1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b887f8e969a9066a9b1b5189c6264b31.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KvqFr0-C3Cmnubx2pvYTsE9eOB7wkwZUXJiEzsZwXBAdnA9O3wsNex7-1pTiMrPeu-5WmSmq6KvhyVuVAP8xl-gUUlEosYVEj8nJLjqyk3LplY6YKK%7E8AVX7SpLrnYmcS8FezXcHxDGJgz1oTsxaAgEtwOXI8dSke15YYC-UaE-PCAdsiehMgbODMR-462CHAQXFaz1G2gVzwxNxqR-hX1HwtiZyrm%7Ev9ReALOlYq8o69uVJ%7EkSgh0bks1zfRZ7w4hnF%7EGL-%7ESElwNLJaB6N5ULaE44NnmuNVTIuhJ9ZAy6VicdLcdY6nURjQIrLBQFNuXEP7EsCJ28e97HznDYXrA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
14058cbcda4e66009054f6a8e1c3e996
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
OUTLINE
AN
EVOLUTIONARY
ETHICS
BY
C.
COHEN.
Vice-President National Secular Society.
PUBLISHED
BY
R. FORDER,
28,
STONECUTTER STREET.
LONDON, E.C.
1896.
�PREFACE.
The object of the present essay is disclosed in the title;
it is that of presenting, in as few words as possible, an
outline of a System of Ethics based upon the doctrine of
Evolution.
Accordingly, I have avoided entering into a
discussion of the value of any of the special virtues—to do
so would require a volume, not a pamphlet—being content
with putting forward what I conceive to be the essential
principles of a Science of Ethics, leaving it for those who
are interested, to pursue the subject further. There is,
therefore, no attempt at completeness in this essay ; it is
meant as an outline, and an introduction, nothing more.
Nor is there in any sense, a claim of originality on behalf
of the ideas suggested ; that, again, has not been my object.
I doubt whether there is a single original idea throughout
the whole. I have simply aimed at putting in a small
compass, and in plain language, conclusions that are at pre
sent locked up in bulky and expensive volumes, which
the average individual has neither time nor opportunity
to consult or study 'systematically.
Students of Mr.
Herbert Spencer’s Works, Mr. Leslie Stephen’s “ Science
of Ethics,” and Mr. Henry Sidgwick’s “ Methods of Ethics,”
will recognise readily how much I am indebted to these
writers.
‘
Where direct quotations occur, I have named the
sources from which they are drawn ; to have particularized
my indebtedness further would have meant more notes
than text. My one object has been to place the subject
in a brief, clear, and convincing light; if I have succeeded
in doing that, I am quite content.
�B2J347
I.—Introductory.
In endeavouring to carry out the oracular utterance :
*' Man know thyself,” there is no branch of study at once
so interesting and so important, as that which relates to
■conduct. At bottom, all our social, religious, and political
■questions find their supreme justification or condemna
tion in their influence upon human behaviour. A question
that had no reference to conduct, one that could not
possibly influence it for better or worse, might interest
the mere spinner of words, but to the earnest thinker
■or sober reformer, it would be valueless. It is true that
the seeker after knowledge has not always an ethical end
as the conscious object of his studies ; he—to use a com
mon phrase—“ seeks knowledge for its own sake ; ” but
it is clear, on reflection, that the only reason why increased
knowledge should be regarded as of value, is, that it will
enable us to better adjust our actions to the varying
circumstances of life. The fears often expressed, lest
some new theory of knowledge should weaken the force
■of accepted moral precepts, is, again, a tacit admission of
“ the sovereignty of ethics; ” and, when genuine, may
be regarded with a certain amount of favour. Even un
willingness to depart from old forms and customs, when
not pushed too far is good ; a querulous dissatisfaction,
with existing conditions being quite as foolish as a slavish
adherence to obsolete customs.
But customs and ideas, be they ever so firmly rooted,
reach, eventually, a stage when they are either summarily
dismissed, or are called upon to show decisive proof of
their title to our respect and obedience. This fate, which
sooner or later overtakes all institutions has in our own
day beset ethics; and at the great bar of human reason,
our ethical codes and teachers are called upon to show
reason why we should still follow their lead. In the
region of morals, as elsewhere, old lights are fading and
new ones are beginning to dawn ; and, perhaps, the
fading of the old lights would be matter for unalloyed
gratification, were it not that while many have lost faith in
the old teaching, they have not yet advanced sufficiently to
have a sincere trust in the new.
Much of this want of confidence in such guides as
�4
modern science has furnished us with, is doubtless due to
the inability of many to accustom their minds to funda
mentally different conceptions from those in which they
were nurtured; but much also is due to the unnecessary
obscurity of writers upon ethical subjects. May I venture
to say—and I say it with all becoming humility—that a
number of needless difficulties have been allowed to encum
ber the subject of morals. Writers have approached the
subject with such an amount of religious and transcen
dental prejudice; have dwelt so strongly upon the
sacredness, the sublimity and the difficulty of the subject,
that their method has served to create difficulties that
have no right to exist. Plainly, if we are going to make
any real headway, we must sweep away all this rhetorical
and metaphysical fog, and deal with human conduct in.
the same careful and unimpassioned manner that we deal
with the subject matter of any of the sciences.
That this subject has its special difficulties, none will
deny—the complexity of the factors renders this inevit
able—but these difficulties need not be increased by the
discussion of a number of casuistical questions that have
scarce an existence in real life ; nor need they blind us to
the fact that a science of human conduct is both necessary
and possible. Human actions are among the facts of
existence ; their causes and results—when they can be
ascertained—are constant, and they must, therefore, be
collected, arranged, and studied, in precisely the same
way that the geologist or chemist deals with the facts
that come within the scope of his respective department
of knowledge.
But before ethics could assume anything like a thoroughly
scientific form, it was essential that many other branches
of knowledge—particularly physiology and psychology—
should be fairly well developed ; and the shortcomings of
earlier systems may be partly attributed to the incom
pleteness of the necessary data. A scientific system of
ethics can only be constructed upon data furnished by a,
number of other sciences ; and this necessary knowledge
has only been forthcoming within very recent times.
But where facts were wanting, fancy filled the gap, and
theories of morals were propounded which satisfied
without enlightening, and darkened that which they pre
tended to explain.
�5
The great weakness of all theological and meta
physical systems of morals, is, that they take man as
he is, without reference to his past history or evol
ution, and proceed to frame rules for his future
guidance. The result is just 5frhat might be expected.
It is precisely what would happen to a man who set him
self to write a description of the British constitution,
without any reference to the history of its gradual
•development : certain features would be misunderstood,
others under or over rated, while many would be left out
of sight altogether. The only way to understand what is,
is to find out how it became so; and this rule is as true
of moral ideas as it is of social institutions and national
customs.
It is in this direction, in emphasising the
importance of the element of time in our speculations
concerning the universe, that Evolution has left its clearest
impress upon modern thought.
Until very recently,
writers—with rare exceptions—were agreed in taking the
order of the universe as fixed from the beginning. Crea
tion being thus taken for granted, there remained merely
a constitution to discover ; and all enquiries as to how
this constitution reached its present condition were looked
upon as beside the mark, or were met by the dogma. “ and
God said, let there be —” Gradually, however, first in one
department, then in another, there grew up the idea of
development, and instead of the present condition of things
being regarded as having come into existence fully formed
the conception of its gradual formation, through vast
periods of time began to gain ground. As philosophers
regarded the physical universe, so they regarded man’s
moral nature. No matter how widely moralists differed,
they were in substantial agreement thus far—they all
viewed the moral nature of man as being constant, as
having been always as it is ; and from this hypotheti
cally constant human nature, proceeded to elaborate their
ethical theories—with much satisfaction to themselves, if
not with benefit to others. As a matter of fact, however,
human nature is as variable as the conditions amid which
it exists—or even more so—while our moral instincts,
appetites, and aversions, which were taken as primary
endowments of the race, in the light of more correct
knowledge, are seen to be the results of slowly acquired
experiences stretching over thousands of generations. As
�6
I have said, it is in this direction that the influence of
Evolutionary thought is mo9t apparent. What others
took for granted, we now find it necessary to explain —
the problem from being—“ given certain instincts what isour reason for calling them moral ? ” has expanded intoHow have the moral feelings come into existence, what
is their nature, and how far should their authority
extend ? ”
It is these questions that I purpose attempting to>
answer in the following pages.
II.—The Meaning of Morality.
The business of the following essay, be it repeated, is a
study of conduct from a purely scientific standpoint;
that is, to establish a rational foundation for moral actions,
and a reasonable motive for their performance, apart from
all religious or supernatural considerations. To the
student of ethics there are two sources from which may
be drawn those facts upon which moral rules or laws are
based. The first is the study of all those mental states to
which praise or blame may be attached. The subjective
view of ethics has hitherto claimed by far the larger share
of attention, at times utterly excluding any other aspect of
the subject; and whatever good might have resulted from
a close examination of mental states, has been frustrated
owing to its neglect of an equally important division of
ethics, namely, the study of conduct from the objective and.
historic side. It is this aspect of the scientific treatment
of ethics that is brought into prominence by the doctrineof evolution. Its main features are comparative and histor
ical ; it embraces a study of customs as affected by race and
age, and even the actions of all animals whose conduct
exhibits any marked degree of conscious forethought. The
importance of this branch of study can hardly be exagger
ated : introspection unchecked by objective verification is.
responsible for most of the errors that abound in philoso
phical writings; while the historical and objective
method has thrown as much light upon mental and moral
problems in fifty years, as had been shed by the intro
spective method in as many generations. Following Mr.
Herbert Spencer, we may define the subject matter of
ethics as “the conscious adjustment of acts to ends;”’
and the object of ethics the statement of such rules as
�7
will lead to the realisation of the welfare of those for
whose benefit such rules are devised.
The main questions that ethical systems are called upon
to answer are :—What is morality ? Why are some
actions classed as moral and others as immoral ? How
did our moral instincts and feelings come into existence ?
and, What are the conditions of their preservation and
improvement ?
In the discussion of all questions such as these,
much time is saved, and much confusion avoided, by
setting out with a clear idea of the meanings of the
cardinal terms in use. All things that we seek to avoid
or possess, whether they be actual objects or states of con
sciousness, fall under one of two heads : they are either
good or bad. Health, riches, friendship, are classed as
good ; disease, poverty, enmity, are classed as bad. We
speak of a good horse, a good knife, a good house, or the
reverse. Upon what ground is this division drawn ? In
virtue of what common quality possessed by these differ
ent objects is the above classification made ? Clearly it
is not because of any intrinsic quality possessed by them.
Considered by themselves they would be neither good
nor bad A knife viewed without regard to the purpose
of cutting, or as an object exhibiting skilled workmanship,
would be subject to neither praise nor censure. An
action that neither helped nor hindered self or fellows,
would awaken no feelings of approbation or disappro
bation. It is only in relation to some end that we have
in view that an object becomes either good or bad, or an
action moral or immoral. Further, an object that may be
classed as good in relation to one end, would be classed
as bad in relation to another. A horse that would be
valuable for deciding a wager as to speed, would be of
little use for the purpose of ploughing a field.
As
Professor Clifford pointed out, the fundamental trait that
determines goodness is efficiency—the capability of an
object or an action for reaching a desired end. A thing
must be good for something or for someone ; a knife for
cutting, a horse for carrying or drawing, a house for
shelter; fresh air, pure water, good food, because they
promote a healthy physique ; and each will be classed as
possessing a greater degree of goodness as it reaches the
desired end in a more effectual manner. A good action,
�8
may, therefore, be defined as one which attains the end
desired with the least expenditure of time and energy.
A further distinction needs to be pointed out between the
terms good and moral ; for in the light of the above
definition, the two terms are by no means always synony
mous, although they may be so in special cases. A man
who so adjusted his actions as to commit a burglary in
the most expeditious manner, might be rightly spoken of
as a good burglar, but no one, I opine, would speak of
him as a moral one. Nevertheless, an action becomes
moral for the same reason that an action becomes good,
that is, in view of a certain result to be attained, although
in this case certain ulterior considerations are involved.
Now, in examining all those actions classed as moral,
I find them to be either socially or individually bene
ficial, while those actions classed as immoral are injurious
either to the individual or to society ; while actions which
neither injure nor help are classed as indifferent.
Even
in the case of those actions that are performed instinc
tively, the justification for their existence or practice is
always to be found in reasons arising from their social or
individual utility. Analyse carefully the highest and
most complex moral action, and it will be found in its
ultimate origin to be an act of self or social preservation.
Press home the enquiry why the feeling of moral obliga
tion should be encouraged, and the answer will be the
same. This fundamental significance of the terms used,
is frequently veiled under such phrases as Duty, Perfec
tion, Virtue, etc. Thus Immanuel Kant declares that
“ No act is good unless done from a sense of duty.” But
why should we act from a sense of duty ? What reason
is there for following its dictates ?
Clearly a sense of
duty is only to be encouraged or its dictates obeyed
because it leads to some desired result; there must be
some reason why a sense of duty is to be acted upon,
rather than ignored, and in the very nature of the case
that reason can only be found in the direction indicated.
Nor can we on reflection and in the light of modern
science, think of moral actions as having any other origin
or justification than their tendency to promote the well
being of society. Given a race of animals with a
particular set of surroundings, and the problem before it
will be “ How to maintain a constant harmony between
�9
the species and its medium ; how the former shall adjust
its movements in such a manner as to ward off all
aggressive forces, both conscious and unconscious, to
rear its young and preserve that modifiability of actions
requisite to meet the needs of a changing environment ;
without which death rapidly ensues.” This is the problem
of life stated in its plainest terms; a problem which
presses upon savage and civilised alike, and one with
which we are all constantly engaged. It may be said that
we are all engaged in playing the same game—the game
of life —and ethics may be spoken of as the rules of the
game that we are always learning but never thoroughly
master. The one condition of existence for all life, from
lowest to highest, is that certain definite lines of conduct
—determined by the surrounding conditions—shall be
pursued ; and just as any invention, be it steam engine,
printing press, or machine gun, is the result of a long
series of adjustments and readjustments reaching over
many generations, so our present ability to maintain our
lives in the face of a host of disturbing forces, is the
result of a long series of adjustments and re-adjustments,
conscious and unconscious, dating back to the dawn of
life upon the globe. Self-preservation is the fundamental
cause of the beginnings of morality, and only as the
sphere of self becomes extended so as to embrace others
does conduct assume a more altruistic character. At
beginning these adjustments by means of which life is
preserved are brought about unconsciously, natural selec
tion weeding out all whose conduct is of an undesirable
or life-diminishing character; but with the growth of
intelligence and the conscious recognition of the nature of
those forces by which life is moulded, these unconscious
adaptations are superseded—or rather have superadded to
them—conscious ones. It is this conscious recognition of
the nature of these forces by which life is maintained,
and of the reason for pursuing certain courses of conduct,
that is the distinguishing feature of human society.
Human morality seeks to effect consciously what has
hitherto been brought about slowly and unconsciously.
It aims at this, but at more than this; for a system of
ethics not only seeks to preserve life, but to intensify it,
to increase its length and add to its beauties. It declares
not only what is, or what may be, but what ought to be.
�10
Moral principles or laws, therefore, consist in the main in
furnishing a reason for those courses of conduct which
experience has demonstrated to be beneficial, and the
acquisition of which have been accentuated by the struggle
for existence.
In this case, however, progress is effected much more
rapidly than where the evolution is unconscious, while
the ability to discern more clearly the remote effects of
our actions renders that progress more certain and perma
nent. We maintain ourselves, we rear our young, and lay
up the means of future happiness in virtue of the
presence of a particular set of instincts or the formulation
of a number of rules which experience has demonstrated
to be beneficial.
It is a detailed account of these actions
and the reason for their existence that constitutes our
moral code. Long before moral principles are formulated
society conforms to them. Custom exists before law;
indeed, a large part of law is only custom recognised and
stereotyped; the law, so to speak, does but give the
reason for the custom, and by the very exigences of exis
tence such customs as are elevated into laws must be
those that have helped to preserve the race, otherwise
there would be a speedy end to both law and law-makers.
As, therefore, in the course of evolution only the societies
can continue to exist whose actions serve, on the whole, to
bring them into harmony with their environment, and as
it will be these actions the value of which will afterwards
come to be recognised and their performances enforced
by law, there is brought about an identification of moral
rules with life preserving actions from the outset, and
this identification tends to become still closer as society
advances. The impulses that urge men to action cannot
be, in the main, anti-social or society would cease to exist.
In the last resort, as will be made clear later, a man will do
that which yields him the most satisfaction, and unless
there is some sort of identity between what is pleasant
and what is beneficial, animate existence would soon
cease to be. Morality can, then, from the scientific stand
point, have no other meaning except that of a general
term for all those preservative instincts and actions by
means of which an individual establishes definite and har
monious relations between himself and fellows, and wards
off all those aggressive forces that threaten his existence.
�11
We have now, I think, reached a clear conception of
what is meant by a “ Moral Action.” A moral action is.
one that adds to the “ fitness” of society; makes life fuller
and longer; adds to the fulness of life by nobility of
action, and to its duration by length of years. An.
immoral action is one that detracts from the “ fitness ” of
society, and renders it less capable of responding to the
demands of its environment. The only rational meaning:
that can be attached to the phrase “a good man,” is that
of one whose actions comply with the above conditions ;
and his conduct will become more or less immoral as it
approaches to or falls away from this ideal.
III.—The Moral Standard.
Although I have but little doubt that the majority of
people would on reflection yield a general assent to the
considerations set forth above, yet, it may be complained,
that they are too vague. To say that moral actions are such
as promote life, it may further be said, is hardly to tell us
what such actions are, or to provide us with a rational
rule of action, since our verdict as to whether an action is
moral or immoral must clearly depend upon our view as
to what the end of life is. The man who holds that all
pleasure is sinful, and that mortification of the flesh is the
only way to gain eternal happiness, will necessarily pass
a very different judgment upon actions from the one
who holds that all happiness that is not purchased at the
expense of another’s misery is legitimate and desirable.
The justice of the above complaint must be admitted ; it
remains, therefore, to push our enquiries a step further.
Ethical Methods, in common with other systems, pass
through three main stages—Authoritative, critical, and
constructive. The first is a period when moral precepts
are accepted on the bare authority of Priest or Chieftain.
In this stage all commands have an equal value, little or
no discrimination is exercised, and all acts of disobedience
meet with the most severe punishment.
*
The second
period represents a season of upheaval occasioned either
by the growing intelligence of men perceiving the faults or
shortcomings of the current teaching, or a healthy revolt
against the exercise of unfettered authority. And then,
*As in the Bible where picking up sticks upon the Sabbath merits
the same punishment as murder.
�12
finally, there ensues a constructive stage, when an attempt
is made to place conduct upon a rational foundation.
It is not very easy to point out the line of demarcation
between the different stages, nor is it unusual to find
them existing side by side, but they are stages that can be
■observed by a careful student with a tolerable amount of
■ease. And in this latter stage the difficulty is, not so
much the formulation of moral precepts, as furnishing
the reason for them. The great question here is, not so
much “ How shall I be moral,’’ as—“ Why should I be
moral,” it is this question we have now to answer.
All Ethical systems are compelled to take some
standard as ultimately determining the rightness or
wrongness of conduct, and we may roughly divide all
these systems into three groups—two of which regard the
moral sense as innate, and the third as derivative. These
three groups are, (1) Theological systems which take the
will of deity as supplying the necessary standard, (2)
Intuitional which holds the doctrine of an innate moral
sense that is in its origin independent of experience, and
professes to judge actions independent of results, (3)
*
Utilitarian, which estimates conduct by observing the
results of actions upon self and fellows, and holds that
■our present stock of moral sentiments have been acquired
by experience both individual and racial.
Concerning the first of these schools—the theological—
its weakness must be apparent to all who have given any
serious attention to the subject. For, setting on one side
the difficulty of ascertaining what the will of deity is, and
the further difficulty that from the religious world there
■comes in answer to moral problems replies as numerous
as the believers themselves, it is plain that the expressed
will of deity cannot alter the morality of an action to the
slightest extent. It does not follow that spoiling the
Egyptians is a moral transaction because God com
manded it, nor are we justified in burning witches or
stoning heretics because their death sentence is contained
in the bible. It would be but a poor excuse after commit
* We have used the term “Intuitional” to denote the method which
recognises rightness as a quality belonging to actions independently of their
conduciveness to any ulterior end. The term implies that the presence of
the quality is ascertained by simply looking at the actions themselves
-without considering their consequences.—Sidgwick, “ Methods of Ethics”
bk. I. c. viii, sec. i.
�13
ting a crime to plead that God commanded it. The
reply to all such excuses would be, “ crime is crime no
matter who commanded it ; wrong actions must be
reprobated, the wrong doer corrected, or society would
fall to pieces,” and such a decision would have the sup
port of all rational men and women. A belief that my
actions are ordered by God can only guarantee my honesty
as a believer in deity in carrying them out, but can in no
way warrant their morality.
Further, those who claim that the will of God as ex
pressed in a revelation or discovered by a study of nature,
furnishes a ground of distinction between right and
wrong, overlook the fact that all such positions are self
contradictory, inasmuch as they assume a tacit recognition
at the outset of the very thing they set out to discover—
they all imply the existence of a standard of right and
wrong to which God’s acts conform. To speak of biblical
precepts as good implies that they harmonize with our
ideas of what goodness is ; to say that God is good and
that his actions are righteous, implies, in the same manner,
a conformity between his actions and some recognised
standard. Either that, or it is a meaningless use of terms
to speak of God’s actions as good, and at the same time
claim that it is his actions alone which determine what
goodness is. In short, all such terms as good and bad,
moral and immoral, take for granted the existence of some
standard of goodness discoverable by human reason, and
from which such terms derive their authority. This much
appears to me clear:—either actions classed respectively as
moral and immoral have certain definite effects upon our
lives or they have not. If they have, then their effects remain
the same with or without religious considerations; and
granting the possession of an ordinary amount of common
sense, it will always be possible to build up a code of
morals from the observed consequences of actions. If
actions have no definite effects upon our lives, then those
who believe that our only reason for calling an action
moral or immoral lies in the will of God, given in revela
tion or expressed in the human consciousness, are com
mitted to the startling proposition that theft, murder and
adultery would never have been recognised as immoral
had these commands not have been in existence. This
last alternative is rather too ridiculous to merit serious
�14
disproof. In brief, neither the theologian nor, as we shall
see later, the intuitionist can avoid assuming at the outset
■of their investigations all that he seeks to reach as a con
clusion. The very phrases both are compelled to use have
no validity unless there exist principles of morality derived
from experience—and this thay are constantly seeking to
disprove.
Nor do the advocates of a dim religious sense mani
fest in the human mind, fare any better than those who
hold the cruder form of the same doctrine. The strength
•of their position is apparent only ; due to the vagueness
of language rather than the logical force of their ideas.
Dr. Martineau—who may be taken as one of the best
representatives of the religious world upon this subject—
declares that if there be no supernatural authority for
morals, “ nothing remains but to declare the sense of
responsibility a mere delusion, the fiduciary aspect of
life must disappear; there is no trust committed to us,
no eye to watch, no account to render ; we have but to
settle terms with our neighbours and all will be well.
Purity within, faithfulness when alone, harmony and
depth in the secret affections, are guarded by no caution
ary presence, and aided by no sacred sympathy ; it may
be happy for us if we keep them, but if we mar them it
is our own affair, and there is none to reproach us and
put us to shame.”* To all of which one may say that
that conduct can hardly be called moral which needs the
constant supervision of an eternal “cautionary presence”
to ensure its rectitude
To refrain from wrong-doing
because of the presence of an “ all-seeing eye,” whether
its possessor be a supernatural power or a mundane
policeman can hardly entitle one to be called
virtuous ; and society would be in a poor way indeed did
right conduct rest upon no firmer foundation than this.
A man so restrained may not be such a direct danger to
society as he would otherwise be, but he is far from being
a desirable type of character. Surely purity, faithfulness
to wife, children and friends, honesty in our dealings,
truthfulness in our speech, and confidence in our fellows,
are not such poor, forlorn things as to be without some
inherent personal recommendation ?
Indeed, Dr.
* “ A Study of Religions,” II. p. 40.
�15
Martineau himself is a splendid disproof of his own
position, for if there is one thing certain about a man of
his type, it is that the absence of religious beliefs would
influence his conduct but little for the worse, while it might
even give more breadth to his sympathies and character.
True morality finds its incentives in the effects of actions
upon self and fellows, and not in fears inspired by either
god or devil. As Mr. Spencer has said, “ The truly moral
deterrent from murder is not constituted by a represen
tation of hanging as a consequence, or by a representation
of tortures in hell as a consequence, or by a representation
of the horror or hatred excited in fellow men, but by a
representation of the necessary natural results — the
infliction of death agony upon the victim, the destruc
tion of all his possibilities of happiness, the entailed
suffering to his belongings.
Neither the thought of
imprisonment, nor of divine anger, nor of social disgrace,
is that which constitutes the check on theft, but the
thought of injury to the person robbed, joined with a
vague consciousness of the general evils caused by a
disregard of proprietory rights .... Throughout, then,
the moral motive differs from the motives it is associated
with in this ; that instead of being constituted by repre
sentations of incidental, collateral, non-necessary conse
quences of acts, it is constituted by representations of
consequences which the acts naturally produce.”* Of all
moral sanctions the religious sanction is the most delusive
and unsatisfactory. Changing as human nature changes,
reflecting here benevolence and there cruelty, sanctioning
all crimes at the same time that it countenances much
that is virtuous, it is an authority that people have
appealed to in all ages to justify every action that human
nature is capable of committing. Surely a sanction which
justifies at the same time the religion of the Thug and
the benevolence of the humanitarian must be an eminently
fallacious one ? And yet we are warned that the removal
of the religious sanction will weaken, if it does not destroy,
morality! I do not believe it.
Conduct can gain no
permanent help from a false belief, and no permanent
strength from a lie ; and had the energies of our religious
teachers been devoted to impressing upon the people
“ Data of Ethics,” sec. 45.
�16
under their control the natural sanction of morality they
might have been kept moral without a sham of a priest
hood, or the perpetuation of superstitious beliefs that are
a stain upon our civilisation. But we have been taught
for so long that religion alone could furnish a reason for
right living, that now that time has set its heavy hand upon
religious creeds and death is claiming them for its own,
many honestly fear that there will be a corresponding
moral deterioration. Yet of this much we may be certain,
so long as men continue to live together morality
can never die ; so long as suffering exists or injustice
is done, there will not be wanting ;those who will
burn to release the one and redress the other.
Nay, rather will the value of life and of conduct
during life be enhanced by stripping it of all false fears
and groundless fancies. Whatever else is proven false
this life remains certain ; if it is shown that we share the
mortality of the brute we need not share its life, and we
may at least make as much of the earth we are now in
possession of as the heaven we may never enter. As
George Eliot says, “ If everything else is doubtful, this
suffering that I can help is certain ; if the glory of the
cross is an illusion, the sorrow is only the truer.
While
the strength is in my arm I will stretch it out to the
fainting ; while the light visits my eyes they shall seek
the forsaken.”*
The intuitional theory of morals while displaying
fewer errors than the scheme of the theological
school, yet presents a fundamental and insurmountable
difficulty. With the general question as to the nature
and authority of conscience, we shall deal more fully
when we come to treat of the “ Moral Sense.” The
question at issue between the intuitionist and the upholder
of the doctrine of evolution is, not the present existence
in man of a sense of right or wrong, but whether that
sense is an original endowment of the species or has been
derived from experience. According to this school ight
*
and wrong are known as such in virtue of a divinely
implanted sense or faculty = soul or conscience; we
recognise the virtue of an action as we recognise the
presence of a colour, because we possess a special sense
* “ Eomola.”
�17
fitted for the task ; and it is impossible to furnish any
other reason why it should be so. Right and wrong are
immediately perceived by the mind as such, and there is
an end of the matter. .A plain and obvious comment
upon this position is that the intuitions of men are
neither uniform nor infallible in their judgments.
Instead of finding, as the intuitional theory of morals
would lead us to expect, that moral judgments are every
where the same, we find them differing with race, age,
and even individuals. The only thing common to the
moral sense is that of passing judgment, or making a
selection of certain actions, and this much is altogether
inadequate for the purpose of the intuitionist. The
moral sense of one man leads him to murder his enemy ;
that of another to feed him ; in one age the moral sense
decrees that polygamy, death for heresy, witch burning,
and trial by combat are legitimate proceedings, and in
another age brands them as immoral. Obviously, if our
intuitions are to be regarded as trustworthy guides, there
is no reason why we should adopt one set of intuitions
more than another. All must be equally valuable or the
theory breaks down at the outset. If, however, we pro
nounce in favour of the intuitions of the cultured European
and against that of the savage, it must be because of a com
parison of the consequences of the different intuitions
upon human welfare ; and in this case the authority of
the moral sense as an arbitrary law-giver disappears.
If
the moral sense be ultimate, then our duty is to follow
its dictates. Any questioning of what the moral sense
decides to be right involves an appeal to some larger fact,
or to some objective guide. To arbitrarily select one
intuition out of many and label that and that only as good
is simply to set up another god in place of the one
dethroned. All moral growth implies the fallibility of
our intuitions, since such growth can only proceed by
correcting and educating our primary ethical impulses.
There is one point, however, which seems to have escaped
the notice of intuitionists, and that is, that the existence of
their own writings is a direct disproof of the truth of
their position. For if all men possessed such a faculty as it
is claimed they possess, its existence should be sufficiently
obvious as to command the assent of all; there could
exist no such questioning of the fact as to necessitate the
�18
existence of the proof offered. No man ever yet needed
to write a volume to prove that the sun gave light, or
that men experience feelings of pleasure and pain, and an
intuition that is co.extensive with humanity, which is not
reducible to experience, and which is the very ground
work of our moral judgments should be so obvious as to
be independent of all proof. The mere fact of it being
called into question is sufficient disproof of its existence.
But, as already said, the diversities of moral judgments
are fatal to the hypothesis. Press the intuitionist with the
question why he should prefer the intuition of one man
to that of another, and he is compelled to forsake his
original position and justify his selection upon the grounds
of the beneficial effects of one and the injurious effects
of the other; thus constituting experience as the final
court of appeal. The conclusion is, then, that neither the
theologian nor the intuitionist can avoid taking into con
sideration the effects of action in the formation of moral
judgments ; both of them when pressed are compelled to
fall back upon something outside their system to support
it; neither can justify himself without making an appeal
to that experience, which according to his hypothesis
is unnecessary and untrustworthy.
Turning now to the last of the three schools named—the
utilitarian—let us see if we can derive from it a satisfactory
standard of right and wrong. Practically the question has
already been answered in our examination of “the meaning
of morality,” where it was determined that moral actions
were such as led to an increase of life in length of days
and nobility of action ; but as this may be thought too
vague it becomes necessary to frame some more detailed
expression.
The essence of Utilitarianism may be stated in a sen
tence it asserts that “ actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is in
tended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness
pain and the privation of pleasure. ” Act so as to ensure
*
the happiness of all around you, may be said to be the
one great precept of Utilitarianism. According to this
doctrine all things become of value only in so far as they
minister to the production of happiness, while the end of
*J. S. Mil), “ Utilitarianism ” p. 9.
�19
action is always the production of an agreeable or pleas
urable state of consciousness. The correctness of this
position admits of ample demonstration. Indeed, the
fact that happiness is the end contemplated by all is so
plain as to scarcely need proof, were it not that the means
to this end have by long association come to stand in con
sciousness as ends in themselves.
Yet a very little
analysis will show that each of the prudential or benevo
lent virtues must find their ultimate justification in their
tendency to increase happiness. As Mill says: “The
clearest proof that the table is here is that I see it ; and
the clearest proof that happiness is the end of action is
that all men desire it.” Upon every hand we are brought
face to face with the truth of this statement. It matters
little whether we take the honest man or the thief ; the
drunkard in his cups or the reformer in his study,
the one object that they have in common will be
found to be the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of
pain. The difference between men does not consist in
the fact that the motives urging them to action are gener
ically different, they are not; the difference consists
rather in the kind of happiness sought after or the means
adopted to obtain it. As will presently be made clear,
feeling induces action at all timesand under all conditions.
The immediate cause of conduct is the desire to bring
into existence a pleasant state of consciousness or to subdue
a painful one—although there is plainly much diversity
in the pleasures sought after. The biological reason for
this pursuit of pleasure will be seen later ; but that the
tendency of actions to produce happiness is our sole reason
for classing them as good will be seen by imagining the
contrary to be the case. Suppose, to quote Mr. Spencer,
“ that gashes and bruises caused agreeable sensations, and
brought in their train increased power of doing work and
receiving enjoyment; should we regard assault in the
same manner as at present; or, suppose that self-mutila
tion, say by cutting off a hand, was both intrinsically
pleasant and furthered performance of the processes by
which personal welfare and the welfare of dependents is
achieved ; should we hold as now that deliberate injury
done to one’s own body is to be reprobated ; or again,
suppose that picking a man’s pocket excited in him joyful
emotions by brightening his prospects; would that theft
�20
be counted among crimes, as in existing law books and
moral codes ? In these extreme cases, no one can deny
that what we call the badness of actions is ascribed to
them solely for the reason that they entail pain, immediate
or remote, and would not be so ascribed did they entail
pleasure.”*
The difference between a selfish and an unselfish action
is not that in the latter case the feeling itself is absent—
this is never the case—the difference is that in a selfish
action a man’s happiness is in things confined to himself,
while in an unselfish action his happiness embraces the
happiness of others likewise. Does a man give away his
last shilling to one poorer than himself ; it is because he
escapes the greater pain of witnessing distress and not
relieving it. Does the martyr go to the stake in vindica
tion of his belief ?
It is because to hide those beliefs, to
profess a belief which he did not enjtertain, to play the
hypocrite and escape persecution by an act of smug con
formity, would be far more unbearable than any torment
that intolerence could inflict.
Whatever man does he acts so as to avoid a pain and
gain a pleasure ; and the function of the ethical teacher is
to train men to perform only those actions which eventu
ally produce the greatest and most healthful pleasures.
And let it not be imagined for a moment that in thus
reducing the distinction, between good and bad, to the
simpler elements of pleasure and pain, that we have
thereby destroyed all distinction between them. Far
from it. The perfume of the rose and the evil smell of
asafcetida remain as distinct as ever, even though we
reduce both to the vibrations of particles; and we shall
not cease to care for one and dislike the other on that
account. And so long as a distinction is felt between a
pleasurable and a painful sensation, so long will the
difference between good and bad remain clear and distinct;
it is a distinction that cannot disappear so long as life
exists.
A complete moral code is but a complete statement of
actions that are of benefit to self and society in terms of
pleasure and pain ; and, therefore, until we can cease to
distinguish between the two sets of feelings we can never
* “Data or Ethics,” sec. 2.
�21
cease to know the grounds of morality and to find a
sound basis for its sanctions.
Every individual then acts so as to avoid a pain or
cultivate a pleasure. A state of happiness to be realised
at some time and at some place, is an inexpugnable ele
ment in all estimates of conduct; is the end to which all
men are striving, no matter how they may differ in their
methods of achieving it. Unfortunately, such considera
tions, as have been pointed out. are disguised under such
phrases as “ Perfection,” “ Blessedness,” &c. And yet, to
quote Mr. Spencer once again, “ If it (Blessedness) is a
state of consciousness at all, it is necessarily one of three
states—painful, indifferent, or pleasurable,” and as no
one, I presume, will say that it is either of the first two,
we are driven to the conclusion, that after all, “ Blessed
ness ” is but another name for happiness.
Or take as an illustration of the same principle, a plea that
is sometimes put forward on behalf of self-denial, which,
it is urged, contravenes the principle of utility. It is
claimed that that conduct is highest which involves self
sacrifice. But, clearly, self-sacrifice, as self-sacrifice, has
little or nothing to commend it. The man who denied
himself all comfort, who continually “mortified the
flesh,” without benefiting any one by so doing, would be
regarded by all sane thinking people as little better than
a lunatic. The only possible justification f or self-sacrifice
is that the happiness of self in some future condition of
existence, or the happiness of society in the present, will
be rendered greater thereby. Even the fanatical religionist
indulging in acts of self-torture, is doing so in the full
belief that his conduct will bring him greater happiness
hereafter. So that once more we are brought back to the
same position, viz., that no individual can avoid taking
happiness in some form as the motive for and sanction of
his conduct.
Here, then, upon the widest possible review of human
conduct, we are warranted in asserting that the ultimate
criterion of the morality of an action is its tendency to
produce pleasurable states of consciousness. To speak of
an action as good or bad apart from the effect it produces
upon human life, is as absurd as to speak of colour apart
from the sense of sight. An action becomes good because
of its relation to a human consciousness, and apart from
�22
this relation its goodness disappears. As Spinoza says—
“We do not desire a thing because it is good, we call it
good because we desire it.”
This, then, is our test of the morality of an action—
will it result in a balance of painful feelings ? Then it
is bad. Will it produce a surplus of pleasurable ones ?
Then it is good,
But although, in ultimate analysis, to desire a thingand call it good, or the performance of an action
and call it moral, is merely another way of saying the
same thing, it by no means follows that all desires are to
be gratified merely because they exist. Nothing is plainer
than that the gratification of many desires would lead to
anything but beneficial results. Our desires need at all
times to be watched, controlled and educated. It is in
this direction that reason plays its part in the determin
ation of conduct.
Its function is, by the perception and
calculation of the consequences of actions, to so train the
feelings as to lead us eventually to gratify only such,
desires as will ultimately lead to individual and social
happiness.
And not only is it clear on analysis that the avoidance
of a painful state of consciousness or the pursuit of an
agreeable one, is the underlying motive for all our actions,
but it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. An
ethical relation between ourselves and an object can never
be established by simple perception ; nor is perception
ever the immediate cause of action.
The immediate
cause of action is, as I have already said, feeling ; that is,
we associate pleasurable or painful feelings with an
object perceived, and shape our conduct in accordance
with past experience.
*
No abstract conception of life
and its duties could ever give rise to action, were
not such conduct closely associated with pleasant or
* May we not justly affirm, as we clearly perceive, that the intellectual
life does not supply the motive or impulse to action ; that the understand
ing or reason is not the cause of our outward actions, but that the desiresare? Our most effective energies spring from our most urgent needs. . .
The desire is the fundamental expression of the individual’s character. . ►.
In fact the power of the understanding is reflective and inhibitory,
being exhibited rather in the hindrance of passion-prompted action, and in
the guidance of our impulses, than in the instigation of conduct; its office
in the individual, as in the race is, as Comte systematically and emphati
cally pointed out, not to impart the habitual impulsion but deliberative.
—Maudesley, “ Physiology of Mind,” p. 357.
�23
painful feelings—as escaping censure, personal approba
tion or disapprobation, direct personal reward or punish
ment, or the admiration of our neighbours. We may
put the case briefly as follows : Every action consciously
performed aims at calling into existence a particular state
of consciousness. States of consciousness, so far as they
are the subjects of ethical judgments, are of two kinds—
agreeable and disagreeable, or pleasant and painful. The
former we desire to maintain, the latter to destroy. By
experience pleasurable feelings have become associated
with a particular object or the performance of a particular
action, and the possession of the object or the performance
of the action is the means by which such agreeable sensa
tions are revived It is upon this principle only that the
past can serve as a guide in the present; although the
past can never induce action, the future alone can do
this. Our conduct is necessarily based upon the belief
that the future will resemble the past, and that actions
which resulted in happiness in the past will have the
same effect in the future. If, then, the motive resulting
in action is the wish to revive and return some state of
consciousness, and if all states of consciousness are either
painful or pleasurable, and if it is further admitted that
pleasurable states are sought after and painful ones
avoided, then it becomes clear that the ideal state is one
in which pleasurable states only are experienced ; or, as
it is briefly described, a state of happiness.
And now having reached the conclusion that the pro
duction of a pleasurable feeling is the end of all our
actions, the question remaining to be answered is, “ why
should happiness be the end of action, what is it that
constitutes happiness, and what justification for the
pursuit of happiness is there to be found in a study of
the laws of life ? ”
Here we may be met with the remark that happiness is
an extremely variable factor, that it varies at different
times and with different individuals ; the happiness of the
drunkard or the debauchee is quite as real as the happi. ness of the philosopher, and therefore upon what grounds
do we class one as bad and the other as good ? The
drunkard may say, “ my conduct yields me pleasure,
while to imitate yours would prove extremely irksome
and painful, and therefore I prefer to keep on my present
�24
course in spite of all that may be said concerning other
sources of happiness, the beauty of which I am unable to
appreciate.” In what way, then, the evolutionist may be
asked, can we prove the drunkard to be in the wrong ?
This objection, although a fairly common one, yet repre
sents an entire misunderstanding of the utilitarian position.
Certainly pleasures of a special kind accompany such
actions as those named, for, as I have shown, conduct
must always be produced by feeling, and feeling always
aims at the one end ; but it is not by taking into con
sideration the immediate effects of actions only and
ignoring the remote ones that any sound conclusions
can be reached, this can only be done by combining both,
and when it is shown, and it will not be disputed, that
the immediate pleasures of the drunkard carry with them
as final results a long train of miseries in the shape of
ruined homes, shattered constitutions, and general social
evils, we have shown that these actions are not such as
produce ultimate happiness, and therefore have no valid
claim to the title of good.
But waiving the discussion of such objections as these,
the problem facing us is, “granting that the end of action
is as stated, in what way can we identify what is with
what ought to be ; or how can it be shown that actions
which rightly viewed yield happiness and actions that
preserve life are. either identical or tend to become so ? ”
This question, it is clear, can only be thoroughly answered
by determining the physiological and psychological con
ditions of happiness.
The incentives to action, it has been shown, is the desire
to call into existence, or to drive out of being a particular
state of consciousness. All changes in consciousness are
brought about either by sensations directly experienced,
or by the remembrance of sensations previously ex
perienced. We receive sensations by means of what are
called faculties—including under that term both organ
and function. Of a certain number of possible sensations
some are pleasant, others are unpleasant; the former we
seek, the latter we shun; and the desire to revise the
agreeable states of feeling is the immediate motive for all
our actions. A pleasurable feeling, then, results from the
*
* To say that we seek the revival of a disagreeable feeling would be a
contradiction in terms.
�25
exercise of our energies in a particular direction ; the ques
tion is, in what direction ? It is in answering this question
that Mr. Spencer has made one of his most important con
tributions to ethical science, and thereby placed the utilitar
ian theory of morals upon a thoroughly scientific footing.
Clearly, the indiscriminate exercise of our faculties, or
the promiscuous gratification of our desires, will not lead
to ultimate happiness. Apart from the existence in our
selves of desires which being either of a morbid character,
or survivals from times when the conditions of life were
different, and the gratification of which would therefore be
looked upon as anything but desirable ; even the exercise
of what may be termed legitimate desires needs to be care
fully watched and regulated. Indeed a large part of
wrong doing results, not from the existence of a faculty,
but from its misdirection; an intemperate gratification
of desires that, rightly directed, would yield but good.
No one, for example, would condemn the desire of people
to “ make a name,” a perfectly legitimate and even laud
able aspiration ; yet, owing to the method adopted, there
are few desires that lead to greater wrong doing.
Again, over indulgence in any pursuit, as in over eating,
over studying, or over indulgence in physical exercise, is
likely to lead to extremely injurious results. And equally
significant are the pains—cravings—that result from too
little exercise in any of these directions. If, therefore,
conduct that approaches either extreme leads to painful
results, the implication is that a pleasurable state of
consciousness is the accompaniment of actions that lie
midway between the two. But actions that leave behind
naught but a diffused feeling of pleasure, imply that the
body has received just that amount of exercise necessary
to maintain it in a state of well being, and are, therefore,
healthful actions; or in other words, pleasure—using that
term in the sense given to it above—will result from the
exercise of each organ of the body up to that point
necessary to maintain the entire organism in a healthy
condition. Concerning the quantity of exercise required
no hard and fast rule can be laid down, it will differ with
each individual, and even with the same individual at
different times, the amount of exercise necessary to keep
one man in a state of health would kill another, and vice
versa.
�26
Thus, from a biological standpoint we may define
happiness as a state of consciousness resulting from the
exercise of every organ of the body and faculty of the mind,
up to that point requisite to secure the well being of the
entire organism; and from the psychological side, the
gratification of all such desires as lead to this result. Now
if this be admitted as true, it follows that pleasure
producing actions and pain-producing actions are, in the
long run the equivalents of life preserving and life
destroying actions respectively ; that as Spencer says,
“ Every pleasure raises the tide of life ; and every pain
lowers the tide of life,’’ or as Professor Bain has it—“ States
of pleasure are connected with an increase, and states of
pain with an abatement of some, or all, of the vital
functions ; ” * and therefore to say .that the tendency of an
action to produce happiness is the ultimate test of its
morality, is simply saying in effect that that conduct is
moral which leads to a lengthening and broadening of
life.
And not only is this the conclusion reached by an
examination of animal life as it now is, but it is a con
clusion logically deducible from the hypothesis of
evolution and the laws of life in general. The connection
between pain and death, and happiness and life, is too
deeply grounded in general language and thought not to
have some foundation in fact. The general accuracy of
this connection is witnessed by all physiologists and
medical men, the latter of whom readily recognise how
importantian element is cheerfulness in a patient’s recovery,
while the former demonstrates that pain lowers and
pleasure raises the general level of life.
And upon no other condition could life have developed
upon the earth. As has been pointed out, actioii springs
directly from feeling and seeks to obtain pleasure either
immediately or remotely ; therefore, unless the pleasures
pursued are such as will preserve life the result is
extinction.
Imagine for example that life-destroying
actions produced pleasurable sensations—that is a state of
consciousness that animals sought to bring into existence
and retain—that bodily wounds, impure foods, and
exhausting pursuits generally, yielded nothing but
pleasure, and would, therefore, be performed eagerly,
* “ Senses and the Intellect,” p. 283.
�27
it is obvious that such a state of things would cause a
rapid disappearance of life altogether. Illustrations of
this may be readily found in individual instances, for
example, opium eaters or excessive drinkers, but it is
clear that such habits could not maintain themselves for
long upon a general scale. Something of the same thing
may even be seen in the case of lower races, that, coming
in contact with European culture and finding pleasure in
the performance of actions suitable to their past life but
unsuitable to their present one, have become extinct.
Thus, as Mr. Spencer puts it. “ At the very outset, life is
maintained by persistence in acts which conduce to it,
and desistence from acts which impede it; and whenever
sentiency makes its appearance as an accompaniment, its
forms must be such that in the one case the produced,
feeling is of a kind that will be sought—pleasure, and in
the other case is of a kind that will be shunned—pain.” *
And again, “ Those races of beings only can have survived
in which, on the average, agreeable or desired feelings
went along with activities conducive to the maintenance
of life, while disagreeable and habitually-avoided feelings
went along with activities directly or indirectly destruc
tive of life; and there must have been, other things being
equal, the most numerous and long-continued survivals
among races in which these adjustments of feelings to
actions were the best, tending ever to bring about perfect
adjustment.” f The answer, therefore, to the question,
“Why should we pursue happiness ? ” is, that we cannot
do otherwise and live. Pursuit of happiness, properly
understood, means conformity to those conditions that
render a continued and healthful life possible. The final
and ultimate reason for performing any action is that a
special desire exists urging me to do so, and the reason
for the existence of that desire must be sought for in
deeper ground than consciousness—which is relatively a
late product in biologic evolution. It is to be found in
those laws of life to which all living beings must conform,
and to which natural selection, by weeding out all of a
contrary disposition, secures an intrinsic or organic com
pliance. Morality is evidenced in action before it is
explained in thought ; its justification, the causes of its
* “ Data of Ethics.”, sec. 33.
+ “ Principles of Psychology,” Vol. i. sec. 128.
�28
growth, and the nature of its authority, are to be found
in the natural conditions of existence, and depends no
more upon the presence of a mysterious self-realising ego
than upon a conception of God furnished by current or
future theologies. It is a false and ruinous antithesis
that places virtue and happiness as two things distinct
from each other.
Virtue has no meaning other than
can be expressed in terms of pleasure ; as Spinoza said,
“ Happiness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself.”
The utilitarian formula that actions are right which
promote pleasure, and wrong which promote pain receives,
therefore, the fullest possible justification from an ex
amination of the laws of life. Highet authority than that
can no system have.
The various steps of the above argument may now be
recapitulated.
(1) Conduct is always immediately dependent upon
feeling.
(2) The immediate object will be to invite agreeable,
and obviate or modify disagreeable states of consciousness.
(3) Therefore, unless there is a general agreement
between conduct that preserves life and conduct that
produces agreeable feelings, the race must die out; while
life will increase in length and breadth as that general
agreement becomes explicit and complete.
(4) But in the course of evolution the inevitable result
is the weeding out of all such organisms as pursue life
destroying acts with pleasure, and there is thus produced
a gradual identification between the performance of life
preserving actions and the production of agreeable states
■of consciousness
It is in supplying us with these generalisations that the
•doctrine of evolution has placed morality upon a perfectly
secure and impregnable foundation, and ethics upon the
same level as other departments of scientific knowledge.
It makes morality incumbent upon the individual and
society alike by showing its identity with those processes
that make life worth living. That at present many find
pleasure in the performance of actions that lower the tide
of life, does not militate against the truth of the doctrine
.stated above. We are in a transitional state, partly
military and partly industrial, we have clinging to us
many traces of the savagery, from which we are just
�29
emerging, and there is necessarily a conflict between
many of our inherited instincts and present ideals. But
there can be little doubt that this conflict between what is
and what should be will decrease as the course of
evolution proceeds ; until becoming weaker by disuse,
the lower and undesirable instincts shall have finally
disappeared. Meanwhile a scientific ethic should do
precisely what a law of astronomy or of biology does—
describe what takes place and explain how it takes place.
Astronomical and biological laws give nothing new, they
merely formulate in comprehensible terms what takes
place in their separate departments. The function of a
science of ethics is, similarly, to describe accurately the
actions of men and why and how such actions take place ;
to trace the causes of morality, to formulate the con
ditions and nature of perfect conduct, and leave such
rules to be put into operation as rapidly as wisdom may
devise or circumstances permit.
IV.—The Nature and Authority of Conscience.
It may be asked, “ If the foregoing account of the
nature of morality is admitted to be correct, what becomes
of the authority of conscience ? Is it merely a name, or is
it, as the ordinary man believes, a divinely implanted
faculty enabling one to distinguish finally and decisively
between a right and a wrong action ? ‘ Ordinary experi
ence,’ it may further be said, ‘ shows that men do not
determine the rightness or wrongness of actions by any
mathematical calculation as to the pains or pleasures
resulting from them, but rather by a direct appeal to
conscience, and when conscience declares in favor of or
against a particular course of conduct there is no more to
be said upon the matter.
“ Upon this hypothesis man does right for pretty much
the same reason that a dog ‘ delights to bark and bite,’
because ‘ ’tis his nature to.’
Now, there is in the presentation of the case a certain
amount of truth, but it is entangled with a much larger
amount of error. For example, no one denies the exis
tence in man of a moral sense now ; all our language pre
supposes its existence. Neither is it denied that men are
swayed by the dictates of what is called ‘ Conscience.’
As Mill says:—‘The ultimate sanction of all morality is a
�30
subjective feeling in our minds.” A man will act as his
conscience directs, and provided that he has fulfilled
certain preliminary conditions, we hold that he is right in
doing so. The phrase—‘A conscientious man ’ has quite
as definite a meaning to the Utilitarian as to the Intuit
ionist. It is in the carrying out of these preliminary
conditions—i.e. instructing, checking, and improving our
conscience, comparing its deliverance with the deliverance
of that of others—upon which the dispute mainly turns.
The question really at issue is not the existence of a
moral sense, but whether this moral sense is always trust
worthy in its decisions ; whether it does not need to be
constantly checked and corrected ; and whether instead
of beiug a single indecomposable faculty it may not be
resolved into simpler parts, as a chemical compound is
shown to be made up of a number of simpler elements ?
This is substantially the whole of the matter in dispute
between the evolutionist and the intuitionist. The latter
regards the moral sense as innate and virtually indepen
dent of experience ; the former asserts that it has been
built up from much simpler feelings acquired during the
development of the race, and that examination proves
that, just as a single nerve centre is composed of clusters
of ganglia, which are again composed of fibres and cells,
so the apparently simple moral sense is really a highly
complex process, due to the gradual accumulation of the
experiences of simpler sensations acquired during ages of
past evolution. It would, indeed, be quite possible to
take successively all the vices and virtues upon which our
present moral sense passes a rapid and decisive verdict,
and show how gradually each feeling of approval and
disapproval has been built up. There is, for example,
no action upon which the moral sense of the cultured
European passes such a ready condemnation as the taking
of life. And yet it is quite certain that this special feeling
of aversion is a- comparitively late product in human
evolution. With many of the lower races the wrongness
of taking human life is confined almost entirely to the
family—and not always there; but within the tribe
personal vengeance is permitted, and even when that is
disallowed by public opinion the murder of the member
of another tribe only serves to exalt the murderer in the
eyes of his fellows. In the dark ages a man’s life was
�31
valued in an inverse ratio to his social importance, and
the church drew up a scale of punishments in accordance
with that estimate, murder of an ecclesiastic being
punished by torture and death, that of a serf by a fine of
a few pence. Even in modern civilised Europe, hundreds
or thousands of lives may be shed to satisfy political
passion or national vanity ; and only in the higher types
of the race is there a lively and constant repugnance to
the taking of life, whether if friend or foe. Indeed, the
fact that moral sense is acquired and not innate appears
on reflection, to be so plain as to cause some little surprise
that the opposite opinion should ever have been seriously
entertained for any length of time.
But apart from the historical aspect of the subject,
what we are more directly concerned with here is the
nature of those conditions which have resulted in the
growth of conscience. It would take too long to discuss
fully the nature of consciousness—even if it were not a
matter of psychology rather than of ethics—but we may
put the matter briefly in the following manner :—
Reflex action is of two kinds ; the first, irritability, is
due to the simple excitation of a piece of living matter,
and is shared by all living tissue wherever it may be
found. In virtue of this quality the organism responds
to certain stimuli and shrinks from others; and it is
plain that unless the stimuli to which the organism
responds are such as are beneficial the result will be death.
The second class of reflex actions is that in which actions
have become instinctive by frequent repetition. It is a
matter of common observation that any action frequently
performed tends to become organic, or instinctive : that
is, a purposive action is preceded by certain molecular
rearrangements in the fibres and cells, and centres of the
brain ; a repetition of the action means a repetition of the
disturbance; and by the frequent recurrence of such
rearrangements there is set up a line of least resistance
along which the nervous energy flows, with the final
result of a modification of nerve tissue, and the existence
of a structure which in response to a certain stimulus acts
automatically in a particular manner. “ The order of
events/’ says Maudesley, is presumably in this wise :
by virtue of its fundamental adaptive property as
organic matter, nerve-element responds to environing
�32
relations by definite action ; this action, when repeated
determines structure ; and thus by degrees new structure,
or—what it really is—a new organ is formed, which
embodies in its substance and displays in its function
the countless generalisations, so to speak, or ingredients
of experience, which it has gained from past and contri
butes to present stimulation,” * Now the mental side of
this physical acquirement expresses itself in the principle
known as the association of ideas. When in the course
of experience a certain set of ideas is constantly occurring
in the same order, the revival of any one of the term
will bring about a revival of the remainder of the series.
As illustrative of this we may note how when any par
ticular object is presented to the mind, as for example an
orange, the mind calls up the associated sensations of
taste and smell, neither of which is immediately presented
to it; and there may even be present the idea of certain
injurious or beneficial effects following the easing of the
fruit. Here it is evident the secondary sensations are
revived because they have always accompanied the primary
one, and it is clear that the mind has gone over a chain of
causes and effects, although we may not be conscious—
indeed we seldom are—of all the steps intervening
between the first and last term of the series. But to any
one who pays attention to the working of the mind it is
obvious that this power of rapid summing-up has been
acquired very gradually, and that what the mind now
does rapidly and decisively, it once did slowly and
hesitatingly; just as the firm steps of the man are pre
ceded by the faltering steps of the child, or the rapid
adding up of columns of figures by the trained accountant
becomes a long and wearisome process in the hands of
the amateur.
Now the verdict passed upon action by the moral sense
is merely another illustration of the same general principle.
Just as we have learned to associate a certain number of
qualities with an object the moment it is perceived, so we
have acquired by experience, individual or social,
the habit of associating a balance of pleasures or pains
with a particular action or course of conduct, even when
an entirely opposite conclusion is immediately presented
to the mind. Apart from certain actions which give rise
♦“Physiology
of
Mikd,” p. 397.
�33
to painful or pleasurable feelings as long as their effects
endure, experience has shown that certain actions while
directly painful are ultimately pleasurable, while others
immediately pleasurable are ultimately painful. This
experience has been repeated so frequently that the desire
attaching to the end has become transferred to the means :
as in the case of a man who begins by loving money because
of its purchasing power, and ends by loving it for itself,
the means to an end becomes thus all in all. Thus, the
means and the end become jammed together, so to speak,
in thought, and the mind having in view the after results
of an action, passes an instantaneous judgment upon it.
A trained biologist will draw from a very few facts a
conclusion which is by no means apparent to the untrained
mind ; long experience has familiarised him with the
process, and the conclusion suggests itself immediately to
the mind ; and one might as well postulate an innate
biological sense to account for the one process as postulate
an innate moral sense to account for the other.
The existence of a moral sense in man is simply an
illustration of the physiological law that functions slowly
acquired and painfully performed become registered in a
modified nerve structure, and are handed on from
generation to generation to be performed automatically or
to take their place as moral instincts.
Two things have prevented people seeing this clearly,
first, the problem has been treated as being purely psycho
logical, and, secondly, moral qualities have been viewed
as innate instead of acquired, and the question of develop
ment consequently ignored. Both of these causes have
helped to confuse rather than to clear. Underlying all
mental phenomena there is and must be a corresponding
physical structure; and it is only by carrying our
enquiries further and studying this physical structure
that we may hope to understand those mental qualities,
feelings, or emotions to which it gives rise, and, secondly,
it is not by contemplating the moral instincts of man as
they are to-day that we can hope to understand them.
This can be done only by reducing them to their simpler
elements and carefully studying the causes and conditions
of their origin and development. And when we analyse
the contents of our moral judgments, we find precisely
what the hypothesis of evolution would lead us to expect,
�34
namely, the majority of such actions as it sanctions are
found in the light of sober reason to be conducive to
individual and social welfare, while such as it condemns
are of a directly opposite character.
The decisions of the moral judgment are thus neither
more nor less than verdicts upon conduct expressed by
the summed-up experience of the race; and although such
judgments carry with them undoubted authority in virtue
of their origin, they, nevertheless need to be constantly
watched over and corrected when necessary. For, granting
that a certain presumption exists in favour of a verdict
passed by “ conscience,”—since it argues the possession of
a mental habit acquired by experience, and which would
never have been acquired had not such conduct as led to
its formation been once useful,—such verdicts cannot be
admitted to be final; for nothing is of commoner occur
rence than to find that habits and customs that are useful
at one stage of human development are dangerous at
others.
All that the existence of a moral instinct can prove
beyond doubt is that it was once useful, whether it is
useful now or not is a matter to be decided by ordinary
experience and common sense. A function owes its
value to its relation to a particular environment, and
therefore can only retain its worth so long as the condi
tions of life remain unchanged ; any alteration in the
condition of existence must involve a corresponding
change in the value of a function or in that cluster of
moral tendencies classed under the general name of
“ conscience.” While, therefore, conscience may urge us
to take action in a particular direction, it cannot give us
any guarantee that we are acting rightly. All that we can
be certain of is the existence of a feeling prompting a
particular action, and with that our certainty ends. To
discover whether the dictates of conscience are morally
justifiable we need to appeal to a higher court. The voice
of conscience is, as experience daily shows, neither uni
form nor infallible in its decrees ; its decisions vary not
only with time, place, and individual, but even with the
same individual at different times and under different con
ditions. In brief “acting up to one’s conscience,” to
use a common phrase, is indicative of honesty only,
not of correctness, it can mean merely that we
�35
are acting in accordance with certain feelings of
approbation or disapprobation that have been called
into existence during the evolution of the race and by
the early moral training of the individual. Nothing
is plainer than that the conscience needs correction
and admits of improvement; the fact of moral growth
implies as much, and this alone should be sufficient to
prove that conscience is an acquired and not an original
activity.
That conscience represents the stored up and consoli
dated experiences of preceding generations, subject of
course to the early training of the individual, there can
be little doubt. Given living tissue capable of responding
to certain stimuli and shrinking from others, and we
have the raw material of morality; for the only tissue
that can continue to exist will be such as responds to
stimuli favourable to its existence and shrinks from such
as are unfavourable. The reverse of this it is impossible
to conceive. Once the conditions under which life
persists becomes fairly understood, and the above con
clusion becomes almost a necessity of thought. There is
thus secured from the outset a general harmony between
actions instinctively performed and life-preserving ones;
and natural selection by preserving the lives of those
animals whose actions serve to establish the closest
harmony between themselves and their environment
serves to accentuate the formation of such habits as
render the performance of life-preserving actions certain
and instinctive. This feeling of moral approbation is, as
I have already said, not the only example of the principle
here emphasised, viz. : that separate and successive
acquisitions become so blended together as to form an
apparently single faculty. It is exemplified alike in the
skilled mathematician and the trained mechanic, and is,
indeed, co-extensive with the world of sentient life.
From monad to man progress has meant the acquisition
of such habits—physical, mental, and moral, Our moral
equally with our intellectual faculties have been built up
gradually during the course of human development. We
each start life with a certain mental and moral capital
that comes to us as a heritage from the past. Functions
that took generations to acquire are found as parts of our
structure, and their exercise has become an organic
�36
necessity.
Frequent repetition has converted certain
actions into habits ; physiologically these habits imply the
existence of a modified nerve structure demanding their
performance ; while mentally and morally such structures
and functions express themselves in the much debated
and misunderstood, moral sense.
V.—Society and the Individual.
In the foregoing pages morality has been dealt with
almost exclusively from the standpoint of the individual;
I have purposely omitted certain factors that aid moral
development in order that fundamental ethical principles
might not be obscured. I have shown the groundwork
of morality to lie in the very constitution of organic
matter; and that rules of ethics are merely generalized
statements of those courses of conduct which serve to
establish a harmony between organism and environment,
or, in other words, to maintain life.
Yet it must be evident to the student that one very im
portant factor—the social factor—must be considered if
our system is to btf complete. The influence of society in
developing morality must, it is plain, be considerable ;
for although the reason for right conduct, and the motives
that lead to it, must ultimately be found in the nature of
the individual, yet, if we seek for a full explanation of
the individual’s character, we must be referred back again
to the structure of that society of which he is a part. For
at bottom, the only reason why each individual should
possess a certain number of moral qualities of a particular
character, is that he belongs to a society that has developed
along special lines. The individual, as he is to-day, is a
product of the race, and would no more be what he is
apart from social organization, than society could be what
it is apart from the individuals that compose it. Each
quality or action is good or bad in virtue of its adaptation
or non-adaptation to an environment ; and to speak of
goodness or badness apart from such relations is to use
words that are void of all meaning. From whence do
such words as “honest,” “justice,” “duty,” Ac., derive
their significance if not from the relations existing between
the individual and his fellows ? Place a man upon a
desert island, and what becomes of ariy of these qualities ?
All moral conduct requires a medium ; in this case society
�37
is the medium in which morality lives and breathes ; and
it could no more continue without it than a bird could fly
without the atmosphere. The proof of this is seen in the
fact that any disturbance in the social structure involves a
corresponding change in the relationships of men and
women. All periods of change, religious or social, have
influenced for better or worse existing ethical institutions
and ideas, and few will doubt that should any great econ
omic change occur to-day there would ensue a speedy
re-arrangement of moral ideals.
*
It is therefore in the structure and development of the
social organism that we must seek for an explanation of
existing moral principles ; by this method only can we
understand how it is possible to obtain from a race of
beings, each of which is primarily moral by the instinct
of self-preservation, a social morality.
The general
manner in which this result has been attained has been
already indicated, but it remains to trace out the process
in greater detail.
In his profoundly suggestive book, “ Physics and
Politics,’’ Bagshot has pointed out that the great problem
early society had to face was, “ how to bend men to the
social yoke,” to domesticate him in short. Man untrained
and savage needed to have his energies checked, his im
pulses educated, and the whole of his nature practically
transformed before he could become either social or ethical.
A number of forces, natural, religious, social and political,
have contributed to bring about the desired result; and
although they overlap one another, still it is easy to deter
mine their position and approximate value.
Not to reckon with the possession of certain fundamental
life-preserving instincts, which are an inevitable product
■of the struggle for existence, and which must be the
common property of all sentient being, the struggle
against natural forces must early have driven men into
the adoption of additional life-preserving courses of con
duct. The conduct that furthered a fuller life may not
have been consciously adopted, but from the fact that all
who did not adopt it would disappear, its performance
would be rendered tolerably certain. Further, even were
not social organisation a heritage from man’s animal
* The fact of a movement of change proceeding from an ethical impulse
in no way affects this statement.
�38
ancestors, the struggle against nature would soon havedriven man into co-operation with his fellows. The
advantages of combination are too great not to give those
who are more amenable to the restraints of social life a
tremendous advantage over such as are not. The cohesion
and discipline of a tribe would be of far-greater importance
in the primitive than in the modern state. Natural selec
tion would, therefore, work along the lines of favouring
the preservation of the more social type of character. In
a tribe where some of its members showed but little in
clination to work with their fellows or submit to the
discipline laid down, such individuals would be weeded
out by a dual process. They would fall easy victims to
the tribal enemies, and the type would be discouraged by
public opinion. They would thus leave few or no des
cendants to perpetuate their qualities ; and by this dual
process of elimination the type would tend to die out,
and there would be gradually formed in its place one that
to some extent regarded individual and general welfare
as being inextricably blended. But this living together
necessarily implies the existence and cultivation of certain
sentiments and virtues that are not purely self-regarding.
If people are to live together and work together, there
must of necessity be some sense of duty, justice, confi
dence and kindness, let it be in ever so rudimentary a.
form; but these virtues must be present, or society disin
tegrates. Without confidence there could be no combina
tion, and without justice combination would be useless.
But the great thing in the first stage is to get the indi
vidual to obey the voice of the tribe and submit to its
judgments; and so long as a quality brings this end about
it is of service. It is in this direction that the fear of
natural forces, represented by early religions, and fear of
the chief as the representative of the gods on earth, have
played their part in domesticating man. The chief and
the priest both dictated and enforced certain lines of
conduct; where the conduct enjoined gave the tribe an
advantage over its competitors, it flourished ; where the
conduct enforced was of an opposite character, it was
either altered or the race went under in the struggle. So
that here again there would be brought about an identifi
cation of habitual and life-preserving conduct. The
discipline thus enforced was stern, the after results were
�39
disastrous, but it was useful then ; and, as Bagehot says,
“ Progress would not have been the rarity it is if the early
food had not been the late poison.”
Mr. Francis Galton has shown that a want of self*
reliance has been of great benefit to many species of
animals, inasmuch as it led to their presenting a united front
to an enemy that could not have been successfully resisted
by any other means; and undoubtedly, as he proceeds to
argue, a too great tendency to break away from custom
and initiate movements on one’s own responsibility, would
at the outset destroy whatever social life existed. Of
course these coercive forces by means of which man is
first domesticated, are not altogether consciously directed
or invented ; it cannot be said that any man invented a
custom, although it may be said humanity invented them.
Custom among savage races will grow out of the most
trifling circumstances or coincidences. Many customs
rise up and die out, and eventually out of a multitude
that are tried only a few survive; pretty much as out of
a number of seeds that may be scattered only those strike
root that find themselves amid favourable conditions.
The first step, then, in the growth of the state and
morality, is for each individual to recognise that living
with others implies that all his impulses shall not be
gratified promiscuously ; that it is wrong to go against the
expressed opinion of the tribe, or, better still, that his
interests are in some mysterious manner vitally connected
with the interests of the whole. This is secured, primarily, by the operation of natural selection, later by
conscious innovation ; the sphere of self unconsciously
extends until it takes in the whole of which the individual
is but a part. But apart even from those influences which
serve to foster moral feelings, the existence of family life
gives us a very definite point from which to commence
our investigations. It has been made pretty clear by
numerous investigators that the genesis of the state is to be
found in the family. From that it passes by natural
growth through the patriarchal and tribal stages to the
nation ; and therefore one must seek in the structure of the
family for the beginnings of much that is afterwards
expressed in the tribe.
*" Human Faculty,” pp. 70-79.
�40
The young human being has a longer period of infancy
and helplessness than any other animal. For several years
its existence, and consequently the existence of the species,
is dependent upon the unselfish feelings of others.
*
The family is, therefore, a much more powerful influence
in the moulding of the human character, than it is with
other animals, and it is consequently in the family that we
must look for the first clear outline of the social virtues.
Most of the virtues that are not purely self-regarding will,
I imagine, be found to have had their origin in this source.
Here must first have found clear expression the virtues of
forbearance, kindness, and a certain rough sense of justice.
The sense of justice is however very slight, being little
more than the arbitrary dictates of the head of the family,
a condition of things that lingers even when the family
has blossomed into the tribe. Still the main point to be
noted is that it is in the family that the individual is first
brought into constant relationship with creatures similar
to himself ; these others constitute a part, a very important
part of his environment, and he is necessarily compelled to
adjust his actions accordingly. It has been shown above
that “ Goodness ” consists essentially in a relation—the
maintenance of a balance between an organism and its
environment. Whether that environment be organic or
inorganic the principle remains the same, although in the
former case the influence of the environment is clearer and
more direct. As, however, in the family the surroundings
of each unit is partly made up of similar units, and,
further, as the medium of each is tolerably uniform,
adjustment will involve here (1) development along pretty
similar lines, and (2) adjustment in such a manner, that
the welfare of all the units becomes in some measure bound
up with and identical with that of each. Each one is
affected in somewhat similar manner by the same
influence, and the presence of pain in any member of the
family gives rise to similar representative feelings in self.
In this circumstance we find the beginning of sympathy
which plays such a large part in evolved conduct, and
which consists essentially in the process sketched above.
The next expansion of self occurs when the family
* I adopt the conventional terms here, but the precise meaning to be
attached to the words “Selfish” and “ Unselfish,” will be considered
later.
�41
developes into the tribe or state. Here the relations of
man become more varied, the interests wider; and the
constant clashing of interests renders necessary the
framing of laws for the general guidance. What had
already taken place in the family now takes place in the
state, a re-adjustment must be effected in order to establish
a more satisfactory relation between the individual and
the new environment. In particular, the ideas of justice
and duty must undergo a great expansion and elevation.
But even here the demands of right conduct are strictly
limited to the tribe; duties and obligations have no
reference to outsiders. Very plainly is this shown in the
Bible, “ Thou shalt not steal ” did not mean the Israelites
were not to “ spoil the Egyptians,” nor “ Thou shalt not
bear false witness ” mean that they were to be truthful to
their enemies; nor did the command “ Thou shalt not
commit murder” prevent the Jews putting to death the
people whose lands they had invaded. Virtue here was
purely local. It was not until a much later stage of human
development, when the tribe had grown into the state,
and the expansion of the state had given rise to a com
munity of nations with a oneness of interest running
through all, that the idea of virtue as binding alike upon
all was finally reached ; although we have still lingering
much of the tribal element in that narrow patriotism
which finds expression in the maxim, “ My country, right
or wrong.”
In the history of Rome we can trace these various stages
with tolerable clearness. One can watch Rome developing
from the patriarchal stage to the tribal, thence to the
nation, and finally to the world-wide Empire with its far
reaching consequences. At each of these stages we can
discern a corresponding development in moral ideals.
Confined at first to the tribe, morality grew until it
absorbed the nation ; and finally its universal dominion
involved as a necessity rules of ethics that should press
with equal force upon all, and which expressed itself
generally in the doctrine of human brotherhood. As
Lecky says, “ The doctrine of the universal brotherhood
of mankind was the manifest expression of those social
and political changes which reduced the whole civilised
globe to one great empire, threw open to the most distant
tribes the right of Roman citizenship, and subverted all
�42
those class distinctions around which moral theories had
been formed.” *
It is by such natural and gradual steps as those outlined
above that morality has developed. Its rise is upon
precisely the same level as that of the arts and sciences.
Given living tissue and the struggle for existence, and a
moral code of some sort is the inevitable result. Just as
inventions grew out of individual needs, so morality grew
out of social necessities. One feature in the process of
development is clear, and that is that the expansion of
moral theories, and their purification, has at each step
been dependent upon an expansion of the organic
environment. As this grew wider and more intricate
there was necessitated a re-adjustment of moral ideas.
Feelings that at first applied only to the family were
afterwards extended to the tribe, then to the nation, and
lastly, as a recognition of a oneness of interest indepen
dent of nationality began to dawn upon the human
reason, to the whole of humanity.
I have endeavoured to make this process of develop
ment as plain as possible by keeping clear of many con
siderations which, while bearing upon the subject, were not
altogether essential to its proper consideration. Yet, it is
obvious, that if the above outline be admitted as sub
stantially correct, the relation of the individual and society
is put in a new light; it is no longer the attributes of a
number of independent objects that we have to deal with,
but the qualities of an organism; and hence will result
very important modifications in the use of terms and in
the structure of our moral ideals.
In the first place the arbitrary division hitherto drawn
between self-regarding and social acts can no longer be
maintained, or at least not without serious modification.
The distinction usually drawn between self-regarding and
social conduct, although valuable enough for working
purposes, cannot be an ultimate distinction. It can mean
no more at bottom than the division of mind into emotion,
volition, and thought. Man’s moral, mental, and physical
nature forms a unity, and all divisions that may be made
are divisions erected to suit our conveniences and not such
as exist in nature. As the individual is an integral portion
Hist. European Morals. Ed. 1892. I. 340.
�43
of society, is indeed a product of social activity, his actions
have necessarily a double aspect, his fitness as an individual
determines his value in the social structure, and con
versely the perfection of the structure has a vital bearing
upon his own value ; and therefore although we may fix
our minds upon one portion of his conduct to the exclusion
of the other, such a state of things no more exists in
reality than the Euclidean line without breadth, or a point
without magnitude.
But it does not follow that because the distinction
usually drawn between the two classes of actions is
inaccurate that there is, therefore, no such thing as
gratifying individual preference at the cost of injury to
others. That is by no means the case. The important
thing is having a correct understanding of the sense- in
which the terms are used.
It has, I think, been made clear that however it may be
disguised the main end of the action is always the pursuit
of pleasure or the avoidance of pain; and therefore,
unless we choose to confuse ourselves with what Bentham
called “ question begging epithets,” it is plain that a man
can only desire the well-being of others in so far as their
happiness becomes in some manner bound up with his
own.
This result is brought about by two methods :
directly, by the growth of the sympathetic feelings which
makes the sight of suffering painful, and indirectly
through the desire of the good opinion and friendship of
those with whom we are living. Sympathy, although not
so important as many have imagined it to be, is yet an
extremely potent factor in moral evolution. Indeed, sym
pathy, which may be defined as the process of presenting
to the mind the pleasures and pains endured by others,
and making them our own, so to speak, is involved in the
very nature of knowledge and in the structure of society.
Social life is impossible, bearing in mind our fundamental
maxim, unless animals find some amount of pleasure in
the mere fact of being together. Were it otherwise there
would be disunion. This simpler form of sympathy
quickly gives rise to other forms of a much more complex
character. Beside the general circumstance that creatures
living amid the same general set of conditions come to
have nearly identical feelings aroused by similar stimuli,
it is obvious that a large part of the value of gregarious
�44
ness will depend upon the ability of certain individuals
to arouse by their actions feelings of a desired kind in
others. A member of a herd of animals scenting a special
danger, excites by its actions sympathetic feelings on the
part of the other members, thus enabling them to prepare
for defence in a similar manner. Otherwise the warning
that is given on the approach of danger would be of little
or no value. Thus, the development of a society involves
a capacity of entering into the pleasures and pains of
others ; and this power is further heightened by those
social sanctions which prescribe and enforce certain lines
of conduct—sanctions which are much more powerful in
primitive societies than in modern ones, owing to the
smaller individuality of its members.
The distinction, therefore, between a selfish and an
unselfish act is not that in the latter case egoistic feelings
have no place; this would be impossible ; it is simply
that in the evolution of society a transfusion of the
egoistic feelings occurs owing to which their distinctive
features are lost, pretty much as the special properties of
a number of elements are lost when merged into a
chemical compound. In the conflict of mutual self
regarding interests a number of re-adjustments and
compromises occur, until the result assumes a different
character from that presented by the individual elements.
The discussion about egoism and altruism has, as a result
of ignoring these considerations, been largely a barren one.
It is impossible to live for others unless one lives for self,
it is equally impossible to live wisely for self and ignore
duties to others. Therefore, as Maudesley says, “It is
not by eradication but by a wise direction of egoistic
passions, not by annihilation but by utilisation of them, that
progress in social culture takes place ; and one can only
wonder at the absurdly unpractical way in which
theologians have declaimed against them, contemning and
condemning them, as though it were a man’s first duty to
root them clean out of his nature, and as though it were
their earnest aim to have a chastity of impotence, a
morality of emasculation.” *
A second and no less important consideration is one that
has been already pointed out generally, namely, that a
* “Body and Will” p. 167.
�45
science of ethics can only reach safe generalisations by
taking into consideration the social structure of which the
individual is a part. To separate man from society and then
hope to understand his moral nature, is like attempting
to determine the function of a leg or an arm without
reference to the body. Such qualities as duty and justice
are, as I have said, purely social, and therefore the reason
for their existence cannot be found in the nature of the
individual considered apart from his fellows, any more
than the movements of the earth could be understood
apart from the influence of the rest of our planetary sys
tem. Indeed, a great many of the objections commonly
urged against a scientfic system of ethics will be found to
be based upon this short-sighted view of the matter ; and
thus as Mr. Stephens has pointed out, must lead to error
and confusion.
That man is a social animal is a statement frequently
made and easily illustrated, although few of those who use
the phrase have apparently considered all that is involved
in the dictum. Yet in that sentence lies the key to the
whole problem. As G. A. Lewes says, “ The distinguishing
feature of human psychology is that to the three great
factors, organism, external medium and heredity, it adds a
fourth, namely, relation to a social medium, with its product
the general mind.”* It is this “ fourth factor ” which gives
rise to a purely human morality and psychology, and so
speak, lifts the individual out of himself and merges him
in a larger whole.f From the first moment of his birth
man is dependent upon the activities of others for ninetenths of those things that render life endurable, and the
feelings engendered in the course of evolution bear an
obvious relation to this dependence. The love of offspring,
regard for the feelings of others, readiness to act in
unison with others, all form part of those conditions that
make the perpetuation of the specieS possible ; and conse
quently without such instincts and sentiments the
individual as he now exists would be an impossibility.
And in such cases where these sentiments were absent—the
+ To live for self is as scientifically and ethically absurd as to live for
others. The true ethic consists in giving to self-regarding and other re
garding claims their due weight, while at the same time demonstrating
their interdependence.
* “ Study
of
Psychology.”
�46
love of offspring for example—these individuals would
leave few behind to perpetuate their qualities, and the type
would thus tend to disappear. On the other hand, the
kindly disposed person, the sympathetic, or such as come
up to the tribal ideal of excellence, would be held up for
imitation and respect; and thus by a dual process of
weeding out anti-social specimens, and by cultivating
social ones, the development of a higher type would
proceed. Indeed, we can scarcely conceive the cause of
evolution to have been otherwise. Natural selection
works by favouring the possessors of such qualities as
establish a more perfect balance between organism and
environment, and in developing customs and instincts
the course of social evolution has been to bring out and
cultivate such as were favourable to the welfare of social
structure and repress those of a contrary character. Each
of the social virtues may have its rise traced in this
manner, by showing how it has contributed to individual
and social development.
*
The tendency of natural
selection in preserving those communities in which the
members are most at one in feeling and action is to bring
about not merely an ideal, but an actual identification of
individual and social welfare, and this in such a manner
that each one finds the fullest expression of his own wel
fare in the combined happiness of all around him.
This truth, that man might properly be regarded as a
cell in the “ social tissue,” was recognised in a vague and
rather fanciful manner long ago ; t but it is owing to the
unparalleled scientific activity of the last half century that
this conception of man has been placed upon a solid
foundation, and a scientific view of human life and conduct
made possible. We now see that the phrase “social
organism ” or “ social tissue” is something more than a
mere figure of speech, that it expresses a fundamental fact
and one that must be constantly borne in mind in the
consideration of social problems. What, indeed, is society
or the social medium but a part of the individual ? One’s
whole being, intellectual and moral, is composed of
* A very interesting inquiry might here be opened concerning the
influence upon the general character of leading or much admired
individuals.
+ Plato, Republic, book v. 462.
�47
innumerable relations between it and others. My nature
has been and is being so continually moulded by this social
medium that my pleasures and pains have become indis
solubly connected with the pleasures and pains of others
to such an extent that I could no more be happy in
a society where misery was general than 1 could travel in
comfort or indulge in the pleasures of art, science, or
literature, apart from the activities of those around me.
The mere fact of being brought up in a society so
identifies all our ideas and customs with that society as to
defy their separation from it. This is well illustrated in
the case of young men and women who are brought up
within the pale of a particular church. They become part
of its organisation, they identify themselves with it, and its
losses and gains become their own. If all this is witnessed
in a single generation, how much more powerful must the
co-operate feeling become when society has been constantly
developing along the same lines for countless generations
with its sanctions enforced by organic necessity ? The
process must obviously result in the direction above
indicated, that of bringing about a union of individual
desires and actions with social well-being; while the
growing intelligence of man, by perceiving the reason and
value of this mutual dependence of the unit and society,
must be constantly taking steps to strengthen the union
and increase its efficiency.
Here, then, w have reached a conclusion, or at least to
e
*
go further would involve a lengthy discussion of matters
into which we have no desire to enter. But if the fore
going reasoning be sound, we have reached a point from
which the reader will be enabled to lay down a clear and
satisfactory theory of morals such as will place the
subject upon the same level as any of the arts and
sciences.
The principles involved in the preceding pages may be
briefly summarised as follows :—
(1) Maintenance of life depends upon the establish
ment and continuance of a definite set of actions between
the organism and its environment.
(2) In the ceaseless struggle for existence this is
secured by the preservation of all those animals whose
�48
habits and capabilities best equips them to meet the
demands of their environment, natural selection thus
the
*
accentuating
value of all variations in this direction.
(3) As all conduct has as its immediate object the pur
suit of pleasurable, and the avoidance of painful feelings,
and as life is only possible on the condition that pleasur
able and beneficial actions shall roughly correspond,
there is set up a general and growing agreement between
pleasure-producing and life-preserving conduct.
(4) As experience widens and intelligence develops,
those actions that make for a higher life become more
certain and easy of attainment; while the pleasures
formerly attached to the end of action become transferred
to the means, these becoming an end in themselves.
(5) The conditions of life bearing upon all with a
certain amount of uniformity, and therefore demanding
a like uniformity of action, leads to a gradual modification
of nerve structure and the creation of corresponding
general sentiments, which, handed on and increased from
generation to generation, express themselves in our exist
ing moral sense.
(6) The moral sense, therefore, while possessing a
certain authority in virtue of its origin, needs to be con, tinually tested and corrected in accordance with the
requirements of the age.
(7) All progress involves the specialisation and integra
tion of the various parts of the organism, individual and
social. By the operation of this principle there is
brought about an identification of individual and general
interests ; inasmuch as each one finds his own happiness
constantly dependent upon the happiness of others, and
that a full expression of his own nature is only to be
realised in social activity.
Frcm all of which we, may conclude that:—
“ The rule of life drawn from the practice and opinions
of mankind corrects and improves itself continually, till
at last it determines entirely for virtue and excludes all
kinds and degrees of vice.
*
For, if it be correct to say
Hartley, “Observations on Man,” II. p. 214.
�49
that the moral formula is the expression of right relations
between man and the world, then it follows that the pres
sure urging man to the performance of right actions—i.e.,
actions serving to broaden and perpetuate life—must on
the whole be more permanent than those impelling him
to the performance of wrong ones. This, it will be
observed, is merely making the broad and indisputable
statement that evolution tends to maintain life.
The course of evolution is therefore upon the side of
morality. By the operation of the struggle for existence
we can see how “ the wicked are cut off from the earth ; ”
and the more righteous live on and perpetuate the species.
Right conduct is one of the conditions of existence, and
is as much the outcome of natural and discoverable laws
as any of the sciences to which we owe so much. What
has prevented it assuming a like positive character has
been the extreme complexity of the factors joined to the
want of a proper method. Here, again, we are deeply
indebted to the doctrine of evolution for having thrown
a flood of light upon the subject, and making tolerably
clear what was before exceedingly obscure. Under its
guidance we see the beginnings of morality low down in
the animal world in the mere instinct of self-preservation,
and its highest expression in the sympathetic and kindred
feelings of men living in society. And between these
two extremes there are no gaps ; it is an unbroken
sequence right through. As I have said, the process has
practically assumed the shape of an expansion of self,
from the individual to the family, from the family to the
state, and from the state to the whole of humanity.
Morality thus rises at length above the caprice of the
individual or the laws of nations, and stands a law
giver in its own right and in virtue of its own inherent
majesty. That which was a matter of blind instinct
at the outset, and later of arbitrary authority, becomes
in the end a matter of conscious perception pressing upon
all alike with the authority of natural law.
The outlook, then, to the rationalist is a perfectly
hopeful one. From the vantage ground afforded him by
modern science he can see that a constant purification of
conduct is part of the natural order of things, and
although in a universe of change one can hardly picture
�50
a time when there will cease to be a conflict between
good and bad motives, yet the whole course of evolution
warrants us in looking forward with confidence to a time
when the development of the permanently moral qualities,
or of such powers as serve to keep men moral, will be
sufficient to hold the immoral and anti-social tendencies
in stern and complete subjection ; for however much the
forms of morality may change with time and place, that
in virtue of which right conduct gains its name, must
ever remain the same.
�
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
An outline of evolutionary ethics
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 50 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Written when Cohen was Vice-President of the National Secular Society. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N162
Subject
The topic of the resource
Evolution
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 (An outline of evolutionary ethics), 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
Ethics
Evolution
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/024420c311acf3656f760e651e0e5459.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U9%7ExYBh6CLElTrfLzeE37wQ89ZKYqgfzmj74saMGtcM-AZhzETuNv82Hbk-p6sRwcoaJazOlN7Gl6W7iSf49PiZtkEp4-rfFNthPbs1iq3HtpkIBWa79qTzhW2TSioeUcvNX4Oj23reLYHDA5UMADdfVyFNfhwU47Rzy7ggrjF2ft8z7CGPya34e-X5EX42WNLx1i-H0YDMLq29kruqUZdQstnzg9MoSp7SMAEWVVWJkxNNmxSjwB0-pkBvYV-K4FJ3jJ%7ERh05K9yJar8Qzw-YJ%7EdaEDuiM1uzsMxIG-sL9vjXWBc6r-F0DHDgclA0rvs4QdCMDE-WnyTZtd4lw5tw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
09773b6c539ee13b2c9f1294e2471680
PDF Text
Text
NATld^AL SECULAR SOCIETY
FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH
A LECTURE
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
��THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
I.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
One of the foundation stones of our faith is the Old Testa
ment. If that book is not true, if its authors were unaided
men, if it contains blunders and falsehoods, then that stone
crumbles to dust.
The geologists demonstrated that the author of Genesis
was mistaken as to the age of the world, and that the story
of the universe having been created in six days, about six
thousand years ago, could not be true.
The theologians then took the ground that the “ days ”
spoken of in Genesis wrere periods of time, epochs, six
“ long whiles,” and that the work of creation might have
been commenced millions of years ago.
The change of days into epochs was considered by the
believers of the Bible as a great triumph over the hosts of
infidelity. The fact that Jehovah had ordered the Jews to
keep the Sabbath, giving as a reason that he had made the
world in six days and rested on the seventh, did not interfere
with the acceptance of the “ epoch ” theory.
But there is still another question. How long has man
been upon the earth ?
According to the Bible, Adam was certainly the first man,
and in his case the epoch theory cannot change the account.
The Bible gives the age at which Adam died, and gives the
generations to the flood—then to Abraham, and so on, and
shows that from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ
it was about four thousand and four years.
�4
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the sacred Scriptures, man has been on this
earth five thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine years, and
no more.
Is this true ?
Geologists have divided a few years of the world’s history
into periods, reaching from the azoic rocks to the soil of our
time. With most of these periods they associate certain
forms of life, so that it is known that the lowest forms of life
belonged with the earliest periods, and the higher with the
more recent. It is also known that certain forms of life
existed in Europe many ages ago, and that many thousands,
of years ago these forms disappeared.
For instance, it is well established that at one time there
lived in Europe, and in the British Islands, some of the
most gigantic mammals, the mammoth, the woolly-haired
rhinoceros, the Irish elk, elephants, and other forms that
have in those countries become extinct. Geologists say that
many thousands of years have passed since these animals
ceased to inhabit those countries.
It was during the Drift Period that these forms of life
existed in Europe and England, and that must have been
hundreds of thousands of years ago.
In caves, once inhabited by men, have been'"found
implements of flint and the bones of these extinct animals.
With the flint tools man had split the bones of these beasts
that he might secure the marrow for food.
Many such caves and hundreds of such tools, and of such
bones, have been found. And we now know that in the
Drift Period man was the companion of these extinct
monsters.
It is therefore certain that many, many thousands of years
before Adam lived, men, women, and children inhabited the
earth.
It is certain that the account in the Bible of the creation
of the first man is a mistake. It is certain that the inspired
writers knew nothing about the origin of man.
Let me give you another fact :—
The Egyptians were astronomers. A few years ago
representations of the stars were found on the walls of an
old temple, and it was discovered by calculating backward
that the stars did occupy the exact positions as represented
about seven hundred and fifty years before Christ. After
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
5
wards another representation of the stars was found, and,
by calculating in the same way, it was found that the stars
did occupy the exact positions about three thousand eight
hundred years before Christ.
According to the Bible, the first man was created four
thousand and four years before Christ. If this is true, then
Egypt was founded, its language formed, its arts cultivated,
its astronomical discoveries made and recorded about two
hundred years after the creation of the first man.
In other words, Adam was two or three hundred years
old when the Egyptian astronomers made these representa
tions.
Nothing can be more absurd.
Again I say that the writers of the Bible were mistaken.
How do I know ?
According to that same Bible, there was a flood some
fifteen or sixteen hundred years after Adam was created
that destroyed the entire human race with the exception of
eight persons; and, according to the Bible, the Egyptians
descended from one of the sons of Noah. How, then, did
the Egyptians represent the stars in the position they
occupied twelve hundred years before the Flood ?
No one pretends that Egypt existed as a nation before the
Flood. Yet the astronomical representations found must
have been made more than a thousand years before the
world was drowned.
There is another mistake in the Bible.
According to that book, the sun was made after the earth
was created.
Is this true ?
Did the earth exist before the sun ?
The men of science are believers in the exact opposite.
They believe that the earth is a child of the sun—that the
earth, as well as the other planets belonging to our constel
lation, came from the sun.
The writers of the Bible were mistaken.
There is another point :—
According to the Bible, Jehovah made the world in six
days, and the work done each day is described. What did
Jehovah do on the second day?
This is the record :—
“ And God said : Let there be a firmament in the midst
�6
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament. And it was so, and God called the firmament
heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second
day.”
The writer of this believed in a solid firmament—the
floor of Jehovah’s house. He believed that the waters had
been divided, and that the rain came from above the
firmament. He did not understand the fact of evapora
tion—did not know that the rain came from the water on
the earth.
Now, we know that there is no firmament, and we know
that the waters are not divided by a firmament. Conse
quently we know that, according to the Bible, Jehovah did
nothing on the second day. He must have rested on Tues
day. This being so, we ought to have two Sundays a week.
Can we rely on the historical parts of the Bible ?
Seventy souls went down into Egypt, and in two hundred
and fifteen years increased to three millions. They could
not have doubled more than four times a century. Say
nine times in two hundred and fifteen years.
This makes thirty-five thousand eight hundred and forty
(35,840), instead of three millions.
Can we believe the accounts of the battles ?
Take one instance:—
Jereboam had an army of eight hundred thousand men,
Abijah of four hundred thousand. They fought. The
Lord was on Abijah’s side, and he killed five hundred
thousand of Jereboam’s men.
All these soldiers were Jews—all lived in Palestine, a
poor, miserable little country about one-quarter as large as
the State of New York. Yet one million two hundred
thousand soldiers were put in the field. This required a
population in the country of ten or twelve millions. Of
course this is absurd. Palestine in its palmiest days could
not have supported two millions of people.
The soil is poor.
If the Bible is inspired, is it true ?
We are told by this inspired book of the gold and silver
collected by King David for the temple—the temple after
wards completed by the virtuous Solomon.
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7
According to the blessed Bible, David collected about
two thousand million dollars in silver, and five thousand
million dollars in gold, making a total of seven thousand
million dollars.
Is this true ?
There is in the Bank of France at the present time (1895)
nearly six hundred million dollars, and, so far as we know,
it is the greatest amount that was ever gathered together.
All the gold now known, coined and in bullion, does not
amount to much more than the sum collected by David.
Seven thousand millions. Where did David get this
gold? The Jews had no commerce. They owned no
ships. They had no great factories, they produced nothing
for other countries. There were no gold or silver mines in
Palestine. Where, then, was this gold, this silver found ?
I will tell you: In the imagination of a writer who had
more patriotism than intelligence, and who wrote, not for
the sake of truth, but for the glory of the Jews.
Is it possible that David collected nearly eight thousand
tons of gold—that he by economy got together about sixty
thousand tons of silver, making a total of gold and silver of
sixty-eight thousand tons ?
The average freight car carries about fifteen tons—David’s
gold and silver would load about four thousand five hundred
and thirty-three cars, making a train about thirty-two miles
in length. And all this for the temple at Jerusalem, a
building ninety feet long and forty-five feet high and thirty
wide, to which was attached a porch thirty feet wide, ninety
feet long, and one hundred and eighty feet high.
Probably the architect was inspired.
Is there a sensible man in the world who believes that
David collected seven thousand million dollars worth of
gold or silver ?
There is hardly five thousand million dollars of gold now
used as money in the whole world. Think of the millions
taken from the mines of California, Australia, and Africa
during the present century, and yet the total scarcely
exceeds the amount collected by King David more than a
thousand years before the birth of Christ. Evidently the
inspired historian made a mistake.
It required a little imagination and a few ciphers to
change seven million dollars or seven hundred thousand
�8
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH,
dollars into seven thousand million dollars. Drop four
ciphers, and the story becomes fairly reasonable.
The Old Testament must be thrown aside. It is no
longer a foundation. It has crumbled.
II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
But we have the New Testament, the sequel of the Old, in
which Christians find the fulfilment of prophecies made by
inspired Jews.
The New Testament vouches for the truth, the inspiration
of the Old; and if the Old is false, the New cannot be true.
In the New Testament we find all that we know about
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
It is claimed that the writers were divinely inspired, and.
that all they wrote is true.
Let us see if these writers agree.
Certainly there should be no difference about the birth of
Christ. From the Christian’s point of view, nothing could
have been of greater importance than that event.
Matthew says : “ Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold there came
wise men from the East to Jerusalem.
“ Saying, where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for
we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship
him.”
Matthew does not tell us who these wise men were, from
what country they came, to what race they belonged. He
did not even know their names.
We are also informed that when Herod heard these
things he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; that
he gathered the chief priests and asked of them where
Christ should be born, and they told him that he was to be
born in Bethlehem.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
9
Then Herod called the wise men and asked them when
the star appeared, and told them to go to Bethlehem and
report to him.
When they left Herod, the star again appeared, and went
before them until it stood over the place where the child
was.
When they came to the child they worshipped him—
gave him gifts, and, being warned by God in a dream, they
went back to their own country without calling on Herod.
Then the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
dream, and told him to take Mary and the child into
Egypt for fear of Herod.
So Joseph took Mary and the child to Egypt, and
remained there until the death of Herod.
Then Herod, finding that he was mocked by the wise
men, “ sent forth and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old
and under.”
After the death of Herod, an angel again appeared in
a dream to Joseph, and told him to take mother and child
and go back to Palestine.
So he went back and dwelt in Nazareth.
Is this story true? Must we believe in the star and the
wise men ? Who were these wise men ? From what
country did they come ? What interest had they in the
birth of the King of the Jews ? What became of them and
their star ?
Of course I know that the Holy Catholic Church has in
her keeping the three skulls that belonged to these wise men;
but I do not know where the Church obtained these relics,
nor exactly how their genuineness has been established.
Must we believe that Herod murdered the babes of
Bethlehem ?
Is it not wonderful that the enemies of Herod did not
charge him with this horror ? Is it not marvellous that
Mark and Luke and John forgot to mention this most
heartless of massacres ?
Luke also gives an account of the birth of Christ. He
says that there went out a decree from Csesar Augustus that
all the world should be taxed; that this was when Cyrenius
was governor of Syria; that, in accordance with this decree,
Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed ; that at
�IO
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
that place Christ was born and laid in a manger. He also
says that shepherds in the neighborhood were told of the
birth by an angel, with whom was a multitude of the
heavenly host; that these shepherds visited Mary and the
child, and told others what they had seen and heard.
He tells us that after eight days the child was named
Jesus; that forty days after his birth he was taken by
Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem ; and that, after they had
performed all things according to the law, they returned to
Nazareth. Luke also says that the child grew and waxed
strong in spirit, and that his parents went every year to
Jerusalem.
Do the accounts in Matthew and Luke agree ? Can both
accounts be true ?
Luke never heard of the star, and Matthew knew nothing
of the heavenly host. Luke never heard of the wise men,
nor Matthew of the shepherds. Luke knew nothing of the
hatred of Herod, the murder of the babes, or the flight into
Egypt. According to Matthew, Joseph, warned by an angel,
took Mary and the child and fled into Egypt. According
to Luke, they all went to Jerusalem, and from there back to
Nazareth.
Both of these accounts cannot be true. Will some Chris
tian scholar tell us which to believe ?
When was Christ born ?
Luke says that it took place when Cyrenius was governor.
Here is another mistake. Cyrenius was not appointed
governor until after the death of Herod, and the taxing
could not have taken place until ten years after the alleged
birth of Christ.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth,
and for the purpose of getting them to Bethlehem, so that
the child could be born in the right place, the taxing under
Cyrenius was used; but the writer, being “inspired,” made
a mistake of about ten years as to the time of the taxing and
of the birth.
Matthew says nothing about the date of the birth, except
that he was born when Herod was king. It is now known
that Herod had been dead ten years before the taxing under
Cyrenius. So, if Luke tells the truth, Joseph, being warned
by an angel, fled from the hatred of Herod ten years after
Herod was dead. If Matthew and Luke are both right,
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
11
Christ was taken to Egypt ten years before he was born, and
Herod killed the babes ten years after he was dead.
Will some Christian scholar have the goodness to harmonise
these “ inspired ” accounts ?
There is another thing.
Matthew and Luke both try to show that Christ was of the
blood of David, that he was a descendant of that virtuous king.
As both of these writers were inspired, and as both
received their information from God, they ought to agree.
According to Matthew, there were between David and
Jesus twenty-seven generations, and he gives all the names.
According to Luke, there were between David and Jesus
forty-two generations, and he gives all the names.
In these genealogies—both inspired—there is a difference
between David and Jesus, a difference of some fourteen or
fifteen generations.
Besides, the names of all the ancestors are different, with
two exceptions.
Matthew says that Joseph’s father was Jacob. Luke says
that Heli was Joseph’s father.
Both of these genealogies cannot be true, and the proba
bility is that both are false.
There is not in all the pulpits ingenuity enough to har
monise these ignorant and stupid contradictions.
There are many curious mistakes in the words attributed
to Christ.
We are told in Matthew (chapter xxiii., verse 35) that
Christ said :
“ That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar.”
It is certain that these words were not spoken by Christ.
He could not by any possibility have known that the blood
of Zacharias had been shed. As a matter of fact, Zacharias
was killed by the Jews, during the siege of Jerusalem by
Titus, and this siege took place seventy-one years after the
birth of Christ, thirty-eight years after he was dead.
There is still another mistake.
Zacharias was not the son of Barachias—no such
Zacharias was killed. The Zacharias that was slain was
the son of Barueh.
�12
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
But we must not expect the “ inspired ” to be accurate.
Matthew says that at the time of the crucifixion—“ the
graves were opened, and that many bodies of the saints
which slept arose and came out of their graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto
many.”
According to this, the graves were opened at the time of
the crucifixion, but the dead did not arise and come out
until after the resurrection of Christ.
They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and
wait for Christ to rise first.
To whom did these saints appear ? What became of
them ? Did they slip back into their graves and commit
suicide?
Is it not wonderful that Mark, Luke, and John never
heard of these saints ?
What kind of saints were they ? Certainly they were not
Christian saints.
So, the inspired writers do not agree in regard to Judas.
Certainly the inspired writers ought to have known what
happened to Judas, the betrayer. Matthew, being duly
“ inspired,” says that when Judas saw that Jesus had been
condemned, he repented and took back the money to the
chief priests and elders, saying that he had sinned in
betraying the innocent blood. They said to him : “ What
is that to us? See thou to that.” Then Judas threw down
the pieces of silver and went and hanged himself.
The chief priests then took the pieces of silver and bought
the potter’s field to bury strangers in, and it is called the
field of blood.
We are told in Acts of the Apostles that Peter stood
up in the midst of the disciples and said : “ Now this man
(Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity—and,
falling headlong, he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed
out—that field is called the field of blood.”
Matthew says Judas repented and gave back the money.
Peter says that he bought a field with the money.
Matthew says that Judas hanged himself. Peter says
that he fell down and burst asunder. Which of these
accounts is true ?
Besides, it is hard to see why Christians hate, loathe, and
despise Judas. According to their scheme of salvation, it
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
13
was absolutely necessary that Christ should be killed—
necessary that he should be betrayed; and, had it not been
for Judas, all the world, including Christ’s mother, and
the part of Christ that was human, would have gone to
hell.
Yet, according to the New Testament, Christ did not
know that one of his disciples was to betray him.
Jesus, when on his way to Jerusalem for the last time,
said, speaking to the twelve disciples, Judas being present,
that they, the disciples, should thereafter sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Yet, more than a year before this journey, John says that
Christ said, speaking to the twelve disciples : “ Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ?” And John
adds : “ He spake of Judas Iscariot, for it was he that
should betray him.”
Why did Christ, a year afterwards, tell Judas that he
should sit on a throne and judge one of the tribes of
Israel?
There is still another trouble.
Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection appeared to
the twelve disciples. According to Paul, Jesus appeared to
Judas with the rest.
Certainly Paul had not heard the story of the betrayal.
Why did Christ select Judas as one of his disciples,
knowing that he would betray him ? Did he desire to be
betrayed ? Was it his intention to be put to death ?
Why did he fail to defend himself before Pilate?
According to the accounts, Pilate wanted to save him.
Did Christ wish to be convicted?
The Christians are compelled to say that Christ intended
to be sacrificed—that he selected Judas with that end in
view, and that he refused to defend himself because he
desired to be crucified. All this is in accordance with the
horrible idea that without the shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin.
�14
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
III.
JEHOVAH.
God the Father.
The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the God of the
Christians.
He it was who created the universe, who made all
substance, all force, all life, from nothing. He it is who
has governed and still governs the world. He has established
and destroyed empires and kingdoms, despotisms and
republics. He has enslaved and liberated the sons of men.
He has caused the sun to rise on the good and on the evil,
and his rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
This shows his goodness.
He has caused his volcanoes to devour the good and the
bad, his cyclones to wreck and rend the generous and the
cruel, . his floods to drown the loving and the hateful, his
lightning to kill the virtuous and the vicious, his famines to
starve the innocent and criminal, and his plagues to destroy
the wise and good, the ignorant and wicked. He has
allowed his enemies to imprison, to torture, and to kill his
friends. He has permitted blasphemers to flay his wor
shippers alive, to dislocate their joints upon racks, and to
burn them at the stake. He has allowed men to enslave
their brothers, and to sell babes from the breasts of
mothers.
This shows his impartiality.
The pious negro who commenced his prayer, “ O thou
great and unscrupulous God,” was nearer right than he knew.
Ministers ask : Is it possible for God to forgive man ?
And when I think of what has been suffered—of the
centuries of agony and tears, I ask : Is it possible for man
to forgive God ?
How do Christians prove the existence of their God ?
Is it possible to think of an infinite being ? Does the word
God correspond with any image in the mind ? Does the
word God stand for what we know, or for what we do not
know?
�JEHOVAH.
15
Is not this unthinkable God a guess, an inference ?
Can we think of a being without form, without body,
without parts, without passions ? Why should we speak of
a being without body as of the masculine gender?
Why should the Bible speak of this God as a man—of
his walking in the garden in the cool of the evening—of
his talking, hearing, and smelling? If he has no passions,
why is he spoken of as jealous, revengeful, angry, pleased,
and loving?
In the Bible, God is spoken of as a person in the form
of man, journeying from place to place, as having a home,
and occupying a throne. These ideas have been abandoned,
and now the Christian’s God is the infinite, the incompre
hensible, the formless, bodiless, and passionless.
Of the existence of such a being there can be, in the
nature of things, no evidence.
Confronted with the universe, with fields of space sown
thick with stars, with all there is of life, the wise man, being
asked the origin and destiny of all, replies : “ I do not
know. These questions are beyond the powers of my
mind.” The wise man is thoughtful and modest. He
clings to facts. Beyond his intellectual horizon he does
not pretend to see. He does not mistake hope for evidence,
or desire for demonstration. He is honest. He neither
deceives himself nor others.
The theologian arrives at the unthinkable, the incon
ceivable, and he calls this God.
The scientist arrives
at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and calls it the
Unknown.
The theologian insists that his inconceivable governs the
world ; that it, or he, or they, can be influenced by prayers
and ceremonies; that it, or he, or they, punishes and
rewards; that it, or he, or they, has priests and temples.
The scientist insists that the Unknown is not changed, so
far as he knows, by prayers of people or priests. He admits
that he does not know whether the Unknown is good or
bad—whether he, or it, wants; or whether he, or it, is worthy
of worship. He does not say that the Unknown is God,
that it created substance and force, life and thought. He
simply says that of the Unknown he knows nothing.
.Why should Christians insist that a God of infinite
wisdom, goodness, and power governs the world ?
�16
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
Why did he allow millions of his children to be enslaved ?
Why did he allow millions of mothers to be robbed of their
babes ? Why has he allowed injustice to triumph ? Why
has he permitted the innocent to be imprisoned, and the
good to be burned ? Why has he withheld his rain and
starved millions of the children of men ? Why has he
allowed the volcanoes to destroy, the earthquakes to devour,
and the tempest to wreck and rend ?
IV.
THE TRINITY.
The New Testament informs us that Christ was the son of
Joseph and the son of God, and that Mary was his mother.
How is it established that Christ was the son of God ?
It is said that Joseph was told so in a dream by an angel.
But Joseph wrote nothing on that subject—said nothing,
so far as we know. Mary wrote nothing, said nothing.
The angel that appeared to Joseph, or that informed
Joseph, said nothing to anybody else. Neither has the
Holy Ghost, the supposed father, ever said or written one
word. We have received no information from the parties
who could have known anything on the subject. We get
all our facts from those who could not have known.
How is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the
father of Christ ?
Who knows that such a being as the Holy Ghost ever
existed ?
How was it possible for Mary to know anything about
the Holy Ghost ?
How could Joseph know that he had been visited by an
angel in a dream ?
Could he know that the visitor was an angel ? It all
occurred in a dream, and poor Joseph was asleep. What is
the testimony of one who was asleep worth ?
�THE TRINITY.
17
All the evidence we have is, that somebody who wrote
part of the New Testament says that the Holy Ghost was
the father of Christ, and that somebody who wrote another
part of the New Testament says that Joseph was the father
of Christ.
Matthew and Luke give the genealogy, and both show
that Christ was the son of Joseph.
The “ Incarnation ” has to be believed without evidence.
There is no way in which it can be established. It is
beyond the reach and realm of reason. It defies observa
tion, and is independent of experience.
It is claimed not only that Christ was the Son of God,
but that he was, and is, God.
Was he God before he was born ? Was the body of
Mary the dwelling place of God ?
What evidence have we that Christ was God ?'
Somebody has said that Christ claimed that God was his
father, and that he and his father were one. We do not
know who this somebody was, and do not know from whom
he received his information.
Somebody who was “ inspired ” has said that Christ was
of the blood of David through his father, Joseph.
This is all the evidence we have.
Can we believe that God, the creator of the universe,
learned the trade of a carpenter in Palestine—that he
gathered a few disciples about him, and, after teaching for
about three years, suffered himself to be crucified by a few
ignorant and pious Jews ?
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the
Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the
third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his
own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither
father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the
father, but existed before he was begotten—just the same
before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the
father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the
Father and Son before he proceeded—that is to say, before
he existed ; but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son
God, and the Holy Ghost God, and that these three Gods
make one God.
�18
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the celestial multiplication table, once one
is three, and three times one is one; and, according to
heavenly subtraction, if wjs take two from three, three are
left. The addition is equally peculiar : if we add two to
one, we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and
the other t,wo. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be,
more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the
Trinity.
How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity ?
Is it possible for a human being, who has been born but
once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of, three
beings each of whom is equal to the three ?
Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and
think of that one as half human and all God, and think of
the third as having proceeded from the other two, and
then think of all three as one. Think that, after the father
begot the son, the father was still alone; and after the
Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the
father was still alone—because there never was, and never
will be, but one God.
At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing
more can be said except “Let us pray.”
V.
THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
In the New Testament we find the teachings and sayings
of Christ. If we say that the book is inspired, then we
must admit that Christ really said all the things attributed
to him by the various writers. If the book is inspired, we
must accept it all. We have no right to reject the contra
dictory and absurd, and accept the reasonable and good.
We must take it all just as it is.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
19
My own observation has led me to believe that men are
generally consistent in their theories and inconsistent in
their lives.
So I think that Christ in his utterances was true to his
theory, to his philosophy.
If I find in the Testament sayings of a contradictory
character, I conclude that some of those sayings were never
uttered by him. The sayings that are, in my judgment, in
accordance with what I believe to have been his philosophy,
I accept, and the others I throw away.
There are some of his sayings which show him to have
been a devout Jew; others that he wished to destroy
Judaism ; others showing that he held all people except the
Jews in contempt, and that he wished to save no others;
others showing that he wished to convert the world; still
others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying, and
loving ; others that he was revengeful and malicious; others
that he was an ascetic, holding all human ties in utter con
tempt.
The following passages show that Christ was a devout
Jew
“Swear not, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne,
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem,
for it is his holy city.”
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
“For after all these things [clothing, food, and drink]
do the Gentiles seek.”
So, when he cured a leper, he said : “ Go thy way, show
thyself unto the priest, and offer the gift that Moses com
manded.”
Jesus sent his disciples forth, saying: “ Go not into the
way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.”
A woman came out of Canaan and cried to Jesus :
“ Have mercy on me, my daughter is sorely vexed with a
devil ” ; but he would not answer. Then the disciples
asked him to send her away, and he said: “ I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Then the woman worshipped him and said: “Lord help
me.” But he answered and said : “ It is not meet to take
�20
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
the children’s bread and cast it unto dogs.” Yet for her
faith he cured her child.
So, when the young man asked him what he must do to
be saved, he said: “ Keep the commandments.”
Christ said: “The scribesand the Pharisees sit in Moses’
seat; all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do.”
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for
one tittle of the law to fail.
Christ went into the temple and cast out them that sold
and bought there, and said: “It is written, my house is
the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
thieves.”
“We know what we worship, for salvation is of the
Jews.”
Certainly all these passages were written by persons who
regarded Christ as the Messiah.
Many of the sayings attributed to Christ show that he
was an ascetic, that he cared nothing for kindred, nothing
for father and mother, nothing for brothers or sisters, and
nothing for the pleasures of life.
Christ said to a man: “ Follow me.” The man said :
“ Let me go and bury my father.” Christ answered : “ Let
the dead bury the dead.” Another said: “ I will follow
thee, but first let me go and bid them farewell which are at
home.”
Jesus said : “No man having put his hand to the plough,
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven. If
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend
thee, cut it off.”
One said unto him: “ Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” And he
answered: “ Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
Then he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples and
said: “Behold my mother and my brethren.”
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren
or sisters, or father or mother, or children, or lands, for my
name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold and shall inherit
everlasting life.”
“ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me.”
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
21
Christ, it seems, had a philosophy.
He believed that God was a loving father, that he would
take care of his children, that they need do nothing except
to rely implicitly on God.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you and persecute you.
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what
ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.
* * * For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have
need of all these things.
Ask and it shall be given you. Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. If ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you. The very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Christ seemed to rely absolutely on the protection of God
until the darkness of death gathered about him, and then
he cried: “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken
me ?”
While there are many passages in the New Testament
showing Christ to have been forgiving and tender, there are
many others showing that he was exactly the opposite.
What must have been the spirit of one who said: “ I am
come to send fire on the earth. Suppose ye that I am
come to give peace on earth ? I tell you, nay, but rather
division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one
house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son
against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law against her
daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her motherin-law ” ?
“ If any man come to me and hate not his father and
mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
“ But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.”
This passage built dungeons and lighted fagots.
“ Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the
devil and his angels.”
�22
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
“ I came not to bring peace, but a sword.
All these sayings could not have been uttered by the
same person. They are inconsistent with each other. Love
does not speak the words of hatred.
The real philan
thropist does not despise all nations but his own. The
teacher of universal forgiveness cannot believe in eternal
torture.
From the interpolations, legends, accretions, mistakes,
and falsehoods in the New Testament is it possible to free
the actual man? Clad in mist and myth, hidden by the
draperies of gods, deformed, indistinct as faces in clouds,
is it possible to find and recognise the features, the natural
face of the actual Christ?
For many centuries our fathers closed their eyes to the
contradictions and inconsistencies of the Testament, and in
spite of their reason harmonised the interpolations and
mistakes.
This is no longer possible. The contradictions are too
many, too glaring. There are contradictions of fact, not
only, but of philosophy, of theory.
The accounts of the trial, the crucifixion, and ascension
of Christ do not agree. They are full of mistakes and
contradictions.
According to one account, Christ ascended the day of
or the day after his resurrection. According to another,
he remained forty days after rising from the dead. Accord
ing to one account, he was seen after his resurrection only
by a few women and his disciples. According to another,
he was seen by the women, by his disciples on several
occasions, and by hundreds of others.
According to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, Christ remained
for the most part in the country, seldom going to Jerusalem.
According to John, he remained mostly in Jerusalem, going
occasionally into the country, and then generally to avoid
his enemies.
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christ taught
that if you would forgive others God would forgive you.
According to John, Christ said that the only way to get to
heaven was to believe on him and be born again.
These contradictions are gross and palpable, and demon
strate that the New Testament is not inspired, and that
many of its statements must be false.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
23
If we wish to save the character of Christ, many of the
passages must be thrown away.
We must discard the miracles, or admit that he was insane
or an impostor. We must discard the passages that breathe
the spirit of hatred and revenge, or admit that he was malevo
lent.
If Matthew was mistaken about the genealogy of Christ,
about the wise men, the star, the flight into Egypt, and the
massacre of the babes by Herod, then he may have been
mistaken in many passages that he put in the mouth of
Christ.
The same may be said in regard to Mark, Luke, and
John.
The Church must admit that the writers of the New
Testament were uninspired men—that they made many
mistakes—that they accepted impossible legends as historical
facts—that they were ignorant and superstitious—that they
put malevolent, stupid, insane, and unworthy words in the
mouth of Christ, described him as the worker of impossible
miracles, and in many ways stained and belittled his char
acter.
The best that can be said about Christ is, that nearly
nineteen centuries ago he was born in the land of Palestine,
in a country without wealth, without commerce, in the midst
of a people who knew nothing of the greater world—a people
enslaved, crushed by the mighty power of Rome. That
this babe, this child of poverty and want, grew to manhood
without education, knowing nothing of art or science, and
at about the age of thirty began wandering about the hills
and hamlets of his native land, discussing with priests,
talking with the poor and sorrowful, writing nothing, but
leaving his words in the memory or forgetfulness of those to
whom he spoke.
That he attacked the religion of his time because it was
cruel. That this excited the hatred of those in power, and
that Christ was arrested, tried, and crucified.
For many centuries this great Peasant of Palestine has
been worshipped as God.
Millions and millions have given their lives to his service.
The wealth of the world was lavished on his shrines. His
name carried consolation to the diseased and dying. His
name dispelled the darkness of death, and filled the dungeon
�24
the foundations of faith.
with light. His name gave courage to the martyr, and in
the midst of fire, with shrivelling lips, the sufferer uttered it
again and again. The outcasts, the deserted, the fallen,
felt that Christ was their friend, felt that he knew their
sorrows and pitied their sufferings.
The poor mother, holding her dead babe in her arms,
lovingly whispered his name. His gospel has been carried
by millions to all parts of the globe, and his story has been
told by the self-denying and faithful to countless thousands
of the sons of men. In his name have been preached
charity, forgiveness, and love.
He it was who, according to the faith, brought immortality
to light, and many millions have entered the valley of the
shadow with their hands in his.
All this is true; and if it were all, how beautiful, how
touching, how glorious, it would be 1 But it is not all.
There is another side.
In his name millions and millions of men and women
have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed. In his name
millions and millions have been enslaved. In his name
the thinkers, the investigators, have been branded as
criminals, and his followers have shed the blood of the
wisest and best. In his name the progress of many nations
was stayed for a thousand years. In his gospel was found
the dogma of eternal pain, and his words added an infinite
horror to death. His gospel filled the world with hatred
and revenge; made intellectual honesty a crime; made
happiness here the road to hell; denounced love as base
and bestial; canonised credulity; crowned bigotry, and
destroyed the liberty of man.
It would have been far better had the New Testament
never been written—far better had the theological Christ
never lived. Had the writers of the Testament been re
garded as uninspired; had Christ been thought of only as a
man ; had the good been accepted, and the absurd, the
impossible, and the revengeful thrown away, mankind would
have escaped the wars, the tortures, the scaffolds, the
dungeons, the agony and tears, the crimes and sorrows of
a thousand years.
�THE
SCHEME.
25
VI.
THE “SCHEME.”
We have also the scheme of redemption.
According to this “ scheme,” by the sin of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden, human nature became evil,
corrupt, and depraved. It became impossible for human
beings to keep, in all things, the law of God. In spite of
this, God allowed the people to live and multiply for some
fifteen hundred years; and then, on account of their
wickedness, drowned them all, with the exception of eight
persons.
The nature of these eight persons was evil, corrupt, and
depraved ; and, in the nature of things, their children would
be cursed with the same nature. Yet God gave them
another trial, knowing exactly what the result would be. A
few of these wretches he selected, and made them objects
of his love and care ; the rest of the world he gave to indiffer
ence and neglect. To civilise the people he had chosen,
he assisted them in conquering and killing their neighbors,
and gave them the assistance of priests and inspired pro
phets. For their preservation and punishment he wrought
countless miracles, gave them many laws, and a great deal
of advice. He taught them to sacrifice oxen, sheep, and
doves, to the end that their sins might be forgiven. The
idea was inculcated that there was a certain relation between
the sin and the sacrifice—the greater the sin, the greater
the sacrifice. He also taught the savagery that without
the shedding of blood there was no remission of sin.
In spite of all his efforts, the people grew gradually worse.
They would not, they could not, keep his laws.
A sacrifice had to be made for the sins of the people.
The sins were too great to be washed out by the blood of
animals or men. It became necessary for God himself to
be sacrificed. All mankind were under the curse of
the law. Either all the world must be lost, or God must
die.
�26
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
In only one way could the guilty be justified, and that
was by the death, the sacrifice, of the innocent. And the
innocent being sacrificed must be great enough to atone
for the world. There was but one such being—God.
Thereupon God took upon himself flesh, was born into
the world—was known as Christ—was murdered, sacrificed
by the Jews, and became an atonement for the sins of the
human race.
This is the scheme of Redemption—the atonement.
It is impossible to conceive of anything more utterly
absurd.
A man steals, and then sacrifices a dove, or gives a lamb
to a priest. His crime remains the same. He need not
kill something. Let him give back the thing stolen, and in
future live an honest life.
A man slanders his neighbor, and then kills an ox. What
has that to do with the slander ? Let him take back his
slander, make all the reparation that he can, and let the ox
alone.
There is no sense in sacrifice, never was, and never
will be.
Make restitution, reparation, undo the wrong, and you
need shed no blood.
A good law, one springing from the nature of things,
cannot demand, and cannot accept, and cannot be satisfied
with, the punishment or the agony of the innocent. A
god could not accept his own sufferings in justification of
the guilty. This is a complete subversion of all ideas of
justice and morality. A god could not make a law for
man, then suffer in the place of the man who had violated
it, and say that the law had been carried out and the penalty
duly enforced. A man has committed murder, has been
tried, convicted, and condemned to death. Another man
goes to the governor and says that he is willing to die in
place of the murderer. The governor says : “ All right, I
accept your offer; a murder has been committed, somebody
must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law.”
But that is not the law. The law says, not that somebody
shall be hanged, but that the murderer shall suffer death.
Even if the governor should die in the place of the
criminal, it would be no better. There would be two
murders instead of one; two innocent men killed—one by
�BELIEF.
27
the first murderer, and one by the State—and the real
murderer free.
This Christians call “satisfyin the law.”
VII.
BELIEF.
We are told that all who believe in this scheme of redemp
tion and have faith in the redeemer will be rewarded with
eternal joy. Some think that men can be saved by faith
without works, and some think that faith and works are
both essential; but all agree that without faith there is no
salvation. If you repent and believe on Jesus Christ, then
his goodness will be imparted to you, and the penalty of the
law, so far as you are concerned, will be satisfied by the
sufferings of Christ.
You may repent and reform, you may make restitution,
you may practise all the virtues ; but without this belief
in Christ the gates of heaven will be shut against you for ever.
Where is this heaven ? The Christians do not know.
Does the Christian go there at death, or must he wait for
the general resurrection ?
They do not know.
The Testament teaches that the bodies of the dead are to
be raised. Where are their souls in the meantime ? They
do not know.
Can the dead be raised ? The atoms composing their
bodies enter into new combinations, into new forms, into
wheat and corn, into the flesh of animals, and into the
bodies of other men. Where one man dies, and some of
his atoms pass into the body of another man, and he
dies, to whom will these atoms belong in the day of
resurrection ?
�THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
If Christianity were only stupid and unscientific, if its
God were ignorant and kind, if it promised eternal joy to
believers, and if the believers practised the forgiveness they
teach, for one, I should let the faith alone.
But there is another side to Christianity. It is not only
stupid, but malicious. It is not only unscientific, but it is
heartless. Its God is not only ignorant, but infinitely cruel.
It not only promises the faithful an eternal reward, but
declares that nearly all of the children of men, imprisoned
in the dungeons of God, will suffer eternal pain. This is
the savagery of Christianity. This is why I hate its unthink
able God, its impossible Christ, its inspired lies, and its
selfish, heartless heaven.
,
Christians believe in infinite torture, in eternal pain.
Eternal pain 1
All the meanness of which the heart of man is capable is
in that one word—Hell.
That word is a den, a cave, in which crawl the slimy
reptiles of revenge.
That word certifies to the savagery of primitive man.
That word is the depth, the dungeon, the abyss, from
which civilised man has emerged.
That word is the disgrace, the shame, the infamy of our
revealed religion.
That word fills all the future with the shrieks of the
damned.
That word brutalises the New Testament, changes the
Sermon on the Mount to hypocrisy and cant, and pollutes
and hardens the very heart of Christ.
That word adds an infinite horror to death, and makes
the cradle as terrible as the coffin.
That word is the assassin of joy, the mocking murderer
of hope. That word extinguishes the light of life and wraps
the world in gloom.- That word drives reason from his
throne, and gives the crown to madness.
That word drove pity from the hearts of men, stained
countless swords with blood, lighted fagots, forged chains,
built dungeons, erected scaffolds, and filled the world with
poverty and pain.
That word is a coiled serpent in the mother’s breast, that
lifts its fanged head and hisses in her ear : “ Your child
will be the fuel of eternal fire.”
�CONCLUSION.
29
That word blots from the firmament the star of hope, and
leaves the heavens black.
That word makes the Christian’s God an eternal torturer,
an everlasting inquisitor—an infinite wild beast.
This is the Christian prophecy of the eternal future :—
No hope in hell.
No pity in heaven.
No mercy in the heart of God.
VIII.
CONCLUSION.
The Old Testament is absurd, ignorant, and cruel; the
New Testament is a mingling of the false and true—it is
good and bad.
The Jehovah of the Jews is an impossible monster. The
Trinity absurd and idiotic. Christ is a myth or a man.
The fall of man is contradicted by every fact concerning
human history that we know. The scheme of redemption,
through the atonement, is immoral and senseless. Hell
was imagined by revenge, and the orthodox heaven is the
selfish dream of heartless serfs and slaves. The founda
tions of the faith have crumbled and faded away. They
were miracles, mistakes, and myths, ignorant and untrue,
absurd, impossible, immoral, unnatural, cruel, childish,
savage. Beneath the gaze of the scientist they vanished;
confronted by facts, they disappeared. The orthodox
religion of our day has no foundation in truth. Beneath
the superstructure can be found no fact.
Some may ask : “ Are you trying to take our religion
away ?”
I answer No ; superstition is not religion. Belief with
out evidence is not religion. Faith without facts is not
religion.
�3°
THE FOUNDATIONS OF BELIEF.
To love justice ; to long for the right; to love mercy; to
pity the suffering; to assist the weak; to forget wrongs and
remember benefits; to love the truth; to be sincere; to
utter honest words ; to love liberty ; to wage relentless war
against slavery in all its forms ; to love wife and child and
friend; to make a happy home ; to love the beautiful in
art, in nature; to cultivate the mind ; to be familiar with
the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble
deeds of all the world; to cultivate courage and cheerful
ness ; to make others happy; to fill life with the splendor
of generous acts, the warmth of loving words ; to discard
error; to destroy prejudice; to receive new truths with
gladness ; to cultivate hope; to see the calm beyond the
storm, the dawn beyond the night; to do the best that can
be done, and then to be resigned—this is the religion of
reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and
heart.
But, says the prejudiced priest, the malicious minister:
“You take away a future life.”
I am not trying to destroy another world, but I am
endeavoring to prevent the theologians from destroying
this.
If we are immortal, it is a fact in nature, and that fact
does not depend on Bibles or Christs, on priests or creeds.
The hope of another life was in the heart long before the
“ sacred books ” were written, and will remain there long
after all the “ sacred books ” are known to be the work of
savage and superstitious men. Hope is the consolation of
the world.
The wanderers hope for home. Hope builds the house
and plants the flowers and fills the air with song.
The sick and suffering hope for health. Hope gives
them health, and paints the roses in their cheeks.
The lonely, the forsaken, hope for love. Hope brings
the lover to their arms. They feel the kisses on their eager
lips.
The poor in tenements and huts, in spite of rags and
hunger, hope for wealth. Hope fills their thin and trembling
hands with gold.
The dying hopes that death is but another birth, and Love
leans above the pallid face and whispers : “ We shall meet
again.”
�CONCLUSION
31
Hope is the consolation of the world.
Let us hope that, if there be a God, he is wise and good.
Let us hope that, if there be another life, it will bring
peace and joy to all the children of men.
And let us hope that this poor earth on which we live
may be a perfect world, a world without a crime, without a
tear.
London : Printed by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll
Some Mistakes
ok Moses.
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
6d.
The Gods. 6d.
The Holy Bible. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic?
Part I. 2d.
am I an Agnostic?
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
' Creeds & Spirituality. Id
Why
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition.
Biography by J. M. WHEELER.
Miscellaneous Theological Works,
The Age of Reason.
Foote.
is.
New edition, with Preface by G. W.
Is.
Complete Theological Works.
Reason.)
With a Political
Is.; bound in cloth, 2s.
(Including the Age of
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The foundations of faith : a lecture
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: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover. No. 24b in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N347
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 foundations of faith : 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
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ec94fcf18813525db81baadebdc5c9f8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qA%7ElnpVcg5mriwg7%7EHxjm3KsxVITadENnBjRqYJZk4okBFNgLVd179n8cfYBkjj9qBQS0yql4rjibajsHLlQgiAe%7EAnk19IYeKEl75s708wAP3ZK1IVWacjPNdGRNss8%7E0WD-c6AXh1Os84YlWQqrE%7E3N-EZs4kUBrQCno1nYOYSREbTlMu6eG-Yie5em-IQB%7ETrDALP9pWjBEASiRWBp5%7EkZoB4cIvVdgsKWYEzbA86zZHEl3LX3xnIeGjscuQncXu4VDU3fXVXUFe4vxFGXDyb9eVdtpZ3VR653Pc2zndyy7NAiuBIwCP-fR0hhnnGY6R8YFgKnzNJI7XAxKraew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f4b7fc7a95f6e00ac9fdd7182948aee2
PDF Text
Text
THE
SECULARISTS CATECHISM:
BEING
AN EXPOSITION OF SECULAR PRINCIPLES,
Showing their Relation to the Political and Social
Problems of the Day.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
(Vice-President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST.
1896.
Price Threepence.
��THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
Proem.
It has frequently occurred to me that the presentation of
Secular views in the form of question and answer would
be an advantage, not only to youthful inquirers, but also
to adults who lack either the opportunity or the inclina
tion to study in detail the nature of Secularism and its
principles and teachings. Moreover, I have often been asked
to give a plain and concise definition of Secular philosophy,
and to point out wherein it differs from New Testament
Christianity, and in what way it is superior to the Christian
faith. Many inquiries have also reached me as to what
are the Secular views in reference to the nature and
destiny of man, the government of the universe, and
to the political and social problems of the day. I propose
to comply with these requests on the Socratic method—
that is, by putting questions and supplying answers
thereto. In doing this my endeavor will be to employ
language that may be readily understood by those who
wish to learn what the various phases of Secularism really
are.
This expository method appears to me to be necessary,
particularly at the present time, when we are constantly
receiving into our ranks, from the rising generation,
numerous recruits, who evince a laudable desire to have at
their command a definite record of Secular views, prin
ciples, objects, and aims. Of course I do not intend to give
an elaborate disquisition of Secular philosophy, but simply
to furnish a concise, matter-of-fact epitome of our views
as they are explained by the National Secular Society,
and also by the leading writers of the Secular party.
�4
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
THE GATEGHISM.
Question.—What is Secularism 2
Answer.—In its etymological signification, it means the
age, the finite, belonging to this world. Secularists, however,
use the term in a more amplified sense, as embodying a
philosophy of life, and inculcating rules of conduct that
have no necessary association with any system of theology.
Q-—Save the Secularists an official statement of their
principles 2
■A-.—^es> those recognized and adopted by the National
Secular Society, which are as follows :—Secularism
teaches that conduct should be based on reason and
knowledge. It knows nothing of divine guidance or inter
ference it excludes supernatural hopes and fears; it
regards happiness as man’s proper aim, and utility as his
proper moral guide. Secularism affirms that progress is
only possible through liberty, which is at once a right and
a duty, and, therefore, seeks to remove every barrier to
the fullest equal freedom of thought, action, and speech.
Secularism declares that theology is condemned by reason
as superstitious, and by experience as mischievous, and
assails , it as the historic enemy of progress. Secularism
accordingly seeks to dispel superstition, to spread education,
to disestablish religion, to rationalize morality, to promote
peace, to dignify labor, to extend material well-being, and
to realize the self-government of the people.
<2-—What is the basis of Secularism 2
A.—The exercise of Freethought, guided by reason,
experience, and general usefulness. By Freethought is
here meant the right to entertain any opinions that
commend themselves to the judgment of the honest and
earnest searcher after truth, without his being made the
victim of social ostracism in this world, or threatened with
punishment in some other. Experience has proved the
impossibility of uniformity of belief upon theological
questions; therefore Freethought should be acknowledged
as being the heritage of the human race.
<2-—-Are Secularism and Freethought identical 2
A.—Not exactly. All Secularists must be Freethinkers,
but all Freethinkers are not necessarily Secularists. Freethought represents a mental condition, but Secularism
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
5
contains a code of principles whereby human life can be
regulated and human conduct governed.
Q.—What is Reason ?
A.—We define reason as being man’s highest intellectual
powers—the understanding, the faculty of judgment, the
power which discriminates, infers, deduces, and judges,
the ability to premise future probabilities from past
experience, and to distinguish truth from error.
Q.—What is Truth ?
A.—That may be taken as true which the best know
ledge endorses, the largest intellects accept, and the widest
experience vouches for. Many so-called truths are liable
to be corrected, modified, or superseded by more accurate
power of judgment, or more perfect experience.
Q.—What is Experience ?
A.—Experience represents knowledge acquired through
study, investigation, and observation in the broadest sense
possible. We do not use the word in the limited form, as
Whately employs it, of individual experience, but as
comprising the world’s legacy of thought, action, scientific
application, and mental culture, so far as we are enabled
to avail ourselves of these intellectual agencies.
Q.— What is Secular Morality?
A.—-We teach that morality consists in the performance
of acts that will exalt and ennoble human character, and
in avoiding conduct that is injurious either to the indivi
dual or to society at large.
Q.—What do Secularists mean by the term Duty?
A.—By “duty” we mean an obligation to perform
actions that have a tendency to promote the welfare of
others, as well as that of ourselves. Obligations are
imposed upon us by the very nature of things and the
requirements of society.
Q.—From a Secular point of view, why should we speak the
truth ?
A.—Because experience teaches that lying and deceit
tend to destroy that confidence between man and man
which has been found to be necessary to maintain the
stability of mutual societarian intercourse.
Q.—Why should we be honest ?
A.—Because a dishonest act is an infringement upon the
rights of others.
�6
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
Q.— Why should we be just 2
A.—Because history and observation have shown that
where injustice has prevailed, there the happiness and well
being of the people have been impaired.
Q.— What explanation is given to the word “ ought ” when
it is said we “ ought ” to do so and so 2
A.—-The only explanation orthodox Christianity gives
to this term is pure selfishness. It says you “ ought ” to do
so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through him you may
avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand, Secularism
finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very nature of things,
as involving duty, and implying that something is due to
others.
0.— Wherein is Secularism superior to Christianity 2
A.—In the fact that Secularism affirms certain rights
which are denied by the orthodox Christianity of the
Churches and the New Testament. These are:—1. The
right of a person to reject any or all of the religions in the
world, without fear of excommunication here, or condem
nation hereafter. Christianity condemns this right in
teaching : “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i. 8). “He
that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned ” (Mark xvi. 16). 2. The
right to refuse to regard all that Christ is supposed to have
taught as “ true gospel.” Christianity denies this, and says
to those who do not accept Christ’s gospel, that he will
come “ in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them ”
(2 Thess. 8). 3. The right of anyone adhering to Freethought, even if it culminates in the denial of the very
foundation of the Christian faith. This is denied by
Christianity, which says: “For whosoever will deny me
before men, him will I also deny before my father which is
in heaven ” (Matt. x. 33). 4. The right to act upon the
opinion that attention should be given to this world in
preference to any other. Christianity discourages this right,
inasmuch as it teaches: “Take no thought for your life,
....... but seek ye first the kingdom of God ” (Matt. vi. 25,33).
5. The right to regard Science as being more valuable than
theological faith. The New Testament teaches the opposite
to this in saying: “Is any sick among you?....... The
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
7
prayer of faith shall save the sick” (James v. 14, 15). “By
grace are ye saved through faith........ Not of works, lest any
man should boast ” (Eph. ii. 8, 9). 6. The right to deem
salvation quite possible apart altogether from Christ.
The scripture says no, “for there is none other name
[except Christ’s] under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved” (Acts iv. 12).
Q.—What is the difference between Secularism and Chris
tianity 2
A.—“Christianity,” in the words of Mr. G. J. Holyoake, “treats of two sets of duties—to God and to man : we
hold that the duties to man take precedence in importance,
and, indeed, include the highest possible duties to a benevo
lent God. Christianity holds that faith in Christ alone will
save us : we hold that faith in good works will better save
us, as humanity is higher than dogmas. Christianity teaches
that prayer is a means of providential help : we teach
that Science is the sole available means of temporal help.
Christianity professes to supply the highest motives and
the surest consolations: we say no motives can be purer
or stronger than the love of goodness for its own sake,
which brings consolation sweeter than dignities and loftier
than talents. Christianity assumes that the moral sense
cannot be educated without the Bible : we answer that
the high culture attained in Greece, before the days of the
Bible, is possible, in a purer and more universal sense, in
these days of scientific civilization; we answer that the
Bible, which has been understood in opposite senses by
the ablest men—the Bible, which has divided the holiest
churches, and which down to this hour dictates harshness
of language and bitterness of spirit—cannot be a book of
moral culture to the people. Christianity declares it has
the promise of this life and of that which is to come :
Secularism secures the realisation of this life, and estab
lishes fair desert also in any life to come ; for the ‘best use
of both worlds’ is the secular use of this. Christianity
contends that if the Christian is wrong he will be no worse
off than ourselves hereafter; while, if he is right, we shall
be in danger : but this only proves that our system is
more generous than the Christian, because our system still
provides no harm for the Christian hereafter, while his
system does provide harm for those who do not accept it.
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
Christianity either denies that there can be sincere dissent
from its doctrines, or it teaches that for conscientious
difference of opinion the last hour of life will be the
beginning of never-ending misery. Secularism, on the
contrary, says that that solemn moment when Death exerts
his inexorable dominion, and the anguish of separating
affection blanches the cheek; when even the dumb brute
betrays inarticulate sympathy, and the grossest natures
are refined, and rude lips spontaneously distil the silvery
words of sympathy; when the unfeeling volunteer acts of
mercy, and tyranny pauses in its pursuit of vengeance, and
the tempest of passion is stilled, and the injured forgive,
and hate is subdued to love, and insensibility to affection
—we say, that can never be the moment chosen by a God
of love in which to commence the execution of a purpose
which humanity cannot conceive without terror, nor con
template without dismay.”
Q.—Is Secularism a necessity 2
A.—Yes; for the three following reasons : (1) Because
theology has failed to regenerate society; (2) because
there are thousands of honest inquirers who cannot accept
as true any of the supernatural faiths of the world; (3)
because some guide for human conduct is desirable, there
fore Secularism is a necessity to those who are unable to
believe in theological teachings.
Q.—What do Secularists seek to destroy 2
A.—Not the truths that are contained either in Chris
tianity or in the Bible; these are for the service of mankind,
irrespective of any religious profession. Our aim is to
destroy the errors of theology—such as the belief in its
creeds and dogmas ; dependence upon alleged supernatural
power as a means of help; the notion that the prayer of
supplication is of any practical value; that man is neces
sarily a depraved being; that an ill-spent life can be atoned
for by a death-bed repentance; that salvation can be
obtained through the merits of Christ; that, if there be a
heaven, the only passport to it is faith in the Christian
scheme of redemption; that there exist a personal Devil
and a material hell; and that the Bible is an infallible
record.
Q.—What is the Secular view of the Bible 2
A.—Secularism affirms that the Bible is a merely human
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
9
production, abounding in the errors and superstitions
specially common to ancient human works, the venerable
days of old being the infancy of mankind. Secularists
regard the Bible as a book composed of a large number of
distinct and incongruous pamphlets, quite unauthenticated,
written by various person, nobody really knows by whom ;
at far distant periods, nobody exactly knows when ; which
have been floated down to us, as the “accidents of time”
determined, by oral traditions and written copies, subject
to all the blunders and perversions of ignorant and fanatical
men, in ages perfectly uncritical and unscrupulous; whose
originals have irretrievably perished; which frequently
refer to prior authorities that have utterly perished also,
and whose various readings are counted by tens of thou
sands. The various books which compose the New Testa
ment were first circulated at a time when ignorance was
the rule, and knowledge the exception; when the critical
spirit was non-existent, and true believers accounted all
forgeries in favor of their religion not only permissible,
but praiseworthy. The amount of falsification prevalent
which can be demonstrated even now, when so many of the
required testimonies are lost, is astounding, and even
appalling, to one who newly enters upon the inquiry by
studying the works of some competent and impartial
scholar. Of these falsifications and uncertainties the
ordinary Christian knows nothing; and the learned
Christians, who are thoroughly aware of them, are any
thing but anxious to point them out to their less informed
brethren. The Secularist, knowing these facts, together
with the equally demonstrated truth that both the Old
and New Testaments are contradictory in their statements
and teachings, estimates the book by its merits, and not by
its supposed authority. The Bible, like all books, should
be our servant, and not our master. Secularism applies
the eclectic principle to all books, and, being bound by no
authority save cultivated reason, the evil, folly, and errors
of each are discarded, while the good, wise, and true are
retained to assist in making a noble, dignified, and happy
life for mankind on earth.
Q.—Are Secularists Atheists ?
A.—Not necessarily so. Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,
the founder of Secularism, says to the reader in his preface
�10
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
to the Trial of Theism : “ All we beg of him is not to con
found Atheism with Secularism, which is an entirely
different question. It is not necessary to Secularism to
say God does not exist, nor to question the alleged proofs
of such existence. The sphere of Secularism is irrespective
of Theism, Atheism, or the Bible. Its province is the
ethics of nature. Secularism does not declare why nature
exists, or how it exists. Nature is. Secularism commences
with this ample, indisputable, and infinite fact of wonder,
study, and progress.”
Q-—Did not Mr. Bradlaugh say that Secularism leads to
Atheism when logically reasoned out 2
A.—Yes; but he also said, in his debate with Dr.
McCann: “ Clearly, all Secularists are not Atheists.
Clearly, many people who believe themselves to be sincere
Theists can sign the declarations and principles which I
have read to you [those of the National Secular Society],
without doing any violation to their honest declaration;
but, so far as I am personally concerned, and probably
many will agree with me, I contend that the result of
Secularism is Atheism. Only don’t put it on all. Don’t
put it on the Society. There are many Atheists in the
Society, and some who are not.” Besides, if Secularism
and Atheism were necessarily one, then Mr. Bradlaugh’s
words would have no meaning when he said that Secularism
led, when logically carried out, to Atheism. If it leads to
Atheism, then it is not Atheism.
Q.-—JBhat is the difference between Secularism and Atheism 2
A.—Secularism is a practical philosophy, providing rules
for human guidance in daily life, while Atheism represents
certain theories in reference to the supposed existence of
God and the supernatural in the universe.
Q.—Have Christians in their teachings anything analogous
to the stated relation between Secularism and Atheism 2
A.—Yes; many Christians believe that the logical out
come of their teachings is Calvinism, while others will not
admit that Calvinism is any part of Christianity.
Q.—Where is the Secular science, and where are the hospitals
and other institutions of the Secular party 2
A.—All science is secular, and it did not originate in
any supernatural faith. Hospitals, and other benevolent
institutions, are the result of human sympathy. They
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
11
existed long before the dawn of Christianity, and to-day
Secularists and all classes of unbelievers contribute towards
their support. The Christians built no hospitals until the
fourth century A.D.
Q.—What is the reason that professed Christians suppose
they have done more useful work than Secularists 2
A.—Because they have had more time, greater wealth,
and better opportunities than Secularists have had.
Christians claim a history of two thousand years, during
which time they have possessed untold wealth, and almost
unlimited power. Secularism, on the other hand, has only
existed, as an organisation, for about fifty years, funds'
left for its propagation have been stolen by Christians,
and Christian laws have made Secular advocacy illegal.
Q.—Have Secularists accomplished as much in their fifty years
of existence as the Christians did during the first half century of
their existence 2
A.—Undoubtedly, and more. The early Christians
had no science worthy of the name; they achieved no
political or social reforms, and they gave the masses no
real education. It was not until the third century that
Christian places of worship were erected. Secularists have
several halls throughout the country, and they would have
many more but for the disgraceful fact that, as already
stated, Christians have appropriated to themselves money
left for Secular purposes.
Q,.—What progressive movements have Secularists taken part
in 2
A.—In the struggles for the abolition of slavery; the
repeal of the taxes upon knowledge; the establishment of
a national system of education; the various efforts that
have been made to extend the franchise among the
masses ; the securing of the right of free speech and a free
press ; the substitution of affirmation instead of swearing ;
the improvement of the social status of woman ; the foster
ing of kindness to animals; the cultivation of peace and
goodwill among nations; the settlement of disputes by
intellectual arbitration rather than by brute force; the
better adjustment of the relations between Capital and
Labor, and the entire cessation of either persecution or
prosecution for the holding of opinions, let them be what
they may.
�12
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
Q.—Are there any records of special acts of benevolence upon
the part of unbelievers in the Christian faith ?
A.—Yes, many. Among the numerous bequests left by
rich men, the gifts of Freethinkers have appeared con
spicuous. The founder of Girard College, not a believer
in Christianity, in addition to the six million dollars
required for the establishment of that college, gave,
throughout his lifetime and at his death, thirty thousand
dollars to the hospitals, twenty thousand dollars to the
deaf and dumb asylum, twenty thousand dollars to the
orphan asylum, twenty thousand dollars to the Lancaster
schools, ten thousand dollars to provide fuel for the Phila
delphia poor, ten thousand dollars to aid distressed seacaptains, twenty thousand dollars for the relief of poor
masons, fifty thousand dollars for various other charities in
Philadelphia, and three hundred thousand dollars for the
absolute poor. James Smithson left five thousand dollars
to found the institution named after him at Washington;
John Redmond gave three hundred thousand dollars to
support three beds in the Boston Hospital; James Lick
gave one million dollars to found an astronomical observa
tory ; William M’Clure gave half a million dollars to aid
the working men ; and George Ilford gave thirty thousand
dollars for the scientific training of women. Mr. Butland,
a prominent member of the Toronto Secular Society,
bequeathed fifty thousand dollars to the general hospitals
of Toronto. In Glasgow the Mitchell Library was
established at the cost of seventy thousand pounds by a
Freethinker; and in the same city Mr. George Baillie left
eighteen thousand pounds to establish unsectarian schools,
reading-rooms, etc.
Q.—Have Secularists any faith or religion-?
A.—That depends upon the meaning attached to the
words “ faith ” and “ religion.” If these terms are under
stood as representing theological and dogmatic teachings,
we have neither.
Q.—How do Secularists lenderstand the terms here mentioned ?
A.—Our faith is limited to possible results in this life,
and it is based upon the experience of the past, not upon
conjectures as to a future existence. Religion, with us,
signifies morality—-that is, practical duties, not speculative
opinions. This is the etymological meaning of the word.
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
13
Q.—Have Secularists any standard of right, such as the
Christian’s “ Golden Rule,” which is : “ Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even to them ” ?
A.—We do not accept this as the best standard of right,
but only as an expression of likes and dislikes. Besides,
it belongs to. .the Pagan world, and it is not the unique
teaching of Christianity. We hold that the best conduct
is to do that which is conducive to the general good,
independently of what we would that others should
do to us. Conduct that results in being useful to
others and ourselves is undoubtedly the best for all man
kind.
Q.—Does this express the Secular idea of duty ?
A.—Yes, inasmuch as it represents that conduct which
grows out of our relation to each other. It includes our
obligation to parents, family, and the State, to whom,
and to which, we are individually indebted for benefits
received.
Q.—Is there no other duty ?
A.—No ; because our only concern is with this world
and its inhabitants, beyond which we recognise no moral
duty or responsibility. The only demand we admit is,
that our conduct should be in harmony with what the best
interests of the community require of its members.
Q.—What motive have Secularists for compliance with this
demand ?
A.—The desire to maintain social affinity, and to raise
the standard of ethical culture and general intelligence by
the example of right-doing. Experience proves that this
is the surest way of promoting the general good.
Q.—But is not that reducing morality to a personal advantage ?
A.—Quite so; and herein lies the excellence of the Secular
method, for the general good is the result of personal action.
Itis a mistake to suppose that individual happiness ispossible
while we are surrounded with ignorance and vice ; there
fore Secularists urge that their neighbors should be well
instructed in order that all, individually, may share the
highest good.
Q.—Do Secularists believe in a future life ?
A.-—Some do, and others do not. That is a question
left to each person to decide for himself. The National
Secular Society does not dogmatise upon the subject either
�14
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
pro or con. _ It cannot affirm there is such a life, because to
prove it is impossible; it cannot deny a future life, because
we know nothing of it, and to deny that of which we acknow
ledge we know nothing would be illogical.
Q.—Is the Secular position upon this subject a safe one 1
A.—We think so; for, by making the best of this life,
physically, morally, and intellectually, we are pursuing the
wisest course, whatever the issues in reference to a future
life may be. If there should be another life, the Secularist
must share it with his opponent. Our opinions do not
affect the reality in the slightest degree. If we are to
sleep for ever, we shall so sleep, despite the belief in
immortality; and if we are to live for ever, we shall so
live, despite the belief that possibly death ends all. It
must also be remembered that, if man possesses a soul, that
soul will be the better through being in a body that has
been properly trained ; and if there is to be a future life,
that life will be the better if the higher duties of the
present one have been fully and honestly performed.
Q.—Rave Secularists no fear of future punishment, supposing
they are wrong ?
A.—Certainly not; for if there be a just God, before
whom we are to appear to be judged, he will never punish
those to whom he has not vouchsafed the faculty of seeing
beyond the grave, because they honestly avowed that their
mental vision was limited to this side of the tomb. Thus
the Secularists feel quite safe as regards any futurity that
may be worth having. If the present be the only life, then
it will be all the more valuable if we give it our undivided
attention. If, on the other hand, there is to be another
life, then, in that case, we shall have won the right to its
advantages through having been faithful to our convictions,
just to our fellows, and in having striven to leave the world
purer than we found it.
Q.—Do not Secularists miss a great consolation in not believing
in a future life ?
A.—Decidedly not; for the reason that the belief is
only speculative, having no foundation in known facts.
Besides, we have the conviction that our secular conduct
on earth will entitle us to the realization of its fullest
pleasure. And this conviction is not marred by the belief
that the majority of the human race will be condemned to
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
15
a fate “ which humanity cannot conceive without terror,
nor contemplate without dismay.”
Q.—Is not the belief in a future life necessary as a motive to
moral conduct ?
A.—No; because people live good lives without such a
belief, while many who believe in “ a life beyond the grave ”
are guilty of the most immoral conduct. The consideration
that our actions affect, for good or for evil, our fellow crea
tures here ought to supply a sufficient motive for right living.
Q.—-But are not the hope of heaven and the fear of hell among
the strongest incentives to virtue, and the most potent deterrents to
vice ?
A.—In some cases this may be so, but that is the result
of a false education. The highest incentive to good conduct
should be our personal honor and the welfare of others;
the strongest deterrent to bad conduct ought to be the
knowledge that it results in injurious consequences upon
the whole of the community.
Q.—Do Secularists believe in what is termed the 11 Divine
Providence ” of the universe ?
A.—They do not. Our only providence is that which is
derived from science, forethought, industry, and human
effort. We have no faith in miracles or in the efficacy of
prayer. Other conditions being equal, we believe that the
crops of an unbeliever will ripen quite as well upon his
estate as those upon the estate of the most pious.
Q.—-What injunction do Secularists give in accordance with
their view of life ?
A.—That we should trust to ourselves, and not rely upon
supposed heavenly favor. That we should seek in the order
of nature a basis for practical precepts in life, and regard
the laws of nature and man as being the foundation of all
virtue and prosperity.
Q.—Do Secularists accept any authority, or is every man
allowed to do as he likes ?
A.—We accept the authority of cultivated reason, and
facts that have been verified by experience. No one should
be permitted to do as he likes, if in so doing his acts tend
to injure others, and to disturb the harmony and well-being
of the social state.
Q.—What, from a Secular standpoint, principally influences
man’s character ?
�16
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM,
A.—His physical organisation, early education, and
general environment. These are the main conditions
that determine the nature of human character and con
duct.
Q.—What is meant by education ?
A.—Not merely the possession of knowledge, but the
ability to use knowledge so that it may be beneficial both
to the individual and to the general community.
Q.—Are men, their surroundings and natural laws, the only
forces that are concerned with the affairs of life ?
A.—We believe that life is what it is through men
acting and reacting upon each other, and in consequence
of their complying, or non-complying, with the laws of
existence, and making those laws subservient to their
various objects in life as means to an end.
Q.—Is there no power over human existence except nature’s
laws and man’s effort ? .
A.—That is more than we can say with our limited
knowledge. But, so far as we know at present, these are
the only agencies or factors that can be relied upon to
sustain and regulate human affairs.
Q.—How do Secularists account for the origin of nature and
her laws ?
A_.—We do not attempt to do so, inasmuch as we know
nothing of what are called “ final causes.” Still, we accept
the theory that probably nature and her laws may have
always existed under some conditions—that there is one
eternal existence of which all known forms are modes of
manifestation.
Q.—Which theory do Secularists regard as being the more
reasonable—that of Special Creation, or that of Evolution ?
A.—Undoubtedly the theory of Evolution, for that
accords with certain discoveries in science, and, moreover,
it recognises the fact that all forms of nature are subject
to perpetual change, and that the whole universe is the
theatre of incessant activity.
Q.—What is the difference between Evolution and Specia
Creation 1
A.—Evolution may be defined as an unfolding, opening
out, or unwinding; a disclosure of something which was
not previously known, but which existed before in a more
condensed or hidden form. According to this theory, there
�THE SECULARIST S CATECHISM.
17
is no new existence called into being, but a making con
spicuous to our eyes that which was previously concealed.
“ Evolution teaches that the universe and man did not
always exist in their present form; neither are they the
product of a sudden creative act, but rather the result of
innumerable changes from the lower to the higher, each
step in advance being an evolution from a pre-existing
condition.” On the other hand, the special creation
doctrine teaches that, during a limited period, God created
the universe and man, and that the various phenomena are
not the result simply of natural law, but the outcome of
supernatural design. According to Mr. Herbert Spencer,
the whole theory of Evolution is based upon three prin
ciples—namely, that matter is indestructible, motion con
tinuous, and force persistent.
Q.—What are the objections to the theory of Special Creation?
A.—To accept this theory as being true, we have to
think of a time when there was no time—of a place where
there was no place. Is this possible ? If it were, it would
be interesting to learn where an infinite God was at that
particular period, and how, in “ no time,” he could perform
his creative act. Besides, if a being really exist who created
all things, the obvious question at once is, “ Where was
this being before anything else existed ?” “ Was there a
time when God over all was God over nothing ? Can we
believe that a God over nothing began to be out of nothing,
and to create all things when there was nothing ?” More
over, if the universe was created, from what did it emanate ?
From nothing ? But “ from nothing nothing can come.”
Was it created from something that already was ? If so,
it was no creation at all, but only a continuation of that
which was in existence. Further, “ creation needs action ;
to act is to use force ; to use force implies the existence of
something upon which that force can be used. But if
that ‘ something ’ were there before creation, the act
of creating was simply the re-forming of pre-existing
materials.”
Q.—Is there any other serious objection to the belief that an
infinite God created the universe ?
A.—Yes. If God is infinite, he is everywhere ; if every
where, he is in the universe; if in the universe now, he was
always there. If he were always in the universe, there
�18
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
never was a time when the universe was not; therefore, it
could never have been created.
Q.—Is it reasonable to believe in the theory of Special Creation,
when science proclaims the stability of natural law 1
A.—We think not; for, as the late Professor Tyndall,
in his lecture on “ Sound,” remarked, if there is one
thing that science has demonstrated more clearly than
another, it is the stability of the operations of the laws of
nature. We feel assured from experience that this is so,
and we act upon such assurance in our daily life.
Q.—What is the correct meaning of Agnosticism ?
A.—It has been well said that, to clearly understand
what Agnosticism is, it is desirable to remember the fact
that one of the very first heresies which distracted the
early Catholic Church was that of the Gnostics. They
took their name from the Greek word for knowledge (or
science) ; but, of course, they used it within certain
sufficiently-marked limits. They did not mean that they
possessed universal knowledge of all things, but only, that
they had the knowledge of what the Christian religion
really was, or ought to be. This is here offered as a
parallel example of the application of a general term to
one particular subject or object of human knowledge.
Precisely similar are the limits of the word which the
addition of the little negative particle a (without) makes
to signify precisely the opposite of Gnosticism. Gnosticism
meant a full, complete, and accurate knowledge of the origin,
nature, attributes, and mode of operation of the deity;
Agnosticism, on the contrary, signifies the very opposite of
this. It declares that we have no knowledge of God.; that
we cannot pretend to say that such a Supreme Intelligence
exists ; and that we are absolutely precluded from affirming
that the universe is really destitute of such a central Nous,
or Highest Intelligence. “ Canst thou,” asked the writer
of the grand old Semitic drama—“ Canst thou by searching
find out God ?” This interrogation the honest Agnostic
has put to himself, and, after long and earnest exercitation
of mind, after the intensest study of the world external
and of the inner consciousness, he arrives at the conclusion
that the question cannot be satisfactorily, answered, either
affirmatively or negatively. The Agnostic does not argue
that, “because we cannot see God, therefore he [God] is
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
19
not.” The Agnostic knows too well his own limited nature
and the boundary of the knowable to claim for himself a
God-like degree and measure of knowledge.
Q.—Is it not a fad that many of the principles of the National
Secular Society are not new ?
A.—Probably that is so, but we are not aware that any
sect, Christian or anti-Christian, possesses a special vested
interest in goodness, or a monopoly of truth. Everything
that is worth having belongs to man everywhere, and the
principles of Secularism most certainly do not claim to be
any exception to this rule. Truth is the universal preroga
tive of mankind in general, and goodness and virtue are
qualities fortunately placed within the reach of humanity
at large. If the principles of Secularism cannot lay claim
to originality because they have been taught before, this is
an objection that would apply with quite as much force,
and certainly with as much truth, to most other systems,
including Christianity itself. The ethical maxims to be
met with in the New Testament may all be found in some
form or other in heathen philosophies propounded long
before Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to have trodden the
shores of Galilee. It is surely a most puerile charge to
bring against a system, that the whole of its teachings are
not new. Morality is as old as humanity, and virtue co
existent with human action. But if Secularism or any
other system can do something towards extending the
domain of the one, and causing the other to take deeper
root in the human mind, it deserves the respect of all good
men, and it ought not to be sneered at because it has
nothing new to teach.
Q.—How do Secularists, as a rule, propose to deal with what
they regard as the errors of Christianity ?
A.—There are three principal modes of criticizing the
pretensions set forth on behalf of popular Christianity.
First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely destitute of
truth, and that they have been of no service whatever to
mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse. Many
of the superstitions of the world have been allied with
some fact, and have, in their exercise upon the minds of a
portion of their devotees, served, for a time no doubt, a
useful purpose. In the second place, certain opponents of
Christianity regard it as being deserving of immediate
�20
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
extinction. This, in our opinion, is unjust to its adherents,
who have as much right to possess what they hold to be
true as we have to entertain views which we believe to be
correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted by
intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The
third and, as we think, the most sensible and fair mode of
dealing with Christianity is to regard it as not being the
only system of truth ; as not having had a special origin ;
as. not being suited to all minds; as having fulfilled its
original purpose, and as possessing no claim of absolute
domination. This attitude of Secularism towards popular
orthodoxy is based upon the voice of history and the
philosophy of the true liberty of thought.
Q-—- What does Secularism teach in reference to marriage 2
A.—It teaches that marriage should be the result of
mutual affection, and that such a union creates the
responsibility of undivided allegiance, mutual fidelity, and
mutual consideration. It affirms that in the domestic circle
there should be no one-sided, absolute authority; that
husband and wife should be partners, not only in theory, but
in deed, and animated alike by the desire to promote one
another’s happiness. The genuine Secularist must be a
brave, kindly, sincere, and just man. His Secularism will
be felt as a radiating blessing first, and most warmly and
brightly, in his own home. If a man neglects and illtreats his wife and children, we must distinctly disavow
him as a Secularist.
Q.— What does the term “ happiness ” imply 2
A.—It implies, firstly, material well-being, sufficiency of
food, clothing, and house-room, with good air, good water,
and good sanitary conditions; for these things are necessary
to bodily health, which, in turn, is essential to the health of
the mind., for only in health is real happiness possible.
Again, it implies mental well-being, sufficiency of instruction
and education for every one, so that the intellect may be
nourished and developed to the full extent of its
capabilities. Given the sound mind in the sound body,
the term “ happiness ” further implies free exercise of
these, absolutely free in every respect so long as the equal
rights of others are not trenched upon, or the common
good is not impeded. In this full development of mind as
well as body it need scarcely be said that true happiness
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
21
brings into its service all the noblest and most beautiful
arts of life.
Q.—Are there not other requisites to happiness besides those
just mentioned ?
A.—Yes ; we must add, as essential to true happiness,
what are commonly called the virtues of the heart, the
fervor of Zeal or Enthusiasm, and the finer fervor of
Benevolence, Sympathy, or, to use the best name, Love.
For, if Wisdom gives the requisite light, Love alone can
give the requisite vital heat; Wisdom, climbing the arduous
mountain solitudes, must often let the lamp slip from her
benumbed fingers, must often be near perishing in fatal
lethargy amidst ice and snow-drifts, if Love be not there
to cheer and revive her with the glow and the flames of
the heart’s quenchless fires.
Q.—Has the National Secular Society any political program
advocating party politics ?
A.—No. Each member of the Society is allowed to
entertain whatever political opinions may commend them
selves to his or her judgment. There is, however, one
requirement which we urge, and that is that all should do
their best to promote political justice among every section
of the community. The method to be adopted to secure
this object is left to individual choice.
Q.—-What is the teaching of Secularism in reference to the
social problems of the day ?
A.—It teaches as a duty that we should recognize the
necessity of discovering the best possible solutions, and,
when those solutions are found, to apply them with all the
moral force at our command. This useful work must be
carried on by each of us in our capacity as social reformers
—a task which will be inspired by the genius of Secularism,
for no consistent Secularist can remain idle while evils
abound that mar the happiness of the human family. The
special duty of a member of the Secular organization con
sists in demanding that freedom which will enable every
reformer to carry on his good work without intimidation
or persecution of any kind, and also in doing his utmost to
remove such impediments to progress as have been caused
by priestly invention, and by the false conceptions of
human duty which have been engendered by theological
teachings.
�22
THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
Q-—What is the official attitude of Secularism towards
Socialism, Individualism, and Anarchism?
A.—The relation of Secularism to all the “ isms ” named
is the same as it is towards the political and religious
movements of the day—namely, Eclectic—that is, it
selects the best from among them all. Provided he does
his best to combat existing evils, each member of the
Secular party is at liberty to support any movement that
seems to him wise and useful, supposing it to be based
upon “peace, law, and order.” In fact, Secularists should
feel bound to investigate, as far as possible, all proposals
made for the redemption of mankind, regardless of sect
or party. Special care, however, should always be taken
to discriminate between true and false methods, and not
to confound vain theories with practical remedies.
Q.—Has not the National Secular Society any published
authoritative statement as to the duty of its members in reference
to the political questions of the day ?
N.—-Yes, it distinctly teaches that freedom of thought,
of speech, and of action for all is a claim consistent with
reason, and essential to human progress ; that the exercise
of personal liberty, which does not infringe upon the
freedom of others, is the right of all, without any regard
to class distinctions. This principle Secularists maintain,
without committing themselves to all that is taught in the
exercise of that right. The official position taken by the
National Secular Society in reference to reforms of general
social matters may be seen from its published statement,
under the heading of “Immediate Practical Objects,” in
the Secular Almanack, which is published annually.
I have now concluded an exposition of the leading
features of Secularism and its teachings, and my sincere
hope is that this humble effort may prove an advantage
to earnest searchers after truth. Secularists find ample
work to be done; for, as time rolls on, one improvement
suggests another. The watchword of Secular philosophy
is “ Onward, and onward still.” It has been well remarked,
human progress is like the ascent of a mountain, whose
crest does not look very high from the distant plain, but
which, as we climb it, heaves shoulder beyond shoulder,
�THE SECULARIST’S CATECHISM.
23
each fresh one discovered as we reach the summit of the
inferior, and each summit in its turn seeming the veryutmost peak as we are toiling towards it. True, the
Secularistic fabric may be slow in its erection, as imper
ceptible as is the construction of a coral reef; it is, how
ever, certain in its growth. And although at present
we have to encounter the obstacles of superstition and the
spite of intolerance, the work of progress still goes on.
This inspires us with hope for the future. We believe
the time will arrive when fancy will give place to reality,
and imagination will yield to the facts of life. Then,
instead of the evils of priestcraft, the reign of bigotry,
and the strife of theology, we trust to have manifestations
of sincere love of man to man ; an awe-inspiring happiness
in the majestic presence of universal nature, and “man,
the great master of all,” shall live a life of enduring service
to the cause of individual and national redemption.
�
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 secularist's catechism : being an exposition of secular principles, showing their relation to the political and social problems of the day
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 19 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1580
N678
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /> This work (The secularist's catechism : being an exposition of secular principles, showing their relation to the political and social problems of the day), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/67ad5fc39f13abe6e3e335ad25221794.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lRQI4hvxWnWt5NHHj689C-Bm7LR6S8gYDuQoWW7eh4WQL36ZQDKIhNlGTviXzexoi3HV5Bbj1AGSmpHXZjTkMY8PptXoII0x%7EViMawacsgSKChuRokmGuNC2gW7Y20VChWchuKQAdSS6BzHlLkfm15jqTyDHOBWmKHM4z-Z6DG0qwqEtLnQCPQX6TnTCV7wGm7mRpMsB651UD2iCvuy3hFrnPInO0Lcv1VMwoj0wt7mB1lRC9cFYqSqzy9khXxh-fQMt4cqSI-XF5n72QNZSHZ2Pn8IL9dlvsf9wG6WkL9gsSqgjFGjkUS9EythPmfGZUrfoj0ZNwwPWz4LRfk32Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c8219b447c8642dfc0bfd98be148f274
PDF Text
Text
SIGN OF THE CROSS
A CANDID CRITICISM
BARRETT’SaPLAS
LONDON
R. FORDER, 28/STONECUTTER STREET,
1896
\ SIXPENCE
��BXSo /
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY.
THE
SIGN OF THE CROSS
A CANDID CRITICISM
OF
MR. WILSON BARRETT’S PLAY
O.
W.
FOOTE
LONDON :
R. FORDE R, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
��THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
London has lately been placarded with a singular
theatrical advertisement; a red cross stands out vividly
from a black background, and the accompanying letter
press informs the public that a play called The Sign of
the Cross is being performed at the Lyric Theatre.
The picture is of extreme simplicity, and is very
striking.
It may be merely an advertising device,
intended to catch the eye of the swiftest passenger, or
it may be emblematic of the author’s purpose. In the
latter case, it is felicitous or otherwise, according to
the spectator’s point of view. The red may signify the
blood of Christ which saves us from the everlasting
■darkness of hell, but it may also signify the cruelty
of a superstition which is based upon the darkness of
ignorance.
The Sign of the Cross is written by Mr. Wilson
Barrett, the
well-known author,
actor, and stage
manager. However others may take him, Mr. Barrett
takes himself seriously. He has a mission in the world,
or, rather, a twofold mission—namely, to purify the
stage, and to hold up the loftiest ethical and religious
ideals. By means of interviews and letters in public
journals, Mr. Barrett has sought to impress upon the
world the highly important fact that in writing and
staging his newest play he had quite other ideas than
�4
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
making money or providing a suitable part for his own
histrionic abilities.
It is also, I presume, with his
permission that a very intimate, though anonymous,
friend of his gives a history of the play in the March
number of The Idler
*
According to the writer of this
article, it was two years ago that the dramatic idea of
The Sign of the Cross began to take shape in Mr.
Barrett’s mind. The “ germs ” of it were “ then work
ing at the back of his brain ”—a part which is not
too intimately associated with intellectual activity.
“ There lay in Mr. Barrett’s mind,” we are told, “ a
resolve to simplify the situation”—the unfortunate
situation of a stage running rapidly to vitiation—“ by
a fervent dramatic appeal to whatever was Christlike
in woman or man.” .“ My heroine,” said Mr. Barrett,
“ is emblematic of Christianity: my hero stands for the
worn-out Paganism of decadent Rome.”f
And since
the play has been produced, and has achieved a remark
* As this article is unsigned, and the only unsigned, one in
this number of the magazine, the responsibility for it rests
with the editor, Mr. Jerome K. Jerome.
+ This “decadent Rome” business has been immensely
overdone ; first, by doctrinaire Republicans, who are . so
enamored of mere names and forms that they ascribe
Republican virtues to the greedy aristocrats who assassinated
Julius Cassar ; and, secondly, by Christian apologists, who
strive to show that Christianity arose just in the nick of
time to save the world from irretrievable moral ruin. As a
matter of fact, Rome produced, after the period of Mr.
Barrett’s play, a succession of the greatest, wisest, and.most
magnanimous rulers the world has ever seen ; and it is the
deliberate judgment of Gibbon, which he has placed on
record in his matchless and immortal work, that “ If a man
were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world
during which the condition of the human race was most
happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name
that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the
accession of Commodus ”—that is, from the end of the first
century to nearly the end of the second century.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
5
able success—having, indeed, to use the language of
the inspired eulogist, “ conquered the pulpit, the press,
and the peoples of two great continents ”—to wit, the
eastern United States, and the southern half of the
little island of Great Britain—Mr. Barrett cele
brates its religious character more lustily than ever.
Ministers of religion, in every great town, have given
it handsome and even rapturous testimonials. On the
first night of its production in London the “ audience
included some score of the leaders of the Church,”
Mr. Barrett has received piles of congratulatory epistles,
and laying his hand upon them he “ smiles content
edly,” exclaiming that “ Baffled agnostics cannot hurt.”
It is obvious, therefore, that Mr. Barrett is not
simply a playwright and an actor, with the legitimate
ambition of catering to a wide public taste. He sets
up as a moral reformer. and a spiritual teacher; he
poses as a champion of religion; he challenges atten
tion as an apostle of Christianity. And it is because
of these pretensions that I feel justified in subjecting
his play to a most drastic criticism.
There is a special reason why I should publish this
criticism.
It appears tojbe held that I have committed
blasphemy against
Mr. Wilson Barrett, and I am
naturally anxious to state the facts of the case, so that
I may not lightly be foundJguilty of such an infamous
sin.
Long before The Sign of the Cross was produced in
London I had seen its praises in provincial newspapers.
Ministers of religion gave it their approval; I believe
it was even blessed by bishops.
Such unusual tributes
�6
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
to a stage-play excited my interest.
It would never
occur to me to cross the road, even with a free ticket,
to witness one of Mr. Barrett’s melodramas for its own
sake. Even if I were miraculously tempted to do so,
I have other work in the world than criticising such
productions. But when I saw Mr. Barrett’s new play
advertised as a fresh piece of Christian Evidence, I
resolved to test its merit and ascertain its worth.
Accordingly I witnessed it at the Lyric Theatre.
went alone, to avoid all distraction.
I
I sat, pencil in
hand, and made such notes as were possible in the dim
religious light which was deemed appropriate. For
several days afterwards I turned the play over in my
mind. I refreshed my memory—which hardly needs
much refreshment—with regard to early Christianity
and its trials and tribulations.
I went over again, with
ample authorities before me, the old story of the
Neronic persecution. Finally, I lectured on The Sign
of the Cross at St. James’s Hall. What I said of it I
said openly, not surreptitiously, nor even anonymously;
and an opportunity for discussion was allowed after my
lecture, if any of Mr. Barrett’s friends or admirers cared
to defend his play against my criticism. I have my
failings, of course, like other men ; but I never scamped
a bit of work, I never lectured on any subject with
out trying to master it, and I never advanced an
opinion without being prepared to defend it in open
debate.
Mr. Barrett’s friends did not reply to me on that
occasion, but the one who writes in the Idler, after
pages of dithyrambic laudation, suddenly turns upon
two critics who have dared to cross the popular current.
�7
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
Of whole-hearted attacks by able men. ; attacks stop
ping short at nothing in the way of adroit mud
throwing and fiery abuse, there were but two—the
rancorous onslaughts of Messrs. William Archer and
G. W. Foote. The latter delivered his in the familiar
and offensive accents of blasphemous “ Freethought ”
from the hired rostrum of St. James’s Hall. The former
hurled his contempt and contumely from a brief but
comprehensive column in the World. Mr. Foote’s in
vective will not bear reproduction in the pages of the
Idler, but Mr. Archer’s attitude as the outraged critic
is worthy of note.
Mr. William Archer does not need my defence.
is well able to take care of himself.
He
As far as this
paragraph concerns me, however, I call it an outrage.
The writer hints what he dares not assert, that I in
dulged in scurrilous or indecent language.
This, I
presume, is “ criticism,” in opposition to my “ abuse.”
He is careful not to give his readers the least idea of
what I actually said.
Had he done so, he might have
been put to the trouble of a reply.
It was so much
easier to bid his readers cry “ Pah!” and call for “ an
ounce of civet.”
“ Mud-throwing,” “ fiery abuse,” “ rancorous,” “ offen
sive,” “ blasphemous ”—all mean that Mr. Barrett’s
champion is hard-pressed, and, instead of arguing with
me, he calls me names.
I have really not enough interest in Mr. Barrett to
be “ rancorous.”
My lecture was perhaps rather sar
castic and satirical. When this anonymous writer
cries “ blasphemous,” I recognise a familiar trick of in
competent prejudice. “ Blasphemy!” was flung at
Jesus Christ, afterwards at Paul, and afterwards at all
the early Christians; and when their religion triumphed,
the Christians flung it at their adversaries.
And they
�8
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
fling it still.
It is a cry of bigotry and hatred; it is
an abnegation of reason, and an appeal to passion; it
is the first step on the road which leads to dungeons,
torture chambers, and the fires of persecution.
The
word “blasphemy” should be banished from the
vocabulary of civilisation.
But enough of Mr. Barrett’s champion!
Let me
proceed to give the reader the substance of my lecture
at St. James’s Hall, in just the sort of language I used
on that occasion.
He will then be able to judge for
himself, and upon the facts, between me and Mr. Wilson
Barrett.
Mr. Wilson Barrett’s new play has certainly been a
striking success from a popular and managerial point
of view.
By appealing to the sentimental and religious
public, instead of to the more limited public with some
dramatic taste and experience, he has drawn crowds to
hear his fine if somewhat monotonous voice, and to
witness his statuesque posings in the scanty costume
of ancient Rome. When I saw the performance at the
Lyric Theatre I was struck by the novel character of
the audience, which might almost be called a congrega
tion. It seemed to be the emptyings of the churches
and chapels of London. Most of the people appeared
to be unused to such surroundings. They walked as
though they were advancing to pews, and took their
seats with an air of reverential expectation. Clericals,
too, were present in remarkable abundance.
There
were parsons to right of me, parsons to left of me,
parsons in front of me—though I cannot add that
�9
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
they volleyed and thundered. All the men and women,
and all the third sex (as Sidney Smith called them) of
clergymen, wore their best Sunday faces; and when
the lights were turned very low in the auditorium, and
pious opinions were ejaculated on the stage, it was
remarkably like a religious exercise.
“ Ahs ” and “ hear,
hears ” were distinctly audible, and I should not have
been surprised at an “ amen ” or a “ hallelujah.”
This impression of mine is strongly corroborated by
Mr. Barrett’s champion in the Idler.
The imagination
of this writer does, indeed, run away with his arithmetic;
he says that The Sign of the Cross charms and moves
“ a multitude in number as the sands of the sea shore,”
which is a noble enough image in the Bible, though
grotesque as applied to the spectators, within twelve
months, of a particular drama; and he declares that
Mr. Barrett has brought within the sphere of the
dramatist’s
influence
“ millions
of aliens hitherto
antagonistic to the stage and all its works.” This sort
of rhetoric does not create respect for the writer’s
accuracy; nevertheless, his opinion may be taken on
one point—namely, that Mr. Barrett’s audiences con
sist very largely of non-playgoers—which is precisely
my own conclusion.
General Booth should be delighted with The Sign of
the Cross.
It is a Salvation Army tragedy.
Setting
aside pecuniary motives, it is designed in the interest
of that species of Christianity which is generally styled
“ primitive,” and, in my judgment, the play is
as
primitive as the religion it advocates. It is melodrama
from beginning to end. There is plenty of incident,
but no real plot; much movement, but no real progress.
�10
.THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
Men. and women are brought on the stage and taken
off; they talk and act, and talk and act again; but as
they are at the rise of the curtain they remain at its
fall; there is absolutely no development of character,
which is the one thing that gives a serious interest to
dramatic composition.
Proselytising and didactic plays are always a blunder.
There are profound lessons in Shakespeare’s tragedies,
but they do not lie upon the surface, and are not picked
up and flung at you.
Preachers may be as direct as
they please; that is their method, and we know its
actual effect, after all these ages, upon the morals of
mankind.
But the poet’s method is indirect.
He
excites our sympathy, which is the vital essence of all
morality, and our imagination, which gives it intensity
and comprehensiveness. He produces a definite effect
on those who are fit to understand him ; but were
he to declare that he intended to produce that effect,
and expected to witness its immediate results, he would
ensure his own failure. An organic whole, like one of
Shakespeare’s tragedies, suggests as life suggests; the
lesson is borne in upon us unobtrusively yet irresist
ibly, like a lesson of our personal experience. In a
certain sense Shakespeare has a purpose, but it is
secondary and subordinate; the poetic impulse is
primary and supreme.
But if ethical intention is the
source of inspiration, the poet sinks into a preacher,
and falls from heaven into a pulpit. He arouses our
critical faculty, and our very obstinacy is enlisted
against him, if we have any positive character. If we
have no positive character, but belong to the senti
mentalists, the drama with a purpose is still a blunder,
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
11
though it move us ever so strongly; for, as Flaubert
said, a writer of equal power comes along, invents
characters, situations, and effects to prove the opposite
thesis—and where are you then ?
Mr. Barrett informs the world, in a letter to the
Newcastle Chronicle, that he has “ sought ” in his new
play to “ make vice hideous.” It is really very good of
him to be so solicitous about her appearance, but his
anxiety is somewhat unnecessary.
Was it not Pope
who said that vice to be hated needs but to be seen ?
Mr. Barrett tickets her carefully, and paints her like a
scarecrow; in doing which he overreaches himself, foi
it is not brazen, riotous vice that is dangerously
seductive. Temptation comes to average human nature
in a more plausible fashion. It may be good preach
ing to “ make vice hideous,” but it is bad drama. The
business of the playwright, as the great Master said,
is to “ hold the mirror up to nature.” Do that, if you
can; give us a faithful image of good and evil, and
you need not fear as to which will be loved or hated.
But if you cannot do this, it is idle to plead your
excellent intentions.
Far more pertinent, though still more essentially
absurd, is Mr. Barrett’s statement, in the same letter,
that “ it was necessary to introduce the darker side of
the life of the time, in order to show the value of
Christianity.” This he has done with a vengeance.
His playbill gives two lists of characters “ Pagans
and “ Christians.” All the Pagans are wicked people
—tyrants, sycophants, intriguers, assassins, drunkards,
thieves, and prostitutes.
All the Christians are good
people—pure, benevolent, and merciful.
Look on this
�12
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
picture and on this !
Oh yes, but both are painted by
a partisan. We all know the lion was nowhere in the
picture of his fight with the man, but a lion who saw
it remarked that it might have been different if lions
could paint.
Mr. Barrett’s method is too “ simple ” to deceive any
man or woman of the least practised intelligence. His
dramatic confidence-trick could only be played upon
the greenest innocence.
His philosophy is simply the
sheep-and-goats nonsense over again—as though the
world, in its religious, political, or social disputations,
was ever sharply divided into two categories of absolute
virtue and absolute wickedness.
Not thus are the
elements of human nature ever mixed and distributed.
The fact is that Mr. Barrett has just availed himself
of the ancient trick of the Christian apologist. He
does not merely introduce the “ darker side of the life
of the time ”—he excludes all its brighter side. It is
nothing to him that Seneca, the Pagan philosopher,
and Lucan, the Pagan poet, were sent to death by the
same Nero who is said to have murdered Christians.
That may be history, but it is not partisanship. Mr
Barrett makes the life of Paganism as black as mid
night, and the life of the little handful of Christians
the one gleam of light piercing the darkness.
His
simplicity is really childish. And only to think that
this should be accepted as fair and accurate by
thousands of apparently rational people-—though they
do attend churches—a hundred years after the death of
the great author of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire ! It is enough to make Gibbon turn
and groan in his grave.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
13
“ Religions,” says Schopenhauer, “ are like glow
worms ; they require darkness to shine in.
Mr.
Barrett may not have read this epigram, but he felt its
truth instinctively; so he painted a black sky, and
called it “ Paganism,” and then he painted in one star,
which could not help being brilliant, and called it
“ Christianity.”
Had the author of The Sign of the Cross been a
real dramatist, instead of a melodramatist, he would
have taken the same human nature on both sides,
neither miraculous in its heroism nor subterhuman in
its weakness ; he would have taken men and women of
this composition, and exhibited them as husbands and
wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, lovers,
friends, and citizens ; and then have shown how these
universal and eternal relationships were affected by a
difference of religious conviction.
Mr. Barrett has not
done this ; he has not even attempted it ; no doubt he
felt it beyond the scope of his powers. Yet he might
at least have displayed conviction on both sides, and he
has not even done that.
But, without sincerity, while
there may be comedy, there cannot be tragedy ; and
thus Mr. Barrett’s play is on the one side farce, and on
the other side melodrama.
Now, I have no objection to melodrama, at the proper
time and in the proper place ; it ministers to a certain
childish or semi-savage and uneducated element of
average human nature, demanding much gratification
both in literature and on the stage.
It was this
element which Coleridge had in mind when he spoke
of the soul being “ stupefied into mere sensations, by a
�14
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
worthless sympathy with our own ordinary sufferings,
or an empty curiosity for the surprising, undignified by
the language or the situations which awe and delight
the imagination ”—and of the spectators having “ their
sluggish sympathies ” excited by “ a pathos not a whit
more respectable than the maudlin tears of drunken
ness.”
Klopstock rated highly the powei’ of exciting
tears, but Coleridge replied that “ nothing was more
easy than to deluge an audience—it was done every
day by the meanest writers.” This is true enough, but
melodrama holds its own still, appealing widely to
“ the groundlings,” and in lax moods even to “ the
judicious.” And for my part, when I do take a
dose of melodrama, I confess I prefer the real, unadul
terated article.
Many years ago, in the early seventies, I visited an
East-end theatre which was famous for its melodrama.
The audience took the play as sterling tragedy ; they
cheered the hero and howled at the villain; while I
cried with laughter, and shed more tears than I ever
dropped at a serious performance.
The villain of the
piece had as many lives as a cat, or would have had
as many had there been time for nine acts. At the
end of one act he fell down a precipice several hundred
feet deep; but he turned up again smiling and bent
on further mischief. At the end of another act he
stood all alone on a block of ice in a northern sea; the
ice sank, and he went down with it; but he turned up
again as though nothing had happened. At the end of
another act he was shot by a platoon of soldiers. That
should have settled him, but he turned up again.
Finally, in the last act, he was (as Carlyle would say)
�15
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
accurately hung. As the life was squeezed out of him,
a breathless messenger rushed in with a reprieve.
This was the hero’s last great opportunity.
Standing
in the centre of the stage, with his right hand uplifted
to heaven, he exclaimed : “Too late ! too late ! the ends
of justice can no longer be defeated
That is how I like my melodrama, and if Mr. Wilson
Barrett played in such a piece, I would go to see him
with pleasure. His melodramas are not as good as the
one I saw at the “ Brit.” Take Claudian, for instance.
That was considered a highly moral play, and was even
said to have won words of praise from Mr. Ruskin.
But it was merely a spectacular melodrama, and only a
most orthodox Christian could discover its morality.
Claudian was a gentleman who could not die, being
under a curse of longevity, which could only be broken
by a pure and disinterested love. Age followed age
without this precious boon being discoverable by our
hero, who roamed the eastern world as a posturing and
(to some of us) a rather nauseous mixture of Manfred
and the Wandering Jew,
Claudian was constantly
standing amidst the wreckage of mankind.
vived earthquakes that ruined whole cities.
He sur
We saw
him standing alone on tumbling masonry that would
not kill him.
And all this slaughter was apparently
designed to complete his spiritual development, so that,
at last, when the curse of longevity was broken, he
might be perfectly ripe for paradise.
What the multi
tudes who perished were ripe for—what became of
their immortal souls after tragic separation from their
mortal bodies—neither the dramatist nor the majority
of the spectators condescended to consider.
It was
�16
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
enough for them to inhabit the earth with the noble
Claudian, and quite a privilege to constitute the groan
ing pyramid of which he was the sublime apex.
Such,
indeed, was the morality of Claudian, and surely it
must be contemptible to all healthy men and women
unperverted by the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice.
The hero of a melodrama must never do anything
wicked, but he must be thought capable of doing it,
and it rather heightens the interest if he lies under a
certain suspicion; for the virtue of the multitude is
like that of some of the fine ladies in old comedies,
who flared up at a positive attack on their virtue, but
despised the man who never excited their apprehensions.
All this is provided for in The Sign of the Cross, as it
was provided for in Claudian. In both pieces Mr.
Barrett plays the part of a good man gone w'rong—not
too wrong, but just wrong enough.
You know he will
come out right in the end, but meanwhile there is an
appearance of uncertainty, which raises a half-pleasant
alarm. Mr. Barrett’s part in the new play is that of
Marcus Superbus, Prefect of Rome. This high and
mighty gentleman is also Manfredian.
He is in very
bad company, and there are hints of his questionable
past. But his inherent nobility breaks through every
hindrance and shines through every disguise, and
eventually he dies in the fullest odor of sanctity.
Now let the reader observe the simplicity of Mr.
Barrett’s methods as a playwright. I have said that
all his Pagans are wicked and all his Christians virtuous.
As a general statement it was true, but I have now to
furnish the requisite qualification. Marcus Superbus
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
17
is in the list of Pagans, but he is a good man gone
wrong, who is bound to come right, and in the end he
joins the list of Christians. Thus the exception only
emphasises the rule. There was but one good man
among the Pagans at the beginning, and he was obliged
to leave them at the finish; which shows, not only that
all the Christians were good, but that every good man
was sure to become a Christian.
Marcus Superbus is Prefect of Rome under the
Emperor Nero.
This wicked ruler persecutes the
Christians, and one of these unfortunates is a beautiful
girl named Mercia.
Sweetness and purity were not
enough—beauty was also indispensable; for Marcus
had to fall in love with her, and what was the use of a
plain face under a Salvation bonnet ? - The part of
Mercia is played charmingly by Miss Maud Jeffries.
It is not an active, but a passive character. Mercia
cannot strike into the course of events and modify it,
but she can suffer the worst it may bring.
And as I
saw her devotion to “ her people,” and beheld her
renunciation of earthly joys, and watched her growing
resignation to martyrdom, I thought of how the Church
has always exploited woman, and how it has pressed
her natural maternity into the service of its sinister
supernaturalism.
Marcus desires this Christian girl.
is a condiment to his jaded palate.
Her innocence
He tries solicita
tion, he attempts violence; both fail, and at last he is
touched by the passion of love.
as his wife.
He would have Mercia
She is in the dungeon of the amphi
theatre ; her companions have gone out to the lions,
and she is to follow them.
A judicious interval is
�18
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
allowed by the officials for stage purposes.
Marcus
enters and begs her to save her life, and let him be her
husband. She also confesses that she loves him—for
he has twice rescued her from deadly peril. But how
is her life to be saved now ? Marcus tells her; let her
renounce Christ.
She
refuses, and prefers death;
whereupon Marcus becomes a Christian himself, claims
Mercia as his bride for all eternity, and goes forth
hand in hand with her to the hungry lions in the
arena.
All for Love; or, the World Well Lost was the title
of John Dryden’s finest tragedy.
Mr. Barrett’s play
might be called All for Love; or, the Gods Well Lost.
From an emotional, amatory point of view, the conver
sion of Marcus is intelligible ; from a spiritual point of
view it is simply ridiculous.
Christian in three minutes ?
Can a man become a
Is Christianity to be
learnt from a woman’s eyes ? Has it no doctrines, no
history; nothing which makes any sort of appeal to the
understanding ?
I have been told that Marcus was becoming a
Christian all through the play; to which I reply that
he was falling in love all through the play. He was
not a Christian when, in the altercation with Berenis,
who taxes him with unfaithfulness 'to her, and with
being trapped by a Christian girl, he exclaims: “ What
this Christianity is L know not, but this I know, that
if it makes many such women as Mercia, then all Rome,
nay, the whole world, would be the better for it.”* He
* Mr. Barrett forgets having made his hero profess
ignorance of Christianity; in a later part of the play
Marcus and Nero talk about Christ and Christianity as
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
19
was not a Christian when he pleaded with Nero to
spare Mercia; for he begs the life of “ but one girl,”
heedless of the fate of all the other martyrs.
He was
not a Christian when he besought Mercia to renounce
Christ. But he was a Christian three minutes after
wards, and the suddenness of the change is beyond all
rational explanation.
After all, however, Marcus was cheated at the finish,
apparently through Mr. Barrett’s imperfect acquaint
ance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mercia could
not be his bride for all eternity.
There is no justifica
tion in the New Testament for supposing that a man
who misses a wife here will gain her hereafter. This
is the world in which we must marry, if we marry at
all.
Jesus Christ distinctly taught that there is neither
marrying nor giving in marriage in the kingdom of
heaven, where all are as the angels of God—that is, of
the neuter gender.
*
Having followed the hero and heroine of this play to
the point of their doom, I now turn back to consider
a special incident which is connected with its very title.
The third scene of the third act is laid in Marcus’s
palace, where a number of Christians are imprisoned,
and among them Mercia. Marcus comes out from a
noisy crew of male and female revellers, and talks to
though both were perfectly familiar. Pilate’s name is
mentioned as the official who ordered Christ’s execution,
and the emperor is reminded that Christ said his kingdom
was not of this world. The inconsistency is glaring; and
what would any competent historian think of such a, con
versation about Christ and Christianity between an emperor
and his metropolitan prefect in a.d. 64 ?
* Mark xii. 25 ; Luke xx. 34-36.
�20
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
himself about the beautiful Christian girl, contrasting
her with the lewd women he has left (of course the
women were all lewd in Rome—except the Christians),
and finally orders her to be brought into his presence.
After some rather fantastic conversation, they are
suddenly surrounded by the revellers who have burst
out to find the absent Marcus. The women proceed to
rate Mercia like fishfags. One of them actually invites
her to work a miracle—as though that were a Christian
speciality ! Mr. Barrett is probably ignorant of the
fact that the Pagans had as many miracles as the
Christians. Neither side denied the actuality of the
other’s miracles ; the point in dispute was this—Which
were wrought by divine, and which by demonic agency ?
However, the wanton crew are driven away by Marcus,,
who then (curiously enough) solicits Mercia to impurity,
and, on being repulsed, actually attempts outrage. The
stage is darkened for this struggle, at the crisis of
which comes a flash of lightning; and Mercia, having
found a crucifix about her, holds it up in the limelight;
whereat Marcus shrinks aghast and crouches in terror
It was a “ fetching ” piece of stage business, but it will
not bear criticism. There is really not the slightest
evidence that the cross was used as an emblem by
the Christians at all as early as the reign of Nero.
*
* The negative evidence on this point is quite overwhelm
ing—and, of course, a negative cannot be proved by positive
evidence. “I question," says Dean Burgon, “whether a
cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four
centuries.” Mrs. Jameson finds no traces of the use of the
cross “ in the simple transverse form familiar to us ” at any
period preceding or closely succeeding the time of Chrysos
tom, who flourished in the second half of the fourth century
Dr. Farrar, m his latest work on The Life of Christ as Repre
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
21
Even had it been so, what sort of an impression would
it have made on a Pagan ?
If it meant anything at all
to him, it would be significant of the powers of genera
tion—a most awkward thing to appeal to at such a
crisis!
I can understand a cross being held up by a
Christian maiden to a Christian wooer who should
attack her virtue; it might remind him of principles
calculated to restrain his passions.
But to hold up a
cross to a “ heathen ” ravisher seems to me grotesque.
Had nothing stood between Mercia and outrage but a
crucifix, her honor would not have been worth
moment’s purchase.
a
Have the Turks and Kurds spared
Armenian girls on account of the crosses they wear on
their breasts ?
The fact is that this sign of the cross
—Marcus cowering, and Mercia holding aloft a crucifix
—is simply a bit of stage clap-trap, quite in harmony
with the sentimentality of the whole melodrama.
The sign of the cross is introduced again in the last
act.
The boy Stephanus—a part admirably played
by Miss Haidee Wright—shrinks from following his
Christian companions from the dungeon of the amphi
theatre to the bloody arena. He has been lashed and
racked already, in a most brutal scene, which makes
no appeal whatever to the intellect and imagination,
sented in Art (p. 19), admits that the symbol of the cross was
not generally adopted, even if it appeared at all, until “after
the Peace of the Church at the beginning of the fourth
century.’ Elsewhere (p. 24) he says—“The cross was only
introduced among the Christian symbols tentatively and
timidly. It may be doubted whether it once occurs till after
the vision of Constantine in 312 and his accession to the
Empire of the East and West in 324.” The curious reader
will find much interesting information on the whole subject
in a very able little book recently published—The Non
Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons.
�22
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
but is a direct appeal to mere sensation; its interest,
in short, if it has an interest, being not psychological,
but purely physical.
Stephanus is still suffering from
the effects of that torture, and the consciousness of
having betrayed his friends while under it, and Mercia
tries in vain to arouse his fortitude ; but at last he
sees a vision of Christ beside him, and of the Cross
before him, and he follows it cheerfully to his doom.
This, again, is very pretty, though it is susceptible of
improvement.
It is easy to bring invisible characters
and objects upon the stage.
Something more definite
should be produced at the end of the nineteenth
century. Surely the resources of science are equal to
throwing a phantom Christ beside the boy Stephanus,
and a phantom cross before him. I make this sug
gestion in good faith. Even melodrama should be as
good as possible: it is as well to “ go the whole hog ”
in everything.
While the boy Stephanus was being lashed in front
of the curtain, and racked behind it-—while his shrieks
rang through the theatre—I am quite sure the Christian
spectators were saying to themselves—“ Ah ! that is
Paganism
Few of them are conversant with the
records of the past. History begins for them at the
time when they first read the newspapers. They do
not know, therefore, that it is not so very long since
their Christian forefathers left off perpetrating the
very same atrocities that were inflicted on the boy
Stephanus—not to mention others of a still deeper
damnability.
Stephanus was not lashed and racked
as a Christian, but as a refractory witness; and this
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
23
method of treating witnesses and accused persons was
afterwards universal in Christendom.
J oseph de
Maistre, indeed, in his apology for the Spanish Inquisi
tion—the most terrible tribunal that ever existed on
earth—argues that in inflicting torture it was only
conforming to the usage of all modern nations.
*
No
one who values his sanity, unless he is particularly
strong-minded, should dive too deeply into the horrors
of torture inflicted by Christians, and principally eccle
siastics, on persons accused of witchcraft or suspected
of favoring them. It cannot be denied that Christianity
added new and most ingenious horrors to the torture
system of antiquity, especially in its treatment of
heretics.
This infamous
system
only declined as
science and freethought slowly permeated the mind of
Europe.
From the days of Montaigne to those of
Voltaire the voices of great and good men were raised
against it. But it did not die in a hurry. Calas was
broken alive as late as 1761. Frederic the Great, the
free-thinking monarch, issued a Cabinet order abolishing
torture in 1740, though its use was still reserved in
Prussia for treason, rebellion, and some other crimes.
It was swept away in Saxony, Switzerland, and Austria
between 1770 and 1783.
Catherine the Great restricted
its use in Russia, where it was finally abolished in 1801.
It lingered in some parts of Germany until it was
abolished by Napoleon, after whose fall it was actually
restored. George IV. consented to its abolition in
Hanover in 1819, but it existed in Baden until 1831.
* Lettres à un Gentilhomme Russe sur i Inquisition
Espagnole, p. 50.
�24
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
It was in 1777 that Voltaire begged Louis XVI. to
abolish torture in France; in 1780 it was very greatly
restricted by a royal edict; but as late as 1788, at
Rouen, Marie Tison was crushed with thumbscrews,
and was allowed to hang in the stappado for an hour
after the
executioner had reported that both her
shoulders were out of joint. As a matter of fact,
torture was finally swept out of French jurisprudence
by the tempest of the Revolution.
It was not legally
abolished in Spain until 1812. Being inimical to the
spirit of the common law, it was very little used in
England before the days of Tudor and Stuart absolutism.
Racking warrants were executed under Elizabeth, and
were sanctioned by Coke and Bacon under James I.,
but were almost swept away by the Great Rebellion.
The press, however, was still reserved for prisoners
refusing to plead guilty or not guilty; weights being
placed upon their chests until they were crushed to
death.
Giles Cory was pressed to death in this way
in America in 1692, and it was not until 1722 that this
relic of barbarism was abolished by Act of Parliament.
*
It is perfectly true that modern Europe inherited
the torture system from Greece and Rome, but Chris
tianity aggravated instead of mitigating the iniquity.
“ It is curious to observe,” says Mr. Lea, “ that Christian
communities, where the truths of the Gospel were
received with unquestioning veneration, systematised
the administration of torture with a cold-blooded ferocity
unknown to the legislation of the heathen nations
whence they derived it.
The careful restrictions and
* Henry C. Lea, Superstition and Force, pp. 510-523.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
25
safeguards, with which the Roman jurisprudence sought
to protect the interests of the accused, contrast strangely
with the reckless disregard of every principle of justice
which sullies the criminal procedure of Europe from
the thirteenth to the nineteenth century.”
Christianity has never in practice been an enemy to
cruelty. During the Dark Ages, when Christianity
was entirely supreme, two things disappeared together
—-Freethought and Humanity. Modern humanitarian
ism is a very recent growth.
revival of scepticism.
It came in with the
A hundred years ago Christian
society was inexpressibly callous.
The jurisprudence
of England itself was simply shocking.
Men and
women were hung for trifling offences, and mutilations
were frightfully common.
Historians are too apt to
hide the real facts with abstract declamation; I pro
pose, therefore, to give my readers a sample of the
tender jurisprudence of England two hundred and
thirty-six years ago.
I have in my library a rare volume published in
1660.
It is a full report of the indictment, arraign
ment, trial, and judgment (according to law) of “nine
and twenty Regicides, the murtherers of his late Sacred
Majesty,” Charles the First.
The volume was published
“ for the information of posterity.”
The Church and
State party evidently thought the condemned Regicides
were treated with proper justice, according to the best
principles of morality and religion. Historians tell us
that these unfortunate men, who had tried and con
demned to death “ the man Charles Stuart ” in 1649,
were cruelly executed. But they do not tell us how;
they do not give us the facts. Now the volume I refer
�26
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
to gives (with full approval) the details of the execution
of Major-General Harrison, and states that the others
were “ disposed of in like manner.”
Harrison was
hanged on the spot where Charles the First was
beheaded ; while only “ half-dead ” he was “ cut down
by the common executioner, his privy members cut off
before his eyes, his bowels burned, his head severed
from his body, and his body divided into quarters,
which were returned back to Newgate upon the same
hurdle that carried it.” The head was set on a pole
on the top of the south-east end of Westminster Hall,
and the quarters of the body were exposed on four of
the city gates.
This brutal act was done deliberately and judicially;
not in a moment of excitement, but in cold blood. Its
perpetrators were not ashamed of it; they were proud
of it; and they put it carefully on record for “ posterity.”
And they were Christians, and it was only a little over
two hundred years ago.
History is indeed the greatest stumbling-block of
Christian
apologists, and Mr. Barrett is
no
more
fortunate than the general run of his brethren.
This
will be still more clearly seen, I think, in a careful
examination of the part of his play which comes into
direct contact with Roman and Ecclesiastical history.
In his letter before cited, to the Newcastle Chronicle,
Mr. Barrett mentions a jumble of ancient and modern
names as authorities for his picture of Nero. It is
certain, however, that all the modern historians have
mainly relied upon Tacitus and Suetonius.
What
these relate of Nero is enough to stagger credulity.
It is difficult to conceive that Rome, for so many years,
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
tolerated such an unnatural monster.
27
This much, at
least, must be admitted, that the Nero of Tacitus and
Suetonius, but especially of Tacitus, is a study in
degeneration, reaching at length to absolute insanity.
Such a pathological case is profoundly interesting to
the students of morbid psychology; but its historical
interest is very slender, for it can scarcely be argued
that the character or actions of Nero had any serious
influence on the development of the Roman empire ;
while as for the burning of Rome, in which it is hardly
credible that he was implicated, it is certain that the
catastrophe was as much a blessing in disguise as the
Great Fire of London, since a finer Rome, as later a
finer London, sprang from the ashes of its predecessor.
It should also be remembered that the career of Nero
was not terminated, and never could have been termi
nated, by Christian efforts. The teaching of Paul, in
the very height of Nero’s despotism, was one of passive
obedience. Nero’s power was ordained of God, and to
resist him was to incur damnation. Such was the
teaching of Paul in his epistle to the Romans.
*
But
such was not the old spirit of Roman liberty, which
fired the hearts of Pagan senators to declare Nero a
traitor to the State and worthy of death ; and the
suicide of the monster only anticipated the executioners
sent to carry out the national sentence.
Mr. Barrett does not give the least idea of the vices
of Nero. He represents him, indeed, as quite a model
husband, fondly devoted to Poppea; and dwells almost
exclusively on his cruelty and hatred of the Christians.
* Romans xiii. 1-4
�28
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
The subtle characteristics of neurotic vanity seem to
be chiefly contributed by Mr. McLeay, who acts the
part of Nero, and
whose performance is certainly
powerful, although it is marred by overacting.
Nero s vices, as depicted by orthodox historians,
would have made a shocking entertainment.
Mr,
Barrett shrinks from presenting them; they are not
even insinuated.
The drunkards and wantons are all
assembled around Marcus Superbus.
marvellously tame.
And they are
A red-faced, paunchy devotee of
Bacchus amuses the audience with his hackneyed
jocosity, while a few ladies expose naked arms and
indulge in frivolous
conversation about marriage—
which immensely tickled the listeners, and brought
out a curious leer on some sedate faces. On the whole,
the vice in Mr. Barrett’s play—the vice that was to
show the darker side of Pagan life—is about as dread
ful as that in Tennyson’s Vision of Sin, which was so
fiercely satirised by James Thomson. In short, it is
mere commonplace immorality, such as abounds in
every city of Christendom.
Dreadful as is the picture of Nero’s vices in the
pages of Tacitus, it is not so singular as Mr. Barrett
seems to imagine, nor need we ransack the records of
antiquity for parallels. Modern history will supply us
with all we require. Royal courts, even in England,
have not been remarkable for purity. What Dryden
had witnessed and heard reported of the seething lust of
high society in the time of Charles II. amply justified
his stigmatising “ this lubrique and adulterous age.”
The satirists of the time branded practices which were
not inferior in infamy to anything denounced even in
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
the sixth satire of Juvenal.
29'
Bad as England was, how
ever, it was eclipsed by France. Nothing could well
be filthier than the picture which Brantome drew—and
drew quite lovingly—of the lives of the princes, prin
cesses, and aristocrats of his period. Indeed, one fails
to see, as Mr. Cotter Morison justly observes, how “ the
court of the later Valois differed, except for the worse,
from the court of Caligula or Commodus.”* Some of
the worst sinners were dignitaries of the Church, whose
scandalous lives brought upon them no sort of discredit,
so common was the most unbounded profligacy. Yet
these lay and clerical debauchees were intensely reli
gious.
lust.
The fervor of their piety was as intense as their
They were ready to kill or be killed in the
maintenance of Christianity.
And if we turn from
France to Italy, the prospect becomes still darker..
Some of the Popes were guilty of the dirtiest vices and
the vilest crimes; murder and incest being by no
means the worst of their iniquities.
Christian apologists systematically represent the old
Pagan world as infinitely immoral, and their own reli
gion as the divine agency which rescued mankind
from utter degradation. But this is not history; it is
partisanship.
Europe grew steadily worse as Chris
tianity rose to undisputed supremacy, and the ages of
faith were the ages of filth.
Mr. Barrett displays in all directions his profound
ignorance of history. He seems to believe that the
Roman Empire was governed like Turkey. He appears
* Service of Man, p. 132.
�I
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
30
to know nothing of its courts of law and its criminal
jurisprudence. He imagines that men were commonly
put to death without trial.
By virtue of a mere
rescript from Nero, Christians are slaughtered in this
play as
unceremoniously as
Armenians.
the Turks dispose
of
At the end of the second act a band of
Christians arrange a secret meeting for worship in the
Grove by the Cestian Bridge.
By way of concealing
themselves more effectually (I presume) they indulge
in congregational singing. Before they have time to
disperse they are pounced upon by a party of soldiers,
headed by no less a person than Tigellinus, chief
counsellor to Nero. Swords flash, shrieks are heard,
and presently all the Christians (except Mercia, wdio is
theatrically rescued by Marcus) lie about in various
attitudes of dissolution.
I shall have to discuss, presently, whether Nero ever
murdered or molested any Christians; meanwhile I
must observe that, if he did so, there is no record of
how they were dealt with by the tribunals. But there
is such a record with respect to the more authentic
persecutions of the second and third centuries, and it
lends no countenance to the summary methods of The
Sign of the Cross.
“A modern Inquisitor,” says
*
Gibbon, with keen and polished sarcasm, “ would hear
with surprise that, whenever an information was given
to a Roman magistrate of any person within his juris
diction who had embraced the sect of the Christians,
the charge was communicated to the party accused,
and that a convenient time was allowed him to settle
* Decline and Fall^ chap. xvi.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
31
his domestic concerns, and to prepare an answer to the
crime which was imputed to him.”
No such con
sideration was shown by the Inquisition, which butchered
myriads of heretics.
Over its prisons might have been
inscribed the terrible sentence : “ All hope abandon, ye
who enter here.”
It was a rule of the Holy Office
never to inform a prisoner of the charges laid against
him, nor even to disclose the identity of his accusers.
He was questioned —that is, tortured—and accusations
were based upon the wild and wandering words he
uttered in his agony.
It was the modern Inquisition,
too, which devised the crowning cruelty of seizing a
condemned heretic’s possessions, after burning him to
ashes, and leaving his widow and children to absolute
beggary.
The temper of Roman magistrates in dealing with
Christians is illustrated in the following passage from
Gibbon:—
“ The total disregard of truth and probability in the
representation of these primitive martyrdoms was occa
sioned by a very natural mistake. The ecclesiastical
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries ascribed to the
magistrates of Rome the same degree of implacable and
unrelenting zeal which filled their own breasts against
the heretics or the idolaters of their own times. It is
not improbable that some of those persons who were
raised to the dignities of the empire might have imbibed
the prejudices of the populace, and that the cruel
disposition of others might occasionally be stimulated
by motives of avarice or of personal resentment. But
it is certain, and we may appeal to the grateful con
fessions of the first Christians, that the greatest part of
the magistrates who exercised in the provinces the autho
rity of the emperor or of the senate, and towhose hands
alone the jurisdiction of life and death was entrusted,
behaved like men of polished manners and liberal
�32
THE SIGN OF THE .CROSS.
educations, who respected the rules of justice, and who
were conversant with the precepts of philosophy. They
frequently declined the odious task of persecution, dis
missed the charge with contempt, or suggested to the
accused Christian some legal evasion by which he might
elude the severity of the laws. Whenever they were
invested with a discretionary power, they used it less
for the oppression than for the relief and benefit of the
afflicted Church. They were far from condemning all
the Christians who were accused before their tribunal,
and very far from punishing with death all those who
were convicted of an obstinate adherence to the new
superstition. Contenting themselves, for the most
part, with the milder chastisement of imprisonment,
exile, or slavery in the mines, they left the unhappy
victims of their justice some reason to hope that a
prosperous event, the accession, the marriage, or the
triumph of an emperor, might speedily restore them
by a general pardon to their former state.”
Anonymous charges could not be received ; the Chris
tians were confronted in open court by their accusers.
Even if these succeeded in their prosecution, they had
to face the ignominy which has always attended the
character of an informer; and, if they failed, they “ in
curred the severe and perhaps capital penalty, which,
according to a law published by the Emperor Hadrian,
was inflicted on those who falsely attributed to their
fellow-citizens the crime of Christianity.”
The zeal of many fanatical Christians for martrydom,
in the hope of obtaining a heavenly crown, was some
times very embarrassing to the tribunals. They rushed
to the courts, without waiting foi' accusers, and called
upon the magistrates to inflict the sentence of the law.
“ Unhappy men!” exclaimed the proconsul Antoninus
to the Christians of Asia, “ unhappy men ' if you are
thus weary of your lives, is it so difficult for you to
find ropes and precipices ?”
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
33
It is as well to note, also, that the harmless sim
plicity, which is so generally ascribed to the early
Christians, and which is held to render their persecu
tion so gratuitous, is inconsistent with the temper dis
played by Christians ever since they obtained power.
Sheep are not so easily transformed into wolves. The
fact is that the early Christians were not satisfied with
the toleration granted by the Roman law to every form
of opinion. “ Liberty of thought,” says Renan, “ was
absolute. From Nero to Constantine, not a thinker,
not a scholar, was molested in his inquiries.” The
epicurean philosophers were as hostile as the Christians
to the Pagan superstitions, yet they were never per
secuted.
Why was this ?
The answer is simple.
Although the Christians were few in number, and their
position, as Renan aptly observes, was like that of a
Protestant missionary in a most Catholic town in Spain,
preaching against saints and the Virgin, they acted
with the greatest imprudence. Their attitude was one
of obstinate disdain, or of open provocation.
“ Before a temple or an idol, they blew with their
mouths as though to repel an impurity, or they crossed
themselves. It was not rare to see a Christian pause
before a statue of Jupiter or Apollo, interrogate it,
strike it with a stick, and exclaim to the bystanders,
‘ See now, your God cannot avenge himself !’ The
temptation was then strong to arrest the sacrilegious
Christian, to crucify him, and to say to him, ‘ Well now,
does your God avenge himself ? ”*
Christians who acted in this way had only themselves
to thank if they fell victims to the fury of the populace.
And the Christians of to-day should recollect that they
* Renan, Marc-Aurèie, p. 61.
�34
uphold
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
Blasphemy
Laws, which were designed to
protect their religion, not only from insult, but even
from public criticism; that, under those laws, men
have been burnt and hung in England ; and that, under
the same laws, Freethinkers are still liable to imprison
ment.
Mr. Barrett caps his travesty of Roman jurispru
dence in a fashion which is positively ridiculous. The
rescript from Nero, already referred to, is brought to
Marcus Superbus, the Prefect of Rome, stating that the
Christians conspire against the emperor’s throne and
life, and ordering their extermination. Kill them all,
says Nero—men, women, and children. Mr. Marcus
Barrett, or Mr. Barrett Marcus, drops his voice, tremu
lous with horror and pity, at the word “ children ”—
and the audience (or congregation) shudder in turn,
as though it really happened. But it never did happen.
No ruler of a civilised state ever issued such an order.
What is related in the New Testament of Herod is
simply a Christian falsehood.
Certainly no Roman
emperor ever wrote out an order for the indiscriminate
massacre of men, women, and children. Such an order
was written once, and Mr. Barrett forgot where he had
read it. It is to be found in the book of Deuteronomy,
and is the direct command of Jehovah. In the case of
certain cities, the Jews were to kill all the males and
married women, and keep alive the virgins for them
selves ; in the case of other cities, they were to slay all,
men, women, and children, and leave alive nothing that
breathed.
Roman jurisprudence was not perfect, but it was
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
35
more humane than the jurisprudence of Christendom
until within a very recent period. At any rate, it
should not be saddled with the responsibility of J ewish
atrocities; and that this transference of guilt should
be made in a Christian play, before an audience of
Bibliolaters, is a surprising illustration of ignorance or
hypocrisy.
The more we examine Mr. Barrett’s history the more
extraordinary it appears.
I have already noticed that
he makes Nero and Marcus talk about Christ and Chris
tianity as though both were perfectly familiar.
Now
this is simply absurd, as I will proceed to demonstrate.
Orthodox sources of information are all suspicious.
Mr. Becky, in a famous passage, deplores the fables and
falsehoods which have ever disgraced the literature of
the Church, and quotes with melancholy approval the
dictum of Herder that “ Christian veracity ” deserves
to rank with “ Punic faith.”* The fervid and reckless
Tertullian, writing within two centuries of the death
of Christ, not only tells the Roman authorities that
they had preserved in their archives a circumstantial
relation of the astounding eclipse which is said to have
occurred at the Crucifixion, but impudently adds that
Tiberius proposed to enrol Christ among the gods, but
was unable to obtain the sanction of the Senate.^
When such stuff as this passed amongst the Christians
as history, after the lapse of only a few generations, we
may well refuse to believe anything advanced by their
apologists, unless
it
is supported by independent
evidence.
* European Morals, vol. ii., p, 212.
+ Apology, ch. v., ch. xxi.
�36
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
A century after the death of Nero a great and good
man occupied the throne of the Roman empire. His
Thoughts is one of the most precious books in the
world’s literature; and Mr. George Long, his classical
translator, says that “ it is quite certain that Antoninus
did not derive any of his Ethical principles from a re
ligion of which he knew nothing.”*
Renan is only a
little less emphatic. “ It is most likely,” he says, “ that
no redaction of the evangelical texts had passed under
his eyes; perhaps the name of Jesus was unknown to
him.”-J-
Now, if Marcus Aurelius may never have heard the
name of Jesus, and if it is certain that he knew nothing
of Christianity,. it is incumbent upon Mr. Barrett to
explain the knowledge of both Jesus and Christianity
which he attributes to Nero in the middle of the pre
vious century.
It is extremely doubtful whether Christianity had
penetrated to Rome before Paul went there as a
prisoner, and this was in the reign of Nero. Aube is
evidently misled on this point by a passage in Sueto
nius, who relates that Claudius “ expelled from Rome
the Jews, who, at the instigation of one Chrestus, were
always making disturbances.” This refers to A.D. 49,
and Aube regards it as “ the first mention, obscure but
incontestable, of the advent of Christianity in Rome.”!
But the name of Chrestus was then in common use,
and the passage cannot possibly refer to Christ, who
was never in Rome himself, and whose followers, if they
* P. 22.
+ Ma/rc-Aurele, p. 55.
| Aube, Histoire des Persecretions de VEglise jusqu' a la fin
dies Antonins, p. 82.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
37
existed there so soon after the crucifixion, could not
have been numerous enough to engage in a dangerous
conflict with the Jews.
Lardner admitted that learned
men were not agreed that this Suetonius passage related
to Christ, and Ludwig Geiger says—“ How this passage
could have been applied to Christ, I cannot conceive.”*
It is stated in the Acts of the Apostles (xxviii. 15),
which is of very questionable historical value, that the
“ brethren ” came out to meet Paul as he approached
Rome.
But these “ brethren ” disappear as soon as
they have given a kindly touch to the narrative; for
it was “ the chief of the Jews ” that Paul called together
when he had been three days in the city, and to whom
he preached “ concerning Jesus.”
Apparently they
had been unable to learn anything “ concerning this
sent ” from the mysterious Christian “ brethren ” who
came out to meet Paul as far as “ The Three Taverns.”
Paul’s treatment in Rome is a curious commentary
on Mr. Barrett’s text. A declaration is put into the
mouth of Poppea, “ that Nero gives liberty of worship
to all his subjects but the Christians.”
Now, according
to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul had appealed unto
Caesar against the malicious bigotry of his own country
men, the Jews.
It was because he had embraced
Christianity, and had become its principal champion,
that they accused him as a pestilent fellow and a
stirrer-up of tumults.
Yet on reaching Rome, the city
of Nero, and the alleged scene of a terrible and infamous
persecution of the Christians, he found himself in a
haven of safety. He was “ suffered to dwell by himself
* Gill, Notices of the Jews in the Classic Writers of Anti
quity, p. 164.
�38
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
with a soldier that kept him,” and “ dwelt two whole
years in his own hired house,” preaching Christianity
every day under the very nose of his janitor, without
the slightest molestation.
It is not a fact that Nero interfered with the liberty
of worship of any of his subjects; it is not true that
he ever issued an order against the Christians on
account of their faith ; it is false that he ever charged
them (as Mr. Barrett represents) with conspiring against
his throne and life.
Rome had been more than half destroyed by a
frightful conflagration, and it was rumored that Nero
was the incendiary of his own capital. Absurd as the
rumor was, it is said that Nero was alarmed, and that
he looked about for a victim to offer as a sacrifice to
the angry multitude. What followed is related in the
famous passage in Tacitus
“ With this view he inflicted the most exquisite
tortures on those men who, under the vulgar appellation
of Christians, were already branded with deserved
infamy. They derived their name and origin from
Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death
by the sentence of the procurator, Pontius Pilate. For
a while this dire superstition was checked, but it again
burst forth : and not only spread itself over Judsea, the
first seat of this mischievous sect, but was even intro
duced into Rome, the common asylum which receives and
protects whatever is impure, whatever is atrocious. The
confessions of those who were seized discovered a great
multitude of their accomplices, and they were all con
victed, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the
city as for their hatred of human kind. They died in
torments, and their torments were embittered by insult
and derision. Some were nailed on crosses; others
sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to
the fury of dogs ; others again, smeared over with com
bustible materials, were used as torches to illuminate
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
39
the darkness of the night. The gardens of Nero were
destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was accom
panied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence
of the emperor, who mingled with the populace in the
dress and attitude of a charioteer. The guilt of the
Christians deserved, indeed, the most exemplary punish
ment, but the public abhorrence was changed into
commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy
wretches were sacrificed, not so much to the public
welfare as to the cruelty of a jealous tyrant.”*
This passage occurs in the Annals (xv. 44) of Tacitus.
Gibbon regards it as genuine; but let us look at the
facts.
The Annals of Tacitus was first printed at Venice
between 1468 and 1470. There is not a trace of the
existence of this work prior to the fifteenth century.
Mr. W. R. Ross has written a learned book to prove
that it was forged by Bracciolini.f He shows, by a
wide appeal to Christian and Pagan authors, that the
History of Tacitus was well known, but that there is
not a single reference to the Annals during thirteen
hundred years. He says that this long, unbroken
silence is inexplicable, except on the ground that the
work was not in existence; and he then gives a variety
of reasons, personal, historical, and philological, for
concluding that the writer was not Tacitus, but
Bracciolini.
I do not desire to take a side in this controversy;
I do not know that I am entitled to.
But, in the
circumstances, I do question the authenticity of the
* This is Gibbon’s translation. There are many others,
but his combines elegance and accuracy, as might be
expected from such a scholar and such a writer.
T Tacitus and Bracciolini.
�40
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
particular passage which relates the persecution of the
Chiistians by Nero. It contains a reference to Jesus
Christ, which would have been invaluable to the apolo
gists of Christianity; but not one of them, from
Tertullian downwards, until fourteen hundred years
aftei the death of Christ, ever lighted upon it, or
caught a glimpse of it, or even heard of its existence.
And knowing what we do of the forgery practised in all
ages on behalf of the Christian faith, I say that this
particular passage—whatever may be the case with
respect to the entire Annals—lies under very grave
suspicion.
It is not generally known how very recent is the
Christian appeal to Tacitus. Mr. Ross says that the
Annals, though printed in the fifteenth century, was
“ not generally known till the sixteenth and seven
teenth.” A singular corroboration of this statement
may be found in John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs—as it
is commonly (though incorrectly) called. This work
was first published in 1563, and I find that Foxe knows
nothing whatever of this (since) famous passage in
Tacitus.
He does relate that Nero slaughtered
the
Christians, but his
Hegesippus,
Sulpicius
authorities
Severus, and
are Eusebius,
Orosius.
He
refers in a footnote to Suetonius, and the reference
to Tacitus is supplied, within brackets, by the modern
editor.
This suspicious passage in Tacitus was probably
based upon a very similar passage in Sulpicius Severus,
a Christian writer who flourished about A.D. 400. I
give the latter in full, so that the reader may, if possible,
judge for himself:—
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
41
“ In the meantime, when the number of the Christians
was greatly increased, there happened a fire at Rome
while Nero was at Antium. Nevertheless, the general
opinion of all men cast the blame of the fire upon the
emperor. And it was supposed that his aim therein
was that he might have the glory of raising the city
again in greater splendor. Nor could he by any means
suppress the common rumor that the fire was owing to
his orders. He therefore endeavored to cast the re
proach of it upon the Christians. And exquisite tortures
were inflicted upon innocent men ; and, moreover, new
kinds of death were invented. Some were tied up in
the skins of wild beasts, that they might be worried to
death by dogs. Many were crucified. Others were
burnt to death; and they were set up as lights in the
night-time. This was the beginning of the persecution
of the Christians.”*
Lardner supposes that Sulpicius Severus had read
Tacitus, but it is first necessary to prove that the
Annals, or the special passage in it, existed to be read.
Lardner also supposes that
Sulpicius Severus had
“ other authorities,” but who they were is left
obscurity.
in
As a matter of fact, the farther back we go
beyond this writer (a.d. 400) the less precise does the
information become concerning theNeronic persecution
of the Christians. The earliest Christian writers were
ignorant of details with which later Christian writers
were so familiar. And it is curious that, although the
later Martyrologies are so circumstantial, not a single
name was preserved by the Church of any Christian
who perished in Nero’s massacre. Paul is said to have
been beheaded at Rome at some time, and Peter is said
to have been crucified (upside down) there ; but every
student knows that these are mere traditions, which
* Lardner’s translation, Works, vol. vi., p. 630.
�42
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
abound in supernatural incidents that deprive them of
all historical value.
Supposing, however, that the Tacitus passage
be genuine, still it lends no countenance to Mr.
Barrett’s statement that Nero persecuted the Chris
tians as Christians, or slew them for conspiring against
his throne and life. Nero’s action, as Lardner remarks,
was “ not owing to their having different principles in
religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire
he had to throw off from himself the odium of a vile
action—namely, setting fire to the city.”* “ The reli
gious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians,” says
Gibbon, “ were never made a subject of punishment, or
even of inquiry.”
Mosheim states that “ Nero first
enacted laws for the extermination of Christians,”f but
later on he admits that “ the Christians were con
demned rather as
grounds
incendiaries
than on
religious
and his English editor, Murdock, is obliged
to point out that Nero did not enact public laws
against them. It is impossible to refute the conclu
sion of Gibbon, that there were “ no general laws or
decrees of the senate in force against the Christians,”
when Pliny, in the beginning of the second century,
wrote to the Emperor Trajan for instructions with
respect to those who were accused at his tribunal of being
worshippers of Christ. “ Trajan’s rescript,”says Long, “is
the first legislative act of the head of the Roman state
with reference to Christianity, which is known to us.”
Pliny’s translator, the elegant and learned Melmoth,
remarks that his author’s letter to Trajan “ is esteemed
* Vol. i., p. 206.
+ Ecclesiastical History (Murdock’s edition), vol. i., p. 65.
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
43
as almost the only genuine monument of antiquity
relating to the times immediately succeeding the
Apostles” —which is rather severe on
the . other
Melmoth adds that the
Christians
“ monuments.”
came under the Roman law against unlicensed assem
blies ; and that, as they met just before the dawn, the
very unusualness of the hour laid them open to the
suspicion that they indulged in Bacchanalian practices.
But it is not my purpose to write a disquisition on the
reasons why the Christians of the second centuiy were
persecuted by a government renowned for its religious
toleration. My object is to demonstrate the truth that
the Christians were not molested by Nero on account
of their religion, and in this I think I have fully
succeeded.
Whether the Christians were really put to death m
the atrocious manner described by Sulpicius Severus,
and in the forged passage of Tacitus, no man can
determine.
Personally, I do not believe it. I am of
opinion that the story, as it stands, is an orthodox
invention, like the ten persecutions, and the martyro
logies, and the dreadful fate of the persecutors. But
in what, I ask, did Nero’s butchery of Christians (if it
happened) differ from Christian butchery of heretics
and infidels ? Nero is alleged to have covered some of
his victims with combustibles, and used their burning
bodies to illuminate his gardens.
This strikes the
imagination, which counts for so much in these matters.
Yet it scarcely adds to the cruelty of the burning. I
believe there is no way of roasting a man agreeably.
His suffering is not affected by the use that may be
made of the fire for other purposes. And when I read
�44
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
of the death of Servetus, who was hunted to his doom
by John Calvin; when I read that he was burnt with
green wood to prolong his sufferings ; when I read that
he vainly begged his murderers to throw on dry wood,
m order to end his agony; when I read all this, I
perceive that these Christian butchers had nothing
to learn of Nero m the arts of torture and assassination.
Two blacks do not make a white. I am aware of it.
But I do not hold a brief for any persecutors.
I
merely say that one black has no right to denounce the
other’s nigritude.
I would also observe that the Christians who
butchered systematically for a difference of opinion,
from the time of Constantine down to the end of last
century, had not even the poor excuse of the Pagans
who persecuted the Christians at intervals during the
much shorter period of about two hundred years.
After the burning of Rome, for instance, how natural
it was that people should say they had seen men
going about with torches and setting fire to the
city. And if it be true that Nero fastened the
guilt,
of
which he was
himself suspected, upon
the Christians, how easy was it to excite the Pagan
populace against a new sect, whose members were
so fond of prophesying the speedy end of the world,
and that too by a universal conflagration.
*
SubSir Richard Davis Hanson, late Chief Justice of
z
kls ai>e 1W0rk on T.he AP°^e. Paul, remarks
\P-: Although,, then, there is no existing evidence to
justify the. accusation made against the Christians, of
having originated or assisted to spread the conflagration
we are not, perhaps, entitled to regard it as altogether
without foundation.” Chief Justice Hanson points out that
it Irish Christians m London could blow down the walls of
�THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
45
sequently, when the Christians constituted a kind of
international secret society, when they openly displayed
their hatred of the empire, and gloried in its mis
fortunes, and were never weary of foretelling its ruin—
was there not some excuse for the action of the govern
ment against them ?
But the Christians were never
in any danger from the heretics and infidels they
massacred. They never even raised such a pretext.
They killed and tortured for points of faith, and not on
any ground (however mistaken) of self-preservation.
A correspondent of mine, Mr. J. W. Hillier, having
witnessed The Sign of the Cross, and feeling that
Mr. Barrett had approached the subject in a spirit of
partisanship, wrote to him suggesting that he should
follow it with another play, dealing with later times
and the persecutions inflicted by Christians on those
who differed from them.
Mr. Barrett’s reply is as full
of• sentiment as a speech by Joseph Surface. “No
good,” he says, “ would accrue from such a play as you
describe. It must engender bitterness. The cause of
humanity could not be served by showing that many
who professed Christianity neglected the first prin
ciples of its teaching. No mud thrown at St. Paul’s
Cathedral injures the Christian religion or helps the
cause of truth. No false priest destroys the beauty of
Christ’s teaching.”
a prison to liberate a member of their society, it is possible
that Christianised slaves or Jews in Rome might set fire to
a prison or a palace to facilitate the escape of a valued
brother. Of the crime of setting fire to Rome it is “ almost
proved ” that Nero could not have been guilty. Whether the
Christians were guilty or not, the populace “obviously thought
the accusation credible, and probably believed it to be true.”
�46
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
Whatever are the “ first principles ” of Christianity,
according to Mr. Barrett, it is certain that one of its
first principles, according to the teaching of its principal
divines in all ages, is the doctrine of salvation by faith;
and any man of sense can see that this doctrine leads
—as, in fact, it has always led—to persecution.
This
doctrine, however, is probably not included among the
“ beauties ” of Christ’s teaching. Mr. Barrett would
doubtless refer me to such texts as “ Blessed are the
merciful.” Well, I admit that the “beauty” of this
utterance cannot be destroyed by any false priest.
But, on the other hand, could the crimes of Nero
destroy the “ beauty ” of the teaching of Seneca or
Epictetus ? It seems to me that Mr. Barrett’s methods
are very illogical.
To show how Christians were per
secuted by Pagans is to help humanity, but to show
how Christians have persecuted independent thinkers
is to engendei’ bitterness ! Why does not Mr. Barrett
honestly say that it pays better to flatter Christians
than to tell them the truth ?
Mr. Barrett must be well aware that the Cross has
played other parts in the world than the protector of
virtue and the stimulator of fortitude. It was the sign
of the Cross (we are told) visible in the heavens that
led Constantine to worship the God of the Christians,
and to force then.’ religion upon his Pagan subjects.
Within three hundred years of the death of Jesus, the
Christian preachers had only succeeded in converting
about a twentieth part of the inhabitants of the
empire; but within another hundred years the greater
part of the rest were converted by the gentle arts of
�47
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
bribery, proscription, and persecution. Those who spoke
evil of Christ were condemned to lose half their estates,,
the writings of the opponents of Christianity were
committed to the flames, and men were soon burnt
alive for dissenting from the Church. It was the sign
of the Cross, centuries afterwards, that led the brutal
horde of Crusaders to pollute with cruelty and massacre
the very land that had been trodden by the feet of
their “ Savior.” It was the sign of the Cross that in
spired the Spanish Christians to annihilate the Moorish
civilisation, which they have never been able to equal. It
was the sign of the Cross that blessed the bloody work
of the Spaniards in America, where they destroyed
millions of inoffensive natives by every conceivable
species of cruelty. It was the sign of the Cross that was
most frequently painted on the shirts of the poor
wretches who were burnt for heresy by the Inquisition.
Sometimes, by a crowning infamy, a red crucifix was
presented to the victim to kiss. It was pressed against
his lips, and it made them smoke, for it was red-hot.
These are not facts to be forgotten.
Whoever seeks
to hide them is an enemy to civilisation.
History has been called
example.
philosophy teaching by
In the name of history, thus understood, I
protest against Mr, Barrett’s play, and the ridiculous
(and, perhaps, venal) reception it has met with in the
so-called organs of public opinion.
My writing may be
weak, but it is not anonymous ; my voice may be feeble,
but I raise it openly; and I invite the clericals who.
laud The Sign of the Cross to answer my criticism.
FINIS.
����
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 Sign of the Cross : a candid criticism of Mr Wilson Barrett's play
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: 47 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. The Sign of the Cross is an 1895 four-act historical tragedy, by Wilson Barrett. Barrett said its Christian theme was his attempt to bridge the gap between Church and Stage. It was the basis for the 1932 film adaptation directed by Cecil B. DeMille: the first DeMille sound film with a religious theme. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N265
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theatre
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 Sign of the Cross : a candid criticism of Mr Wilson Barrett's play), 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
Drama
NSS
Wilson Barrett
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c7934d754bf9de69e623dc26ed38081b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hPeEaz2-wFribhOhOPi5vU6Wz8yL24vzKZbpU0UwOyVbe74-Y6YOd7-xVik6tY4eCtviT9GiTJjDgxOxEYMrqn5F8mfi7QKdVq45ESZxgRfjhBpY%7EjEqaJa9GOaYEGZrAUmjFZ7B7fuZFxEsP49ccilf60HpmTjpG0E%7EFN-ay81fygVJXY0FfL4pdwBegf92j%7EJm11cbRutYqisQx1GCkdxfT78ZsYCWBLxqflOriixX%7EmTud-jiiWV%7EqjgQ1Rsz4UaMG2%7ETbaNmRLuwYJr3k3dIfJyXNq9i3dsm87gE2CJLG1-f0gOwttjNFr6hy5KFiULtUTyqJ1TORIjP%7ECekFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
41ece2a420ec5ee65f0e52d3f8271a87
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURE
THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY
BY
SIR EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C, M.P.
LONDON
STEVENS & HAYNES
13 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR
1896
��TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS.
The difficulty which recurs with every Parliamentary Session,
and annually disappoints the intentions of the Government
•and the hopes of its supporters, has in the present year become
more than usually serious.
We are threatened with the mutilation or abandonment of
Bills upon which the House of Commons has spent much time
•and labour, and which the large majority of that House strongly
desire to pass into law.
This difficulty will never be got rid of so long as the House
maintains the senseless rules which at present cripple its
capacity for Public usefulness.
The remedy has long been known ; it is already in operation
to France, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, Den
mark, Norway and Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
In this country it was advocated by Lord Derby in 1848, and
by Lord Salisbury in 1869; and in 1882 I made a speech in the
House of Commons, to which I hope I may now be allowed to
invite the attention of my fellow-Members of that House.
Since 1882 a great advance has been made in the direction
■of the reform which I then advocated without success.
. In 1890, when the Parliamentary situation was one of much
difficulty, a very strong Committee was appointed to consider
these proposals, and the report of that Committee, which I now
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
4
reprint, is a declaration of opinion of the highest importance,
framed as it was by Mr. Arthur Balfour, and supported by Mr.
Goschen, Lord Hartington, and Mr. Chamberlain.
At this serious juncture in public affairs, when the leaders of
the Unionist party, if assured of the hearty support of their
followers, could relieve themselves from a position of humili
ating embarrassment, save valuable measures now threatened
with destruction, and effect a reform in Parliamentary practice,
which would weaken the forces of obstruction, lessen the strain
on Ministers and Members, and give to the House of Commons
a new capacity for deliberate and careful legislation, I respect
fully offer these pages for the consideration of all those who
are proud, as I am, of belonging to this great Assembly and
earnestly desire to increase its power and opportunity of public
service.
House of Commons, June ig, 1896.
EDWARD CLARKE.
�REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF 1890.
Mr. Arthur Balfour.
Sir Algernon Borthwick.
Sir Edward Clarke.
Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Dillwyn.
Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.
Mr. Goschen.
Mr. Gladstone.
Sir William Harcourt.
Dr. Hunter.
Lord Hartington.
Mr. Jennings.
Mr. Labouchere.
Colonel Malcolm.
Mr. John Morley.
Sir Stafford Northcote.
Mr. T. W. Russell.
Mr. Sexton.
Mr. John Talbot.
Mr. Whitbread.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire whether by means of an
abridged form of procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of
Bills, which have been partly considered in this House, could
be facilitated in the next ensuing session of the same Par
liament ;------Have agreed to the following Report:
Four times since 1880 the House of Commons has been obliged
to revise its rules for the purpose of expediting public business.
Four times in the same period exceptional methods of restricting
discussion, not based upon the Standing Order or practice of the
House, have been adopted, when, in the opinion of the majority, it
became absolutely necessary to pass into law measures required to
meet a pending crisis. The causes, legitimate and illegitimate,
which stimulate discussion, have, however, counterbalanced, and
more than counterbalanced, the effect of the rules designed to
restrain it: the difficulty of -legislation has not diminished; the ex
hausting labours imposed upon Members of Parliament, excessive at
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
6
the beginning of this decade, have, if anything, increased ; and
experience shows that while closure, in the form in which it is recog
nised in the Standing Orders, may be, and, in the opinion of your
Committee, is adequate to deal with single resolutions and short
Bills, it is not adequate to enable the House to consider, within the
compass of a session of convenient length, measures which are both
long, complicated, and controversial. Unless, therefore, the House
is prepared to acquiesce in its increasing impotence to grapple with
such measures, some further modification of its procedure seems to
be necessary.
Such a modification can only take one of two forms. It must
either, by some very stringent form of closure, enable Bills which
would, if debate were free, be killed by a prorogation, to pass
through all the stages in the course of one session, or else it must
revive them'in the succeeding session under such conditions that it
would not be necessary, or indeed permissible, to repeat the dis
cussion which had taken place upon the stages to which the Househad already agreed.
As your Committee are of opinion that the first course might in
certain contingencies seriously endanger that right of free criticism,
which is one of the fundamental and most useful privileges of
Parliament, they are driven to the consideration whether the second
course might not be safely adopted, without introducing a more
serious innovation into the practice of the House. Your Committee
therefore agreed to the following resolution :
*“That, in the judgment of your Committee, it is expedient that a
Standing Order be passed for the purpose of abridging procedure in
the case of Bills originating in the Blouse of Commons which have
been partly considered, and your Committee advise that such
Standing Order should be adopted by the House in the following
terms :
“ In respect of any Public Bill which is in progress in Com
mittee of the whole House, or in a Standing Committee, 01
which has been reported therefrom, or which has reached any
further stage, a motion may be made (after notice given) by a
member in charge of Bill, ‘That further proceedings on such
Bill be suspended until the next session,’ and no amendment
shall be moved to such motion.
* This Resolution was proposed by the Chairman, Mr. Goschen.
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
7
11 If such motion be carried, then, in the ensuing session'
(being a session of the same Parliament), any member whose
name was on the suspended Bill may claim 1 That the resolution
of the previous session be read.’ Thereupon the Speaker shall
direct the Clerk to read the Resolution, and shall proceed to
call on the member to present the Bill in the form in which it
stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended; and the
questions on the first and second readings thereof shall be
successively put forthwith.
“ If both these questions be carried, the Bill shall be ordered
to be printed; and, if it had been partly considered in Com
mittee in the previous session, it shall stand committed to a
similar Committee, and it shall be an instruction to such Com
mittee to begin their consideration of the Bill at the clause on
which progress was reported in the previous session ; but if it
had been reported from Committee in the previous session, the
consideration of the Bill, as reported, shall be appointed for that
day week.
“ Provided always, that, if the first or second reading be nega
tived, such vote shall not be held to preclude the House from
entertaining a Bill, on the same subject-matter under the ordinary
rules of procedure.”
This Standing Order, it will be observed, differs fundamentally
both in its character and in its object from the various schemes with
which it has a superficial similarity, and which have been more than,
once considered by the House of Commons during the last forty
years. Committees have sat upon three such schemes in the years
1848, 1861, and 1869, but in every one of these cases the object of
the proposal was not to enable the House of Commons to deal
effectually with measures submitted to it by the Government, or by
private Members, but to enable the House of Lords to deal effectually
with measures sent up to it from the House of Commons. This last
object may be desirable or undesirable, and the means suggested for
carrying it out may have been effectual or ineffectual, but your Com
mittee desire to point out that neither the object nor the machinery
for obtaining it were the same as those of the proposed Standing.
Order.
In spite of these essential differences, fears have been expressed
lest the adoption of this Standing Order should supply a justification.
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
to the House of Lords for reviving and putting in force the rejected
schemes of 1848, 1861, or 1869. But it must be observed, in th
first place, that a plan by which one House is enabled more effectually
to deal with business which has originated in it, and which has never
left it, can hardly form a precedent for a totally different scheme by
which one House may be able to postpone without rejecting Bills
initiated in the other. And, in the second place, it is obvious that no
endeavour on the part of the House of Lords to carry out the second
of these objects can be effectual without the concurrence of the
House of Commons. For the change of procedure must either be
effected by Bill or by Standing Order. If by Bill, then the assent of
both Houses is required. If by Standing Order, then only by Stand
ing Orders adopted by both Houses, and to which both Houses.,
therefore, must be parties. “ It has been alleged that the Standing
Order now proposed would invite and countenance the adoption by
the House of Lords of a similar Standing Order, and thus enable
that House to postpone the consideration of all Bills passed and sent
up from the House of Commons.” In reply to this allegation, your
Committee deem it right and necessary to record their opinion that
any claim or attempt by either House of Parliament of its own
authority, by Standing Order or otherwise, to postpone to a future
session cf Parliament any Bill sent to it from the other House of
Parliament, would be a breach of the constitutional usage of Par
liament.
It has been suggested that, by suspending a Bill, the valuable power
of amending it during the recess and reintroducing it in a better form
would necessarily be lost. Your Committee are not prepared to
dispute the fact that changes wdiich may also now and then be
improvements are often made in Bills which have failed to become
law in the session when they were first introduced; but those who
are of opinion that such amendments are necessary or expedient in
the interests of good legislation should be prepared to carry out their
theory to its logical issue, and to propose a Standing Order under
which no Bill should be passed in the same session in which it was
first read a second time. By this means the advantages, inseparable
in their opinion from every abortive attempt at legislation, would not
be arbitrarily confined to a few measures chosen at random. It may
be noted in this connection that those who are impressed with the
. advantages of not passing measures till they have been twice intro-
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY,
g
duced into the House of Commons are hardly in a position to regret
that the proposed Standing Order may in certain cases extend legis
lation over two years instead of one.
The only other argument which it is necessary to consider is that
based upon the fact that the House of Commons has already
.adequate powers, without a Standing Order, to repeat in an abridged
form the stages of any Bill which have been already passed in a
previous session. In the words of Sir James Graham, “Whenever it
may be thought desirable promptly to pass and send to the other
House for concurrence, a Bill passed in a former session, but set
aside in the Lords, the Commons may pass the Bill rapidly through
.all its stages if they be so minded, and this course is not open to the
objection of providing fresh opportunities for the postponement of
legislation.” No doubt the House has such a power, as it has the
power of deciding, if it so pleases, that the first, second, and third
readings of a new Bill shall be put without amendment or debate.
But your Committee are of opinion that it is of the utmost import
ance that Parliamentary practice should be guided as far as possible
by settled rules, deliberately adopted, and generally applicable. And
it appears to them that every argument which can be urged against
the proposed Standing Order is equally effective against the policy
.suggested by Sir James Graham’s Report; while the latter is open to
the most serious objections, based not only upon the waste of time
which any attempt to carry it out must necessarily produce, but still
more upon its sudden, occasional, and arbitrary character, so little in
harmony with the general spirit of House of Commons procedure.
The preceding considerations may be briefly summarised as
follows :
The length of discussion to which it is thought necessary to
subject measures which are the object of party controversy has in
creased, is increasing, and does not seem likely to diminish. As a
result, the difficulty of passing such measures through all their stages
ill the course of one session has increased likewise. This difficulty
is especially felt in the case of long and complicated Bills, and it is
precisely in the case of these Bills that the closure of debate is most
ineffective as an instrument for facilitating the rapid progress of
business. It is, therefore, desirable to increase the power of the
House of Commons to deal with such measures; it is also desirable
to shorten the length of sessions, whose present duration overtaxes
�IO
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
the endurance of members and embarrasses the machinery of admini
stration ; but it is not desirable, so long as any other alternative
remains, to increase the stringency of the existing machinery for
closing debate. Your Committee believe that if these three prin
ciples be accepted every possible alternative is excluded, except one
which shall relieve Parliament in certain cases from the necessity of
repeating in two successive sessions the same debate upon the same
questions. They attach no weight, for reasons above given, to any
objections that have suggested themselves to this plan, based upon
the relations now existing between the two Houses of Parliament.
They think the change, though undoubtedly an important one, ismuch less violent in character and much less at variance with the
spirit of Parliamentary tradition than some alterations which have
been made of late years in Parliamentary procedure; and they point
out that if, as they recommend, it be effected, by Standing Order
instead of by Bill, the experiment may be purely tentative, and could
be abandoned, should that course be subsequently thought desirable,
by the sole action of the House of Commons, without requiring the
consent of the other branch of the Legislature.
Adopted by the Committee after a division, by 11 to 8.
Ayes.
Mr. Arthur Balfour.
Sir Algernon Borthwick.
Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.
Lord Hartington.
Mr. Jennings.
Colonel Malcolm.
Sir Stafford Northcote.
Mr. T. W. Russell.
Sir Edward Clarke.
Mr. John Talbot.
Noes.
Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Dillwyn.
Sir William Harcourt.
Dr. Hunter.
Mr. Labouchere.
Mr. John Morley.
Mr. Sexton.
Mr. Whitbread.
�SPEECHES.
Parliamentary Procedure.
February 21, 1882.
[The following resolution was moved by Mr. Edward Clarke:—
“ That it is desirable that the practice of this House should
be so amended that the consideration of Bills which have
passed a second reading, but have not become law, shall be
resumed in the succeeding session of the same Parliament at the
stage of committee.”
It was seconded and supported by Mr. H. S. Northcote, and
was opposed by Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr.
Dodson, and Mr. J. Lowther. Upon a division, the motion was
rejected by 126 against 61.]
SiRj —It is hardly possible to expect that, after the exciting scenes
of the last hour and a half (the incident of Mr. Bradlaugh going
through the form of taking an oath and the debate thereupon), the
House will readily address itself to the motion I have put on the
paper. I will venture to say that a great deal of what I should otherwise
have to urge on the House in justification of the present motion has
been rendered unnecessary, because last evening the House addressed
itself to another part of the great question to which the present
motion is directed. We have already had the advantage of the Prime
Minister’s [Mr, Gladstone] powerful arguments bearing upon the subject
of the defects of our present rules of procedure—arguments based
upon half a century’s experience of the House. The question is one
of so much importance to the public interests that it is, I believe,
the duty of all parties, whether Liberal or Conservative, to endeavour
�12
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE»
to effect some remedy for the difficulties that beset the House at the
present time. The Prime Minister has dwelt on only one of the evils
that beset public business; he spoke of the manner in which the
progress of legislation was being impeded. He pointed out that
many Bills of great importance, after having been carried forward
several stages, are ultimately lost on account of the pressure on the
time at the disposal of the House. It is a great misfortune for the
country that many measures that have been fully debated and
thoroughly well considered are ultimately thrown away on account of
.the impossibility of finding time to proceed with them. But there
.is another matter of almost equal importance. The mode in which
the work of this House is done frequently causes measures to be
¡passed in so hurried and haphazard a manner that Acts are left on
the Statute Book which have not only been insufficiently considered,
.but are so badly expressed, that costly litigation is needed before
their meaning is ascertained and very often that is not the meaning
which their authors wished them to have. I have, Sir, heard it said
that the House of Commons ought not to do much in the way of
.legislation. It is sometimes cynically remarked that the less the
number of Bills that are passed the better it will be for the country,
...and it has been suggested that no change is advisable that would
lead to more legislation. But in the present system of elaborate
social relations there must be change, and all change involves and
requires legislation. It is my firm belief that many a measure which,
while in progress, produces Radical agitation, when it once becomes
law constitutes an element of Conservative strength, through the
Peeling of relief that the particular questions dealt with by it have at
last been settled. Mischiefs exist that have to be removed. There
are very few men in the House of Commons who have a thorough
acquaintance with, say, a particular trade or profession, or with a
particular portion of society, who, in objecting to further legislation,
do not make a reservation in favour of some one measure affecting
the subject writh which they are themselves familiar. Sir, no one can
deny the existence of a widely spread and well-founded belief that
Parliament is unable to do its work. Look at the present state of
jthe Bankruptcy Laws. I do not know any Act that^ was so much
wanted as a new Bankruptcy Act. All persons conversant with the
Bankruptcy Laws are at one as to the necessity for an amendment of
the law, yet year by year a Minister of the Crown comes forward and
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
13
introduces a Bankruptcy Bill, the necessity for which has been
declared in Her Majesty’s gracious speech, and then when the end of
the session comes, he gives notice that the Bill will not be further
proceeded with; he puts it in his despatch-box, and preserves it
carefully for the next session, when the same farce is repeated. I
will give another instance. Last session the hon. baronet the member
for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) brought in a Bill
which was intended to consolidate the law on Bills of Exchange. It
was a thoroughly commercial question, and a question that had been
fully considered by the various chambers of commerce throughout
the country. I read the Bill myself, and found it was drawn in
almost the exact words of a judgment of one of the superior courts
of law. But what took place with regard to that Bill ? The hon.
baronet moved the second reading, and the second reading was.
allowed on the understanding that the Bill should not be carried
further, the hon. baronet being congratulated on its having advanced
so far. So the House went through the solemn farce of reading theBill a second time, without any intention of passing it, and knowing
that the same steps would have to be gone all over again the follow
ing session. All this is calculated to wear out the patience of the
public. The Conveyancing Bill of Lord Cairns, which was passed
last session, was a very important measure. It contained over seventy
clauses ; it came down to the House towards the end of the session,
and there was, I may say, a conspiracy of silence on the part of
members in order to make it possible that the Bill should pass. I
was entreated not to read the Bill, because, if any discussion should
arise, a single night’s debate would make it impossible for it to get
through the House that session. The measure only got through by
the sacrifice of certain clauses comprising somewhat debatable matter,,
and which I think were introduced last night in a separate Bill in
“ another place.” However, that Bill passed, and I do not believe
that twenty members of the House ever read it before it became law.
It was, I believe, a good Bill; but it is not satisfactory that even a
good Bill should pass without the knowledge and discussion and
approval of the representatives sent here by the constituencies to
discuss and decide these matters. Again, there was the Registration
of Voters Bill of 1878, which in its practical result has been of im
mense importance. It has largely increased a great many of the
constituencies of the country. My own constituency, which was last
�i4
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
year 5600 in number, is now, since last year’s revision, 13,600, show
ing a greater increase than that made by the Reform Act of 1867.
What, Sir, happened with regard to the passing of that Bill ? In
1878 the Bill had been before a committee, and it came for report
before this House. Sections 1 to 21 were gone through without
any opposition or comment. Sir William Charley, then a member
of the House, objected that the Bill had only just been printed, and
asked that there might be some delay before its discussion was con
tinued. He interposed exactly at the right point, for sections 22
and 23 were those which have given so much difficulty to the courts,
and have, under the interpretation now given to them, so materially
affected the constituencies. The then member for Cambridge
(Mr. Martin), on the one side, and the hon. baronet, the member
for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), on the other, assured Sir
William Charley that no considerable change was made by the
provisions of the Bill. Their appeal was listened to ; the whole of
the sections were gone through that evening; the third reading was
taken on the following night; the Bill went up to the House of
Lords, where, as it dealt with the registration of voters for members
of the House of Commons, no great amount of attention was paid to
it; and the result has been an entirely unexpected extension of the
franchise, which, whatever its merits, ought not to have been
made in that way, but if made at all should have been made
deliberately by Parliament, with a full consciousness of what it was
doing. But, Sir, there is another, and a very serious mischief in our
present system, and that is the tremendous strain that is thrown upon
the members of the House themselves. A great many of them are
actively engaged in commercial and professional life, and to them, of
course, the strain of the long hour's the House is kept sitting, night
after night, is enormous. But that is almost insignificant compared
with the mischief of the burden upon Ministers of the Crown. Is it
not a monstrous thing that Her Majesty’s Ministers, who are
expected to perform the responsible duties of their offices during the
day, should be expected to attend this House from four o’clock in
the afternoon until three or four in the following morning ? The
marvel is that any one should be endowed with vitality and energy
sufficient to enable him to continue for years in this splendid slavery.
One of the great advantages which would be likely to follow from the
adoption by the House of the resolution I am offering to its accept
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
ance is that there would be no necessity for the House to continue
sitting after 12 or half-past 12 at night, which would be a reasonable
time for the limit of our debates. Moreover, Sir, not only do our
present late hours heavily tax the endurance of Ministers and private
members, but they cause business to be done badly, and in a manner
which is by no means creditable to a legislative assembly. At 2 or 3
in the morning there is no pretence of adequate discussion of the
questions that come before the House ; and, worse than all, our
debates are almost wholly unreported. Practically, the proceedings
of the House cannot now be reported after one in the morning, and
within the last few days, as we have seen, it was only owing to the
enterprise of one great newspaper (the Times) that we were able to
have a full report a day later of the speech delivered by the leader of
the Opposition, and the reply of the noble Marquis the Secretary of
State for India, at the close of the debate on the Address. Now,
Sir, my proposal would deal practically with all the mischiefs that I
have indicated. The real difficulty of the House is that we are all,
whether Ministers or private members, competing just to get past a
certain point. If that point is passed, the Bill in which we are
interested becomes law. If we come short of that point, the whole
of our labour has to begin over again. There is one indefensible but
Very common species of obstruction to which the Prime Minister
did not advert last evening—namely, the persistent discussion of
matters which nobody cares about, in order to prevent other matters
which it is desired to impede from coming on. Valuable time is
deliberately and purposely wasted in order to keep up a debate until
a quarter to six on a Wednesday, when no decision can be come to;
and on many a dreary evening speakers go on repeating themselves
again and again, until the magic hour of half-past twelve arrives,
when nothing fresh can be entered upon. We should put an end to
that kind of obstruction by doing away with the temptation to prac
tise it. If we once provided that the House should be free to deal
with a Bill so obstructed when Parliament met again in February,
this kind of obstruction would practically be destroyed. For conduct
such as I have described excuse may in some circumstances be found,
but, Sir, I see no defence for the action of those who deliberately
waste the time of the House for the purpose of preventing Parlia
ment passing any measure at all. And I venture to urge upon the
House that these are valid reasons for adopting a substantial reform.
�16
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
I would also call the attention of the House to the fact that every
Parliament proceeds by jerks; that it is cut up into separate sessions,,
as though when we have finished our work in July we had done with
the whole matter. So long as the machinery of legislation goes on in
that spasmodic, jerky way, a very great waste of time is inevitable. I
will take, by way of example, the Bankruptcy Bill, to the repeated
promise and postponement of which I have before referred. There isthe Bankruptcy Bill which the President of the Board of Trade intro
duced last session, and which we expected this session. There is no
security whatever that his present Bill will be in the form which it
took last year, and I will point out to the House this most inconve
nient result. Some two or three months ago, the Associated Chambers
of Commerce held their meeting, and one of the subjects they dis
cussed was the Bankruptcy Bill. If it had been known that we would
have the same Bill before us as in the previous year, the Associated
Chambers of Commerce would, no doubt, have discussed the
measure and proposed amendments which would have been of great
service to us in framing that enactment. But the President of
the Board of Trade said that he knew the Bill going to be intro
duced would differ in some respects from the last one, and thus
the whole of what I might call the consultative power of the
country was thrown away. That was the case with the Associated
Chambers of Commerce. But let us take another instance—the
Rivers Conservancy Bill. That is a measure of very great interest
to the Chambers of Agriculture, and county members of this House
going back in the autumn to their places in the country would have
the advantage of hearing the opinion of their neighbours on the
subject • but, although I believe that the proposed Bill is to be the
same as that formerly introduced, we have no assurance of that, and
without such assurance we never can obtain that advantage of local
discussion and popular opinion. I think, Sir, it would be a very
good thing if any Bill dealing with a subject of general importance
were brought in in one session and passed in the next, for then hon.
members would have an opportunity of conferring with their con
stituents, and in the following session they would be enabled to bring
their ripened opinion—their completed knowledge—to the discussion
of the measure. The proposal that Bills should not require to be
introduced afresh each session is not a new one, or one for which I
am originally responsible. In 1848, and again in 1861, this question
�iy
THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
came before the House and before a Committee of the House of
Commons, as well as before the House of Lords. And here I would
venture for a moment to digress in order to say that, in my belief, it
is of the greatest moment to the country that the position of the
House of Lords should be properly appreciated as an integral part of
the legislative body. I do not understand the jealousy which exists
between the two Houses, or why there should be jealousy at all. It
is perfectly well known that the House of Lords contains men who
have served their apprenticeship in the House of Commons ; but the
House of Lords is discouraged, systematically discouraged, by the
action of the House of Commons towards it. Take the course pur
sued by the Government with respect to the Rivers Conservancy Bill,
upon which the other House bestowed a great deal of trouble. This
complaint has been made and repeated over and over again, and the
other House is deterred from beginning legislation, because it is prob
able that in the helter-skelter of July their labours will be sacrificed;
while, on the other hand, in July, Bills are sent up to them by dozens
when it is impossible for them to give them proper attention. Well,
in 1848, a Bill was introduced in terms somewhat similar to my own
resolution, enabling Bills discussed in one session to be proceeded
with in the next by the other House, subject always to this restric
tion—that when a measure had passed both Chambers it should be
Sent back to that from which it originated, so that if opinion respect
ing it had changed in the meantime that Chamber might have an
opportunity of recording that change. That Bill received the support
of the late Lord Derby; on the 5th of July 1848, it was read a
second time in the House of Commons, and Lord John Russell, who
was then the leader of the Liberal party in this House, suggested
that the Bill should only be a temporary one, because in case it did
not prove effectual for the purpose desired, it would otherwise be
impossible to rescind the Rule without the assent of both Houses of
Parliament. The Committee reported as late as the nth of August
that they did not advise the acceptance of that Bill; but they put
their advice on this ground—that it would introduce a material
change, and, as the session was drawing to a close, they had not
time to consider the effect of material changes in the procedure of
the House. Again, in 1869, a proposal on the subject was made in
“ another place.” On that occasion the Marquis of Salisbury made
a speech, to an extract from which I invite the attention of the House.
B
�aS
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
“Owing,” said he, “ to a rule of the Constitution, the origin of which
nobody can discover, and of which it is impossible to say more than
that we find it here, if when August comes your labours have not
.advanced beyond a certain point, those labours must be abandoned
as far as legislation is concerned. All that you have done goes for
nothing. If a Bill has been considered in great detail by a Select
‘Committee, the Committee must sit and go through the details again;
if it had to face a powerful opposition, all that opposition must be
faced again. All the work, all the debates, all the enormous labour
which attends the passing of any change, however small, in the laws
which govern us must be gone through again, in order to reach the
goal which you had nearly reached when the prorogation arrived.
Now is there in the nature of things any reason for this practice ?
Does it commend itself to any man’s common sense ? Do we act
in this manner in any other department of life ? Supposing you made
it a rule to give up writing letters at a certain hour, would you throw
all unfinished ones into the fire, or begin next morning at the point
where you left off? Is there any body of men, in any kind of busi
ness, that adopt what I must call this senseless practice, that whatever
you have not finished by a certain time you must begin again, next
year ? I have never heard any reason for such a rule. There is
nothing but the bare inert weight of unmeaning custom to justify a
principle which wastes so much of the labour and utility of Parliament.’*
Sir, the plan which I put before the House is already in operation
in France. It is subject to certain conditions there, and perhaps
limitations may also be required here, though I confess I do not
perceive any necessity for them. My plan is that a Parliament
■should be treated in all its sessions as one Parliament; and not as a
•series of separate Parliaments, or as if the sessions were water-tight
■compartments, designed to prevent Bills getting from one to the
other.
I think, Sir, that the Bills which this House has to deal with may
be divided into three classes: first, there are the political Bills;
secondly, the Departmental Bills ; and, thirdly, private Members’
Bills. Political Bills, like the Irish Church Bill, for example, are
usually introduced by a Government with a strong majority at their
back, and, consequently, such measures can be forced through
Parliament in the course of a single session. My proposal would
therefore not affect in the least degree measures with which the
�TUB MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY,
19
existence of the Government of the day was bound up. Departmental
Bills are for the most part independent of Party considerations, and
they are, in point of fact, practically prepared for the most part by
the permanent officials of the various departments. These Bills
would be assisted most substantially by the adoption of my proposal.
At present we are reduced to the necessity of putting on the Statute
Book a series of fragmentary Acts of Parliament. We are obliged to
do so, because if the Minister were to consolidate the laws on any
subject into a new Statute he would have a Bill so considerable in its
dimensions and giving rise to so much debate that there would be
Very little chance of squeezing it through in a single session. As an
instance of this, I may advert to the criminal code, although that
cannot properly be styled a departmental measure. The late AttorneyGeneral (Sir John Holker) took a great interest in it; three of the
btst lawyers in England were for a long time engaged in getting it
into shape; but it is almost hopeless to expect that any measure of
that importance and magnitude can be passed through the House of
Commons unless there is a power of continuing legislation from
session to session. With regard to the Bills of private members, no
doubt many of them are trivial, and ought never to be entertained by
the House. I hope, therefore, that if my proposal were adopted the
House would revert to the old practice of considering very carefully
Whether leave should be given to a private member to introduce a
Bill. There would be no hardship in requiring a member to explain
the provisions of his Bill in the first instance. One objection urged
against my plan is that it would cause a great number of Bills to be
introduced, and that there would be a great deal too much legislation.
My answer to that objection is that I do not think there need be any
fear of that result. The English people are not likely to submit to
too much legislation. We had a remarkable proof of this at the elec
tion, which changed for a time the position of political parties, in the
year 1874. It was the impatience of legislation which sapped, under
mined, and eventually destroyed, the power of a Government which
came into office with so great a majority in 1868. I do not think it
has ever been suggested that there was any real reason for the with
drawal of the confidence of the country from that Government except
the rapidity with which it had proceeded with legislation. The legis
lation required by the country is really Conservative in its tendency;
but, as matters now stand, people are irritated at the defective
�20
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
machinery which delays legislation on questions that ought to have
been dealt with long ago. I will not particularise any Bills which
have been so delayed, because it would divert the discussion from the
general issue. But of this I am quite certain, that there are at least
half a dozen Bills which have been accepted by the House in principle
over and over again, and which some day must become law, but the
delay in the passing of which is causing great irritation to the country,
and is a source of weakness to the Conservative party. It would be
desirable, as well in the interest of political parties as in that of the
country, that those Bills should be passed, and come into operation
with the least possible delay. It so happens that I am submitting
my proposal immediately after the discussion of other resolutions
with regard to procedure. I must not, of course, revert to arguments
which have been used in that discussion, but I believe that if my re
solution were adopted it would make quite needless the more strin
gent measures which are now proposed. Private Bill legislation is
included -within the terms of this motion, but I am aware that there
are difficulties with regard to that. My experience of Private Bill
legislation is that it is extremely well done, and that the tribunals
which deal with Private Bills are quite competent and decide with
great fairness and promptitude. But instances are constantly occur
ring in which promoters are obliged to submit to clauses, and make
compromises, enormously expensive, and which seriously interfere
with the benefit of the works proposed, in consequence of the know
ledge that a few days’ delay would destroy the benefit of all the work
done during the session. However, Sir, for the moment I wish to
rest this proposition on the larger issue, that it would be of benefit to
public legislation. One great merit it has is its simplicity. If it
should become necessary to fight the question of Parliamentary Pro
cedure before the constituencies, there is no question upon which I
would more gladly challenge their judgment than upon the merits of
the proposal I now make. It possesses the great advantage of neither
disturbing nor interfering with the traditions of the House. It would
not require that the Government, or any other authority, should be
entrusted with any extreme or exceptional powers ; and, above all, it
has that merit which cannot justly be attributed to the other pro
posals which have been submitted to the House, that it is pre
eminently simple and intelligible. I beg, Sir, now to move the reso
lution which stands in my name.
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
21
Extract from Annual Address to the Electors of
Plymouth at the Guildhall.
January 3, 1889.
I mentioned two years ago the subject to which Sir Edward Bates
has again called attention, and I said then that it would be needful
to rearrange the rules of Parliament in order to carry through legis
lation. That was done, and certain alterations in the rules of Parlia
ment were made. To a certain extent they have been successful.
There has been, as I feared there would be, a greater need for the
use of the closure, arising from the fact that the closure was in exist
ence. Whenever you provide a remedy for mischief you encourage
mischief to go on until the remedy is applied, and I am afraid that
the same observation will have to be made as to some of the remedies
which are now proposed. Sir Edward Bates has reminded you that
in the House of Commons we have been afflicted by certain members
who are in the habit of speaking a good many times in the course,
not of the session only, but of one evening, of even one debate, and
he has suggested that a rule should be adopted by which in com
mittee of the House of Commons a member should only be allowed
to speak once, and he should only be allowed to speak ten minutes,
unless, indeed—and I confess I think it was a very large and generous
exception—he were a member either of the present Ministry or of a
past Ministry, and then, I presume, he would be unlimited in the
time or number of his speeches. I am afraid such an exception
would be much too large to allow the rule to be effectual; but I
must confess that I do not see in that direction the best hope of im
proving our Parliamentary affairs. Suppose we were to make a rule
that no member should speak more than once in Committee of Supply,
and that he should only speak for ten minutes. If you had twenty
members willing to speak they would all speak for their ten minutes;
and the fact that there is a ten minutes’ limit would be a justification
to them for occupying the ten minutes in the observations they would
make, and if you got a series of ten minutes’ speeches in Committee
of Supply it is absolutely impossible, with our present arrangement
�22
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
for discussing the financial affairs of this country, that you could put
any effective limit on the length of discussion at all.
We have coming before the House of Commons volumes of
estimates, page after page of items of expenditure by the country,
which are all brought under the review of the House of Commons»
and all have to be voted by its authority. It is competent to any
member of the House to propose, with regard to any item in these
votes, whether it be a vote of a million or two for the payment of
seamen, or whether it be an item of payment of ¿25 for the wages of
a charwoman at a public office, it is competent to any member to
move that the sum be reduced by ^20, ^10, or ^5, as he may
think proper, and upon that motion every member would be entitled
to make his ten minutes’ speech. And I very much fear that by
making a procedure of that kind systematic we should rather aggra
vate than decrease the difficulty we are now in.
Sir, I confess that I think if this matter of dealing with the
estimates, and the enormous time occupied by them, is to be dealt
with by Parliament at all, it will have to be dealt with in a far more
courageous way. The fact is, there is a popular belief that the
House of Commons is the protector of the financial interests of the
people, and that the House of Commons prevents the people being
taxed too much. I assure you it is a great mistake. It is not the
House of Commons that keeps down the Estimates. It is the
Ministry that does so; and if you take the trouble to read through
the discussions which go on in the House of Commons upon the
Estimates when the House is in Committee of Supply, you will find
that almost every speech that is made, is made in the direction of
encouraging a larger expenditure than that which is proposed by the
Ministers of the Crown. Those who want to keep down expenditure
do not talk; if, indeed, there are any of them. Those who want to
enlarge the expenditure, by increasing the vote for particular services,
are continually pressing these matters on the attention of the Ministers
of the Crown. I had not intended to deal in any detail with this
matter to-night, but after the observations that my hon. colleague
has made with regard to it, I should like to say a word or two more
on this, which, I agree, is a very important subject.
The first duty of the House of Commons undoubtedly is to grant
supplies, and in granting those supplies its members are granting not
their own money only but the money of the people at large. It is
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
23
the duty of the House of Commons to be vigilant and watchful,
whilst there should be no extravagance on the part of the Ministry.
But, although the Ministry may be extravagant because it is incom
petent, because it undertakes tasks which are beyond its strength
with the means it has at its disposal, or because its members have
not a thorough knowledge of the work which they are entrusted to
do, you may depend upon it a Ministry is never extravagant because
it desires to spend a good deal of money. It is so unpopular a thing
among the constituencies that the last thing a Ministry desires is to
increase the amount that it calls for from the people in taxation.
But although the House of Commons is entitled to deal with the
matter of Estimates that have to be voted for the services of the
country, it is a very serious question whether a far better plan might
not be devised by which the Estimates should be considered and
revised. I should be very loth myself to allow it to pass from the
direct authority of the House of Commons. I would rather run the
risk of some expenditure of time which occasionally appears extra
vagant than allow the Estimates to be dealt with in any way which
prevented there being a watchful criticism over expenditure. But
if any change were to be made at all, I confess I think a change
should be made in this direction, that there should be a somewhat
large committee on public expenditure. That committee should
consist of men representative of the different sections of the House
of Commons, and contain upon it the present and past representa
tives of the Treasury—that is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Secretary for the Treasury, and the First Lord of the Treasury
for the time being, as also their predecessors in office—but not
contain any other Minister in office. And then before that committee
the chiefs of the great spending departments might come and be
interrogated by the committee as to the reasons for the proposals
which they were making for public expenditure. I am sure with
regard to any important matter in the Estimates a half-hour’s crossexamination by the committee of the Minister who was responsible
for the expenditure would be much more effective in checking
extravagant proposals, and, what is equally important to the country,
in justifying to the country proposals which were seriously and
wisely made, than ten hours spent in discussion in the House of
Commons, whatever rule with regard to the length of speech might
be adopted.
�24
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
I think it might well be that all the Estimates should pass before
that committee. But there are one or two things which should be
steadily insisted upon. No committee ought to have any power to
increase an Estimate. If it had power to increase Estimates the
responsibility would be gone from the Ministry to the committee,
. and the whole system of Ministerial responsibility would be lost. It
should have the power to cut down the Estimates, and in that case,
and that case only, should there be any power of appeal to the
House of Commons. I think in that way the Estimates of the
■ country might be dealt with. But I should not be hasty in proposing
the adoption even of that course, dhere is no other to my mind
which is practicable and safe, but I confess I would rather go on
running the risk of lengthened debates and the occupation of a good
deal of Parliamentary time, than I would allow direct control of the
Estimates to pass from the review of every member of the House of
Commons.
I think, and I have always thought, that there is another way of
dealing with this matter. I do not believe myself in any very great
extension of the rules of the House of Commons which imposes
(.punishment on people who are breaking in on our debates and put
us to difficulty. The fact is there are too many people in the House
of Commons who would think it a creditable thing to be called to
order and to be punished, to make the imposition of any such rules
of any great value. You know what my view always has been with
regard to this matter, and I think always will be. A great deal, of
this waste of time is not intended simply for the purpose of harassing
.and vexing the House of Commons. It is intended for the purpose
of preventing laws being passed which might be creditable to the
Ministry, and by passing which the Ministry might obtain repute in
the country. The real source and secret of this obstruction, practised
in the House of Commons in past sessions, and which became
intolerable in what I may term the permanent session during the
year just gone by, is the knowledge on the part of those who so
obstruct that if they can only keep Bills off until the end of the
session in which they are talking, those Bills will have disappeared
for a time, and will have to be started fresh again in the next session
of Parliament.
There never has been an illustration so complete as the last
session has given us of the need for that proposal, which I have made
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
25.
■over and over again, and will make over and over again, whenever I
get the chance, that the Bills which we have left unfinished in one
session we shall take up and try and finish in the next. And I am1
sure if those who obstruct our proceedings and waste our time knew
that the result of their action would be not to defeat or get rid of theBill, but only to postpone its discussion until the following February,
when the House would take up that same Bill again, the heart would
be gone out of obstruction and we should have got the best solution
of the difficulty. Let me give you an instance or two of the import
ance, as shown during the last session of Parliament, of this proposal.
Let me mention one Bill. You know very well how often I have
referred to the wish that I had when I first went to the House of
Commons, a wish which has strengthened with every year that has
since gone by, to put an end to that barbarous system in the
administration of our criminal law by which the prisoner who is
charged with an offence has his lips closed and is not allowed to give
evidence on his own behalf. It is an absolutely and utterly inde
fensible piece of barbarism, and for the last twenty-two years there
has been a growing opinion upon the subject. Parliament and
lawyers of any experience and knowledge have come to the unani
mous conclusion that it is our duty to do away with this blot upon
©ur administration of justice. Well, we have tried to do it year after'
year, and what is it that stood in the way ? The House of Commons
is anxious to accept the Bill, has accepted it in principle already.
The House of Lords has been urgent in trying to pass the Bill, and
has sent it twice down to the House of Commons. How is it wehave not been able to pass it ? Why, we find that the Bill, brought
in, discussed, and carried through some of its stages, cannot be got
through the House of Commons because of the obstruction which
takes place upon other matters. It is not a Bill so large as to
involve the fate of Ministry, or it would have been passed long ago,
nor so small as to escape observation, or else, perhaps, it would have
got through like one or two little odds and ends of Bills that did
scramble through in the last days of the session just gone by. But
as it is a Bill which does attract attention, but does not involve the
fate of a Ministry, it is obstructed, and this Bill which we brought in
in 1888, to the discussion of which we gave some considerable time,
and the second reading of which was accepted by a large majority of
the House of Commons, has again gone. And if next session we
�.26
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
find an opportunity of introducing it, as we intend to do very early in
the session, we shall have the same risk that those who do not
oppose that Bill, but who want to hinder us in passing other Bills,
will make that Bill the excuse for long and persistent discussion, and
so again we may find it postponed to another session and the whole
time of Parliament wasted.
That is a strong instance, but let me give you a more remarkable
and important instance still. One of the great regrets of the members
of the Government in the past session was that we did not succeed in
passing the Employers’ Liability Bill. There is no Bill of greater
value to the working people of this country than the Employers’
Liability Bill. When I went to the House of Commons first as
member for Plymouth I found an Employers’ Liability Bill under
discussion. I took my share in that discussion, and though, as you
know, I was sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I worked
then as well as I would have worked if it had been proposed by one
of our own leaders, to get that Bill passed in a satisfactory form. But
I pointed out to the House of Commons in that discussion, that
when you are passing a Bill that deals with the interests of working
men, that Bill ought to be as simple and straightforward as possible.
Any complication means going to law, and going to law is the last
thing which any wise man should think of, especially if that wise
man happens to be poor. Well, the Bill was passed, not in so
simple a form as I should like to see, but still in a form which was
of great advantage to the industrial population of this country. And
I am sure that the result is shown in a decrease in the number of
accidents from which workmen have suffered, a greater care and
anxiety on the part of employers to provide means of protecting their
workmen from accidents, and a greater care, also, in employing men
who are thoroughly competent.
So far it has been a great advantage. But it has been marred and
hindered in its beneficial effect by the necessity of the working man
going to law in order to enforce his rights. When an accident
happens in a factory, and a poor man has his leg broken, and is laid
aside for several weeks, his wages are stopped, no means are coming
in to him, and it is scarcely possible for him with any hope of
success to set a lawsuit on foot against his employer. If he does,
the employer very often belongs to an insurance company. The casts
.is handed over to the insurance company, and the officers of that
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
27
company have legal advice, and know all the technicalities and difificulties of legal procedure; and the consequence has been that
although that Act has had an indirect effect of a very great value in
imposing more care upon employers, it has not had nearly so large
an effect as I and others hoped it would have in securing the pay
ment of money to the men who are injured. The fact is, a great
deal of money disappears between the man who ought to pay it, and
the man who ought to receive it, and I leave those present to specu
late on the direction in which that missing cash has gone.
I heard of a case the other day where a man brought an action
against his employer under the Employers’ Liability Act. He
succeeded in that action, and got a verdict for ^45. The cost to
the employer out of pocket was ^150. The man himself who brought
the action got in his pocket £15. The whole of the rest of the money
had gone in legal costs, and my belief is that the best thing that could
possibly happen with regard to this is first to reduce the technicalities
of the law with which you are dealing, so that there shall be fewer
pitfalls into which an experienced lawyer can lure the plaintiff against
whom he is retained, and further, and more important still, that you
should, as far as possible, try to substitute for the legal liability of
the employer the liability of an insurance fund, to which the
employer shall himself contribute. If you have an insurance fund
all this difficulty of legal cost is gone. If a man’s leg is broken, and
the man belongs to an insurance fund, his allowance will be paid to
him without reference to any difficult legal question as to who was
responsible for causing the injury. In the Bill which was brought in
by the Government for the amendment of the Employers’ Liability
Act we in the first place, in many respects, simplified and improved
the procedure. I need not enter into details, but the intention was,
and the result would have been, to make it less dangerous, less risky
for a man to go to law upon this matter. In the next place, we put
in this clause. At the present time, as the law now stands, an
employer can contract himself out of the Act. If a man goes to him
and asks for work an employer can say : ££ Yes, I will employ you on
condition you make an agreement with me that I shall not be liable
to you under the Employers’ Liability Act.” It is not a contract
that is very largely made, excepting in certain particular occupations,
but as the law now stands that is a contract which can be made.
We proposed in one clause of that Bill to say that no employer
�28
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
should be allowed to contract himself out of that Act, unless he had
subscribed to an insurance fund, in which the man was to be insured,
which would provide compensation for all accidents, however occur
ring, and unless also the subscription of the employer to that fund
was equivalent to the liability which would rest upon him if he had
been bound by the Employers’ Liability Act itself.
That is an extremely difficult clause to frame, but the aim and pur
pose of it was to improve the administration of the Employers’ Lia
bility Act, while allowing to remain in existence such great societies
as that society which exists on the London and North-Western Rail
way, in which all the employés of that line are insured. But what
has happened to that Bill ? It was accepted on its second reading
by the House of Commons ; it went down to be discussed in Grand
Committee, and I had the pleasure of assisting the Home Secretary
while the Bill was before that Committee. We discussed it for
several days, and I believe came to sound and reasonable decisions
upon the matters before us. Then it came up again for discussion
in the House of Commons, and then objection was made to it. It
was opposed; there was a long debate; and the result was that
towards the end of the session the Government had to abandon all
hope of passing it, and to content themselves with passing a con
tinuance Bill, which leaves the old Act, with all its defects, in opera
tion, and we have not even the opportunity of taking that Bill up
again at the stage of committee when the House of Commons meets
again next year. If we want to deal with it we shall have again to
introduce the Bill, again have it read a first and second time, and
discussed all over again in Grand Committee or in the House itself,
at an expenditure of time which, I fear, will be so great as may inter
fere with the opportunity of passing that Bill at all. And that is the
result of a rule which treats as waste paper all the work we did not
succeed in finishing.
Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson
London and Edinburgh-
Co.
�
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
Parliamentary procedure : the mischief and the remedy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Clarke, Edward, Sir [1841-1931]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Includes reprint of Report of Committee of 1890, of which Clarke was a member. Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., London; Edinburgh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Stevens & Haynes
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N087
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
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 (Parliamentary procedure : the mischief and the remedy), 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
Great Britain-Parliament
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ac0cb5bd7ca90eb4b08ec2903881bc78.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sksE90JN2tYtKmjW%7EF57VylCUD1VyCYfYf4r7dIaQc9wfhg13nCHJ4GqSG3wRyCBPXKTgbasq7Ty%7EQZEFKatxFnqgelEPbIwsBCcTzFTNXSHXSFCtdJgUT6SMr99NAnSuqnkAwpGkBN6i8wf1-PPQVqF6PLzMnqVvjAexSs-%7ENdVAMFlOvTBoJMVoGi-zpT1P7mnhyq6IXsfktmvhRzCESSHB-O1lx-0TieYp6i-KvcbncNoLZ2QHuJHhVkxRGbKKxLf3d9fASEMJzDI28xulk3knzY8SGY9bhfqATzW4-no2OA6PB850kJRD8bwxHNtzAevz2CVRO%7EEgccsYda05w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8ccaac1aeebba61efa3a024293c9bc6b
PDF Text
Text
THE
DEATH OF CHRIST
BY
CHARLES WATTS
(Vice-President of the National Secular Society)
Price Twopence
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST..
1896
��THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The sermons preached on Good Friday last, as reported in
the various newspapers, afforded strange and peculiar read
ing to the non-theological mind. The one theme dwelt
upon in all the pulpits was the death of Christ with its
“ complete and sublime scheme of redemption for fallen
man.” It was urged that Eve and Adam fell from a state
of purity and perfection by an act of transgression in the
Garden of Eden, and thereby involved the whole of the
human family in sin and depravity. To remove the
consequences of this alleged act of transgression, it was
contended that the death of Christ was necessary in order
to atone to God, against whom a sin had been committed.
It was further urged that, through our “ first parents ”
partaking of the forbidden fruit, God became estranged
from his children, and that the sacrifice of his Son was
required to reconcile the Father to his children. As it is
put in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
“ Christ was crucified to reconcile his Father to us. To be
a sacrifice for sins of men ” (Article 2). It is also stated in
the Confession of Faith that Christ’s death “purchased
reconciliation ” (chap. viii.). The Biblical authority, as
accepted by orthodox believers, for this view of the death
of Christ is as follows : “ Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sins of the world ” (John i. 29); “ he is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world ” (1 John ii. 2);
“ the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many ”
(Matt, xx.) ■, “ through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
we have now received the atonement” (Romans v.); “ this
is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many
for the remission of sins ” (Matt. xxvi. 28); “ Christ was
�4
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
once offered to bear the sins of many ” (Hebrews ix. 28);
and “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive” (1 Cor. xv.). Upon these and a few other
texts in the New Testament orthodox Christians base their
theory of the Atonement.
It may be interesting to note the conflicting character of
the theories which professed Christians have held con
cerning the atonement, which is supposed to have been
made through the death of Christ. The Augustinian
school taught that mankind were doomed to hell through
the fall of Adam, and that Christ’s death cancelled the sin
committed, and thus saved them from being utterly lost.
The Calvinists believe that God foresaw that Adam would
fall, and that posterity would thereby be damned; and
therefore he selected a few, who are termed the “ elect,” to
be saved, while the many are deprived of this special
provision for their salvation. It seems to us that if God
possessed the foreknowledge here ascribed to him, and if he
were all-powerful, it would have been more to his credit if
he had included the entire human family among his “ elect.”
The evangelical Christians suppose that the vicarious suffer
ings of Christ secured conditional pardon, the condition
being the belief that Christ died as a substitute for sinners
—that is, that an avowed innocent person was made to suffer
for those alleged to be guilty. The Universalists consider
that no one is damned beyond his personal sin in this
world. If an individual be ever so bad in the present life,
all evil will depart at death, and he will be ushered into
heaven pure and spotless. The Unitarians, rejecting all
the above theories, contend that the object of Christ’s life,
rather than of his death, was to reconcile man to God, not
God to man. Relying upon such statements in the Bible
as “ Every man shall die for his own sin,” “ To punish the
just is not good,” they consider the popular view of the
Atonement fallacious. Such are a few of the conflicting
notions held by the Christian sects as to the nature of the
“ simple plan of salvation.”
Some of the early Christian Fathers taught that the
death of Christ was a satisfaction to the Devil. The Rev.
Scott Porter, in his History of the Doctrine of the Atonement,
says : “ The doctrine of satisfaction, when it was plainly
broached, which was not till about two hundred years
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
5
after the death of Christ, did not represent his blood as
satisfying the claims of divine justice, but as a payment
made to the Devil /” This was the doctrine advocated by
the celebrated Origen, who wrote : “ It was the Devil who
held us in bondage : for to him we had been given over for
our sins. Wherefore, he demanded the blood of Christ as
the price of our redemption ” (p. 19). St. Ambrose states :
“We were in pledge to a bad creditor for sin; but Christ
came and offered his blood for us.” Optatus says : “ The
souls of men were in the possession of the Devil till they
were ransomed by the blood of Christ.” According to St.
Augustine, “ the blood of Christ is given as a price that
we might be delivered from the Devil’s bonds.” He
regards the death of Christ, “ not as a payment of a debt
due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of
his fair and lawful claims ” (fbidf
Other eminent Christian divines taught that it was not
merely the man Jesus who died, but God himself. Osiander,
a friend and fellow-laborer of Luther, maintained that Christ
died and satisfied divine justice, not as man, but as Cod.
Hooper, a venerable name in the Christian Church, states
that he cares “ for no knowledge in the world but this, that
man hath sinned, and God hath suffered ” {Porter s Lectures on
the Atonement, p. 68). The same belief is expressed by Dr.
Watts, who in his hymns exclaims :—
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And shut his glories in,
When God, the mighty Maker, died
For man, the creature’s, sin.
Behold a God descends and dies
To save my soul from gaping hell.
Wesley also exclaims :—
Sinners, turn ! why will ye die ?
God your Savior asks you why ;
God, who did your souls retrieve,
Died himself that ye might live.
Is it not evident, from the diversity of opinions which is
here shown to have existed (and much of that diversity
still obtains) in the Christian world as to the character and
meaning of the death of Christ, how perplexing any scheme
must be that is based upon it ?
�6
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The fact is, apart from all sectarian and forced inter
pretations, it appears to us that the Bible plan of redemp
tion through the death of Christ is simply this : About six
thousand years ago an all-wise, all-powerful, and beneficent
God made man and woman, and placed them in a position
surrounded by temptations it was impossible for them to
withstand. For instance, he implanted within them desires
which, as God, he must have known would produce their
downfall. He next caused a tree to bear fruit that was
adapted to harmonise with the very desires which he had
previously imparted to his children. God, all-good, then
created a serpent of the worst possible kind, in order that
it might be successful in tempting Eve to partake of the
fruit. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of this
fruit, under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time
that they would eat of it, and that they would not die. The
serpent is allowed to succeed in his plan of temptation, and
then God curses the ground for yielding the tree which he
himself had caused to grow; further, the Almighty Being
dooms both man and woman to lives of pain and sorrow,
and assures them that their posterity shall feel the terrible
effects of their having done what it was impossible, under
the circumstances, for them to avoid. Although at first
God pronounced his creative work to be “ very good,” it
proved to be quite the opposite. So bad did the human
family become that God determined to bring a flood upon
the earth and wash every member, one household excepted,
out of existence. This “ water-cure ” was not, however,
sufficient to correct the “ divine ” errors, for the people
grew worse than ever. God now decided upon another
plan—namely, to send his son—who was as old as himself,
and, therefore, not his son—to die, but who was invested
with immortality and could not die, to atone for sins that
had never been committed by people who were not then
born, and who could not, therefore, have been guilty of any
sin. As a conclusion to the whole scheme, this all-merciful
God prepared a hell, containing material fire of brimstone,
to burn the immaterial souls of all persons who should fail
to believe the truth, justice, and necessity of this jumble of
cruelty and absurdity.
We now propose to show that this “ sublime scheme of
redemption ” is not only illogical, but that it was un
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
7
necessary, supremely unjust, inconsistent, and has been an
utter failure in achieving its avowed object.
The Christian pretension, that the death of Christ provided
a complete atonement for the alleged transgression in the
Garden of Eden, is not supported by the details of the
scheme as contained in the Bible, or by the exposition of
it as given by eminent theological writers. The orthodox
position is that the Godhead is composed of three persons
of one substance, power, and duration. If this be so, and
if an atonement was really necessary, it should have been
threefold, inasmuch as the Son and the Holy Ghost, being
a part of the Trinity, required to be satisfied equally with
the Father; but we do not read of any sacrifice having
been made to them. Besides, if the three persons were
one in substance, etc., it is difficult to see how one part
could be wrathful and another part merciful at the same
time. The New Testament speaks of God’s wrath, and
such Christian writers as the pious Flavel, Wesley, and
Dr. Watts state that it was from this wrath that the death
of Christ was intended to save the human race. Flavel,
who was an exponent of the evangelical school, writes :
“ To wrath—to the wrath of an infinite God, without
mixture—to the very torments of hell, was Christ delivered;
and that by the hand of his own Father. God stood upon
full satisfaction, and would not remit one sin without it ”
(Works, folio edition, p. 10). Dr. Watts speaks of Jesus’s
blood turning God’s “ wrath to grace,” and Wesley writes :
“ Jesus speaks and pleads his blood. He disarms the wrath
of God.”
It is folly to claim, as Christians do, that this priestlyinvented scheme of the Atonement manifests a spirit of
divine forgiveness. Instead of being a forgiving plan, it is
one of exaction and vengeance. According to the story,
God demands and receives payment before he grants
pardon; Christ exacts belief in himself as the condition of
salvation; and he who sins against the Holy Ghost is never
to be forgiven. Stockel admits that, “in a strict and
proper sense, God does not forgive sin, for Christ hath
given him full satisfaction. How, then, can it be justly
said that God pardoneth sins and transgressions ? Surely
that debt can never be forgiven that is paid” (cited by
Dr. Bruce, Sermons, 2nd edition, p. 354). From a rational
�8
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
point of view, the matter resolves itself into this : Christ
either paid the “ debt ” or he did not. If he did pay it,
that should settle the account, and we ought not to be
bothered with it any further; whereas, if he did not pay
the “debt,” the whole scheme is a sham and a delusion.
The absurdity of the orthodox view of the death of Christ
is further manifested in the supposition that it was a part
of the indivisible Godhead that died. This is theological
conjecture run mad; for, if it were Christ alone who died
and remained lifeless in the grave for three days and three
nights, he was not equal in eternity with his father; while,
on the other hand, if the whole of the deity expired, then
we have the curious spectacle of a dying and a dead God,
and the world for a time existing without any “ divine ”
aid in its government. To say that it was only the man
hood of Christ which suffered and died is but raising
another difficulty in allying humanity with what is termed
divinity; thus adding a fourth part to the Trinity, and
thereby destroying the perfection of the whole, for where
the human element is there can be no perfection. More
over, according to the orthodox theory, a mere human
death was not enough to redeem humanity from the effects
of the sin committed against an infinite God. Of course,
we do not admit that any such sin ever occurred, for the
simple reason that, if a person is compelled to perform
an act, it is no sin upon his part. And, as we have shown
in a previous page, Adam and Eve acted as they did under
compulsion. As to enmity existing between God and man
as the result of partaking of the fruit, the question arises :
Where did the enmity come from ? Did God implant it in
the minds of his children ? If so, he was responsible for the
consequences which followed. If, however, man acquired
it independently of God, then he was not the creator of all
things, as the Bible states he was—even of evil. We are
aware it is said that God gave man a free will; but this is
only another theological error. There can be no freedom
where circumstances impel in one direction, as, according
to the account, they did in the Garden of Eden. Besides,
we read that the plan was arranged “before the foundation
of the world” (Ephesians i. 4 ; 1 Peter i. 19, 20).
Not only is the theory that the world was redeemed
through the death of Christ utterly absurd, but it came too
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
late. If the Atonement were at all necessary, it should have
been made immediately after Adam’s alleged transgression,
so as to have prevented a single generation from going to
the grave with the curse of original sin unremoved. But,
according to the Bible theory, God allowed four thousand
years to elapse, and millions of his children to die, ere the
Atonement was made. This, to say the least, was not
either just or merciful upon the part of “the Great Father
of all.” If it be true that no one can be saved except
through belief in Christ, then it may be fairly asked, What
became of the numberless human beings who died prior to
his birth ? And, further, what will be the fate of those
who are now living who have not heard, and probably
never will hear, of the mission of Jesus of Nazareth ? To
say that the former were saved by anticipation, and that
the latter will be excused on account of their lack of know
ledge, is only to represent the scheme as being still more
absurd, and altogether useless. If a portion of mankind
could be saved without the Crucifixion, what necessity was
there for Christ to have suffered at all ? His sorrow, agony,
and bloody sweat might all have been avoided, and many
/ saints might have been spared the tortures of the stake and
the rack. Surely, if for thousands of years people could go
to heaven without the supposed advantages of the death of
Christ, it was superfluous to introduce the “ sign of the
s Cross ” to secure an object which had already been achieved.
\ Besides, if the ignorance of the existence of this “ atoning
^jheme” will exempt a person from “punishment here
after,” is it not cruel and futile to send missionaries to the
(heathens with the “ glad tidings ” ? Let them not know of
it, and there would be no danger of their being punished
for rejecting it; but let them be informed of the scheme,
and their happiness in another world becomes very doubtful.
Considering the diversity of the perceptive powers, even
among “ heathens,” we cannot reasonably suppose that all
to whom the scheme is expounded will be able to receive it
as true. Thus the salvation, which was secure in a blissful
state of ignorance, is placed in jeopardy by missionary
efforts. The truth is, that if the death of Christ were
really necessary to redeem a “fallen race,” it was unjust
upon the part of God to permit so many centuries to pass
before the people had the alleged benefit of his atoning
�10
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
blood. If, on the other hand, the death of Christ was not
required to restore a “ lost race,” then it was a reckless and
an unnatural act for a father to give his son to a wild mob,
to be.executed amidst the exultations of a disappointed and
fanatical people.
Moreover, if it were desirable upon the part of God to
send, his son to save the world from eternal perdition, why
was it that, when he did arrive, so many nations were kept
in ignorance of his mission ? Even the Jews, God’s chosen
people, had no knowledge that an incarnate deity was to
expire on the Cross. If the regeneration of the world had
been the object of Christ, would it not have been better,
instead of ascending to heaven, for him to have remained
on earth, teaching practical truths, and showing by his own
personal example how the world could be rescued from
that moral and intellectual darkness and despair to which
it had been reduced by the influence of a degrading
theology ?
The orthodox idea of the object of Christ’s death involves
the committal of a gross act of injustice upon the part of
God in making the declared innocent suffer for the avowed
guilty. Justice has been defined to “consist in rendering
to everyone according to his moral deserts ; good if he be
good, and evil if evil—for the purpose of promoting good
ness and discouraging guilt.” If this be a recognised
standard of right in human affairs, surely it should not be
ignored in dealing with “ divine ” actions. Suppose, there
fore, that Christ was “ without sin,” as stated in the New
Testament (Hebrews iv. 15), was it not unjust to punish
him for the wrong-doing of others ? Let us take the case
of an earthly father, who had, say, seven children, six of
whom were thoroughly bad, and the seventh as good as
human nature could possibly be. Now, would it be con
sidered just upon the part of that father to punish the one
good child for the misdeeds of the six bad ones ? Such
conduct would ensure for its perpetrator a general and an
emphatic condemnation. If a judge were knowingly to
sentence to death an innocent man as a substitute for a
criminal, the act would provoke universal detestation, and
the judge’s judicial position would in all probability be
forfeited. No Christian would think it just to imprison
and torture priests to-day simply because their predecessors,
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
11
under the influence of fanaticism, defiled portions of the
earth with human slaughter. Is it consistent for Christians
to ascribe an act to their God which good men would refuse
to perform ? We think not.
Besides, the alleged redeeming feature in the death of
Christ manifests cruelty to the human race in asserting
that, although its members had no control over the acts of
Eve and Adam, still, in consequence of what they did, we
are all “born in sin and shapened in iniquity.” Upon
what principle of justice can such merciless treatment be
defended ? According to this orthodox notion, the moment
we enter life, in our infantile helplessness and childish
innocence, we are thought to be deserving of the wrath of
God. Even if it were true that sin was committed in the
Garden of Eden, will that justify wrong being done to us ?
Are we on that account to be rendered liable to be doomed
to eternal torment ? If so, a God who could either arrange
or permit such cruel injustice will never be recognised by
Secularists as a kind and loving father. We know that the
Bible, on more than one occasion, represents its God as
punishing the innocent for the guilty. Eor instance, we
read that he is “ a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the
fathers upon the children ” (Exodus xx. 5); that he cut off
seventy thousand men in Israel by a pestilence, on account
of the sin of David in numbering the people (2 Samuel
xxiv. 15); and that he deprived an innocent child of life
to show his displeasure of a crime committed by this “ man
after God’s own heart” (2 Samuel xii. 14). It is such
actions as these, which, contrary to all true standards of
right, are performed by the Christian Deity, that impel us to
prefer Atheism to the belief in a being who could inflict
such wrongs upon the human family.
Attempts have been made to palliate these “ divine acts ”
by asserting that in the course of nature the innocent have
to suffer for the guilty, as in the case of drunkards and
debauchees, who transmit disease and debility to their
offspring. But two wrongs cannot make one right;
besides, if God was the author of Nature, could he not
have so arranged her operations that this evil of trans
mission would have been avoided 1 The two cases, how
ever, are not analogous, inasmuch as the .children referred
to do not suffer for, but through, the vices of their parents;
�12
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
and, moreover, in such suffering there is no punishment
intended; it is a consequence, not a penalty. The
children of criminal parents are not blamed, but are
rather pitied, for being innocent victims of the guilt
of others. This was not the case, according to orthodox
teaching, with Christ, who was punished for the sins of
others.
The theory that the death of Christ was an atonement
to G-od for actual sins committed is so glaringly inconsistent
that it is really marvellous how it can be regarded as true
by sensible men and women. It is stated that the death
of Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world,
and, at the same time, we are informed that man was
created perfect and immortal. If it were ordained that
Christ should die for the redemption of the world, the
transgressions of Eve and Adam were only a part of God’s
plan, and certainly did not deserve any curse, but rather
merited a blessing. As we have already pointed out, there
was no free-will in the case, for it was originally arranged
that but one course had to be followed—namely, the one
that led to the sacrifice of Christ. If Adam and Eve had
adopted any other course, God’s plans would have been
thwarted, for we read in the fourth Gospel that Christ
knew from the beginning that he would be betrayed ■ and
this betrayal was the first act in the tragedy of the cross.
Now, if the death of Christ were preordained, so also was
the “ Fall of Man,” for the one depends upon the. other, as
the Bible says : “ For as in Adam all died, so in Christ
shall all be made alive.” Assuming this to be true, man
could not have been created perfect; but the very fact of his
“falling,” or giving way to temptation, was a proof of his
imperfection. The truth is, the Bible story of the fall of
man is a phase of an ancient myth; and, as Dr. Kalisch
observes, it is “ no exclusive feature of the Hebrews.”
Professor Jowett considered the account, as given in the
Bible, “ a grand Hebrew poem.” Similar stories were
current among the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Persians.
The Hindoos had a “ tree of life,” which was said to be
guarded by spirits, and contained a j uice that was thought
to impart immortality to those who partook of it. It is
time that the belief in this fiction of the Fall as being a
reality should cease. The lesson of history and experience
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
13
is that the career of man has been one of ascent, not descent;
of progression, not retrogression.
Further inconsistencies in this scheme of redemption
through the death of Christ are the allegation that he
came to save the whole world, and his reported conduct
while on earth. If universal salvation were the object of
his mission, it proved a decided failure. But Christ did
not attempt to achieve such a result, for he stated himself
that he came to the Jews, and to the Jews alone j and even
among them his labors were not crowned with success.
Following Christ to the close of his career, we behold the
culmination of inconsistency in the manner in which he
acted in the garden of Gethsemane. Here was a man who
had preached upon the utility of a faith which, it was said,
not only afforded consolation through life, but was capable
of robbing death of its terrors ; yet when the hour of death
approached, when the period had arrived for him to prove
to the world the efficacy of this faith, he was tortured with
doubt and racked with fear. In that scene, which was not
only to rivet the attention of an amazed multitude, but
was also to consecrate a life of divinity—a scene which
was not only to be the great climax to the scheme of
redemption, but was to afford an example that should
remain as a lasting monument of greatness to a wondering
people ; at this moment, when it was expected that the
hopes of his followers were about to be sealed, when he
should have maintained ’his position with unsurpassed
bravery he was weak and vacillating, and in bitter despair
he prayed that the cup might pass from him. Where can we
recognise consistency and heroism in the death of Christ ?
Is it in the conduct of one who came to die for man,
yet, when about to fulfil his destiny, implored to
be allowed to escape the death 1 Is it in teaching that
Christ came as a voluntary sacrifice, yet had to be
betrayed by man ? Is it in a Father of reputed love and
kindness inflicting unnecessary torture upon his sensitive
son ? Is it in the statement that Christ, by asking, could
obtain an answer to any request made to his father; yet
his fervent supplications were unheeded, and his dying
prayers were unanswered ? Finally, is it in the act of a
God who, having allowed his son to be placed upon a
felon’s cross, permits him to yield up a sorrowful life, after
�14
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
uttering unavailing reproaches in those memorable words :
“ My God ! my God ! why hast thou forsaken me ?”
In conclusion, let us remember that from the Christian’s
standpoint the object of the death of Christ has not been
attained. That object was to make a complete satisfaction
for all sin, and to remove such sin from the world. But
these objects have not been attained, for mankind has still
to secure its own exemption from the supposed effects of
sin; and, further, sin still surrounds us. If Christ, by his
death, paid the debt that is said to have been incurred
through sin entering into the world, why should man be
required to make a second payment ? As to the boasted
victories of the cross, where are they ? We have still
misery, pain, folly, ignorance, crime, and injustice in the
world. The erection of the cross has not frightened the
miscreant nor appalled the tyrant. The voice from the
height of Calvary has not destroyed error nor cemented
truth ; neither has the death of Christ produced that
condition of society in which it is impossible for man to be
depraved and poor. If, as we are told, the Savior has
come, it may be fairly asked, 11 Whence comes salvation ?”
��WORKS BY CHARLES WATTS.
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED FROM
A RATIONALIST STANDPOINT. 64 pp., 6d., by post 7d.
THE TEACHINGS
OF SECULARISM COMPARED
WITH ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. Is., by post Is. 2d.
CHRISTIANITY: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND IN
FLUENCE. 4d., by post 5d.
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
3d., by post 4d.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH
IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? 3d., by post 4d.
A REPLY TO FATHER LAMBERTS “TACTICS OF
INFIDELS.” 6d., by post 7d.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
An Open Letter to
the Rev. Dr. R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL; OR,
BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE. 3d., by post 4d.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 3d., by post
4d.
HAPPINESS IN HELL AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
3d., by post 4d.
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE. 4d., by post 5d.
BIBLE MORALITY: Its Teachings Shown to be Contra
dictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3|d.
SECULARISM: IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND
IS IT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE WANTS OF MANKIND ?
Debate between the Editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and
Charles Watts. With Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and
Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
Is., by post Is. 2d.
SECULARISM: ITS RELATION TO THE SOCIAL
PROBLEMS OF THE DAY. 2d., by post 2|d.
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE 1 Reply to
Dr. R. B. Westbrook. 3d., by post 4d.
SAINTS AND SINNERS : WHICH 1 3d., by post 4d.
EDUCATION : TRUE AND FALSE. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY.
A Plea for Liberty and Justice. 3d., by post 4d.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD; OR, QUESTIONS FOR
THEISTS. 2d., by post 2|d.
CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILISATION. 3d., by post 4d.
THE BIBLE UP TO DATE. 2d., by post 2|d.
WHY DO RIGHT? A Secularist’s Answer. 3d., by post 4d.
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RE
FORMER? 4d., by post 5d.
MISCELLANEOUS PAMPHLETS, Cloth 2s., by post 2s. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s-court, Fleet-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The death of Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1575
N663
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The death of Christ), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ-Crucifixion
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/582a8c1ccedacf07597aaa49a21109a5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lSbxPJEJBMWf8ipnM1yG3unblycceJG%7EZTVW0gT1Dur1wn9fckb0pvS5bweujJ7xz%7EFuq8WWh9eaDm-0KEe9haAiyqwQDcKOA9WVnU3P8GnZ01GtDDTjAECLOLH1h0ssvuQ-Hco%7EKbpsSnhMgafRKhqFSV41yYAA-ZshzfzWEoetdMH41ZoG48vpz9yhCmklxnYPH9Q55aLtZjYCvaMGqzuweR3BRDylBXaSumgEIcMV1T06Uvc4u6RFW5CVyg8CVIFadpc6cgOUIgD50NmCx8cki2L6D-u6%7En1LoOcd1tYUe96cZp3M0txtYUvqQkS2HXcwAxuTXPZusq5RY9nkrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
41208098e363f6d78196c544366bea5d
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
THE
COMING CIVILISATION
AN ADDRESS
Delivered in the Columbia Theatre, Chicago,
ON
Sunday, Appil 12, 1896
TO
The Members and Friends
OF
“THE CHURCH MILITANT”
BY
COLONEL
R. G.
INGERSOLL
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C-
Threepence
��THE
COMING CIVILISATION
AN ADDRESS
Delivered in
the
Columbia Theatre, Chicago,
on
Sunday, April 12, 1896
TO
The Members and Friends
OF
“THE CHURCH MILITANT”
BY
COLONEL
R. G.
INGERSOLL
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
��INTRODUCTION.
The address by Colonel Ingersoll, which is here reprinted for
English readers, was delivered in peculiar circumstances.
Dr. Rusk, of Chicago, formerly pastor of Fullarton-avenue
Presbyterian Church, seceded from that body, and formed an
independent organisation of his own called the Church Militant
With the avowed object of giving Christianity a secular character,
and making it influence the affairs of life. Dr. Rusk’s services
were held in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union
Temple. But when it became known that he had invited the
famous Colonel Ingersoll to address the congregation the
Women’s Union refused to let their Temple be used for the pur
pose. Dr. Rusk, however, was determined to carry out his
program, so he engaged the Columbia Theatre, and Colonel
Ingersoll’s address was delivered there on Sunday, April 12.
The building was crowded. “ Three thousand persons were
present” (according to the New York Herald), “and three
times that number endeavored to gain admission.” On the
stage were four hundred or more representative citizens, includ
ing nearly every member of the Appellate and Superior courts,
several county officials, delegations from every law college and
institution of learning in the city, and a number of retired
divines. Speaking of the character of the audience, the Chicago
Times-Herald said : “ It was cosmopolitan in composition, and
always keenly intelligent. Loungers sat beside business men ;
working men touched elbows with doctors and college pro
fessors. Faces everyone knows in Chicago were conspicuous.’
The New York Herald corroborates this. “The audience, or
congregation,” it said, “ was composed of the best element in
�4
INTRODUCTION,
Chicago, men predominating, and these representative of the
business, professional, and literary life of Chicago.”
The same journal described the service as follows : “ The
observable differences between this occasion and the service to1
be seen every Sunday morning in every church in Chicago were
few. The gathering was larger than one sees in a church ; it
assembled in a theatre, and an orchestra instead of an organ
supplied the music. That was all. There was a musical pre
lude, both vocal and instrumental, the usual invocation, and the
Lord’s Prayer. The hymn was ‘America.’ Then the service
proceeded through the usual program of scripture reading,
prayer, offerings, and announcements, to the sermon. But the
sermon was called an address.”
When Colonel Ingersoll made his appearance arm-in-arm
with Mr. Rusk, there was loud applause, mingled with murmurs
from some who seemed to regard such a demonstration as
foreign to a religious service. Dr. Rusk, in his prayer, asked
for a special blessing on their guest of the day, and on his wife
and children. In his introductory remarks, he characterised
Colonel Ingersoll as “the man who is endeavoring to do this
world good, and to make it better.”
Animosities were for once laid aside, and “ Ingersoll, said
the Times-Herald, “was as magnanimous as his audience.
Not once did he utter a word to wound the susceptibilities of
his hearers. Orator and auditors met on the common ground
of considering what can be done and should be done to uplift
humanity. There was no scoffing at religion, no jeering at
simple faith, and when the logic of the speaker’s thought roused
an echo in the hearts of his hearers, they gave him generous
meed of applause. The bursts of approval were anything but
infrequent. The audience of Christians heard from the infidel
thoughts both old and new, but all clothed in beautiful language,
to most of which they could say Amen.”
“ I have followed custom and taken a text,” said Ingersoll on
rising—“It was penned by the greatest of human beings
[Shakespeare]—a line overflowing with philosophy : ‘ There is
�INTRODUCTION.
5
no darkness but ignorance.’ Now don't hold Dr. Rusk respon
sible for my heresies, or my philosophies. I must give you my
honest thought.”
For two hours the great audience listened to “ the eloquent
denier of all that is called supernatural,” and at the close
Ingersoll said : “ I take this occasion to sincerely thank Rev.
Dr. Rusk for generously inviting me to address his congrega
tion. And so I say to him and the Militant Church, success
and long life1”
A great “ infidel ” addressing a Church Militant—or, Ingersoll
in a pulpit, as the papers headed their reports—was calculated
to excite orthodox feeling. Accordingly a number of replies
were forthcoming, including one by Dr. J. P. D. John, ex
President of De Pauw University, who took for his subject,
4<Did Man Make God, or Did God Make Man ?”
It must not be supposed, however, that Colonel Ingersoll’s
audience at the Columbia Theatre was anything exceptional in
point of numbers. He does not depend on Christian invitations
for great meetings. On the evening of the same day he had
an overflowing audience of his own at McVicker’s Theatre,
where he lectured on “ Why I am an Agnostic.”
�h
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
Every human being is a necessary product of conditions,
and everyone is born with defects for which he cannot be
held responsible. Nature seems to care nothing for the
individual, nothing for the species. Life pursuing life, and
in its turn pursued by death, presses to the snow line of the
possible; and every form of life, of instinct, thought, and
action is fixed and determined by conditions, by countless
antecedent and co-existing facts. The present is the child,
and the necessary child, of all the past, and the mother of
all the future. Every human being longs to be happy, to
satisfy the wants of the body with food, with roof and
raiment, and to feed the hunger of the mind, according to
his capacity, with love, wisdom, philosophy, art, and song.
The wants of the savage are few; but with civilisation the
wants of the body increase, the intellectual horizon widens,
and the brain demands more and more. The savage feels,
but scarcely thinks. The passion of the savage is unin
fluenced by his thought, while the thought of the philosopher
is uninfluenced by passion. Children have wants and
passions before they are capable of reasoning. So, in the
infancy of the race, wants and passions dominate.
The savage was controlled by appearances, by impres
sions ; he was mentally weak, mentally indolent, and his
mind pursued the path of least resistance. Things were to
him as they appeared to be. He was a natural believer in
the supernatural, and, finding himself beset by dangers and
�8
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
evils, he sought in many ways the aid of unseen powers.
His children followed his example, and for many ages, in
many lands, millions and millions of human beings, many
of them the kindest and the best, asked for supernatural
help. Countless altars and temples have been built, and the
supernatural has been worshipped with sacrifice and song,
with self-denial, ceremony, thankfulness, and prayer. During
all these ages the brain of man was being slowly and pain
fully developed. Gradually mind came to the assistance of
muscle, and thought became the friend of labor. Man has
advanced just in the proportion that he has mingled thought
with his work, just in the proportion that he has succeeded
in getting his head and hands into partnership. All this
was the result of experience.
Nature, generous and heartless, extravagant and miserly
as she is, is our mother and our only teacher, and she is
also the deceiver of men. Above her we cannot rise, below
her we cannot fall. In her we find the seed and soil of all
that is good, of all that is evil. Nature originates, nourishes,
preserves, and destroys. Good deeds bear fruit, and in the
fruit are seeds that in their turn bear fruit and seeds. Great
thoughts are never lost, and words of kindness do not
perish from the earth. Every brain is a field where nature
sows the seeds of thought, and the crop depends upon the
soil. Every flower that gives its fragrance to the wandering
air leaves its influence on the soul of man. The wheel and
swoop of the winged creatures of the air suggest the flowing
lines of subtle art. The roar and murmur of the restless
sea, the cataract’s solemn chant, the thunder’s voice, the
happy babble of the brook, the whispering leaves, the thril
ling notes of mating birds, the sighing winds, taught man to
pour his heart in song, and gave a voice to grief and hope,
to love and death. In all that is, in mountain range and
billowed plain, in winding stream and desert sand, in cloud
and star, in snow and rain, in calm and storm, in night and
day, in woods and vales, in all the colors of divided light,
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
9
in all there is of growth and life, decay and death, in all
that flies and floats and swims, in all that moves, in all the
forms and qualities of things, man found the seeds and
symbols of his thoughts, and all that man has wrought
becomes a part of nature’s self, forming the lives of those to
be. The marbles of the Greeks, like strains of music,
suggest the perfect and teach the melody of life. The great
poems, paintings, inventions, theories, and philosophies
enlarge and mould the mind of man. All that is is natural.
All is naturally produced. Beyond the horizon of the natural
man cannot go.
Yet, for many ages, man in all directions has relied upon,
and sincerely believed in, the existence of the supernatural.
He did not believe in the uniformity of nature. He had
no conception of cause and effect, of the indestructibility
of force. In medicine he believed in charms, magic,
amulets, and incantations. It never occurred to the savage
that diseases were natural. In chemistry he sought for the
elixir of life, for the philosopher’s stone, and for some way
of changing the baser metals into gold. In mechanics he
searched for perpetual motion, believing that he, by some
curious combination of levers, could produce, could create
a force. In government he found the source of authority
in the will of the supernatural. For many centuries his only
conception of morality was the idea of obedience j not to
facts as they exist in nature, but to the supposed command
of some being superior to nature. During all these years
religion consisted in the praise and worship of the invisible
and infinite, of some vast and incomprehensible power;
that is to say, of the supernatural.
By experience, by experiment, possibly by accident, man
found that some diseases could be cured by natural means ;
that he could be relieved in many instances of pain by
certain kinds of leaves or bark. This was the beginning.
Gradually his confidence increased in the direction of the
natural, and began to decrease in charms and amulets.
�IO
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
The war was waged for many centuries, but the natural
gained the victory. Now we know that all diseases are
naturally produced, and that all remedies, all curatives, act
in accordance with the facts in nature. Now we know that
charms, magic, amulets, and incantations are just as useless
in the practice of medicine as they would be in solving a
problem in mathematics. We now know that there are no
supernatural remedies. In chemistry the war was long and
bitter ; but we now no longer seek for the elixir of life, and
no one is trying to find the philosopher’s stone. We are
satisfied that there is nothing supernatural in all the realm
of chemistry. We know that substances are always true to
their natures; we know that just so many atoms of one
substance will unite with just so many of another. The
miraculous has departed from chemistry; in that science
there is no magic, no caprice, and no possible use for the
supernatural. We are satisfied that there can be no changej
that we can absolutely rely on the uniformity of nature;
that the attraction of gravity will always remain the same,
and we feel that we know this as certainly as we know that
the relation between the diameter and circumference of a
circle can never change. We now know that in mechanics
the natural is supreme. We know that man can by no
possibility create a force ; that by no possibility can he
destroy a force. No mechanic dreams of depending upon,
or asking for, any supernatural aid. He knows that he
works in accordance with certain facts that no power can
change.
So we in the United States believe that the authority to
govern, the authority to make and execute laws, comes from
the consent of the governed, and not from any supernatural
source. We do not believe that the king occupied his
throne because of the will of the supernatural. Neither do
we believe that others are subjects or serfs or slaves by
reason of any supernatural will. So our ideas of morality
have changed, and millions now believe that whatever pro
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
II
duces happiness and well-being is in the highest sense
moral. Unreasoning obedience is not the foundation or the
essence of morality. That is the result of mental slavery.
To act in accordance with obligation perceived is to be free
and noble. To simply obey is to practise what might be
called a slave virtue ; but real morality is the flower and
fruit of liberty and wisdom. There are very many who have
reached the conclusion that the supernatural has nothing to
do with real religion. Religion does not consist in believing
without evidence or against evidence. It does not consist
in worshipping the unknown, or in trying to do something
for the infinite. Ceremonies, prayers, and inspired booksj
miracles, special providence, and divine interference, all
belong to the supernatural, and form no part of real religion.
Every science rests on the natural, on demonstrated facts.
So morality and religion must find their foundations in the
necessary nature of things.
Ignorance being darkness, what we need is intellectual
light. The most important things to teach as the basis of
all progress is that the universe is natural; that man must
be the providence of man ; that by the development of the
brain we can avoid some of the dangers, some of the evilsj
overcome some of the obstructions, and take advantage of
some of the facts and forces of nature; that by invention
and industry we can supply, to a reasonable degree, the
wants of the body; and by thought, study, and effort we
can in part satisfy the hunger of the mind. Man should
cease to expect any aid from any supernatural source. By
this time he should be satisfied that worship has not
created wealth, and that prosperity is not the child of
prayer. He should know that the supernatural has not
succored the oppressed, clothed the naked, fed the hungry,
shielded the innocent, stayed the pestilence, or freed the
slave. Being satisfied that the supernatural does not exist,
man should turn his entire attention to the affairs of this
world, to the facts in nature.
�12
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
And, first of all, he should avoid waste—waste of energy,
waste of wealth. Every good man, every good woman,
should try to do away with war, and stop the appeal to
savage force. Man in a savage state relies upon his strength,
and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
Civilised men do not settle their differences by a resort to
arms. They submit the quarrel to arbitrators and courts.
This is the great difference between the savage and the
civilised. Nations, however, sustain the relations of savages
to each other. There is no way of settling their disputes.
Each nation decides for itself, and each nation endeavors
to carry its decision into effect. This produces war.
Thousands of men at this moment are trying to invent more
deadly weapons to destroy their fellow men. For 1,800
years peace has been preached, and yet the civilised nations
are the most warlike of the world. There are in Europe to
day between 11,000,000 and 12,000,000 soldiers ready to
take the field, and the frontiers of every civilised nation are
protected by breastwork and fort. The sea is covered with
steel-clad ships filled with missiles of death. The civilised
world has impoverished itself, and the debt of Christendom,
mostly for war, is now nearly $30,000,000,000. The interest
on this vast sum has to be paid. It has to be paid by labor
—much of it by the poor—by those who are compelled to
deny themselves almost the necessities of life. This debt is
growing year by year. There must come a change, or
Christendom will become bankrupt.
The interest on this debt amounts at least to $900,000,000
a year, and the cost of supporting armies and navies, of
repairing ships, of manufacturing new engines of death, pro
bably amounts, including the interest on the debt, to at
least $6,000,000 a day. Allowing ten hours for a day—that
is, for a working day—the waste of war is at least $600,000
an hour—that is to say, $10,000 a minute. Think of all
this being paid for the purpose of killing and preparing to
kill our fellow men. Think of the good that could be done
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
13
with this vast sum of money—the schools that could be
built, the wants that could be supplied. Think of the
homes it would build, the children it would clothe. If we
wish to do away with war, we must provide for the settle
ment of national differences by an international court. This
court should be in perpetual session, its members should be
selected by the various governments to be affected by its
decisions ; and, at the command and disposal of this court,
the rest of Christendom being disarmed, there should be a
military force sufficient to carry its judgments into effect.
There should be no other excuse, no other business for an
army or a navy in the civilised world. No man has
imagination enough to paint the agonies, the horrors, and
cruelties of war. Think of sending shot and shell crashing
through the bodies of men ! Think of the widows and
orphans ! Think of the maimed, the mutilated, the mangled!
Let us be perfectly candid with each other. We are
seeking the truth, trying to find what ought to be done to
increase the well-being of man. I must give you my honest
thought. You have the right to demand it, and I must
maintain the integrity of my soul. There is another direc
tion in which the wealth and energies of man are wasted.
From the beginning of history until now man has been
seeking the aid of the supernatural. For many centuries
the wealth of the world was used to propitiate the unseen
powers. In our own country the property dedicated to this
purpose is worth at least $1,000,000,000. The interest on
this sum is $50,000,000 a year, and the cost of employing
persons whose business it is to seek the aid of the super
natural, and to maintain the property, is certainly as much
more. So that the cost in our country is about $2,000,000
a week, and, counting ten hours as a working day, this
amounts to about $500 a minute. For this vast amount of
money the returns are remarkably small. The good accom
plished does not appear to be great. There is no great
diminution in crime. The decrease of immorality and
�14
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
poverty is hardly perceptible. In spite, however, of the
apparent failure here, a vast sum of money is expended
every year to carry our ideas of the supernatural to other
races. Our churches, for the most part, are closed during
the week, being used only a part of one day in seven. No
one wishes to destroy churches or church organisations.
The only desire is that they shall accomplish substantial
good for the world.
In many of our small towns—towns of 3,000 or 4,000
people—will be found four or five churches, sometimes
more. These churches are founded upon immaterial differ
ences, a difference as to the mode of baptism, a difference
as to who shall be entitled to partake of the Lord’s supper,
a difference of ceremony, of government, a difference about
fore-ordination, a difference about fate and freewill. And it
must be admitted that all the arguments on all sides of these
differences have been presented countless millions of times.
Upon these subjects nothing new is produced or anticipated,
and yet the discussion is maintained hy the repetition of the
old arguments. Now it seems to me that it would be far
better for the people of a town, having a population of 4,000
or 5,000, to have one church, and the edifice should be of
use not only on Sunday, but on every day of the week. In
this building should be the library of the town. It should
be the clubhouse of the people, where they could find the
principal newspapers and periodicals of the world. Its
auditorium should be like a theatre. Plays should be pre
sented by home talent, an orchestra formed, music culti
vated. The people should meet there at any time they
desire. The women could carry their knitting and sewing,
and connected with it should be rooms for the playing of
games, billiards, cards, and chess. Everything should be
made as agreeable as possible. The citizens should take
pride in this building. They should adorn its niches with
statues and its walls with pictures. It should be the intel
lectual centre.
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
15
They could employ a gentleman of ability, possibly of
genius, to address them on Sundays on subjects that would
be of real interest, of real importance. They could say to
this minister: “We are engaged in business during the
week. While we are working at our trades and professions
we want you to study, and on Sunday tell us what you have
found out.” Let such a minister take for a series of sermons
the history, the philosophy of the art and the genius of
the Greeks. Let him tell of the wondrous metaphysics,
myths, and religions of India and Egypt. Let him make his
congregation conversant with the philosophies of the world,
with the great thinkers, the great poets, the great artists,
the great actors, the great orators, the great inventors, the
captains of industry, the soldiers of progress. Let them have
a Sunday school in which the children shall be made
acquainted with the facts of nature, with botany, ento
mology, something of geology and astronomy. Let them be
made familiar with the greatest of poems, the finest para
graphs of literature, with stories of the heroic, the self-deny
ing, and generous. Now, it seems to me that such a con
gregation in a few years would become the most intelligent
people in the United States.
The truth is that people are tired of the old theories.
They have lost confidence in the miraculous, in the super
natural, and they have ceased to take interest in “ facts ”
that they do not quite believe. “ There is no darkness but
ignorance.” There is no light but intelligence. As often
as we can exchange a mistake for a fact, a falsehood for a
truth, we advance, We add to the intellectual wealth of
the world, and in this way, and in this way alone, can be
laid the foundation for the future prosperity and civilisation
of the race. I blame no one. I call in question the motives
of no person ; I admit that the world has acted as it must.
But hope for the future depends upon the intelligence of the
present. Man must husband his resources. He must not
waste his energies in endeavoring to accomplish the impos
�i6
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
sible. He must take advantage of the forces of nature. He
must depend on education, on what-he can ascertain by
the use of his senses, by observation, by experiment and
reason. He must break the chains of prejudice and custom.
He must be free to express his thoughts on all questions.
He must find the conditions of happiness, and become wise
enough to live in accordance with them.
In spite of all that has been done for the reformation of
the world, in spite of all the inventions, in spite of all the
forces of nature that are now the tireless slaves of man, in
spite of all improvements in agriculture, in mechanics, in
every department of human labor, the world is still cursed
with poverty and with crime. The prisons are full, the
courts are crowded, the officers of the law are busy, and
there seems to be no material decrease in crime. For many
thousands of years man has endeavored to reform his
fellow men by imprisonment, torture, mutilation, and death,
and yet the history of the world shows that there has been,
and is, no reforming power in punishment. It is impossible
to make the penalty great enough, horrible enough, to lessen
crime. Only a few years ago, in civilised countries, larceny
and many offences even below larceny were punished by death,
and yet the number of thieves and criminals of all grades
increased. Traitors were hanged and quartered, or drawn
into fragments by horses, and yet treason flourished. Most
of these frightful laws have been repealed, and the repeal
certainly did not increase crime. In our own country we
rely upon the gallows, the penitentiary, and the gaol. When
a murder is committed the man is hanged, shocked to death
by electricity, or lynched, and in a few minutes a new
murderer is ready to suffer a like fate. Men steal. They
are sent to the penitentiary for a certain number of years,
treated like wild beasts, frequently tortured. At the end of
the term they are discharged, having only enough money to
return to the place from which they were sent. They are
thrown upon the world without means, without friends—
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
17
they are convicts. They are shunned, suspected, and des
pised. If they obtain a place, they are discharged as soon
as it is found that they were in prison. They do the best
they can to retain the respect of their fellow men by deny
ing their imprisonment and their identity. In a little while,
unable to gain a living by honest means, they resort to crime,
they again appear in court, and again are taken within the
dungeon walls. No reformation, no chance to reform,
nothing to give them bread while making new friends.
All this is infamous. Men should not be sent to the
penitentiary as a punishment, because we must remember
that men do as they must. Nature does not frequently
produce the perfect. In the human race there is a large
percentage of failures. Under certain conditions, with
certain appetites and passions, and with certain quality,
quantity, and shape of brain, men will become thieves,
forgers, and counterfeiters. The question is whether re
formation is possible, whether a change can be produced in
the person by producing a change in the conditions. The
criminal is dangerous, and society has the right to protect
itself. The criminal should be confined, and, if possible,
should be reformed. A penitentiary should be a school;
the convicts should be educated. So prisoners should work,
and they should be paid a reasonable sum for their labor.
The best men should have charge of prisons. They should
be philanthropists and philosophers; they should know
something of human nature. The prisoner, having been
taught, we will say, for five years—taught the underlying
principles of conduct, of the naturalness and harmony of
virtue, of the discord of crime ; having been convinced that
society has no hatred, that nobody wishes to punish, to
degrade, or to rob him, and being at the time of his dis
charge paid a reasonable price for his labor; being allowed
by law to change his name so that his identity will not be
preserved, he could go out of the prison a friend of the
government. He would have the feeling that he had been
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
made a better man ; that he had been treated with justice,
with mercy; and the money he carried with him would be
a. breastwork behind which he could defy temptation—a
breastwork that would support and take care of him until
he could find some means by which to support himself.
And this man, instead of making crime a business, would
become a good, honorable, and useful citizen.
, As it is now, there is but little reform. The same faces
appear again and again at the bar; the same men hear
again and again the verdict of guilty and the sentence of
the court, and the same men return again and again to the
prison cell. Murderers, those belonging to the dangerous
classes, those who are so formed by nature that they rush
to the crimes of desperation, should be imprisoned for life,
or they should be put upon some island, some place where
they can be guarded, where it may be that, by proper effort,
they could support themselves ; the men on one island, the
women on another. And to these islands should be sent
professional criminals—those who have deliberately adopted
a life of crime for the purpose of supporting themselves—
the women upon one island, the men upon another. Such
people should not populate the earth.
Neither the diseases nor the deformities of the mind or
body should be perpetuated ; life at the fountain should
not be polluted..
The home is the unit of the nation. The more homes,
the broader the foundation of the nation and the more
secure. Everything that is possible should be done to keep
this from being a nation of tenants. The men who culti
vate the earth should own it. Something has already been
done in our country in that direction, and probably in
every State there is a homestead exemption. This exemp
tion has thus far done no harm to the creditor class. When
we imprisoned people for debt, debts were as insecure, to
say the least, as now. By the homestead laws a home of
a certain value or of a certain extent is exempt from forced
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
19
levy or sale, and these laws have done great good. Un
doubtedly they have trebled the homes of the nation. I
wish to go a step farther; I want, if possible, to get the
people out of the tenements, out of the gutters of degrada
tion, to homes where there can be privacy, where these
people can feel that they are in partnership with nature;
that they have an interest in good government. With the
means we now have of transportation there is no necessity
for poor people being huddled in festering masses in the
vile, filthy, and loathsome parts of cities, where poverty
breeds rags and the rags breed diseases. I would exempt
a homestead of a reasonable value, say of the value of
$2,000 or $3,000, not only from sale under execution, but
from sale for taxes of every description. These homes
-should be absolutely exempt. They should belong to the
family, so that every mother should feel that the roof above
her head was hers, that her house was her oastle, and that
in its possession she could not be disturbed, even by the
nation. Under certain conditions I would allow the sale
for a certain time, during which they might be invested in
another home ; and all this could be done to make a nation
of householders, a nation of landowners, a nation of home
builders.
I would invoke the same power to preserve these homes,
and to acquire these homes, that I would invoke for acquir
ing lands for building railways. Every State should fix the
amount of land that could be owned by an individual, not
liable to be taken from him for the purpose of giving a
home to another ; and, when any man owned more acres
than the law allowed, and another should ask to purchase
them, and he should refuse, I would have the law so that
the person wishing to purchase could file his petition in
court. The court would appoint commissioners, or a jury
would be called to determine the value of the land the
petitioner wished for a home ; and, upon the amount being
paid, found by such commission or jury, the land should
�20
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
vest absolutely in the petitioner. This right of eminent
domain should be used not only for the benefit of the
person wishing a home, but for the benefit of all the people.
Nothing is more important to America than that the
babes of America should be born around the firesides of
homes.
There is another question in which I take great interest,
and it ought, in my judgment, to be answered by the
intelligence and kindness of our century. We all know
that for many, many ages men have been slaves, and we all
know that during all these years women have, to some
extent, been the slaves of slaves. It is of the utmost im
portance to the human race that women, that mothers,
should be free. Without doubt the contract of marriage is
the most important and the most sacred that human beings
can make. Marriage is the most important of all institu
tions. Of course the ceremony of marriage is not the real
marriage. It is only evidence of the mutual flames that
burn within. There can be no real marriage without mutual
love. So I believe in the ceremony of marriage; that it
should be public; that records should be kept. Besides,
the ceremony says to all the world that those who marry
are in love with each other. Then arises the question of
divorce. Millions of people imagine that the married are
joined together by some supernatural power, and that they
should remain together, or at least married, during life. If
all who have been married were joined together by the
supernatural, we must admit that the supernatural is not
infinitely wise.
After all, marriage is a contract, and the parties to the
contract are bound to keep its provisions, and neither
should be released from such a contract unless in some
way the interests of society are involved. I would have the
law so that any husband could obtain a divorce when the
wife had persistently and flagrantly violated the contract,
such divorce to be granted on equitable terms. I would
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
21
■give the wife a divorce if she requested it, if she wanted it.
And I would do this, not only for her sake, but for the sake
of the community, of the nation. All children should be
children of love. All that are born should be sincerely
welcomed. The children of mothers who dislike or hate or
loathe the fathers will fill the world with insanity and crime.
No woman should by law or by public opinion be forced to
live with a man whom she abhors. There is no danger of
demoralising the world through divorce. Neither is there
any danger of destroying in the human heart that divine
thing called love. As long as the human race exists,
men and women will love each other, and just so long
there will be true and perfect marriage. Slavery is not
the soil or rain of virtue.
I make a difference between granting divorce to a man
and to a woman, and for this reason : A woman dowers her
husband with her youth and beauty. He should not be
allowed to desert her because she has grown wrinkled and old.
Her capital is gone, her prospects in life lessened ; while, on
the contrary, he may be far better able to succeed than when
he married her. As a rule, the man can take care of him
self; and, as a rule, the woman needs help. So I would not
allow him to cast her off unless she had flagrantly violated
the contract. But for the sake of the community, and
especially for the sake of the babes, I would give her a
divorce for the asking. There will never be a generation of
great men until there has been a generation of free women—
of free mothers. The tenderest word in our language is
maternity. In that word is the divine mingling of ecstasy
and agony, of love and self sacrifice. This word is holy.
There has been for many years ceaseless discussion upon
what is called the labor question—the conflict between the
working man and the capitalist. Many ways have been
devised, some experiments have been tried, for the purpose of
solving this question. Profit-sharing would not work,
because it is impossible to share profits with those who are
�22
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
incapable of sharing losses. Communities have been
formed, the object being to pay the expenses and share the
profits among all the persons belonging to the society. Forthe
most part these have failed. Others have advocated arbitra
tion, and, while it may be that the employers could be bound
by the decision of the arbitrators, there has been no way dis
covered by which the employees could be held by such
decision. In other words, the question has not been solved.
For my own part, I see no final and satisfactory solution
except through the civilisation of employers and employed.
The question is so complicated, the ramifications are so
countless, that a solution by law or by force seems at least
improbable. Employers are supposed to pay according to
their profits. They may or may not. Profits may be
destroyed by competition. The employer is at the mercy
of other employers, and as much so as his employees are at
his mercy. The employers cannot govern prices, they can
not fix demand, they cannot control supply, and, at present,,
in the world of trade, the laws of supply and demand
except when interfered with by conspiracy, are in absolute
control.
Will the time arrive, and can it arrive, except by deve
loping the brain, except by the aid of intellectual light, when
the purchaser will wish to give what a thing is worth, when
the employer will be satisfied with a reasonable profit, when
the employer will be anxious to give the real value for raw
material, when he will be really anxious to pay the laborer
the full value of his labor ? Will the employer ever become
civilised enough to know that the law of supply and demand
should not absolutely apply in the labor market of the world?'
Will he ever become civilised enough not to take advantage
of the necessities of the poor, of the hunger and rags and
want of poverty ? Will he ever become civilised enough to
say : “ I will pay the man who labors for me enough to give
him a reasonable support, enough for him to assist in taking
care of wife and children, enough for him to do this and lay
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
23
aside something to feed and clothe him when old age comes,
to lay aside something, enough to give him house and
hearth during the December of his life, so that he can warm
his worn and shrivelled hands at the fire of home ” ? Of
course, capital can do nothing without the assistance of
labor. All there is of value in the world is the product of
labor. The laboring man pays all the expenses. No matter
whether taxes are laid on luxuries or on the necessaries of
life, labor pays every cent.
So we must remember that, day by day, labour is becom
ing intelligent. So I believe the employer is gradually
becoming civilised, gradually becoming kinder, and many
men who have made large fortunes from the labor of their
fellows have given of their millions to what they regarded
as objects of charity, or for the interests of education. This
is a kind of penance, because the men that have made their
money from the brain and muscle of their fellow men have
ever felt that it was not quite their own.
Many of these employers have sought to balance their
accounts by leaving something for universities or the estab
lishment of libraries, drinking fountains, or to build monu
ments to departed greatness. It would have been, I
think, far better had they used this money to better the con
dition of the men who really earned it. So I think that, when
we become civilised, great corporations will make provision
for men who have given their lives to their service. I think
the great railroads should pay pensions to their worn-out
employees. They should take care of them in old age.
They should not maim and wear out their servants} and then
discharge them and allowthem to be supported in poorhouses.
These great companies should take care of the men they
maim ; they should look out for the ones whose lives they
have used, and whose labor has been the foundation of
their prosperity. Upon this question public sentiment
should be aroused to such a degree that these corporations
would be ashamed to use a human life, and then throw
�24
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
away the broken old man as they would cast aside a rotten
tie. It may be that the mechanics, the working men, will
finally become intelligent enough to really unite to act in
absolute concert.
Could this be accomplished, then
a reasonable rate of compensation could be fixed and
enforced. Now such efforts are local, and the result
up to this time has been failure. But, if all could unite,
they could obtain what is reasonable, what is just, and
they would have the sympathy of a very large majority of
their fellow men, provided they were reasonable.
But before they can act in this way they must become
really intelligent, intelligent enough to know what is reason
able, and honest enough to ask for no more. So much has
already been accomplished for the working man that I have
hope, and great hope, for the future. The hours of labor
have been shortened, and materially shortened, in many
countries. There was a time when men worked fifteen and
sixteen hours a day. Now generally a day’s work is not
longer than ten hours, and the tendency is to still further
decrease the hours. By comparing long periods of time we
more clearly perceive the advance that has been made.
In i860 the average amount earned by the labouring men,
workmen, mechanics per year was about $285. It is now
about $500, and $1 to-day will purchase more of the
necessaries of life, more food, clothing, and fuel, than it
would in i860. These facts are full of hope for the future.
All our sympathies should be with the men who work, who
toil, for the women who labor for themselves and children,
because we know that labour is the foundation of all, and
that those who labor are the caryatids that support the
structure and glittering dome of civilisation and progress.
Every child should be taught to be self-supporting, and
every one should be taught to avoid being a burden on
others as it would shun death. Every child should be
taught that the useful are the honorable, and that they
who live on the labor of others are the enemies of society.
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
25
Every child should be taught that useful work is worship,
and that intelligent labor is the highest form of prayer.
Children should be taught to think, to investigate, to rely
upon the light of reason, of observation, and experience ;
should be taught to use all their senses, and they should be
taught only that which in some sense is really useful.
They should be taught the use of tools, to use their hands
to embody their thoughts in the construction of things.
Their lives should not be wasted in the acquisition of the
useless or of the almost useless. Years should not be
devoted to the acquisition of dead languages, or to the study
of history, which, for the most part, is a detailed account of
things that never occurred. It is useless to fill the mind
with dates of great battles, with the births and deaths of
kings. They should be taught the philosophy of history,
the growth of nations, of philosophies, theories, and, above
all, of the sciences.
So they should be taught the importance, not only of
financial, but of mental honesty ; to be absolutely sincere ;
to utter their real thoughts, and to give their actual opinions
and if parents want honest children, they should be honest
themselves. It may be that hypocrites transmit that failing
to their offspring. Men and women who pretend to agree
with the majority, who think one way and talk another, can
hardly expect their children to be absolutely sincere.
Nothing should be taught in any school that the teacher
does not know. Beliefs, superstitions, theories, should not
be treated like demonstrated facts. The child should be
taught to investigate, not to believe. Too much doubt is
better than too much credulity. So children should be
taught that it is their duty to think for themselves, to under
stand, and, if possible, to know. Real education is the
hope of the future. The development of the brain, the civi
lisation of the heart, will drive want and crime from the
world. The school-house is the. real cathedral, and science
the only possible savior of the human race. Education, real
�2Ô
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
education, is the friend of honesty, of morality, of temper
ance.
We cannot rely upon legislative enactments to make
people wise and good; neither can we expect to make
human beings manly and womanly by keeping them out of
temptation. Temptations are as thick as the leaves of the
forest, and no one can be out of the reach of temptation
unless he is dead. The great thing is to make people
intelligent enough and strong enough not to keep away
from temptation, but to resist it.
All the forces of
civilisation are in favor of morality and temperance. Little
can be accomplished by lawr, because law, for the most
part, about such things is a destruction of personal liberty.
Liberty cannot be sacrificed for the sake of temperance, for
the sake of morality, or for the sake of anything. It is of
more value than everything else. Yet some people would
destroy the sun to prevent the growth of weeds. Liberty
sustains the same relation to all the virtues that the sun
does to life. The world had better go back to barbarism,
to the dens, the caves, and lairs of savagery—-better lose all
art, all inventions, than to lose liberty. Liberty is the
breath of progress ; it is the seed and soil, the heat and rain
of love and joy. So all should be taught that the highest
ambition is to be happy and to add to the well-being of
others; that place and power are not necessary to success ;
that the desire to acquire great wealth is a kind of insanity.
They should be taught that it is a waste of energy, a waste
of thought, a waste of life, to acquire what you do not need,
and what you do not really use, for the benefit of yourself
and others.
Neither mendicants nor millionaires are the happiest of
mankind. The man at the bottom of the ladder hopes to
rise; the man at the top fears to fall. The one asks, the
other refuses, and by frequent refusal the heart becomes
hard enough and the hand greedy enough to clutch and
hold. Few men have intelligence enough, real greatness
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
27
enough, to own a great fortune. As a rule, the fortune
owns them. Their fortune is their master, for whom they
work and toil like slaves. The man who has a good busi
ness and who can make a reasonable living and lay aside
something for the future, who can educate his children and
can leave enough to keep the wolf of want from the door of
those he loves, ought to be the happiest of men. Now
society bows and kneels at the feet of wealth. Wealth gives
power, wealth commands flattery and adulation, and so
millions of men give all their energies, as well as their very
souls, for the acquisition of gold ; and this will continue as
long as society is ignorant enough and hypocritical enough
to hold in high esteem the man of wealth without the
slightest regard to the character of the man.
In judging of the rich two things should be considered .
How did they get it, and what are they doing with it? Was
it honestly acquired ? Is it being used for the benefit of
mankind ? When people become really intelligent, when the
brain is really developed, no human being will give his life
to the acquisition of what he does not need, or what he can
not intelligently use. The time will come when the truly
intelligent man cannot be happy, cannot be satisfied, when
millions of his fellow men are hungry and naked; the time
will come when in every heart will be the perfume of pity’s
sacred flower; the time will come when the world will be
anxious to ascertain the truth, to find out the conditions of
happiness, and to live in accordance with such conditions ;
and the time will come when in the brain of every human
being will be the climate of intellectual hospitality. Man
will be civilised when the passions are dominated by the
intellectual, when reason occupies the throne, and when the
hot blood of passion no longer rises in successful revolt.
To civilise the world, to hasten the coming of the golden
dawn of the perfect day, we must educate the children ; we
must commence at the cradle, at the lap of the loving
mother.
�28
THE COMING CIVILISATION.
The reforms that I have mentioned cannot be accom
plished in a day, possibly not for many centuries, and
in the meantime there is much crime, much poverty,
much want, and, consequently, something must be done
now.
Let each human being within the limits of the possible
be self-supporting; let every one take intelligent thought
for the morrow, and if a human being supports himself and
acquires a surplus let him use a part of that surplus for the
unfortunate, and let each one to the extent of his ability
help his fellow men. Let him do what he can in the circle
of his own acquaintance to rescue the fallen, to help those
who are trying to help themselves, to give work to the idle.
Let him distribute kind words, words of wisdom, of cheer
fulness, and hope. In other words, let every human being
do all the good he can, and let him bind up the wounds of
his fellow creatures, and at the same time put forth every
effort to hasten the coming of a better day.
This, in my judgment, is real religion. To do all the
good you can is to be a saint in the highest and in the
noblest sense. To do all the good you can—this is to be
really and truly spiritual. To relieve suffering, to put the
star of hope in the midnight of despair—this is true holi*
ness. This is the religion of science. The old creeds are
too narrow; they are not for the world in which we live.
The old dogmas lack breadth and tenderness ; they are too
cruel, too merciless, too savage. We are growing grander
and nobler. The firmament inlaid with suns is the dome
of the real cathedral. The interpreters of nature are the
true and only priests. In the great creed are all the truths
that lips have uttered, and in the real Litany will be found
all the ecstasies and aspirations of the soul, all dreams of
joy, all hopes for nobler, fuller life. The real church, the
real edifice, is adorned and glorified with all that art has
done. In the real choir is all the thrilling music of
the world, and in the starlit aisles have been, and are, the
�THE COMING CIVILISATION.
29
grandest souls of every land and clime. “ There is no dark
ness but ignorance.” Let us flood the world with intel
lectual light.
London : Printed by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll
of Moses. Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
The only complete edition in God and the State. 2d.
England. Accurate as Colenso, Why am I an Agnostic ?
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Part I. 2d.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
hy am I
Defence of Freethought. WPart II. 2d. an Agnostic ?
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
6d.
God and Man. Second reply
The Gods. 6d.
to Dr. Field. 2d.
Some Mistakes
The Holy Bible. 6d.
he
Reply to Gladstone. With The Dying Creed. 2d.
Limits of Toleration.
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler. T
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert andG-ov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
The Household of Faith.
Crimes against Criminals. 2d.
3d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
4d.
Rome
or
Reason? A Reply
Oration on Walt Whitman. Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d. The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity^ Debt to Thomas Marriage and Divorce. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus The Great Mistake. Id.
Live Topics. Id.
Christ. 2d.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists. Real Blasphemy. Id.
2d.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political
Biography by J. M. Wheeler. Is. ; bound in cloth, 2s.
Miscellaneous Theological Works. Is.
The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G. W.
Foote. Is.
Complete Theological Works.
Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d.
(Including the Age, of
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Superior edition, superfine paper, cloth, 2s., post free,
The Bible Handbook
FOR FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING CHRISTIANS
BY
G. W. FOOTE
and
W. P. BALL.
Sold also in separate parts as follows :—
1. —Bible Contradictions. The contradictions are printed in
parallel columns. 4d.
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. 4d.
3. —Bible Atrocities. Containing all the godly wickedness
from Genesis to Revelation.
line for easy reference. 4d.
Each infamy has a separate head
4. —Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities, Broken
Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. 4d.
Now Ready, Price Three Shillings,
FOOTSTEPS OF THE PAST.
ESSAYS ON HUMAN EVOLUTION.
By J. M. WHEELER.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote.
Contents :—Early Religion—Animism—Fetishism and Idolatry
—Totemism—Were the Jews Savages ’—Religious Dances—
Sympathetic Magic—Kings, Priests, and Gods—Sacrifices and
Scapegoats—Killing the God—Nature Festivals—Lent—EasterMay Day—Christmas Customs.
“ The book is well done throughout.”—Weekly Times and Echo.
Price Twopence,
“A Letter to Lord Ellenborough”
Occasioned by the Sentence which he Passed on
MR. D. I. EATON,
As Publisher or
THE THIRD PART OF PAINE’S “ AGE OF REASON.”
BY
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
First Series (cloth), 2s. 6d.
Contents :—Old Nick—Fire !! !—Sky Pilots—Devil Dodgers—Fight
ing Spooks—Damned Sinners—Where is Hell?—Spurgeon and Hell—
Is Spurgeon in Heaven ?—God in Japan—Stanley on Providence—Gone
to God—Thank God—Judgment Day—Shelley’s Atheism—Long Faces
—Our Father—Wait Till You Die—Dead Theology—Mr. Gladstone on
Devils—Huxley’s Mistake—lhe Gospel of Freethought—On Ridicule—
Who are the Blasphemers ?—Christianity and Common Sense—The Lord
of Hosts—Consecrating the Colors—Christmas in Holloway Gaol—Who
Killed Christ ?—Did Jesus Ascend ?—The Rising Son ?—St. Paul’s
Veracity—No Faith with Heretics—The Logic of Persecution—Luther
and the Devil—Bible English—Living by Faith—Victor Hugo—
Desecrating a Church—Walt Whitman—Tennyson and the Bible—
Christ’s Old Coat—Christ’s Coat, Number Two—Scotched,_ Not Slain—
God-Making—God and the Weather—Miracles—A Real Miracle—Jesus
on Women—Paul on Women—Mother’s Religion.
Second Series (cloth), 2s. 6d.
Contents: — Luscious Piety—The Jewish Sabbath—God’s Day—
Professor Stokes on Immortality—Paul Bert—Converting a Corpse—
Bradlaugh’s Ghost—Christ and Brotherhood—The Sons of God—Melchizedek—S’w’elp me God—Infidel Homes—Are Atheists Cruel ?—Are
Atheists Wicked?—Rain Doctors—Pious Puerilities—“Thus Saith the
Lord ”—Believe or be Damned—Christian Charity—Religion and Money—
Clotted Bosh—Lord Bacon on Atheism—Christianity and Slavery—Christ
Up to Date—Secularism and Christianity—Altar and Throne—Martin
Luther—The Praise of Folly—A Lost Soul—Happy in Hell—The Act of
God—Keir Hardie on Christ—Blessed be ye Poor—Converted Infidels—
Mrs. Booth’s Ghost—Talmage on the Bible—Mrs. Besant on Death and
After—The Poets and Liberal Theology—Christianity and LaborDueling—An Easter Egg for Christians—Down Among the Dead Men—
Smirching a Hero—Kit Marlowe and Jesus Christ—Jehovah the Ripper—
The Parson’s Living Wage — Did Bradlaugh Backslide? — Frederic
Harrison on Atheism—Save the Bible ¡—Forgive and Forget—The Star
of Bethlehem—The Great Ghost—Atheism and the French Revolution—
Pigottism—Jesus at the Derby—Atheist Murderers—A Religion for
Eunuchs—Rose-Water Religion.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
��Freethought Publications.
By G. W. FOOTE.
The Grand Old Book. A Reply to the Grand Old Man. An
exhaustive answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s “Im
pregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” Is.; bound in cloth, Is. 6d.
Bible Heroes. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Letters to the Clergy. First Series, 128 pp., Is.
Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public Debate
with the Rev. Dr. James McCann. Is.; superior edition, in
cloth, Is. 6d.
Infidel Death-Beds. Second edition, much enlarged, 8d. On
superfine paper, in cloth, Is. 3d.
Darwin on God. 6d.; superior edition, in cloth, Is.
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias. 8d.
Will Christ Save Us ? A Thorough Examination of the Claims
of Jesus Christ to be considered the Savior of the World, fid.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
Bible and Beer. 4d.
Crimes Of Christianity. Vol. I. [Written in conjunction with
J. M. Wheeler.] Hundreds of exact references to Standard
Authorities. No pains spared to make it a complete, trust
worthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. Cloth,
gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d.
The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher TolcLotli Jeshu, or
Book of the Generation of Jesus. With an Historical Preface
and Voluminous Notes by G. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler.
Paper covers, 6d.; superior edition, superfine paper, cloth, Is.
Bible Studies. Essays on Phallic Worship and other Curious
Rites and Customs. By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, superior
paper, 2s. 6d.
Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers of All Ages and
Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Handsomely bound in cloth,
7s. 6d.
Essays in Rationalism. By Charles Robert Newman (Atheist
Brother of the late Cardinal Newman). With a Preface by George
Jacob Holyoake, and a Biographical sketch by J. M. Wheeler.
Is. 6d.
London : R. Ford er, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday. Price Twopence.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street. E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The coming civilisation : an address delivered in the Columbia Theatre, Chicago, on Sunday, April 12,1896, to the members and friends of "The Church Militant"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1896]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 29, [3] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "The Church Militant" was an organisation formed by the former Presbyterian pastor Dr Rusk, "with the avowed object of giving Christianity a secular character, and making it influence the affairs of life."--Introd. No. 36e in Stein checklist. Publisher's list and advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N327
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 coming civilisation : an address delivered in the Columbia Theatre, Chicago, on Sunday, April 12,1896, to the members and friends of "The Church Militant"), 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
Civilization
Free Thought
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2c130144530b99a48b35dbb7c739ff7a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=n%7Eq-00CB2I1R2Kl%7EpdY4o4IPuchh%7EqAOSZ2XFb1PE3zCpyz0mlCRSUgriGFXXtHVPJl9C8Aaf85yJ3SOdnlaRlvPKdMYEgajaDekrMdN2AZRoKaR4OvV1-u1j%7E0Tu4txOc3qACEv%7EgYQXl8YKWeKqYdnIkk1K5F8UbKv1eB%7EYMe%7EqfkjpmMng4IxRz-umfygkR265Y66HB-64LNDsA6CAR4OxK500-Jx8sZGgIoDQeu3TktTd2VCRDQLsiKozJQYghyMGjd8pu9vo2SyPoKNXvWMP5xbhkUkifPHvOgNkk8jAoWnT2%7Ek8nR-LHxNuJu0FVeBZ1qMhJjZrDeFyW3SoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
593fe15dccb1e2f12b703cffbbb2ef20
PDF Text
Text
LES CATACOMBES DE ROME.
En mdme temps que l’exhumation de PompM faisait sortir
des cendres du Vdsuve certains colds intimes de la vie an
tique, l’exploration des catacombes dvoquait, du sous-sol
de la Rome papale, un tableau de la chretientd primitive,
de ses usages, de ses arts et de ses croyances. Le rare voyageur qui, il y a un demi-sibcle, parcourait rapidement, un
rat de cave h la main, les couloirs souterrains avoisinant le
caveau de sainte Cdcile, sous la conduite d’un custode plus
ou moins prolixe, pouvaitbien, avec quelques reminiscences
de Chateaubriand ou de Delille, se representer soit une des
scenes les plus emouvantes des Martyrs, soit les angoisses
classiques du « jeune amant des arts » , egard
Sous ces routes nombreuses
Qui croisent cn tous sens lours routes tdndbreuses.
Ou bien, si le visiteur avait une tournure d’esprit plus religieuse que litteraire, il pouvait se retracer, avec une sainte
emotion, les sangiants episodes du martyrologe romain et se
faire subrepticementen dosser a prix d’or, par son guide infidfele, quelque phalange d’un confesseur de la foi ou, mieux
encore, un de ces petits vases a parfums qu’on a pris longtemps pour des ampoules placdes pihs des tombes pour conserver le sang des victimes. Mais combien il dtait loin de
soupconner les veritables tr6sors que ce mysterieux labyrinthe devait bientot fournir a l’histoire de 1’art, ainsi qu’a
l’histoire du christianisme!
C’est aux freres Rossi que revient l’honneur non seulement d’avoir donne h 1’exploration des catacombes une im-
�228
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
pulsion s^rieuse, mais encore d’y avoir introduit la geule •
methode capable d’utiliser pour la science les rdsultats des
fouilles. Rompant avec les precedes arbitraires de leurs pred6cesseurs, ils avaient compris, dbs la premiere moitifi de ce
sifecle, que, pour tirer parti des documents historiques offerts
par la Rome souterraine, il fallait les £tudier sur place et
commencer par l’dtude des cimeti&res eux-m^mes. Ils s’appliqukrent done & ddcrire les diverses cryptes dans l’dtatou elles
se trouvaient, h 6tablir respectivement les rapports chronologiques de leurs Stages et de leurs galeries, h rechercher la
facon dont elles s’etaient form^es et .le but auquel elles
r^pondaient; puis ils tentferent une restauration iddale des
lieux, & l’aide des renseignements trouves dans l’6tude des
inscriptions, des details architectoniques, du style des fresques et de la nature de leurs sujets — sans n^gliger las
donn^es paralleles de l’histoire ou de la tradition.
Le r^sultat de ces travaux se trouve consigne dans l’important ouvrage Roma sotterranea qui, public par M. J.-B. de
Rossi, de 1864 a 1867, a 6t6 pour l’archeolog’ie contemporaine une veritable revelation et a, en quelque sorte, funds
la science des catacombes. Toutefois, si cet ouvrage offre *
jusqu’ici un guide complet pour les questions de fait, il laisse ouvert ce que M. de Rossi appelait lui-m6me«l’immense
champ des syntheses partielies».
C’est une de ces syntheses — et non la moins important®,
« la synthase chronologique », — qu’entreprend M. TMophile Roller dans son bel ouvrage : les Catacombs dfe
Rome, histoire de I’art et des croyances religieuses pendant
les premiers siecles du cliristianisme\ Ces deux gros vo
lumes in-4°, imprimis avec luxe par la maison D. Jouaust, de
Paris, ne renferment pas moins de 100 planches qui reproduisent par Heliogravure les principaux monuments —
inscriptions, sculptures, peintures — fournis a l’auteur par
les catacombes, ainsi que par les collections d’antiqulMs
1 Les Catacombes de Rome, histoire de l’art et des croyances religieuses pendant les premiers siecles du cliristianisme, par Th. Roller,
2 vol. Paris, v0 A. Morel et C‘c, 1879 et 1881.
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
229
chretiennes. Nous en avons lu consciencieusement les
695 pages, en regrettant d’arriver si vite au bout. Bien
que, en effet, l’ouvrage soit £crit au point de vue scientifique, avec la competence qu’assure ii l’auteur dix anuses
de recherches archdologiques a Rome, il n’en est pas
meins d’une lecture ais£e et attachante, gr&ce & l’attrait du
sujetet aussi hla facon dont M. Roller l’a present'd.— Avec
les planches qui l’accompagnent, c’est une oeuvre de vulga
risation autant que de science.
Sans doute, M. Roller n’est pas le seul, ni mdme le
premier qui ait cherchd a utiliser les fouilles des catacombes
pour l’histoire de l’art ou de la religion. Mais la plupart des
auteurs qui Font precede dans cette voie n’ont pas toujours
reuss i a se defendre de preoccupations dogmatiques ou confessionnelles qui altdrent necessairement la valeur de leurs
conclusions. Les pires ennemis de la science historique sont
ceux qui en abordent les probRmes avec Farriere-pensee d’y
chercher la confirmation d’une thhse religieuse ou antireligieuse. M. Roller a su dviter ce double dcueil, et ce n’est
pas le moindre mdrite de son ouvrage.
I
On entend par catacombes l’ensemble des cryptes dissexnindes autour de la Rome antique, sur un rayon de plusieurs inilles. Les premiers chrdtiens les ddsignaient par
le nom de cimetidres (xoip^pcov, dormitorium, dortoir) —
allusion a Fidde que la mort dtait un sommeil. — Devant la
quantity de travail reprdsentee par ces labyrinthes, dont le
ddveloppement total a dtd dvalud a pres de 800 kilometres,
on s’est long-temps refuse a croire qu’ils fussent l’ceuvre des
Chretiens, et on les a considdrds jusqu’d nos jours comme
d’anciennes carridres, oil les sectateurs de la religion nouvelle auraient cherche un refug-e pour leurs families et pour
leur culte au temps des persecutions. Toutes ces hypotheses
sont d^nitivement dcartdes aujourd’hui. Si ces galeries
�230
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
dtroites et enchev&trdes ont aid6 quelques chretiens d de
router la poursuite de leurs ennemis, elles n’ont jamais pu
servir d’habitation permanente & des individus, moins encore ‘
a des multitudes; si l’on y a celdbre d’autres ceremonies
que les rites funfebres en memoire des morts, c’est accidentellement et, pour ainsi dire, en petit comitd, pendant les
dernidres persecutions. Leur unique destination etait de
garder le corps des ddfunts en attendant le jour de la resur
rection generate, et c’est dans ce dessein qu’elles ont dte creu~
sdes tout enti&res par les generations chretiennes du ier au
v° si^cle. Le caract&re mdme de la roche qu’elles traversent
— tuf volcanique, granulaire ou terreux— exclut, du reste,
l’idde qu’elles eussent pu fournir les matdriaux de la ville
eternelle.
Presque tous les cimetieres avaient une entree monumen
tale qui devaitles designer de loin aux regards des passants.
Dans ces conditions, on se demande comment leur existence
peut s’expliquer en face d’une administration aussi puissante et aussi hostile an nouveau culte que l’administration imperiale. C’est que les catacombes, comme a dit le
doyen Stanley, sont « un monument de tolerance plutdt
que de persecution » . Il faut observer que, jusqu’au in° sibcle, les persecutions eurent un caractfere fort intermittent, et
que, seuls, les pred^cesseurs immediats de Constantin y
mirent assez de vigilance et, en quelque sorte, de methode
pour atteindre les chr^tiens j usque dans leurs cimetibres. En
second lieu, on doit tenir cornpte du respect que les Romains
professaient pour les sepultures, et des privileges quils y
avaient attaches, sans distinction de culte. On a attribud
aux chretiens d’avoir introduit dans nos moeurs l’odieux
usage d’enterrer les morts, au lieu de les brfiler. Mais, meme
en plein paganisme, la cremation n’dtait peut-Atre pas aussi
generate qu’on se plait & le dire. Peut-Atre que dejci chez
les Grecs le bficher fut l’exception, sauf en temps de guerre
ou d’dpidAmie. A Rome mAme, les cultes orientaux
juifs,
phAniciens, adorateurs de Mithra et de Sabazius — poss£daient de vrais cimetieres souterrains qui avaient obtenu la
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
231
reconnaissance officielle, et on salt que, tout au moins
jusqu’a Domitien, le christianisme passa pour une secte
juive. D’autre part, on avait pris l’habitude de jeter les cadavres des eselaves dans des puits (puteoli), oil on les laissait
pourrir, et, a l’autre extrdmite de l’echelle soeiale, certaines
families, telles que les Scipion, avaient de temps immemo
rial pratique 1’usage des inhumations. Le nombre de ces
families s’accrut rapidement sous l’empire; chacune, naturellement, voulut avoir sa crypte, et c’est m£me dans ces
catacombes privees quesemble devoir etre cherchee l’origine
des cimetibres chretiens. La loi romaine consacrait l’inalienabilite non settlement de la sepulture, mais encore de
ses dependances, — jardins ou constructions, — depuisle mo
nument proprement dit jusqu’d la salle des banquets fundbreset a lalogedu gardien. Le fondateur pouvait en rdserver
l’usage non seulement a ses descendants, mais encore it ses
clients, k ses affranchis et & leurs descendants, & toute categorie de personnes determine, par consequent, a ceux qui
partageaient son culte L
Aussi long-temps que le christianisme ne fut pas declare
culte illicite, c’est-a-dire jusqu’a Trajan, les chretiens
purent done profiter de cette legislation pour enterrer leurs
morts sous le convert des concessions privees. L’extdrieur
restait un tombeau de famille ; les dependances souterraines
formaient le cimetiere chretien. Poursuivant leur travail de
termites, les fossoyeurs —■ qui constituaient un ordre dans
la hidrarchie de 1’Eglise primitive — ouvraient, a hauteur
d’homme, dans les couches tufacees du sous-sol, de longs et
dtroits couloirs (ambulacra), vraies galeries de mine, dans
les parois desquelles ils taillaient des rangees parallbles de
cavitbs rectangulaires (loculi), plus longues que profondes,
1 Les chrAtiens profitArent de cette legislation pour s’isoler des patens
dans la mort comme ils s’enisolaient dAja dans la vie, au risque de renforcer l’accusation qu’on leur langait, de professer la haine du genre liumain.
Ainsi, on a trouve une inscription du ne siecle, ou un testateur rAserve
sa sApulture a tous ceux « ad religionem pertinentes meam «, et une epitaphe extraite du cimetiere de Domitilla porte ces mots significatifs:
„ Sibi et suis fidentibus in Domino. «
�232
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
assez semblables aux couchettes de nos navires et destinees
& recevoir les corps des fideles. Quand le loculus avail obtenu
son funhbre ddpdt, on le fermait avec des tuiles cimenMes
par du mortier ou avec une plaque de marbre (tabula^, sur
laquelle on placait une inscription ou un symbole. Le modMe
de cette sdpulture dtait, du reste, fourni aux premiers chr4~
tiens par le passage de 1’dvangMiste Matthieu relatif & l’ensevelissement du Christ : « Ainsi Joseph prit le corps,
«l’enveloppa d’un linceul net et le mit dans un sdpulcre nenf
« qu’il avait taillA dans le roc, et, aprhs avoir roule une
« grande pierre a l’entree du sdpulcre, il s’en alia. »
Une obscurity profonde rdgnait dans ces cryptes, sauf
oil des ouvertures, mdnagees pour donner acchs a l’air plus
encore qu’h la lumihre, laissaient filtrer une sorte de demi*
jour, h l’entrecroisement des galeries. Quelquefois on ouvrait,
dans l’dpaisseur de la roche, un caveau (cubicuhim) rdservd,
soit aux membres d’une m6me famille, soit.h des personnagei
de distinction. Les tombes y quittaient leur forme habituelie
de tiroirs pour prendre celle de coffrcs, c’est-a-dire qu’elles se
fermaient par en haut. Au-dessus du couvercle, qui formal!
entablement, dtait pratiquee une excavation semi-circulaire'
IcLTColosiim'}. Cette sorte de niche, ainsi que le plafond du
caveau, etaient gendralcment ddcores d’emblemes et de
fresques. Ch et lh on trouvait des salles pourvues de bancs
pour supporter des sarcophages.
Quand le creusement des galeries avait atteint les limites
horizontales de la zone concddde, les fossoyeurs taillaient un
escalier ou un couloir en pente douce jusqu’h un niveau infdrieur ou ils ouvraient un nouveau reseau. M. Michel de
Rossi a calculh que, dans une concession de 125 pieds carrds,
on pouvait creuser 800 metres de galeries a trois stages, ee
qui pouvait suffire a environ 1,200 cadavres.Or, il y a, dans
certains cimetihres, des exemples de cinq stages superpo- sds : le premier presque a fleur de sol ; le dernier a
25 metres de profondeur.
Le plus ancien des cimetieres privds consacres h l’enseve-,
lissement des chrdtiens semble £tre celui de Domitilla, une
�LES" CATACOMBES DE ROME
233
dame noble qui appartenait a une branche des Flaviens et
quis selon l’historien Dion, fat poursuivie avec son mari,
sous Domitien, pour ce crime d’athdisrne si frdquemment
imputd aux chr6tiens. On peut mentionner ^galement la
-Cfypte de Lucine, que M. Rossi suppose avoir peut-etre 6t6
fondle par cette Pomponia Graecina, qui, sous le rfegne de
Claude, se retira du monde et fut accusee, suivant Tacite, de
i.E^tre livree & une superstition dtrangere.
II
Detail singulier, le me siecle, qui fut par excellence le
sifecle des persecutions, fut aussi celui ou se ddveloppferent
les premiers cimetihres collectifs, possddds en propre par
IJSglise. Des la fin du ne siecle, celle-ci avait trouvd,
dans le regime legal des associations, un moyen infaillible
d© s’assurer la jouissance et 1’administration de ses necro
psies. Le gouvernement imperial, gdneralement assez hos
tile au droit de reunion, surtout quand il s’agissait d’associations militaires ou religieuses, s’dtait cependant rel&che de
ses rigueurs en faveur des societds fun6raires qui avaient
pour objet de procurer & leurs membres une sepulture
decente et qui se multipli&rent aussitdt dans la capitate, ainsi
Cpi’en province. Ces societds se mettaient souvent sous
le patronage d’un dieu: Jupiter, Hercule, Diane. On poss&de
les statuts d’une de ces confreries, les cultores Dianae et
Aniinoi. Or, une ancienne inscription designe les chrdtiens
sous le nom de cultores Verlot. —Leurs membres pouvaient s’assembler rdgulierement, une fois par mois, pour verser leurs
Cotisations; elles pouvaient, en outre, tenir des reunions
extfaordinaires pour cdlebrer les fun^railles des associ6s et
organiser des banquets funeraires, qui, chez les premiers
chrttiens, durent bientot prendre le caractfere de l’Agape et
de la Cene. Ce furent naturellement les dvAques a qui revint
fadministration des biens communs, y compris le cimeti&re,— non pas, bien entendu, comme repr£sentants ofiiciels
�234
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
de 1 Eglise, mais comme presidents de 1 association,
collegii.
Le plusrenomme de ces cimetieres est celui de Callixte, oil
M. J.-B. de Rossi a eu la bonne fortune de decouvrir, g-r&ce
& sa perseverance et a son flair d’archeologue, le caveau des
eveques romains du tii9 sihcle, depuis Zephyrin jusqu’a
Miltiade. Ce futd’abord un cimetihre priv6, appartenant, d£s
le ne siede, k une branche chretienne des Caecilii. C’est sous
Septime Severe qu’il parait avoir passe officiellement aux
mains de l’Eglise. Nulle part on ne peut mieux reconstituer
l’histoire exterieure de la communaute chretienne pendant
le iii° sihcle et le commencement du ivs. Au debut, les
sepultures cliretiennes ne prennent pas la peine de se
cacher : leurs proportions sont vastes et rdgulieres. Ensuite
arrive lApoque des grandes persecutions ; on mure une par
tie des issues; on en ouvre d’autres sur des carrihres aban
donees; on multiplie les couloirs pour ddrouter 1’assaillant;
on s enfonce de plus en plus profondement dans les entrailles
du sol. Mais, au moindre repit, la confiance renalt; on
reprend les travaux de degagement et de decoration, jusqu au jour ou les edits de Diocietien eclatent comme un
coup cle foudre. Les cimetihres sont confisquds, leur accfes
interdit aux chretiens. Ce sont les temps difficiles ou
Sixte II est surpris et massacre dans la crypte oil il celebrait
Foffice. On ne preserve qu’en les comblant les caveaux
les plus precieux et les tombes des principaux martyrs.
Mais les heures du paganisme sont comptees et avec
Constantin 1’Eglise peut s’affirmerau grand jour. Abandonnant, pour la basilique profane, les obscurs caveaux oh elle
cdiebrait la memoire de ses martyrs, elle accommode cet edi
fice civil aux formes, aux usages, aux rites dont elle a
contracte l’habitude pendant son existence souterraine.
L autel, place dans l’abside, rappelle les formes du sarco-^
phage sur lequel la communion se celebrait dans les cubiculi,
et on pousse l’imitation jusqu’a y enfermer des reliques.
Bien plus, on le surmonte d’un
Az/convert qui reproduit,
en petite dimension, les edicules eievds en plein air a proxi-
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
235
mitd- des principals tombes. Il n’est pas jusqu’aux cierges,
dont on se servait pour dclairer la nuit des cryptes, qui ne se
maintiennent dans les ceremonies en pleinsoleil. Labasilique
elle-meme prend le nom d’un martyr et l’apparence gendrale
d’un cenotaphe, flanqud d’un baptistdre, en attendant qu’elle
a-ffecte, par 1’adjonction des transepts, la disposition d’une
Croix.
Dds cette dpoque, on commence & se faire enterrer dans
les cimetidres d ciel ouvert. A partir du ve sidcle, les cata
combes ne sont plus qu’un lieu de pdlerinage, entretenu et
ornd par les papes du temps. M. de Rossi a parfois rencontrd
dans les griffonnages ou graffiti, dont les pelerins avaient
alors 1’habitude de couvrir lesparois des ambulacres et des
caveaux, de precieuses indications pour retrouver l’emplacement d’unetombe celebre et,par suite, determiner l’dge d’une
g'alerie. Mais quand, au commencement du ixe sidcle, le
pape Pascal I0T eut fait transporter au Panthdon presque tous
les corps qu’on put reconstituer, les catacombes tomberent
dans un abandon et meme un oubli qui durdrent plus de
cinq siecles. De 1593 a 1629, un archeologue maltais, Bosio,
y entreprit des explorations avec une patience et un succds
qui nous le montrent comme le vrai precurseur de MM. de
Rossi. Ses successeurs du xvue et du xviii9 sidcle ne semblent avoir marchd sur ses traces que pour enrichir les reliquaires et les collections, ddtruisant ce qu’ils ne pouvaient
emporter et opdrant avec si peu de mdthode que mdme
leurs decouvertes les plus importantes restdrent presque
sans resultats pour la science des origines chrdtiennes ou
pour l’histoire des catacombes elles-mdmes. Tout restait
a faire dans cette voie, quand M. J.-B. de Rossi commenca,
avec son frdre, la tache qu’il poursuit encore aujourd’hui.
Le savant archdologue romain a lui-mdme entrepris une
classification chronologique des principaux documents fournis par les catacombes. Mais cette classification, ill’assied a
peu prds exclusivement sur la topographic, tandis que
M. Roller fait intervenir davantage les indications fournies
par l’histoire de l’art antique, aux divers ages de son deve-
�236
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
loppement.Voici, da reste, comment il explitjue ses proc$d4s
au chapitre XI du premier volume :
De meme qu’un amateur quelque peu compdtent ne confond pas un
tableau du xvi° siecle avec une oeuvre du xvine, de meme un ceil quelque
peu exorce saisit au premier abord certains caractdres qui ne pormcttcnt
pas de confondre une sculpture classique avec les informes productions des
ages de decadence. Avec un peu plus d’cxpdrience on saisit les gradations.
Aujourd hui un homme de gout devine les dcoles de sculpture et de peinture; de mdme un historien des monuments antiques reconnait vile b quell©
classe d oeuvres il a affaire, de quel pays elles sont, et parfois & quclles
influences dies sont dues.
On sait de meme comment on conslruisait en cliaque siecle. La comparaison des monuments permet de deviner non pas seulement b quelle
classe d architectes on les doit, mais quand vivaient les masons qui les ont
travailles. L’agcncement des parties, le joint des briques, la nature ou la
multiplicity des marbres el autres matdriaux, le mortier employd, la com
position des slues ct revdtements,’ tout sert d’indice et rien ne doit elre
ndgligd. S’agit-il d’dpigraphie, on a les dates consulates; jusqu'au
vie stccle, les jours des mois sont indiquds par les ealendes et les noms;
depuis on commeuQa a se servir de la numeration progressive. La nature
des abrdviations, 1’indication des qualitds, dignitds, professions des defunis
changent avec les temps. Le style, les symboles, la nomenclature, la
paldographie ont varid de siecle en sidcle, de locality b locality. Chaque
age et chaque milieu a eu sa maniere de s’exprimer comme de penser; la
forme des lettres n’a pas toujours dtd la meme, et l’on pout recdnnaUre
pour ainsi dire la main de chaque groupe d’individus.
Les empreintes laissdes par les masons dans le morlier frais, leurs
inscriptions, aussi bion que les griffonnages des visiteurs (graphites) sont
diffdrcnls d une ypoque ci l’autre : les signes dont ils se servaient, les
symboles qu’il esquissaient, les exclamations ou pridres qu’ils profdraient,
tout porte un caraclere propre et la note de certains temps. Les potters,
les briquetiers ont marqud leurs vases ou leurs tuiles de leur cachet, Svec
leurs noms, leurs initiales, leurs signes de reconnaissance; eux aussi
avaienl lours sentences et leurs manieres de parler. Le double ou triple
emploi du marbre dejA utilisd dans les monuments patens ou chrdtieng, la
rencontre de monnaies, de mydaillons, d’objets divers, de vases varies par
leurs formes et leur substance; les -yvyiations de moeurs spdciales, connties
d’ailleurs : voilh quelques-uns des points de repdre qui aident les iuvestigateurs attentifs ct patients h se rcconnailre. L’archdologie est science
minulieusc; elle ntarche avec lenleur el circonspection, mais elle ne va pas '
en aveugle. Cel aper^u peut suffire au public pour se rendre comple grosso
modo des moyens employds pour classer les monuments que nous aliens’
dtudier.
�les catacombes de
Rome
237
III
L’histoire des arts a long-temps offert une lacune de plusieurs stocles, entre les dernieres productions du paganisme,
encore tout imptogntos de la grace classique, et les pre
mieres manifestations du christianisme, deja byzantines par
la conception et Failure. Cette lacune a dto comblee par
rexploration des catacombes. Il en est ressorti, une fois de
plus, que l’art, comme la religion, la politique ou l’histoire
natarelle, ne se transforme point par brusque revolution,
mais que, dans ses periodes de decadence aussi bien que
d’4panouissement, il procede toujours par d’insensibles
gradations.
On a cru longtemps que l’art chretien s’dtait formd tout
d’un coup, dans les basiliques appropritos aux usages de
h religion nouvelle, tel qu’il nous apparait, vers le v° siecle,
en rupture ouverte avec toutes les traditions de lart
classique. Or, les plus anciens monuments des catacombes
Itahlissent, au contraire, que le christianisme s’est assimito
leg formes et meme les conceptions artistiques du g6nie pa'ien
avant de les alttoer e.t de les proscrire. Sans doute on trouve,
fibs le ddbut, des allegories et des symboles qui peuvent tore
regardes comme des creations originales du christianisme.
Mais, en gdnbral, comme le fait observer M. Roller, « on n’a
pas eu le temps de creer une forme encore inconnue. L’esprit
jduveau se contente de vieux vaisseaux. » .Le plafond de*
cu'bic'iil'i'•) au cimetibre de Domitilla, la decoration des a/)CO“
losia aux cryptes de Lucine et de saint Janvier, tels quils
ndhs apparaissent reproduits par la photographie, rappellent
h s’y mdprendre les fresques dePompei, bien entendu « d un
Pompdi honntoement dhcord ». M6me togularite de lignes
dans les encadrements, meme aisance dans le dessin, meme
finesse de touche, mhme harmonie de couleurs, meme predo
minance de sujets pastoraux et agricoles. On y retrouve
jusqu’aux legendes de la mythologie paienne les plus aptes
i symboliser les idbes chrtoiennes : Orph to, representant le
Bon Berger qui charme les brebis avec sa lyre — Ulysse, qui,
�238
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
attache au mat de son navire, resiste aux chants des sirenes
comme le chrdtien aux seductions des sens ; — Psyche, c’esta-dire Fame humaine, pres de laquelle un ange remplace
F Amour — le Phdnix et le Paon, qui expriment l’idde d’immortalite et de resurrection. Lors mdme que l’artiste, comme
c’est le cas le plus frdquent, emprunte ses sujets a l’Ecriture,
il les exdcute suivant toutes les regies de l’art classique.
La decadence ne commence que dans la dernidre partie
du in0 sidcle. Parmi les peintures du ne, tel Daniel au
milieu des lions rappelle a M. Roller les plus beaux temps
de 1 art; tel Bon Pasteur lui montre le gdnie grec dans
tout son dclat; telle Marie avec 1’enfant le ramene a d Finspiration artistique que retrouva Raphael aux jours de la
Renaissances. Il fait remarquer que, dans cette dernidre
fresque, le nouveau-nd est nu, comme dans les peintures
modernes, contrairement d, la facon de le reprdsenter pendant
les temps intermddiaires. « Ainsi, ajoute-t-il, les deux Ages
classiques se donnent la main. »
C’est surtout a partir du ive siecle qu’abondent les scdnes
tirdes de la Bible. On a soutenu quA cette dpoque Fart chretien dtait devenu historique, de symbolique qu’il dtait exclusivement aux deux premiers sidcles. M. Roller trouve cette
distinction trop absolue. En effet, alors mdme que les sujets
dominants sont la reproduction litterale de scenes decrites
dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament, ils n’en conservent
pas moins un caractere symbolique par leur portde morale et
par leur application a la vie chrdtienne. Rdciproquementon ne
peut soutenirque Fart des trois premiers sidcles fut purement
alldgorique, alors meme qu’il se montrait le plus libre et le
plus hardi dans l’interpretation des episodes tires de livres
sacrds. Les premiers chrdtiens ne songeaient guere a considdrer les rdcits bibliques comme de simples allegories; ils les
regardaient, au contraire, comme des faits concrets, dont ils5
ne rdvoquaient pas en doute la rdalitd historique. —• C’est &
la fin et non au commencement des religions revdldes qu’o«
cherche dans le symbolisme un moyen cl’interprdter rationnellement Firrationnel.
�LLS CATACOMBES DE ROME
239
M. Renan a soutenu que Part chretien devait son origine
aux adeptes du gnosticisme : « L’histoire evangdlique, ditil dans son Ma/i'c-Aurele (p. 544), ne fut traitde par les pre
miers chrdtiens que partiellement et tardivement. C’est ici
surtout que l’origine gnostique de ces images se voit avec
Evidence. La vie de Jdsus que presentent les anciennes peintares chrdtiennes est exactement celle que se figuraient les
gnostiques et lesdocetes, c’est-a-dire que la Passion n’y figure
pas, « le Christ, dans cet ordre d’idees, n’ayant pu souffrir
en realite ». — On sait que les gnostiques iddalisaient la
personne de Jesus au point de nier la realitd de sa nature
humaine, et de trailer comme des apparences les dpisodes de
son existence terrestre.
Il est f&cheux que M. Renan ait publie son dernier volume
avant d’avoir pu connaitre les conclusions de M. Roller,
car le savant auteur des Origines du clwistianisme aurait
pu se convaincre, par un simple coup d’ceil sur les planches
des Catacombes de Rome, que les manifestations de 1’art chrdtien n’ont rien de gnostique. Le Jdsus qu’on y retrouve n’est
nullement le Christ-fantome du gnosticisme. Qu'il y apparaisse sous les traits du Bon Berger, cu qu’il y soit reprdsente enfant dans les bras de sa mdre et adulte dans les eaux
du Jourdain, c’est bien un dtre en chair et en os, d’une
humanitd rdelle et presque realiste. Loin de voir dans le
Christ une personne ou une dmanation divine, dont la vie et
la mort seraient de pares illusions, les artistes des Cata
combes dtaient bien plus rapprochds du point de vue encore
adoptd aujourd’hui par la fraction conservatrice de l’unitarisme qui voit en Jdsus, non Dieu lui-mdme, mais le fils de
Dieu et le Messie annoncd par les prophdtes.
On voit comment ces questions d’art aboutissent a des
questions d’exdgese religieuse. Le terrain est glissant, s’il en
fut, mais nous pouvons l’aborder sans parti pris. La critique
independante — et, l’onpeut ajouter, la critique protestante,
chez cette fraction du protestantisme qui croit & Involution
progressive des religions, — n’a pas
se prdoccuper de
savoir si la doctrine et l’organisation de l’Eglise primitive se
�240
BEVUE DE BELGIQUE
-
retrouvent aujourd’hui dans telle ou. telle sect© particulidre
du christianisme. Quand mdme il serait demontrS que les
premiers chrdtiens croyaient a la transsubstantiation, I 1’immaculee conception, & la trinite, a l’intercession deg saints
et & la primaute des papes, ce ne serait pas une raison pour
que nous y croyions k leur suite, et, quelles que soient nos
opinions philosophiques ou religieuses, elles ne dependent en
rien de la question de savoir si d’autres les ont professes
avant nous.
L’Eglise romaine soutient que tous ses dogmes, depuis la
resurrection du Christ jusqu’a 1’infaillibilite des papes, se
decouvrent plus ou moins explicitement dans le christia
nisme primitif et que les conciles se sont bornds & les definir
dans leer portee ou dans leurs consequences. Il est facile de
constater, paries reproductions photographiques jointea &
l’ouvrage deM.Roller, combien cette pretention est exagdrde.
Sans doute,on ne peut exiger du christianisme populaire que
nous revele 1’art des catacombes, une representation exacts
des croyances qui dominaient chez les docteurs et les thdologiens de la religion nouvelle. Mais il n’en est pas moins
significatif que les traits les plus caractdristiques de l’orthodoxie posterieure sont ou compldtement absents ou presents
sous un autre jour. On a fait valoir que le christianisme
avait du s’entourer de mystdre au milieu des persecutions'©!
qu’on ne peut s’attendre h retrouver sur les murs de ses
cryptes les dogmes pour lesquels il avait cred la discipline dib
secret. Cette these a mdme ete defendue, il y a une vingtaine
d’annees,par un representant distingue del’exdg-ese rationaliste, M. E. de Bunsen, qui voyait dans les Evangiles successifs de Matthieu, de Marc et de Jean, non pas un ddveloppement graduel, mais une divulgation par etapes de la
doctrine dejii reveiee aux apdtres dans sa totalite. Plus
rdcemment encore, un ecrivain francais bien connu,
M. E. Burnouf, l’a reprise a son tour pour soutenir que,
sous les dogmes et les rites du christianisme primitif, se
cachait la vieille thdorie aryenne du feu consider^ comme
principe universel du mouvement de la vie et de la pensde.
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
241
Notts citons ces examples pour montrer comme on peut
aller loin, avec ce systeme d’interpretation, dans le champ
des conjectures. M. Roller expose, contrairement a ce
qu’a vance M. Burnouf, que la discipline du secret s’est sur
tout affirmde au iv° siecle, alors que le temps des persecu
tions dtait passd; il montre, en outre, que ce secret dtait un
peu celui de tout le monde, puisque les auteurs sacrds de
cette dpoque ne se gdnaient pas pour ddvoiler dans leurs
COtttroverses tous les dogmes de Elfiglise. Quant aux chrd
tiens des sidcles precedents, il serait dtrange qu’on n’efit
trouvd dans leur symbolique aucune trace de ces pretendues
doctrines secrdtes, alors que c’est le propre du symbole
d’exprimer aux yeux de l’initid le sens reel du mystdre
qu’il deguise pour le profane sous une signification spe
cieuse, Bien plus, le trait saillant et le caractdre instructif
des documents coordonnds par M. Roller, c’est precisement
qu’ils nous font assister — du ue au vm0 sidcle — a la lente
elaboration et au developpement graduel des dogmes succesBxvement incorpores dans l’orthodoxie catholique.
IV
Lapremidre communaute chrdtienne, dtablie a Rome dds
le rdgne de Claude, ne semhle pas avoir laissd de traces dans
le& eatacombes. Elie se composait de judmo-chrdtiens, d’dbiomtes;peut-6tre mdme se rattachait-elle directemenUl’Eglise
de Jerusalem. Or — comme M. Renan l’a montrh dans les
— ces chrdtiens de la premiere heure n attachaient
_£QCune importance aux fundrailles et ne placaient mdme
pas d’inscriptions sur les tombes, tant ils dtaient persuadds
que la rdsurrection gendrale dtait proche. En outre, ils
devaient professer, pour les reprdsentations de figures
• homines, cette horreur toute sdmitique dont lentrde des
■gen-tils dans l’J^glise a seule pu ddbarrasser le christianisme
naissant. Il ne faut done pas s’dtonner si les premises
inscriptions authentiques fournies par les catacombes
datent seulement des anndes 107 et 111. On ny lit encore
17
T. XLII.
�242
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
qu’un nom et une date. Bien tot il s’y joindra un vceu href et
simple : Enpaixl La paix avee toil Vis enDieu! quelquefois avec la mention d’un lien de parente. A cdte de certains
noms, des epitaphes renfermant la designation de pretre
(presbyter) et de lecteur, on trouve mentionnee la femme
d’un presbytre qui repose dans une m£me tombe avec son
mari. — Les premiers symboles se montrent sous la forme
de l’ancre, qui figure l’esperance, et du poisson, dont le nom
grec,
est 1 acrosticlie de ’I-qaotx; XpwTo'<; 0eou Ttd? ZwTiqp. Les
deux emblbmes rdunis signifient done : Esperanee en JesusChrist, Fils de Dieu, Saureur.
L’image du Christ est surtout represents sous les traits du
Bon Berger — allegorie que le christianisme n’a pas inventee, puisqu’on la retrouve sur certains tombeaux paiens,
mais dont il a fait une application speciale au Christ rap
portant au bercail la brebis 6garee. — Des cette epoque, on
volt l’enfant Jesus sur les genoux de Marie : l’dtoile prophetique qui brille au-dessus de l’enfant est ddsign^e de la main
par un personnage en qui les catholiques ont vu saint
Joseph, et les protestants le prophete Michde.
LAme desMus est souvent representee sous les traits d’une
orante, c’est-ii-dire d’une femme priant, non les mains jointes,
mais, suivant l’attitude de l’epoque, les bras leves au ciel.
D’autres fois, on la figure sous la forme d’une colombe. La
plus ancienne fresque des catacombes, au dire deM. Roller,1
qui la rattache a la premiere rnoiti^ du ue si&cle, est une
representation de la vie future, d’apr&s la parabole de la
vigne, ou l’on voit des colombes becqueter les raisins d’une
vigne, peinte sur la voute « avec toute l’aisance, la maestri®
des faiseurs de la meilleure 6cole ». De petits gdnies enfantins y font la cueillette, — anges ou amours; M. Roller les
appelle des petits amours d’anges. Au caveau de saint Janvier, d’autres fresques, qu’on croit appartenir a la fin du
meme sifecle, reproduisent hgalement des scenes de vendanges et demoissons oti de petits g^nies jouent le r61e d’ou*
vriers. Si e’est bien 1& une image de la vie future, il semblerait que les premiers chr^tiens se la soient representee?
�LF.S CATACOMBES DE ROME
243
quelque peu ala facon des anciens Egyptiens, comme une
continuation de. 1’existence prdsente, mais sans les ddboires
ni les maux de la vie terrestre, au milieu d’un dternel dtd et
d’une eternelle jeunesse. M. Roller lui-mdme (t. Ier, p. 82)
ne semble pas dloignd de supposer cette interpretation,
qui n’exclut pas, du reste, la croyance & la resurrection des
corps.
Une des fresques de Domitilla, qui a donnd lieu aux
plus vives controverses, montre deux hommes, l’un assis,
1’autre a demi couchd sur un triclinium. Au centre du
tableau, un trepied supporte de petits objets assez confus,
parmi lesquels M. de Rossi a cru distinguer un poisson
entourd de ces petits pains sans levain comme en ont les
Orientaux. De 1’autre cdtd du trepied s’avance un personnage
malheureusement assez endommagd par le temps. M. Roller
suppose qu’il devait tenir originairement une coupe entre
les mains. La plupart des commentateurs ent vu dans cette
fresque une reprdsentation de la Cdne, et tout fait croire
qu’ils ont raison. Mais, de la presence de T’r/Qu? sur le
trepied, — si M. de Rossi a bien vu, — rdsulte-t-il,
comme Font soutenu certains dcrivains orthodoxes, que
les convives vont s’y assimiler le corps et le sang de
Jdsus-Christ, avec la signification thdophagique que l’Eglise
devait plus tard attacher a la pratique de la communion? Il
est probable qu’il s’agissait d’une assimilation au sens figure,
comme on l’entend encore aujourdhui quand on parle de se
nourrir (des enseignements) du Maitre. M. Roller semble
penser que, dds cette dpoque, la edidbration de la Cdne
aurait eu. une portde non seulement sacramentelle, mais
encore mystique ; il insiste, toutefois^ sur ce point que lidee
de sacrifice en parait absente et que rien ne permet dy sup
poser la croyance & la presence substantielle du Christ, telle
qu’on l’admit plus tard dans les aogmes de la transubstantiation et meme de la consubstantiation.
L’existence de peintures ou l’on retrouve les personnages
fde Daniel, d’Esaie, de Jonas, de Nod, de Moise, d’Abraham,
■. mnntrent que, dbs lors, les chretiens possedaient a fondles
�244
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
livres de l’Ancien Testament. Une allusion & l’histoire de
Suzanne prouve que les apocryphes n’6taient pas ignores.
En ce qui concerne les iEvangiles, il est Evident que les
synoptiques daient connus dfes la premiere partie du ne sifccle. Quant a l’Evangile de Jean, M. Roller incline & admettre « qu’il dtait tout au moins populaire dfes le milieu du
ne siecle, et. qu’il l’dait suffisamment pour avoir aid6 & la
creation de toute une symbolique artistique » — L’assertion
est indiscutablepour ce qui concerne le me sidcle. On trouve,
en effet, dans les peintures de cette dpoque, la reproduction
exacte du repas aprfes la pSche miraculeuse, tel qu’il eat
d^crit au dernier chapitre du quatri&me Evangile, outre
diverses representations de la Samaritaine etdu paralytique.
Mais pour le n° sifecle, M. Roller est r£duit & n’appuyer sa
thfee que sur des prdsomptions, telles que l’apparition d’une
colombeau bapt^me du Christ, — l’existence d’une corbeille
de pains plac£e au-dessus de lT/9v? 1 — le fait que dans
la parabole de la vigne, au cimetifere de Domitilla, les gar
ments partent d’un seul cep, et que, dans les representations
du Bon Pasteur, « les brebis regardent a leur berger et semblent l’ecouter » . Ces details peuvent parfaitements’expliquer
par le symbolisme desEvangiles synoptiques et, en tout cas,
ils ne peuvent prevaloir contre l’argument que ni le Pasteur
d’Hermas, ni les Homelies Clementines, ni Justin Martyr
(t 166), en un mot, aucun des premiers apologistes Chre
tiens ne font encore mention du quatrieme Evang'ile. Justin
Martyr, toutefois, en popularisant la doctrine du Verbe,
avait prepare le terrain au nouvel evangeliste, dont 1’oeuvre
semble avoir et6 acceptde, aussitdt que connue, dansl’Eglise
de Rome, comme en temoignent les Merits dTrdnee dans le
dernier quart du sRcle.
On voit combien les croyances de l’Eglise diffdraient, au
ne si&cle, de ce qu’elles sont devenues dans la suite. Par
1 Le bapteme du Christ et I’i/Ou; avec la corbeille se trouvent parmi les
fresques du caveau de saint Janvier. Or, M. Roller reconnait quecellesci appartiennent a la fin plutbt qu’au commencement du il* siecle
(t. Ier, p. 97).
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
245
quelles Stapes a passd leur Evolution? Pour l’apprendre,
nous ifavons qu’& suivre fidelement M. Roller.
Au me siecle, on trouve des 6pitaph.es d’dvdques; mais les
dvfiqucs de Rome ne portent pas encore sur leurs tombes la
designation de pape. Les precedents symboles se develop
ment. L’i/Ou; prend la forme du dauphin — l’ami de
Thomme ; — il porte la barque de l’Eglise ; il se suspend au
trident comme a une croix. La croix elle-mdme commence
a se montrer, mais encore dissimul6e dans l’ancre, le trident
et l’armature des navires. Le symbolisme se complique et
ses differentes allegories se rattachent les unes aux autres.
Ainsi l’on voit l’eau, que la verge miraculeuse de Moise a fait
jaillir du rocher, former le fleuve spirituel oil le pdcheur
(Thommes prend les &mes au filet, ou les neophytes sont bap
tises et ou le paralytique se gudrit; elle sort du puits de
Jacob pour ddsalterer les hommes; elle devient une mer oil
flotte l’arche de Nod, dans laquelle l’humanitd a recu le baptlme des eaux. Quant & la Cdne, elle est figurde par le sacri
fice d’Abraham et la benddiction des aliments, ainsi que par
de nombreuses representations d’agapes. Enfin,les voeux en
favour des morts deviennent de vdritables pridres. On com
mence a offrir des actions de giAce pour les d6funts.
Au ive sidcle, le sentiment de communion entre les vivants
et les morts s’est encore accentud. On attend une lieureuse
influence de leur intercession, comme letemoignent ces frdquentes formules : Demande pour tel...; sols favorable
d...; ale en souvenir dans les prieres... Les pelerinages
aux tombeaux des martyrs sont entrds dans les moeurs. On
cdldbre des services commdmoratifs dans les caveaux transformes en chapelles. La table des sdpulcres est utilisde
comme autel pour pratiquer la communion, l’agneau y remplace parfois l't/Ous, on y mdle l’eau au vin et les fiddles y
assistent assis au lieu de couches.
La hierarchie eccldsiastique s’accentue. La chaise catliedrale est l’attribut de 1’dvdque. L’dpithdte d’un dvdque de
Rome, en le ddsignant comme eveque, ajoute pourtant le titre
papa; mais au sens purement affectueux. — Ce n’est plus
�246
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
seulement la personne humaine de Jesus que le sculpteur
rnontre accomplissant des miracles, mais le Christ glorifie
au Ciel aprhs l’ascension. Pierre ou Paul recoit de sa main
le livre de vie, ou bien le Christ enseigne les fideles, assis
sur la Cathedra des docteurs et parfois vetu en philosophe
paien. Les apdtres se groupent autour de Jesus, sans qu’aucun
d’eux obtienne encore la preeminence ou m£me un role spe
cial. Cependant Pierre et Paul sont souvent mis & part, sur
un pied d egalitd vis-a-vis 1 un de 1 autre. — Le nimbe apparait sur la tete du Christ avant la fin de ce siecle.
La croix se montre b l’dtat isole; mais elle se dissimule
encore sous le monogramme du Christ, ou bien elle affecte
la forme de cette croix gammee qu’on trouve deja sur des
monuments de l’lnde ancienne et oil certains auteurs ont vu
l’embleme de Varani, la piece de bois d’ou les brahmanes
faisaient sortir par friction Tdtincelle sacrO.
Au ve sihcle, la croix s’affirme nettement dans sa forme
actuelle. L’aurdole s’dtend a la thte des saints. Le rdle spiri—
tuel de Pierre est agrandi; on le considhre comme l’hdritier
de Moise et le substitut du Christ, charge de faire jaillir de
la roche 1’eau qui baptise et qui vivifie. « Tout s’altbre h la
fois : le culte, la doctrine et 1’art. » Un anthropomorphism®
grossier fait rndme apparaitre, parmi les decorations d’ua
sarcopbage, une representation de la Trinite consistant en
trois personnages barbus, assez semblables l’un a l’autre,
sauf que Dieu le Phre est assis dans une cathedra. L’artiste
les a reprdsentes au moment ou ils viennent de creer Eve’
avec une cdte du corps d’Adam.
Au vie et au vne sihcle, nous somrnes deja en plein byzantinisme. La designation de S. C. S (sanctus) accompagne
les images des saints. Le culte des reliques s’btend meme a
leur representation. Le Christ porte l’aureole a rayons
cruciformes.
Au vme et au ixe sihcle, papes et saints semblent htre stir
un pied d’egalite. Toutefois, les premiers ne sont encore
designes que comme papes romains (ppapus romanus'). Le
crucifix a fait son apparition, mais en dehors des catacombes*
�LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
247
xproprement dites. LAssomption de la Vierge trouve sa premiere expression dans la peinture murale.
Ici s’arrdte la t&che de M. Roller. L’histoire du christia
nisme va sortir des catacombes; c’est au g*rand jour, dans
les bglises et sur les monuments publics, qu’on devra suivre
ddsormais le cours de ses destinies. En m&me temps que les
formes de l’art religieux accentuent leur retour aux ebauches d une barbarie enfantine, l’esprit qui les inspire achbve
de s’alterer et de s’obscurcir. Dans les catacombes, on ne
dbcouvre que des symboles de joie et d’esp^rance; le drame
du Golgotha en est exclu ; on n y trouve, en pleine persecu
tion, d autres allusions aux souffrances des martyrs que
l’allegorie de Daniel dans la fosse aux lions et des trois Jeunes
hommes dans la fournaise; pas une image de l’enfer ou
meme du jugement dernier, sauf un bas-relief ou Ton voit le
Christ sdparant les bones des brebis; encore est-il desderniers
temps. Mais, a partir du ix° siecle, quand le christianisme
a dbsappris le chemin des catacombes, l’imagination ne
semble plus se plaire que dans les larmes et les supplices.
Le crucifix sangiant et decharnb detrone partout le Bon
Pasteur qui sourit a ses brebis. Au lieu des premisses de la
terre, on a, pour motifs de decoration, des instruments de
torture et des tbtes de morts; au lieu d’orantes, les bras
levds au ciel, des ednobites prostern^s parmi les ossements; au lieu de colombes qui voltigent dans la vigne du
Seigneur, des martyrs rendantl’ame dans d’effroyables tourments; au lieu de gdnies qui font la moisson, des demons
qui torturent les damn£s. Alors que, chez les premiers chretiens, l’idee de la resurrection prochaine semblait n’exciter
qu un sentiment d’impatience et d’allhgresse, 1’approche du
millenium vient encore accroitre ce terrorisme, qui se traduira bientdt dans les atrociths de 1’Inquisition et qui, jusqu’a la Renaissance, pfesera, comme un cauchemar, sur
toute la chretientd occidentale.
Ce n’est pas la premihre fois que le monde a assists a un
pareil assombrissement de l’horizon religieux. L’histoire de
l’ancienne Egypte offre un phenombne analogue, si l’on com
�248
REVUE BE BELGIQUE
pare le& peintures tombales du Nouvel Empire avec cellos du
Moyen ; dans une r^cente livraison de la Rme des Dew
Mondes . Gaston Boissier faisait ressortir, a propog des
tombes dtrusques decouvertes h Corneto, que les plus anciennes represented exclusivement ce qui donnait du prix &
la vie,
des banquets, des jeux, des danses, des chasses,
des Episodes d’interieur, — alors que plus tard ou prefSrera
les scenes fantastiques et lugubres, les representations du
Tartare et les images de demons & la physionomie grotesque
et repoussante. Il ne faudrait pas neanmoins generalise? cette
tendance du ddveloppement religieux, car l’histoire d’autres
cultes, tels que le paganisme et meme le judaisme, offrent
une evolution en sens tout oppose.
V
On voitclairement par cette etude, combien il esterrond de
representer les premiers chretiens comme des pliilosophes ou
des rationalistes, chercbant & mettre en pratique une morale
raisonnee et exprimant leur pur theisme par des gym
boles que leurs successeurs auraient eu le tort de prendre au
serieux. La vdrite, c’est que le christianisme du ne siecle
n’dtait ni une metaphysique ni un rituel, mais une thdorie
de la vie. Sans doute, ses adeptes croyaient au surnaturel,
mais pas plus que les libres-penseurs de leur temps. Mener
une vie pure, pratiquer la charite et ne pas sacrifier aux'
idoles, tels etaient les sig-nos ext^rieurs du chretien, les
seuls devoirs dont la violation pouvait le faire retrencher
de la communaute. Aussi n’est-il pas surprenant que le
paganisme se crht en presence d’athdes.
Ges contempteurs des dieux n’avaient ni temples, ni
sanctuaires, ni lieux sacr^s. Leur unique autel, au dire
d Orig-ene, c £tait « lame du fiddle, la conscience d’oil
s elevait la pri&re ». Point de sacrifices : leurs rites se bornaient, en dehors du bapt^me qui 6tait leur c^remonie d’ini
tiation, a deux reunions quotidiennes : l’une, avant Iq jour,
pour chanter quelques hymnes, entendre la lecture .des
�•'
LES CATACOMBES DE ROME
249
fivangiles et s’exhorter mutuellement, suivant l’expression de
Pline, « i ne commettre ni vols, ni adulttres, ni parjures » ;
Pautre, an soir, pour celtbrer une agape, qui ttait, en mtme
temps qu’un repas commtmoratif en l’honneur du Maitre, un
banquet de fraternity et de charite, — les riches devant y
apporter la pitance des pauvres. — Pas davantage d’orthodoxie : ainsi que M. Renan le constate encore pour la fin du
lle siecle, « les differences qui stparent aujourd’hui le
Gatholique. le plus orthodoxe et le protestant le plus liberal
sont peu de chose auprts des dissentiments qui existaient
alors entre deux chrttiens, qui n’en restaient pas moins en
parfaite communion l’un avec Pautre ». ^Marc-Aurele,
p. 336.)—Pas deprttres, dans le sens moderne et antique du
mot : rien que des presidents ou Anciens, librement tlus par
la communautt; c’est seulement au sitcle suivant qu’apparaitront les inspecteurs ou tvtques.
Quelque opinion religieuse qu’on professe, on ne peut se
defendre d’une sympathie spontante pour ces petits groupes
d’incompris qui, en face de la corruption romaine, jetaient
silencieusement les assises d’une societe nouvelle. Ce qui
frappe sur'tout dans leur vie, telle que nous la revelent les
monuments du ne sitcle, c’est peut-etre moins encore leur
douceur, leur simplicity et mtme la puretd de leur conduite,
que leur inalterable ton de strtnitt dans le present et de confiance dans l’avenir. « La pensde inspiratrice de l’art des
'Oatacombes, dcrit M. Roller, peut se resumer en deux mots :
une espdrance, une victoire; d’oii son caractere presque
riant. » La certitude du lendemain est le caractere domi
nant des epitaphes que M. Roller a copiees et reconstitutes
en si grand nombre. Jamais un cri de dtsespoir, pas mtme
l’expression d’un regret, bien que l’affection des survivants
delate parfois dans une tpithete tloquente : « trts cher »,
«tresdoux», « plus doux que la lumitre et la vie ». -C’est qu’on ne meurt pas dans les catacombes : on y sort du
si&ele, de saculo recessit; on s’y endort «dans la paix du Sei
gneur », on va y chercher le « raffralchissement» des ames;
on y « nalt a l’tternitt ».
�250
REVUE DE BELGIQUE
Sans doute, cette assurance du triomphedans une autre vie
ne pouvait manquer de favoriser un detachement exagdrl
des choses humaines, qui a etd de tout temps le grand dcueil
de la foi chrdtienne. Dans cet dloignement d’un monde corrompu, sous cette horreur du fiddle pour les atrocites du
cirque et les impudicitds du theatre, on peut distinguer un
premier symptome de ce qui sera plus tard ascdtisme, mdpris
des arts, dddain de la science, haine du libre-examen. Toutefois, pour etre j uste envers le christianisme naissant, il faudrait
dtre en etat de determiner quels ont dte, dans les ddveloppe*
ments ulterieurs de ce germe, la part des circonstances et
des milieux, l’influence des persecutions proIongees, le contre-coup des invasions barbares, enfin l’entrde en scene de ce
monachisme oriental qui, pendant plusieurs sidcles, fournit
au parti de l’intolerance ses janissaires et ses chefs.
On comprend que la question soit trop vaste pour dtre
abordee en ce moment. Mais, que la religion de l’avenir procdde du christianisme ou qu’elle sorte de quelque catacombe
encore ignorde dans les profondeurs de la societd moderne,
espdrons qu’en rdparant les lacunes de sa devanciere, elle
gardera ce que celle-ci avait de vrai et de juste au debut —
son esprit de charitd et d’amour, sa thdorie de la souveraiuetd
du devoir et son sentiment du serieux de la vie.
Goblet d’Alviella.
�
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
Les catacombes de Rome
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
d'Alviella, Goblet
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 227-250 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From Revue de Belgique, [187?]. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT62
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 (Les catacombes de Rome), 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
French
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rome
Conway Tracts
Rome
Rome-History
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b88ce7217689650045ca54e0a8687f16.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=u4JZsMJ4GQeYFBdtB%7EwyV7YYCHMfeWJcMFqay3Sqk9j6PEwhSyW4KgFJp26QIIrLAWKe3yBdefTG1G4c4hnRAW5RfU0BmSYjFi8sZexR33RtT13rY2jHim6jmQ6DYGm5abUe2Y1qKhSRjZlj1%7Ep6s4qRCND43SoVQyhHv20DfSvIGrlWe4WYosJ%7EOtCqOGFqckXtsqToYJ7pQUCRf5UB03JVFcAPyHFU6gH3czuJHQTlG2FJ-zRE2N6-kV-FShso%7E9e0zx2j4EWg-RwhhENDWu4EnEUQRX1uoB8ZWozZCvzd7qH4sHFzlzgnOlwL7HvCoPFvYLXmcTwnF7pqf2fxWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bc08f5dcb47a7e1d6ef2ad9d1a0f7169
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THEISM OR ATHEISM:
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
A
PUBLIC
DEBATE
BETWEEN
MR. W. T. LEE
(Lecturer to the Christian Evidence Society)
AND
MR. G. W. FOOTE
(President of the National Secular Society)
Held
in the
Temperance Hall, Derby, May 15
and 16, 1895
Chairman : J. W. PIPER, Esq.
(Editor of “ The Derby Daily Telegraph”)
Revised by Both Disputants
London :
R. FORDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
�THEISM OR ATHEISM:
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
FIRST NIGHT.
The Chairman : Ladies and Gentlemen,—Allow me, in
the first place, to express my indebtedness to the members
of the local committee who are charged with the manage
ment of this meeting, for having bestowed upon me the
compliment of inviting me to preside over this meeting. In
the next place, I should like to assure you of the deep sym
pathy I feel in every honest effort to get at the truth with
regard to matters vitally affecting the peace of mind and
happiness of the people. Believe me, I have as little sym
pathy or patience with the gay trifler who, referring to
matters of this importance, insists that ignorance is bliss, as
I have with those persons who blindly take their orders from
the priests and from the bookmen. Let me again frankly
admit that I have little sympathy with a reckless and indis
criminate discussion on topics of this sacred character • I
hold that the truth can best be arrived at, and a satisfactory
solution of difficulties best secured, by temperate and
orderly discussion. Happily for us to-night, we are sur
rounded by all the elements of profitable debate. The con
tending champions are gentlemen of acknowledged ability,
and, I believe, of sterling honesty of purpose. In Mr. Lee—
•(loud applause) we have a powerful and high-minded expo-
�THEISM OR ATHEISM?
5
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I have only to express
the hope that this discussion throughout may be charac
terised, both on the part of the disputants and on the part
of the audience, with good temper, so that we may hope for
profitable and useful results. In accordance with arrange
ment, I propose sounding a bell three minutes before the
expiration of the allotted time to each . speaker—you will
quite understand what that signifies—and again at the com
pletion of the allotted time.
I will now, then, in accordance with arrangements made,
ask Mr. Lee to open the real business of this debate.
Mr. Lee : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Foote, Ladies and Gentle
men,—The question we have met to discuss will necessitate
the use of four very important words. These words I
propose defining as follows : First, by the word “ universe ”
I mean the sum-total of all conditioned existence. Second,
by the term “ reasonable ” I understand what is in accord
ance with the logical demands of the mind. Third, by the
word “ Atheism ” 1 understand that doctrine which rejects
the idea that the universe was produced by a Being called
God, and, in denying His existence, goes on to show that the
universe is eternal, or is the necessary outcome of the neces
sary working of the substance it calls matter, and speaks of
as eternal. Fourth, the term “ Theism,” the name of that
doctrine which regards the universe as the consciously-willed
production of the unoriginated Being, who is absolute in
wisdom and power, who was before all things, and by whom,
and in whom, all things exist and consist. This Being is
spoken of by Theists as God.
These being my definitions, I must ask Mr. Foote to
accept them as true, or to show them to be untrue by
appealing to the great masters of lexicography, whose busi
ness it is to treat of the origin, history, and meaning of
words. This is due to me, his opponent, and also to you,
our judges.
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
7
this proposition will sound like a truism ; but in this debate
we must take nothing for grantedj therefore it is clearly my
duty to prove, as it will be clearly Mr. Foote’s duty to
analyse, and, if possible, disprove, the proposition which I
now advance. Until this is done, nothing will be gained by
Mr, Foote, nothing will be lost by me. I assert, then, that
the universe is not the eternal existence for which we seek,
because the universe has not always existed. There was a
time when this universe was not; a time when this earth,
the sun, and all the orbs of heaven were non-existent; a
time when the substance of all material things existed in a
highly-attenuated and gaseous state. And not only are we
scientifically sure that this universe has not eternally existed
■—we are equally certain it will come to an end. For, just
as our world is slowly but certainly approaching the sun, so
all the moving bodies of the sidereal heavens are making for
a common centre; every star and sun is getting cooler, and
energy, in the form of heat, is being dissipated, and an end
to the universe must be acknowledged.
Under these circumstances, to speak of the universe being
eternal, as Professor Haeckel does, is to lay one’s self open
to the slashing reply of Herbert Spencer : “ Haeckel is unphilosophical; it is the indestructibility of force and the
eternity of motion which are a priori truths, transcending
both demonstration and experience.”
But I expect before this debate closes to have the
pleasure of showing that Herbert Spencer is as unscientific
as Haeckel.
We must, then, admit, from numerous scientific facts and
inductions from them, that our universe has not always
existed; and, if this universe is not eternal, its present
existence must be an effect due to some cause. But what
do we mean by the term “ cause,” and what by the word
** effect ” ? By the former we understand something which
really exists, something which has power, something which
has power enough to account for the existence or happening
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
9
as a vehicle of energy with the two attributes extension and
inertia, he cannot conceive of matter at all.
Let us see how the Atheistic position is stated, and then
how much this position is worth.
Professor Haeckel, the high priest of Monism, tells us
that the universe is both eternal and infinite, and that
matter and motion, inseparable from matter, remain eternal
and indestructible. Now, you will remember what Herbert
Spencer said about the statement of Haeckel’s—he said it
was utterly unphilosophical ; and now we will prove this
statement of Herbert Spencer’s to be true, for, “ if matter be
Infinite in extension, the universe must be full of matter,
find if the universe be full of matter, there can be no attrac
tive force ; every spot being equally full, no particle can
draw closer to another, and there can be no rotatory motion,
for there would be no reason for turning one way more than
another, neither would there be any primitive heat, for heat
is motion, and no change of place is possible in a plenum
where no particle has any place to move into that is not
already full.” So, then, matter fails to explain itself, while,
if it be infinite, motion and the origination of the universe
become philosophically impossible. Atheism, then, fails to
explain the existence of matter and the possibility of motion,
<nd, failing here, it must fail everywhere ; for, if it cannot
account for matter, how shall it account for life ? If it fails
to account for motion, how shall it account for mind ? If
it fails to explain the atom, how can it explain the universe ?
If it fails to account for motion, how can it account for that
mighty power of human reason which climbs the starry
stairs of the universe and reads the history of stars and suns,
projects itself into the very heart of things, and then con
fesses the presence of a power greater than itself, and a
reason higher than its own ? (Applause.)
Thus far, then, we have shown Atheism to be utterly
unreasonable as a doctrine of the universe, and that it
always gets more into each succeeding effect than can be
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
11
men resemble each other in this one general characteristic,
will not this experience warrant us in ascribing to both a
similar, though, of course, a proportionate, cause ?” Admit
the facts, and the induction from the facts is amply justi
fied. But the question naturally arises, Do the facts of
Dature agree with the productions of men in the manifesta
tion of aim, intention, purpose ? I believe they do, and
here are my reasons for so believing. Whatever our theory
Of the origin of the universe may be, we must admit that
the earth, the sea, and the sky are full of beauty. From
far-off space, where the unresolved nebulae float, in all the
millions and millions of suns and systems of suns which
glitter in the brow of night, and here, even in this tiny speck
we call our world, order is everywhere manifested, order
everywhere known. In the midst of numberless varieties
there is a deep-seated unity, vast worlds and systems of
worlds, the marshalled battalions of heaven, alongside of
which our earth and our planets are as nothing, are rolling
through space in orbits millions and millions of times greater
than that of our solar system ; but everywhere the same laws
Of gravitation, the same laws of light, of heat, of motion, are
found. From speck of dust to blazing sun and floating
nebulae, order and law everywhere prevail. But order and
law are the manifestation of power guided by intelligence.
Nowhere do we discover order and law apart from intelli
gence, and, therefore, I hold that the cause of the universe
must not only have power, but also mind and intelligence.
(Cheers.) To put this another way, one great irrefutable
fact of the universe is this, it is a gigantic intelligible unity,
all its laws are mathematical relations, and can be expressed
in mathematical formula. This is undoubtedly true of the
law of gravitation, and of chemical combinations, the law of
colour and of music, the facets of crystals, the pistils of
flowers, the feathers of birds. Now, I put this question to
Mr. Foote. If it takes the intellect of a Copernicus, a
Kepler, and a Newton years upon years of anxious study to
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
13
gent, or it could not have put thought into the universe.
Thus our third proposition is established ; this universe is
the manifestation of power directed by intelligence. In
Others words, we have proved these four facts—first, the
existence of an eternal substance ; second, the possession
Of power by this substance; third, that this eternal substance
is the cause of the universe ; and, lastly, that the order, law,
purpose, intention manifested in nature are a proof that the
cause of the universe is possessed not only with power,
but with intelligence. In so far as these propositions are
established, in so far is Theism shown to be true, and in
proportion to the proof of the Theistic doctrine of the
universe is the Atheistic doctrine disproved.
And now I come to my fourth proposition—that the facts
Of man’s mental, moral, and religious nature cannot be
explained on the principles of Atheism, but are easily
accounted for by the doctrines of Theism. Every man has,
tn his own consciousness (the mind’s knowledge of its
own states) the evidence of the existence of mind ; in
other words, all of us are conscious of ourselves—we know
we exist, and we know we think. We also know that the
Blind is altogether other than the body; in a word, that
mind and matter are not only distinct, but different sub
stances, manifesting themselves to us by sets of different and
totally incompatible attributes. If Mr. Foote denies this, I
must ask him to show that the attributes of mind and matter
are alike. Until this is done, we shall continue to believe
that we have two sets of incompatible attributes ; and, when
we find that this belief is not peculiar to ourselves, but is
held in some form by all the peoples of the earth, we not
only feel that our belief is justified, but we believe that
it brings us into the presence of a fact which calls for
explanation ; and we turn to those who hold the Atheistic
position, and ask, How is the existence of this thinking sub
stance, which we call self, to be accounted for ? That it has
not always existed is undeniable ; and, if it began to be, it
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
15 "
I shall stop by submitting to my friend a few questions,
and the first is this: What is the substance of which
this universe is composed ? |How could an ordered
universe arise from an unordered state of physical
units ? How could an intelligible universe arise out of a
mindless physical condition ? How could an universe mani
festing law have arisen from a condition where no law can
be found ? How could an universe without a moral nature
produce beings with a moral nature ? How could a number
of elementary substances called atoms have produced the
unity everywhere manifested in nature? How could life,
the power which moulds and builds] up organisms, and
preserves them from the disintegrating influences which act
on mere matter, have been produced from the non-living ?
And, in the last place, how could a universe which, according
to Atheism, excludes the possibility of God have produced
a number of beings, the very flower of that universe, who
have become thoroughly persuaded there is a God? (Loud
tpplause.)
The Chairman : I have now, ladies and gentlemen, to
bfispeak,'on the part of Mr. Foote, the same conscientious
attention that you have given to his opponent, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Foote : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lee, Ladies and GentleMen,—It would be absurd for me to assume that anything
more than an encouraging percentage of this audience was
in toy kind of agreement with my ideas ; and as Mr. Lee,
in bis otherwise extremely temperate speech, was good
enough to say that the Atheistic position was an outrage on
human intelligence, I must warn you, if that be correct, that
I am likely to say things which will be regarded as an out
rage on human intelligence. (Laughter and cheers.) You
will, therefore, from that point of view, grant me the indul
gence which we always expect from an educated, an
intelligent, and honest English audience. (Hear, hear.)
�THEISM OR ATHEISM?
17
In the next place, Mr. Lee was good enough, not only to
define Theism, but to define Atheism, and in a fashion
which suited himself. When this debate was being arranged,
it was suggested that the proposition for discussion should
be, ’‘Theism or Atheism : Which is the more reasonable
theory of the universe?” and Mr. Lee is quite well aware
that I insisted upon the words “theory of the universe”
being struck out, because Atheism per se does not affirm a
theory of the universe. An Atheist like the late Charles
Bradlaugh may affirm, as a personal thinker, his theory of
th® universe ; but Atheism per se simply means, not denial,
but rejection, in the sense of not accepting the Theistic
theory of the universe which Mr. Lee has put forward to
night. I suppose everybody will admit that Charles
Bradlaugh, whose name was mentioned in such honourable
terms by our Chairman, was an eminent, and, in a certain
sense, a typical, Atheist. When I am told that I must go to
the lexicographers for a definition of terms, I reply that I
decline to do anything of the sort. Lexicographers all work
on their own individual responsibility. Webster will define
a wrd in one way, Richardson in another, Latham in
another ; and how can I accept the meaning of important
terms on the authority of these conflicting lexicographers ?
If I want to know what is Christianity, I am bound to find
OUt what Christians mean by the term ; if I want to know
what Buddhism is, I am bound to have the term explained
by Buddhists ; and if Mr. Lee wants to know what Atheism
is, for the purpose of discussion, he must discover what
Atheists themselves mean by that term. Now, Charles
Bradlaugh, in the very first sentence of his pamphlet, Is
there a God ? says : “ The initial difficulty is in defining the
Word God. It is equally impossible to intelligently affirm or
deny any proposition unless there is at least an under
standing on the part of the affirmer or denier of the meaning
Of every word used in the proposition. To me, the word
God, standing alone, is a word without meaning.” I endorse
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
19
of the old raw material of theology, or, as I should call it,
superstition. There is, in this respect, even in modern days,
nothing new; it is but a fresh presentation of old material
in a new form. The masses of the people never believe
religion upon grounds of reason, but upon grounds of
authority and early education. The grounds of argument
are only adopted by the apologists of religion when they are
hard pressed by the critics of religion. (Applause.)
I deny, therefore, that Atheism per se denies the existence
Of God j I deny that Atheism per se affirms the eternity of
Matter; and I decline to accept responsibility for any theory
Of the universe. I tell Mr. Lee that, notwithstanding his
ability, his mind is not large enough to comprehend the
universe—(“Oh, oh”)—or to formulate a satisfactory theory
about It Further, I say that there is no intelligence on this
earth adequate to form a satisfactory theory of the universe.
And why ? Because, in the very language which Mr. Lee
has employed, infinity is predicated; and how can the mind
of man, which is admittedly finite, formulate a satisfactory
theory of an infinite existence ? The thing is a contradic
tion in terms—(applause)—and it is no insult to Mr. Lee to
say that his powers are inadequate to an infinite task.
(Hear, hear.)
I noticed that Mr. Lee fell into, what seemed to me, at
any rate, a confusion about the universe. He spoke of the
universe and of the matter composing it. Are they two
distinct things ? The universe simply means the whole, and
the whole is made up of what composes it. You cannot
have the universe separate, and the matter which composes
it separate. The universe is simply a term for the total
quantity of its composition. When Mr. Lee said that this
universe was not eternal, he took an illustration from our
solar system. Does Mr. Lee mean, because there is a dis
sipation of energy from our planet, that energy is lost?
Does Mr. Lee mean, if a planet should ultimately, in some
Sidereal cataclysm, become broken and scattered through
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
21
and, if you predicate a mind in the universe outside ours,
you must either endow it with the essential powers of our
own mind, or you must give some reason for believing that
it belongs to an entirely separate category of intelligence,
Now, I ask anyone to inquire of himself what he knows of
creation. We say the poet creates, the artist creates. But
what does he create ? He does not produce something out
of nothing. He works with matter that existed before he
was born, and will exist after he is dead. He changes
matter from one combination into another, but he cannot
create an atom of matter, and he cannot destroy an atom of
matter. I, therefore, say the term creation, in the meta
physical sense of producing absolutely out of nothing, or
out of something discrete, is, to my mind, utterly unintelli
gible ; and I cannot possibly accept what conveys no reality
to my own intelligence.
Mr. Lee says that the Atheist begins with matter and ends
with mind. Then he talks about the grave, and says the
Atheist begins with dust and ends with dust. But we all
have to pass through the same stages of being. Mr. Lee
was born as I was ; Mr. Lee will die as I shall, for the
age of miracles has passed. What is the use of com
plaining of the Atheist, when the Theist has to go through
exactly the same career? You may tell me, of course, that
after you are dead something very agreeable is going to
happen to you ; but I will wait until I know it before I
assume it as a fact which should serve as the basis of a
discussion.
We came eventually to that something which was the
cause of this material universe, and that something is intelli
gent, and that something is eternal; that is, this something
eternally existed before it made up its mind to create the
material universe. Has Mr. Lee any idea of what could
have occurred to put a new thought into an infinite mind ?
Why, an infinite mind must live in an infinite now. Being
infinite, there is neither past, present, nor future to it; for
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
23
ness. As a matter of fact, very few of us are as goodlooking as we could wish to be, and I don’t really think that
you can ground the existence of God upon the argument of
beauty. You yourself will admit that man has existed for
thousands of years ; surely by this time his Creator, with
that high sense of beauty, ought to have made him a more
presentable object than he is.
Then we are told there is intelligence because there is
law and order. I have to complain that Mr. Lee has used
for metaphysical purposes two terms which are commonly
used in another sense—in political and social conversation.
We speak of law and order in the political and social world,
and what do we mean ? By order we mean good behaviour ;
by few we mean edicts, decrees, or acts promulgated either by
the king or the parliament of the country, and for the in
fraction of which there is a prescribed penalty. I deny that
you have any right to use the word law in nature in any
such sense as that. All you mean by law is a certain
ffiethod in which things occur, and the question behind that
which Mr. Lee is asking is this, Is that method in which
things occur settled by intelligence, or is it the result of the
absolute, unchangeable, inherent properties of matter ?
When you use the word ■“ law ” in a metaphysical sense, you
are begging the very question at issue; for under cover of
the term “ law ” you introduce the law-giver, which is the
very subject we are met this evening to discuss.
Mr. Lee says that he can think about the stars, and that
ht can get thought out of them. (A laugh.) He cannot.
Let an idiot look at a star for a thousand years, if he lived
so long, and what thought would he get out of it ? (Hisses.)
Let a poet look at a star, and he might, to use this fashion
Of speech, get thought out of it; but the thought is not in
the star—the capacity for thought is in the poet’s brain.
(Applause.) Mr. Lee did not get thought out of the star;
he got it out of his own active intelligence.
Mr. Lee says that there is thought in the universe, and
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
25
that the best way to answer a prophet is to prophesy the
opposite. As a matter of fact, one of our greatest jurispruclists, Sir Henry Maine, in his powerful work upon
Popular Government, argues that there are perceptible limits
to man’s intellectual capacity for improvement ; and, in the
face of this, it is idle to ask me to accept as an established
fact what is only a conjecture about the future on the part
of Mr. Lee himself.
Then man has aspirations for the true, the holy, and the
eternal, and there must therefore be the true, the holy, the
eternal! But does the Atheist say there is nothing true ?
Surely the Atheist can aspire to truth as well as the Theist.
The motto of the National Secular Society, which does me
the honor to elect me President, is “We seek for Truth.”
It is again idle to tell us the aspiration after truth involves
the existence of the Being whom Mr. Lee is endeavoring to
establish. And what do you mean by the word holy ?
Holy, as generally used, is something connected with
religion. A clergyman is “ a holy person,” a church is “ a
holy building,” and a Church festival, or Sunday, is “a holy
day.” Very well; if you use the word in that sense, I will
leave you its full possession. But if by the word holy
you mean anything which is dignified, honest, or pertains to
the highest moral nature of man, then we aspire to the holy
quite as much as any of the Theists who speak from the
platforms or preach from the pulpits of the world.
A word, in conclusion, about man’s moral sense. It is
imposed from without by God, says Mr. Lee. I say that
even men in your own Church, like Professor Henry
Drummond, contend that morality is a natural evolution,
without anything supernatural in it from beginning to end.
God imposes morality upon us 1 Then why did he not
impose it so that in all parts of the world it was understood
alike ? You say we know when we do right and when we
do wrong. Do we ? If you commit bigamy in England,
you will get seven years’ imprisonment; but if you commit it
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
27
of Atheism, no matter what you say against Theism. Theism
tnay, or may not, be true; but, if you say nothing in favor
of Atheism, you have not established your position.
Our friend said I defined the universe as the sum-total of
all conditioned existence. I did; and I abide by that.
Bat Mr. Foote says I assume to know something of an un
conditioned existence. I do; and Mr. Foote cannot think
Of any material object without thinking of that object as
Conditioned ; and he cannot think of the conditioned with
out being driven to the recognition of the unconditioned—
you arc bound to go on to the unconditioned. Mr. Foote
may say there is nothing but the conditioned. I say there
are the conditioned and the unconditioned.
But our friend went on to say that I defined reasonable
aS that which conforms to human intelligence. I did
«©thing of the kind. Mr. Foote has managed to leave out
two very important words. I defined reasonable as that
Which conforms to the logical demands of man’s mind. This
is not saying that what is reasonable is reasonable, but that
that is reasonable which is in harmony with the logical
demands of the mental life we all possess.
But Mr. Foote says I defined Atheism and Theism to suit
I did not. I defined them in harmony with the
great masters of language; and I say, when we come to
debate terms which stand for great doctrines, we must use
those terms, not as any individual wishes them to be used,
but as the great masters of speech everywhere use them.
But he went on to say : “Atheism does not affirm per se
a theory of the universe.” Will Mr. Foote kindly tell me
how Atheism can affirm anything per se ? Mr. Bradlaugh
said that, to him, the word “ God ” was a word without
Waning. Then how could Mr. Bradlaugh justify his
attempt to get rid of an affirmation which has a great deal
Of meaning to others, but none to himself? But Mr. Foote
says he will quote Mr. Bradlaugh’s words : “ The Atheist
does not say there is no God.” I admit that. Mr. Bradlaugh
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
29
God, we must have a knowledge of God. This Mr. Foote
regards as impossible. But I would remind Mr. Foote that
some of the great German philosophers hold that, before we
can say anything is unknown and unknowable, you must be
above and beyond it. But, if you are above and beyond it,
you make it known ; and so you destroy your doctrine that
it is unknown. Thus, in getting rid of my proposition, Mr.
Foote has got rid of his own contention that God is un
known and unknowable.
But Mr. Foote says I fell into a mistake when I spoke of
matter and of the universe as different. I did so purposely
—in other words, I was dealing in the first part of my
remarks with the visible universe ; but the matter which
makes the universe, though a part of it, is not visible ; and,
when I used these two terms, I meant by the universe that
which we can see, and by matter that which is resolvable
into the atom, which we cannot see. I fail to see any
difficulty in this position. Then as to the atoms which I
referred to as bearing the marks of manufactured articles.
Mr. Foote says this is a metaphorical expression, as nobody
has seen them. Very well. If these atoms have not been
seen, how do you know they do not bear the marks of being
manufactured ? In other words, Mr. Foote has to go
through a process of reasoning in order to say these atoms
do not bear these marks, just as great physicists like Clerk
Maxwell have gone through processes of reasoning and say
they do bear the marks. Personally, I prefer taking the
statements of the physicists before those of Mr. Foote.
But, says our friend, if we think of this universe as the
outcome of an existence which is eternal, and which is
related to this universe as cause to effect, we are face to
face with this difficulty : we cannot possibly conceive of
creation. If by that you mean I cannot form an idea or
image in my mind as to the way in which it was done, I
agree with you ; but if you say I cannot understand or
apprehend the bringing of something into existence by a
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
31
sensation are abolished unilaterally ; but mental operations
are still capable of being carried on in their completeness
through the agency of one hemisphere.”
Mr. Foote : Mr. Lee demands—(“ Oh, oh ”)—I repeat
that Mr. Lee demands what he has no power to exact. I
have already declined, as any man of sense would decline,
to answer questions read out to me, and not furnished to
me. Mr. Lee, by his own act, robbed himself of the right
to put questions. In the original conditions, as the Joint
Committee know, there was to be a certain space of time—
a quarter of an hour or so—allowed for questions between
the disputants. It was Mr. Lee’s own suggestion that the
time for questions should be struck out.
Mr. Lee : I rise to a point of order. The part that was
Struck out was the part relating to a Socratic method of
debate, in which the question should be put and immediately
answered ; but that does not rob me of the right to put
questions in the course of my address. In every debate in
which I have taken part these questions have always been
recognised and answered.
Mr. Foote : Then, with whatever explanation Mr. Lee
Hiay qualify the statement, the statement is accurate, that at
Mr. Lee’s suggestion the time allotted for questions and
answers was struck out from the original articles of debate ;
and I decline altogether to come here with the responsi
bility of answering questions that have not been furnished
to me—questions that no memory could charge itself with
the task of accurately retaining. If Mr. Lee wants questions
of that kind answered, he shall furnish them beforehand, so
that one could get an acquaintance with their terms and
bearing. Every man knows that you can ask more questions
in a couple of minutes than the wisest man on earth can
answer in twenty-four hours. At any rate, Mr. Lee may
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
33
Sistent with those facts, then Atheism would have a perfect
right to deny the existence of that God so defined. That
is what Atheism does. If Mr. Lee tells me there is a God
att'fowerful, all-wise, and all-good, I tell him that the facts
of life contradict the existence of such a being. (“ No, no.”)
We have heard the names of scientific men. Well, the
|pWtest naturalist that ever lived, Charles Darwin—(a laugh)
pMhe man that smiles at that name cannot know what he
is smiling at—I say, the greatest naturalist that ever lived,
Charles Darwin, said there is too much suffering in the
world ; and he, the greatest scientific intellect since Newton,
in face of the facts that science has revealed, felt himself
Utterly unable to accept the God that Mr. Lee has put forward
tonight, and predicated as absolutely necessary to logical
human thought.
Now, we had a little merriment about “Atheism per se?
but there is really nothing metaphysical about that. “Per se ”
simply means, as Mr. Lee knows, “ by itself.” You cannot
ttink of a thing in universal connections. Man’s powers
being finite, he must isolate, for purposes of convenience,
th# objects of his thought; although, in external nature, they
are all in infinite relations to each other. Thus, when
you define a line, owing to the imperfection of human
powers, you define it as “ length without breadth
but you
IWVer find this in actual experience. It is a device you
have to resort to ; you take the idea of length separate from
theidea of breadth, although the two things are never found
except in conjunction with each other. Very well. Atheism
in itself, apart from the personal notion of individual
Atheists—or, as I expressed it, “ Atheism per se ’’—does
•not affirm a theory of the universe. I said that individual
Atheists, like Mr. Bradlaugh himself, might affirm Monism
(lite Spinoza, who was charged with Atheism, but affirms
Bantheism); but that is a different thing altogether from
What are the logical contents of the term Atheism. I deny
that Atheism affirms a theory of the universe. And if Mr.
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
35
than the atom itself; and how can this mystery explain the
other? I will tell you how a thing is explained. A thing
is explained when Science shows us exactly its origin, its
glWth, its development, and possibly its decay and dis
appearance ; tracing it from its initial stage to the completion
of its, career. . That is a scientific explanation; and, when
Science explains a thing like that, we understand it; but it
fe
a scientific or a rational explanation of a thing to say,
‘<Gocl did it.” That is what ignorance has said in all ages’
(Applause.)
It used to be asked, “Who made the world?” until the
nebular hypothesis explained to us the history of worlds.
Tten the question was shifted farther back, and it was
asked, “ Who made all the various species of life upon this
planet ?” Darwin explained the Origin of Species—I will
Bpt say to the satisfaction of all parties, but to the satisfac
tion of scientific men. And now the question is put farther
back—“Who made life? Or who made the atoms ?” In
Other words, the banner of Theology is always planted at
the point where knowledge ends and ignorance begins. It
IS driven farther and farther back. It is the banner, not of
Knowledge, but of Mystery. It is the flag of Superstition,
wider which all the priesthoods of the world have gathered
for the exploitation of the people. (Applause.)
„ Mr. Lee said that he used the word universe to signify
visible matter. Now, there is no distinction between visible
attd invisible matter, except in Mr. Lee’s powers of percep
tion ' Visible matter means matter large enough to be seen.
But if you have millions upon millions of invisible atoms
forming a visible combination of matter, there is no difference
in the condition of the atoms because they are in collection,
and large enough for our organs of vision to perceive them.
That is a distinction without a difference.
A word about brain and thought. Who ever said that
man—who has two brains working in combination, though
sometimes not in entire harmony—who ever said that he
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
37
OS it is a question of conviction. Mr. Foote tells us the
Wational Secular Society is in search of truth. We Theists
believe we have found it. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote says, no matter what Mr. Lee demands, Mr.
Lee struck out the part of the conditions of debate which
referred to a Socratic debate, and, therefore, has no right to
ask questions. The reason I struck that part of the con
ditions out was this. I do not believe in mixing up things
that differ. If we want a Socratic debate, we will have it;
b«t I object to wedging in half-an-hour of Socratic debate
in a debate of another character; but I still have the right
to ask questions respecting matters which are fundamental
to my position and to Mr. Foote’s. If we have no right to
ask such questions, why are we here to discuss ?
But Mr. Foote says that I have not been able to produce
a single fact in favour of Theism. Well, now, I have pro
duced a series of propositions ; I have shown that some
thing must be eternal. Mr. Foote has not attempted to
deal with that. I have shown you that that something must
have power; Mr. Foote has not attempted to deal with that.
I have shown you that something must be the cause of the
changes in this universe; Mr. Foote has not attempted to
deal with that. I have shown you that the different move
meats going on in this universe are going on in accordance
With law; Mr. Foote has not attempted to deal with that.
And I have shown you that we have reason, mind, a religious
and moral sense ; but Mr. Foote has not attempted to deal
With that. The whole of my propositions stand untouched
—(applause)—and not only untouched, but the banner of
theology, which Mr. Foote has spoken of as floating above
the place where ignorance begins and knowledge ends—this
banner of theology—this banner, sir—floats high above our
beads, not as the symbol of “ we do not know,” but as the
sign of a coming victory which has already been shown to
fee ours by your refusing to deal with these questions.
(Loud applause.) Ah, Mr. Foote says, “ the banner of
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
39
do not believe in fighting definitions, unless I know that
those definitions are part and parcel of the thing I fight. I
have not attempted this evening to give you a definition of
God ; I have given you a few suggestions as to what I under
stand God to be. I told you I believe him to be an eternal
something, having power and intelligence, and such-like.
But, while I do not know all about God, I know something
of God; I do not know all about Derby, but I know some
thing of Derby. Still, I have often said—I said it three
months ago—I am not one of those who say they believe in
God ; I have got a knowledge of God. I go beyond belief
—I know God.
Our friend talked to us about the defects of definitions
tfid such-like, and went on to say that the atom is some
thing, and that the universe is only a bigger atom. Well,
now, I object altogether to this position of Mr. Foote’s,
because he said that an atom is something which cannot be
seen. Now, not only is an atom that which cannot be seen
“he has told us that—but he went on to say that this world
of ours must be the same as the matter which is unseen.
Now, if that is so, then the unseen atom must be under
the same conditions as this seen table; and, as this seen
table cannot move itself, how came the atom to move
itself ?
But our friend says that I simply get rid of one difficulty
—the origin of the atom—in order to bring in a greater
difficulty—God. No, I do not. Mr. Foote has told us that
an atom is that which is so infinitely little that it cannot be
seen ; yet Mr. Foote must, if he is logical, seek to build up
this wondrous universe, with its teeming forms of living
activity, from a thing that cannot be seen, and that is so
infinitely powerless that it can do nothing of itself—because
“the unseen must be the same as the seen.” Then he says
I Bring in another subject which is equally unthinkable;
Did I not show you that something must be eternal ? Does
Mr. Foote believe the atom is eternal ? If so, he is opposed
�THEISM OR ATHEISM?
41
there is food, if your mental hunger proves that somewhere
there is knowledge, the hunger of the soul proves that some
where there is God. Mr. Foote may say, “ I have not got
this appetite, I know nothing about it ”; but, as we do not
trust a blind man when we wish to know something about
the sun, neither do we trust an Atheist when we want to
know something about God. (Cheers.)
The Chairman : Ladies and Gentlemen,—I am sure
you must have undergone considerable inconvenience in the
heat of this crowded hall, especially those of you who are
standing; but it seems to me so in harmony with the instincts
of fair play that Mr. Foote should have a full, a fair, and
impartial hearing to ?he end that I trust no one will leave
the meeting until Mr. Foote has finished his concluding
address.
Mr. Lee expressed a similar wish.
Mr. Foote : I am extremely obliged for the kindly spirit
which was manifested in the hint just given, but I hardly
think it is necessary. I do not feel so profoundly upon the
matter as it seems to be imagined, and if any lady or gentle
man, at any time, does not want to hear me, I really do not
Object to their withd«awing. On the other hand, I do not
think it is a right thing to assume that anybody would leave
the meeting. Personally, I think we ought to accept people’s
innocence until there is reason to believe they are guilty.
(Dissent and interruption.) Apparently one disputant is
free to introduce a matter which the other disputant is not
to say anything about. Is that fair play?
Mr. Lee said that the child and the fire meet, and the fire
burns, and what I have got to do is to explain why it burns.
(“ No, no.”) I repeat that Mr. Lee said I was bound to
explain how it came to burn. Now, I say I am under no
such necessity. All I am obliged to do, if I want to be
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
43
to convert me, and, if I had answered all his propositions to
his satisfaction, he would not become an Atheist. What is
the use, then, of his saying I have not answered his ques
tions ? All I can do is to reply. I do not expect Mr. Lee
to think that I have shattered all his positions.
Mr. Lee says he knows the unconditioned ; but I deny
that he knows, or can know, the unconditioned. He is
himself distinctly conditioned, every moment of his life
being absolutely dependent upon his environment. When
he talks about matter being incapable of moving itself, I
tell Mr. Lee that he himself, except in relation to external
Mature, would lose all capacity of thought. Mankind can
only work under the stimulus of the external universe. We
begin with sensations, perceptions; we weave them into
ideas ; but it is the stimulus of the external universe that
furnishes us with the sensations, and it is the stimulus of
that external universe that keeps alive the activity of our
powers.
. Mr. Lee said it was no use fighting definitions. What
else can we fight in a discussion ? It is idle to talk about
fighting God : we are here to fight over the defined God. If
God exists, he does not require any man’s defence ; and if
God do not exist, no man’s defence can establish his exist
ence. Our object is discussion, and discussion can only
proceed upon definitions ; consequently it is really defini
tions that we are here to debate.
We were told that the religious banner is a sign of victory.
Not necessarily. Both armies carry banners into the field,
and in general it is only one side that wins. And banners
are not confined to battle; they are floated in times of
peace as well as in war. I do not think it is right to found
an argument upon a metaphor. A metaphor is a very good
thing as an adornment, a help, an illustration—but no more.
And when you say your banner is triumphant, I say the
very fact that, after thousands of years of priestly teaching,
and! of the authority of religion over the child’s mind—I
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
45
of Matter than any common man that walks the streets. He
can tell you how atoms combine, and how they divide; he
can show you their chemical properties ; but he has no
knowledge whatever of their creation or origination. The
doctrine accepted by all scientists is that man cannot
create an atom, man cannot destroy an atom ; and I say
that, arguing from analogy, it is reasonable at any rate,
more reasonable—to suppose that what cannot be destroyed
will never cease to be, and that what cannot be made never
began to be.
Finally, we were told, in poetical language, about God’s
kindness; and we were given a poetical recitation, which I
h©pe Mr. Lee did not think was any contribution to the
debate. I might cite poetry, but then is that discussion ?
Shelley said the name of God has fenced about all crime
with holiness. You talk of the kindness of your God ! I
fail to see the kindness when I look at the history of the
world. The great Cardinal Newman, the keenest theological
intellect that this country has produced in the present
century, said that, although his being was full of the idea of
God, yet when he looked into the universe the impression
made upon him was as though he had looked into a mirror
and saw no reflection of his face. What he saw in the
world was incompatible with the doctrines of theology in
which he had been educated. The kindness of God and
religion 1 The kindness of the auto-da-fe! The kindness
of the thumb-screw, the rack, the torture chamber! The
kindness of the heretic’s dungeon ! The kindness of per
verting and distorting the mind of the child ! I prefer the
kindness of Humanity to the kindness of all the gods the
world has ever known. (Loud applause.)
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
47
course, had the opportunity of deciding the direction of the
SWhing’s debate. To-night that opportunity lies with me.
I do not suppose that anybody who differs from me (and
in this I will include my opponent) will be quite satisfied
with the direction I take; but I am in the conduct of my
Own case, and I intend to do what I consider to be justice
fc> it, quite irrespective of the opinions of anyone else.
(Hear, hear.)
Now I wish, at the outset, to say just a few words about
the direction the debate took last night. It was mainly of
a HWtaphysical character, and chiefly turned upon the
problem of the origin of the universe, if I may express it in
that summary fashion. Mr. Lee told us a great deal about
matter and atoms, and the whole argument really turned
upon what is admittedly incomprehensible—that is, incom
prehensible in the present state of our knowledge. I am
not one of those who say that no particular problem will at
Some future time be solved ; but one zk entitled to say that a
pertain specified problem is insoluble in the present con
dition of human knowledge ; and, as a matter of fact, when
you discuss the origin of matter, you are discussing a thing
which, from the very nature of the case, you are not in a
position to determine. And it appears to me that you may
mix up with a discussion of that kind a great deal of very
questionable physics. For instance, we were told last night
that, if the universe were full of matter, there would be no
possibility of motion ; but, of course, that overlooks the fact
that combinations of matter are of various degrees of density.
Every time Mr. Lee and I walk along the street we walk,
aS it were, through matter, for the air around us is as much
matter, although in a gaseous condition, as this table or the
floor upon which we stand. To illustrate this from another
Standpoint: if you were to take a bottle and put half-aifozen marbles in it, and then fill the bottle right up with
wtter, and hermetically seal it, you would find that, as you
moved the bottle about, the marbles, under the law of
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
49
words, that Atheism does not explain the universe. Well,
no Atheist attempts to explain the universe. He is more
modest than to pretend to do anything of the kind. The
Atheist declares that the finite intelligence of man is not
Capable of solving the infinite problem of the inconceivably
distant origin of this universe. (Cheers.) But if you pressed
and said that, as a thinker, I must have some idea upon
the subject, I should say : “ Very well; I am not prepared
to assert that matter is either eternal or not eternal; I am
not in a position to make a positive assertion where I have
no positive evidence ; but it is as open for me to conjecture
as for any man, and perhaps my conjecture would be as true
as his; and, if you tell me there must be an eternal some
thing, I should start from what I know, for I would rather
believe in the eternity of what I know than in the eternity
of something that I have not been able to discover. And
W, I say, matter exists ■ matter is all about us ■ our bodily
organism, at any rate, is material ■ and I would prefer to
believe that the matter which, according to physical teaching,
’\by us at any rate, indestructible in its atoms, is essentially
indestructible; that it never began to be; that, as it existí
now, and did exist eternally in the past, so it will continue
to exist eternally in the future.” In other words, if there is
t0. be an eternal something, I prefer an eternal something
which I know, to an eternal nothing which is only the postu
late of an opponent in a discussion. (Applause.)
Atheism and Theism, except they come into dogmatic
relationship to morals and conduct, are speculations, and it
is well known that speculations-the very same speculations
—can be entertained by men of all varieties of moral chá
mete and condition. Indeed, when one speculation is
e ore the world, and another is opposed to it, and when
the world has been discussing these speculations for thou
sands of years, and is still discussing them, with no hope of
smving at a satisfactory conclusion, an impartial, honest,
and careful thinker is tempted to ask himself, What is the
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
51
of the universe ; and, when the words were put down for
discussion, I declined to admit them. The Atheist has no
such theory. He does not set out to explain the universe;
he tries to learn as much as he can about it; and, if he learns
any new truth to-day, there is more to be learned to-morrow.
As long as man’s mind is finite, and he has to inhabit this
world—which is really but as a speck of dust in the infinitude
of space—however far he advances, there will be the same
old horizon of knowledge. However we may gather know
ledge in the years to come, our far-off posterity will have a
similar opportunity, and may they put it to a similar use !
(Applause.)
Now, if we have to enter upon a trial of Theism, we must
understand what Theism is. Mr. Lee, last night, refrained
from defining God. His God accounts for everything, but
the very thing which was all-important in the case was never
defined,
I shall define Theism as. “that form of belief which
declares that the visible, tangible, conditioned universe is
created and governed by infinite intelligence, which belongs
to an infinite personality, which is characterised by infinite
power and infinite wisdom ; nay, more—it is characterised,
according to Theistic teaching, by infinite goodness or
benevolence.” What I am going to do in the trial of Theism
is to ascertain whether the facts fit in with the theory. I
am not going to rush off to a supposed centre, to which the
sun, with all our system, is hurrying. I am not going to
peer with the microscope in the vain hope of discovering
the origin of the atom. I am going to speak about what
we know of the facts of life, instead of rushing off into
infinite space. I am going to see what can be found in this
world, the world in which we live. (Applause.) I submit
that, if Theism can be proved at all, it ought to be proved
from what we thoroughly know, rather than from what we
are only inadequately acquainted with.
Now, what is the great teaching of men of science—a
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
53
Now, what does this struggle for existence mean ? It
means that the world, ever since the rise upon it of organic
life—at least, ever since the advent of beings who are capable
of feeling pleasure and pain—has been one great cock-pit,
running red with the blood of mutual slaughter. In this
Struggle for existence there is no quarter given. You are not
let off to fight another day. As Professor Huxley says, the
result for the vanquished is death. And this red cock-pit,
which the world has been ever since sentient organisms
appeared upon it, I am told by the Theists was designed,
and that the Being who designed it foresaw all that would
happen, sees wrhat does happen, and, in spite of all our
efforts to improve it, continues it as it is. I say that this is
too hard for common flesh and blood to believe, if we realise
What it means. I would rather be an Atheist, who says, “ I
knpw nothing of God, and your definition of God does not
Commend itself to my intelligence, in the face of the facts of
existence,” than be a Trieist, believing in a God who permits
—nay, as Creator, ordained—that which every tender-hearted
mao and woman would put a stop to, if possible, to-morrow.
(Applause.)
What is human history? Looked at through the long
records that have come down to us, it is more or less a long
succession of quarrelling, largely about religion, and wars of
dynasty and ambition, and the sacrifice of the lives, liberties,
and happiness of the great masses of the people, in the
interests of those who leaped into the seats of power, and
used mankind for their own purposes. Why, it is only
within recent memory that the people, even in civilised
countries, have been brought within the pale of a free con
stitution. Their whole lives were previously decided for
them by a handful of upper classes. I can no more see in
human history, than I can see in Evolution, the signs of an
fotClligent and moral governor. Even when we take man as
he bow is, where and how does Theism justify itself? The
human organism is extremely imperfect. Take the most
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
55
responsible for them, then God is responsible for them. If
God produces eyes that cannot see, or eyes that can only
See very inadequately, it is idle to tell me that his wisdom
and power are infinite; for infinite wisdom would know how
to produce better eyes, and infinite power would be able to
second the designs of infinite wisdom.
Then look at the disasters that occur in the world. Man
fe encouraged to build his house, to found his home, and
suddenly, without warning, the earthquake shatters it and
Mils him ; or, if he is spared himself, perhaps his dearest are
buried beneath its ruins. Do you mean to tell me that an
infinite intelligence is responsible for this ? Do you mean
to tell me that the work of that infinite intelligence is
prompted by infinite wisdom, and is carried out by infinite
power ? I say that these disasters that are constantly
desolating the world, that these pestilences, these blightings
of crops, are all confutations of your Theistic theory. Here
in England we send missionaries out to India, and when a
famine occurs in India through the failure of the harvest
we subscribe money in order to save from starvation the
people who, if left to providence, would starve by the action
of this God of infinite wisdom and goodness and power.
How, upon the Theistic hypothesis, can you reconcile
yourself to the fact of disease ? Disease is ever baffling the
man of science. Often, as we master one disease, another
becomes more malignant. As we learn how to treat fevers,
Cancer becomes more severe in its ravages ; and, as we
manage, by improved sanitation, to get a better condition
of general health among the people, we suffer from that
disease which is known as insanity, and which is gaining
ground in every civilised country. Now, what is the cause
of these diseases ? You may tell me it is the microbes ; but
who made the microbes to produce diseases ? Your infinite
deity planned the microbe and planned the man; he
arranged it so that the microbe would get into the man’s
blood, and set up an action there which produces terrible
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
57
champion will, in due course, have the opportunity of
replying. I must, further, press this point, because, with
©very desire to be impartial, I cannot be blind to the fact
that the majority of persons present are in distinct opposition
to the views expressed by the gentleman who has just sat
down.
I will take the liberty of saying that the attribute of fair
play demands that the courage he displays in standing
before an hostile audience, and so fearlessly expounding his
principles, should secure for him a patient and respectful
hearing.
I make these observations in good faith, and I also
bespeak for Mr. Lee your kindly consideration, as he has
been seriously indisposed to-day, and I can only regard his
presence here to-night as an indication of his pluck and
determination in carrying through his part of the program.
Mr. Lee : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Foote, Ladies and Gentle
men,—I have listened to the address which Mr. Foote has
given us with a very great deal of attention, but, I must say,
with a very great deal of disappointment. I gathered that
Mr. Foote wished us to understand that Atheists had no
theory of the universe; but, before Mr. Foote sat down, he
showed us that they have a theory of the universe; that
they are able to judge of the Theistic theory, and declare
it to be bad, and speak of another—the Atheistic—as better.
In spite of these facts, Mr. Foote has repeated his state
ment that Atheism does not deny God, and that Atheism
has no theory of the universe. I hold in my hand Mr.
Charles Bradlaugh’s debate with the Rev. T. Lawson, of
West Hartlepool, on Is Atheism the True Doctrine of the
Universe ? Mr. Foote quoted Mr. Bradlaugh several times
last night; I am therefore appealing to his own authority to
refute his statements. Mr. Bradlaugh says : “ By Atheism
I mean the affirmation of one existence. This affirmation
is a positive, not a negative, affirmation, and is properly
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
59
observations on the phenomena of disease and accident in
man, that the substance of the cerebrum is itself insensible
—that is, no injury done to it, or physical impression made
upon it, is felt by the subject of it.” And Dr. Carpenter
goes on to say: “ It is clear, therefore, that the presence of
the cerebrum is not essential to consciousness
So much for Mr. Foote’s contention that, where he finds
a certain physical condition, there he finds thought. Dr.
Carpenter distinctly opposes that view. Indeed, it is agreed
by all great mental physiologists that it is impossible for us
to explain the passage from the physics of the brain to the
facts of self-consciousness ; while Professor Tyndall assures
us that self-consciousness is the rock on which Materialism
splits.
But Mr. Foote says that he denies my right to assert that
matter has originated. I repay the compliment by denying
his right to assert that it did not originate.
But what does Mr. Foote mean by the word “ matter ” ?
He has used the term several times. Every word I used I
defined as I used it. I therefore demand an explanation of
this word “ matter.”
Mr. Foote last night denied that he is compelled to think
of something as eternal, and he spoke of the changing
phenomena of this earth and the worlds around us, implying
that an infinite series of causes and effects is the explanation
of the evolution of the visible universe. That was the
implication ; or, if it was not, what was the implication ?
And if it was, then Mr. Foote can think of the eternal, for
he speaks of an eternal series of causes and effects. But if
we carefully analyse what is meant by an infinite, or eternal,
series of causes and effects, we find it means that a long
series of finite changes can make up a total which is infinite.
This is opposed to common sense, educated reason, and the
first principles of scientific induction. You cannot get an
infinite total by the multiplication of finite units. Mr.
Foote may try, but he will fail.
�THEISM OR ATHEISM?
61
of intellect with intellect, and mind against mind, we shatter
the beliefs of those who say there is no God. (Applause.)
In reference to my statement that we have certain bodily,
mental, and spiritual appetites, Mr. Foote says : “ Yes, I
admit we have these appetites for knowledge; but have we not
room enough in the universe to satisfy these appetites ?” I
say, No; and the fact that all the progressive races of the
earth have not been content to rest in the universe is a
proof that man is not satisfied with the universe. When
he looks upon this universe, as it comes within the field of
his vision, he sees upon its face the indications of a Being
behind and above the universe—a Being to whom he must
go on, and before whom he must bow’. No, our friend has
not shown that we must be satisfied with the universe which
is around us ; rather, we rise “ through nature up to nature’s
God.”
Our friend has referred to a sentence-which occurred in
the little poem* which I recited to you last night, in which
the “ sweet kindness ” of God is spoken of. He said (and I
think I never heard a more illogical argument in my life)—
“ Kind,” said he, “ when this God has designed thumb
screws and racks to tear and rend men ?” God designed
thumbscrews and racks 1 Why, it is man who has done
this, not God. No, not God, but man, on the nature of
whom Mr. Foote builds his philosophy, saying there exist
guarantees of morality in human nature. Guarantees of
morality in human nature ! History and experience refute
the statement, and show that, when man is astray from the
moral Governor of the universe, these guarantees become
guarantees of so many ferocious appetites, which wreak
themselves on the weak, the defenceless, the poor, and the
holy. The fact is, no trust can be put in man ; our trust
must be in the living, eternal God. (Applause.)
* This poem will be found at the end of this report, the reporter
having omitted to take it down in its proper place.
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
63.
until our friend shows this to be impossible, our position is
unshaken.
But Mr. Foote says: “ Can God have designed this
universe, when the law of it is ‘ eat or be eaten ’ ?” I will
deal with this doctrine in a few minutes, and probably I
shall be able to eat it before I have done.
Our friend says, when I speak of motion being impossible
in an infinitely extended universe of matter, I forget the
different densities of matter. I do not. I say that you
cannot have different density in matter where you have a
perfect vacuum. Every particle of matter must be of the
same weight in a perfect vacuum. If, however, the universe
be full of matter, every point of space must be occupied.
Therefore, there can be no space unoccupied. To talk of
the different densities of matter is to say there is room in
space, points where matter is not.
Our friend says he is not prepared to say matter is eternal
or not eternal. That is standing on the edge—not going
one way or the other; and, if Atheism is in that position, I
do not envy it.
Our friend says he would rather believe in the eternity of
something which he knows than of something he does not
know. But he does not know matter; he knows only his
sensations. In other words, he can think of matter only in
terms of mind. Now, Sir, if you can think of matter only
in terms of mind, the most certain fact is mind, and you
reach matter by inference. You really know mind; you
only infer matter.
Our friend says we have these perpetual discords and
debates because we have not got at the facts; but the
universe is all around us, and we are seeking to understand
it. Men have understood it, and, in proportion as they
have understood it, they have risen above the universe, and
found themselves in the presence of One “ greater than I,
and holier than thou.”
But our friend says he falls back upon the fact that man
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
65
out teleology there would be no mechanism, but only a
confusion of crude forces; and without mechanism there
would be no teleology, for how could the latter effect its
purpose?” Against Mr. Foote’s statement I place this
quotation from Dr. Welsmann.
But our friend says he cannot imagine a God designing a
world in which “ eat or be eaten ” is the law of existence.
Our friend forgot to tell us how he gets this fact of “ eat or
be eaten.” In other words, he got the eater before he got
the life to eat; and I want to know where he gets the life
before he gets the eater. But if this universe, or this world,
is, as he described it, “one great cock-pit, running red with
human slaughter,” I ask him how he can reconcile this with
his coming here to-night and advocating the teaching of
Atheism, when this blind, mindless, cruel, biting, slaying
machine, which he calls the world, grinds the lives, and
blasts the hopes, and crushes the affections of those whom
it has produced, only to destroy. No future life, no future
good; but blindly, aimlessly, uselessly, simply to play with,
it produces men only to destroy them, only to crush them,
only to make them suffer. That, Sir, is the teaching of
Atheism. But we Theists believe that, through these
sorrows and sufferings, there is a great purpose being
worked out—that God is working out a plan; and, until
our friend can show that the plan is not being realised,
he has no right to reject the belief that there is such a
plan.
Now, if Evolution means anything, it means that everything
which is, and which has been, has a purpose and a function;
and therefore Evolution itself witnesses to the great Being
who has arranged it thus and thus.
But is it true that this universe is a great, brutalising,
“ eat-or-be-eaten ” machine? (“Yes,” “No.”) There are
more smiles than tears in the world, more days of sunshine
than rain; and, on a mere balance of probabilities, there is
more good in God than evil. So that our friend has not in
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
67
that, When Helmholtz had pointed out what he regarded as
«^rfeetions in the eye as an optical instrument, he con
cluded his address by saying that, if every improvement
which he had suggested were put into the eye, it would
render it less fit for its purpose than it now is; and he went
on to say that no sane man would think of taking a razor
to cleave blocks—he would take an axe; and that for the
rough-and-ready work which the human eye was called
to perform, it could not be improved. So, then, our friend
has his own authority with whom to settle. But I want our
friend to answer this : If it is necessary for an optician to
make my glasses and his glasses (which cannot be comta-ed to the wondrous mechanism of the human eye), does
not the human eye itself demand a maker who shall be
greater in wisdom and power than all the opticians on
earth?
But our friend says we see men destroyed all around us.
es,. but there is this difference between the position of the
Thet« and that of the Atheist. The Theist does not say the
man is destroyed. God has given him life, and God has a
right to remove that life to any other sphere He pleases.
He does not destroy the being of man, He simply changes
the place of being, and, therefore, He has a right, if a man
does net square with His demands, or if He thinks fit to
i
. m t0 SOme other condition, to do it, because He
is the originator of all life, and in Him only can life exist.
. ut our friend says there are diseases. Yes, even
microbes Again, I ask you to think. If we were travelling
Midland Railway, so long as the engines kept theiT
proper lines we should say the powers in the engine were
a fl, lf tW° en§ineS C°ming in 0PP0site directions
wkid’4hat P°Wer WhlCh Was g00d would become an evil.
Why
Because the arrangements which had been laid
flown for their safety had been violated, either by the care
lessness or wickedness of man. Now, the vital' forces of
our body and of all living organisms God intended should
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
69
should have been disappointed had it been so, because my
estimate of Charles Bradlaugh was that, whether right or
wrong, he was one of the most careful thinkers and one of
th® most careful expressers of his thought. Now, Charles
Bradlaugh says in explicit terms, as I read to you last night,
that Atheism does not say there is no God; and I submit
that a man’s explicit statement to that effect is of more im
portance than any inference which Mr. Lee or anyone else
may derive from some other passage which he has penned or
spoken, in written or oral debate. Here is a man’s written
aod explicit declaration which cannot be evaded : “ The
Atheist does not say there is no God.” The Atheist takes
the definitions of God which are laid before him for his
acceptance, and, finding that they do not fit in with the
faetg of existence, he contradicts them, because the facts
Contradict them. Now, if that is not an intelligible position
foe a man to take up, then we must admit that we use
Words in a totally different signification, and any further
discussion, at least upon that point, is simply a waste of
time.
But we were told that what Mr. Bradlaugh’s statement
came to was that Atheism denies Theism, including Pan
theism, Polytheism, and Monotheism. Well, I admitted as
much in my opening speech, and there was no occasion to
elaborate what was admitted.
It was stated by my opponent that Atheism had no
foundation. It has the same foundation that anything else
has, or possibly can have. The only foundation for anything,
M Mr. Lee knows well, is man’s knowledge. Mr. Lee also
knows that there have been Atheistic scientists, like Professor Clifford, and that there have been Agnostic scientists
(which comes to the same thing), like Charles Darwin, Pro
fessor Huxley, and Herbert Spencer, whose names will stand
as high as any upon the Theistic roll that Mr. Lee can
produce.
Mr, Lee wants to know what I mean by “conditioned,”
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
71
made Theists before they are able to judge for themselves.
I WS charged with “ robbing the community of its faith
in God.” Robbing ! that is a term from the Old Bailey.
Mr. Lee : I did not wish to use it in that sense, and, if it
is repugnant to Mr. Foote, I will withdraw it.
Mr. Foote : Every man who thinks he has a glimmer of
truth not only has the right to present it to his fellow-men,
but is under a duty to do so. If a man finds, in listening
to another man, that a belief which he thought true is only
half true, or not true at all, instead of being deprived of
anything valuable, he is deprived of something which occu
pied the door of his mind, and kept the truth out of it.
When this intruder is removed, the truth can enter in the
plane of the falsehood that usurped its situation. (Applause.)
We were told, too, that there was no guarantee of morality
in human nature, and that we must trust entirely to God;
yet I find that some of the most notorious villains of our
time have been well-known professors of religion. I do not
say they were so because of their religion, but in the face of
their profession, and in the face of the statistics of crime, it
is idle to tell me we must trust to God for morality. Wher
ever a human heart beats with sympathy ; wherever mothers
love their children ; wherever fathers protect them ; wherever
parents will, with their own lives, save the lives of their dear
ones; wherever one man will rush to the aid of another—
then is the guarantee of morality. Your argosy of faith
floats upon the great sea of humanity. You declare that
the water would dry up without your fleet; yet, if your fleet
were to sink, the mighty ocean of humanity would roll on
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. (Applause.)
Now, we come to what has been said about my opening
speech. Mr. Lee quoted from Weismann, and said that
he put against Mr. Foote’s views of design the words of a
great German. But there is no particular sanctity about a
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
73
apparatus to inflict agony upon every part of their being—
if I could not stop it, I would denounce it, and disown all
responsibility for it. Such things were done in the name of
your God, yet he never stopped it, but let it go on. It is
science and humanity that have put down the brutalities of
your religion. (Applause.)
There are, says Mr. Lee, more smiles than tears in the
world, and so he strikes a balance in favour of his God. A
balance in favour of infinite wisdom, infinite power, and
infinite goodness ! And man strikes it! I can understand
a balance to a man’s credit; but a balance to God’s credit!
And this is the God I am asked to believe in. I cannot
believe in a God like that.
If God makes poor eyes, and the oculist sees their defects,
how is it—Mr. Lee asks—that the oculist cannot make
better ones ? Why, “ making ” is a term of art, and not a
term of nature. Eyes are not made; human beings are not
made; lower animals are not made; plants are not made;
you cannot even make a crystal; you cannot make the
crystallised frost upon your window-pane. The word in
nature is “ growth,” and, if the eye has grown, it is God’s
method, according to Mr. Lee’s argument, of bringing it
into existence; and God is responsible for his handiwork.
It is idle to say we have not the right to point out errors in
a theory unless we have a better theory of our own. We
have such a right. I may not be able to explain the
universe, and I admit I cannot; yet, if you put forward
ft theory that is contradicted by facts which you and I
alike admit, I have a right to say that, whatever may be
the true theory, yours is false; because a theory which does
not fit the facts is false, according to the canons of logic.
(Cheers.)
Mr. Lee: You will observe that the questions which I
put to Mr. Foote in my last speech have not been dealt
with. Mr. Foote has not told us what he believes or under-
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
75
tion is. I am bound to say that Mr. Bradlaugh himself
Seems to me to fail to construct anything, and all Atheists
must share in the same fate.
Our friend says I used, last night, the word “conditioned.”
Yes. And I also said what I meant by it—(cheers)—
namely, that which witnesses to something other than itself,
and demands for its existence some other thing. Now, Mr.
Foote has no right to say that we do not explain our words
where we take every care to explain them. But Mr. Foote
says that by conditioned he means “ existing in relation to
Other things
but this universe is one, not many. Then
what does this witness to, what is it in relation to ? If in
relation to something, what is that something ? If not in
relation to something, then it has no relation at all; and,
if it has no relation at all, then it is not conditioned, and
you do not know it, for you know only the conditioned.
Our friend quotes a number of scientists, Darwin and
Others, and he says these men were men who believed in
Atheism or Agnosticism. I say that these men, almost
Without exception, repelled the charge of Atheism. Tyndall
Said that this word was affixed to him unfairly, and repelled
it. Huxley has rejected the name again and again, Darwin
never said he was an Atheist, and not one of the men to
whom reference has been made ever said he was an Atheist.
In order to show their humility, they took up the position
that they did not know whether there is any God, but they
did not say there is none, and they did not try to prove
there is none ; they simply said they did not know. So our
friend failed altogether even in his references to these men.
But our friend says, in reference to the problem of know
ledge, that knowledge is only relation. Very well. If know
ledge is only relation, and this universe is one, and, therefore,
according to your position, is not relative to any other thing,
how can you, a part of the universe, be conscious of another
part, unless that other part be other than yourself; and if
that Other part be other than yourself, then you are in
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
77
to this earth, and this earth alone, and fixing their affections
and their minds on things of time and sense alone, they
have thought themselves to be part and parcel of a brutal
ising world; and so they have crushed and tom each other,
not because of God, but because their hearts have been
opposed to God.
God, our friend says, has allowed this to occur, and, in a
very thrilling statement, he said: “Now, if any man were
to injure another in my name, if I could not stop it, I would
denounce it.” Yes, and the great God has put into men a
power of mind which we call conscience, and that power of
mind has bitten men like a serpent when they dared to
break the law of God’s world, “Love thy neighbour as
thyself.” (Applause.)
Our friend says God has not interfered in this world. We
have no right to go into the question of revelation to-night,
but we believe God has interfered. But our friend, Mr.
Foote, does not believe in God because he has not interfered
to stop certain cruelties ; and when he did interfere for the
Salvation of man from sin, our friend denied that he had
interfered at all 1 This is a very strange contradiction, and
a very strange position to be in. (Derisive laughter.)
Mr. Foote referred to Weismann, and seems to imagine
that I thought there is a strange charm in a German scientist.
Mr. Foote : I said there is no magic in a German name.
Mr. Lee : That implied the same. The reason I empha
sised that Weismann was a German was that a great deal
of our philosophy and science comes from Germany. The
foremost thinkers in Europe to-day are to be found in
Germany; great experimenters and observers in Germany
have given to the world facts, and inferences from facts,
which English and other thinkers have been careful to follow
out. That is why I emphasised German.
But our friend says that these quotations from Weismann
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
79
A word as to Darwin and his Descent of Man. Dr.
Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of
the principle of Evolution, has gone into the question of
Buffering very thoroughly, and, in his work on Darwinism^
he shows, in some three or four pages, that what Mr. Foote
has attempted to establish on that point to-night is not what
is in nature, but what exists only in Mr. Foote’s mind.
(Applause.)
The Chairman : We have now reached the final stage
Of this debate. I am about to call upon Mr. Foote to give
us his last contribution to it; and I would take the liberty
Of again saying that he is entitled, and I hope will receive,
your careful and courteous attention. It is more than pro
bable—I do not say I expect it—that he will adduce
arguments and make statements which may trouble the
minds of some who listen to them ; but I will again remind
guch persons that they will, on this occasion, have the oppor
tunity of hearing the final word from their own champion.
Mr. Foote : My attention is drawn to the fact that no
H®w matter is to be introduced into the last speech. That
is a point which my opponent must be careful about, as he
has got the last speech, not I. My position is one which I
generally find the Atheist has to accept. Theism, of course,
is true, and Atheism, of course, is false ; yet Theists usually
fed the advantage, even in the case of truth against error,
of having the last word.
Now, with respect to Germany, I do not object to
Germany; my only surprise was that “ German ” should be
put before “science,” as it was. Science is not English,
French, German, or of any nationality. Science is universal.
Science speaks an universal language when it speaks fact
and truth. And I deny that all our English science and
philosophy comes from Germany. It is a libel upon
England. Charles Darwin, the greatest biologist of this
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
8l
Then, again, Mr. Lee says that Atheism and Agnosticism
are different. What is the difference ? It is very largely
the difference between courage and timidity. I have
defined—rather ironically, it may be, but I may repeat it as
I have said it before—I have defined an Agnostic as an
Atheist with a tall hat on; and really Agnostics, who, as
Mr. Lee says—giving the names of Huxley and Spencer—
declare they do not know there is a God, are, to all intents
and purposes, in the same position as the Atheist. If they
do not know there is a God, it is clear that they are without
God, and to be without God is to be an Atheist.
Then we were told that God made man, but man’s heart
went astray and was opposed to God. (“ Oh.”) I should be
sorry to misrepresent Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee : The words were “ but man has sought out
many devices.”
Mr. Foote : That is not the expression I was referring
to, Mr. Lee said that man’s heart had got opposed to
God I should be sorry to misrepresent him, but that is
Wfcat I have written down, and what, I think, I heard—at
any rate, it is the substance of what Mr. Lee said upon this
point. Jost take a human father and his child. If a child
of mine go astray, and I have fulfilled all my duties towards
him, I am not responsible for his wandering; because, in
bringing him into the world, I was not able to determine
absolutely his intellectual and moral character. But if a
father could absolutely determine the intellectual and moral
character of his child, and that child went astray, the
father Would be responsible for not exercising his power.
(Applause.) God is not in the position of an earthly father.
An earthly father works under what to us, however inscrutable, are laws of heredity; for a child is not simply the
child of his father, he is a child of his father’s father, and
his mother s father, and their mothers and fathers. Heredity
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
83
parposes, and we are striving to abolish it, and so to prevent
the ethical education which you say God intends by his in
flictions.
God, we are told, has a right to take the life he sends.
For the sake of argument I will not impugn that. There is
no time to discuss it. But, assuming that God has the right
to take life, let us see how it works out. Under the law we
have a right to take life. A criminal is tried and sentenced
to execution. But society insists that, if he is to be killed,
he shall be killed in the most painless manner possible.
We insist that the hanging shall be done with the utmost
dispatch. In America they are trying whether electricity is
not even less painful than hanging. In short, although we
must (as we say) kill (though I doubt if anybody has that
right), still, if we must kill, we are refined enough to say we
must kill swiftly and painlessly. But that is not God’s
method; what we see in nature is not swift killing; it is
slow killing. When man is killed by “the act of God,” it
is often done very slowly ; not in a moment as by’the
hangman’s noose or by electrocution. A lingering disease
comes on and kills him week by week, month by month,
ahd year by year. It is an agonising form of cruelty. If
God has the right to take life, I deny that he has the right
to take it in that way. If life must be taken, it should be
taken swiftly and painlessly. All this cruelty in nature, all
this killing of human beings by slow disease and long agony,
gives the He to the statement that your God is a being of
¡»finite kindness and love.
&
Mr. Lee says that I object to revelation because I am
told that God does interfere in the world, and that I object
to Theism because God does
interfere in the world. He
says that is a contradiction. There is no contradiction; it
is a harmony. I object to Theism, because God does not
interfere to prevent injustice, cruelty, and suffering. You
try to justify his non-interference. Afterwards you offer me
a revelation, in which he does interfere. The contradiction
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
85
(so far as I am concerned) must be brought to a close. I
do not expect that what I have said in this debate will
haw pleased everybody. All I can say is that it was my
duty to say what I thought necessary. I took my own
position and defended it, and attacked what Mr. Lee himself
advanced. The world moves by this constant agitation.
You find sound water in the eager, flowing current. The
Still pool is stagnant and loathsome. And when the air
gets overcharged at times, we see the beautiful spectacle
of the lightning. But you cannot have the lightning without
the dash of the thunder-clouds. And when we differ in
opinion we have these friendly meetings, so that out of the
thunder-clash of debate there may leap forth the lightning
of truth. (Loud applause.)
The Chairman : In fifteen minutes more this debate
will be brought to a close. That space of time will be
occupied by Mr. Lee, whom I now call on.
Mr. Lee : I do not know whether I understood Mr. Foote
to say that Theists like the last word. If I did understand
him to say that, may I remind him that he suggested that I
should open the first night, and he would open the second
night ? That is not my arrangement, but his. So, then,
our friend has made a mistake in saying I like the last word.
Our friend says that the putting of the word “ German ”
before the word “ science ” was what he quarrelled with,
because science is universal. It does not belong to Germany
or Bngland; it is universal. If science is universal, then
knowledge is universal, and the great Scientific Being—if
you will allow me to use the word—must be an universal
Knowing Being ; and that Being can be no other than God.
The truth is that, out of all the scientific facts to be found
everywhere in nature, we can get lines of evidence which
lead up to one great fact—God is, and God reigns.
But our friend says it is an insult to England to say most
�THEISM OR ATHEISM ?
87
to ask for a definition ; and Mr. Foote, in answer to my
request, ought to have given me a definition. But we have
it now, and it comes to this—matter is the substance of all
the phenomena which come under his sensations. But
what are your sensations ? Sensations are not matter; they
are the mind's recognition of material existences and con
nections. Then there is something other than matter j and
the thing for which I have been contending, the recognition
Of mind as a separate entity and substance, is now estab
lished in the confession of Mr. Foote. (Applause.)
Mr. Foote says that Atheism does not construct, any
more than Theism constructs ; it is a speculative system.
But the speculation has shown itself in this way—that, while
I have been brave enough to lay down a series of given
propositions, each of them leading up to another, and to
construct an argument on definite propositions and evi
dences, Mr. Foote has not constructed any argument, but
has simply been criticising the ideas and theories which he
fancies represent Theism. So, then, Atheism, in the person
of Mr. Foote, has not constructed anything. Theism, in
the person of Mr. Lee, has constructed something; and
that something has not been touched. (Applause.)
But Mr. Foote admits there is a difference between
Atheism and Agnosticism. The one, he would say, re
presents courage, and the other timidity. But is it not
funny that some of the men to whom he has referred as
not believing in God are the men who write themselves
down Agnostics, and, therefore, are characterised by Mr.
Foote as being too timid to say what their belief is ? Not
by any means a flattering position to be in.
But Mr. Foote objects to the statement that man’s heart
is opposed to God. I am not sure whether I made use of
those words—probably I did; but, whether I used them or
not, they describe a great fact, and facts are stubborn things.
Man’s heart is opposed to God, for what has Mr. Foote
Shown us to-night ? “Tell me,” he said, “ that a God like
�THEISM OR ATHEISM?
89
Our friend says that the idea of God was of slow growth,
and he gave us a remarkable history as to how the idea of
God grew; but, while the story was pretty, it was opposed
to ascertained facts, for we know, by the science of com
parative religion, that the first form of religion known
to man was not belief in many Gods, but belief in one
God.
Ah, says our friend, but in battles of this nature clouds
gome together, and in the shock the lightning flash of
truth comes forth. Yes, yes; but what is truth ? I feel
sometimes, as I think of the sufferings through which I have
seen some small section of the human race pass, that I also
know something of suffering. I have seen my little ones
taken out of my home and hidden in the earth; but to tell
me5 Sir, that I have been produced by a mindless, brainless,
purposeless, heartless universe, only to have affections
qwcteied in my heart, only to have children born and
placed in my arms, and then for this blind, ruthless thing
you call the universe to wreck those affections and destroy
those lives, is to say that your universe is an incarnate fiend.
But if there be a God, and that God possesses mind, intention, heart, my children are not dead—they live. And out
of the shock of brain with brain, and heart with heart, there
©om® this truth: “Thank God, heaven is above all yet,
and there lives a Judge whom no king can corrupt.” (Much
applause.)
Mr* Lee, again rising, said : It is now my duty, my
pleasurable duty, to move that the very best thanks of this
meeting be given to our worthy chairman for so generously,
patiently, and ably presiding over our meeting on these two
evenings of debate.
Me. Moote : I beg, with the most profound sincerity, to
seccmd that vote of thanks.
Upon being put, the vote was carried by acclamation.
�(Poem omitted through Reporteds error (see page 61).
Who shall say that to no mortal
Heaven ere ope’d its mystic portal ?
Gave no dream or revelation,
Save to one peculiar nation ?
Souls sincere, now voiceless, nameless,
Knelt at altars, fired and flameless ;
Asked of nature, asked of reason,
Sought through every sign and season,
Seeking God. Through darkness groping,
Weeping, praying, panting, pining
For the light on Israel shining.
Ah, it must be God’s sweet kindness
Pities erring human blindness ;
And the soul whose pure endeavor
Strives toward God shall live forever—
Live by the great Father’s favor,
Saved by the all-sufficient Savior.
�
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
Theism or atheism : which is the more reasonable?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Lee, W.T.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 90 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Report of a public debate between Mr. W.T. Lee and Mr. G.W.Foote held in the Temperance Hall, Derby, May 15 and 16, 1895. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N266
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Theism
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 (Theism or atheism : which is the more reasonable?), 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
Atheism
NSS
Theism