The Grand Old Book.
the date and authorship of the Book of Genesis to
settle itself as it can. Nevertheless he speaks again
and again of the Creation Story being a revelation to
“ primitive man.” This is a very misleading phrase.
Some readers will think it means Adam; or Cain,
Abel, Seth and the rest of the first human family,
according to the ethnology of Genesis. Others will
think it means the family of Noah, and still others the
Jews of the Exodus, while another class of readers will
think of the “ primitive man ” of Darwinism, and
wonder whether Mr. Gladstone fancies the Creation
Story was “ revealed ” when our far-off ancestors were
dodging the mammoth and disputing snug quarters
with cave bears and hyenas. It is difficult to believe
that so acute a man as Mr. Gladstone did not catch a
glimpse of this perplexity. We cannot help thinking
he felt the phrase to be a very convenient one, as sug
gesting a good deal without affirming anything, and
helping his argument without involving the necessity of
defence.
Suggestion, however, was not enough; it had to be
supported by something positive, for the antiquity of
the Creation Story is indispensable to Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. But the difficulties of such a theory are
immense. Supposing the story to have been “ revealed ”
to Moses, whether written down by him or transmitted
orally, it is astonishing that not a mention of it occurs
in the whole of the Jewish scriptures outside the Book
of Genesis, with the single exception of the Fourth
Commandment. This first piece of revelation, this
primary message of the divine Father to his children,
this record on which the whole institution of the
Sabbath jfis said to have been based, was treated by
Hebrew writers, century after century, with an un
�The Grand Old Book.
19
broken conspiracy of silence. Such is apparently the
fact, and it is too hard for flesh and blood to credit.
Mr. Gladstone sees this, and he argues that “ there are
signs in subsequent portions of the volume that this
tale of the Creation was regarded by the Hebrews as
authoritative and important.” But what are these
“ signs33
Surely they are the most marvellous
“ signs33 that ever signified nothing. Mr. Gladstone
finds them in Job xxxviii. and Psalms civ. and cxlviii.
He discreetly refrains from quotation, and we will follow
his example, though for a very different reason. We
merely ask the candid reader to turn to those chapters,
and see whether he can find the remotest allusion to
the Creation Story without putting on Mr. Gladstone’s
spectacles.
Mr. Gladstone may be a master of fence, but he
cannot resist the pressure of facts. The Jews were
never an inventive people, and it is now established
beyond dispute that their cosmogony was borrowed.
Some of it was the common possession of the Semitic
people, but most of it was derived from Babylon,
whence the Jews also took their weights and measures,
their period of work and rest, and other basic elements
of their post-exile civilisation. That something is due
to the shaping of Hebrew writers we are far from dis
puting ; but the Creation Story, the Fall, and even the
Flood were all writ large in the stone records of mighty
empires long before they were embodied in the Jewish
scriptures by an hierarchy which was able to pass off
new teachings as the voice of antiquity.
Not only does Mr. Gladstone fail to advance a single
valid argument in favor of the Creation Story, but he
.practically treats it as a fiction. He remarked some
time. ago,, in his discussion with Huxley, that the Story
�20
The Grand Old Book.
was not a treatise but a sermon. Since then he has
been working out this line of defence, and he now dis
closes it in a state of perfection. “ The conveyance of
scientific instruction,” he says, would not have been “ a
reasonable object for the Mosaic writer to pursue'’'’—a
statement with which we agree, for the Mosaic writer
had none to convey. His object, it appears, was two
fold. He did not say so, but apparently Mr. Gladstone
has some occult information as to his intentions. First,
he wished—or God wished through him—“ to teach
man his proper place in creation in relation to its several
orders.” Secondly, he wished to “ make him know and
feel what was the beautiful and noble home that he
inhabited, and with what a fatherly and tender care
Providence had prepared it for him to dwell in.”
Let us examine these reasons. We will take the
second first. The Mosaist’s object—that is, if the
story be inspired, God’s object—was to show how the
world had been prepared by the Heavenly Father as a
dwelling-place for his children. Now it seems to us
that Mr. Gladstone has lost all historic perspective
in this statement. The earth is at present very largely
made fit for man to live in, although, even in an old
country like India, thousands of persons yearly fall
victims to tigers and snakes. But so far as the earth
is made fit, it is perfectly clear that man himself has
done the work. He felled the forests, drained the
swamps, tamed the buffaloes, broke the wild horse,
domesticated the wolf, and bred sheep from a savage
stock. The Genesaic story of the animals passing in
meek review before Adam as the lord of creation, is a
pretty picture, but a pure work of imagination.
Primitive man was “ monarch of all he surveyed ” only
while he looked upon his squaw and his offspring, and
�The Grand Old Book.
21
the rough walls of the natural cave, or artificial hole
in the ground, where his highness lay sheltered from
his prowling subjects, who were seeking to dine on his
regal person. His faculties were sharpened through a
wild and terrible struggle for existence, and finally he
triumphed; but surely it is idle, in face of these facts,
to talk of the “ fatherly and tender care of Providence”
in preparing his dwelling-place.
Even if the facts were otherwise, it is strange that
God should have given this lesson as to his “ fatherly
and tender care ” for his children to a few semi-savage
and fanatical Jews, who kept the “ revelation ” strictly
to themselves, and never imparted it to the mighty
civilisations of Egypt, India, Phoenicia, Carthage,
Persia, and Assyria, to say nothing of the more modern
Greece and Rome.
But if the Mosaist’s first object was unhappy, his
second object was absurd. Man did not need a revela
tion to teach him “ his proper place in creation.” He
did not require to be told that he was superior to fishes.
Knowledge and vanity assured him that he was at the
top of the scale, although his “ dominion” was exceed
ingly precarious. When Ovid was versifying the old
Pythagorean philosophy he naturally placed the creation
of man at the end of the process.
A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet; and then was Man designed:
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest.
*
We utterly dissent,- therefore, from Mr. Gladstone’s
view that “ primitive man ” needed to or did receive
a conception, thoroughly faithful in broad outline, of
what his Maker had been about on his behalf.” Nor
* Ovid, Metamorphoses, bk. i. Dryden’s Translation.
r
«
�22
The Grand Old Book.
can we read without a smile his assertion that “ the
simplest phrases.” were so necessary “that the Maker
condescended “ even to represent himself as resting ”
after his work. The Hebrew, we understand, really
says that he “ took breath.”* This rendering is a still
more “ simple phrase ” than resting, and still more
illustrates the condescension of the Maker.
Following out his theory, Mr. Gladstone regards the
six days of creation, not as days of twenty-four hours,
nor as geological periods, but as “ Chapters in the
History of the Creation.” True, the text speaks of
“ evening and morning ” in connection with every day,
but that is only a rhetorical device to emphasise the
distinction between the chapters ; and just as day does
not mean day, so evening and morning do not mean
evening and morning. Mr. Gladstone, however, over
looks a very important point. Is there any evidence
that the Jews ever looked upon the “ days ” of Creation
in this light ? Did they not understand the expression
literally? Was it not the literal sense which gave its
sanction to the fourth commandment? Are we to
presume that God “ condescended ” to use “ simple and
familiar ” language for the sake of a handful of ancient
Jews, at the cost of misleading populous and more
civilised nations in future ages, or was this a necessity
of Almighty Wisdom ?f
* Sir William Domville, The. Sabbath, p. 54.
t The old commentators, such as Gill, Clarke, and Patrick, honestly
took the Bible to mean what it says. They had no doubt that God made
the universe in six days of twenty-four hours. Bishop Pearson, in a
work which is still a standard in our universities, dated the creation
“ probably within one hundred and thirty generations of men, most cer-*
tainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years ago ”
{Exposition of the Creed, vol. i., p. 121). Dr. Kalisch, a Hebrew scholar
of the highest standing, declares that “ to interpret the term day as a
period, or an indefinite epoch,” is “inadmissible,” for “the metaphorical
use of the word is rendered impossible by the repeated phrase ‘and
evening was and morning was.’ ” {Commentary on Genesis'). .
�The Grand Old Booh.
23
Mr. Gladstone makes the extraordinary assertion
that “ no moral mischief ensues because some have
supposed the days of creation to be pure solar days of
twenty-four hours.” Certainly the belief in a literal
six days' creation does not prompt a man to pick
pockets or commit adultery. But is there no “ moral
mischief ” in hindering the progress of science, upon
which so much of our well-being depends ? Is there
no moral mischief in the persecution of those who are
afterwards seen to be our benefactors ? Was there
no moral mischief in the intimidation of Galileo ?
Was there no moral mischief in the murder of Giordano
Bruno ? Was there no moral mischief in the early
prejudices of Sir Charles Lyell against what he subse
quently recognised as truth, or in the insults heaped
upon him when he proclaimed it to the world ? Was
there no moral mischief in the bigotry with which the
clergy as well as their fanatical dupes treated the
teachings of Darwin 1 Is there no moral mischief in
wasting the working man’s precious day of leisure,
every week, in obedience to a Sabbatarian law which
is founded on the literal Story of Creation ?
We would also observe that Mr. Gladstone is
extremely vague, and, in so far as he is clear, inaccu
rate, in his remarks on the Sabbath. “ It seems also
probable,” he says, continuing his lessons of the
Mosaist, “ that the Creation Story was intended to
have a special bearing on the great institution of the
day of rest, or Sabbath, by exhibiting it in the manner
of an object lesson.” Now in the whole of the early
Jewish history there is no trace of a Sabbath. We
find it in the Mosaic Law, which is a post-exile con
coction, but not in the annals of the Judges and Kings.
Indeed, the very reference in the Fourth Command
�24
The Grand Old Booh.
ment to “ the stranger within thy gates,” shows that it
was not delivered to desert nomads, but to a people
settled down in Palestine and dwelling in walled and
fortified cities. For these reasons, or partly for these
reasons, Paley maintains that God “ blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it ” by a sort of historical anticipation.
But Mr. Gladstone would have us believe that “ Assyrian
researches ” have revealed traces of some primitive
“institution or command.” This is, however, the
veriest perverseness. What Assyrian researches have
shown is that the number seven was held sacred by the
masters of the Jewrs, and that they had a Sabbath, or
day of rest, long before the chosen people. Here again
the Jews were not inventors, but borrowers; and the
primeval sanctification of the Sabbath is one of the
many impostures of their priestly annalists.
The Egyptians had a periodic day of rest; namely,
one day in every ten ; but it appears that they were
also acquainted with the seven-days division of time.
The Assyrians, the Romans, and other ancient nations
had likewise their periods of rest and work. And
why? For the simple reason that the leaders of a
civilisation based upon slavery discovered the necessity
of a periodic rest to the laborer. Without it his
energies decayed. And that the time of rest, whatever
it was, should be associated with mythical events, was
only natural in a society in which every part of life
was under a religious sanction.
It is also clear that the sacredness of the number
seven, in Assyria as in scores of other parts of the
world, sprang out of natural reasons. Moon-worship
precedes sun-worship because man’s attention is excited
by the changeable rather than the regular. It was
discovered that the full lunation occupied twenty-eight
�The Grand Old Book.
25-
days. That number was halved, and the result was
fourteen. That number was halved again, and the
result was seven. But this number could not be
halved, or divided in any way; it was indivisible and
mysterious, and therefore sacred. Then there were
the seven planets, from which the days were named,
and this not only doubled but squared the sacredness
of the number seven. But behind this there is some
thing older and more vital. The covering of the
generative organs is often neglected by the males
among savages, but scarcely ever among the females.
That covering was the beginning of decency, and it
arose from the fact of menstruation. Now the sexual
periodicities throughout the whole animal world,
including the human race, run in seven days or
multiples of seven days. Let this truth, therefore, be
connected with the indivisible quarter of the moon’s
total phases, and the number of the planets, and you
have an importance, a mystery, and therefore a sacred
ness attaching to the number seven, which could never
attach to another number. This is the reason why the
number seven appears and reappears in all religious
systems. It is found among savages, and it asserts its
ancient and august claims in the teachings of Theosophy,
which talks learnedly, but after all superstitiously, of
the sevenfold nature of man. Thus religion is like the
mythical snake of eternity. Extremes meet, and the
head and the tail are united.
There is still another aspect of the question. It is
shrewdly observed by Renan, in his Histoire du Peuple
d’Israel, that the Sabbath could not have arisen among
nomads. Except when they shift their tents, and
travel to fresh pastures, they have nothing to do but
to sit and watch their flocks and herds. One day is
�26
The Grand Old Book.
exactly like another, and a day of rest would be unin
telligible. It is obvious, therefore, that the story of
the primeval sanctification of the Sabbath, and its
injunction in the Mosaic Law, belong to a much later
period than the Exodus. They belong, in short, to the
post-exile period. Every fact supports this theory,
and there is not a single fact which contradicts it.
Now let us return to the centre of Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. Everything turns upon his convenient
theory that the six days of creation are not six literal
days, but six “ chapters in the history of the creation.”
By this means he seeks to overcome the difficulty of
the fact that the order of creation in Genesis does not
properly correspond with the teachings of Evolution.
The Mosaic writer, it appears, anticipated the modern
fashion of writing history, of which we have the first
great example in Gibbon. His order is not strictly
chronological, but in accord with his subject matter.
Thus “ in point of chronology his chapters overlay.”
So that, if light exists three days before the creation
ef the sun, the explanation is that the Mosaist simply
puts them in different chapters, not for chronological
reasons, but for a special purpose. And what was that
purpose ? Mr. Gladstone says it was “ to convey
moral and spiritual training.” He goes to the length of
saying that “ the conveyance of scientific instruction ”
would not have been “ a reasonable object for the
Mosaic writer to pursue.” An ordinary person might
suppose the Deity capable of imparting scientific
instruction as well as moral instruction, and the Jews
capable of receiving the one as well as the other. Mr.
Gladstone’s theory implies a very serious limitation of
God’s power, or a no less serious misconception of the
causes of human progress. Is not science as necessary
�The Grand Old Booh.
27
as morality ? Is there much use in desiring the
welfare of mankind without the knowledge of how to
promote it ? Will a good-hearted doctor do a patient
any service if he is lacking in skill ? Buckle, indeed,
contended that civilisation was entirely owing to the
advance of the intellect, and very much the same con
tention was advanced by Macaulay. But here is Mr.
Gladstone arguing that “ moral and spiritual training ”
is most necessary, while mental training is so unim
portant that the Deity wisely refrained from taking
the trouble to assist us in that respect.
We have already said that Mr. Gladstone’s inter
pretation of the “ six days ” as “ six chapters ” is
arbitrary. Neither the chosen people, nor their in
spired teachers, ever understood their cosmogony in
that sense. They existed before the days of antagonism
between the Bible and Science, when new meanings
have to be discovered in every part of God’s Word.
They took the language of Genesis, as the Church of
England presents its Articles, in the plain, grammatical
sense of the words. It is too late to rescue the Mosaist
in Mr. Gladstone’s manner. The “ six chapters ”
theory is worthy of the old parliamentary hand, but he
himself perceives its inadequacy, or why does he
■endeavor to show that the chronological order of
creation is after all in harmony with the conclusions of
modern science?
Will it be believed that after
pressing his super-subtle argument through thick and
thin ; after declaring that day is not day, and morning
and evening not morning and evening; after claiming
that the Mosaist sacrificed chronology for the sake of
shaping his chapters so as to convey a moral and
spiritual and not a scientific lesson; will it be believed
that, after all this, Mr. Gladstone goes on to argue
�28
The Grand Old Book.
for so close an agreement between Genesis and Science
that nothing short of inspiration is adequate to account
for it ? Yet that is precisely what he does. “ The
Creation Story in Genesis,” he asserts, “ appears to
stand in such a relation to the facts of natural science
so far as they are ascertained, as to warrant our con
cluding that they first proceeded, in a manner above
the ordinary manner, from the Author of the visible
creation.” Or as he expresses it in his concluding
sentences, iC to warrant and require thus far the con
clusion that the Ordainer of Nature, and the Giver or
Guide of the Creation Story, are one and the same.”
This is clearly a complete change of front. The
“ six chapters ” theory is virtually discarded as useless,
and Mr. Gladstone proceeds to defend the scientific
character of Genesis. The Creation Story was a
scientific lesson after all, only it was skilfully disguised.
Moses anticipated Darwin; in fact, Moses is the
original author and Darwin is only the commentator.
Such is the true character of Mr. Gladstone’s theory,
and in arguing it he flounders, as might be expected,
in a morass of bad science, bold assumption, and wild
exegesis.
According to Genesis, the earth was at first “ with
out form and void,” a description hard to realise, and
“the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Now Mr. Gladstone is aware that “ the Hebrew word
for earth means earth, and the word used for water
never means anything but water.” How then is this
to be explained away? Why easily. The Hebrew
word always means water, but the Mosaist meant
something else. He meant that the world was at first
fluid, and as the people he wrote for only knew of one
extensive fluid, namely water, he called it water to suit
�The Grand Old Book.
29
their comprehension. But in reality he was adum
brating the nebular hypothesis. That, at any rate, is
what Mr. Gladstone argues, and we will not venture
to refute him. We can only stare with astonishment
at his coolness—not to use a harsher word; and we
suspect that the writers of the Creation Story, if they
could live again and read Mr. Gladstone’s article,
would be quite as astonished as we are.
*
The Mosaist, it seems, not only sketched (in a very
occult manner) the nebular theory, but showed how
“ the chaos passed into cosmos, or, in other’words, how
confusion became order, medley became sequence,
seeming anarchy became majestic law, and horror
softened into beauty.” But chaos is not a doctrine of
science. It belongs to the old Pagan cosmogonies.
The laws of nature obtained in the fiery cloud whirled
off from the sun precisely as they do nowpt has cooled
down into a solid planet. According to Mr. Gladstone’s
science, if we may reason from analogy, there’is cosmos
in a cubic inch of cold water, and chaos in"a cubic foot
of steam.
With regard to the existence of light three days
before the sun, Mr. Gladstone tells us ’that it simply
means (observe how he knows what the Mosaist meant
but did not say) that the sun became visible in that
* It is amusing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s labored argument that
water should only be regarded as fluid, to an old sermon by Archbishop
Tillotson on “The Being of God Demonstrated by Reason.” Tillotson,
of course, had no fear of the nebular astronomy before his eyes. He points
out that Thales was “ the first who asserted that water was the begin
ning of all things.” He brings in Aristotle as saying that the gods were
represented as swearing by Styx, because water was supposed to be the
principle of all things. But the clinching proof is that “ The Brachmans,
Indian philosophers, did also agree that the world was made of water ;
which exactly corresponds with Moses's account of the creation." Mr.
Gladstone finds a very different idea in Moses, because the exigencies of
■science have changed since the days of Tillotson. Thus, as Luther said,
the Bible is a nose of wax, which every man twists as he pleases.
�30
The Grand Old Book.
stage. The earth’s photosphere, or something, cleared
away, and “ the visibility of the sun was established ’*
—when there was no one to see it I The “ light-power’7
became “ concentrated by the operation of the rotatory
principle,” and —— But how on earth are we to go
on 1 Our gravity is not equal to Mr. Gladstone’s.
We require an interval for laughter.
It must not be supposed, however, that Mr. Glad
stone is broaching a novelty in this far-fetched exegesis.
Nearly fifty years ago the same vagaries were ridiculed
and corrected by Priaulx, who wrote as follows on the
“light” which Jehovah called from the primitive
darkness:—
“ What this light might be, has naturally exercised the
ingenuity of those learned commentators, who are as familiar
with the creation and the counsels of God, as though they had
been present at the one, and were often called upon to take
a share in the other. With some this first light is but a dim
glimmering, a sort of twilight or darkness visible ; with others
it is the bright Shekinah or the glorious presence; while with
a third party it is that light, run wild probably, which is
hereafter to be collected into sun, moon, and stars. It is a
light without a sun,—so much we know ; and such a light both
Menu and Zoroaster tell of. According to the one, Brahme
has but to appear and the gloom, is dispelled; and according to
the other, light is the dwelling place of Ormuzd, co-etemal
with him; Ormuzd in fact himself is light. Moses held then
on this point certainly no singular, and probably none but
popular, opinions.”*
Priaulx’s book is a monument of learning, patience,
candor, and sagacity. Had Mr. Gladstone studied it,
or even read it cursorily, it would have saved him from
many blunders and absurd speculations—and the book
was written fifty years ago 1 The fact is, apparently,
* Priaulx, Questiones Mosaics, pp. 14, 15.
�The Grand Old Booh.
31
that Mr. Gladstone has taken a brief for the Bible,
and argues it like a special pleader. He betrays no
knowledge of the leaders of scepticism and their
writings, but seems merely to have dipt into orthodox
writers like Dana, Stokes, and Dawson, for points that
would tell sufficiently with the jury before whom he is
pleading—a jury which believes his side of the case
already, and does not need to be convinced but only to
be reassured.
But let us return to the Mosaist and his story.
Modern science has told us the truth about the stars.
Outside our solar system there are other and mightier
systems. But it was natural for the Jews to regard
the stars as dots of light. The sun and the moon
were the “ two great lights/' and the stars were thrown
in with an “ also.” But “ relativity is the basis of the
narrative,” and the Mosaist wrote like an ignoramus,
not because he was not as wise as Herschel, but
because his readers were too thick-headed to learn the
truth. He was like the gentleman in the play, who
“ could an’ he would.” At least this is a fair summary
of Mr. Gladstone’s argument.
The Mosaist also tells us that not only grasses, but
the later fruit trees, grew before the sun shone upon
the earth. The nonsense was exposed by Professor
*
Huxley, but Mr. Gladstone has not profited by that
discussion. Assuming that the sun, in the Creation
Story, can be shuffled in before the earth, and that
our planet was veiled in vapor, he argues that “ there
were light and heat, atmosphere with its conditions
of moist and dry, soil prepared to do its work in
* Professor Huxley says it is “the apparently plain teaching of
botanical palaeontology that grasses and fruit trees originated long sub
sequently to animals ” {Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1S85).
�32
*
The Grand Old Booh.
nutrition,” and so the Mosaist is saved by the skin of
his teeth. But the argument is really too barefaced.
Fruit trees are not a part of the world’s primitive
fauna. They are probably latei’ than man himself.
Mr. Gladstone strains his faculties in vain to recon
cile the Creation Story with paloeontology.
He
cannot work in reptiles and marsupials, so he says
they did not come within the Mosiast’s “moral and
spiritual ” purpose. Then there is the difficulty that
fish and fowl are created on the same day, while
geology shows they are separated by millions of
years. But day does not mean day. The Mosaist
simply puts them in the same chapter, and he puts
tho fowl after the fish, and that is the right order 1 Of
course it is the right order; but how much inspiration
was required to enable a Jew to see that fowl were
superior to fish in the scale of existence ?
After all this special pleading, the credit of the
Mosaist being saved at every point by incessant
assumption and forced logic, Mr. Gladstone advances
to his triumphant conclusion. The Creation Story
is a perfect miracle of scientific anticipation, and if
God did not write it who did ? But it will be
observed that the old parliamentary hand is silent as
to the creation of man. “ As the objector is silent,”
he says, “ I remain silent also.” The objector silent,
indeed 1 Whatever objector has Mr. Gladstone in
his mind? The account of Adam and Eve is the
most difficult, and the most ludicrous, part of the
Creation Story. Up to that point the writer pre
serves a certain grandeur, however mistaken ; but the
narrative of Adam’s production from dust, and Eve's
production from one of his ribs, to say nothing of the
farce of the Fall, and the six thousand years’ chronology,
�The Grand Old Booh.
33
is positively food for mirth. For nine years the great
Darwin has lain in his grave, yet Mr. Gladstone writes
as though the Newton of biology had never been born.
Still Mr. Gladstone’s “ silence ” is not without its
eloq uence. It shows that the champion of the Creation
Story must avoid Darwinism. In the light of that
great doctrine, which has revolutionised the world of
thought, the Creation Story is an old fable, the drama
of Eden a Semitic fiction, the Fall a fallacy, and the
foundation of the Christian creed a mere fragment of
oriental mythology.
Mr. Gladstone has an astonishing postcript to his
chapter on the Creation Story. Assuming what is
opposite to the teaching of Evolution, and disregarding
the many traces of Jewish polytheism in late portions
of the Old Testament, he argues that it was the
Creation Story which, a thousand years after Moses,
placed “ the chosen people in a state of security from
this insidious mischief.” Genesis set God outside his
creation, distinct, unapproachable, supreme; and this
laid a firm foundation for the Incarnation. But this
is really arguing backwards. It is deducing the truth
of the Creation Story from the doctrine of the Atone
ment. Surely Mr. Gladstone must see the illegitimacy
of such an appeal, if he is making it to unprejudiced
minds. Probably, also, he will see on reflection that
the Semitic mind, mainly owing to its environment,
has a general tendency to Monotheism. Christianity,
when permeated with Aryan thought, set up a new
Polytheism under the disguise of the Trinity, and
fortified it with a subordinate pantheon of saints;
while it was left for Mohammedism, which like
Judaism is a Semitic faith, to hold up the banner of
the one indivisible God.
o
�34
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER III.
THE FALL OF MAN.
Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is disappointing. He
fulfils none of the promises with which he set out. No
attempt is made to answer the sceptic’s objections.
We have simply a theological essay, restating the
orthodox view of the Bible, and abounding in evasions
and assumptions. A certain pomposity of style, familiar
to Mr. Gladstone’s readers, gives his article a fictitious
air of importance; but in substance it is remarkably
poor, and its argumentation is such that if it were
displayed on any other topic it would expose him
to derision. What else, indeed, can be said of one
who, so many years after Darwin’s death, writes
as though Darwin had never lived; of one who, in
an age in which Evolution has overrun every field
of research and speculation, writes as though Evolution
had never been heard of? If, on the other hand, Mr.
Gladstone knows something of Evolution, and simply
ignores it, he might give points in ludicrousness to the
proverbial ostrich with its head in the desert sands.
Why on earth—we say it in all seriousness—does not a
confidential friend break through the ring of flatterers,
and save a statesman, in whose reputation we are all
interested, from himself and the editors with cheque
books who are anxious to trade upon his name ? Mr.
John Morley could hardly do it; his heterodoxy would
throw suspicion on his advice. But there is Professor
Stuart. He knows a thing oi' two, and his scepticism
�The Grand Old Booh.
35
is only ankle-deep. Could he not contrive to drop a
whisper into Mrs. Gladstone’s ear, and even in a round
about way spare us the necessity of laughing at one we
would fain reverence ? For risibility is an imp who
will not be baulked; when he scents antics he will
take a ticket for the spectacle.
The very opening of Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is
what is vulgarly called “ a caution.” In face of all he
has written before he says it is “ likely that the Creation
Story has come down from the beginning.” He even
talks of “ the corroborative legends of Assyria.-” Nay,
he declares, with a wonderful equanimity, which we
are unable to emulate, that “ we now trace the pro
bable origins of oui' Sacred Books far back beyond
Moses and his time.” In other words, Mr. Gladstone,
at this time of day, fancies the antediluvian patriarchs
were actual and not mythical personages, who had the
Creation Story revealed to them, and passed it down
to their descendants.
*
Despite the fact, too, that all
savages—and the ancient Jews were savages—trace
their descent from a common ancestor, for the simple
reason that they cannot understand any but a blood
relationship; despite the fact that Romulus, the
mythical founder of Rome, for instance, is now seen to
be as real a character as Tamoi of the Brazilians, or
Unkulunkulu of the Zulus f; Mr. Gladstone takes
Abraham quite seriously, regards his “ call ” as a fact
* The Principal of Pusey House, the Rev. Charles Gore, who is better
informed and more sagacious on this matter than Mr. Gladstone, gives
up (practically) the historical character of all the Bible narrative before
the time of Abraham. He asks whether the “ earlier narratives ” are not
“ of the nature of myth,” and whether ‘‘ those great inspirations about
the origin of things ” are not “ conveyed to us in that form of myth or
allegorical picture, which is the earliest mode in which the mind of man
apprehended truth.”—See article on “ The Holy Spirit and Inspiration.”
in Lux Mundi, p. 357.
t Tylor, Primitive. Culture, vol. i., pp. 399-405.
�36
The Grand Old Book.
like that of the last clergyman who had a call to a
richer living, and bravely declares that “ Of all great
and distinctive chapters in the history of the human
race we have here perhaps the greatest and the most
distinctive.” Why, the very circumcision which
Jehovah fixed as his special brand upon the Jews,
beginning with Abraham, is older than the earliest
trace of the Jews in history. It was practised on
religious grounds by the priestly caste in Egypt. It
was common among the Semites, of whom the Jews
are a branch. It has been found in various parts of
the world that had no communication with each other,
such as South Africa, the South Pacific Islands, and
Mexico. Jehovah’s trade mark was a plagiarism, a
violation of an old patent, and he would have been non
suited in any action he took to assert his exclusive rights.
But let us come to Mr. Gladstone’s account of the
Fall. He starts with setting up an “ Adamic race,”
of whom we suppose he implies that Adam was the
first progenitor. Now the science of ethnology is
pretty well established, but its records will be searched
in vain for any Adamic race. Mr. Gladstone has
developed this race from the depths of his inner con
sciousness. Elsewhere he speaks of the Fall as “ intro
ducing us to man in his first stage of existence—a stage
not of savagery but of childhood.” Such a remark is
childish. There never was such a stage of humanity.
Not childhood, but sheer savagery, was the original state
of every people in history.
*
Mr. Gladstone may talk
* “The evidence that all civilised nations are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the one side, of clear traces of their former low
condition in still-existing customs, beliefs, language, etc.,- and on the
other side, of proofs that savages are independently able to raise them
selves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually thus
risen.” Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 146.
�The Grand Old Book.
37
as he pleases, but on this question he is no greater
authority than the man in the street. Behind history
lies anthropology, and the verdict of anthropology is
decisive. Man is of animal origin. He was neither
made from earth nor dropped from the skies. This is
proved. Even Dr. Wallace can no longer withhold
his assent. Despite himself he now admits that the
evidence for man’s “ descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes ” is “ over
whelming and conclusive. ”* Thus the Adamic race,
and the primitive state “ not of savagery but of
childhood,” are both figments of theological imagination.
They would vanish to-morrow if they were not main
tained by the Black Army in the interest of their
dogmas.
Mr. Gladstone sums up the purport of the Old
Testament as “ a history of sin and redemption.” Of
course the second depends upon the first. Man is an
awful sinner, a fallen being. That is the first state
ment of Christianity, and it is a falsehood. Evolution
proves the ascent, not the descent, of man; that he
has risen from a low estate to a high one, and from
small things to great. On the other hand, the least
knowledge of human nature shows us that man is not
half as black as the parsons paint him. It is absurd
to talk of “ the preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Human society could not exist under such
conditions. Nor is it sensible to ask, “ Are we as a
race whole, or are we profoundly sick?” We are
neither the one nor the other. Man is neithei' an
angel nor a devil. But there is surely a preponderance
of good in his composition. His heart is better than
* Dr. A. R. Wallace, Darwinism, p. 461.
�38
The Grand Old Book.
his head. No doubt there is a sad spectacle for the
philanthropist in the oppressions of the world, for the
honest man in its crimes, for the good man in its vices,
and for the truthful man in its lies and hypocrisies—
after all these millenniums of religion. But what the
world at large does not see, what the newspapers do
not report, is deeper and more common than these
things ; and the homes of the people, where they really
live their lives, are perpetually made fragrant by the
“ little unremembered acts of kindness and of love.”
And sometimes a splendid deed of heroism, wrought by
one great heart, thrills the hearts of millions, expands
our moral horizon, and shames the whining of dastard
priests.
What is sin ? That’ must be answered before we
discuss redemption. Mr. Gladstone calls it “a de
parture from the will of God.” Later on he describes
it more fully as “ a deviation from the order of nature,
a foreign element not belonging to the original creation
of Divine design, but introduced into it by special
causes.”
But how came man to depart from the will of God ?
How can there be a departure from the order of
nature ? Who introduced a foreign element into
God’s creation? What special causes lie outside the
sphere of Omnipotence ? To say that man’s free-will
“ frustrated ” God’s “ attempt ” is to say that God did
not foresee the result of his own action, or that he
deliberately endowed man with a faculty that would lead
him astray. “ Foreign element ” and “ special causes ”
are polite circumlocutions for the Devil. But who
made the Devil ? The only answer is—God. Finally,
therefore, the Christian has to face these dilemmas.
Either God can stop the Devil or he cannot. If he
�The Grand Old Book.
39-
cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not
all-good. Either God knew the Devil would pervert
Adam or he did not. If he did not, he is deficient in
foresight; if he did, he had no right to be angry at the
inevitable.
Mr. Gladstone speaks of 44 the revolt of man’s lower
nature against its higher elements.” How came there
to be 44 lower elements ” in a divine production ? Higher
and lower can only be explained by evolution. The
lower is the blind animal passion inherited from our
brutish progenitors. The higher is the governing
reason and conscience developed in countless ages of
social growth.
With regard to the story of the Fall of Man in
Genesis, Mr. Gladstone takes a position commonly
called sitting on the fence. He 44 deals with it as a
parable,” but adds 44 I do not mean to make on my own
part any definitive surrender of the form as it stands.”
But the Fall is either history or romance. There can
be no medium. If it be a parable, it is absurd to talk
of it as a fact; if it be a fact, it is idle to talk of it as
a parable.
Adam and Eve are placed in the garden. They are
the work of an Omniscient Designer, but they are
incapable of knowing good from evil. They cannot
appreciate a moral code. God 44 has laid upon them a
law of obedience.” Like stupid, wilful parents he says
44 Don’t do that, because I tell you not to.” He does
not give them a comprehensive view of their duties to
each other. His law is 44 simply a rule of feeding and
not feeding.” He governs them through their stomachs.
What a noble view of our first parents I What a
tribute to the wisdom and goodness of God !
. The law of obedience involves the law of punishment.
�40
The, Grand Old Booh.
In eating what he is told not to—that is, in gratifying
the appetite God gave him—man becomes “ a rebel,”
and is justly punished as such. But is there any justice
in the case ? Is not everything arbitrary ? Man does
what his nature instigates, and God chooses to chastise
him. God is witness, counsel, judge, and executioner,
and gives penal servitude for life for a first offence.
Mr. Gladstone wrastes his time in trying to show the
similarity of punishment and consequence. One is
arbitrary, the other is natural. If I put my hand in
the fire, it burns me. That is consequence. It is
indifferent to morality. There is no discrimination.
The hand may be an honest man’s or a scoundrel’s. If
I think for myself under the Inquisition I am burnt at
the stake. That is punishment. The two may run
parallel, but they have no connection. If I steal I
injure my fellow men and debase my own nature.
That is consequence. If I am found out I am sent to
prison. That is punishment.
Adam and Eve did not injure each other, nor did
they injure God. Consequently they did not sin. A
child does not sin in eating w’hat he is told not to,
unless he knows he is stealing or depriving someone
else of food. He means no harm, and the action does
not deteriorate his nature. Is it not absurd, then, to
affirm that God’s treatment of Adam and Eve is “ in
accordance with the laws of a grand and comprehensive
philosophy ” ? Mr. Gladstone says that sceptical ob
jections to the Fall are “the product of narrower and
shallowei’ modes of thought.”
We reply that his
“ grand and comprehensive philosophy ” overlooks the
most obvious facts.
Mr. Gladstone calls the Fall “ a gigantic drama.”
It seems to us a petty farce. The people who lived in
�The Grand Old Booh.
41
the ages of Miracle Plays took it seriously, but what
educated man of the present age—unless he keeps a
dark room for theology in his brain—can regard it
without smiling? Of course imagination can make
anything gigantic. It can turn a white rag into a
ghost, or a donkey’s head into the Devil. But imagina
tion is powerless to exaggerate when you see the objects
as they are.
Mr. Gladstone’s imagination tells him that the Fall
“ wisely teaches us to look to misused free-will as the
source of all sin, and of all the accompanying misery.”
It is rather cool to assert this in the face of St. Paul,
St. Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin; in face
of the Church of England Articles and the West
minster Confession of Faith. If an unbeliever treated
the Bible in this way, putting his own private inter
pretation on every text, heedless of the settled interpre
tation of the Churches, Mr. Gladstone would stigmatise
him as ignorant or insolent. We do not say a man has
no right to his private interpretation. We claim it for
him. But we say that when he is opposed to a great
historic school of interpretation he is bound to give his
reasons. This Mr. Gladstone avoids. He simply
dogmatises. The proper answer, therefore, is to defy
him to show a single allusion to free-will in the story
of the Fall, or a single text in favor of free-will from
Genesis to Revelation.
Let us follow Mr. Gladstone still farther. “ The
original attempt,” he writes, “ to plant a species upon
our planet, who should be endowed with the faculty
of free-will, but should always direct that will to good,
had been frustrated through sin.” How this happened,
or how it could happen if God were all-wise and allpowerful, is not explained. Mr. Gladstone introduces
�42
The Grand Old Booh.
“ sin ” as though it were an entity. Sin is a quality of
actions. To make “ sin ” the cause of actions is an
absurdity. The ultimate question is—why did Adam
go wrong? To that question Mr. Gladstone never
addresses himself.
God’s “ original attempt ” having been “ frustrated ”
—somehow, by somebody—the all-wise and all-powerful
ruler of the universe set about a remedy. His opera
tions were so slow that, fifteen hundred years after
wards, the world was so hopelessly corrupt that he lost
patience and drowned the lot, with the exception of
eight persons, not one of whom was worth saving.
Afterwards the Almighty began to work in a small
way. He chose the most insignificant people on earth,
visited them occasionally, and gave them a little
heavenly illumination. Why he chose the Jews is a
mystery. Mr. Gladstone admits the choice was not
what reason would expect. It was not made on moral
grounds. The Jews were distinctly inferior to the
primitive Greeks, as Mr. Gladstone proves at consider
able length. And finally, when the Redeemer came,
after nearly two thousand years of preparation, the
chosen people crucified him between two thieves, as a
warning to other gentlemen in the same line of busi
ness. Nay more, after the Redemption has been
actively operating for another two thousand years,
there is still “a preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Thus the Almighty and Omniscient God is
able to make a world and pronounce it “ good,” but
utterly unable to keep it good, or to repair it when it
falls out of order. Indeed the longer he tries to im
prove it the worse it gets. All this is asserted or
implied in Mr. Gladstone’s argument. It is a queer
compliment to God, and a flat contradiction to his
�The Grand Old Booh.
43
attributes. Either God is very weak, or the Devil is
very strong, or man is very “ cussed." We leave Mr.
Gladstone to say which. Meanwhile we must observe
that his exposition and vindication of the story of the
Fall is a shocking example of how devotion to an
inherited creed will make even a great man wallow in
absurdity. Tycho Brahe, the great astronomer, kept
an idiot, and watched his lips for words of inspiration.
Mr. Gladstone, the great statesman, finds infinite
wisdom in an old Jewish story, which is less moral and
entertaining than “ Jack the Giant-Killer.” Not even
the genius of Milton could invest it with grandeur.
He who lavished his sublimity on the inmates of hell,
and his beauty on two unsophisticated human beings in
a lovely garden, turned a prosaic moralist and a
pedantic quibbler in his efforts to “ justify ” the
theology of the Fall.
�44
The Grand Old Booh.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PSALMS.
The poetry of the Old Testament is to be found in
parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the Song of Solomon, in
the Book of Job, which is simply a dramatic poem,
and in the Book of Psalms. The last is a collection
of sacred chants used in the Temple worship. All of
them abound in Chaldee words, which is a proof that
they were at least redacted at a late period of Jewish
*
history.
The ascription of most of them to David is
an arbitrary absurdity. Every scholar is aware that
the superscripture of the Psalms is misleading. Just
as the national collection of Proverbs was ascribed to
Solomon, because of his traditional wisdom, the national
collection of Psalms was (chiefly) ascribed to David,
because of his traditional love of music. But the royal
authorship of these collections is now discarded by
every scholar of the slightest standing.
When and where the various Psalms were written
is not and never will be known. Bleek may think this,
and Canon Cook may think that, with respect to par
ticular portions, but opinion on this subject is little
else than conjecture. It is only a speculation that the
Psalter contains any Davidic element. Mr. Gladstone
is anxious to maintain its antiquity, but it is idle to cite
the “ authority” of this or that orthodox or semi
orthodox critic, while the equal “ authority ” of
heterodox critics may be cited in opposition.
* Rev. Dr. Giles, Hebrew Records, p. 201.
�The Grand Old Book.
45
Certainly, if the historical books of the Old Testa
ment are to be relied upon, David could not have com
posed the finest Psalms. His people were on a level
with the Zulus, and he himself was on a level with
Cetewayo. The finest Psalms were beyond his mental
and moral scope. If his hand is to be traced in the
collection, the murderer of Uriah, the bloody and
remorseless victor of the Ammonites, is most likely to
be detected in the cursing Psalms, for which Mr Glad
stone pens a sophistical defence.
Whether the Psalms are relatively ancient or modern
cannot decide the question of their inspiration. Nor
does it avail to say that they are “ unparalleled,” or
that they are “the prime and paramount manual of
devotion ” to Christians as well as Jews. Christians
have been trained in the use of the Psalms. Yet their
inadequacy for the expression of Christian sentiment
is proved by the vast collections of hymns in use
among the various denominations. On the other
hand, the excellence of the Jews in the composition of
devotional pieces is by no means miraculous. Among
the Greeks and Romans, as Mr. Gladstone observes,,
the “ rise of intellect was the fall of piety.” Such a
calamity did not befall the Jews, There was never a.
“ rise of intellect ” amongst them. Piety was there
fore the exclusive object of their cultivation. They
were without science, art, philosophy, or secular litera
ture ; all of which made [heavy drafts on the mental
powers of the Greeks and Romans. Consequently
the whole of their genius ran in one narrow channel,
and ploughed it deeply. If therefore the Psalms
are “ unparalleled ” there is nothing supernatural in
the fact, unless it is miraculous for a nation to excel in
the one direction to which it bends its whole faculties.
�46
The Grand Old Book.
But, after all, such terms as unparalleled and un
approachable, in these matters, are terms of taste,
sentiment, or prejudice, rather than of scientific pre
cision. Translation, too, counts for a great deal. The
Psalms were translated by masters of simple, vigorous,
poetical English. To compare with the best of them,
a fine passage of the Vedas, or of JEschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, or Pindar, must be translated by a Max
Muller or a Matthew Arnold. Mr. Gladstone selects
the “ marvellous ” forty-fourth Psalm, and declares it
to be “ lifted as far above the level of any merely
human effort known to us as the flight of the lark,
‘ hard by the sun,’ is lifted above the swallow, when it
foresees the storm and skims the surface of the
ground.” But see how tastes differ, and on what a
narrow ledge of personal preference Mr. Gladstone
builds his towering structure of dogma ! This very
forty-fourth Psalm, which he regards as immeasurably
above all merely human efforts, seems to us distinctly
inferior to many a passage of uninspired literature.
Not to cite Shakespeare—the sovereign soul of this
planet—let us go back to an old Greek and take the
following religious extract:
“ Oh ! that my lot may lead me into the path of holy inno
cence of word and deed, the path which august laws ordain,
laws that in the highest empyrean had their birth, of which
Heaven is the father alone, neither did the race of mortal men
beget them, nor shall oblivion ever put them to sleep. The
power of God is mighty in them, and groweth not old.” *
Undoubtedly the forty-fourth Psalm is more stormy
and popular; but the Greek poet puts intellect and
measure into his piety, and is more edifying and
inspiring. Mr. Gladstone, of course, is entitled to his
* Arnold’s translation, Essays in Criticism, First Series, p. 222.
�The Grand Old Book.
47
preference; but a difference of taste is hardly the
ground for a supernatural distinction.
•
“ John Bright has told me,” Mr. Gladstone says,
“ that he would be content to stake upon the Book of
Psalms, as it stands, the great question whether there
is or is not a Divine Revelation. It was not to him
conceivable how a work so widely severed from all the
known productions of antiquity, and standing upon a
level so much higher, could be accounted for except by
a special and extraordinary aid calculated to produce
special and extraordinary results.”
John Bright never expressed himself in that way.
But supposing he communicated the substance of this
paragraph to Mr. Gladstone, what in reality does it
prove ? John Bright was nurtured on the Bible and
Milton. What was his acquaintance with “ all the
known productions of antiquity ” ? Did he ever read
the Vedas, the Babylonian Hymns, the Egyptian Book
of the Dead, or the Greek poets ? He had little taste
for Shakespeare, and he praised some very mediocre
versifiers of his own generation. Perhaps he was “ a
very capable judge of the moral and religious elements
in any case,” but who in a state of sanity would accept
his dictum as to the inspiration of a particular writing ?
Submit the Psalms to a Hindu and he will tell you
they are human compositions. He is not to be imposed
upon by such writings. He knows what is inspired.
He has heard more convincing arguments in favor of
the inspiration of the Vedas than any Mr. Gladstone
offers on behalf of the Psalms.
“As soon as the Vedic religion became systematised, and
had to be defended against the doubts of friends and foes, the
Brahmans elaborated an apologetic philosophy which seems to
me unsurpassed in subtlety and acuteness by any other defence
�48
The Grand Old Booh.
of a divinely-inspired book. The whole of the Veda was
represented as divine in its origin, and therefore beyond the
reach of doubt. It was not to be looked on as the work of
men, but only as seen by inspired poets.”*
The fact is that Mr. Gladstone will only prove the
inspiration of the Psalms to those who are already
convinced. His arguments are excuses rather than
justifications. Rhetoric is substituted for logic. Appeals
to orthodox emotion serve instead of definition and
evidence.
Mr. Gladstone’s defence of the imprecatory Psalms
is an elaboration of the latest plea of hard-pressed
Bibliolators. “ They are not the utterances of selfish
spite,” says the editor of Lux Mundi, “ they are the
claim which righteous Israel makes upon God that he
should vindicate himself.”f In the same way Mr.
Gladstone furbishes up the Hebrew Old Clothes. He
takes this verse, for instance :—“ And of thy goodness
slay mine enemies, and destroy all them that vex my
soul, for I am thy servant.”^ And this is how he
defends it:—
■" The Psalmist pleads that he is engaged in the service of
God; that in this service he is assailed and hindered; that,
powerless in himself, he appeals to the source of power; and
that he invokes upon the assailants and hinderers of the Divine
work the Divine vengeance, even to their extinction.”
Now this is the very essence of fanaticism. When
a man calls on God to extinguish the life of a fellow
man, he is only one step from murder; the wish is.
there, and only the opportunity is lacking.
It is refreshing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s ob
servations to the “Holy Willie’s Prayer” of honest
* Max Muller, Natural Religion, pp. 233, 234.
t P. 350.
J Psalm cxliii., 12.
�49
The Grand Old Book.
Robert Burns. The hero of that poem talks like the
Psalmist, and defends himself on the lines of Mr.
Gladstone, but the poet depicts him as a fanatical
hypocrite.
We are told that Jesus Christ forgave his enemies
and bade us do the same. How is it possible, then, for
a Christian to recognise the voice of God in the fol
lowing curses which the writer of the hundred-andninth Psalm pours upon his enemy ?
“ Let his days be few, and let another take his office. 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 the extortioner
catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let there
be any to favor his fatherless children.”
More infamous words never came from the mouth of
man. If this indeed be the language of inspiration;
if this is how a pious man may sp?ak when under the
influence of the Christian Deity; we had better re
turn to the glad and gracious paganism of Greece, and
worship the kindlier deities of its lovely Pantheon.
Or let us adore the friendly Penates, whose worship,
as Shelley paid, is neither sanguinary nor absurd.
*
Mr. Gladstone seems to have misgivings as to the
soundness of his defence of these imprecatory Psalms.
He falls back, therefore, upon a hackneyed stratagem.
Just as he bade us take a “ grand and comprehensive
view ” of the science of Genesis, he now tells us that
“ the Psalms, like other productions, are to be judged
by their general character.” True, if they are human
productions, but not if they are divine. Such a plea
can only be advanced on behalf of a being who is a
* Letter to T. L. Peacock, July 17, 1816.
D
�50
The Grand Old Book.
mixture of good and evil, wisdom and ignorance,
strength and frailty. It is virtually asking us to make
a debit and credit account, and strike a balance;
and while this is just and natural in the case of a man,
it is absurd and even blasphemous in the case of a
God.
�The Grand Old Book.
51
CHAPTER IV.
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION.
Mr. Gladstone’s fourth chapter is on “ The Mosaic
Legislation.” Its object is to show that the Pentateuch
is older than the “ negative ” critics allow, and that in
any case the hand of Moses is obvious in the Law
which is called by his name.
Incidentally he makes some very questionable state
ments. For instance, he speaks of Moses as the person
by whom the books of the Pentateuch “ profess to have
been written.” If he means that this authorship is
asserted in the very texture of the books we think he
is mistaken, and if he means that the name of Moses
is affixed to them he is guilty of triviality. “We are
not told,” says Professor Max Muller, who is not a
destructive critic, “ that Moses consigned the Old
Testament to writing.” Again, he declares that “ no
scholar would suppose that Moses was even the author
of the Pentateuch. ‘ The Books of Moses’ were to
the more orthodox Jews the books telling of Moses,
not the books written by Moses, just as (the Book of
Job’ was the book containing the story of Job, not a
book written by Job.”*
Mr. Gladstone also asserts that “the existence of
Moses is even better and far better established than
that of Lycurgus.” Whether that he so or not is of
little consequence. “With regard to Lycurgus, the
Natural Religion, p. 556.
�52
The Grand Old Book.
lawgiver,” says Plutarch, “ there is nothing whatever
that is undisputed.” Surely Mr. Gladstone does not
think the “ negative ” critics have agreed to stand
sponsors for this ancient Spartan. He will find that
Lycurgus is given up as a legendary character by the
most sober historians. What Mr. Gladstone thinks it
“ irrational ” to do is actually done by Sir G. W. Cox
in a General History of Greece for the use of colleges.
He need not be surprised, therefore, if the still more
“ irrational ” act of treating Moses as legendary is
performed in the more advanced schools of criticism.
It would be well for Mr. Gladstone to explain the
statement that “ in the case of Moses we have much
evidence independent of, and anterior to, the institu
tions in their historic form.” Where is this “much
evidence ” to be found ? Certainly not in profane
history; as certainly not in the Jewish historical books,
which ignore Moses and all his works.
There seems no limit to the license of affirmation on
the orthodox side. Let a Christian write for orthodox
readers, in a magazine where he cannot be replied to,
and he will apparently invent as much as he can palm
off, or restate without the slightest qualification any
number of time-honored falsehoods, however frequently
they have been challenged and exposed.
We must also say that Mr. Gladstone is playing to
the gallery in his remarks on the differences among the
“ negative ” critics. “ Speaking at large,” he says,
“ every imaginable difference has prevailed among the
critics themselves as to the source, date, and authorship
of the books.” This is like the objection that the
Bible chronology must be true because the geologists
are not agreed as to the precise age of the earth's
strata, although to a sensible man it is ^quite enough
�The Grand Old Booh.
53
that they do agree on an immense antiquity. Similarly,
the “ negative” critics of the Pentateuch are not
agreed as to the date and authorship of every part;
for it is one thing to produce a forgery, and quite
another to unravel it, more than two thousand years
afterwards, so as to be able to say, this was written by
such a hand, and that was written at such a time.
But there is a point of agreement among these critics,
and it is a very important one. As Mr. Gladstone says,
they have brought the Books of Moses “ gradually
towards later epochs: to Samuel, to the age of David,
to the severance of the Kingdoms, to Josiah, to the
Captivity, and those who followed it.” How absurd,
then, is the statement that it is “ difficult to learn
whether there is any real standing ground which the
present negative writers mean not only to occupy but
to hold.” They occupy and hold this ground—that the
Pentateuch is not the work of Moses. This is esta
blished by a thousand reasons, linguistic, historical, and
sociological. Who wrote the various parts, when they
were written, and where they were written, are different
and difficult questions. They are partially answered;
but even if they should never be answered completely,
it is certain that Moses was not and could not have
been the author.
Suppose we take the case of the forged Parnell
letters. Reasonable men might have been perfectly
satisfied that Mr. Parnell did not write them without
discovering who did. The negative evidence might,
have been overwhelming. The positive evidence was
furnished, under pressure, by the forger himself. But
suppose Pigott had died before he could be crossexamined, instead of blowing his brains out afterwards;
it might never have been possible to ascertain all the
�54
The Grand Old Book.
details of the forgery, yet the forgery itself might
still have been incontestible. In the same way we may
Satisfy ourselves that the Pentateuch was the work of
many hands in many generations, without being able to
put the forgers in the witness-box and wring from them
a full confession.
’ There is one point, however, on which Mr. Gladstone
is entitled to praise. Contending, as he does, that
“the heart and substance” of the Mosaic Law is
authentic, he repudiates all sympathy with temporisers
like Mr. Gore, the clever editor of Lux Mundi. These
writers plead for a possible “ Mosaic germ ” of Jewish
legislation, but allow that it was developed through
centuries by the priesthood, which ascribed its own
work to the ancient Jewish leader.
*
Now Mr. Glad
stone remarks that “ Those are doubtless perfectly
sincere who represent this as a method of progressive
revelation. But there are also those who think that
such a progressive revelation as this would for over two
thousand years have palmed upon the whole Jewish
and Christian world a heartless imposture.” On another
page Mr. Gladstone urges the impossibility of regarding
such an imposture as harmless. “ If the use of his
[Moses's] name was a fiction,” he declares, “it was
one of those fictions which are falsehoods, for it altered
essentially the character of the writings to which it
was attached.”
This explicit statement is very much to Mr. Glad
stone's credit. Yet it would not be difficult for Mr. Gore
to show that Mr. Gladstone has his own way of evading
the hardest task of his position. Mr. Gore puts forward
a comprehensive theory, which, if accepted, provides
* Lux Mundi, pp. 352, 353. (Seventh, edition).
�The Grand Old Booh.
55'
for all difficulties. He works on wholesale principles.
Mr. Gladstone employs another theory, which is open
to as grave objections. He would have us believe that
“ it is the legislation, for which in the sacred text itself
the claim is constantly made of being due to direct
communication from above, while no corresponding
assertion in general accompanies the historical recitals.”
This, he appears to think, enables him to ascribe any
quantity of Bible blunders to the “ probable imperfec
tions of the text.” But if imperfections crept into
one part of the text, is it impossible that they crept
into the other ? If the historical text is corrupt, may
not the legislative text be also corrupt? Is it con
ceivable, Mr. Gore might urge, that a God of infinite
wisdom and power would make a positive and exact
revelation of his will, without taking the precaution to
preserve it in its original purity; or would he allow it
to be associated, nay interwoven, with human writings,
and thus inevitably to share tlie suspicion and discredit
of such productions in future ages of scientific criticism?
And if, Mr. Gore might continue, you abandon the
plenary inspiration of the text, as you obviously do,
you are bound to formulate another theory of inspira
tion or let the text go altogether. To pick and choose
at your own pleasure is arbitrary. Formulate your
theory, and let us see whether it differs essentially
from mine.
Such a challenge Mr. Gladstone would be bound to
accept; and if he did so he would probably discover
that Mr. Gore’s theory-—which, by the way, is. not
original—is the only one that will leave a Protestant
any hold on the Pentateuch as inspired; a slender
hold, it is true, but the only one possible in the cir
cumstances.
<
�56
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. Gladstone advances five arguments to prove the
antiquity of the Mosaic Law, and we shall proceed to
discuss them. But before doing so we must make this
observation. Not one of his arguments would carry
the Law back to the time of Moses. They might, if
they were sound, carry it back beyond the Captivity,
but this is many hundreds of years from the death of
the supposed lawgiver. It appears to us, indeed, that
Mr. Gladstone is playing on his readers’ lack of historic
perspective.
First A rgument.—The early ages of the Jews were
purer and nobler, and less idolatrous, than the later;
it is therefore “ a paradox, and even a rather wanton
paradox, to refer the production of those sacred Mosaic
books, which constituted the charter of the Hebrews
as a separate and peculiar people, to the epochs of a
lowered and decaying spiritual life.”
Surely Mr. Gladstone has read Jewish history upside
down. Where in the narrative of the wandering in
the desert, of the rule of the Judges, and of the early
Kings, shall we find this heightened spiritual life ?
Look at the hideous story of the Levite and his concu
bine in the Book of Judges, and see what kind of
private and public life existed in the “ good old times.”
Then turn to the best parts of the Book of Isaiah, and
see the immense improvement in every respect. If
the Mosaic Law shows a high spiritual culture (which
for the moment we neither affirm nor dispute), as Mr.
Gladstone alleges, it was more likely to have originated
in the later than in the earlier ages of Jewish history.
Second Argument.—From about 300 b.c. the Jews
paid great reverence to the sacred text, and took pain
ful precautions to preserve its integrity. Is it possible,
therefore, that the ostensible editors were really the
�The Grand Old Book.
7
authors ? And was there not “ something like hallu
cination on the part of a people that accepted such
novelties as ancient?”
This is a skilful, but not very ingenuous, appeal to
the ordinary readers of to-day, who may well doubt
the possibility of such an imposition being now success
ful, and who have neither the knowledge nor the
imagination to weigh the probability of its success in a
very different state of society, when there was no
printing-press and no general circulation of literature,
when the masses were grossly ignorant, and all the
knowledge that existed was monopolised by the
theocracy.
Let us take a couple of illustrations of how people
can be the victims of “ something like hallucination ”—
one from profane and one from sacred history.
.During the mediaeval period the Arthurian legends
grew up in Western Europe. They were most circum
stantial, as works of imagination are apt to be; witness
the marvellous details of Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe or
his History of the Great Plague, or, in our own day,
the minute Dutch painting of Dickens. When we
read the Arthurian legends in Sir Thomas Mallory’s
great book they seem like actual occurrences. It
requires an effort to realise that they are purely
romantic; and they have still enough life-blood in
them to give an air of reality to Tennyson’s more
shadowy Idylls of the King. Centuries ago those
legends were real- history. They were as true as
Gospel. Now we know they are products of imagina
tion. The famous Round Table was the dream of
poets’ brains. The gallant knights and lovely ladies
were fictions. Arthur himself seems never to have
existed. Like Willian Tell, another purely romantic
�08
The Grand Old Booh.
• creation, who has figured so prominently in Swiss
history as an actual hero, Arthur has melted away
in the light of modern criticism. Nor is it anything
but foolishness to lament the “ loss,” for if history
becomes more scientific, the poetry of the old legends
remains as an imperishable possession.
Our second illustration shall be taken from the New
Testament. In the Epistle of Jude a quotation is
made from “ Enoch, the seventh from Adam.” Now1
this quotation is really taken from the Book of Enoch,
a work which is ascribed by some authorities to the
first, and by others to the second, century before Christ.
That is the highest antiquity claimed for the book by
any competent scholar. Yet here, in the Epistle of
Jude, we have a Christian writer of probably the second
century after Christ, citing the work as written by the
Enoch who lived before the Flood. In other words, a
work not four hundred years old, and perhaps not
three hundred, was honestly taken to be older than
Moses, older than Abraham, older than Noah. Was not
this “ somethiug like hallucination ” ? And if a Chris
tian writer could be so deceived, was it impossible for
Jewish readers to be the victims of a less colossal
deception ?
Before dismissing this second argument we must
remark that Mr. Gladstone exaggerates its basis. He
asserts that the Massoretes, or official guardians of the
Hebrew text, were a body “ without a parallel in the
history of the world.” They counted the words and
the very letters of the text, and Mr. Gladstone calls on
the negative critics to say whether this “ profound and
exacting veneration ” is consistent with the Books of
the Pentateuch being recent concoctions.
•' Mr. Gladstone’s statement, as to the unparalleled
�The Grand Old Book.
5&1
character of the Massoretes, was challenged in the"
Jewish Chronicle. But one of Mr. Gladstone’s foibles
is infallibility, and although he is obviously mistaken,
he declares in the Preface his belief that his readers
“ have not been misled.” With respect to the Hindus,
he says, “ I understand it is stated that they counted
verses, words, syllables, and letters; but it does not
appear that this statement is one historically authenti
cated.”
We beg Mr. Gladstone’s pardon, but it does appear
to be historically authenticated. Speaking of the Vedic
hymns, Professor Max Muller says that they “ must at
a very early time have become the subject of the most
careful study. Not only every word, but every letter
and every accent were settled in the teaching of the
schools, and the only marvel is that so many irregular
forms should have escaped the levelling influence of
teachers from generation to generation.” The Pratis^khyas “ show us with what extraordinary minute
ness the hymns of the Veda had been analysed.” “ In
the hymns themselves,” he observes, “ the poets speak
of their thoughts as God-given—this we can understand
-—while at a later time the theory came in that not
the thoughts and words only, but every syllable, every
letter, every accent, had been communicated to half
divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that
the slightest mistake in pronunciation, even to the
pronunciation of an accent, would destroy the charm
and efficiency of these ancient prayers.”*
Now Mr. Gladstone admits that he has not “ the
^slightest pretension to speak with authority upon this
subject,” while Professor Max Muller is a specialist of
* Natural Religion, pp. 297, 558.
�60
The, Grand Old Booh.
European fame in this department of study. The
reader will therefore have little difficulty in forming a,
judgment.
Third Argument.—If the Jewish hierarchy composed
the Pentateuch, and ascribed it, or at least the legis
lation, to Moses, the forgery was unaccountably
unscientific. The books are 44 rather crude and irre
gular,” they 44 have not that consistency which belongs
to consecutiveness of form.” Yet the priests had
44 unbounded freedom of manipulation,” and there was
every condition to44 favor the production of a thoroughly
systematic and orderly work.”
Now this argument proceeds on two false assump
tions ; first, that the whole Pentateuch was concocted
at one time by one set of hands—say like our Revised
Version of the Bible; secondly, that the priests were
skilful enough to anticipate the severity of modern
criticism. The first assumption would be scouted by
the whole school of 44 negative ” critics ; the second
would be derided by every person with a grain of
common sense.
The fact is, the forgers were skilful enough for their
own necessities. They had merely to deal with the
circumstances of their own time. And if the circum
stances had not changed, as they did not until the
modern invention of printing, and the growth of exact
knowledge, the forgery would still hold its ground. It
imposes on ordinary people still, and apparently it
imposes on Mr. Gladstone. But it did not impose on
Spinoza, who viewed it as a man of genius, a mathe
matician, and a scholar; it did not impose on Colenso,
who examined it with more than the minuteness of
Sii’ Charles RusselFs examination of Pigott; it does
not impose on the great textual and historical critics
�The Grand Old Booh.
61
of Germany, Holland and France ; nor does it impose
on English writers like Dr. Robertson Smith and the
editor of Lux Mundi. We may add that it did not
impose on the critical sagacity of Voltaire and Thomas
Paine.
Fourth Argument.—The exclusion of the doctrine
of a future life discredits the idea of the Law being
framed immediately before or after the Captivity, as
the Jews had then become familiar with the “ idea of
a future life and an Underworld, as held both in the
East and in Egypt.”
But was not Moses “ skilled in all the learning of the
Egyptians/-’ and was not the belief in a future life a
profound conviction among the Egyptians long before
his birth? Why then did he exclude it from the
Law ? Mr. Gladstone says it was because he wanted
to draw a sharp line between the Hebrews and other
nations. But why could not the same motive prevail
with the post-exile hierarchy ? Do we not know that
they were passionate Judaists? Were they not the
nurses of a patriotism far narrower and intenser than
that which obtained in the age of Solomon 1
Fifth Argument.—The Samaritan Pentateuch is a
proof of the antiquity of the Mosaic Law. “ How is
it possible,” Mr. Gladstone asks, “ to conceive that it
should have held as a Divine work the supreme place
in the regard of the Samaritans, if, about or near the
year b.c. 500, or, again, if at the time of Manasseh
the seceder, it had, as a matter of fact, been a recent
compilation of their enemies the Jews
This argument, if valid, would not carry the Penta
teuch back to the time of Moses, which is what Mr.
Gladstone undertakes to prove. At the utmost it could
only establish the fact Jhat the Pentateuch was] in
�62
The Grand Old Book.
existence before the Captivity, when the old Hebrew
character was in use among the Jews ; and it does not
require all the statistical power of Mr. Gladstone to
see that a book might exist 700 years before Christ
and still not exist 1,500 years before Christ. We are
accustomed to cutting big slices out of ancient chrono
logy, but really the years followed each other one at a
time, and many things happened in the course of
twenty generations.
Mr. Gladstone’s argument, however, is fallacious.
The Samaritans were not harder to impose upon than
the Jews, and however great their hostility, they had
a common interest in Moses and the founders of the
race.
Mr. Gladstone is curiously silent about the strong
objections to the antiquity of the Samaritan Penta
teuch. We have no space to enter upon them here,
but they are of a very pregnant character, and Mr.
Gladstone has perhaps shown a wise discretion in
avoiding this awkward branch of the subject.
Having gone through Mr. Gladstone’s arguments,
which we have drawn out in numerical order for the
sake of clearness, we proceed to remark that they are
all of an a priori character. He judiciously evades all
the positive facts of the case. He does not touch a
single internal difficulty. He does not explain, for
instance, how “ the stranger that is within thy gates ”
was inserted in the Fourth Commandment while the
Jews were desert nomads dwelling in tents; nor does
he give the slightest hint as to how the Mosaic Law
coidd have been carried out in the desert, or why it was
so utterly neglected during the rule of the Judges, and
plainly violated during the reign of the early Kings.
No one but a priest was to presume to offer sacrifice;
�The Grand Old Book.
63
yet we see David sacrificing, and at the opening of the
Temple we see Solomon officiating as High Pontiff.
The only concessions to rational criticism that Mr.
Gladstone deigns to make are these. There is a “ pro
bable imperfection of the text ”—a phrase wide enough
to cover anything—and numbers may have gone wrong
in transcribing; which again is a convenient method
of reconciling the wildest contradictions, and simply
involves the re-editing of the Pentateuch.
We have read that a famous grande dame (not one
of Brantome’s grandes dames de par le monde let us
hope) has written to thank Mr. Gladstone for the great
comfort and support she has derived from his defence
of the Bible. We do not envy him such praise. When
a man of his standing enters the lists, it should not be
to make a reassuring display to his lady friends in the
grand stand, but to grapple in deadly earnest with a
serious foe. This he has not done. He had enough of
Professor Huxley, and too much of Colonel Ingersoll.
For this reason, perhaps, the articles collected in the
volume we are criticising were contributed to Good
Words. It is a party magazine and no reply is per
mitted. He wins an easy victory who stalks into the
arena alone and fights an imaginary opponent. He may
gain the applause of those who wear his favor, but men
of honesty and discernment will lift their eyebrows at
the spectacle.
�64
The Grand Old Booh,.
CHAPTER V.
THE CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Mr. Gladstone’s sixth chapter is on “Recent Corrobo
rations of Scripture from the Regions of History and
Natural Science/’ In the preliminary section he
refers to evolution as “ confirming the great argument
of design ”; but as, in this respect, he differs from
John Stuart Mill, and even from Darwin himself, his
mere ipse dixit counts for nothing. Mr. Gladstone
also observes that “ the doctrine of birth-sin, as it is
sometimes called, is simply the recognition of the
hereditary disorder and degeneracy of our natures ; and
of all men the evolutionist would be the last to estab
lish a title to object to it in principle.” Here again
Mr. Gladstone shows a curious ignorance of evolution.
Darwinians do not believe in the “ degeneracy ” of
human nature; on the contrary, they assert its slow
but constant improvement. They do not teach the
fall of man, but the rise of man. The Darwinian law
of heredity and the Christian doctrine of original sin
have absolutely nothing in common; and whoever
asserts that they have, understands neither the one nor
the other.
Never has it been our misfortune to read a more
extravagant piece of special-pleading than Mr. Glad
stone’s section on the Assyrian and Hebrew myths of
the Deluge. He does not dispute that the Assyrian
tablets deciphered by the late Mr. George Smith were
“ composed more than 2,000 years B.c. ” ; that is, five
�The Grand Old Book.
65
hundred years before the alleged date of Moses. Yet,
in the face of this chronology; in face of the lack of
all reference to the Deluge in the Jewish historical
books before the Captivity; in face of the great
influence which contact with Babylon indisputably
exercised on the Jewish people ; Mr. Gladstone asserts
that the Hebrew and Assyrian flood-stories are “ derived
through independent channels,” that “ the one comes
through a powerful and civilised empire, the other
through an obscure nomad family.” Surely Mr. Glad
stone must see that he is begging the whole question.
He has first to establish the fact—if it be a fact—that
the flood-story was known to the pre-Mosaic Jews;
whereas he has nothing but assumption to show that
it was even known to the pre-Exile Jews.
Everything Mr. Gladstone has to say on the subject
is based on this simple trick of begging the question.
He starts from a premiss, which is the very proposition
in dispute, and at the finish he blandly desires his
opponents to admit his conclusion.
First, he says the Jewish account of the Flood is
monotheistic; which, by the way, it is not, for there
are two accounts purposely disguised in our English
version, in one of which the deity is called by the
single name of Jehovah, and in the other by the plural
name of Elohim. On the other hand, he says, the
Assyrian account is polytheistic; and he argues that
the simpler form is nearer to the original source. But
does not Mr. Gladstone see that all this is consistent
with the position of the “ negative ” critics, who assert
that the Jewish flood-story was borrowed from Babylon
when the Jews were monotheistic 1
Secondly, he asserts that the absence of local
coloring in the flood-story of the Jews is natural if it
E
�66
The Grand Old Book.
was derived from a simple nomad people like Abraham?
his ancestors and his posterity. But is it not just as
natural, on the theory that it was doctored by the later
Jewish priests for their own people ? Would they not
cut away everything that gave the story a foreign air ?
Even, however, if Abraham and his family picked
up a knowledge of the flood-story while they hovered
on the skirts of the Chaldean civilisation, or brought it
away with them from “ Ur of the Chaldees,” there is
no disputing the fact that the legend existed among the
Chaldeans before the basis of the Jewish nation was
laid.
Let us now see how Mr. Gladstone disposes of
Professor Huxley. Does he reply to Huxley’s argu
ments against any such deluge as is related in Genesis?
Not a bit of it. He declares with a not too ingenuous
modesty that he has “ no capacity to handle 33 such a
controversy, although Huxley’s argument against a
partial deluge, in any wise resembling the Bible story,
was level to the most ordinary intelligence, and based
on geographical and physical truths which are taught
to school-boys. Mr. Gladstone does not refrain, how
ever, from sneering at Huxley’s “ magisterial ” tone;
and for the rest, he plays off against him the autho
rities of Mr. Ho worth, the Duke of . Argyll and Sir J.
Dawson. But Mr. Howorth’s evidence only shows that
there were catastrophes in the earlier ages of the earth,
which no one need dispute ; and Dawson, in one of his
Religious Tract Society pamphlets, distinctly argues
that the Deluge was only one of the many disasters
that have happened in geological history.
*
What on
* “ The cataclysm,” says Dawson, “ by which these men were swept
away may have been 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.”—Revelation and Science
�The Grand Old Booh.
67
earth has this to do with the flood which occurred in
the historical period, a huge mass of water kept standing
on the sloping plains of Mesopotamia, an ark containing
specimens of all forms of life, and the destruction by
miracle of all the human race with the exception of
eight persons ?
Mr. Gladstone is a better writer than the ordinary
Christian apologist, but his method of controversy is
no whit superior. He thinks to settle disputes by
quoting opinions from orthodox and semi-orthodox
scholars. But this is not the way'to end controversy,
or to establish any satisfactory conclusion. Nor is it
exactly honest to neglect to inform the reader that the
scholars quoted are orthodox or semi-orthodox, and to
refrain from indicating the great authorities whose
opinions are of an opposite character.
Is it not astoundingly cool of Mr. Gladstone to say
that “ the Hebrew story of the Deluge has long been
supported by a diversity of traditions among nations
and races of the world”1 What he should have said
is simply this, that flood-legends are almost universal.
That they “ support ” the Hebrew story is a monstrous
misstatement. The probability, in our opinion, is that
all these flood-legends are connected with traditional
reminiscences of inundations in prehistoric times, when
men were without the resources of science, and were
the helpless victims of calamity. Mr. Gladstone .cites
Lenonnant as contending that these flood-legends point
to some “ cataclysm that took place at a spot near the
primeval cradle of humanity,” though the phrase
“a spot” is not in the original French, and seems
(Religious Tract Society), p. 43.—Thus the positive certainty of Genesis
turns to a “ may have been,” and the miracle of the Flood becomes a
natural and common occurrence.
�68
'J he Grand Old Houk.
introduced on the usual principle of orthodox transla
tion. But neither Mr. Gladstone nor Lenormant
knows the “ spot” where humanity was first cradled,
and if there be any truth in the modern scientific
teaching as to the antiquity of man, there is a vast
interval between the oldest myths and legends and the
ape-like progenitors of the human race.
Mr. Gladstone talks as though the flood-story were
accepted as “ history ” by the generality of Christian
scholars and scientists. But it is not so accepted by
Professor St. George Mivart, the Catholic; by the
Bishop of Carlisle and Archbishop Farrar, of the
Church of England ; or by many a critic in the ranks
of Nonconformity. The tendency is to explain the
story as a legend, with a spiritual lesson, or to whittle
it down to the proportions of a local flood; and we may
ultimately learn that Noah’s Flood is an exaggeration
of a village deluge that washed away three kittens and
a blind puppy.
Much unprofitable “learning” is devoted by Mr.
Gladstone to showing how the human race descended
from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Even if these names
are symbolic of the white, yellow and black races, they
do not give the Bible any claim to inspiration; for
these great diversities were well-known, and the legend,
whenever it was developed, would naturally follow
them. But the American and Australian races were
not known, and precisely as the Bible leaves them out
does Mr. Gladstone leave them out. He quietly
sacrifices two continents for the sake of the Pentateuch.
With respect to the Sinaitic journey of the Jews,
nothing could be more simple than the remark that
the names of places, the distances, and so forth, prove
the narrative of Exodus to be “a contemporary record
�The Grand Old Book.
69
of the events to which it relates.” Is Mr. Gladstone
so innocent as to imagine that the Jewish writers of
the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries before Christ
were unable to obtain any information about the
frontiers of Egypt and the coast of the Red Sea?
Did not Solomon marry an Egyptian princess ? Were
not the .Jews fighting in alliance with Egypt when the
hosts of Sennacherib were destroyed ? It really seems
as if nothing were too childish for a Christian apologist
to advance on behalf of the Bible.
The last “ corroboration” of Scripture is that the
world, in the late Dr. Whewell’s opinion, will end with
a catastrophe. Mr. Gladstone is informed on “ high
authority ” that this is the “ established conclusion of
astronomers ” ; and this is also “ the emphatic declara
tion of the inspired Word.” Peter prophesied it.
And where? Why in the Second Epistle of Peter,
which scholars do not allow to be his at all I Yet on
this basis Mr. Gladstone proclaims that “ the Galilean
fishermen knew what all the genius and learning of the
world for thousands of years failed to discover.” For
our part, we have a great distrust of Mr. Gladstone’s
“high authority.” In any case, this questionable
“ established conclusion of astronomers ” has no relation
to the prophecy of Peter, for this gentleman did not
mean the absolute destruction of the earth (as we read
his words), but rather a renovation of it, as the dwelling
of righteousness. The writer of the second epistle of
Peter refers to a supernatural catastrophe, which was
to occur shortly, or at any rate before the end of the
human race; and only the most Jesuitical special
pleading could torture this into harmony with any
scientific speculations as to the ultimate fate of our
globe.
�70
The Grand Old Book.
Sir Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also
wrote in defence of the Bible. Where are those
writings now ? Ask the amateurs of curious literature.
Mr. Gladstone is a great statesman. He also writes in
defence of the Bible, and we believe that his apologies
will share the fate of Newton’s. They display what is
too often “the last infirmity of noble minds.”
�The Grand Old Book.
71
CHAPTER V.
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY.
In his concluding chapter Mr. Gladstone breaks a
lance with Professor Huxley, whom he calls “ the
Achilles of the opposing army,” and in whom we ven
ture to say Mr. Gladstone has not yet found the
vulnerable point.
Professor Huxley has argued that the Mesopotamian
plain was an unfortunate spot for Noah's Flood, since
it slopes to the extent of nearly six hundred feet, and
a body of water high enough to carry the Ark—to say
nothing about covering all “ the highest hills under
heaven ”—would rush down in a furious torrent, and
the fate of the floating menagerie may be left to
imagination. Now Mr. Gladstone has made inquiries
of “ an engineer who is in charge of a portion of one
of our rivers,” and he is informed that “ a fall of one
in 3,420 would probably produce a current of two
miles an hour.” And if “ instead of taking an ordinary
English river we remove the banks, and suppose the
stream indefinitely widened, the fall remaining the
same, the rate of the current would not be increased
but slackened.”
Upon the strength of this “ information ” Mr.
Gladstone reads Professor Huxley a solemn lesson in
circumspection, advising him to be more “ precise " in
future, and not to call a placid stream “ a furious
torrent.
It does not occur to Mr. Gladstone, who is
confessedly ignorant of physical science, that he is
�72
The Grand Old Booh.
taking a dangerous course in giving the author of
Physiography instruction in “elementary hydraulics.”
A little reflection would show him that he has forgotten
an all-important point. He takes into calculation the
fall of the stream and the banks, but omits the other
end. The current of a stream, which is continuous until
it joins the sea, is only superficial; while a body of
water, such as Professor Huxley contemplates, would
move in bulk at the lower end with terrible force.
It is not Professor Huxley, therefore, but Mr. Glad
stone, who needs to be told that he “ should take
reasonable care to include in his survey of a case all
elements which are obviously essential to a right
judgment of it.”
Like an old parliamentary hand, Mr. Gladstone
avoids answering Professor Huxley’s question as to how
such a depth of water was kept standing for several
months on a sloping plain. This question, which is
far more important than the velocity of Noah’s Ark, is
quietly ignored.
Mr. Gladstone is equally discreet with respect to the
miracle of the demoniacs and the swine in the New
Testament. He has a wonderful faculty, in these dis
cussions, for pursuing side issues, to the complete
neglect of the central points of the problem. This may
be the art of a rhetorician, but it will not convince
“ the opposing army,” or make a favorable impression
on impartial spectators.
A discussion as to the Gardarean swine took place
between Professor Huxley and Dr. Wace in the Nine
teenth Century, and Mr. Gladstone remarks that on
this occasion the Professor “ touched lofty ground
indeed,” as though only clergymen or Christian laymen
had a right to approach it.
�The Grand Old Booh.
73
“ Mr. Huxley, as a physiologist,” says Mr. Glad
stone, “ disbelieves in demoniacal possession.” True
*
And does Mr. Gladstone believe in it? Well, he will
not say. “ Such a physiological judgment,” he mockmodestly declares, “ it is not for me to discuss.” But
that is the vital point at issue. It is that alone which
gives the story the slightest interest to people living in
the nineteenth century. If demoniacal possession be a
fact, the science of this age is woefully mistaken ; if it
be not a fact, Jesus could not have ordered devils to
leave the possessed at Gadara. In that case the evan
gelists put into his mouth words that he never uttered.
If they did this in a single case they may have done it
a hundred times, and their credibility is gone for ever.
This was clearly set forth by Professor Huxley, and
it must be obvious to Mr. Gladstone. We therefore
conclude that, when he ignores the devils and fastens
his attention on the pigs, he is aware that demoniacal
possession is indefensible. But what is obnoxious to
reason is often embraced by faith, and Mr. Gladstone
appears to accept the story of the devilled swine of
Gadara by the operation of what he calls “ the organ
of belief,” which seems to be a faculty that enables
him to cling to superstition in spite of his intellect.
Mr. Gladstone allows that Professor Huxley “ very
properly touches the question of the injury inflicted by
the destruction of the swine, which was due to our
Lord’s permission.” Nevertheless he falls into a furious
passion, which is ill-disguised by the temperate form of
his speech.
u So then, after eighteen centuries of worship offered to our
Lord by the most cultivated, the most developed, and the most
progressive portion of the human race, it has been reserved to
a scientific inquirer to discover that he was no better than a
�74
The Grand Old Book.
law-breaker and an evil-doer. It 10 sometimes said that the
greatest discoveries are the most simple. And this, if really a
discovery, is the simplest of them all. So simple that he who
runs may read, for it lies on the very surface of the page. The
ordinary reader can only put the wondering question, how, in
such a matter, came the honors of originality to be reserved to
our time and to Professor Huxley.”
Were Mr. Gladstone better acquainted with “ nega
tive ” criticism, he would know it was not reserved for
Professor Huxley to discover that the drowning of the
Gardarean swine was a “ wanton destruction of other
people’s property.” The objection has been common
for generations. Nor is it easy to pardon Mr. Glad
stone for raising the odium theologicum against his
adversary. Professor Huxley did not charge Jesus
Christ with being “ a law-breaker and an evil-doer.”
He distinctly declared his disbelief of the story. It is
those who believe it that are concerned to reconcile the
destruction of the swine with the common ethics of
civilised society.
The reconcilement attempted by Mr. Gladstone is
extremely curious. He says the country of the
Gadarenes was “ apparently part of the land of the
Girgashites, one of the seven Canaanitish nations, and
was subject, therefore, as a matter of religious obliga
tion, to the Mosaic law,” which prohibited the use of
pork. Mr. Gladstone is so sure of this, that he charges
Professor Huxley with not having “ encumbered him
self with the laboi' of inquiring what anybody else had
known or said about it.” Such a charge is positively
grotesque. Professor Huxley is a careful student and
an omnivorous reader, and has since shown a perfect
familiarity with all that is “ known or said about ” the
city of Gadara, which he gives excellent reasons for
regarding as a Greek city. Mr. Gladstone himself
�The Grand Old Booh.
75
allows that “ some commentators ” are of the same
opinion, thus exposing his own dogmatism on a contro
verted subject.
Mr. Gladstone's contention is that the Gadarenes,
being (somehow) under the Mosaic law, had no right
to keep pigs, and were simply treated like smugglers
caught with brandy-casks. But he forgets two things :
first, that Jesus was not a J ewish official, and had no
legal right to confiscate swine, or plague them with
devils ; and secondly, that the Jews were not forbidden
to keep pigs. Swine were unclean in Egypt, but they
existed there; they were unclean also to the Jews,
but they as clearly existed in Palestine; and the Jews
were allowed to sell unclean meat to the Gentiles, just
as they were allowed to lend them money on usury.
So far, therefore, from Professor Huxley’s reasoning
being “ hand-over-head,” we think it is Mr. Gladstone
who is open to the accusation.
Setting aside the subsidiary points of this story,
which is told by three of the evangelists, we have to face
—and Mr. Gladstone has to face—the central point of
demoniacal possession. It is an aspect of the same
superstition which gave birth to the injunction in
Exodus—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ”—an
injunction which has cost at least nine millions of lives.
It is part and parcel of a great supernatural theory,
which existed ages before the time of Christ, and still
prevails in savage countries where Christianity is
unknown. Looked at in this light, it assumes a tragic
importance, and the question arises—Does Mr. Glad
stone believe it ? If he does not, he should plainly say
so. If he does, he is one of those who, “ with their
backs to the sunrise worship the night.”
The “ mighty Julius,” the first Caesar, the greatest
�76
The, Grand Old Booh.
of earth’s rulers, who swayed the destinies of the
civilised world before Christ was born, was far above
the superstitions of his age—above the superstition of
all ages. Could he “ revisit the glimpses of the moon,”
and behold a great English statesman gravely discuss
ing a story of devils being turned out of men and sent
into swine, he would wonder what blight had fallen
upon the human intellect in two thousand years. And
were he to learn that such stories are contained in a
book which is regarded as divine, which is placed as
such in the hands of our children, which is paraded in
all our courts of justice, and is deemed the very basis
and security of our civilisation, he would be at no loss
to understand why the greatest rulers and statesmen
of modern Europe look small and effeminate beside the
best emperors of pagan Rome.
�The Grand, Old Book.
77
CHAPTER VI.
MODERN
SCEPTICISM.
A portion of Mr. Gladstone’s last chapter is con
cerned with Scepticism and its causes. After quoting
a jubilant sentence from Mr. Karl Pearson as to the
decadence of Christianity, he remarks that we have
heard this kind of thing often enough before, and
immediately plunges into an historical disquisition on
Freethought. Bishop Butler’s preface to the Analogy
is cited to show that “ a wave of infidelity was passing
over the land ” in his day; but, according to Mr.
Gladstone, it “ dwindled and almost disappeared,” and
at the time of Johnson’s social predominance it had
“hardly left a trace behind.” Now this is a most
amazing blunder. The A nalogy was first published in
1736. Nearly twenty years later were published the
philosophical works of Bolingbroke, which were exten
sively read and very influential. The works of Chubb
and other Deists were widely read in more popular
circles. Presently the sceptical writings of Voltaire
were translated into English ; and it was in the very
days of Johnson that Hume’s masterly essays on
Miracles and Religion saw the fight. Surely this is a
remarkable “ disappearance ” of scepticism, and the
“ hardly a trace behind ” is positively ludicrous. As a
matter of fact, it was just at this very time that
Freethought penetrated to the multitude. Hence
forth, instead of merely affecting fashionable and
literary coteries, it was destined to influence the
�78
The Grand Old Booh.
working classes, and the movement thus began never
abated to the day when John Bright told the House of
Commons that the lower classes cared as much about
the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes cared
about its practice.
Mr. Gladstone is similarly mistaken about the
results of the French Revolution in England. He
says it “generated a distinctly religious reaction,’-’
which is quite true, though only half of the truth.
The Revolution stimulated advanced thought with the
same intensity as it stimulated conservatism in Church
and State. Wordsworth and Coleridge went one way,
but Byron and Shelley went the other way. Paine’s
Age of Reason was devoured by myriads of readers,
and a host of Freethought works swarmed from the
press of Richard Carlile and his brave colleagues who,
amidst calumny and imprisonment, made such a gallant
stand for the liberty of the press. From that time to
this there has been no real break in the progress of
Freethought.
Were Mr. Gladstone’s history as correct as it is
false, there would still be no force in his contention
that scepticism is subject to mutation or hazard, for no
great movement of the human mind ever goes forward
with an equable pace. The French Revolution was
followed by reaction in France, but its ideas did not
cease to operate. Restorations took place, and Napoleon
the Little’s empire succeeded in less than half a
century the empire of Napoleon the Great. But after
each disaster the Revolutionary idea gathered fresh
strength, and the present Republic has been able to
maintain itself against all its enemies. Similarly, if
English Freethought has had its moments of rebuff
and delay, it has nevertheless advanced in the main,
�The Grand Old Book.
79
as a stream flows on with varying, but on the whole
ever-increasing, volume and power.
We must also smile at Mr. Gladstone’s view of the
function of scepticism. He imagines it is designed in
“ the counsels of God ” in the interest of faith. Its
purpose is “ to dispel the lethargy and stimulate the
zeal of believers,” and to “ admonish their faith to
keep terms with reason, by testing it at all points.”
But as scepticism is impossible without sceptics, and
sceptics are liable to damnation, it would seem that Mr.
Gladstone’s deity moves in a mysterious way his
wonders to perform. One might imagine that faith
could be stimulated and enlightened by a less cruel or
perilous method. The poor sceptics are like the fire
flies of Sumatra, which are stuck on spits to illuminate
the ways at night.
“Persons of condition,” says
Carlyle, “can thus travel with a pleasant radiance,”
but—it is very awkward for the fire-flies 1
Anyhow, we find Mr. Gladstone admitting, what no
man in his senses can dispute, a “ sti'ong and wide
spread negative movement among our countrymen
during the latter portion of this century.” And how
does he account for it? Why, in the old-fashioned
way, though in a less offensive manner. The main
cause of “ the growth of negation ” is “ not intellectual,
but moral.” Are sceptics, then, less moral than
believers ? No, says Mr. Gladstone; to say that would
be “ untrue, offensive, and absurd.” “ Had I ever been
inclined to such a conception,” he adds, “ the experience
of my life would long ago have undeceived me.”
What, then, does Mr. Gladstone mean ? We gather
the following points from his rather diffuse explanation.
Unbelievers do not become immoral, because they
inherit the advantages of the Christian tradition.
�80
The Grand Old Booh.
“Many who have abjured Christianity,” he says,
“know not that in the best of their thought, their
nature, and their practice, they are appropriating its
fruits.” But this argument may be retorted on the
Christian. The sceptic might tell him that his practice
is determined, not by the doctrines and maxims of his
creed, but by the mental and moral atmosphere which
is generated by a thousand secular influences of science,
art, literature, politics and social life. The Christian
tradition was the same three centuries ago as at present,
but what a difference in our ethical ideals as well as in
the constitution of society !
Mr. Gladstone would parry this by comparing our
condition with that of “ the Greeks of the fifth century
before Christ, or the Romans at the period of the
Advent.” But this is a most fallacious test. Had
the comparison been challenged a century or two ago
—still the best part of two thousand years after Christ
—it is very doubtful if an unprejudiced arbiter would
have given the palm to Christendom. Europe, as a
whole, was far less civilised than Greece or Rome;
negro slavery existed in English and French colonies,
political freedom was almost unknown, the masses were
ignorant and degraded, and the brutality of the poor
and the profligacy of the rich were almost incredible.
Vast progress has been made in the last hundred and
fifty years, but to claim this as in any sense a product
of Christianity is to fly in the face of history and
common sense.
There is more force in Mr. Gladstone’s next sug
gestion, that scepticism has increased because the
world has grown more absorbing. The root of “ the
mischief ” he finds in the increase of wealth and enjoy
ment. “ It is the increased force within us of all that
�81
The Grand Old Book. ■
is sensuous and worldly,” he says “ that furnishes every
sceptical argument, good, bad, or indifferent, with an
unseen ally, and that recruits many a disciple of the nega
tive creed.” This language is invidious, but it expresses
a certain truth. This life and the next have always
been in conflict. As the one grows the other dwindles.
And as science makes this life better worth living, and
humanitarianism ennobles it with an ideal glow, the
“ world to come ” fades from our mental vision. In
this sense it is perfectly true that seculai’ progress is in
itself an enemy to religion.
Mr. Gladstone would have us rectify “ thisworldism ” by cultivating the “ organ of belief,” which
is probably our old friend “ faith ” under an alias ; and
he justly regards himself as possessing a higher
development of this organ than was,^>und in the late
Mr. Darwin. But when Mr. Gladstone goes on to
read the public its duties in regard to belief he runs
counter to all the principles which guide him in
politics. He declares the presumption to be in favor
of what is received, and that “ it is doubt and not
belief of the things received which ought in all cases
to be put upon its defence.” What a rubbing of
hands there would be in Tory circles if Mr. Glad
stone talked in this fashion from political plat
forms ! Then again, he tells us that inquiry is an
excellent thing, but it should only be undertaken
“ when it can be made the subject of effective prosecu
tion.” Whstt is this, however, but an ill-disguised plea
for handing over religion to professional experts?
But this is not Mr. Gladstone's policy in other
matters. When he stumps the country he appeals to
“ the masses,” and tells them they are the very persons
to form a sound judgment. “ Multitudes of men,” he
F
�l
r he Grand Old Booh.
complains, “ call into question the foundations of our
religion and the prerogatives of our sacred books,
without any reference to either their capacities or their
opportunities for so grave an undertaking.” But were
a Tory orator to speak thus—as many Tory orators
have spoken—of some effete institution, Mr. Gladstone
would reply that the people are quite competent to
form a judgment on broad issues. And it is just on
those broad issues that the “ multitudes of men ” who
think at all do form a judgment. They get hold of
certain great ideas in politics, ethics, or religion, and
by those ideas they judge institutions, customs, and
creeds. Such is the inevitable law of the popular
mind, and if Mr. Gladstone’s religious hopes are based
on the expectation that this law is to be reversed, or
set aside, in the /^terest of Christianity, we venture to
say he is building on a foundation of sand.
In a footnote to an earlier chapter Mr. Gladstone
draws attention “ with deep regret ” to the fact that
in the French census of 1881 no less than 7,684,906
persons “ declined to make any declaration of religious
belief.” It would, perhaps, be inaccurate to allege
that all these are pronounced unbelievers. Some of
them may merely hold that the state has no concern
with their religious opinions. But a very considerable
proportion must remain, who stand outside every form
of Christianity. Many are Voltairians, rejecting
revealed religion, while retaining a vague Deism.
Others are Atheists or Agnostics, who have discarded
all kinds of supernaturalism, and largely regard religion
as a mixture of mental disease and priestly imposture.
Such is the state of France, the radiating centre of
European ideas. England is proverbially slow though
tenacious. Our people are more open to practical
�The Grand Old Booh.
83
appeals than to appeals of principle. Their wits and
imaginations are less active than those of the French.
But they are daily becoming more accessible to ideas.
Their passion for truth is increasing. More and more
they ask whether principles and statements are true,
not whether they are old and venerable, or useful on
some ground of compromise where falsehood is recon
ciled with beneficence. Bogie, in short, is gaining a
stronger hold on the English mind; and as our people
begin to think, without respect to the ill consequences
that are always prophesied by the upholders of existing
institutions, they will investigate foundations as the
French are doing. Woe betide, then, the hoariest
superstitions I Everything will disappear that cannot
stand the test of what Cardinal Newman dreaded—
“ the restless intellect of man.” ^'Electric search
lights will play upon every corner of the present under
the rule of the past. There will be a flight of a
monstrous brood of tyrannous lies to the realm of
Chaos and old Night; and man, with clarified intellect
and purified heart, having freed himself from the yoke
of imposture, and learnt the manly lesson of selfreliance and self-control, will recognise the pinnacled
truth which all religions have obscured, that virtue is
the offspring of wisdom, and happiness the child of
both.
But this process will necessarily be gradual. Revo
lutions in human affairs are only believed in by those
who have read history on the surface, and never
penetrated to the great causes of intellectual and moral
movements. The advance of Humanity is an evolution.
This is the reason why “no one ever sees a religion die.”*
*PIeSnallt_ remark by the late Charles Bradlaugh, in a public debate
with a Newcastle clergyman.
�84
The Grand Old Book.
It required centuries to dethrone the gods of
Olympus. During the first three hundred years of its
propaganda, Christianity only succeeded in converting
a twentieth part of the inhabitants of the Roman
Empire. And Christianity underwent a change in
triumphing; it stooped to conquer; in overcoming
Paganism it became Paganised itself. Nor is it even
now free from the law it then obeyed. Success has its
conditions. Life itself is a constant adjustment. “ To
live,” said Cardinal Newman, “ is to change.” And
Christianity changes in order to exist. Except in
the periodical manifestoes of the Papacy, couched
in the pompous Latin of a bygone age, where
shall we find the note of sovereign authority in
its deliverances? It explains, apologises, heightens,
softens, and evi^i beseeches.
More and moi’e it
*
assumes the tone of a supplicant. And the changed
tone is accompanied by an altered teaching. Awk
ward doctrines may not be absolutely abandoned,
but they are minimised, while emphasis is laid on more
plausible tenets. In the schools called “ liberal,” or
“ advanced,” or “ forward,” the harsher features of thf|
old faith are softened, and sometimes explained away.
A new theory of the inspiration of Scripture is taught.
To use a phrase of Coleridge’s, we are to accept as
inspired what “ finds ” us. Some go to the length of
dismissing three-fourths of the miraculous element of
the Bible. Nor are the concessions confined to Reason.
Conscience is accommodated by various admissions.
Religion, instead of being the basis of morality, is
declared to be its crown. A good life is allowed to be
possible without “ faith.” Future rewards and punish
ments are given a new meaning. Heaven is widening,
and Hell is contracting. Every doctrine of Chris
�The Grand Old Book.
85
tianity is receiving a fresh explanation. And this is
the real victory of Scepticism. It cannot suddenly
destroy Christianity, but it abolishes it slowly by a
process of dilution. The name remains, but the sub
stance changes. Christianity is like a sack of salt in
running water. Little by little the contents are
washed away, although the brand looks as brave as
ever. By and bye the sack itself will collapse, and
join the flotsam and jetsam of the ocean of time.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s aphorism that “ no man ever sees a
religion die ” is literally true, but it has its limitations.
No man, except the great general, sees the whole of a
single battle; and who can see, in the span of a life
time, the whole of a battle which rages through
generations, and perhaps through centuries? Yet
history, and imagination working upon its revelations,
come to our aid and enable us to see “ in the mind’s
eye ” what is invisible to the organ of sense. Thus
the long death of a religion may be witnessed, every
phase of its dissolution followed, and the point discerned
when its epitaph may be written.
The student of history knows that the Christian
religion has been breaking up ever since the Revival of
Learning. Just as Christianity arose in the twilight
of Pagan civilisation, and flourished in the succeeding
night, so it began to wane in the young light of a new
day. Centuries have since rolled by, and Christianity
is still here; and, sustained by this knowledge, the
Christian may wreathe his lip with scorn. But did
not Pagamsm survive for centuries the knell of its
doom, outliving the bribes and proscription of Constan
tine and his successors, and lurking in the very magic
and witchcraft of the Middle Ages ? Smitten as it
was before the star of Bethlehem appeared, Paganism
�86
The Grand Old Book.
seemed little affected for centuries. Its temples con
tinued to lift their columns in proud beauty, its priests
were still numerous and powerful, and everything went
on as though the old system were as secure as the
everlasting hills.
Sacrifices were performed, the
victims’ entrails were inspected, the oracles gave forth
their dubious prophecies, and wealth was poured into
the hands of a multitude of priests.
One need not be surprised, therefore, at the present
condition of Christianity. It is enormously rich, and
its power is apparently tremendous; but the sphere of
its influence is in reality ever contracting. The Papacy
is shorn of half its power. Freethought is rampant in
France and Germany, and spreading like wildfire even
in the cities and universities of Spain. In England
the State Church feels that its life is threatened. The
Nonconformist bodies have crowds of ministers and
large incomes, but they are always sounding notes of
alarm. They hear the approach of the strong man
who is to take their possessions. It is the mind of man
the creeds have now to face—the Spirit of the Age,
whose presence is obvious in a thousand directions. A
sermon cannot be read, nor a religious paper scanned,
without seeing that all the Churches are aware of the
terrible foe who is winding about them like an invisible
serpent.
There is but one method of temporary salvation.
That method is adjustment. Under the stern law of
Natural Selection, which governs all—aqjmals, men,
gods, and creeds—everything must adjust itself to live.
A species may not vary for millenniums, and a creed
may change but little for centuries. But when the
environment alters, the species, or the creed, must
adjust itself—or die.
�The Grand Old Book.
87
Mr. Gladstone himself, though stiffly orthodox in
Comparison with many Christian writers, is obliged to
practise- this adjustment. Catholics like Professor
Mivart are pursuing it with amazing diligence. The
Romish Church, indeed, has a great advantage over
the Protestant sects, for it infallibly interprets the
infallible Bible, and is able to make it suit the
exigencies of the moment. Professor Mivart is ready
to find Darwinism in the Bible. He is also ready to
find that all the absolute Word of God it contains
might be written in a waistcoat pocket-book.
This clever trick of Catholic exigesis will not succeed
with strong-minded people, who know that infallible
Churches are as absurd as infallible Books. Nor will
it succeed with those who are familiar with ecclesiastical
history, and who know that the infallible Church has
often blundered, often contradicted itself, often been
torn with internecine strife, and has sometimes put
in the papal chair, as God’s vicegerent on earth, a
very monster of lust, avarice, and cruelty. But the
majority of men are not strong-minded, and have little
acquaintance with history. They are without that
knowledge of the past which Mr. Morley says “ saves
us from imposture and surprise.” It will not, therefore,
be astonishing if many of them who are too ignorant,
weak, and timid to think for themselves, should accept
the Catholic adjustment to the conditions of modern
thought, letting the Church decide for them how the
Bible is to •be read and understood, reposing their
faithful heads on the bosom of their Holy Mother, and
heeding her dogmatic voice as the perennial oracle
of God.
But the Protestant sects are doomed, and their
members will ultimately choose between Rome and
�88
The Grand Old Booh.
Reason. Minds of - ordinary calibre cannot be satisfied
with apologetics like Mr. Gladstone’s, which bring the
Bible into harmony with modern thought by a perpetual
torture of its language. The reflection must arise, that
if the Bible does not mean what it says, no one can
tell what it does mean. And no one can tell, exclaims
the Catholic, except the Church, the living voice of
God.
■
Here, then, is safety for timid and superstitious
souls. But the Protestant quits this land of Egypt,
with its proud Pharaoh, and its pyramid churches, and
its swarming priests, and all the leeks, the onions, the
garlic, and the cucumber. He dares the desert in
search of a better land. Yet he wanders eternally,
subsisting on droppings from heaven, and chance
streams in the thirsty soil. Courage fails hirff at sight •
of the Promised Land, though tempted By the verdant
soil, and the rich dark clusters of the glorious vines.
Back he hies to the desert, until the old dread of Egypt
returns, and once more he approaches the Promised
Land, only to be driven back again by his craven fears.
But this will not go on for ever. Many are already
returning to Egypt, others are crossing the Jordan,
and a clear field will ultimately be left for the mighty
struggle between Catholicism and Freethought, in
which more will be decided than the fate of the Pro
testant fetish; for the conflict is between Reason and
Faith, the natural and the supernatural, reality and
fable, truth and falsehood, day and niglfb, the living
present and the dead past, the rights of man and the
claims of gods, the priest's dogma and the child’s
freedom, the tomb of yesterday and “the prophetic
soul of the wide world dreaming on things to come.”
���
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 grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"
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: vii, 88 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Stamp of M. Steinberger,4, 5 & 6 Great St Helens, London E.C., on front cover. Title handwritten on cover. 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1436
N242
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"), 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
Authority
Bible-Evidences
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Free Thought
Gladstone
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7c01741dff2a2314e778d6d27bc0d6e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LMeQdmG6R6AxGG576%7E9uui%7EBOibRIhFkFphhAnA6BhKoxjWN3DwINnC5WL6EscZjHPap%7ECbg1VuvS0rKeHSUebCHhHOj4jo0J81mC3yLauo5f-iU2VH2YjLa0g6V%7EzO26JcrNFMAAPGKZJcnJsPyI9ew9e0EFAOvO7Mrrg7GfS7Ys8Bqfn4EaTX961Idg%7E5zwdGfMdqV113QIxzNQtwmp%7E6Y9NZe9B5zVmG65eKO2QVy6JYMxR%7E4G9L3cG-yhxumwvHsJQ%7EJqH8FI714EsaCqZMw%7EenYfLnAUgid2bZutKkLJT7f3WEWh8a6kRjAOQ0Ic1Pa9mGny7Zb1VbQ4uhdKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4a0b1b1a36e95bcaeca4ebd31e724c51
PDF Text
Text
��������������������������������������
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 dying creed : being the verbatim report of a lecture delivered in the Central Music Hall, Chicago, before 3000 people, on March 19th, 1884
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: "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 57e in Stein checklist, but with different date [1884]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Annotations in coloured inks. Inserted loose a newspaper cutting from unidentified paper by Bruno, in response to Mr Dickens December 7 1889. The section summarising views of the doctor Sir W.W. Gull has been underlined in red.Portrait of Ingersoll on front cover.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N342
G5795
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The dying creed : being the verbatim report of a lecture delivered in the Central Music Hall, Chicago, before 3000 people, on March 19th, 1884), 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-Controversial Literature
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5754814b65bd671ec19975a62851e579.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BM1YK864ebpGRZBAbk25Jqh0Yv1ouRnTGze6YpizZiDCpoeiXSeZp48rTeaqS6TFayLaZqt3oYMd5YKpRLX4Mouxfmt%7EtVuCMpE9YywSw5pTXP6fH7L7tTNj5H26FqfQDl-zhTfJa2AyXRa3I41yyAXD82ynaON7D3TL5ffbk5x3Z0BBwJ3hi8zOm6rD-wwtHhpeBUztKP6VbkMT0gyLlVTVS-9aEkWPW3mip3RBJi3cCMW0e8dF5kN3HAVXe%7ElHdltyT9qzqQsq9L0G%7EIi8q2yh4%7EwyCx%7EHDrZUtLf2KGcRJLkA-lsT5nX81lsy%7ESaZRdNKiozILuFmIk4RO4YxdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
07b655e37d375c14ebd424b676691671
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������
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
Inspiration & life: an address given to the Croydon Ethical and Religious Fellowship, on Whit Sunday, May 17th, 1891
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Jupp, W. J.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Signature on front cover and front flyleaf: J. F. Oakeshott.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
James Clarke & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G2854
Subject
The topic of the resource
Art
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Inspiration & life: an address given to the Croydon Ethical and Religious Fellowship, on Whit Sunday, May 17th, 1891), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Art and Morals
Art-Moral and ethical aspects
Bible. N.T. Criticism
Literature
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f411f54300cb7ac9001e34aa5a0faf55.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jRS86j-pEzIFs47igkIXGzxN6%7EQz-s3i-5zDgLk2Hs37VuPtNyOIVe-EYvddG4N-WeLf0IPM1H7SgqRDZEOO3-C8Okh7HRnpg2vHEcwWjWYG-5mTsPCYUGE6559-tOR0hFGu41QSpgTaRRVOfFiplZOLIp52vsNNJtLCxQ4SARBKFt%7EljnVzqeH6Je-JoU7WXARrtxYZFXfgP5wx9hpdim7NFNxVdAx3gy2RM9iwLIUp9PSws76A-0-SlwbytVad5G06zahsM0RcvkAZeWO8hicSXXhEC3mhsaJnfZV3btGboQda3JiFL4bbwznMcN3G5xyjQL8j9ev%7Es09phXiz7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
500a19a11fb2a5f436f827a6fa5b2ebf
PDF Text
Text
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY
OH THE
WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS
BY
LORD BACON.
Price One Shilling
--------- ——_—————
/
* th
V»\GR£At ST HELENS
X
ITtmbcit!
IV E
PUBLISHING
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
��B
AbJOSt
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCiRt y
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY
OR THE
WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS
BY
LORD bacon.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter, Street, E.O,
1891.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER, STREET, E.C.
�Pagan Mythology
OR
THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS.
PREFACE.
The earliest antiquity lies buried in silence and
oblivion, excepting the remains we have of it in sacred
writ. This silence was succeeded by poetical fables,
and these, at length, by the writings we now enjoy ; so
that the concealed and secret learning of the ancients
seems separated from the history and knowledge of the
following ages by a veil, or partition wall of fables,
interposing between the things that are lost and those
that remain.
Many may imagine that I am here entering upon a
work of fancy, or amusement, and design to use a
poetical liberty, in explaining poetical fables. It is
true, fables in general are composed of ductile matter,
that may be drawn into great variety by a witty'talent
or an inventive genius, and be delivered of plausible
meanings which they never contained. But this pro
cedure has already been carried to excess ; and great
numbers, to procure the sanction of antiquity to, their
own notions and inventions, have miserably wrested
and abused the fables of the ancients.
Nor is this only a late or unfrequent practice, but of
ancient date, and common even to this day. Thus
Chrysippus, like an interpreter of dreams, attributed
�4
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
the opinions of the Stoics to the poets of old ; and the
chemists, at present, more childishly apply the poetical
transformations to their experiments of the furnace.
And though I have well weighed and considered all
this, and thoroughly seen into the levity which the
mind indulges for allegories and allusions, yet I cannot
but retain a high value for the ancient mythology.
And, certainly, it were very injudicious to suffer the
fondness and licentiousness of a few to detract from
the honor of allegory and parable in general. This
would be rash, and almost profane ; for, since religion
delights in such shadows and disguises, to abolish them
were, in a manner, to prohibit all intercourse betwixt
things divine and human.
Upon deliberate consideration, my judgment is, that
a concealed instruction and allegory was originally
intended in many of the ancient fables. This opinion
may, in some respect, be owing to the veneration I
have for antiquity, but more to observing that some
fables discover a great and evident similitude, relation,
and connection with the thing they signify, as well in
the structure of the fable as in the propriety of the
names whereby the persons or actors are characterised;
insomuch, that no one could positively deny a sense
and meaning to be from the first intended, and pur
posely shadowed out in them. For who can hear that
Fame, after the giants were destroyed, sprung up as
their posthumous sister, and not apply it to the clamor
of parties and the seditious rumors which commonly
fly about for a time upon the quelling of insurrections ?
Or who can read how the giant Typhon cut out and
carried away Jupiter’s sinews—which Mercury after
wards stole and again restored to Jupiter—and not
presently observe that this allegory denotes strong and
powerful rebellions, which cut away from kings their
sinews, both of money and authority ; and that’ the
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
5
way to have them restored is by lenity, affability, and
prudent edicts, which soon reconcile, and as it were
steal upon the affections of the subject ? Or who, upon
hearing that memorable expedition of the gods against
the giants, when the braying of Silenus’s ass greatly
contributed in putting the giants to flight, does not
clearly conceive that this directly points at the mon
strous enterprises of rebellious subjects, which are
frequently frustrated and disappointed by vain fears
and empty rumors ?
Again, the conformity and purport of the names is
frequently manifest and self-evident. Thus Metis,
the wife of Jupiter, plainly signifies counsel ; Typhon,
swelling; Pan, universality ; Nemesis, revenge ; etc.
Nor is it a wonder, if sometimes a piece of history or
other things are introduced, by way of ornament; or
if the times of the action are confounded; or if part
of one fable be tacked to another ; or if the allegory
be new turned ; for all this must necessarily happen,
as the fables were the inventions of men who lived in
different ages and had different views ; some of them
being ancient, others more modern ; some having an
eye to natural philosophy, and others to morality or
civil policy.
It may pass for a farther indication of a concealed
and secret meaning, that some of these fables are so
absurd and idle in their narration as to show and pro
claim an allegory, even afar off. A fable that carries
probability with it may be supposed invented for
pleasure, or in imitation of history ; but those that
could never be conceived or related in this way must
surely have a different use. For example, what a
monstrous fiction is this, that Jupiter should take Metis
to wife, and as soon as he found her pregnant eat her
up, whereby he also conceived, and out of his head
brought forth Pallas armed. Certainly no mortal could,
�6
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
but for the sake of the moral it couches, invent such
an absurd dream as this, so much out of the road of
thought!
But the argument of most weight with me is this,
that many of these fables by no means appear to have
been invented by the persons who relate and divulge
them, whether Homer, Hesiod, or others; for if I
were assured they first flowed from those later times
and authors that transmit them to us, I should never
expect anything singularly great or noble from such
an origin. But whoever attentively considers the
thing will find that these fables are delivered down
and related by those writers, not as matters then first
invented and proposed, but as things received and
embraced in earlier ages. Besides, as they are diferently related by writers nearly of the same ages, it
is easily perceived that the relators drew from the
common stock of ancient tradition, and varied but in
point of embellishment, which is their own. And
this principally raises my esteem of these fables,
which I receive, not as the product of the age, or
invention of the poets, but as sacred relics, gentle
whispers, and the breath of better times, that from the
traditions of more ancient nations came, at length, into
the flutes and trumpets of the Greeks. But if any one
shall, notwithstanding this, contend that allegories are
always adventitious, or imposed upon the ancient
fables, and no way native or genuinely contained in
them, we might here leave him undisturbed in that
gravity of judgment he affects (though we cannot help
accounting it something dull and phlegmatic), and if it
were worth the trouble, proceed to another kind of
argument.
Men have proposed to answer two different and
contrary ends by the use of parable ; for parables serve
as well to instruct or illustrate as to wrap up or envelop,
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
7
so that though, for the present, we drop the concealed
use, and suppose the ancient fables to be vague, un
determinate things, formed for amusement, still the
other use must remain, and can never be given up.
And every man, of any learning, must readily allow
that this method of instructing is grave, sober, or
exceedingly useful, and sometimes necessary in the
sciences, as it opens an easy and familial- passage to
the human understanding, in all new discoveries that
are abstruse and out of the road of vulgar opinions.
Hence, in the first ages, when such inventions and con
clusions of the human reason as are now trite and
common were new and little known, all things
abounded with fables, parables, similes, comparisons,
and allusions, which were not intended to conceal, but
to inform and teach, whilst the minds of men con
tinued rude and unpractised in matters of subtility
and speculation, or even impatient, and in a manner
uncapable of receiving such things as did not directly
fall under and strike the senses. For as hieroglyphics
were in use before writing, so were parables in use
before arguments. And even to this day, if any man
would let new light in upon the human understanding,
and conquer prejudice, without raising contests,
animosities, opposition, or disturbance, he must still go
in the same path, and have recourse to the like method
of allegory, metaphor, and allusion.
To conclude, the knowledge of the early ages was
either great or happy ; great, if they by design made
this use of trope and figure ; happy, if, whilst they
had other views, they afforded matter and occasion to
such noble contemplations. Let either be the case, our
pains, perhaps, will not be misemployed, whether we
illustrate antiquity or things themselves.
The like indeed has been attempted by others ; but
to speak „ ingenuously, their great and voluminous
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
labors have almost destroyed the energy, the efficacy,
and grace of the thing, whilst, being unskilled in
nature, and their learning no more than that of com
mon-place, they have applied the sense of the parables
to certain general and vulgar matters, without reaching
to their real purport, genuine interpretation, and full
depth. For myself, therefore, I expect to appear new
in these common things, because, leaving untouched
such as are sufficiently plain and open, I shall drive
only at those that are either deep or rich.
I.—CASSANDRA, OR DIVINATION.
EXPLAINED OF TOO FREE AND UNSEASONABLE ADVICE.
The Poets relate that Apollo, falling in love with
Cassandra, was still deluded and put off by her, yet
fed with hopes, till she had got from him the gift of
prophecy ; and having now obtained her end, she flatly
rejected his suit. Apollo, unable to recall his rash
gift, yet enraged to be outwitted by a girl, annexed
this penalty to it, that though she should always
prophesy true, she should never be believed ; whence
her divinations were always slighted, even when she
again and again predicted the ruin of her country.
Explanation.—This fable seems invented to express
the insignificance of unreasonable advice. For they
who are conceited, stubborn, or intractable, and listen
not to the instructions of Apollo, the god of harmony,
so as to learn and observe the modulations and measures
of affairs, the sharps and fiats of discourse, the
difference between judicious and vulgar ears, and the
proper times of speech and silence, let them be ever so
intelligent, and ever so frank of their advice, or their
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
9
counsels ever so good and just, yet all their endeavors,
either of persuasion or force, are of little significance,
and rather hasten the ruin of those they advise. But,
at last, when the calamitous event has made the
sufferers feel the effect of their neglect, they too late
reverence their advisers, as deep, foreseeing, and faith
ful prophets.
Of this we have a remarkable instance in Cato of
Utica, who discovered afar off, and long foretold, the
approaching ruin of his country, both in the first con
spiracy, and as it was prosecuted in the civil war
between Csesar and Pompey yet did no good the while,
but rather hurt the commonwealth, and hurried on its
destruction, which Cicero wisely observed in these
words : “ Cato, indeed, judges excellently, but pre
judices the state; for he speaks as in the common
wealth of Plato, and not as in the dregs of Romulus.”
II.—TYPHON: OR A REBEL.
EXPLAINED OF REBELLION.
The fable runs, that Juno, enraged at Jupiter’s
bringing forth Pallas without her assistance, incessantly
solicited all the gods and goddesses, that she might
produce without Jupiter : and having by violence and
importunity obtained the grant, she struck the earth,
and thence immediately sprung up Typhon, a huge
and dreadful monster, whom she committed to the
nursing of a serpent. As soon as he was grown up,
this monster waged war on Jupiter, and taking him
prisoner in the battle, carried him away on his
shoulders, into a remote and obscure quarter: and
there cutting out the sinews of his hands and feet, he
�10
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
bore them off, leaving Jupiter behind miserably
maimed and mangled.
But Mercury afterwards stole these sinews from
Typhon and restored them to Jupiter. Hence, recover
ing his strength, Jupiter again pursues the monster;
first wounds him with a stroke of his thunder, when
serpents arose from the blood of the wound : and now
the monster being dismayed, and taking to flight,.
Jupiter next darted Mount JEtna upon him, and
crushed him with the weight.
Explanation.—This fable seems designed to express
the various fates of kings, and the turns that rebellions
sometimes take, in kingdoms. For princes may be
justly esteemed married to their states, as Jupiter to
Juno ; but it sometimes happens, that, being depraved
by long wielding of the sceptre, and growing tyrannical,
they would engross all to themselves ; and slighting
the counsel of their senators and nobles, conceive by
themselves ; that is, govern according to their own
arbitrary will and pleasure. This inflames the people,
and makes them endeavor to create and set up some
head of their own. Such designs are generally set on
foot by the secret motion and instigation of the peers
and nobles, under whose connivance the common sort
are prepared for rising : whence proceeds a swell in
the state, which is appositely denoted by the nursing
of Typhon. This growing posture of affairs is fed by
the natural depravity, and malignant dispositions of
the vulgar, which to kings is an envenomed serpent.
And now the disaffected, uniting their force, at length
break out into open rebellion, which, producing infinite
mischiefs, both to prince and people, is represented by
the horrid and multiplied deformity of Typhon, with
his hundred heads, denoting the divided powers ; his
flaming mouths, denoting fire and devastation; his
girdles of snakes, denoting sieges and destruction ; his
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
11
iron hands, slaughter and cruelty ; his eagle’s talons,
rapine and plunder ; his plumed body, perpetual
rumors, contradictory accounts, etc. And sometimes
these rebellions grow so high, that kings are obliged,
as if carried on the backs of the rebels, to quit the
throne, and retire to some remote and obscure part of
their dominions, with the loss of their sinews, both of
money and majesty,
But if now they prudently bear this reverse of
fortune, they may, in a short time, by the assistance of
Mercury, recover their sinews again; that is, by becom
ing moderate and affable ; reconciling the minds and
affections of the people to them, by gracious speeches
and prudent proclamations, which will win over the
subject cheerfully to afford new aids and supplies, and
add fresh vigor to authority. But prudent and wary
princes here seldom incline to try fortune by a war,
yet do their utmost, by some grand exploit, to crush
the reputation of the rebels: and if the attempt
succeeds, the rebels, conscious of the wound received,
and distrustful of their cause, first betake themselves
to broken and empty threats, like the hissings of
serpents ; and next, when matters are grown desperate,
to flight. And now, when they thus begin to shrink,
it is safe and seasonable for kings to pursue them with
their forces, and the whole strength of the kingdom ;
thus effectually quashing and suppressing them, as it
were by the weight of a mountain.
III.—THE CYCLOPS : OR THE MINISTERS OF
TERROR.
EXPLAINED OF BASE COURT OFFICERS.
It is related that the Cyclops, for their savageness
and cruelty, were by Jupiter first thrown into Tartarus,
�12
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
and there condemned to perpetual imprisonment ; but,
that afterwards, Tellus, persuaded Jupiter it would be
for his service to release them, and employ them in
forging thunderbolts. This he accordingly did ; and
they, with unwearied pains and diligence, hammered
out his bolts, and other instruments of terror, with a
frightful and continual din of the anvil.
It happened long after, that Jupiter was displeased
with .ZEsculapius, the son of Apollo, for having, by the
art of medicine, restored a dead man to life ; but con
cealing his indignation, because the action in itself
was pious and illustrious, he secretly incensed the
Cyclops against him, who, without remorse, presently
slew him with their thunderbolts ; in revenge whereof,
Apollo, with Jupiter’s connivance, shot them all dead
with his arrows.
Explanation.—This fable seems to point at the
behavior of princes, who, having cruel, bloody,
and oppressive ministers, first punish and displace
them; but afterwards, by the advice of Tellus, that is,
some earthly-minded and ignoble person, employ them
again, to serve a turn, when there is occasion for
cruelty in execution, or severity in exaction : but these
ministers being base in their nature, whet by their
former disgrace, and well aware of what is expected
from them, use double diligence in their office ; till,
proceeding unwarily, and over-eager to gain favor, they
sometimes, from the private nods and ambiguous orders
of their prince, perform some odious or execrable
action : When princes, to decline the envy themselves,
and knowing they shall never want such tools at their
back, drop them, and give them up to the friends and
followers of the injured person; thus exposing them,
as sacrifices to revenge and populai’ odium : whence
with great applause, acclamations, and good wishes to
the prince, these miscreants at last meet with their desert.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
13
IV.—NARCISSUS : OR SELF-LOVE.
Narcissus is said to have been extremely beautiful
and comely, but intolerably proud and disdainful ; so
that, pleased with himself, and scorning the world, he
led a solitary life in the woods ; hunting only with a
few followers, who were his professed admirers,
amongst whom the nymph Echo was his constant
attendant. In this method of life it was once his fate
to approach a clear fountain, where he laid himself
down to rest, in the noonday heat ; when, beholding
his image in the water, he fell into such a rapture and
admiration of himself, that he could by no means be got
away, but remained continually fixed and gazing, till
at length he was turned into a flower, of his own name,
which appears early in the spring, and is consecrated
to the infernal deities, Pluto, Proserpine, and the Furies.
Explanation. —This fable seems to paint the behavior
and fortune of those who, for their beauty, or other
endowments, wherewith nature (without any industry
of their own) has graced and adorned them, are extra
vagantly fond of themselves : for men of such a
disposition generally affect retirement, and absence
from public affairs ; as a life of business must neces
sarily subject them to many neglects and contempts,
which might disturb and ruffle their minds : whence
such persons commonly lead a solitary, private, and
shadowy life ; see little company, and those only such
as highly admire and reverence them ; or, like an echo,
assent to all they say.
And they who are depraved, and rendered still fonder
of themselves by this custom, grow strangely indolent,
unactive, and perfectly stupid. The Narcissus, a spring
flower, is an elegant emblem of this temper, which" at
first flourishes, and is talked of, but when ripe, frus
trates the expectation conceived of it.
�14
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
And that this flower should be sacred to the infernal
powers, carries out the allusion still farther ; because
men of this humor are perfectly useless in all respects ;
for whatever yields no fruit, but passes, and is no more,
like the way of a ship in the sea, was by the ancients
consecrated to the infernal shades and powers.
V.—THE RIVER STYX: OR LEAGUES.
EXPLAINED OE NECESSITY, IN THE OATHS OR SOLEMN
LEAGUES OF PRINCES.
The only solemn oath, by which the gods irrevocably
obliged themselves, is a well-known thing, and makes
a part of many ancient fables. To this oath they did
not invoke any celestial divinity, or divine attribute,
but only called to witness the river Styx; which, with
many meanders, surrounds the infernal court of Dis.
For this form alone, and none but this, was held
inviolable and obligatory: and the punishment of
falsifying it, was that dreaded one of being excluded,
for a certain number of years, the table of the gods.
Explanation.—This fable seems invented to show
the nature of the compacts and confederacies of princes ;
which, though ever so solemnly and religiously sworn
to, prove but little the more binding for it : so that
oaths in this case seem used, rather for decorum, repu
tation, and ceremony, than for fidelity, security, and
effectuating. And though these oaths were strengthened
with the bonds of affinity, which are the links and ties
of nature, and again, by mutual services and good
offices, yet we see all this will generally give way to
ambition, convenience, and the thirst of power ; the
rather, because it is easy for princes, under various
specious pretences, to defend, disguise, and conceal
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
15
their ambitious desires and insincerity ; having no
judge to call them to account. There is, however, one
true and proper confirmation of their faith, though no
celestial divinity; but that great divinity of princes,
Necessity ; or, the danger of the state ; and the securing
of advantage.
This necessity is elegantly represented by Styx, the
fatal river, that can never be crossed back. And this
deity it was, which Iphicrates the Athenian invoked
in making a league: and because he roundly and
openly avows what most others studiously conceal, it
may be proper to give his own words. Observing that
the Lacedsemonians were inventing and proposing a
variety of securities, sanctions, and bonds of alliance,
he interrupted them thus : “ There may, indeed, my
friends, be one bond and means of security between
us ; and that is, for you to demonstrate you have
delivered into our hands such things as that if you
had the greatest desire to hurt us you could not be
able.” Therefore, if the power of offending be taken
away, or if by a breach of compact there be danger of
destruction or diminution to the state or tribute, then
it is that covenants will be ratified, and confirmed, as
it were, by the Stygian oath, whilst there remains an
impending danger of being prohibited and excluded
the banquet of the gods ; by which expression the
ancients denoted the rights and prerogatives, the
the affluence and the felicities, of empire and dominion.
VI.—PAN : OR NATURE.
EXPLAINED OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY,
The ancients have, with great exactness, delineated
universal nature under the person of Pan. They leave
�16
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
his origin doubtful ; some asserting him the son of
Mercury, and others the common offspring of all
Penelope’s suitors. The latter supposition doubtless
occasioned some later rivals to entitle this ancient
fable Penelope ; a thing frequently practised when the
earlier relations are applied to more modern characters
and persons, though sometimes with great absurdity
and ignorance, as in the present case ; for Pan was one
of the ancientest gods, and long before the time of
Ulysses; besides, Penelope was venerated by antiquity
for her matronal chastity. A third sort will have him
the issue of Jupiter and Hybris, that is, Reproach.
But whatever his origin was, the Destinies are allowed
his sisters.
He is described by antiquity, with pyramidal horns
reaching up to heaven, a rough and shaggy body, a
very long beard, of a biform figure, human above, half
brute below, ending in goat’s feet. His arms, or
ensigns of power, are, a pipe in his left hand, composed
of seven reeds; in his right a crook; and he wore for
his mantle a leopard’s skin.
His attributes and titles were the god of hunters,
shepherds, and all the rural inhabitants ; president of
the mountains ; and, after Mercury, the next messenger
of the gods. He was also held the leader and ruler of
the Nymphs, who continually danced and frisked about
him, attended with the Satyrs and their elders, the
Sileni. He had also the power of striking terrors,
especially such as were vain and superstitious ; whence
they came to be called panic terrors.
Few actions are recorded of him, only a principal
one is, that he challenged Cupid at wrestling, and was
worsted. He also catched the giant Typhon in a net,
and held him fast. They relate farther of him, that
when Ceres, growing disconsolate for the rape of Prosperine, hid herself, and all the gods took the utmost
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
17
pains to find her, by going out different ways for that
purpose, Pan only had the good fortune to meet her,
as he was hunting, and discovered her to the rest. He
likewise had the assurance to rival Apollo in music ;
and in the judgment of Midas was preferred ; but the
judge had, though with great privacy and secrecy, a
pair of ass’s ears fastened on him for his sentence.
There is very little said of his amours ; which may
• seem strange among such a multitude of gods, so pro
fusely amorous. He is only reported to have been
very fond of Echo, who was also esteemed his wife ;
and one nymph more, called Syrinx, with the love of
whom Cupid inflamed him for his insolent challenge ;
so he is reported once to have solicited the moon to
accompany him apart into the deep woods.
Lastly, Pan had no descendant, which also is a
wonder, when the male gods were so extremely pro
lific ; only he was the reputed father of a servant-girl
called Iambe, who used to divert strangers with her
ridiculous prattling stories.
This fable is perhaps the noblest of all antiquity, and
pregnant with the mysteries and secrets of nature.
Pan, as the name imports, represents the universe,
about whose origin there are two opinions, viz., that it
either sprung from Mercury, that is, the divine word,
according to the Scriptures and philosophical divines,
or from the confused seeds of things. For they who
allow only one beginning of all things, either ascribe
it to God; or, if they suppose a material beginning,
acknowledge it to be various in its powers ; so that the
whole dispute comes to these points ; namely, either
that nature proceeds from Mercury, or from Penelope
and all her suitors.
The third origin of Pan seems borrowed by the
Greeks from the Hebrew mysteries, either by means of
the Egyptians, or otherwise ; for it relates to the state
�18
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
of the world, not in its first creation, but as made
subject to death and corruption after the fall; and in
this state it was, and remains, the offspring of God and
Sin, or Jupiter and Reproach. And therefore these
three several accounts of Pan’s birth may seem true,
if duly distinguished in respect of things and times.
For this Pan, or the universal nature of things, which
we view and contemplate, had its origin from the
divine Word and confused matter, first created by God
himself, with the subsequent introduction of sin, and
consequently corruption.
The Destinies, or the natures and fates of things, are
justly made Pan’s sisters, as the chain of natural causes
links together the rise, duration, and corruption ; the
exaltation, degeneration, and workings ; the processes,
the effects, and changes, of all that can any way happen
to things.
Horns are given him, broad at the roots, but narrow
and sharp at the top, because the nature of all things
seems pyramidal; for individuals are infinite, but
being collected into a variety of species, they rise up
into kinds, and these again ascend, and are contracted
into generals, till at length nature may seem collected
to a point. And no wonder if Pan’s horns reach to the
heavens, since the sublimities of nature, or abstract
ideas, reach in a manner to things divine ; for there is
a short and ready passage from metaphysics to natural
theology.
Pan’s body, or the body of nature, is, with great pro
priety and elegance, painted shaggy and hairy, as repre
senting the rays of things ; for rays are as the hair, or
fleece of nature, and more or less worn by all bodies.
This evidently appears in vision, and in all effects or
operations at a distance; for whatever operates thus
may be properly said to emit rays. But particularly
the beard of Pan is exceedingly long, because the rays
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
19
of the celestial bodies penetrate, and act to a prodigious
distance, and have descended into the interior of the
earth so far as to change its surface ; and the sun him
self, when clouded on its upper part, appears to the eye
bearded.
Again, the body of nature is justly described biform,
because of the difference between its superior and
inferior parts, as the former, for their beauty, regularity
of motion, and influence over the earth, may be pro
perly represented by the human figure, and the latter,
because of their disorder, irregularity, and subjection
to the celestial bodies, are by the brutal. This biform
figure also represents the participation of one species
with another ; for there appear to be no simple natures ;
but all participate or consist of two: thus man has
somewhat of the brute, the brute somewhat of the
plant, the plant somewhat of the mineral; so that all
natural bodies have really two faces, or consist of a
superior and an inferior species.
There lies a curious allegory in the making of Pan
goatfooted, on account of the motion of ascent which
the terrestrial bodies have towards the air and heavens ;
for the goat is a clambering creature, that delights in
climbing up rocks and precipices ; and in the same
manner the. matters destined to this lower globe
strongly affect to rise upwards, as appears from the
clouds and meteors.
Pan’s arms, or the ensigns he bears in his hands, are
of two kinds—the one an emblem of harmony, the
other of empire. His pipe, composed of seven reeds,
plainly denotes the consent and harmony, or the con
cords and discords of things, produced by the motion
of the seven planets. His crook also contains a fine
representation of the ways of nature, which are partly
straight and partly crooked ; thus the staff, having an
extraordinary bend towards the top, denotes that the
�20
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
works of Divine Providence are generally brought
about by remote means, or in a circuit, as if somewhat
else were intended rather than the effect produced, as
in the sending of Joseph into Egypt, etc. So likewise
in human government, they who sit at the helm
manage and wind the people more successfully by
pretext and oblique courses, than they could by such
as are direct and straight; so that, in effect, all sceptres
are crooked at the top.
Pan’s mantle, or clothing, is with great ingenuity
made of a leopard’s skin, because of the spots it has ;
for in like manner the heavens are sprinkled with
stars, the sea with islands, the earth with flowers, and
almost each particular thing is variegated, or wears a
mottled coat.
The office of Pan could not be more livelily expressed
than by making him the god of hunters ; for every
natural action, every motion and process, is no other
than a chase: thus arts and sciences hunt out their
works, and human schemes and counsels their several
ends ; and all living creatures either hunt out their
aliment, pursue their prey, or seek their pleasures, and
this in a skilful and sagacious manner. He is also
styled the god of the rural inhabitants, because men in
this situation live more according to nature than they
do in cities and courts, where nature is so corrupted
with effeminate arts, that the saying of the poet may
be verified—
----- pars minima est ipsa puella sui.
He is likewise particularly styled President of the
Mountains, because in mountains and lofty places the
nature of things lies more open and exposed to the eye
and the understanding.
In his being called the messenger of the gods, next
after Mercury, lies a divine allegory, as next after the
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
21
Word of God, the image of the world is the herald of
the Divine power and wisdom, according to the
expression of the Psalmist, “ The heavens declare the
glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handi
work.”
Pan is delighted with the company of the Nymphs ;
that is, the souls of all living creatures are the delight
of the world ; and he is properly called their governor,
because each of them follows its own nature as a leader,
and all dance about their own respective rings, with
infinite variety and never-ceasing motion. And with
these continually j oin the Satyrs and Sileni; that is, youth
and age : for all things have a kind of young, cheerful?
and dancing time ; and again their time of slowness,
tottering, and creeping. And whoever, in a true light,
considers the motions and endeavors of both these
ages, like another Democritus, will perhaps find them
as odd and strange as the gesticulations and antic
motions of the Satyrs and Sileni.
The power he had of striking terrors contains a very
sensible doctrine ; for nature has implanted fear in all
living creatures ; as well to keep them from risking
their lives, as to guard against injuries and violence ;
and yet this nature or passion keeps not its bounds, but
with just and profitable fears always mixes such as are
vain and senseless ; so that all things, if we could see
their insides, would appear full of panic terrors. Thus
mankind, particularly the vulgar, labor under a high
degree of superstition, which is nothing more than a
panic-dread that principally reigns in unsettled and
troublesome times.
The presumption of Pan in challenging Cupid to the
conflict, denotes that matter has an appetite and ten
dency to a dissolution of the world, and falling back
to its first chaos again, unless this depravity and
inclination were restrained and subdued by a more
�22
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
powerful concord and agreement of things, properly
expressed by Love or Cupid ; it is therefore well for
mankind, and the state of all things, that Pan was
thrown and conquered in the struggle.
His catching and detaining Typhon in the net
receives a similar explanation ; for whatever vast and
unusual swells, which the word typhon signifies, may
sometimes be raised in nature, as in the sea, the clouds,
the earth, or the like, yet nature catches, entangles,
and holds all such outrages and insurrections in her
inextricable net, wove as it were of adamant.
That part of the fable w'hich attributes the discovery
of lost Ceres to Pan whilst he was hunting—a happi
ness denied the other gods, though they diligently and
expressly sought her—contains an exceeding just and
prudent admonition ; namely, that we are not to expect
the discovery of things useful in common life, as that of
corn, denoted by Ceres, from abstract philosophies, as
if these were the gods of the first order,—no, not
though we used our utmost endeavors this way,—but
only from Pan, that is a sagacious experience and
general knowledge- of nature, which is often found,
even by accident, to stumble upon such discoveries
whilst the pursuit was directed another way.
The event of his contending with Apollo in music
affords us a useful instruction, that may help to humble
the human reason and judgment, which is too apt to
boast and glory in itself. There seem to be two kinds
of harmony—the one of Divine Providence, the othei’
of human reason ; but the government of the world,
the administration of its affairs, and the more secret
Divine judgments, sound harsh and dissonant to human
ears or human judgment; and though this ignorance
be justly rewarded with asses ears, yet they are put on
and worn, not openly, but with great secrecy; nor is the
deformity of the thing seen or observed by the vulgar.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
23
We must not find it strange if no amors are related
of Pan besides his marriage with Echo ; for nature
enjoys itself, and in itself all other things. He that
loves desires enjoyment, but in profusion there is no
room for desire ; and therefore Pan, remaining content
with himself, has no passion unless it be for discourse,
which is well shadowed out by Echo or talk, or when
it is more accurate, by Syrinx or writing. But Echo
makes a most excellent wife for Pan, as being no other
than genuine philosophy, which faithfully repeats his
words, or only transcribes exactly as nature dictates ;
thus representing the true image and reflection of the
world without adding a tittle.
It tends also to the support and perfection of Pan or
nature to be without offspring ; for the world generates
in its parts, and not in the way of a whole, as wanting
a body external to itself wherewith to generate.
Lastly, for the supposed or spurious prattling daughter
of Pan, it is an excellent addition to the fable, and
aptly represents the talkative philosophies that have at
all times been stirring, and filled the word with idle
tales, being ever barren, empty, and servile, though
sometimes indeed diverting and entertaining, and
sometimes again troublesome and importunate.
VII.—PERSEUS : OR WAR.
EXPLAINED OF THE PREPARATION AND CONDUCT
NECESSARY TO WAR.
“ The fable relates, that Perseus was despatched from
the east by Pallas, to cut off Medusa’s head, who had
committed great ravage upon the people of the west ;
for this Medusa was so dire a monster as to turn into
�24
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
stone all those who but looked upon her. She was a
Gorgon, and the only mortal one of the three, the other
two being invulnerable. Perseus, therefore, preparing
himself for this grand enterprise, had presents made
him from three of the g.ods : Mercury gave him wings
for his heels ; Pluto, a helmet ; and Pallas, a shield
and a mirror. But though he was now so well
equipped, he posted not directly to Medusa, but first
turned aside to the Grese, who were half-sisters to the
Gorgons. These Greae were gray-headed, and like old
women from their birth, having among them all three
but one eye, and one tooth, which as they had occasion
to go out, they each wore by turns, and laid them down
again upon coming back. This eye and this tooth they
lent to Perseus, who now judging himself sufficiently
furnished, he, without further stop, flies swiftly away
to Medusa, and finds her asleep. But not venturing his
eyes, for fear she should wake, he turned his head
aside, and viewed her in Pallas’s mirror; and thus
directing his stroke, cut off her head; when im
mediately, from the gushing blood, there darted
Pegasus, winged. Perseus now inserted Medusa’s head
into Pallas’s shield, which thence retained the faculty
of astonishing and benumbing all who looked on it.”
This fable seems invented to show the prudent
method of choosing, undertaking, and conducting a
war ; and, accordingly, lays down three useful precepts
about it, as if they were the precepts of Pallas.
(1) The first is, that no prince should be oversolicitous to subdue a neighboring nation ; for the
method of enlarging the empire is very different from
that of increasing an estate. Regard is justly had to
contiguity, or adjacency, in private lands and posses
sions ; but in the extending of empire, the occasion,
the facility, and advantage of a war, are to be regarded
instead of vicinity. It is certain that the Romans, at
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
25
the time they stretched but little beyond Liguria to the
west, had by their arms subdued the provinces as far
as Mount Taurus to the east. And thus Perseus readily
undertook a very long expedition, even from the east
to the extremities of the west.
The second precept is, that the cause of the war be
just and honorable ; for this adds alacrity both to the
soldiers, and the people who find the supplies : pro
cures aids, alliances, and numerous other conveniences.
Now there is no cause of war more just and laudable
than the suppressing of tyranny, by which a people
are dispirited, benumbed, or left without life and
vigor, as at the sight of Medusa.
Lastly, it is prudently added, that as there were
three of the Gorgons, who represent war, Perseus
singled her out for his expedition that was mortal ;
which affords this precept, that such kind of wars
should be chose as may be brought to a conclusion,
without pursuing vast and infinite hopes.
Again, Perseus’s setting-out is extremely well adapted
to his undertaking, and in a manner commands success ;
he received despatch from Mercury, secrecy from
Pluto, and foresight from Pallas. It also contains an
excellent allegory, that the wings given him by
Mercury were for his heels, not for his shoulders;
because expedition is not so much required in the first
preparations for war, as in the subsequent matters, that
administer to the first; for there is no error more
frequent in war, than, after brisk preparations, to halt
for subsidiary forces and effective supplies.
The allegory of Pluto’s helmet, rendering men
invisible and secret, is sufficiently evident of itself ;
but the mystery of the shield and the mirror lies
deeper, and denotes, that not only a prudent caution
must be had to defend, like the shield, but also such
an address and penetration as may discover the strength,
�26
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
the motions, the counsels, and designs of the enemy ;
like the mirror of Pallas.
But though Perseus may now seem extremely well
prepared, there still remains the most important thing
of all ; before he enters upon the war, he must of
necessity consult the Grese. These Grese are treasons ;
half, but degenerate sisters of the Gorgons ; who are
representatives of wars : for wars are generous and
noble ; but treasons base and vile. The Grese are
elegantly described as hoary-headed, and like old
women from their birth ; on account of the perpetual
cares, fears, and trepidations attending traitors. Their
force, also, before it breaks out into open revolt, con
sists either in an eye or a tooth ; for all faction
alienated from a state, is both watchful and biting ;
and this eye and tooth are, as it were, common to all
the disaffected ; because whatever they learn and know
is transmitted from one to another, as by the hands of
faction. And for the tooth, they all bite with the
same ; and clamor with one throat; so that each of
them singly expresses the multitude.
These Grese, therefore, must be prevailed upon by
Perseus to lend him their eye and their tooth; the eye
to give him indications, and make discoveries; the
tooth for sowing rumors, raising envy, and stirring up
the minds of the people. And when all these things
are thus disposed and prepared, then follows the action
of the war.
He finds Medusa asleep; for whoever undertakes a
war with prudence, generally falls upon the enemy un
prepared, and nearly in a state of security; and here
is the occasion for Pallas’s mirror : for it is common
enough, before the danger presents itself, to see exactly
into the state and posture of the enemy; but the
principal use of the glass is, in the very instant of
danger, to discover the manner thereof, and prevent
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
27
consternation ; which, is the thing intended by Per
seus’s turning his head aside, and viewing the enemy
in the glass.
Two effects here follow the conquest : 1. The darting
forth of Pegasus; which evidently denotes fame, that
flies abroad, proclaiming the victory far and near.
2. The bearing of Medusa’s head in the shield, which
is the greatest possible defence and safeguard ; for one
grand and memorable enterprise, happily accomplished,
bridles all the motions and attempts of the enemy,
stupifi.es disaffections, and quells commotions.
VIII.—ENDYMION: OR A FAVORITE.
EXPLAINED OE COURT FAVORITES.
The goddess Luna is said to have fallen in love with
the shepherd Endymion, and to have carried on her
amours with him in a new and singular manner; it
being her custom, whilst he lay reposing in his native
cave, under Mount Latmus, to descend frequently from
her sphere, enjoy his company whilst he slept, and
then go up to heaven again. And all this while
Endymion’s fortune was no way prejudiced by his
unactive and sleepy life, the goddess causing his flocks
to thrive, and grow so exceeding numerous, that none
of the other shepherds could compare with him.
Explanation.—This fable seems to describe the
tempers and dispositions of princes, who, being
thoughtful and suspicious, do not easily admit to their
privacies such men as are prying, curious, and vigilant,
or, as it were, sleepless; but rather such as are of an
easy, obliging nature, and indulge them in their
pleasures, without seeking anything farther; but
�28
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
seeming ignorant, insensible, or, as it were, lulled
asleep before them. Princes usually treat such persons
familiarly ; and, quitting their throne dike Luna, think
they may with safety unbosom to them. This temper
was very remarkable in Tiberius, a prince exceeding
difficult to please, and who had no favorites but those
that perfectly understood his way, and, at the same
time, obstinately dissembled their knowledge, almost
to a degree of stupidity.
The cave is not improperly mentioned in the fable ;
it being a common thing for the favorites of a prince
to have their pleasant retreats, whither to invite him,
by way of relaxation, though without prejudice to
their own fortunes ; these favorites usually making a
good provision for themselves.
I or though their prince should not, perhaps, promote
them to dignities, yet, out of real affection, and not
only for convenience, they generally feel the enriching
influence of his bounty.
IX.—THE SISTERS OF THE GIANTS: OR FAME.
EXPLAINED OF PUBLIC DETRACTION.
The poets relate, that the giants, produced from the
earth, made war upon Jupiter, and the other gods, but
were repulsed and conquered by thunder ; whereat the
earth, provoked, brought forth Fame, the youngest
sister of the giants, in revenge for the death of her
sons.
Explanation.—The meaning of the fable seems to
be this : the earth denotes the nature of the vulgar
who are always swelling, and rising against their rulers,
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
,
29
and endeavoring at changes. This disposition, getting
a fit opportunity, breeds rebels and traitors, who, with
impetuous rage, threaten and contrive the overthrow
and destruction of princes.
And when brought under and subdued, the same
vile and restless nature of the people, impatient of
peace, produces rumors, detractions, slanders, libels,
etc., to blacken those in authority ; so that rebellious
actions and seditious rumors, differ not in origin and
stock, but only as it were in sex ; treasons and rebel
lions being the brothers, and scandal or detraction the
sister.
X.—ACTEON AND PENTHEUS: OR A
CURIOUS MAN.
EXPLAINED OF CURIOSITY, OR PRYING INTO THE SECRETS
OF PRINCES AND DIVINE MYSTERIES.
The ancients afford us two examples for suppressing
the impertinent curiosity of mankind, in diving into
secrets, and imprudently longing and endeavoring to
discover them. The one of these is in the person of
Acteon, and the other in that of Pentheus. Acteon,
undesignedly chancing to see Diana naked, was turned
into a stag, and torn to pieces by his own hounds.
And Pentheus, desiring to pry into the hidden
mysteries of Bacchus’s sacrifice, and climbing a tree
for that purpose, was struck with a phrensy. This
phrensy of Pentheus caused him to see things double
particularly the sun, and his own city Thebes, so that
running homewards, and immediately espying another
Thebes, he runs towards that; and thus continues
incessantly tending first to the one, and then to the
other, without coming at either.
�30
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
Explanation. —The first of these fables may relate
to the secrets of princes, and the second to divine
mysteries. For they who are not intimate with a
prince, yet against his will have a knowledge of his
secrets, inevitably incur his displeasure ; and therefore,
being aware that they are singled out, and all oppor
tunities watched against them, they lead the life of a
stag, full of fears and suspicions. It likewise fre
quently happens that their servants and domestics
accuse them, and plot their overthrow, in order to
procure favor with the prince ; for whenever the king
manifests his displeasure, the person it falls upon must
expect his servants to betray him, and worry him
down, as Acteon was worried by his own dogs.
The punishment of Pentheus is of another kind ;
for they who, unmindful of their mortal state, rashly
aspire to divine mysteries, by climbing the heights of
nature and philosophy, here represented by climbing a
tree,—their fate is perpetual inconstancy, perplexity,
and instability of judgment. For as there is one light
of nature, and another light that is divine, they see, as
it were, two suns. And as the actions of life, and the
determinations of the will, depend upon the under
standing, they are distracted as much in opinion as in
will; and therefore judge very inconsistently, or con
tradictorily ; and see, as it were, Thebes double ; for
Thebes, being the refuge and habitation of Pentheus,
here denotes the ends of actions : whence they know
not what course to take, but remaining undetermined
and unresolved in their views and designs, they are
merely driven about by every sudden gust and impulse
of the mind.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
31
XI.—ORPHEUS : OR PHILOSOPHY.
EXPLAINED OF NATURAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY,
Introduction.—The fable of Orpheus, though trite
and common, has never been well interpreted, and
seems to hold out a picture of universal philosophy ;
for to this sense may be easily transferred what is said
of his being a wonderful and perfectly divine person,
skilled in all kinds of harmony, subduing and drawing
all things after him by sweet and gentle methods and
modulations. For the labors of Orpheus exceed the
labors of Hercules, both in power and dignity, as the
works of knowledge exceed the works of strength.
Fable.—Orpheus having his beloved wife snatched
from him by sudden death, resolved upon descending
to the infernal regions, to try if, by the power of his
harp, he could re-obtain her. And, in effect, he so
appeased and soothed the infernal powers by the
melody and sweetness of his harp and voice, that they
indulged him the liberty of taking her back, on con
dition that she should follow him behind, and he not
turn to look upon her till they came into open day ;
but he, through the impatience of his care and affection,
and thinking himself almost past danger, at length
looked behind him, whereby the condition was
violated, and she again precipitated to Pluto’s regions.
From this time Orpheus grew pensive and sad, a hater
of the sex, and went into solitude, where, by the
same sweetness of his harp and voice, he first drew the
wild beasts of all sorts about him ; so that, forgetting
their natures, they were neither actuated by revenge,
cruelty, lust, hunger, or the desire of prey, but stood
gazing about him, in a tame and gentle manner, listen
ing attentively to his music. Nay, so great was the
power and efficacy of his harmony, that it even caused
�32
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
the trees and stones to remove, and place themselves
in a regular manner about him. When he had for a
time, and with great admiration, continued to do this,
at length the Thracian women, raised by the instigation
of Bacchus, first blew a deep and hoarse-sounding
horn, in such an outrageous manner, that it quite
drowned the music of Orpheus. And thus the power
which, as the link of their society, held all things in
order, being dissolved, disturbance reigned anew;
each creature returned to its own nature, and pursued
and preyed upon its fellow, as before. The rocks and
woods also started back to their former places ; and
•even Orpheus himself was at last torn to pieces by
these female furies, and his limbs scattered all over
the desert. But, in sorrow and revenge for his death,
the river Helicon, sacred to the Muses, hid its waters
under ground, and rose again in other places.
Explanation.—The fable receives this explanation.
The music of Orpheus is of two kinds; one that
appeases the infernal powers, and the other that draws
together the wild beasts and trees. The former pro
perly relates to natural, and the latter to moral
philosophy, or civil society. The reinstatement and
restoration of corruptible things is the noblest work of
natural philosophy ; and, in a less degree, the preser
vation of bodies in their own state, or a prevention of
their dissolution and corruption. And if this be
possible, it can certainly be effected no other way than
by proper and exquisite attemperations of nature ; as
it were by the harmony and fine touching of the harp.
But as this is a thing of exceeding great difficulty, the
end is seldom obtained ; and that, probably, for no
reason more than a curious and unseasonable im
patience and solicitude.
And, therefore, philosophy, being almost unequal to
the task, has cause to grow sad, and hence betakes
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
33
itself to human affairs, insinuating into men’s minds
the love of virtue, equity, and peace, by means of
eloquence and persuasion ; thus forming men into
societies ; bringing them under laws and regulations ;
and making them forget their unbridled passions and
affections, so long as they hearken to precepts and
submit to discipline. And thus they soon after build
themselves habitations, form cities, cultivate lands,
plant orchards, gardens, etc. So that they may not
improperly be said to remove and call the trees and
stones together.
. And this regard to civil affairs is justly and regularly
placed after diligent trial made for restoring the mortal
body; the attempt being frustrated in the end—
because the unavoidable necessity of death, thus evi
dently laid before mankind, animates them to seek a
kind of eternity by works of perpetuity, character,
and fame.
It is also prudently added, that Orpheus was after
wards averse to women and wedlock, because the
indulgence of a married state, and the natural affec
tions which men have for their children, often prevent
them from entering upon any grand, noble, or meri
torious enterprise for the public good ; as thinking it
sufficient to obtain immortality by their descendants,
without endeavoring a.t great actions.
And even the works of knowledge, though the most,
excellent among human things, have their periods ;
for after kingdoms and commonwealths have flourished
for a time, disturbances, seditions, and wars, often
arise, in the din whereof, first the laws are silent and
not heard ; and then men return to their own depraved
natures—whence cultivated lands and cities soon
become desolate and waste. And if this disorder con
tinues, learning and philosophy is infallibly torn to
pieces ; so that only some scattered fragments thereof
c
�34
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
can afterwards be found up and down, in a few places,
like planks after a shipwreck. And barbarous times
succeeding, the river Helicon dips under-ground ; that
is, letters are buried, till things having undergone
their due course of changes, learning rises again, and
shows its head, though seldom in the same place, but
in some other nation.
XII.—CCELUM : OR BEGINNINGS.
EXPLAINED OF THE CREATION, OR ORIGIN OF ALL THINGS.
The poets relate, that Coelum was the most ancient
of all the gods ; that his parts of generation were cut
off by his son Saturn; that Saturn had a numerous
offspring, but devoured all his sons, as soon as they
were born ; that Jupiter at length escaped the common
fate; and when grown up, drove his father Saturn into
Tartarus ; usurped the kingdom; cut off his father’s
genitals, with the same knife wherewith Saturn had
dismembered Ccelum, and throwing them into the sea,
thence sprung Venus.
Before Jupiter was well established in his empire,
two memorable wars were made upon him : the first
by the Titans, in subduing of whom Sol, the only one
of the Titans who favored Jupiter, performed him
singular service ; the second by the giants, who being
destroyed and subdued by the thunder and arms of
Jupiter, he now reigned secure.
Explanation.—This fable appears to be an enigmati
cal account of the origin of all things, not greatly
differing from the philosophy afterwards embraced by
Democritus, who expressly asserts the eternity of
matter, but denies the eternity of the world ; thereby
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
35
approaching to the truth of sacred writ, which makes
chaos, or uninformed matter, to exist before the six
days’ works.
The meaning of the fable seems to be this : Ccelum
denotes the concave space, or vaulted roof that incloses
all matter, and Saturn the matter itself, which cuts off
all power of generation from his father ; as one and
the same quantity of matter remains invariable in
nature, without addition or diminution. But the
agitations and struggling motions of matter first pro
duced certain imperfect and ill-joined compositions of
things, as it were so many first rudiments, or essays of
worlds ; till, in process of time, there arose a fabric
capable of preserving its form and structure. Whence
the first age was shadowed out by the reign of Saturn ;
who, on account of the frequent dissolutions, and
short durations of things, was said to devour his
children. And the second age was denoted by the
reign of Jupiter ; who thrust, or drove those frequent
and transitory changes into Tartarus—a place expres
sive of disorder. This place seems to be in the middle
space, between the lower heavens and the internal
parts of the earth, wherein disorder, imperfection,
mutation, mortality, destruction, and corruption, are
principally found.
Venus was not born during the former generation of
things, under the reign of Saturn ; for whilst discord
and jar had the upper hand of concord and uniformity
in the matter of the universe, a change of the entire
structure was necessary. And in this manner things
were generated and destroyed, before Saturn was dis
membered. But when this manner of generation
ceased, there immediately followed another, brought
about by Venus, or a perfect and established harmony
of things ; whereby changes were wrought in the
parts, whilst the universal fabric remained entire and
�36
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
undisturbed. Saturn, however, is said to be thrust
out and dethroned, not killed, and become extinct ;
because, agreeably to the opinion of Democritus, the
world might relapse into its old confusion and dis
order, which Lucretius hoped would not happen in his
time.
But now, when the world was compact, and held
together by its own bulk and energy, yet there was no
rest from the beginning ; for first, there followed con
siderable motions and disturbances in the celestial
regions, though so regulated and moderated by the
power of the Sun, prevailing over the heavenly bodies,
as to continue the world in its state. Afterwards there
followed the like in the lower parts, by inundations,
storms, winds, general earthquakes, etc., which, how
ever, being subdued and kept under, there ensued a
more peaceable and lasting harmony, and consent of
things.
It may be said of this fable, that it includes philo
sophy ; and again, that philosophy includes the fable ;
for we know, by faith, that all these things are but the
oracle of sense, long since ceased and decayed ; but the
matter and fabric of the world being justly attributed
to a creator.
XIII.—PROTEUS : OR MATTER.
EXPLAINED OP MATTER AND ITS CHANGES.
Proteus, according to the poets, was Neptune’s herds
man ; an old man, and a most extraordinary prophet,
who understood things past and present, as well as
future : so that besides the business of divination, he
was the revealer and interpreter of all antiquity, and
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
37
secrets of every kind. He lived in a vast cave, where
his custom was to tell over his herd of sea-calves at
noon, and then to sleep. Whoever consulted him had
no other way of obtaining an answer but by binding
him with manacles and fetters ; when he, endeavoring
to free himself, would change into all kinds of shapes
and miraculous forms; as of fire, water, wild beasts,
etc.; till at length he resumed his own shape again.
Explanation. —This fable seems to point at the
secrets of nature, and the states of matter. For the
person of Proteus denotes matter, the oldest of all
things, after God himself ; that resides, as in a cave,
under the vast concavity of the heavens. He is repre
sented as the servant of Neptune, because the various
operations and modifications of matter are principally
wrought in a fluid state. The herd, or flock of Proteus,
seems to be no other than the several kinds of animals,
plants, and minerals, in which matter appears to diffuse
and spend itself; so that after having formed these
several species, and as it were finished its task, it seems
to sleep and repose, without otherwise attempting to
produce any new ones. And this is the moral of
Proteus’s counting his herd, then going to sleep.
This is said to be done at noon, not in the morning
or evening ; by which is meant the time best fitted and
disposed for the production of species, from a matter
duly prepared, and made ready beforehand, and now
lying in a middle state, between its first rudiments and
decline ; which, we learn from sacred history, was the
case at the time of the creation ; when, by the efficacy
of the divine command, matter directly came together,
without any transformation or intermediate changes,
which it affects ; instantly obeyed the order, and
appeared in the form of creatures.
And thus far the fable reaches of Proteus, and his
flock, at liberty and unrestrained. For the universe5
�38
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
with the common structures and fabrics of the creatures,
is the face of matter, not under constraint, or as the
flock wrought upon and tortured by human means.
But if any skilful minister of nature shall apply force
to matter, and by design torture and vex it, in order to
its annihilation, it, on the contrary, being brought
under this necessity, changes and transforms itself into
a strange variety of shapes and appearances; for
nothing but the power of the Creator can annihilate, or
truly destroy it ; so that at length, running through
the whole circle of transformations, and completing its
period, it in some degree restores itself, if the force be
continued. And that method of binding, torturing, or
detaining, will prove the most effectual and expeditious,
which makes use of manacles and fetters ; that is, lays
hold and works upon matter in the extremest degrees.
The addition in the fable that makes Proteus a
prophet, who had the knowledge of things past, present,
and future, excellently agrees with the nature of matter;
as he who knows the properties, the changes, and the
processes of matter, must of necessity understand the
effects and sum of what it does, has done, or can do,
though his knowledge extends not to all the parts and
particulars thereof.
XIV.—MEMNON: OR A YOUTH TOO FORWARD.
EXPLAINED OF THE FATAL PRECIPITANCY OF YOUTH.
The poets made Memnon the son of Aurora, and
bring him to the Trojan war in beautiful armor, and
flushed with popular praise; where, thirsting after
farther glory, and rashly hurrying on to the greatest
enterprises, he engages the bravest warrior of all the
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
39
Greeks, Achilles, and falls by his hand in single
combat. Jupiter, in commisseration of his death, sent
birds to grace his funeral, that perpetually chanted
certain mournful and bewailing dirges. It is also
reported, that the rays of the rising sun, striking his
statue, used to give a lamenting sound.
Explanation. —This fable regards the unfortunate
end of those promising youths, who, like sons of the
morning, elate with empty hopes and glittering out
sides, attempt things beyond their strength : challenge
the bravest heroes ; provoke them to the combat; and
proving unequal, die in their high attempts.
The death of such youths seldom fails to meet with
infinite pity; as no mortal calamity is more moving
and afflicting, than to see the flower of virtue cropped
before its time. Nay, the prime of life enjoyed to the
full, or even to a degree of envy, does not assuage or
moderate the grief occasioned by the untimely death
of such hopeful youths ; but lamentations and bewailings fly, like mournful birds, about their tombs, for a
long while after; especially upon all fresh occasions,
new commotions, and the beginning of great actions,
the passionate desire of them is renewed, as by the
sun’s morning rays.
XV.—TYTHONUS : OR SATIETY.
EXPLAINED OF PREDOMINANT PASSIONS.
It is elegantly fabled by Tythonus, that being exceed
ingly beloved by Aurora, she petitioned Jupiter that
he might prove immortal, thereby to secure herself the
everlasting enjoyment of his company; but through
female inadvertence she forgot to add, that he might
�40
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
never grow old ; so that, though he proved immortal,
he became miserably worn and consumed with age,
insomuch that Jupiter, out of pity, at length trans
formed him to a grasshopper.
Explanation.—This fable seems to contain an
ingenious description of pleasure ; which at first, as it
were, in the morning of the day, is so welcome, that
men pray to have it everlasting, but forget that satiety
and weariness of it will, like old age, overtake them,
though they think not of it; so that at length, when
their appetite for pleasurable actions is gone, their
desires and affections often continue; whence we
commonly find that aged persons delight themselves
with the discourse and remembrance of the things
agreeable to them in their better days. This is very
remarkable in men of a loose, and men of a military
life ; the former whereof are always talking over their
amours, and the latter the exploits of their youth ; like
grasshoppers, that show their vigor only by their
chirping.
XVI.—JUNO’S SUITOR : OR BASENESS.
EXPLAINED OF SUBMISSION AND ABJECTION.
The poets tell us, that Jupiter, to carry on his love
intrigues, assumed many different shapes ; as of a bull,
an eagle, a swan, a golden shower, etc.; but when he
attempted Juno, he turned himself into the most
ignoble and ridiculous creature—even that of a
wretched, wet, weather-beaten, affrighted, trembling,
and half-starved cuckoo.
Explanation.—This a wise fable, and drawn from
the very entrails of morality. The moral is, that men
should not be conceited of themselves, and imagine
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
41
that a discovery of their excellences will always render
them acceptable; for this can only succeed according
to the nature and manners of the person they court, or
solicit ; who, if he be a man not of the same gifts and
endowments, but altogether of a haughty and con
temptuous behavior, here represented by the person of
Juno, they must entirely drop the character that carries
the least show of worth, or gracefulness ; if they pro
ceed upon any other footing, it is downright folly ; nor
is it sufficient to act the deformity of obsequiousness,
unless they really change themselves, and become
abject and contemptible in their persons.
XVII.—CUPID : OR AN ATOM.
EXPLAINED OF THE CORPUSCULAR PHILOSOPHY.
The particulars related by the poets of Cupid, or
Love, do not properly agree to the same person ; yet
they differ only so far, that if the confusion of persons
be rejected, the correspondence may hold. They say,
that Love was the most ancient of all the gods, and
existed before everything else, except Chaos, which is
held coeval therewith. But for Chaos, the ancients
never paid divine honors, nor gave the title of a god
thereto. Love is represented absolutely without pro
genitor, excepting only that he is said to have proceeded
from the egg of Nox ; but that himself begot the gods,
and all things else, on Chaos. His attributes are four,
viz.—1, perpetual infancy ; 2, blindness ; 3, nakedness;
and 4, archery.
There was also another Cupid, or Love, the youngest
son of the gods, born of Venus; and upon him the
attributes of the elder are transferred, with some degree
of correspondence.
�42
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
Explanation.—This fable points at, and enters, the
cradle of nature. Love seems to be the appetite, or
incentive, of the primitive matter ; or, to speak more
distinctly, the natural motion, or moving principle, of
the original corpuscles, or atoms; this being the most
ancient and only power that made and wrought all
things out of matter. It is absolutely without parent,
that is, without cause : for causes are as parents to
effects ; but this power or efficacy could have no natural
cause ; for, excepting God, nothing was before it; and
therefore it could have no efficient in nature. And as
nothing is more inward with nature, it can neither be
a genus nor a form; and therefore, whatever it is, it
must be somewhat positive, though inexpressible.
And if it were possible to conceive its modus and pro
cess. yet it could not be known from its cause, as
being, next to God, the cause of causes, and itself
without a cause. And perhaps we are not to hope that
the modus of it should fall, or be comprehended, under
human inquiry. Whence it is properly feigned to be
the egg of Nox, or laid in the dark.
The divine philosopher declares, that “ God has
made everything beautiful in its season ; and has given
■over the world to our disputes and inquiries : but that
man cannot find out the work which God has wrought,
from its beginning up to its end.” Thus the summary
or collective law of nature, or the principle of love,
impressed by God upon the original particles of all
things, so as to make them attack each other and come
together, by the repetition and multiplication whereof
•all the variety in the universe is produced, can scarce
possibly find full admittance into the thoughts of men,
though some faint notion may be had thereof. The
Greek philosophy is subtile, and busied in discovering
the material principles of things, but negligent and
languid in discovering the principles of motion, in
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
43
■which the energy and efficacy of every operation
consists. And here the Greek philosophers seem per
fectly blind and childish ; for the opinion of the Peri
patetics, as to the stimulus of matter, by privation, is
little more than words, or rather sound than significa
tion. And they who refer it to God, though they do
well therein, yet they do it by a start, and not by
proper degrees of assent; for doubtless there is one
summary, or capital law, in which nature meets,
subordinate to God, viz., the law mentioned in the
passage above quoted from Solomon; or the work
which God has wrought from its *beginning up to its
end.
Democritus, who farther considered this subject,
having first supposed an atom, or corpuscle, of some
dimension or figure, attributed thereto an appetite,
desire, or first motion simply, and another compara
tively, imagining that all things properly tended to
the centre of the world; those containing more matter
falling faster to the centre, and thereby removing, and
in the shock driving away, such as held less. But this
is a slender conceit, and regards too few particulars;
for neither the revolutions of the e celestial bodies, nor
the contractions and expansions of things, can be
reduced to this principle. And for the opinion of
Epicurus, as to the declination and fortuitous agitation
of atoms, this only brings the matter back again to a
trifle, and wraps it up in ignorance and night.
Cupid is elegantly drawn a perpetual child ; for com
pounds are larger things, and have their periods of
age; but the first seeds or atoms of bodies are small,
and remain in a perpetual infant state.
He is again justly represented naked; as all com
pounds may properly be said to be dressed and clothed,
or to assume a personage ; whence nothing remains
truly naked, but the original particles of things.
�44
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
The blindness of Cupid, contains a deep allegory ;
for this same Cupid, Love, or appetite of the world,
seems to have very little foresight, but directs his
steps and motions conformably to what he finds next
him, as blind men do when they feel out their way;
which renders the divine and over-ruling Providence
and foresight the more surprising ; as by a certain
steady law, it brings such a beautiful order and
regularity of things out of what seems extremely
casual, void of design, and, as it were, really blind.
The last attribute of Cupid is archery, viz., a virtue
or power operating at a distance ; for everything that
operates at a distance, may seem, as it were, to dart, or
Shoot with arrows. And whoever allows of atoms and
vacuity, necessarily supposes that the virtue of atoms
operates at a distance ; for without this operation, no
motion could be excited, on account of the vacuum
interposing, but all things would remain sluggish and
unmoved.
As to the other Cupid, he is properly said to be the
youngest sons of the gods, as his power could not take
place before the formation of species, or particular
bodies. The description given us of him transfers the
allegory to morality, though he still retains some
resemblance with the ancient Cupid ; for as Venus
universally excites the affection of association, and the
desire of procreation, her son Cupid applies the affec
tion to individuals ; so that the general disposition
proceeds from Venus, but the more close sympathy
from Cupid. The former depends upon a near approxi
mation of causes, but the latter upon deeper, more
necessitating and uncontrollable principles, as if they
proceeded from the ancient Cupid, on whom all
exquisite sympathies depend.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
45
XVIII.—DIOMED : OR ZEAL.
EXPLAINED OE PERSECUTION, OR ZEAL FOR RELIGION.
Diomed acquired great glory and honor at the Trojan
war, and was highly favored by Pallas, who encouraged
and excited him by no means to spare Venus, if he
should casually meet her in fight. He followed the
advice with too much eagerness and intrepidity, and
accordingly wounded that goddess in her hand. This
presumptuous action remained unpunished for a time,
and when the war was ended he returned with great
glory and renown to his own country, where, finding
himself embroiled with domestic affairs, he retired
into Italy. Here also at first he was well received and
nobly entertained by King Daunus, who, besides other
gifts and honors, erected statues for him over all his
dominions. But upon the first calamity that afflicted
the people after the stranger’s arrival, Daunus imme
diately reflected that he entertained a devoted person
in his palace, an enemy to the gods, and one who had
sacrilegiously wounded a goddess with his sword,
whom it was impious but to touch. To expiate, there
fore, his country’s guilt, he, without regard to the laws
of hospitality, which were less regarded by him than
the laws of religion, directly slew his guest, and com
manded his statues and all his honors to be razed and
abolished. Nor was it safe for others to commiserate
or bewail so cruel a destiny ; but even his companions
in arms, whilst they lamented the death of their leader,
and filled all places with their complaints, were turned
into a kind of swans, which are said, at the approach
of their own death, to chant sweet melancholy dirges.
Explanation.—This fable intimates an extraordinary
and almost singular thing, for no hero besides Diomed
is recorded to have wounded any of the gods. Doubt
less we have here described the nature and fate of a
�46
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
man who professedly makes any divine worship or
sect of religion, though in itself vain and light, the
only scope of his actions, and resolves to propagate it
by fire and sword. For although the bloody dissen
sions and differences about religion were unknown to
the ancients, yet so copious and diffusive was their
knowledge, that what they knew not by experience
they comprehended in thought and representation.
Those, therefore, who endeavor to reform or establish
any sect of religion, though vain, corrupt, or infamous
(which is here denoted under the person of Venus),
not by the force of reason, learning, sanctity of man
ners, the weight of arguments, and examples, but
would spread or extirpate it by persecution, pains,
penalties, tortures, fire and sword, may perhaps be
instigated hereto by Pallas, that is, by a certain rigid,
prudential consideration, and a severity of judgment,
by the vigor and efficacy wffiereof they see thoroughly
into the fallacies and fictions of the delusions of this
kind; and through aversion to depravity and a wellmeant zeal, these men usually for a time acquire great
fame and glory, and are by the vulgar, to whom no
moderate measures can be acceptable, extolled and
almost adored, as the only patrons and protectors of
truth and religion, men of any other disposition seem
ing, in comparison with these, to be lukewarm, meanspirited, and cowardly. This fame and felicity, how
ever, seldom endures to the end ; but all violence,
unless it escapes the reverses and changes of things by
untimely death, is commonly unprosperous in the
issue ; and if a change of affairs happens, and that sect
of religion which was persecuted and oppressed gains
strength and rises again, then the zeal and warm
endeavors of this sort of men are condemned, their
very name becomes odious, and all their honors ter
minate in disgrace.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
4:7
As to the point that Diomed. should be slain by his
hospitable entertainer, this denotes that religious dis
sensions may cause treachery, bloody animosities, and
deceit, even between the nearest friends.
That complaining or bewailing should not, in so
enormous a case, be permitted to friends affected by
the catastrophe without punishment, includes this
prudent admonition, that almost in all kinds of wicked
ness and depravity men have still room left for com
miseration, so that they who hate the crime may yet
pity the person and bewail his calamity, from a
principle of humanity and good nature ; and to forbid
the overflowings and intercourses of pity upon such
occasions were the extremest of evils ; yet in the cause
of religion and impiety the very commiserations of
men are noted and suspected. On the other hand, the
lamentations and complainings of the followers and
attendants of Diomed, that is, of men of the same sect
or persuasion, are usually very sweet, agreeable, and
moving, like the dying notes of swans, or the birds of
Diomed. This is also a noble and remarkable part of
the allegory, denoting that the last words of those who
suffer for the sake of religion strongly affect and sway
men’s minds, and leave a lasting impression upon the
sense and memory.
XIX.—DAEDALUS : OR MECHANICAL SKILL.
EXPLAINED OF ARTS AND ARTISTS IN KINGDOMS
AND STATES. •
The ancients have left us a description of mechanical
skill, industry, and curious arts converted to ill uses,
in the person of Daedalus, a most ingenious but
execrable artist. This Daedalus was banished for the
�48
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
murder of his brother artist and rival, yet found a kind
reception in his banishment from the kings and states
where he came. He raised many incomparable edifices
to the honor of the gods, and invented many new con
trivances for the beautifying and ennobling of cities
and public places, but still he was most famous for
wicked inventions. Among the rest, by his abominable
industry and destructive genius, he assisted in the fatal
and infamous production of the monster Minotaur,
that devourer of promising youths. And then, to
cover one mischief with another, and provide for the
security of this monster, he invented and built a
labyrinth ; a work infamous for its end and design?
but admirable and prodigious for art and workmanship.
After this, that he might not only be celebrated for
wicked inventions, but be sought after, as well for
prevention, as for instruments of mischief, he formed
that ingenious device of his clue, which led directly
through all the windings of the labyrinth. This
Daedalus was persecuted by Minos with the utmost
severity, diligence, and inquiry ; but he always found
refuge and means of escaping. Lastly, endeavoring to
teach his son Icarus the art of flying, the novice,
trusting too much to his wings, fell from his towering
flight, and was drowned in the sea.
Explanation.—The sense of the fable runs thus.
It first denotes envy, which is continually upon the
watch, and strangely prevails among excellent artificers;
for no kind of people are observed to be more im
placably and destructively envious to one another than
these.
In the next place, it observes an impolitic and im
provident kind of punishment inflicted upon Daedalus
—that of banishment; for good workmen are gladly
received everywhere, so that banishment to an excellent
artificer is scarce any punishment at all; whereas other
�49
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
conditions of life cannot easily flourish from home.
For the admiration of artists is propagated and increased
among foreigners and strangers ; it being a principle
in the minds of men to slight and despise the mechani
cal operators of their own nation.
The succeeding part of the fable is plain, concerning
the use of mechanical arts, whereto human life stands
greatly indebted, as receiving from this treasury
numerous particulars for the service of religion, the
ornament of civil society, and the whole provision and
apparatus of life; but then the same magazine supplies
instruments of lust, cruelty, and death. For, not to
mention the arts of luxury and debauchery, we plainly
see how far the business of exquisite poisons, guns,
engines of war, and such kind of destructive inven
tions, exceeds the cruelty and barbarity of the Minotaur
himself.
The addition of the labyrinth contains a beautiful
allegory, representing the nature of mechanic arts in
general ; for all ingenious and accurate mechanical
inventions may be conceived as a labyrinth, which, by
reason of their subtilty, intricacy, crossing, and inter
fering with one another, and the apparent resemblances
they have among themselves, scarce any power of the
judgment can unravel and distinguish ; so that they
are only to be understood and traced by the clue of
experience.
It is no less prudently added, that he who invented
the windings of the labyrinth, should also show the
use and management of the clue ; for mechanical arts
have an ambiguous or double use, and serve as well to
produce as to prevent mischief and destruction ; so
that their virtue almost destroys or unwinds itself.
Unlawful arts, and indeed frequently arts themselves,
are persecuted by Minos, that is, by laws, which pro
hibit and forbid their use among the people ; but
D
�50
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
notwithstanding this, they are hid, concealed, retained,
and everywhere find reception and sknlking-places ; a
thing well observed by Tacitus of the astrologers and
fortune-tellers of his time. “ These,” says he, “ are a
kind of men that will always be prohibited, and yet
will always be retained in our city.”
But lastly, all unlawful and vain arts, of what kind
soever, lose their reputation in tract of time; grow
contemptible and perish, through their over-confidence,
like Icarus ; being commonly unable to perform what
they boasted. And to say the truth, such arts are
better suppressed by their own vain pretensions, than
checked or restrained by the bridle of laws.
XX.—ERICTHONIUS : OR IMPOSTURE.
EXPLAINED OF THE IMPROPER USE OF FORCE IN NATURAL
(PHILOSOPHY.
The poets feign that Vulcan attempted the chastity
of Minerva, and impatient of refusal, had recourse to
force; the consequence of which was the birth of
Ericthonius, whose body from the middle upwards was
comely and well-proportioned, but his thighs and legs
small, shrunk, and deformed, like an eel. Conscious
of this defect, he became the inventor of chariots, so
as to show the graceful, but conceal the deformed part
of his body.
Explanation.—This strange fable seems to carry this
meaning. Art is here represented] under the person of
Vulcan, by reason of the various uses it makes of fire ;
and nature under the person of Minerva, by reason of
the industry employed in her works. Art, therefore,
whenever it offers violence to nature, in order to
conquer, subdue, and bend her to its purpose, by
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
51
tortures and force of all kinds, seldom obtains the end
proposed ; yet upon great struggle and application,
there proceed certain imperfect births, or lame abortive
works, specious in appearance, but weak and unstable
in usd ; which are, nevertheless, with great pomp and
deceitful appearances, triumphantly carried about and
shown by impostors. A procedure very familiar, and
remarkable in chemical productions, and new mecha
nical inventions ; especially when the inventors rather
hug their errors than improve upon them, and go on
struggling with nature, not courting her.
XXI.—DEUCALION : OR RESTITUTION.
EXPLAINED OF A USEFUL HINT IN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
The poets tell us that the inhabitants of the old
world being totally destroyed by the universal deluge,
excepting Deucalion and Pyrrha, these two, desiring
with zealous and fervent devotion to restore mankind,
received this oracle for answer, that “ they should
succeed by throwing their mother’s bones behind
them.” This at first cast them into great sorrow and
despair, because, as all things were levelled by the
deluge, it was in vain to seek their mother’s tomb ;
but at length they understood the expression of the
oracle to signify the stones of the earth, which is
esteemed the mother of all things.
Explanation. —This fable seems to reveal a secret of
nature, and correct an error familiar to the mind; for
men’s ignorance leads them to expect the renovation or
restoration of things from their corruption and remains,
as the phoenix is said to be restored out of its ashes ;
which is a very improper procedure, because such kind
�52
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
of materials have finished their course, and are become
absolutely unfit to supply the first rudiments of the
same things again; whence, in cases of renovation,
recourse should be had to more common principles.
XXII.—NEMESIS : OR THE VICISSITUDE OF
THINGS.
EXPLAINED OF THE REVERSES OF FORTUNE.
Nemesis is represented as a goddess venerated by
all, but feared by the powerful and the fortunate. She
is said to be the daughter of Nox and Oceanus. She is
drawn with wings, and a crown ; a javelin of ash in
her right hand ; a glass containing Ethiopians in her
left; and riding upon a stag.
Explanation.—The fable receives this explanation.
The word Nemesis manifestly signifies revenge, or
retribution ; for the office of this goddess consisted in
interposing, like the Roman tribunes, with an “ I forbid
it,” in all courses of constant and perpetual felicity, so
as not only to chastise haughtiness, but also to repay
oven innocent and moderate happiness with adversity ;
as if it were decreed, that none of human race should
be admitted to the banquet of the gods, but for sport.
And, indeed, to read over that chapter of Pliny wherein
he has collected the miseries and misfortunes of
Augustus Cassar, whom of all mankind one would
judge most fortunate,—as he had a certain art of using
and enjoying prosperity, with a mind no way tumid,
light, effeminate, confused, or melancholic,—one cannot
but think this a very great and powerful goddess, who
could bring such a victim to her altar.
The parents of this goddess were Oceanus and Nox ;
that is, the fluctuating change of things, and the obscure
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
53
and secret divine decrees. The changes of things are
aptly represented by the Ocean, on account of its
perpetual ebbing and flowing ; and secret providence
is justly expressed by Night. Even the heathenshave
observed this secret Nemesis of the night, or the
difference betwixt divine and human judgment.
Wings are given to Nemesis, because of the sudden
and unforeseen changes of things ; for, from the earliest
account of time, it has been common for great and
prudent men to fall by the dangers they most despised.
Thus Cicero, when admonished by Brutus of the
infidelity and rancor of Octavius, coolly wrote back,
111 cannot, however, but be obliged to you, Brutus, as
I ought, for informing me, though of such a trifle.”
Nemesis also has her crown, by reason of the invi
dious and malignant nature of the vulgar, who generally
rejoice, triumph, and crown her, at the fall of the
fortunate and the powerful. And the javelin in her
right hand, it has regard to those whom she has actually
struck and transfixed. But whoever escapes her
stroke, or feels not actual calamity or misfortune, she
affrights with a black and dismal sight in her left
hand ; for doubtless, mortals on the highest pinnacle
of felicity have a prospect of death, diseases, calamities,
perfidious friends, undermining enemies, reverses of
fortune, etc., represented by the Ethiopians in her
glass. Thus Virgil, with great elegance, describing the
battle of Actium, says of Cleopatra, that, “ she did not
yet perceive the two asps behind her ” ; but soon after,
which way soever she turned, she saw whole troops of
Ethiopians still before her.
Lastly, it is significantly added, that Nemesis rides
upon a stag, which is a very long-lived creature ; for
though perhaps some, by an untimely death in youth,
may prevent or escape this goddess, yet they who
enjoy a long flow of happiness and power, doubtless
�54
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
become subject to her at length, and are brought to
yield.
XXIII.—ACHELOUS : OR BATTLE.
EXPLAINED OF WAR BY INVASION.
The ancients relate, that Hercules and Achelous being
rivals in the courtship of Deianira, the matter was
contested by single combat; when Achelous having
transformed himself, as he had power to do, into
various shapes, by way of trial; at length, in the form
of a fierce wild bull, prepares himself for the fight;
but Hercules still retains his human shape, engages
sharply with him, and in the issue broke off one of
the bull’s horns ; and now Achelous, in great pain and
fright, to redeem his horn, presents Hercules with the
cornucopia.
Explanation.—This fable relates to military expedi
tions and preparations ; for the preparation of war on
the defensive side, here denoted by Achelous, appears
in various shapes, whilst the invading side has but one
simple form, consisting either in an army, or perhaps a
fleet. But the country that expects the invasion is
employed infinite ways, in fortifying towns, blockading
passes, rivers, and ports, raising soldiers, disposing
garrisons, building and breaking down bridges, pro
curing aids, securing provisions, arms, ammunition,
etc. So that there appears a new face of things every
day ; and at length, when the country is sufficiently
fortified and prepared, it represents to the life the form
and threats of a fierce fighting bull.
On the other side, the invader presses on to the fight,
fearing to be distressed in an enemy’s country. And
if after the battle he remains master of the field, and
has now broke, as it were, the horn of his enemy, the
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
55
besieged, of course, retire inglorious, affrighted, and
dismayed, to their stronghold, there endeavoring to
secure themselves, and repair their strength ; leaving,
at the same time, their country a prey to the conqueror,
which is well expressed by the Amalthean horn, or
cornucopia.
XXIV.—DIONYSUS : OR BACCHUS.
EXPLAINED OF THE PASSIONS.
The fable runs, that Semele, Jupiter’s mistress,
having bound him by an inviolable oath to grant her
an unknown request, desired he would embrace her in
the same form and manner he used to embrace Juno ;
and the promise being irrevocable, she was burnt to
death with lightning in the performance. The embry
however, was sewed up, and carried in Jupiter’s thigh
till the complete time of its birth ; but the burthen,
thus rendering the father lame, and causing him pain,
the child was thence called Dionysus. When born, he
was committed for some years, to be nursed by Pros
erpina ; and when grown up, appeared with so effe
minate a face, that his sex seemed somewhat doubtful.
He also died, and was buried for a time, but afterwards
revived. When a youth, he first introduced the culti
vation and dressing of vines, the method of preparing
wine, and taught the use thereof ; whence becoming
famous, he subdued the world, even to the utmost
bounds of the Indies. He rode in a chariot drawn by
tigers. There danced about him certain deformed
demons called Cobali, etc. The Muses also joined in
his train. He married Ariadne, who was deserted by
Theseus. The ivy was sacred to him. He was also
held the inventor and institutor of religious rites and
ceremonies, but such as were wild, frantic and full of
�56
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
corruption and cruelty. He had also the power of
striking men with frenzies. Pentheus and Orpheus
were torn to pieces by the frantic women at his orgies ;
the first for climbing a tree to behold their outrageous
ceremonies, and the other for the music of his harp.
But the acts of this god are much entangled and con
founded with those of Jupiter.
Explanation.—This fable seems to contain a little
system of morality, so that there is scarce any better
invention in all ethics. Under the history of Bacchus
is drawn the nature of unlawful desire or affection,
and disorder; for the appetite and thirst of apparent
good is the mother of all unlawful desire, though ever
so destructive, and all unlawful desires are conceived
in unlawful wishes or requests, rashly indulged or
granted before they are well understood or considered,
and when the affection begins to grow warm, the
mother of it (the nature of good) is destroyed and
burnt up by the heat. And whilst an unlawful desire
lies in the embryo, or unripened in the mind, which
is its father, and here represented by Jupiter, it is
cherished and concealed, especially in the inferior part
of the mind, corresponding to the thigh of the body,
where pain twitches and depresses the mind so far as
to render its resolutions and actions imperfect and
lame. And even after this child of the mind is con
firmed, and gains strength by consent and habit, and
comes forth into action, it must still be nursed by
Proserpina for a time; that is, it skulks and hides its
head in a clandestine manner, as it were under ground,
till at length, when the checks of shame and fear are
removed, and the requisite boldness acquired, it either
assumes the pretext of some virtue, or openly despises
infamy. And it is justly observed, that every vehement
passion appears of a doubtful sex, as having the strength
of a man at first, but at last the impotence of a woman.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
57
It is also excellently added, that Bacchus died and rose
again ; for the affections sometimes seem to die and beno more ; but there is no trusting them, even though
they were buried, being always apt and ready to rise
again whenever the occasion or object offers.
That Bacchus should be the inventor of wine carries
a fine allegory with it; for every affection is cunning
and subtile in discovering a proper manner to nourish
and feed it; and of all things known to mortals, wine
is the most powerful and effectual for exciting and
inflaming passions of all kinds, being indeed like a.
common fuel to all.
It is again with great elegance observed of Bacchus,,
that he subdued provinces, and undertook endless
expeditions, for the affections never rest satisfied with
what they enjoy, but with an endless and insatiable
appetite, thirst after something further. And tigers
are prettily feigned to draw the chariot; for as soon as.
any affection shall, from going on foot, be advanced to
ride, it triumphs over reason, and exerts its cruelty,,
fierceness, and strength against all that oppose it.
It is also humorously imagined, that ridiculous
demons dance and frisk about this chariot; for every
passion produces indecent, disorderly, interchangeable,
deformed motions in the eyes, countenance, and
gesture, so that the person under the impulse, whether
of anger, insult, love, etc., though to himself, he may
seen grand, lofty, or obliging, yet in the eyes of others
appears mean, contemptible, or ridiculous.
The Muses also are found in the train of Bacchus,,
for there is scarce any passion without its art, science,,
or doctrine to court and flatter it ; but in this respect
the indulgence of men of genius has greatly detracted
from the majesty of the Muses, who ought to be the
leaders and conductors of human life, and not the
handmaids of the passions.
�58
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
The allegory of Bacchus falling in love with a cast
mistress, is extremely noble ; for it is certain that the
affections always court and covet what has been rejected
upon experience. And all those who by serving and
indulging their passions immensely raise the value of
enjoyment, should know, that whatever they covet and
pursue, whether riches, pleasure, glory, learning, or
anything else, they only pursue those things that have
been forsaken and cast off with contempt by great
numbers in all ages, after possession and experience.
Nor is it without a mystery that the ivy was sacred
to Bacchus, and this for two reasons : first, because ivy
is an evergreen, or flourishes in the winter; and
secondly, because it winds and creeps about so many
things, as trees, walls, and buildings, and raises itself
above them. As to the first, every passion grows fresh,
strong, and vigorous by opposition and prohibition, as
it were by a kind of contrast or antiperistasis, like the
ivy in the winter. And for the second, the predominant
passion of the mind throws itself, like the ivy, round
all human actions, entwines all our resolutions, and
perpetually adheres to, and mixes itself among, or even
overtops them.
And no wonder that superstitious rites and cere
monies are attributed to Bacchus, when almost every
ungovernable passion grows wanton and luxuriant in
corrupt religions ; nor again, that fury and frenzy
should be sent and dealt out by him, because every
passion is a short frenzy, and if it be vehement, lasting,
and take deep root, it terminates in madness. And
hence the allegory of Pentheus and Orpheus being
torn to pieces is evident ; for every headstrong passion
is extremely bitter, severe, inveterate, and revengeful
upon all curious inquiry, wholesome admonition, free
counsel and persuasion.
Lastly, the confusion between the persons of Jupiter
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
59
and Bacchus will justly admit of an allegory, because
noble and meritorious actions may sometimes proceed
from virtue, sound reason, and magnanimity, and
sometimes again from a concealed passion and secret
desire of ill, however they may be extolled and praised,
insomuch that it is not easy to distinguish betwixt the
acts of Bacchus and the acts of Jupiter.
XXV.—ATALANTA AND HIPPOMENES :
OR GAIN.
EXPLAINED OF THE CONTEST BETWIXT ART AND NATURE.
Atalanta, who was exceeding fleet, contended with
Hippomenes in the course, on condition that if Hippomenes won, he should espouse her, or forfeit his life if
he lost. The match was very unequal, for Atalanta
had conquered numbers, to their destruction. Hippo
menes, therefore, had recourse to stratagem. He
procured three golden apples, and purposely carried
them with him : they started ; Atalanta outstripped
him soon ; then Hippomenes bowled one of his apples
before her, across the course, in order not only to make
her stoop, but to draw her out of the path. She,
prompted by female curiosity, and the beauty of the
golden fruit, starts from the course to take up the apple.
Hippomenes, in the mean time, holds on his way, and
steps before her ; but she, by her natural swiftness,
soon fetches up her lost ground, and leaves him again
behind. Hippomenes, however, by rightly timing his
second and third throw, at length won the race, not by
his swiftness, but his cunning.
Explanation.—This fable seems to contain a noble
allegory of the contest betwixt art and nature. For art
here denoted by Atalanta, is much swifter, or more
�60
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
expeditious in its operations than nature, when all
obstacles and impediments are removed, and sooner
arrives at its end. This appears almost in every
instance. Thus fruit comes slowly from the kernel,
but soon by inoculation or incision ; clay, left to itself,
is a long time in acquiring a stony hardness, but fs
presently burnt by fire into brick. So again in human
life, nature is a long while in alleviating and abolish
ing the remembrance of pain, and assuaging the troubles
of the mind ; but moral philosophy, which is the art
of living, performs it presently. Yet this prerogative
and singular efficacy of art is stopped and retarded to
the infinite detriment of human life, by certain golden
apples ; for there is no one science or art that con
stantly holds on its true and proper course to the end,
but they are all continually stopping short, forsaking
the track, and turning aside to profit and convenience,
exactly like Atalanta. Whence it is no wonder that
art gets not the victory over nature, nor, according to
the condition of the contest, brings her under sub
jection ; but, on the contrary, remains subject to her,
as a wife to a husband.
XXVI.—PROMETHEUS : OR THE STATE OF MAN.
EXPLAINED OF AN OVER-RULING PROVIDENCE, AND OF
HUMAN NATURE.
The ancients relate that man was the work of Pro
metheus, and formed of clay ; only the artificer mixed
in with the mass, particles taken from different animals.
And being desirous to improve his workmanship, and
endow, as well as create, the human race, he stole up
to heaven with a bundle of birch-rods, and kindling
them at the chariot of the Sun, thence brought down
fire to the earth for the service of men.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
61
They add, that for this meritorious act Prometheus
’was repayed with ingratitude by mankind, so that,
forming a conspiracy, they arraigned both him and his
invention before Jupiter. But the matter was other
wise received than they imagined ; for the accusation
proved extremely grateful to Jupiter and the gods,
insomuch that, delighted with the action, they not only
indulged mankind the use of fire, but moreover
conferred upon them a most acceptable and desirable
present, namely, perpetual youth.
But men, foolishly overjoyed hereat, laid this present
•of the gods upon an ass, who, in returning back with
it, being extremely thirsty, strayed to a fountain. The
serpent, who was guardian thereof, would not suffer
him to drink, but upon condition of receiving the
burden he carried, whatever it should be. The silly
.ass complied, and thus the perpetual renewal of youth
was, for a drop of water, transferred from men to the
race of serpents.
Prometheus, not desisting from his unwarrantable
practices, though now reconciled to mankind, after
they were thus tricked of their present, but still con
tinuing inveterate against Jupiter, had the boldness to
attempt deceit, even in a sacrifice, and is said to have
•once offered up two bulls to Jupiter, but so as in the
hide of one of them to wrap all the flesh and fat of
both, and stuffing out the other hide only with the
bones ; then in a religious and devout manner, gave
Jupiter his choice of the two. Jupiter, detesting this
sly fraud and hypocrisy, but having thus an opporunity of punishing the offender, purposely chose the
mock bull.
And now giving way to revenge, but finding he
could not chastise the insolence of Prometheus without
afflicting the human race (in the production whereof
Prometheus had strangely and insufferably prided him
�62
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
self), he commanded Vulcan to form a beautiful and
graceful woman, to whom every god presented a certain
gift, whence she was called Pandora. They put into
her hands an elegant box, containing all sorts of
miseries and misfortunes ; but Hope was placed at the
bottom of it. With this box she first goes to Pro
metheus, to try if she could prevail upon him to receive
and open it; but he, being upon his guard, warily
refused the offer. Upon this refusal, she comes to hisbrother Epimetheus, a man of a very different temper,
who rashly and inconsiderately opens the box. When
finding all kinds of miseries and misfortunes issued
out of it, he grew wise too late, and with great hurry
and struggle endeavored to clap the cover on again ;
but with all his endeavor could scarce keep in Hope,,
which lay at the bottom.
Lastly, Jupiter arraigned Prometheus of many
heinous crimes : as that he formerly stole fire from
heaven; that he contemptuously and deceitfully
mocked him by a sacrifice of bones ; that he despised
his present, adding withal a new crime, that he
attempted to ravish Pallas : for all which, he was
sentenced to be bound in chains, and doomed to per
petual torments. Accordingly, by Jupiter’s command,
he was brought to Mount Caucasus, and there fastened
to a pillar, so firmly that he could no way stir. A
vulture or eagle stood by him, which in the daytime
gnawed and consumed his liver ; but in the night thewasted parts were supplied again ; whence matter for
his pain was never wanting.
They relate, however, that his punishment had an
end; for Hercules sailing the ocean, in a cup, or
pitcher, presented him by the Sun, came at length to
Caucasus, shot the eagle with his arrows, and set
Prometheus free. In certain nations, also, there wereinstituted particular games of the torch, to the honor
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
63
of Prometheus, in which they who ran for the prize
carried lighted torches ; and as any one of these torches
happened to go out, the bearer withdrew himself, and
gave way to the next ; and that person was allowed to
win the prize who first brought in his lighted torch to
the goal.
Explanation. —This fable contains and enforces
many just and serious considerations; some whereof
have been long since well observed, but some again
remain perfectly untouched. Prometheus clearly and
expressly signifies Providence ; for of all things in
nature, the formation and endowment of man was
singled out by the ancients, and esteemed the peculiar
work of Providence. The reason hereof seems,
1. That the nature of man includes a mind and under
standing, which is the seat of Providence. 2. That
it is harsh and incredible to suppose reason and mind
should be raised, and drawn out of senseless and irra
tional principles ; whence it becomes almost inevitable,,
that providence is implanted in the human mind in
conformity with, and by the direction and the design
of the greater over-ruling Providence. But, 3. The
principal cause is this : that man seems to be the thing
in which the whole world centres, with respect to final
causes; so that if he were away, all other things would
stray and fluctuate, without end or intention, or become
perfectly disjointed, and out of frame ; for all things,
are made subservient to man, and he receives use and
benefit from them all. Thus the revolutions, places,
and periods, of the celestial bodies, serve him for dis
tinguishing times and seasons, and for dividing the
world into different regions ; the meteors afford him
prognostications of the weather ; the winds sail our
ships, drive our mills, and move our machines; and
the vegetables and animals of all kinds either afford
US matter for houses and habitations, clothing, food,
�€4
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
physic, or tend to ease, or delight, to support, or refresh
us : so that everything in nature seems not made for
itself, but for man.
And it is not without reason added, that the mass of
matter whereof man was formed, should be mixed up
with particles taken from different animals, and
wrought in with the clay, because it is certain, that of
all the things in the universe, man is the most com
pounded and recompounded body ; so that the ancients
not improperly styled him a Microcosm, or little world
within himself. For although the chemists have
absurdly, and too literally, wrested and perverted the
elegance of the term microcosm, whilst they pretend
to find all kind of mineral and vegetable matters, or
something corresponding to them, in man, yet it
remains firm and unshaken, that the human body is of
all substances the most mixed and organical ; whence
it has surprising powers and faculties : for the powers
of simple bodies are but few, though certain and quick;
as being little broken, or weakened, and not counter
balanced by mixture : but excellence and quantity of
energy reside in mixture and composition.
Man, however, in his first origin, seems to be a
defenceless naked creature, slow in assisting himself,
and standing in need of numerous things. Prometheus,
therefore, hastened to the invention of fire, which
supplies and administers to nearly all human uses and
necessities, insomuch that, if the soul may be called
the form of forms, if the hand may be called the
instrument of instruments, fire may as properly be
•called the assistant of assistants, or helper of helps; for
hence proceed numberless operations, hence all the
mechanic arts, and hence infinite assistances are
afforded to the sciences themselves.
The manner wherein Prometheus stole this fire is
^properly described from the nature of the thing; he
�65
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
being said to have done it by applying a rod of birch
to the chariot of the Sun : for birch is used in striking
and beating, which clearly denotes the generation of
fire to be from the violent percussions and collisions of
bodies ; whereby the matters struck are subtilised,
rarefied, put into motion, and so prepared to receive
the heat of the celestial bodies ; whence they, in a
clandestine and secret manner, collect and snatch fire,
as it were by stealth, from the chariot of the Sun.
The next is a remarkable part of the fable, which
represents that men, instead of gratitude and thanks,
fell into indignation and expostulation, accusing both
Prometheus and his fire to Jupiter,—and yet the accusa
tion proved highly pleasing to Jupiter; so that he, for
this reason, crowned these benefits of mankind with a
new bounty. Here it may seem strange that the sin of
ingratitude to a creator and benefactor, a sin so heinous
as to include almost all others, should meet with appro
bation and reward. But the allegory has another view,
and denotes, that the accusation and arraignment, both
of human nature and human art among mankind,
proceeds from a most noble and laudable temper of the
mind, and tends to a very good purpose ; whereas the
contrary temper is odious to the gods, and unbeneficial
in itself. For they who break into extravagant praises
of human nature and the arts in vogue, and who lay
themselves out in admiring the things they already
possess, and will needs have the sciences cultivated
among them, to be thought absolutely perfect and
complete, in the first place, show little regard to
the divine nature, whilst they extol their own
inventions almost as high as his perfection. In the
next place, men of this temper are unserviceable and
prejudicial in life, whilst they imagine themselves
already got to the top of things, and there rest, without
farther inquiry. On the contrary, they who arraign
E
�66
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
and accuse both nature and art, and are always full of
complaints against them, not only preserve a more just
and modest sense of mind, but are also perpetually
stirred up to fresh industry and new discoveries. Is
not, then, the ignorance and fatality of mankind to be
extremely pitied, whilst they remain slaves to the
arrogance of a few of their own fellows, and are
dotingly fond of that scrap of Grecian knowledge, the
Peripatetic philosophy; and this to such a degree, as
not only to think all accusation or arraignment thereof
useless, but even hold it suspect and dangerous ? Cer
tainly the procedure of Empedocles, though furious—
but especially that of Democritus (who with great
modesty complained that all things were abstruse;
that we know nothing; that truth lies hid in deep pits;
that falsehood is strangely joined and twisted along
with truth, etc.)—is to be preferred before the con
fident, assuming, and dogmatical school of Aristotle.
Mankind are, therefore, to be admonished, that the
arraignment of nature and of art is pleasing to the
gods; and that a sharp and vehement accusation of
Prometheus, though a creator, a founder, and a master,
obtained new blessings and presents from the divine
bounty, and proved more sound and serviceable than a
diffusive harangue of praise and gratulation. And let
men be assured that the fond opinion that they have
already acquired enough, is a principal reason why
they have acquired so little.
That the perpetual flower of youth should be the
present which mankind received as a reward for their
accusation, carries this moral : that the ancients seem
not to have despaired of discovering methods, and
remedies, for retarding old age, and prolonging the
period of human life, but rather reckoned it among
those things which, through sloth and want of diligent
inquiry, perish and come to nothing, after having been
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
67
once undertaken, than among such as are absolutely
impossible, or placed beyond the reach of the human
power. For they signify and intimate from the true
use of fire, and the just and strenuous accusation and
conviction of the errors of art, that the divine bounty
is not wanting to men in such kind of presents, but
that men indeed are wanting to themselves, and lay
such an inestimable gift upon the back of a slow-paced
ass ; that is, upon the back of the heavy, dull, lingering
thing, experience; from whose sluggish and tortoise
pace proceeds that ancient complaint of the shortness
of life, and the slow advancement of arts. And
certainly it may well seem, that the two faculties of
reasoning and experience are not hitherto properly
joined and coupled together, but to be still new gifts of
the gods, separately laid, the one upon the back of a
light bird, or abstract philosophy, and the other upon
an ass, or slow-paced practice and trial. And yet good
hopes might be conceived of this ass, if it were not for
his thirst and the accidents of the way. For we
judge, that if any one would constantly proceed, by a
certain law and method, in the road of experience, and
not by the way thirst after such experiments as make
for profit or ostentation, nor exchange his burden, or
quit the original design for the sake of these, he might
be a useful bearer of a new and accumulated divine
bounty to mankind.
That this gift of perpetual youth should pass from
men to serpents, seems added by way of ornament, and
illustration to the fable ; perhaps intimating, at■ the
same time, the shame it is for men, that they, with
their fire, and numerous arts, cannot procure to them
selves those things which nature has bestowed upon
many other creatures.
The sudden reconciliation of Prometheus to man
kind, after being disappointed of their hopes, contains
�68
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
a prudent and useful admonition. It points out the
levity and temerity of men in new experiments, when,
not presently succeeding, or answering to expectation,
they precipitantly quit their new undertakings, hurry
back to their old ones, and grow reconciled thereto.
After the fable has described the state of man, with
regard to arts and intellectual matters, it passes on to
religion ; for after the inventing and settling of arts,
follows the establishment of divine worship, which
hypocrisy presently enters into and corrupts. So that
by the two sacrifices we have elegantly painted the
person of a man truly religious, and of an hypocrite.
One of these sacrifices contained the fat, or the portion
of God, used for burning and incensing; thereby
denoting affection and zeal, offered up to his glory. It
likewise contained the bowels, which are expressive of
charity, along with the good and useful flesh. But the
other contained nothing more than dry bones, which
nevertheless stuffed out the hide, so as to make it
resemble a fair, beautiful, and magnificent sacrifice;
hereby finely denoting the external and empty rites
and barren ceremonies, wherewith men burden and
stuff out the divine worship,—things rather intended
for show and ostentation than conducing to piety.
Nor are mankind simply content with this mock
worship of God, but also impose and father it upon
him, as if he had chosen and ordained it. Certainly
the prophet, in the person of God, has a fine expostu
lation, as to this matter of choice :—“ Is this the
fasting which I have chosen, that a man should afflict
his soul for a day, and bow down his head like
bulrush ?”
After thus touching the state of religion, the fable
next turns to manners, and the conditions of human
life. And though it be a very common, yet is it a just
interpretation, that Pandora denotes the pleasures and
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
69
licentiousness which the cultivation and luxury of the
arts of civil life introduce, as it were, by the instru
mental efficacy of fire; whence the works of the
voluptuary arts are properly attributed to Vulcan,
the God of Fire. And hence infinite miseries and
calamities have proceeded to the minds, the bodies,
and the fortunes of men, together with a late repentance;
and this not only in each man’s particular, but also in
kingdoms and states ; for wars, and tumults, and
tyrannies, have all arisen from this same fountain, or
box of Pandora.
It is worth observing, how beautifully and elegantly
the fable has drawn two reigning characters in human,
life, and given two examples, or tablatures of them,
under the persons of Prometheus and Epimetheus.
The followers of Epimetheus are improvident, see not
far before them, and prefer such things as are agreeable
for the present; whence they are oppressed with
numerous straits, difficulties, and calamities, with
which they almost continually struggle; but in the
meantime gratify their own temper, and, for want of a
better knowledge of things, feed their minds with
many vain hopes ; and as with so many pleasing
dreams, delight themselves, and sweeten the miseries
of life.
But the followers of Prometheus are the prudent,
wary men, that look into futurity, and cautiously
guard against, prevent, and undermine many calamities
and misfortunes. But this watchful, provident temper,
is attended with a deprivation of numerous pleasures,
and the loss of various delights, whilst such men debar
themselves the use even of innocent things, and what
is still worse, rack and torture themselves with cares,
fears, and disquiets ; being bound fast to the pillar of
necessity, and tormented with numberless thoughts
(which for their swiftness are well compared to an
�70
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
eagle), that continually wound, tear, and gnaw their
liver or mind, unless, perhaps, they find some small
remission by intervals, or as it were at nights ; but
then new anxieties, dreads, and fears, soon return
again, as it were in the morning. And, therefore,
very few men, of either temper, have secured to them
selves the advantages of providence, and kept clear of
disquiets, troubles, and misfortunes.
Nor indeed can any man obtain this end without the
assistance of Hercules; that is, of such fortitude and
constancy of mind as stands prepared against every
event, and remains indifferent to every change ;
looking forward without being daunted, enjoying the
good without disdain, and enduring the bad without
impatience. And it must be observed, that even Pro
metheus had not the power to free himself, but owed
his deliverance to another ; for no natural inbred force
and fortitude could prove equal to such a task. The
power of releasing him came from the utmost confines
of the ocean, and from the sun ; that is, from Apollo,
or knowledge ; and again, from a due consideration of
the uncertainty, instability, and fluctuating state of
human life, which is aptly represented by sailing the
ocean. Accordingly, Virgil has prudently joined these
two together, accounting him happy who knows the
causes of things, and has conquered all his fears,
apprehensions, and superstitions.
It is added, with great elegance, for supporting and
confirming the human mind, that the great hero who
thus delivered him sailed the ocean in a cup, or pitcher,
to prevent fear, or complaint; as if, through the
narrowness of our nature, or a too great fragility
thereof, we were absolutely incapable of that fortitude
and constancy to which Seneca finely alludes, when
he says, “ It is a noble thing, at once to participate in
the frailty of man and the security of a god.”
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
71
We have hitherto, that we might not break the
connection of things, designedly omitted the last crime,
of Prometheus—that of attempting the chastity of
Minerva—which heinous offence it doubtless was, that
caused the punishment of having his liver gnawed by
the vulture. The meaning seems to be this,—that
when men are puffed up with arts and knowledge,
they often try to subdue even the divine wisdom and
bring it under the dominion of sense and reason,
whence inevitably follows a perpetual and restless
rending and tearing of the mind. A sober and humble
distinction must, therefore, be made betwixt divine
and human things, and betwixt the oracles of sense
and faith, unless mankind had rather choose an here
tical religion, and a fictitious and romantic philosophy.
The last particular in the fable is the Games of the
Torch, instituted to Prometheus, which again relates
to arts and sciences, as well as the invention of fire,
for the commemoration and celebration whereof these
games were held. And here we have an extremely
prudent admonition, directing us to expect the per
fection of the sciences from succession, and not from
the swiftness and abilities of any single person ; for he
who is fleetest and strongest in the course may perhaps
be less fit to keep his torch alight, since there is danger
of its going out from too rapid as well as from too slow
a motion. But this kind of contest, with the torch,
se'ems to have been long dropped and neglected ; the
sciences appearing to have flourished principally in
their first authors, as Aristotle, Galen, Euclid, Ptolemy,
etc.; whilst their successors have done very little, or
scarce made any attempts. But it were highly to be
wished that these games might be renewed, to the
honor of Prometheus, or human nature, and that they
might excite contest, emulation, and laudable endeavors,
and the design meet with such success as not to hang
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
tottering, tremulous, and hazarded, upon the torch'of
any single person. Mankind, therefore, should be
admonished to rouse themselves, and try and exert
their own strength and chance, and not place all their
dependence upon a few men, whose abilities and
capacities, perhaps, are not greater than their own.
These are the particulars which appear to us shadowed
out by this trite and vulgar fable, though without
denying that there may be contained in it several
intimations that have a surprising correspondence with
the Christian mysteries. In particular, the voyage of
Hercules, made in a pitcher, to release Prometheus,
bears an allusion to the word of God, coming in the
frail vessel of the flesh to redeem mankind. But we
indulge ourselves no such liberties as these, for fear of
using strange fire at the altar of the Lord.
XXVII.—ICARUS and SCYLLA and CHARYBDIS :
OR THE MIDDLE WAY.
EXPLAINED OF MEDIOCRITY IN NATURAL AND MORAL
PHILOSOPHY.
Mediocrity, or the holding a middle course, has been
highly extolled in morality, but little in matters of
science, though no less useful and proper here ; whilst
in politics it is held suspected, and ought to be employed
with judgment. The ancients described mediocrity
in manners by the course prescribed to Icarus ; and in
matters of the understanding by the steering betwixt
Scylla and Charybdis, on account of the great difficulty
and danger in passing those straits.
Icarus, being to fly across the sea, was ordered by
his father neither to soar too high nor fly too low, for,
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
73
as his wings were fastened together with wax, there
was danger of its melting by the sun’s heat in too high
a flight, and of its becoming less tenacious by the
moisture if he kept too near the vapor of the sea. But
he, with a juvenile confidence, soared aloft, and fell
down headlong.
Explanation.—The fable is vulgar, and easily inter
preted ; for the path of virtue lies straight between
excess on the one side, and defect on the other. And
no wander that excess should prove the bane of Icarus,
exulting in juvenile strength and vigor ; for excess is
the natural vice of youth, as defect is that of old age;
and if a man must perish by either, Icarus chose the
better of the two ; for all defects are justly esteemed
more depraved than excesses. There is some mag
nanimity in excess, that, like a bird, claims kindred
with the heavens; but defect is a reptile, that basely
crawls upon the earth. It was excellently said by
Heraclitus, “ A dry light makes the best soul ” ; for if
the soul contracts moisture from the earth, it perfectly
degenerates and sinks. On the other hand, moderation
must be observed, to prevent this fine light from
burning, by its too great subtilty and dryness. But
these observations are common.
In matters of the understanding, it requires great
skill and a particular felicity to steer clear of Scylla
and Charybdis. If the ship strikes upon Scylla, it is
dashed in pieces against the rocks ; if upon Charybdis,
it is swallowed outright. This allegory is pregnant
with matter ; but we shall only observe that the force
of it lies here, that a mean be observed in every
doctrine and science, and in the rules and axioms
thereof, between the rocks of distinctions and the
whirlpools of universalities ; for these two are the
bane and shipwreck of fine geniuses and arts.
�74
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
XXVIII.—SPHINX : OR SCIENCE.
EXPLAINED OF THE SCIENCES.
They relate that Sphinx was a monster, variously
formed, having the face and voice of a virgin, the
wings of a bird, and the talons of a griffin. She
resided on the top of a mountain, near the city Thebes,
and also beset the highways; Her manner was to lie
in ambush and seize the travellers, and having them in
her power, to propose to them certain dark and per
plexed riddles, which it was thought she received from
the Muses, and if her wretched captives could not solve
and interpret these riddles, she with great cruelty fell
upon them, in their hesitation and confusion, and tore
them to pieces. This plague having reigned a long
time, the Thebans at length offered their kingdom to
the man who could interpret her riddles, there being
no other way to subdue her. (Edipus, a penetrating
and prudent man, though lame in his feet, excited by
so great a reward, accepted the condition, and with a
good assurance of mind, cheerfully presented himself
before the monster, who directly asked him, “ What
creature that was, which being born four-footed, after
wards became two-footed, then tbree-footed, and lastly
four-footed again ?” CEdipus, with presence of mind,
replied it was man, who, upon his first, birth and infant
state, crawled upon all fours in endeavoring to walk ;
but not long after went upright upon his two natural
feet; again, in old age walked three-footed, with a
stick ; and at last, growing decrepit, lay four-footed
confined to his bed ; and having by this exact solution
obtained the victory, he slew the monster, and, laying
the carcass upon an ass, led her away in triumph ; and
upon this he was, according to the agreement, made
king of Thebes.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
75
Explanation.—This is an elegant, instructive fable,
and seems invented to represent science, especially as
joined with practice. For science may, without
absurdity, be called a monster, being strangely gazed
at and admired by the ignorant and unskilful. Her
figure and form is various, by reason of the vast variety
of subjects that science considers; her voice and
countenance are represented female, by reason of her
gay appearance and volubility of speech ; wings are
added, because the sciences and their inventions run
and fly about in a moment, for knowledge, like light
communicated from one torch to another, is presently
caught and copiously diffused; sharp and hooked
talons are elegantly attributed to her, because the
axioms and arguments of science enter the mind, lay
hold of it, fix it down, and keep it from moving or
slipping away. This the sacred philosopher observed,
when he said, “ The words of the wise are like goads
or nails driven far in.” Again, all science seems
placed on high, as it were on the tops of mountains
that are hard to climb ; for science is justly imagined
a sublime and lofty thing, looking down upon igno
rance from an eminence, and at the same time taking
an extensive view on all sides, as is usual on the tops
of mouniains. Science is said to beset the highways,
because through all the journey and peregrination of
human life there is matter and occasion offered of
contemplation.
Sphinx is said to propose various difficult questions
and riddles to men, which she received from the
Muses ; and these questions, so long as they remain
with the Muses, may very well be unaccompanied with
severity, for while there is no other end of contem
plation and inquiry but that of knowledge alone, the
understanding is not opposed, or driven to straits and
difficulties, but expatiates and ranges at large, and
�76
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
even receives a degree of pleasure from doubt and
variety; but after the Muses have given over their
riddles to Sphinx, that is, to practice, which urges and
impels to action, choice, and determination, then it is
that they become torturing, severe, and trying, and,
unless solved and interpreted, strangely perplex and
harass the human mind, rend it every way, and
perfectly tear it to pieces. All the riddles of Sphinx,
therefore, have two conditions annexed, namely, dila
ceration to those who do not solve them, and empire to
those that do. For he who understands the thing
proposed obtains his end, and every artificer rules over
his work.
Sphinx has no more than two kinds of riddles, one
relating to the nature of things, the other to the nature
of man ; and correspondent to these, the prizes of the
solution are two kinds of empire,—the empire over
nature, and the empire over man. For the true and
ultimate end of natural philosophy is dominion over
natural things, natural bodies, remedies, machines, and
numberless other particulars, though the schools, con
tended with what spontaneously offers, and swollen
with their own discourses, neglect, and in a manner
despise, both things and works.
But the riddle proposed to CEdipus, the solution
whereof acquired him the Theban kingdon, regarded
the nature of man ; for he who has throughly looked
into and examined human nature, may in a manner
command his own fortune, and seems born to acquire
dominion and rule. Accordingly, Virgil properly
makes the arts of government to be the arts of the
Romans. It was, therefore extremely apposite in
Augustus Caesar to use the image of Sphinx in his
signet, whether this happened by accident or by design ;
for he of all men was deeply versed in politics, and
through the course of his life very happily solved
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
77
abundance of new riddles with regard to the nature of
man ; and unless he had done this with great dexterity
and ready address, he would frequently have been
involved in imminent danger, if not destruction.
It is with the utmost elegance added in the fable,
that when Sphinx was conquered, her carcass was laid
upon an ass; for there is nothing so subtile and
abstruse, but after being once made plain, intelligible,
and common, it may be received by the slowest
capacity.
We must not omit that Sphinx was conquered by a
lame man, and impotent in his feet; for men usually
make too much haste to the solution of Sphinx’s riddles;
whence it happens, that she prevailing, their minds are
rather racked and torn by disputes, than invested with
command by works and effects.
XXIX.—PROSERPINE : OR SPIRIT.
EXPLAINED OF THE SPIRIT INCLUDED IN NATURAL BODIES.
They tell us, Pluto having, upon that memorable
division of empire among the gods, received the
infernal regions for his share, despaired of winning
any one of the goddesses in marriage by an obsequious
courtship, and therefore through necessity resolved
upon a rape. Having watched his opportunity, he sud
denly seized upon Proserpine, a most beautiful virgin,
the daughter of Ceres, as she was gathering narcissus
flowers in the meads of Sicily, and hurrying her to his
chariot, carried her with him to the subterraneal
regions, where she was treated with the highest rever
ence, and styled the Lady of Dis. But Ceres missing
her only daughter, whom she extremely loved, grew
pensive and anxious beyond measure, and taking a
�78
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
lighted torch in her hand, wandered the world over in
quest of her daughter,—but all to no purpose, till, sus
pecting she might be carried to the infernal regions, she,
with great lamentation and abundance of tears, impor
tuned Jupiter to restore her ; and with much ado pre
vailed so far as to recover and bring her away, if she had
tasted nothing there. This proved a hard condition
upon the mother, for Proserpine was found to have
eaten three kernels of a pomegranate. Ceres, however,
desisted not, but fell to her entreaties and lamentations
afresh, insomuch that at last it was indulged her that
Proserpine should divide the year betwixt her husband
and her mother, and live six months with the one and
as many with the other. After this, Theseus, and
Perithous, with uncommon audacity, attempted to
force Proserpine away from Pluto’s bed, but happening*
to grow tired in their journey, and resting themselves
upon a stone in the realms below, they could never
rise from it again, but remain sitting there for ever.
Proserpine, therefore, still continued queen of the
lower regions, in honor of whom there was also added
this grand privilege, that though it had never been per
mitted any one to return after having once descended
thither, a particular exception was made, that he who
brought a golden bough as a present to Proserpine,
might on that condition descend and return. This
was an only bough that grew in a large dark grove, not
from a tree of its own, but like the mistletoe, from
another, and when plucked away a fresh one always
shot out in its stead.
Explanation. —This fable seems to regard natural
philosophy, and searches deep into that rich and
fruitful virtue and supply in subterraneous bodies,
from whence all the things upon the earth’s surface
spring, and into which they again relapse and return.
By Proserpine the ancients denoted that ethereal spirit
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
79
shut up and detained within the earth, here represented
by Pluto,—the spirit being separated from the superior
globe, according to the expression of the poet. This
spirit is conceived as ravished, or snatched up by the
earth, because it can no way be detained, when it has
time and opportunity to fly off, but is only wrought
together and fixed by sudden intermixture and commi
nution, in the same manner as if one should endeavor to
mix air with water, which cannot otherwise be done
than by a quick and rapid agitation, that joins them
together in froth whilst the air is thus caught up by
the water. And it is elegantly added, that Proserpine
was ravished whilst she gathered narcissus flowers,
which have their name from numbedness or stupefac
tion ; for the spirit we speak of is in the fittest dis
position to be embraced by terrestrial matter when it
begins to coagulate, or grow torpid as it were.
It is an honor justly attributed to Proserpine, and
not to any other wife of the gods, that of being the
lady or mistress of her husband, because this spirit
performs all its operations in the subterraneal regions,
whilst Pluto, or the earth, remains stupid, or as it were
ignorant of them.
The aether, or the efficacy of the heavenly bodies,
denoted by Ceres, endeavors with infinite diligence to
force out this spirit, and restore it to its pristine state.
And by the torch in the hand of Ceres, or the aether, is
doubtless meant the sun, which disperses light over
the whole globe of the earth, and if the thing were
possible, must have the greatest share in recovering
Proserpine, or reinstating the subterraneal spirit. Yet
Proserpine still continues and dwells below, after the
manner excellently described in the condition betwixt
Jupiter and Ceres. For first, it is certain that there
are two ways of detaining the spirit, in solid and
terrestrial matter,—the one by condensation or obstruc
�80
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
tion, which is mere violence and imprisonment ; the
other by administering a proper aliment, which is
spontaneous and free. For after the included spirit
begins to feed and nourish itself, it is not in a hurry
to fly off, but remains, as it were, fixed in its own
earth. And this is the moral of Proserpine’s tasting
the pomegranate ; and were it not for this, she must
long ago have been carried up by Geres, who with her
torch wandered the world over, and so the earth have
been left without its spirit. For though the spirit in
metals and minerals may perhaps be, after a particular
manner, wrought in by the solidity of the mass, yet
the spirit of vegetables and animals has open passages
to escape at, unless it be willingly detained, in the way
of sipping and tasting them.
The second article of agreement, that of Proserpine’s
remaining six months with her mother and six with
her husband, is an elegant description of the division
of the year ; for the spirit diffused through the earth
lives above-ground in the vegetable during the summer
months, but in the winter returns under-ground again.
The attempts of Theseus and Perithous to bring
Proserpine away, denotes that the more subtile spirits,
which descend in many bodies to the earth, may
frequently be unable to drink in, unite with themselves,
and carry off the subterraneous spirit but on the con
trary be coagulated by it, and rise no more, so as to
increase the inhabitants and add to the dominion of
Proserpine.
The alchemists will be apt to fall in with our inter
pretation of the golden bough, whether we will or no,
because they promise golden mountains, and the resto
ration of natural bodies from their stone, as from the
gates of Pluto ; but we are well assured that their
theory has no just foundation, and suspect they have
no very encouraging or practical proofs of its sound
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
81
ness. Leaving, therefore, their conceits to themselves,
we shall freely declare our own sentiments upon this
last part of the fable. We are certain, from numerous
figures and expressions of the ancients, that they
judged the conservation, and in some degree the reno
vation, of natural bodies to be no desperate or impossible
thing, but rather abstruse and out of the common road
than wholly impracticable. And this seems to be their
opinion in the present case, as they have placed this
bough among an infinite number of shrubs, in a.
spacious and thick wood. They supposed it of gold,
because gold is the emblem of duration. They feigned
it adventitious, not native, because such an effect is to
be expected from art, and not from any medicine or
any simple or mere natural way of working.
XXX.—METIS : OR COUNSEL.
EXPLAINED OF PRINCES AND THEIR COUNCIL.
The ancient poets relate that Jupiter took Metis to
wife, whose name plainly denotes counsel, and that he,
perceiving she was pregnant by him, would by no
means wait the time of her delivery, but directly
devoured her; whence himself also became pregnant,
and was delivered in a wonderful manner ; for he from
his head or brain brought forth Pallas armed.
Explanation.—This fable, which in its literal sens©
appears monstrously absurd, seems to contain a stat©
secret, and shows with what art kings usually
carry themselves towards their council, in order
to preserve their own authority and majesty not
only inviolate, but so as to have it magnified and
heightened among the people. For kings commonly
F
�82
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
link themselves, as it were, in a nuptial bond to their
council, and deliberate and communicate with them
after a prudent and laudable custom upon matters of
the greatest importance, at the same time justly con
ceiving this no diminution of their majesty ; but when
the matter once ripens to a decree or order, which is a
kind of birth, the king then suffers the council to go
on no further, lest the act should seem to depend
upon their pleasure. Now, therefore, the king usually
assumes to himself whatever was wrought, elaborated,
or formed, as it were, in the womb of the council
(unless it be a matter of an invidious nature, which he
is sure to put from him), so that the decree and the
execution shall seem to flow from himself. And as
this decree or execution proceeds with prudence and
power, so as to imply necessity, it is elegantly wrapt
up under the figure of Pallas armed.
Nor are kings content to have this seem the effect of
their own authority, free will, and uncontrollable
choice, unless they also take the whole honor to themselves, and make the people imagine that all good and
wholesome decrees proceed entirely from their own
head, that is, their own sole prudence and judgment.
.—THE SIRENS : OR PLEASURES.
EXPLAINED OF MEN’S PASSION FOR PLEASURES.
Introduction.—The fable of the Sirens is, in a vulgar
sense, justly enough explained of the pernicious incen
tives to pleasure ; but the ancient mythology seems to
us like a vintage ill-pressed and trod; for though
something has been drawn from it, yet all the more
excellent parts remain behind in the grapes that are
untouched.
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
83
Fable.—The Sirens are said to be the daughters of
Achelous and Terpsichore, one of the Muses. In their
early days they had wings, but lost them upon being
conquered by the Muses, with whom they rashly con
tended ; and with the feathers of these wings the
Muses made themselves crowns, so that from this time
the Muses wore wings on their heads, excepting only
the mother to the Sirens.
These Sirens resided in certain pleasant islands, and
when, from their watch-tower, they saw any ship
approaching, they first detained the sailors by their
music, then, enticing them to shore, destroyed them.
Their singing was not of one and the same kind, but
they adapted their tunes exactly to the nature of each
person, in order to captivate and secure him. And so
destructive had they been, that these islands of the
Sirens appeared, to a very great distance, white with
the bones of their unburied captives.
Two different remedies were invented to protect
persons against them, the one by Ulysses, the other by
Orpheus. Ulysses commanded his associates to stop
their ears close with wax; and he, determining to
make the trial, and yet avoid the danger, ordered him
self to be tied fast to a mast of the ship, giving strict
charge not to be unbound, even though himself should
entreat it; but Orpheus, without any binding at all,
escaped the danger, by loudly chanting to his harp the
praises of the gods, whereby he drowned the voices of
the Sirens.
Explanation.—This fable is of the moral kind, and
appears no less elegant than easy to interpret. For
pleasures proceed from plenty and affluence, attended
with activity or exultation of the mind. Anciently
their first incentives were quick, and seized upon men
as if they had been winged, but learning and philosophy
afterwards prevailing, had at least the power to lay the
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
mind under some restraint, and make it consider the
issue of things, and thus deprived pleasures of their
wings.
This conquest redounded greatly to the honor and
ornament of the Muses ; for after it appeared, by the
example of a few, that philosophy could introduce a
contempt of pleasures, it immediately seemed to be a
sublime thing that could raise and elevate the soul,
fixed in a manner down to the earth, and thus render
men’s thoughts, which reside in the head, winged as it
were, or sublime.
Only the mother of the Sirens was not thus plumed
on the head, which doubtless denotes superficial learn
ing, invented and used for delight and levity ; an
eminent example whereof we have in Petronius, who,
after receiving sentence of death, still continued his
gay frothy humor, and, as Tacitus observes, used his
learning to solace or divert himself, and instead of such
discourses as give firmness and constancy of mind, read
nothing but loose poems and verses. Such learning
as this seems to pluck the crowns again from the
Muses’ heads, and restore them to the Sirens.
The Sirens are said to inhabit certain islands, because
pleasures generally seek retirement, and often shun
society. And for their songs, with the manifold artifice
and destructiveness thereof, this is too obvious and
common to need explanation. But that particular of
the bones stretching like white cliffs along the shores,
and appearing afar off, contains a more subtile allegory,
and denotes that the examples of others’ calamity and
misfortunes, though ever so manifest and apparent,
have yet but little force to deter the corrupt nature of
of man from pleasures.
This allegory of the remedies against the Sirens is
not difficult, but very wise and noble : it proposes, in
effect, three remedies, as well against subtile as violent
�PAGAN MYTHOLOGY.
85
'■mischiefs, two drawn from philosophy and one from
^religion.
The first means of escaping is to resist the earliest
temptation in the beginning, and diligently avoid and
cut off all occasions that may solicit or sway the mind ;
. and this is well represented by shutting up the ears, a
kind of remedy to be necessarily used with mean and
vulgar minds, such as the retinue of Ulysses.
But noble spirits may converse, even in the midst of
pleasures, if the mind be well guarded with constancy
and resolution. And thus some delight to make a
severe trial of their own virtue, and thoroughly acquaint
themselves with the folly and madness of pleasures,
without complying or being wholly given up to them ;
which is what Solomon professes of himself when he
■closes the account of all the numerous pleasures he
gave a loose to, with this expression—“ But wisdom
. still continued with me.” Such heroes in virtue may,
therefore, remain unmoved by the greatest incentives
to pleasure, and stop themselves on the very precipice
of danger ; if, according to the example of Ulysses,
they turn a deaf ear to pernicious counsel, and the
flatteries of their friends and companions, which have
the greatest power to shake and unsettle the mind.
But the most excellent remedy, in every temptation,
is that of Orpheus, who, by loudly chanting and
resounding the praises of the gods, confounded the
voices, and kept himself from hearing the music of
the Sirens; for divine contemplations exceed the
pleasures of sense, not only in power but also in
;■ sweetness.
���■
��FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED
By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by
J. M. Wheeler -------FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations by
G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by J. M.
Wheeler.
Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
TSE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach
IS SOCIALISM SOUND? Four Nights’Public Debate between
Annie Besant and G. W. Foote
.
.
Superior edition, in cloth ------CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J. McCann Superior edition, in cloth ------DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote
....
Superior edition, in cloth ------INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. Second edition.
Much enlarged -------Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. First series, in elegant
wrapper
--------BIBLE HEROES. Second series, in elegant wrapper
BIBLE HANDBOOK FOB FREETHINKERS and INQUIRING
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Complete,
paper covers
-------Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and J.M.
Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.
.
SATIRES AND PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of all
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Handsomely bound
in cloth
--------DEFENCE OF FREE THOUGHT. A five hours’ speech at the
Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. ByCol.R.G. Ingersoll
LIBERTY AND NECESSITY. By David Hume A REFUTATION OF DEISM. In a Dialogue. By Shelley.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote R. FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
- 1
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
6
6
0
0 8
1 3
1 0
1
1
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
6
2
1
6
0
7
6
0
0
6
4
0
4
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Pagan mythology, or the wisdom of the ancients
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bacon, Francis [1561-1626]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 85 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: 'M. Steinberger,4,5, & 6 Great St Helens, London, E.C'. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher's list on back cover. 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
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N051
Subject
The topic of the resource
Mythology
Paganism
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 (Pagan mythology, or the wisdom of the ancients), 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
Mythology
NSS
Paganism