1
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e6f6f571b07983fd9b8554d91997cd3f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M3FUraicwvGnt%7EIcP8%7E8HZB8X2iMbAeCLiLHizZOxV7%7EEtrglkqr0PB6FUc8smMnCcVBU9d%7EUpAJu1h8r6ArXLmURkaHGoQ%7E-jFXj3K6LH2d9TLUGsB0eFIKIrDd00oxUmnntwRdDJJvDV3-2HRar%7EFtk0Ch0FpYmwzqKH5fBynKHzaF6pGA2T9-G5hvXzlqz5BABc6TjW-oADr-khd3maqNp%7EAUqeVNSuZRuWTEey11PCZqYehilYV5I1GEDywyntCHvep0SNtisaBKDJSuIGA1ZUOtC2Inny59iG%7EGuqnWDtAOHWL28-QqGCNRx3quPCbo5z5QQ6MtJLkToqu%7Eyg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6bc38f29eebfb572508a6d81b2066ef4
PDF Text
Text
NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
Most undoubtedly father Abraham is a personage whose his
tory should command our attention, if only because he figures
as the founder of the Jewish race—a race which, having
been promised protection and favour by Deity, appear to
have experienced little else besides the infliction or suffer
ance of misfortune and misery. Men are taught to believe
that God, following out a solemn covenant made with
Abraham, suspended the operations of nature to aggrandise
the Jews; that he promised always to bless and favour
them if they adhered to his worship and obeyed the priests.
The promised blessings were usually—political authority,
individual happiness and sexual power, long life, and great
wealth; the threatened curses for idolatry or disobedience
—disease, loss of property and children, mutilation, death.
Amongst the blessings—the right to kill, plunder, and ravish
their enemies, with protection, whilst pious, against any
subjection to retaliatory measures. And all this because
they were Abraham’s children!
Abraham is an important personage. Without Abraham,
no Jesus, no Christianity, no Church of England, no bishops,
no tithes, no church rates. But for Abraham, England
would have lost all these blessings. Abraham was the great
grandfather of Judah, the head of the tribe to which God’s
father, Joseph, belonged.
In gathering materials for a short biographical sketch, we
are at the same time comforted and dismayed by the fact
that the only reliable account of Abraham’s career is that
furnished by the book of Genesis, supplemented by a few
brief references in other parts of the Bible, and that, outside
“ God’s perfect and infallible revelation to man,” there is
no reliable account of Abraham’s existence at all. We are
comforted by the thought that Genesis is unquestioned by
the faithful, and is at present protected by Church and State
against heretic assaults; but we are dismayed when we think
that, if Infidelity, encouraged by Colenso and Kalisch, up
sets Genesis, Abraham will have little historical claim on
our attention. Some philologists have asserted that Brama
and Abraham are alike corruptions of Abba Rama, or
Abrama, and that Sarah is identical with Sarasvati.
�■ - I W-I-V
2
• ,•
„ ,,1. ?k,y
NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
Abram, is a Chaldean compound, meaning father of the
elevated, or exalted father. OFTON is a compound of
Chaldee and Arabic, signifying father of a multitude. In
part v. of his work, Colenso mentions that Adonis was for
merly identified with Abram, “ high father,” Adonis being
the personified sun.
Leaving incomprehensible philology for the ordinary au
thorised version of our Bibles, we find that Abraham was
the son of Terah. The text does not expressly state where
Abraham was born, and I cannot therefore describe his birth
place with that accuracy of detail which a true believer might
desire, but I may add that he “ dwelt in old time on the
other side of the flood.” (Joshua xxiv. 2 and 3.) The
situation of such dwelling involves a geographical problem
most unlikely to be solved unless the inquirer is “ half seas
over.” Abraham was born when Terah, his father, was
seventy years of age; and, according to Genesis, Terah and
his family came forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and went
to Haran and dwelt there. We turn to the map to look for
Ur of the Chaldees, anxious to discover it as possibly
Abraham’s place of nativity, but find that the translators of
God’s inspired word have taken a slight liberty with the text
by substituting “ Ur of the Chaldees” for “Aur Kasdim,”
the latter being, in plain English, the light of the magi, or con
jurors, or astrologers.
is stated by Kalisch to
have been made the basis for many extraordinary legends,
as to Abraham’s rescue from the flames.
Abraham, being born—according to Hebrew chronology,
2083 years after the creation, and according to the Septuagint 3549 years after that event—when his father was
seventy, grew so slowly that when his father reached the good
old age of 205 years, Abraham had only arrived at 75 years,
having, apparently, lost no less than 60 years’ growth during
his father’s life-time. St. Augustine and St. Jerome gave
this up as a difficulty inexplicable. Calmet endeavours to
explain it, and makes it worse. But what real difficulty is
there ? Do you mean, dear reader, that it is impossible
Abraham could have lived 135 years, and yet be only 75 years
of age? Is this your objection? It is a sensible one, I
admit, but it is an Infidel one. Eschew sense, and retaining
only religion, ever remember that with God all things are
possible. Indeed, I have read myself that gin given to
young children stunts their growth ; and who shall say what
�NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
3
influence of the spirit prevented the full development of
Abraham’s years ? It is a slight question whether Abraham
and his two brothers were not born the same year; if this be
so, he might have been a small child, and not grown so
quickly as he would have otherwise done. “ The Lord ”
spoke to Abraham, and promised to make of him a great
nation, to bless those who blessed Abraham, and to curse
those who cursed him. I do not know precisely which Lord
it was that spake unto Abraham. In the Hebrew it says it
was
Jeue, or, as our translators call it, Jehovah,
but as God said (Exodus vi. 2) that by the name “Jehovah
was I not known ” to either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, we
must conclude either that the omniscient Deity had forgotten
the matter, or that a counterfeit Lord had assumed a title to
which he had no right. The word Jehovah, which the book
of Exodus says Abraham did not know, is nearly always the
name by which Abraham addresses or speaks of the Jewish
Deity.
Abraham having been promised protection by the God of
Truth, initiated his public career with a diplomacy of state
ment worthy Talleyrand, Thiers, or Gladstone. He repre
sented his wife Sarah as his sister, which, if true, is a sad
reproach to the marriage. The ruling Pharaoh, hearing the
beauty of Sarah commended, took her into his house, she
being at that time a fair Jewish dame, between 60 and 70
years of age, and he entreated Abraham well for her sake,
and he had sheep and oxen, asses and servants, and camels.
We do not read that Abraham objected in any way to the
loss of his wife. The Lord, who is all just, finding out that
Pharaoh had done wrong, not only punished the king, but
also punished the king’s household, who could hardly haw
interfered with his misdoings. Abraham got his wife back
and went away much richer by the transaction. Whethc<
the conduct of father Abraham in pocketing quietly the prict.
of the insult—or honour—offered to his wife, is worthy
modern imitation, is a question I leave to be discussed by
Convocation when it has finished with the Athanasian Creed.
After this transaction we are not surprised to hear that
Abraham was very rich in “ silver and gold.” So was the
Duke of Marlborough after the King had taken his sister in
similar manner into his house. In verse 19 of chapter xii.
there is a curious mistranslation in our version. The text
is : “ It is for that I had taken her for my wifeour version
�4
NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
has : “ I might have taken her.” The Douay so translates as
to take a middle phrase, leaving it doubtful whether or not
Pharaoh actually took Sarah as his wife. In any case, the
Egyptian king acted well throughout. Abraham plays the
part of a timorous, contemptible hypocrite. Strong enough
to have fought for his wife, he sold her. Yet Abraham was
blessed for his faith, and his conduct is our pattern !
Despite his timorousness in the matter of his wife, Abraham
was a man of wonderful courage and warlike ability. To
rescue his relative, Lot—with whom he could not live on the
same land without quarrelling, both being religious—he armed
318 servants, and fought with four powerful kings, defeating
them and recovering the spoil. Abraham's victory was so de
cisive, that the King of Sodom, who fled and fell (xiv. 10) in
a previous encounter, now met Abraham alive (see v. 17), to
congratulate him on his victory. Abraham was also offered
bread and wine by Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of
the Most High God. Where was Salem ? Some identify it
with Jerusalem, which it cannot be, as Jebus was not so
named until after the time of the Judges (Judges xix. 10).
How does this King, of this unknown Salem, never heard of
before or after, come to be priest of the Most High God ?
These are queries for divines—orthodox disciples believe
without inquiring. Melchisedek was most unfortunate as
far as genealogy is concerned. He had no father. I do
not mean by this that any bar sinister defaced his escutcheon.
He not only was without father, but without mother also; he
had no beginning of days or end of life, and is therefore
probably at the present time an extremely old gentleman,
who would be an invaluable acquisition to any antiquarian
association fortunate enough to cultivate his acquaintance.
God having promised Abraham a numerous family, and the
promise not having been in any part fulfilled, the patriarch
grew uneasy, and remonstrated with the Lord, who explained
the matter thoroughly to Abraham when the latter was in a
deep sleep, and a dense darkness prevailed. Religious ex
planations come with greater force under these or similar con
ditions. Natural or artificial light and clear-sightedness are
always detrimental to spiritual manifestations.
Abraham’s wife had a maid named Hagar, and she bore
to Abraham a child named Ishmael; at the time Ishmael
was born, Abraham was 86 years of age. Just before Ish
mael’s birth Hagar was so badly treated that she ran away.
�NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
5
As she was only a slave, God persuaded Hagar to return,
and humble herself to her mistress. Thirteen years after
wards God appeared to Abraham, and instituted the rite of
circumcision—which rite had been practised long before by
other nations—and again renewed the promise. The rite
of circumcision was not only practised by nations long an
terior to that of the Jews, but appears, in many cases, not
even to have been pretended as a religious rite. (See
Kalisch, Genesis, p. 386; Cahen, Genese, p. 43.) After God
had “ left off talking with him, God went up from Abraham.”
As God is infinite, he did not, of course, go up; but still
the Bible says God went up, and it is the duty of the people
to believe that he did so, especially as the infinite Deity
then and now resides habitually in “ heaven,” wherever that
may be. Again the Lord appeared to Abraham, either as
three men or angels, or as one of the three; and Abraham,
who seemed hospitably inclined, invited the three to wash
their feet, and to rest under the tree, and gave butter and
milk and dressed calf, tender and good, to them, and they
did eat; and after the inquiry as to where Sarah then was,
the promise of a son is repeated. Sarah—then by her own
admission an old woman, stricken in years—laughed when
she heard this, and the Lord said, “ Wherefore did Sarah
laugh ?” and Sarah denied it, but the Lord said, “ Nay, but
thou didst laugh.” The three then went toward Sodom, and
Abraham went with them as a guide ; and the Lord ex
plained to Abraham that some sad reports had reached him
about Sodom and Gomorrah, and that he was then going to
find out whether the report was reliable. God is infinite,
and was always therefore at Sodom and Gomorrah, but had
apparently been temporarily absent; he is omniscient, and
therefore knew everything which was' happening at Sodom
and Gomorrah, but he did not know whether or not the
people were as wicked as they had been represented to him.
God, Job tells us, “ put no trust in his servants, and his angels
he charged with folly.” Between the rogues and the fools,
therefore, the all-wise and all-powerful God seems to be as
liable to be mistaken in the reports made to him as any
monarch might be in reports made by his ministers. Two
of the three men, or angels, went on to Sodom, and left the
Lord with Abraham, who began to remonstrate with Deity
on the wholesale destruction contemplated, and asked him
to spare the city if fifty righteous should be found within
�6
NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
it. God said, “ If I find fifty righteous within the city, then
will I spare the place for their sakes.” God, being all-wise,
he knew there were not fifty in Sodom, and was deceiving
Abraham. By dint of hard bargaining in thorough Hebrew
fashion, Abraham, whose faith seemed tempered by distrust,
got the stipulated number reduced to ten, and then “ the
Lord went his way.”
Jacob Ben Chajim, in his introduction to the Rabbinical
Bible, p. 28, tells us that the Hebrew text used to read in
verse 22 : “ And Jehovah still stood before Abraham /’ but
the scribes altered it, and made Abraham stand before the
Lord, thinking the original text offensive to Deity.
The 18th chapter of Genesis has given plenty of work to the
divines. Augustin contended that God can take food,
though he does not require it. Justin compared “the eating
of God with the devouring power of the fire.” Kalisch
sorrows over the holy fathers “ who have taxed all their in
genuity to make the act of eating compatible with the attri
butes of Deity.”
In the Epistle to the Romans, Abraham’s faith is greatly
praised. We are told, iv. 19 and 20, that—
“ Being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body
now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither
yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb.”
“ He staggered not at the promise of God through un
belief ; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.”
Yet, so far from Abraham giving God glory, we are told
in Genesis, xvii. 17, that—
“ Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in
his heart, shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred
years old ? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear ?”
The Rev. Mr. Boutell says that “ the declaration which
caused Sarah to ‘laugh,’ shows the wonderful familiarity
which was then permitted to Abraham in his communica
tions with God.”
After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham
journeyed south and sojourned in Gerar, and either untaught
or too well taught by his previous experience, again repre
sented his wife as his sister, and Abimelech, king of Gerar,
sent and took Sarah. As before, we find neither remon
strance nor resistance recorded on the part of Abraham.
This time God punished, d la Malthus, the women in
Abimelech’s house for an offence they did not commit, and
�NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
7
Sarah was again restored to her husband, with sheep, oxen,
men-servants, and women-servants, and money. Infidels
object that the Bible says Sarah “ was old and well stricken
in age;” that “it had ceased to be with her after the manner
of womenthat she was more than 90 years of age; and
that it is not likely King Abim elech would fall in love with
an ugly old woman. We reply, “ chacun a son gout.” It is
clear that Sarah had not ceased to be attractive, as God re
sorted to especial means to protect her virtue from Abimelech.
At length Isaac is born, and his mother Sarah now urges
Abraham to expel Hagar and her son, “ and the thing was
very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his sonthe
mother being only a bondwoman does not seem to have
troubled him. God, however, approving Sarah’s notion.
Hagar is expelled, “ and she departed and wandered in the
wilderness, and the water was spent in the bottle, and she
cast the child under one of the shrubs.” She had apparently
carried the child, who being at least more than 14, and
according to some calculations as much as 17 years of age,
must have been a heavy child to carry in a warm climate.
God never did tempt any man at any time, but he “ did
tempt Abraham ” to kill Isaac by offering him as a burnt
offering. The doctrine of human sacrifice is one of the holy
mysteries of Christianity, as taught in the Old and New
Testament. Of course, judged from a religious or Biblical
stand-point, it cannot be wrong, as if it were, God would
not have permitted Jephtha to sacrifice his daughter by
offering her as a burnt offering, nor have tempted Abraham
to sacrifice his son, nor have said in Leviticus, “ None de
voted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed;
but shall surely be put to death” (xxvii. 29), nor have in the
New Testament worked out the monstrous sacrifice of his
only son Jesus, at the same time son and begetting father.
Abraham did not seem to be entirely satisfied with his
own conduct when about to kill Isaac, for he not only con
cealed from his servants his intent, but positively stated that
which was not true, saying, “ I and the lad will go yonder
and worship, and come again to you.” If he meant that he
and Isaac would come again to them, then he knew that the
sacrifice would not take place. Nay, Abraham even deceived
his own son, who asked him where was thelamb for the burnt
offering ? But we learn from the New Testament that
Abraham acted in this and other matters “ by faith/ so his
�8
NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM.
falsehoods and evasions, being results and aids of faith, must
be dealt with in an entirely different manner from transactions
of every day life. Just as Abraham stretched forth his hand
to slay his son, the angel of the Lord called to him from
heaven, and prevented the murder, saying, “Now I know
that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy
son.” This would convey the impression that up. to that
moment the angel of the Lord was not certain upon the
subject.
In Genesis xiii. God says to Abraham, “Lift up now
thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art north
ward, and southward, and eastward, and westward. For all
the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy
seed for ever. Arise, walk through the land, in the length
of it, and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee.”
Yet, as is admitted by the Rev. Charles Boutell, in his
“Bible Dictionary,” “ The only portion of territory in that
land of promise, of which Abraham became possessed,” was
a graveyard, which he had bought and paid for. Although
Abraham was too old to have children before the birth of
Isaac, he had many children after Isaac is bom. He
lived to “ a good old age,” and died “ full of years,” but
was yet younger than any of those who preceded him,
and whose ages are given in the Bible history, except
Nahor.
Abraham gave “ all that he had to Isaac,” but appears
to have distributed the rest of the property amongst his
other children, who were sent to enjoy it somewhere down
East.
According to the New Testament, Abraham is now in
Paradise, but Abraham in heaven is scarcely an improvement
upon Abraham on earth. When he was entreated by an
unfortunate in hell for a drop of water to cool his tongue,
father Abraham replied, “ Son, remember that in thy life
time thou receivedst thy good things, and now thou art
tormented,” as if the reminiscence of past good would
alleviate present and future continuity of evil.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Printed and published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street.
�
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
New life of Abraham
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4948
Subject
The topic of the resource
Judaism
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 (New life of Abraham), 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
Abraham
Bible-O.T.
Judaism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/68eb19399654ac7b92c891dae8d6bc21.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Bs56QPnfLTG29tzydH-tZmU%7EI65HfRaF0y4%7EL3hiNCdfJDsRqnLpCtzzjIiG8ozsm0xSuESNPS1Jv43ast9qrhKM34mbB4aEzXx4R5DtQAUOw4mKSDNcVOnfnYfCxqNRup%7E5rndLh1IeykfGi7%7EeztPZenOiKrMwtcbfywmFKelOLXHhfenyitaUhhOEnAU%7EupMJtWqKzGS917GYuogb-36d%7EGU9-5mbH7jgHyE10wk6LRPj7HzQXpfn6s4SqsLnFuP2MQ6%7E%7EF6iNhdFFA4ASkmbM0pFxPx8nhDMo4S7rrR4ppEESuzw8jQ-4iCFJW-Vix1xGfiYJMC5mnGtc0gy8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dd72caf0a13bcef2f7b2c02518a50374
PDF Text
Text
o
-'¿Z A.
WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
BY C. BEADLAUGH.
The doctrines of Jesus may be sought for and found 'in a small compass.
Four thin gospels are alleged to contain nearly the entirety of his sayings,
and as most Englishmen are professedly Christians, it might be fairly sup
*
posed that the general public were conversant with Christ’s teachings.
This, however, is not the case. The bulk of professors believe from custom
rather than from reading. They profess a faith as they follow a fashion—
because others have done so before them. What did Jesus teach? Manly
self-reliant resistance of wrong, and practise of right? No; the key-stone
of his whole teaching may be found in the text, “Blessed are the poor in.
spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”* Is poverty of spirit the chief
amongst virtues, that Jesus gives it the prime place in his teaching? Is
poverty of spirit a virtue at all? Surely not. Manliness of spirit, honesty
of spirit, fulness of rightful purpose, these are virtues; but poverty of spirit
is a crime. When men are poor in spirit, then do the proud and haughty
in spirit oppress and trample upon them, but when men are true in spirit
and determined (as true men should be) to resist and prevent evil, wrong,
and injustice whenever they can, then is there greater'opportunity for hap
piness here, and no lesser fitness for the enjoyment of further happiness, in
some may-be heaven, hereafter. Are you poor in spirit, and are you
smitten; in such case what did Jesus teach?—“ Unto whom that smiteth thee
on the one cheek, offer also the other.’’f ’Twere better far to teach that
* he who courts oppression shares the crime.” Rather say, if smitten once,
take careful measure to prevent a future smiting. I have heard men preach
passive resistance, but this teaches actual invitation of injury, a course
degrading in the extreme. Shelley breathed higher humanity in his noble
advice:—
“ Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks, which are
Weapons of an unvanquished war.”
There is a wide distinction between the passive resistance to wrong and
the courting of further injury at the hands of the wrongdoer. I have in no
case seen this better illustrated than in Mr. George Jacob Holyoake s
history of his imprisonment in Gloucester Jail,J where passive resistance
• Matthew v., 3.
t Luke, vi., 29.
Last Trial by Jury for Atheism,” p. C®.
�3
WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
saved him from the indignity of a prison dress, and also from compulsory
attendance at morning prayer in the prison chapel, which in his case would
have been to him an additional insult. But the teaching of Jesus goes much
beyond this kind of conduct; the poverty of spirit principle is enforced to
the fullest conceivable extent—“ Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid
not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and from
him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.”* Poverty of person
is the only possible sequence to this extraordinary manifestation of poverty
of spirit. Poverty of person is attended with many unpleasantnesses; and
if Jesus knew that poverty of goods would result from his teaching, we
might expect some notice of this. And so there is—as if he wished to keep
the poor content through their lives with poverty, he says, “ Blessed be
ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God.”f “ But woe unto you that are
rich, for ye have received your consolation.’’^ He pictures one in hell,
Whose only related vice is that in life he was rich; and another in heaven,
whose only related virtue is that in life he was poor.§ He at another time
tells his hearers that it is as difficult for a rich man to get into heaven as
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. || • The only intent of such
teaching could be to induce the poor to remain content with the want and
misery attendant on their wretched state in this life, in the hope of a higher
recompense in some future life. Is it good to be content with poverty?
Nay, ’tis better far to investigate the cause for such poverty, with a view to
its cure and prevention. The doctrine is a most horrid one which declares
that the poor shall not cease from the face of the earth. Poor in spirit and
poor in pocket. With no courage to work for food, or money to purchase
it! we might well expect to find-the man who held these doctrines with
empty stomach also; and what does Jesus teach?—“ Blessed are ye thatdiunger now, for ye shall be filledHe does not say when the filling shall take
place, but the date is evidently postponed until the time when you will have
no stomachs to replenish. It is not in this life that the hunger is to be
sated. Do you doubt me, turn again to your Testament and read, “ Woe
unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger.”** This must surely settle the
point. It would be but little vantage to the hungry man to bless him by
filling him, if when he had satisfied his appetite, he were met by a curse
which had awaited the completion of his repast. Craven in spirit, with an
empty purse and hungry mouth—what next? The man who has not man
liness enough to prevent wrong, will probably bemoan his hard .fate, and
cry bitterly that so sore are the misfortunes he endures. And what does
Jesus teach?—“Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.”■f•|■ Is this
true, and if true, when? “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be com
forted.”^ Aye, but when? Not while they mourn and weep. Weeping for the
past is vain; ’tis past, and a deluge of tears will never wash away its history.
Weeping for the present is worse than vain—it obstructs your sight. In
each minute of your life the aforetime future is present-born, and you need
dry and keen eyes to give it and yourself a safe and happy deliverance.
When shall they that mourn be comforted? Are slaves that weep salt tear• Luke, vi., vv. 29, 30.
L.
2533 Matthew, v., i.
t Luke, vi., 20.
3 Luke, vi., 21.
3 Luke, vi., 24.
•• Luke, vi., 25,
} Luke, xvi., 19—3b
ff Luke, vi., 21.
�WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
drops on their steel shackels comforted in their weeping? Nay, but each
pearly overflowing, as it falls, rusts mind as well as fetter. Ye who are
slaves and weep, will never be comforted until ye dry your eyes and ®arve
your arms, and, in the plentitude of your manliness—
“ Shake your chains to earth like dew,
Which in sleep have fall’n on you.”
Jesus teaches tha.t the poor, the hungry, and the wretched shall be
blessed? This is not so. The blessing only comes when they have ceased
to be poor, hungry, and wretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger,
and misery is high treason, not to yourself alone, but to your fellows.
These three, like foul diseases, spread quickly wherever humanity is stag
nant and content with wrong.
What did Jesus teach? ts Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”*
So far well, but how if thy neighbour will not hear thy doctrine when thou
preacheth the “ glad tidings of great joy ” to him? Then forgetting all thy
love, and with the bitter hatred that a theological disputant alone can
manifest, thou “shalt shake off the dust from your feet,” and by so doing
make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah than for your unfortunate neighbour who has ventured to main
tain an opinion of his own, and who will not let you be his priest.f It is,
indeed, a mockery to speak of love, as if love to one another could result
from the dehumanising and isolating faith required from the disciple of
Jesus. Ignatius Loyola in this, at least, was more consistent than his Pro
testant brethren. “ If any man come unto 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.’’^ “ Think not that I am come to send
peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s
foes they shall be of his own household.”§ “ Every one that hath forsaken
houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or
lands for my sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlast
ing life,”|| The teaching of Jesus is, in fact, save yourself by yourself.
The teaching of humanity should be, to save yourself save your fellow.
The human family is a vast chain, each man and woman a link. There is
no snapping off one link and preserving for it an entirety of happiness; our
joy depends on our brother’s also. But what does Jesus teach? That
“many are called, but few are chosen:” that the majority will inherit an
eternity of misery, while it is but the minority who obtain eternal happi
ness. And on what is the eternity of bliss to depend? On a truthful
course of life? Not so. Jesus purs Father Abraham in Heaven, whose
reputation for faith outstrips his character for veracity. The passport
through Heaven’s portals is faith. “ He that believeth and is baptised shall
be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned.”^ Are you married ?
Have you a wife you love? She dies and you. You from your firs> speech
to your last had ever said, “ I believe,” much as a clever parrot might say
* Matthew, xix., 19.
§ Matthew, x., 34—36.
t Matthew, x., 14,15,
H Matthew, xix., 29.
t Luke, xiv., 26.
f Mark, xvi., 16.
�WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
4
it, if well taught. You had never examined your reasons for your faithi
for, like a true believer should, you distrusted the efficacy of your carnal
reason. You said, therefore, “I believe in God and Jesus Christ,”because
you had been taught to say it, and you would have as glibly said, “ I believe
in Allah, and in Mahomet his prophet,” had your birth-place been a few
degrees more eastward, and your parents and instructors Turks. You
believed in this life and awake in Heaven. Your much-loved wife did not
think as you did—she could not. Her organisation, education, and tempe
rament were all different from your own. She disbelieved because she_
could not believe. She was a good wife, but she disbelieved. A good and'
affectionate mother, but she disbelieved. A virtuous and kindly woman,
but she disbelieved. And you are to be happy for an eternity in Heaven,
while she is writhing in agony in HeU. If true, I could say with Shelley,
of this Christianity, that it
“ Peoples earth with demons, hell with men,
And heaven with slaves.”
It is often urged that Jesus is the Saviour of the world, that he brought
redemption without let or stint to the whole human race. But what did
Jesus teach? “ Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of
the Samaritan enter ye not.”* These were his injunctions to those whom
he first sent out to preach. “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel,” is his hard answer to the poor Syropheni ian woman who
s entreating succour for her child. Christianity, as first taught by Jesus,
was for the Jews alone, and it is only upon his rejection by them, that the
world at large has the opportunity of salvation afforded it. “ He came
unto his own and his own received him not.”f Why should the Jews
be more God's own than the Gentiles? Is God the creator of all? and
did he create the descendant of Abraham with greater right and privilege
than all other men? Then, indeed, is great and grievous injustice done.
You and I had no choice whether we would be boru Jews or Gentiles; yet
to the accident of such a birth is attached the first offer of a salvation which,
if accepted, shuts out all beside. The Kingdom of Heaven is a prominent
feature in the teachings of Jesus, and it may be well to ascertain, as
precisely as we can, the picture drawn by God incarnate of his own
special domain. ’Tis likened to a wedding feast, to which the invited
guests coming not, servants are sent out into the highways to gather
all ’they can find—both good and bad. The King comes in to see his
motley array of guests, and findeth one without a wedding garment.
The King inquired why he came in to the feast without one, and ihe man,
whose attendance has been compulsorily enforced, is speechless. And who
can wonder ? he is a guest from necessity, not choice, he neither chose the
fashion of his coming or his attiring. Then comes the King’s decree, the
command of the all-merciful and loving King of Heaven. “ Bind him hand
and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.” Commentators urge that it w ;s the custom to provide
wedding garments for all guests, and that this man is punished for his nonacceptance of the customary and ready robe. The text Joes not warrant
• Matthew, x, 5.
f John, 1., ik
�WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
ihis position, but assigns, as an explanation of the parable, that an invitation
to the heavenly feast will not ensure its partakal, for that many are called,
but few are chosen. What more of the Kingdom of Heaven? “ There shall
be joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and
nine just persons which need no repentance.”* Nay, it is urged that the
greater sinner one has been, the better saint he makes, and the more he has
sinned, so much the more he loves God. “ To whom little is forgiven, the
same loveth little.”f Is not this indeed asserting that a life of vice, with its
stains washed away by a death-bed repentance, is better than a life of consis
tent and virtuous conduct? Why should the fatted calf be killed for the ,
prodigal son?J Why should men be taught to make to themselves friends
of the mammon of unrighteousness?
These ambiguities, these assertions of punishment and forgiveness ofcrime,
instead of directions for its prevention and cure, are serious detractions from
a system alleged to have been inculcated by one for whom his followers claim
divinity.
Will you again turn back to the love of Jesus as the redeeming feature of
the whole? Then, I ask you, read the story of the fig-tree§ withered by the
hungry Jesus. The fig-tree, if he were all-powerful God, was made by him, he
limited its growth and regulated its development. He prevented it from bear
ing figs, expected fruit where he had rendered fruit impossible, and in his infi
nite love was angry that the tree had not upon it that it could not have. Tell
rne the love expressed in that remarkable speech which follows one of his
pai iib s, and in which he says:—“Eor, I say unto you, that unto every one
which hath shall be given, and from him that hath not, even that which he
hatii shall be taken aw iy from him. But those, mine enemies, which would
not that 1 should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before wze.’ j|
What love is expressed by that Jesus who, if he were God, represents him
self as saying to the majority of his unfortunate creatures (for it is the few
who are chosen):—“Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre
pared for the devil and his angels.”^- Ear from love is this horrid notion
of eternal torment. And yet the popular preachers of to-day talk first of
love and then of
“ Hell, a red gulf of everlasting fire,
Where poisonous and undying worms prolong
Eternal misery to those hapless slaves,
Whose life has been a penance for its crimes.”
In reading the sayings attributed to Jesus, all must be struck by that
passage which so extraordinarily influenced the famous Origen, ff If he
understood it aright, its teachings are most terrible. If he understood it
wrongly, what are we to say for the wisdom of teaching which expresses
so vaguely the meaning which it rather hides than discovers by its words?
The general intent of Christ’s teaching seems to be an inculcation of
neglect of this life, in the search for another. “ Labour not for the meat
which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.”fJ
• Luke, xv., 7.
f Luke, vii., 47.
§ Matt., xxi., 18-22; Mark, xi., 12-24. || Luke, xix., 26, 27.
ft Matt., xix., 1%
jt John, vi., 27.
t Luke, xv., 27.
V Matt., xxv.,41.
�s
WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
** 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.......... take no thought, saying, what
shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we be clothed?
..........But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all
these things shall be added unto you.” The effect of these texts, if fully
carried out, would be most disastrous: they would stay all scientific dis
coveries, prevent all development of man’s energies. It is in the struggle for
existence here, that men are compelled to become acquainted with the condi
tions which compel happiness or misery. It is only by the practical application
of that knowledge, that the wants of society are understood and satisfied, and
disease, poverty, hunger, and wretchedness, prevented. Jesus substitutes
“ I believe,” for “ I think,” and puts “ watch and pray,” instead of “ think,
then act.” Belief is made the most prominent feature, and is, indeed,
the doctrine which pervades, permeates, and governs all Christianity. It
is represented that, at the judgment, the world will be reproved “ Of sin
because they believe not.” This teaching is most disastrous; man should
be incited to active thought: belief is a cord which would bind him to the
teachings of an uneducated past. Thought, mighty thought, mighty in
making men most manly, will burst this now rotting cord, and then—
shaking off the cobwebbed and dust-covered traditions of dark old times,
humanity shall stand crowned with a most glorious diadem of facts, which,
like jems worn on a bright summer’s day, shall grow more resplendent as
they reflect back the rays of truth’s meridian sun. Fit companion to blind
belief is slave-like prayer. Men pray as though God needed most abject
entreaty ere he would grant them justice. What does Jesus teach on this?
What is his direction on prayer? “After this manner pray ye—Our
Father, which art in Heaven.” Do you think that God is the Father of all,
when you pray that he will enable you to defeat some others of his chil
dren, with whom your nation is at war? And why “which art in Heaven?”
Where is Heaven? you lookupward, and if you were at the antipodes, would
look upward still. But that upward would be downward to us. Do you
know where Heaven is, if not, why say “ which art in Heaven?” Is God
infinite, then he is in earth also, why limit him to Heaven? “ Hallowed be
thy name.” What is God’s name? and if you know it not, how can you
hallow it? how can God’s name be hallowed even if you know it? “Thy
kingdom come.” What is God’s kingdom, and will your praying bring it
quicker? Is it the Judgment day, and do you say “Love one another,”
pray for the more speedy arrival of that day, on which God may say to your
fellow “depart ye cursed into everlasting fire?” “ Thy will be done on
earth, as it is in Heaven.” How is God’s will done in Heaven? If the devil
be a fallen angel, there must have been rebellion even there. “ Give us this
day our-daily bread.” Will the prayer get it without work? No. Will
work get it without the prayer? Yes. Why pray then for bread to God,
who says, “ Blessed be ye that hunger...........woe unto you that are full?”
“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” What debts have
you to God? Sins? Samuel Taylor Coleridge says, “A sin is an evil which
has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in the compulsion of circum
stances. Circumstances are compulsory, from the absence of a power to
resist or control them: and if the absence likewise be the effect of circum»‘•mces...........the evil derives from the circumstances........... and such evil is
�T
WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
not sin.”* Do you say that you are Independent of all circumstances, that
you can control them, that you have a free will? Mr. Buckle says that the
assertion of a free will “ involves two assumptions, of which the first, though
possibly true, has never been proved, and the second is unquestionably false.
These assumptions are that there is. an independent faculty, called con
sciousness, and that the dictates of that faculty are infallible.”! “ And
lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” Do you think God
will possibly lead you into temptation? if so, you cannot think him all-good,
if not all-good he is not God, if God, the prayer is a blasphemy.
I close this paper with the last scene in Jesus’ life, not meaning that I
have—in eight pages—fully examined his teachings; but hoping that
enough is even here done to provoke inquiry and necessitate debate. Jesus,
according to the general declaration of Christian divines, came to die, and
what does he teach by his death-? The Rev. F. D. Maurice it is, I think,
who well says, “ That he who kills for a faith must be weak, that he who dies
for a faith must be strong.” How did Jesus die? Giordano Bruno, and
Julius Casar Vanini, were burned for Atheism. They died calm, heroic,
defiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die, courted death, that he, as
God, might accept his own atonement, and might pardon man for a sin
which he had not committed, and in which he had no share. The death
he courted came, and when it eame he could not face it, but prayed to himbClf that he might not die. And then, when on the cross, if two of the gos
pels do him no injustice, his last words—as there recorded—were a bitter
cry of deep despair, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The
Rev. Enoch Mellor, in his work on the Atonement, says, “ I seek not to
fathom the profound mystery of these words. To understand their full
import would require one to experience the agony of desertion they ex
press.” Do the words, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
express an “ agony ” caused by a consciousness of “ desertion?” Doubtless
they do; in fact, if this be not the meaning conveyed by the despairing
death-cry, then there is in it no meaning whatever. And if those words do
express a “ bitter agony of desertion,” then they emphatically contradict
the teachings of Jesus. “ Before Abraham was, I am.” “ I and my father
are one.” “ Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” These were the
words of Jesus, words conveying (together with many other such texts) to the
reader an impression that divinity was claimed by the man who uttered them.
If Jesus had indeed beenGod, the words “My God, my God,” would have
been a mockery most extreme. God could not have deemed himself forsaken
by himself. The dying Jesus, in that cry, confessed himself either the dupe of
some other teaching, a self-deluded enthusiast, or anarch-impostor, who, in
that bitter, cry, with the wide-opening of the flood-gates through which
life’s stream ran out, confessed .aloud that he, at least, was no deity, and
deemed himself a God-forsaken man. The garden scene of agony is fitting
prelude to this most terrible act. Jesus, who is God, prays to himself, in
“ agony he prayed most earnestly.”! He refuses to hear his own prayers,
and he, the omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel
from heaven, who “ strengthened ” the' great Creator. Was Jesus the Son of
• “ Aids to Reflection,” 1843, p. 200.
J Luke, xxa., 44,
f » History of Civilisation,” Vol. I., p. 14.
>
»r
�8
WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?
God? Praying, he said, “Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy
Son also may glorify thee.”* And was he glorified? His death and resurrec
tion most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they happened, if, indeed,
they ever happened at all. His doctrines rejected by the only people to whom
he preached them. His miracles denied by the only nation where they are
alleged to have been performed; and he himself thus on the cross, crying
out, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Surely no further
comment is needed on this head, to point more distinctly to the most mon
strous mockery the text reveals.
To those who urge that the course I take is too bold, or that the pro
blems I deal with are too deep or sacred, I will reply in Herschel’s version
of Schiller—
Wouldst thou reach perfection’s goat,
Stay notl rest not!
Forward strain,
Hold not hand, and draw not rein.
•
•
•
•
Perseverance strikes the mark,
Expansion clears whate’er is dark,
Truth in the abyss doth dwell.
My say is said—now fare thee well»
G©
Published by Austin & Co , at 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
What did Jesus teach?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 14p. ; 18cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4950
N104
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
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 (What did Jesus teach?), 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
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a5c2c1d763358e75bf4f2708e78b425.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZCCgTftgN7wplkxkphxfzW3UhKhwhP6NrKiVbN5quVD9vhZXIPkzQicvPcZ4QYjnaAG8KN6Z-IBMNRAjIT2JoyI%7ENds2IEY19wirs089oO62U0FgzGpKWMArbLRYUqLPfjSP6AgIx83YoHFts%7E30jt%7E7gKZhjF4Z2GCTfb53WOzp%7EhUTaefaT%7EG8jy8VIWCzNlt5t-8mbs-vqeDUGr7n51bAO2cYBgt-QXV8tbDlRHXHcoiusxZm8yK48LX%7EFP%7EgCRo37M9KBQJlqLrfgeckbWG2drE33PSNGuMpe6d3CjmziKxcmzSpLmflIhuKTK3pkO66m%7E4Ydbf3ZjByfYG%7EEA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bbff829c2311147a5e0de1add0fdfd4e
PDF Text
Text
HAS MAN A SOUL?
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
[This lecture was originally delivered to the Sheffield
Secular Society, and was printed from the reporter’s notes
without efficient correction from myself, I, at that time,
suffering under a severe attack of acute rheumatism. The
lecture has since been often re-delivered; and three editions
having been exhausted, I have again corrected and revised
the present edition. It is not intended as an answer to the
question which forms the title, but it is intended to provoke
thought upon this important subject.]
What do you mean by soul? What is the soul ? Is it I ?
Is it the body? Is it apart from the body ? Is it an attri
bute of the body ? Has it a separate and distinct existence
from the body ? What is the soul ? If I ask one of those
who claim to be considered orthodox men, they will tell me
that the soul is a spirit—that the soul lives after the body
is dead. They will tell me that the soul is immortal, and
that the body is mortal; that the soul has nothing what
ever in common with the body ; that it has an existence
entirely independent of the body. They will tell me that
after the body has decayed—after the body has become
re-absorbed in the universe, of which it is but a part, that
the soul still exists. Is there any proof of the existence ol
the same individual soul apart from all material conditions ?
I have endeavoured to examine this subject, and, up to the
present time, I have not found one iota of proof in support
of the positions thus put forward. I have no idea of any
existence except that of which I am part. I am. Of my
own existence I am certain. I think. I am. But what is
it that thinks ? Is it my soul ? Is it “me,” and yet distinct
�'fl.'
2
HAS MAN A* SOUL?
from me? Iam but a mode of existence. I am only part
of the great universe. The elements of which I am com
posed are indissolubly connected with that great existence
which is around me and within me, and which I help to
make up. If men tell me I am a compound, and not a com
pound—a mixture,and not a mixture—a joining together, and
not a joining together—of two entirely different existences,
which they call “ matter” and “ spirit,” I am compelled
to doubt those men. The ability to think is but an attri
bute of a certain modification of existence. Intelligence is
a word by which we express the sum of certain abilities,
always attending a certain mode of existence. I find intelligence
manifested so far as organisation is developed. I never
find intelligence without animal organisation. I find intelli
gence manifested in degree, only so far as I find a higher or
lower type of organisation—that is, I find man's intellectual
faculties limited by his organisation But the orthodox tell.
me that my soul has an immaterial existence, independent
of all organisation—independent of all climatic conditions—
independent of all education. Is that so ? When does the
soul come into man ? When does it go out of man ? If the
soul is immortal, why is it that standing here, in the prime
of health and strength, if part of that roof should fall frac
turing my skull, and pressing upon my brain—how is it,
if my soul is not subject to material conditions, that it
then ceases to act ? Is the plaster roof more powerful than
my immortal soul ? Or is it that intelligence is the neces
sary result of a certain condition of existence, and that the
moment you destroy that condition—the moment you des
troy the organisation—the result ceases to be realisable ?
By the course of reasoning you adopt (says the orthodoi
objector) you reduce man to the same level as the beasts*
And why not ? I stand on the river’s bank, I see there a
man full grown, possessed of the physical figure of man, but
an idiot—an idiot from his birth upward—one who could
not, even if he would, think and act as other men. A little
child is there playing on the bank, and the idiot, having
large destructive propensities, has thrust the child into the
water, and he stands there jabbering and gesticulating while
the little child is drowning in the river. And see how halfvacantly, half-triumphantly, he points to the helpless child.
A. Newfoundland dog has come to the bank; it jumps in and
brings the little child out and saves its life. Yet theologians
veil me that the idiot has a soul, and that the Newfoundland
�HAS MAN A SOUL ?
3
dog has not one. I cannot understand these nice distinc
tions, which make the man so superior to the beast in mat
ters in which he is positively inferior. Man has doubtless
an organisation on the whole far superior intellectually to
that of any other animal, but he is only superior by virtue
of his superior organisation and its consequent susceptibility
for development or education. Many brutes can see more
clearly than man; but they possess not the capability for
the manufacture of telescopes to aid their vision. Many
brutes can run more swiftly, but they manifest no capacity
for the subjugation of a steam power which far outstrips
their speed. But man himself, a well-organised, thoughtful,
intelligent, well-educated man, by a fall from a horse, by a tile
from a roof, may receive an injury to his nervous encephalic
apparatus, and may be, even while a man in shape, as low as
the brute in the imbecility of his reason, and inferior to the
brute in physical strength. There is as much difference
between different races of men, there is, in fact, more
difference between a pure Caucasian and a Sahara negro,
than between the Sahara negro and the infant chimpanzee.
When did the soul come into the body ? Has it been
waiting from all eternity to occupy each body the moment
of birth ? Is this the theory that is put forward to man—■
that there are many millions of •souls still waiting, perhaps,
in mid air, ’twixt heaven and earth, to occupy the still un
born babes ? Is that the theory ? Or do you allege that
God specially creates souls for each little child at the moment
it is born or conceived ? Which is the theory put forward ?
Ts it that the soul being immortal—being destined to exist
for ever, has existed from all eternity ? If not, how do you
know that the soul is to exist for ever, when it only comes into
existence with the child ? May not that which has recently
begun to be, soon cease to be ? In what manner does the
soul come into the child ? Is it a baby’s soul, and does it
grow with the child ? or, does it possess its full power the
moment the child is born ? When does it come into the
child ? Does it come in the moment the child begins to
form, or is it the moment the child is born into the world ?
Whence is it this soul comes? Dr. Cooper, quoting
Lawrence on the “ Functions of the Brain,” says :—“ Sir
Everard Home, with the assistance of Mr. Bauer and his
microscope, has shown us a man eight days old from the
time of conception, about as broad and a little longer than a
pin’s head. He satisfied himself that the brain of this
�HAS MAN A SOUL?
homunculus was discernible. Could the immaterial mind
have been connected with it at this time ? Or was the tene
ment too small even for so etherial a lodger ? Even at the
full period of uterogestation, it is still difficult to trace any
vestiges of mind; and the believers in its separate existence
have left us quite in the dark on the precise time when they
suppose this union of soul and body to take place.” Many
of those who tell me that man has a soul, and that it is im
mortal—that man has a soul, and that the beast has not one
—forget or ignore that at a very early stage in the first
month of the formation of the brain, of the state of
the brain, corresponds to that of the avertebrated
animal, or animal that is without vertebra. If the brain
had stopped in its first month’s course of formation,
would the child have had a soul? If it would have
had a soul, then have avertebrated animals souls also ? if
you tell me it would not have had a soul, then I ask—How
do you know it ? and I ask you what ground you have for
assuming that the soul did not begin to form with the for
mation of the brain ? I ask you whether it was pre-existing,
or at what stage it came? In the second month this brain
corresponds then to the brain of an osseous fish. Supposing
the development of the child had been then stopped, had it
a soul at that time ? If so, have fishes souls ? Again, if
you tell me that the child has not a soul, then, I ask, why
not ? How do you know it had not? What ground have
you for alleging that the soul did not exist in the child ?
We go on still further, and in the third month we find that
brain corresponds then to that of a turtle, and in the fourth
to that of a bird; and in the fifth month, to an order termed
rodentia ; sixth, to that of the ruminantia; seventh, to that
of" the digitigrada ; eighth, to that of the quadrumana ; and
not till the ninth month does the brain of the child attain a
full human character. I, of course, here mean to allege no
more than Dr. Eletcher, who says, in his “ Rudiments of
Physiology,” quoted by the author of the “Vestiges of
Creation”—“ This is only an approximation to the truth;
since neither is the brain of all osseous fishes, of all turtles,
of’ all birds, nor of all the species of any of the above order
of mammals, by any means precisely the same; nor does the
brain of the human foetus at any time precisely resemble,
perhaps, that of any individual whatever among the lower
animals. Nevertheless it may be said to represent, at each
of the above-named periods, the aggregate, as it were, of the
�/TL^q"'
q-
(J-
< '■■
HAS MAN A SOUL?
5
brains of each of the tribes stated.” Now, should a birth
have taken place at any of the eight stages, would the child
thus prematurely born have had a soul ? That is the ques
tion 1 propose to you. You who affirm that man has a
soul, it lies upon you, here, without charging me with
blasphemy—without charging me With ’ignorance—without
charging me with presumption—it lies upon you who affirm,
to state the grounds for your belief. At which stage, if at
any, did the soul come into the child ? At the moment of
the birth ? Why when a child is born into the world it can
scarcely see—it cannot speak—it cannot think—but after a
short time I jingle my keys, and it begins to give faint
smiles ; and after a few weeks, it is pleased with the jingling
of my keys. Is it the soul which is learning to appreciate
the sound of the jingling keys, and pleased with them? Is
it the immaterial and immortal soul amused and pleased
with my bundle of keys ? Where is the soul ? How is it
that the soul cannot speak the moment the child is born—
cannot even think ? How is it, that if I keep that child
without telling it any thing of its soul until it become
fourteen or fifteen years of age, it would then speak and
think as I had taught it to speak and think ; and if I kept
it without the knowledge of a soul, it would have no know
ledge of a soul at that age ? How is that ? Rajah Brooke,
at a missionary meeting at Liverpool, told his hearers there,
that the Dyaks, a people u ith whom he was connected, had
no knowledge of a God, of a soul, or of any future state.
How is it that the Dvaks have got this soul and yet live
knowing nothing whatever about it ? And the Dyaks are
by no means the only people who live and die knowing
nothing of any immortal and immaterial soul. Again you
tell me that this soul is immortal. Do you mean that it
has eternally existed—has never been created ? If so, you
deny a God who is the creator of all things. If the soul
began at some time to exist, where is the evidence that it
will not also at some time cease to exist ? If it came into
existence with the body’s birth, why not cease with the
body’s death ? You say the soul is immaterial, do you mean
that it is susceptible to material conditions, or do you not?
If susceptible to material conditions, what do you mean by its
being immortal and immaterial ? If not susceptible to mate
rial conditions, then explain to me how it is that under good
conditions it prospers and advances, and under bad con
ditions deteriorates and recedes. If a child is born in some
�> I'Miy
6
i
•
•,.> •»••' - -,- ^'---- -—- - .'
rwStW^BTmi . i :
■<
HAS MAN A SOUL*
of the back streets of our city, and lives on bad food in a
wretched cellar, it grows up a weak and puny pale-faced
child. If allowed to crawl into existence on the edge of a
gutter, imperfectly educated, in fact mis-educated, it steals—
steals, perhaps, to live—and it becomes an outcast from
society. Is this immortal soul affected by the bodily con
ditions ? or is the soul originally naturally depraved ? And
if the soul is primarily naturally depraved, why is God so
unjust as to give a naturally depraved soul to anybody ? If
not, how is it that this immortal soul, when the body is kept
without food, permits the man without money to buy food,
to steal to satisfy his hunger ? You allege that the soul
moves my body. You assert that matter is inert, unintelli
gent ; that it is my active, intelligent soul that moves and
impels my inert and non-intelligent body. Is my immortal
soul hindered and controlled by the state of my body’s
general health? Does my soul feel hungry and compel my
body to steal ? Some theologians declare that my soul is
immaterial—that there is no means by which I can take any
cognisance whatever of it. What does that mean, except
that they know nothing whatever about it ? Sir W.
Hamilton admits that we are entirely ignorant as to the
connection between soul and body. Yet many who in so
many words admit that they have no knowledge, but only
faith in the soul’s existence, are most presumptuous in
affirming it, and in denouncing those who dispute their
affirmation. It is an easy method to hide ignorance, by
denouncing your opponent as an ignorant blasphemer.
Joseph Priestley in his book upon matterand spirit, quotes
from Hallet’s discourses, as follows:—“ I see a man move
and hear him speak for some years. Prom his speech I cer
tainly infer that he thinks as I do. I then see that man is
a being, who thinks and acts. After some time the man
fells down in my sight, grows cold and stiff, and speaks and
acts no more. Is it not then natural to conclude that he
thinks no more; as the only reason I had to believe that he
did think was his motion and his speech ? And now that
his motion and speech have ceased, I have lost the only way
of proving that he had the power of thought. Upon this
sudden death, one visible thing, the one man, has greatly
changed. Whence could I infer also, the same being con
sisted of two parts, and that the inward part continues to
live and think, and flies away from the body? When the
outward part ceases to live and move, it looks as if the whole
•*'**
�HAS MAN A SOUL?
7
man was gone, and that he, with all his powers, ceases at
the same time. His motion and thought both die together,
as far as I can diseern. The powers of thought, of speech
and motion, equally depend upon the body, and run the
same fate in case of declining old age. When a man dies
through old age, I perceive his powers of speech, motion,
and thought decay and die together, and by the same degrees.
That moment he ceases to move and 'breathe, he appears to
cease to think, too. When I am left to my reason, it
seems to me that my power of thought depends as much
upon the body as my sight and hearing. I could not think
in infancy; my power of thought, of sight, and of feeling
are equally liable to be obstructed by the body. A blow on
the head has deprived a man of thought, who could yet see,
and feel, and move ; so naturally the power of thinking
seems as much to belong to the body as any power of man
whatsoever. Naturally there appears no more reason to
suppose that a man can think out of the body than he can
hear sounds and feel cold out of the body.”
What do those mean who say that man is made up of two
parts—matter and mind ? I know of only one existence.
I find that existence manifested variously, each mode having
certain variations of attributes by which it is cognised. One
of these attributes, or a collection of certain attributes, I
find in, or with, certain modifications of that existence, that
is, in or with animal life—this attribute, or these attributes,
we call intelligence. In the same way that I find upon the
blade of a knife brightness, consequent upon a certain state
of the metal, so do I find in man, in the beast, different
degrees, not of brightness, but of intelligence, according to
their different states of organisation. I am told that the
mind and the body are separate from one another. Are the
brightness and steel of the knife separate ? Is not bright
ness the quality attaching to a certain modification of exis
tence—steel? Is not intelligence a quality attaching to a
certain modification of existence—man? The word bright
ness has no meaning, except relating to some bright thing.
The word intelligence, no meaning, except as relating to
some intelligent thing. I take some water and drop it upon
the steel, in due course the process of oxidation takes place
and the brightness is gone. I drop into man’s brain a bullet,
the process of destruction of life takes place, and his intelli
gence is gone. By changing the state of the steel we des
troy its brightness, and by disorganising the man destroy
�8
HAS MAN A SOUL?
his intelligence. Is mind an entity or a resul. ? ai existence
or a condition? Surely it is but the result of organic
activity a phenomenon of animal life.
Dr. Engledue
says:—“ In the same way as organism generally has the
power of manifesting, when the necessary stimuli are
applied, the phenomena which are designated life; so
one individual portion—brain, having peculiar and dis
tinct properties, manifests on the application of its appro
priate stimuli a peculiar and distinct species of action.
If the sum of all bodily function—life, be not an entity,
how can the product of the action of one portion of
the body—'brain, be an entity 1 Feeling and intelligence are
but fractional portions of life.” I ask those who are here to
prove that man has a soul, to do so apart from revelation.
If the soul is a part of ourselves, we require no supernatural
revelation to demonstrate its existence to us. D’Holbach
says : —“ The doctrine of spirituality, such as it now exists,
affords nothing but vague ideas ; it is rather a poisoner of
all ideas. Let me draw your attention to this:—The advo
cates of spirituality do not tell you anything, but in fact
prevent you from knowing anything.
They say that
spirit and matter have nothing in common, and that mortal
man cannot take cognisance of immortality. An ignorant
man may set himself up as an orator upon such a matter.
He says you have a soul—an immortal soul. Take care you
don’t lose your soul. When you ask him what is my soul,
he says he does not know—nobody knows—nobody can tell
you This is really that which they do. What is this doc
trine of spirituality ? What does it present to the mind ?
A substance unsubstantial that possesses nothing of which
our senses enable us to take cognisance.” Theologians urge
that each of us has a soul superior to all material conditions,
and yet a man who speaks cannot communicate by his speak
ing soul so freely with that man who is deaf and dumb; the
conditions cramp that which is said to be uncontrolled by
any conditions. If you cut out a man’s tongue, the soul no
longer speaks. If you put a gag in his mouth, and tie it
with a handkerchief, so that he cannot get it out, his soul
ceases to speak. The immaterial soul is conquered by a gag,
it cannot utter itself, the gag is in the way. The orthodox
say that the soul is made by Gfod ; and what do you know
about G-od ? Why just as much as we know about the soul.
And what do you know about the soul ? Nothing whatever.
How is it that if the soul is immaterial, having nothing in
�HAS MAN A SOUL ?
9
common with matter, that it only is manifest by material
means ? and how is it that it is encased and enclosed in my
material frame ? They affirm that my soul is a spirit—that
I received the same spirit from God. How is it that my
spirit is now by myself, and by my mortal body, denying its
own existence ? Is my mortal soul acting the hypocrite, or
is it ignorant of its own existence, and cannot help itself to
better knowledge ? And if it cannot help itself, why not,
if it is superior to the body ? and if you think it a hypocrite,
tell me why. What is meant by the declaration that man is
a compound of matter and spirit?—things which the ortho
dox assert have nothing in common with one another. Of
the existence of what you call matter you are certain, because
you and I, material beings, are here. Are you equally cer
tain of the existence of mind, as an existence independent
and separate from matter ? and if you are, tell me why.
Have you ever found it apart from matter ? If so, when and
where ? Have you found that the mind has a separate and
distinct existence ? if so, under what circumstances ? and tell
me—you who define matter as unintelligent, passive, inert,
and motionless—who talk of the vis inertice of matter—tell
me what you mean when you give these definitions to it?
You find the universe, and this small portion of it on which
we are, ceaselessly active. Why do you call it passive,
except it be that you want courage to search tor true know
ledge, as to the vast capabilities of existence, and, therefore,
invent such names as God and Soul to account for all
difficulties, and to hide your ignorance? What do you mean
by passive and inert matter ? You tell me of this world—
part of a system—that system part of another—that of
another—and point out to me the innumerable planets, the
countless millions of w'orlds, in the universe. You, who tell
me of the vast forces of the universe; what do you mean by
telling me that that is motionless ? What do you mean by yet
pointing to the unmeasurable universe and its incalculably
mighty forces, and affirming that they are incapable of every
perceptible effect? You, without one fact on which to base
your theory, strive to call into existence another existence
which must be more vast, and which you allege produces this
existence and gives its powers to it. Sir Isaac Newton
says“ We are to admit no more causes of things than are
sufficient to explain appearances.” What effect is there
which the forces of existence are incapable of producing?
Why do you come to the conclusion tnat the forces of the
�10
HAS MAN A SOUL?
universe are incapable of producing every effect of which I
take cognisance ? Why do you come to the conclusion that
intelligence is not an attribute—why ? What is there which
enables you to convert it into a separate and distinct exis
tence ? Is there anything ? Is it spirit ? What is spirit ?
That of which the mortal man can know nothing, you tell
me—that it is nothing which his senses can grasp—that is,
no man, but one who disregards his senses, can believe in it,
and that it is that which no man’s senses can take cognisance
of. If a man who uses his senses can never by their aid
take cognisance of spirit, then as it is through the senses
alone man knows that which is around him, you can know
nothing about spirit until you go out of your senses. When
I speak of the senses, I do not limit myself to what are
ordinarily termed man’s five senses—I include all man’s
sensitive faculties, and admit that I do not know the extent
of, and am not prepared to set a limit to, the sensitive capa
bilities of man. I have had personal experience in connec
tion with psycho-magnetic phenon ena of faculties in man
and woman not ordinarily recognist d, and am inclined to the
opinion that many men have been made converts to the
theories of spiritualism, because their previous education
had induced them to set certain arbitrary limits to the
domains of the natural. When they have been startled by
phenomena outside these conventional limitations, they at
once ascribed them to supernatural influences, rather than
reverse their previous rules of thinking.
Some urge that the soul is life. What is life ? Is it not
the word by which we express the aggregate normal func
tional activity of vegetable and animal organisms, necessa
rily differing, in degree, if not in kind, with each different
organisation ? To talk of immortal life and yet to admit the
decay and destruction of the organisation, is much the same
as to talk of a square circle. You link together two words
which contradict each other. The solution of the soul pro
blem is not so difficult as many imagine. The greatest diffi
culty is, that we have been trained to use certain words as
“ God,” “ matter,” “ mind,” “ spirit,” “ soul,” “ intelli
gence,” and we have been further trained to take these
words as representatives of realities, which, in fact, they do
not represent. We have to unlearn much of our school lore.
We have specially to carefully examine the meaning of each
word we use. The question lies in a small compass. Is there
one existence or more ? Qf one existence I am conscious,
�yj
HAS MAN A SOTO
11
because I am a mode of it. I know of no other existence.
*. know of no existence but that existence of which I am a
mode. I hold it to be capable of producing every effect. It
is for the man who alleges that there is another, to prove it.
I know of one existence. I do not endeavour to demonstrate
to you my existence, it needs no demonstration—I am. My
existence is undeniable. I am speaking to you. You are
conscious of my existence. You and I are not separate
entities, but modes of the same existence. We take cogni
sance of the existence which is around us and in us, and
which is the existence of which we are modes. Of the one
existence we are certain. It is for those who affirm that the
universe is “ matter,” and who affirm that there also exists
“ spirit,” to reinember that they admit the one existence I
seek to prove, and that the onus lies on them to demonstrate
a second existence—in fact, to prove there is the other exis
tence which they term spiritual. There cannot exist two
different substances or existences having the same attributes
or qualities. There cannot be two existences of the same
essence, having different attributes, because it is by the
attributes alone that we can distinguish the existences. We
can only judge of the substance by its modes. We may find
a variety of modes of the same substance, and we shall find
points of union which help to identify them, the one with
the other—the link which connects them with the great
whole. We can only judge of the existence of which we are
a part (in consequence of our peculiar organisation), under
the form of a continuous chain of causes and effects—each
effect a cause to the effect it precedes, each cause an effect
of the causative influence which heralded its advent. The
remote links of that line are concealed by the darkness of the
far-off past. Nay, more than this, the mightiest effort of
mind can never say—This is the first cause. Weakness and
ignorance have said it - but why ? To cloak their weakness,
to hide their ignorance. Knaves have said it—but why ? Tb
give scope to their cunning, and to enable them to say to the
credulous, “ Thus far shalt thou go and no farther.” The
termination is in the as yet unknowable future; and I ask
you, presumptuous men, who dare to tell me of God and
soul, of matter and creation—when possessed you the power
to sunder links of that great chain and write, “In the
beginning ?” I deny that by the mightiest effort of the
strongest intellect man can ever say of any period, at this
point substance began to be—before this existence was not.
�12
HAS MAN A
soul?
Has man a soul ? You who tell me he has a soul, a soul
independent of material conditions, I ask you how it is that
these immortal souls strive with one another to get mortal
benefits ? Has man a soul ? If man’s soul is not subject
to material conditions, why do I find knavish souls ?—Why
slavish souls ?—tyrannous souls ? Your doctrine that man
has a soul prevents him from rising. When you tell him
that his soul is not improvable by material conditions, you
prevent him from making himself better than he is. Man’s
intelligence is a consequence of his organisation. Organisa
tion is improvable, the intelligence becomes more powerful
as the organisation is fully developed, and the conditions
which surround man are made more pure. And the man
will become higher, truer, and better when he knows that
his intelligence is an attribute, like other attributes, capable
of development, susceptible of deterioration, he will strive
to effect the first and to guard against the latter.
Look at a number of people putting power into the hands
of one man, because he is a lord—surely they have no souls.
See the mass cringing to a wretched idol—surely these have
no souls. See men forming a pyramid of which the base is
a crushed and worn-out people, and the apex a church, a
throne, a priest, a king, and the frippery of a creed;—have
those men souls? Society should not be such a pyramid, it
should be one brotherly circle, in which men should be
linked together by a consciousness that they are only happy
so linked, conscious that when the chain is broken, then the
society and her peace is destroyed. What we teach is not
that man has a soul apart and independent of the body, but
that he has an ability, an intelligence, an attribute of his
body, capable of development, improvable, more useful,
according as he elevates himself and his fellows. Give up
blind adhesion to creeds and priests, strive to think ana
follow out in action the result of your thoughts. Each
mental struggle is an enlargement of your mind, an addition
to your brain power, an increase of your soul—the only soul
you have.
Printed by Austin & Co., 17, J jhnson’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
Has man a soul?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: [4th ed.?]
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Pages 3-11 bound in the wrong order (have been corrected in the PDF). "This lecture was originally delivered to the Sheffield Secular Society, and was printed from the reporter's notes without efficient correction from myself ...The lecture has been often re-delivered; and three editions having been exhausted, I have again corrected and revised the present edition." Tentative date of publication from KVK. Includes biblical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861?}
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4949
N094
Subject
The topic of the resource
Soul
Rationalism
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 (Has man a soul?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Soul
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2497b488fb98c4561bfe43128bb0eda6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cRTVgnan8Ec64XIoZnXkDxZidsgGchjH2Tf4SI1johLuyHnnCsCEGs7e04BH9pVNuRbR%7Esc4C2QTGOU1ornYGvjuXC9Ea8pYBQfSQcEfZ2blHCOyKiwiDMHYJX%7EKPjheqaQ83cpUFs%7EtMUGL1o0TGDXaJZ7CmaIzeGxf9A0O6ms1G7ql%7EhJ4tMjGJ1q1fobc6iU9MEVr6zuw1jhKNCMimohh%7EsXm5KbmeBv2NqwXknQpfSKPt62oH4lsjonRAN3PGdnOKbCKkdUBFh1%7EXoA9RNt80iB45RwS63zR%7EBcKim7tNleYP4ubglUU937VCt-tDAdI4hWYAicaey5dED%7E4Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3fc045419e6a41a7b262adf13c2c9085
PDF Text
Text
THE
GOVERNMENT & THE PEOPLE;
A PLEA FOR REFORM. •
' '
BY CHARLES WATTS.
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON REPUBLICAN CLUB.
The question about to be considered may be divided into two
'
parts—first, Government ; and secondly, the People. The object
in dealing with these divisions will be to show that reform is re
quired upon the part of those who govern, and that improvement
is necessary among those who are governed. Let us understand
what is meant by the word government." It is a term applied to
a body of men who superintend the making and administering
■of laws, and who conduct the general affairs of the nation. A
true government should represent the wishes of the people it
governs ; if it fails to do this, it is an usurpation, and therefore
■unworthy of the support of the community at large. There are
many forms of government, but it will suffice to notice here
two of the principal ones that have hitherto existed in this
country. The author of the “ Rights of Man ” has written
that governments arise either out of the people, or over the
people.” The governments which arise out of the people are
Democratic or Republican, and therefore of a nature to repre
sent the public will, having, as it doubtless would, a prac
tical knowledge of the wants of the people. Now the very
reverse of this is true of the governments of this country. As the
writer just mentioned observes : 11 The English Government is
■one of those which arose out of a conquest, and not out of society,
and consequently, it arose over the people.” The reins of go
vernment in this country have been held by a few aristocratic
persons—so few that a person could almost count them on the
ends of his fingers. When one family had held the reins long
enough to grow tired, and had well filled their pockets, then
they handed the reins to some other aristocratic family, without
■consulting the wishes of the people, and thus our governments
had been kept in a narrow circle, ignoring the working-classes,
who are the great support of the nation. Thus patronage has been
used for personal gratification rather than for the public good.
The great object of successive governments in filling the posi
tions in the Church, has not been to comply with the alleged pious
desires of the people, nor has the morality or qualification of the
persons that have been put into office been always considered;
but the great aim of the “ powers that be ” has been to place
some member of the aristocratic families into good livings. That
has been so patent, that Lord John Russell, in his “ Essay on
the English Constitution,” says : “ In the Church the immense
and valuable patronage of Government is uniformly bestowed
on their political adherents. No talent, no learning, no piety,
can advance the fortunes of a clergyman whose political opinions
are adverse to those of the governing powers;” Thegreat bishoprics
�2
throughout the country have not been filled by men remarkable
for intelligence or moral purity, but by those who had sworn
allegiance to the Government of the time. Bishop Warburton
wrote that the “Church has been of old the cradle and the throne
of the youngermobility.”
A true government should be guided by constitutional laws.
Much has been said recently about our “ glorious constitution.”
When Conservatives, or “ Constitutionalists,” talk of loving the
English constitution, they are indulging in a delusion, because,
-as a matter of fact, we have no political constitution in this
country—not a political constitution in its most comprehensive
sense. What is a political constitution ? “ A constitution is
not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an idea, but a
real existence ; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible
form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a
government, and a government is only the creature of a consti
tution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its
government, but of the people constituting its government. It
is the body of elements, to which you can refer and quote
article by article; and which contains the principles on which
the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall
be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections,
the duration of parliaments, or by what other name such bodies
may be called; the powers which the executive part of the govern
ment shall have; and, in fine, everything that relates to the
complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles
on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A con
stitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made
afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature.
The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it
alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made ; and
the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
In order to have a constitution it is necessary to have a political
programme, drawn up by the people, to which the government
—whether Whig or Tory—should conform, and. be guided by.
Therefore, if we were asked as Republicans whether we would
support a constitutional form of government, the answer would
be, by all means ; but let us have a properly-constructed con
stitution, and not that sham constitution which we have hitherto
had, which has been for the benefit of the few, and to the injury
of the many. What are the defects of the form of government
now in existence ? First, its exclusive and aristocratic nature.
In it there is no provision made for the general representation
of the people. It is only certain classes of society which are
represented. If we analyse the House of Commons, as at
present constituted, we shall find that, while wealth, law, and
land are fully represented, poverty and labour have no bonafide
representatives there. It cannot be a true form of government
where the working classes are thus ignored. True, there are a
few men in the House who sometimes speak boldly on behalf of
the toiling millions, but even those cannot fairly represent the
wants of the excluded classes. Labour requires for its advocates
�3
those who know what it is to toil; poverty needs men to speak for
it who have felt its pangs. And the system that does not allow
this is partial and unconstitutional. The facts which Sir Charles
Dilke gave in his Manchester speech, every working man should
be made acquainted with, for they show the imperfection of our
representative system, and indicate clearly that under its unequal
provisions, the majority of the public are not represented. The
votes of the large towns are more than counteracted by those of
small aristocratic boroughs and counties. Sir Charles Dilke
drew the attention of his audience to the fact that, whereas
136 electors in Portarlington return a Member to Parliament,
the 56,000 electors who are on the register for Glasgow only
have three representatives awarded to them. They were reminded
that, while Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Birmingham,
rqake up with the ten metropolitan boroughs, a population of
five millions, and an electoral body collectively amounting to
450,000 voters, they return but thirty-four members in all; yet
seventy boroughs, with a population about equal to that of Man
chester, and about the same number of voters, send eighty-three
members to the House. Instances also were quoted of counties
returning two members only, though possessing a population and
a number of voters equal to those of other boroughs, which
together return twelve or fourteen. Sixty-two boroughs return
sixty-two members by 42,800 votes, and possess a population of
about 400,000 souls. Hackney, with about the same number of
voters, and nearly as large a population, returns two members
instead of sixty-two ; and as a final illustration, it was stated
that no members sit for 1,080,000 voters, and another no for
83,000. If under the reign of a monarch we are obliged to yield to
this kind of representation, it would be far better that Monarchy
should be swept away, and that we should have that form of go
vernment that would recognise the rights of the working classes.
There is an important defect in connection with the present
mode of government, and that is, its whole machinery is so expen
sive. Take parliamentary elections. There is no fair chance for
a working man to be successful at those elections. Why are they
made so expensive ? Surely it is not necessary under a proper
form of government that a candidate should be kept down under
the weight of money bags, and that the influence of the aris
tocracy should be brought against him, to crush him when he
is doing his best to become a member of Parliament. Not
only are the elections expensive, but the associations therewith
are also expensive. Hence, until we obtain something like a
proper arrangement of elections, and also the payment of mem
bers, we have little hope of having a real and legitimate form ot
government. The expenses attending law are the result of an
imperfect form of government. At present its use is principally
enjoyed by the rich, instead of being within the reach of all
classes. In a properly-constructed constitution, the poor should
be able to avail themselves of the law as well as the rich. Now,
the poor man is obliged to keep clear of the clutches of the law,
in consequence of the enormous expense which it entails. The
�4
salaries which are paid to the legal profession are so high that
many clients have frequently to turn aside, and not pursue the
course of justice. Another great defect in the government is
the present monopoly of land. No more gigantic injustice
could be done to a country than is being perpetrated by the
aristocratic millionaires of England in reference to the mono
poly of land. The land of-the United Kingdom, it has been
estimated, is owned by about 30,000 men, and the bulk of the
land in England and Wales by only 150- families. The Duke
of Richmond and Lord Leconfield own between them, in the
county of Sussex, land to the extent of nearly 800 square miles.
The Marquis of Westminster has an annual income of nearly a
million from his property. The Earl of Derby has ^40,000
per year from land at Liverpool alone, upon which he has never
spent one farthing to increase its value ; while the Marquis
of Breadalbane can ride upon one hundred miles without
going off his own property. Are these things just, and do they
not indicate a necessity for a different form of government to
that under which we are living ? Professor Levi has estimated
that there are 2,000,000 acres of land devoted to deer forests in
Scotland ; and Baillie Ross, of Aberdeen, has made a calcula
tion that 20,000,000 pounds of meat are lost every year through
such misappropriation of land. Many complaints are made as
to thte high price of meat, and some persons have stated that the
working classes ought to do without it. While those who
are willing to do without that which is now becoming almost a
luxury have a perfect right to do so, it is unjust that they
should be compelled to do so because of the monopoly of the
land. Our first and primary duty, is to protest against such
monopoly. In less than 160 years there have been no less than
7,000,000 acres of land enclosed and devoted to the interests
of the aristocrats of the country—for the amusement and be
nefit of those who have never studied the wants of the popu
lation, who never knew what it was to want food, and who
lived idle and—many of them—reckless lives, forgetting the
claims of their fellow countrymen who were starving for that
food which was being denied to them. No wonder that the
people should agitate for the repeal of the Game Laws—laws
which ought not to exist, and which are a curse to the nation,
excluding as they do the people from the advantages of the land.
We do not want to do things recklessly, but we desire that the
present monopoly of the land should be destroyed ; and we are
determined not to rest till our desire is realised. Our inten
tions are to pursue a peaceable advocacy, and we trust ere longto be able to say to the landowners : “You must use the land
for the benefit of all, or give it up to those who are able and
willing to do so.”
There is another serious impeachment against the present
form of government. Whether Whigs or Tories were in office,,
they had ever objected to reforms. The people had met toge
ther in public assemblies, and decided upon the necessity for
reform, and the will of the nation had been almost unanimous
�5
in its favour, but the Government still refused it. So long as the
people acted quietly and temperately, so long had their appeals
been disregarded. The result was, that often in a state of des
peration they did what they would not otherwise have committed
themselves to. The riots we have had in times past were to be at
tributed in a large degree to the refusals of necessary reform by
the Government of the country. Take the struggle for reform
in 1832. What did Wellington do? He who represented the
old form of government put his command in this form : “ The
people were born to be governed, and governed they should be,
and if they would not be governed contentedly, then at the
cannon’s mouth they should be made to obey the ‘ powers that
be.’ ” The Duke affirmed that U nder the Bill it would be
impossible for the government of the country to be carried on
upon any recognised principle of the constitution.” The Duke of
Newcastle said, “ If the Bill passed it would destroy the throne,
despoil the church, abolish the House of Lords, overthrow the
constitution, violate property, desolate the country, and annihilate
liberty.” It was only after the riots of Bristol, London, and Man
chester, when prisons were set fire to, and when prisoners were re
leased ; it was not till the people had committed such actsof des
peration, that the Government granted the reform that had been
quietly asked for. Now, precisely the same thing applied to
Catholic Emancipation. It was not until the Government by
their obstinate conduct had driven the country to the eve of a
civil war that they granted that measure of religious liberty.
The fact is, that hitherto the Governments had granted to force
what to reason they had denied. Governments that did this
were unworthy of support, because as the guide and protector of
the nation, they should endeavour to foster the moral and intel
lectual aspirations of the people, and not make them desperate
by withholding such reforms as they desired.
The leading defects, then, of the English form of Government
are its exclusive and aristocratic nature; its class policy ; its
imperfect representative system ; its monopoly of land, and its
reluctance to grant required reforms. What has been the effect.
of this mode of government on the nation ? Shall we judge of
the tree by its fruits ? Let us turn to the people and endeavour
to ascertain their real condition. This is a fair argument, for if
among the masses the governmental tree has borne disastrous
fruit, is it not a duty to uproot it, that something better may
thrive in its stead ?
If the condition of a people may be taken as a reflex of the
government under which they live, the governing classes of
England have indeed much to answer for. For among the toiling
millions of this country, ignorance, privation, and social inequa
lities exist to an extent perhaps unparalleled in the history of
civilised nations. The two reports presented to the House of
Commons in 1868 and 1870, exhibited the degrading state into
which the agricultural labourers had been driven through class
customs and unequal legislation. The evidence of Mr. Simon,
medical inspector, showed that more than one-half of our southern
�(fTp'.-,-
- sM»
6
agricultural population, was so inadequately fed that starvation,
disease, and ill-trained minds were the necessary results. As
a sample of many like cases, it was mentioned that in Haverhill,
Suffolk, nine out of ten adults could neither read nor write, and
only one in twenty-five could both read and write. The report
states that the population round Mayhill appeared “ to lie en
tirely out of the pale of civilisation, type after type of social life
degraded to the level of barbarism.” It refers to the “ immora
lity and degradation arising from the crowded and neglected
state of the dwellings of the poor” in many parts of Yorkshire.
“ In Northamptonshire, some of the cottages are disgraceful,
necessarily unhealthy, and a reproach to civilisation.” The
Reverend J. Fraser, in his report, says of the wretched con
dition of the parishes in Gloucestershire and Norfolk : “It
is impossible to exaggerate the ill-effects of such a state
of things in every respect............. Modesty must be an un
known virtue, decency an unimaginable thing, where in one
small chamber, with the beds lying as thickly as they can be
packed, father, mother, young men, lads, grown and growing up
girls—two and sometimes three generations—are herded pro
miscuously ; where every operation of the toilette and of nature
—dressings, undressings, births, deaths—is performed by each
within the sight or hearing of all; where children of both sexes,
to as high an age as twelve or fourteen, or even more, occupy
the same bed; where the whole atmosphere is sensual, and
human nature is degraded into something below the level of the
swine. It is a hideous picture, and the picture is drawn from
life;” In alluding to the same class of labourers, Professor
Fawcett writes : “ In some districts their children could not
grow up in greater ignorance if England had lost her Chris
tianity and her civilisation ; the houses in which, in many cases,
they (the labourers) are compelled to dwell, do not deserve the
name of human habitations.” Nor is the condition of many of
the working people in some of our large towns much better.
Despite our boasted national wealth, there are thousands who
exist in daily anxiety as to how to obtain food to eat, and to
whom the rights,, comforts, and pleasures of real living are
strangers. In his work, “ Pauperism, its Causes and Remedies,”
the Professor says: “Visit the great centres of our commerce and
trade, and what will be observed ? The direst poverty always
accompanying the greatest wealth...... Within a stone’s throw ”
of the stately streets and large manufactories of such towns
as Manchester and Liverpool, “ there will be found miserable
alleys and narrow courts in which people drag out an existence,
steeped, in a misery and a wretchedness which baffle descrip
tion.........Not long since, I was conversing with a West-end
clergyman, and he was speaking, not of Bethnal Green, nor of
Seven Dials, but of a street quite within the precincts of luxurious
and glittering Belgravia, in which he knew from his personal
knowledge that every house had a separate family living in each
room. Dr. Whitmore, the medical superintendent of Marylebone, in a recent report, states that in his district there are
�7
hundreds of houses with a family in every room...... Official re
turns show that in London there are never less than 125,000paupers, and that as each winter recurs the number rises to
170,000. There is abundant reason to conclude that a number
at least equally large are just on the verge of pauperism.” Such
facts as these require no comment, they speak in language
terrible enough in all conscience/ We have become so accus
tomed to the Verdict “ died from starvation,” that the extent of
misery it represents is not always fully recognised. It isnot merely
the death of the victim to be contemplated, but the pain of body
and torture of mind experienced ere the spark of life was ex
tinguished ; also the sorrow and bitter pangs of the relatives of
the deceased left to mourn the loss of the one departed. And,
judging by the past, there is but little hope of much improve
ment while the present form of government lasts. Mr. Joshua
Fielden recently stated, in his speech at Todmorden, that in the
last eighteen years our poor rates had increased ,£2,700,000.
Our laws touching imperial taxation are so unjust that its
burden falls unfairly upon the shoulders of the working classes.
Last yeartheimperial taxation in round numbers was ,£70,000,000.
Now,from whom was this revenue derived? During the reign
of Charles II. an important change took place in our fisqal ar
rangements. Up to that time land had borne a more equal share
of the taxation of the country. Charles II., being desirous of
favouring the aristocracy, relieved them of much of the taxa
tion then upon the land, and placed instead heavy duties upon
articles of consumption. From that time up to the presentan
unjust system of taxation had been in existence, and had been
’ working as injuriously as it possibly could upon the labouring
portion of the community. In the last century the land of this
country paid one-third of all the taxes, now it pays less than
one-seventieth. And this palpable injustice has been going on
while land-rents have increased enormously, for the same land
that seventy-two years ago yielded a little over .£22,000,000,
now yields nearly £100,000,000. The following extract is from
"the papers issued by the Financial Reform Union :—
“ The acknowledged principles of all fiscal reforms since the
report of the Import Duties Committee of 1840, are the repeal
of all duties upon the necessaries of life, the remission of unpro
ductive duties, and the abolition of protections and prohibitions.
Notwithstanding this report, a duty is still levied upon corn,
which yields the greatest return when the people are least able
to pay it, and involves a necessity for fourteen other duties,
yielding from nothing to £2, £3, and up to ,£2,841 per annum
each. The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was nearly
£800,000 ! The duty on sugar, an article described by Mr.
Gladstone as next to corn in importance as a necessary of life,
produces above .£5,800,000, and involves duties on nine other
articles in which it is an ingredient, yielding a yearly revenue
varying from £1 to .£2,000 per annum. Tea, coffee, chicory,
and cocoa, all of which have become necessaries of life to the
great bulk of the population, produce upwards of ,£3,200,000.
�8
Currants, figs, plums, prunes, and raisins, notwithstanding
dates are admitted free, are taxed to the extent of ,£400,000.
The total revenue from these sources in 1866-7 was <£10,310,056,
or nearly one-fourth of the total revenue from customs and excise.”
A recent writer in the Liverpool Financial Reformer, divided
the community into three divisions—first, the aristocratic, re
presented by those who have an annual income of £1,000 and
upwards ; the middle classes were represented by those who
had incomes from £100 to £1000 ; and the artisan or working
classes were those who were supposed to have incomes under
£100 per year. He then assessed their incomes respectively at
.£208,385,000; £174,579,000 ; and £149,745,000. Towards the
taxation, each division paid as follows : The aristocratic por
tion contributed £8,500,000, the middle classes £19,513,45 3, and
the working classes £32,861,474. The writer remarks : The
burden of the revenue, as it is here shown to fall on the different
classes, may not be fractionally accurate, either on the one side
or the other, for that is an impossibility in the case, but it is
sufficiently so to afford a fair representation in reference to those
classes on whom the burden chiefly falls. Passing over the middle
classes, who thus probably contribute about their share, the re
sult in regard to the upper and lower classes stands thus:—
Amount which should be paid to the revenue by the higher classes
(that is, the classes above £1,000 a year), £23,437,688 ; amount
which they do pay, ,£8,500,000; leaving adifference of £ 14,937,000,
so that the higher classes are paying nearly £15,000,000 less
than their fair share of taxation. Amount which should be paid
by the working classes (or those having incomes below £100),
,£16,846,312 ; amount which they do pay, £32,861,474 ; making
a difference of £16,015,162; so that the working classes are
paying about £16,000,000 more than their fair share. In other
words, the respective average rates paid upon the assessable in
come of the two classes are—by the higher classes, iod. per
pound ; the working classes, 4s. 4d. That is to say, the working
classes are paying at a rate five times more heavily than the
wealthy classes.”
Now, with these inequalities existing, is not a reformation of
government highly desirable ? The happiness of the people
requires it, and the progress of the nation demands it. How is
it to be obtained ? There are two fundamental remedies neces
sary in order to effect true reform. First, the real representa
tion for the people, and, second, their control over the national
purse. Until these are obtained true government will exist only
in name. Let the working classes be united, discreet, and de
termined in their present struggles ; and if the “ stupid party ”
and their supporters will not be “ wise in time,” they must mar
vel not if that electricity that now charges the political atmos
phere shall ultimately strike the present imperfect institutions,
thereby making way for the establishment of principles that
will secure political justice and social equality.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.—Price One Penny.
*
�
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 government & the people: a plea for reform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4943
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social reform
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 government & the people: a plea for reform), 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-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/714f94f00334eae281173238a0a5b8c5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=F8Od9xpQduTqv7tJ5EIdi9uTKE0sidxRIdbBmHOKvWqx%7EqLQYfc650uJZlEnNt8Zcm9PIrMVpcqbXdc-0EGBDW12Fb9r6srm%7EWsx8jGfJEo7AXbZi%7EQCC-FTE4KQHaojYjFcCM-tsjpFTTONh48ZpJsI5yZuuLmNkTWVWRY-SIC27%7E9g1fv6I4L9YfcxOO295yHeGz%7E-Cy0RxJ0bcPilF549dw7uAgHmfaROtIkiEqR13Oy6eTiSkOPkR2BWLmQvNwJhNd4rEK%7EsdXkSfAbOfCnbQ3jYMWH2UIXKyErox9FBXCzMGOWSwovNk16ZiBY2hN2%7EX2Dz4jV14TADWratmw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2fb0683fc830402415c5a739bb134ea5
PDF Text
Text
■ 7'7,
•'■fu
LARGE OR SMALL FAMILIES?
ON WHICH SIDE LIES
THE BALANCE OF COMFORT?
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
To be publicly known as a Freethinker is not respectable, to be suspected
of Atheism is monstrous, and to be an avowed Malthusian is detestable!
These are weighty reasons why a man who wishes to- be “ thought well of
by his neighbours,” and who is “quite sure the world will go on well
enough without his interference,” should hold his peace, make money, and
die in the odour of respectable sanctity “universally regretted by a large
circle of acquaintances.*’ But to some men conscience is higher than
consequence. This may be their misfortune, but they are afflicted with the
infirmity of speaking out what they think, because they are infatuated
enough to imagine that what they have to say may benefit others. There
are the names of many men in history who have done this thing, generally
to their own loss, but to the world’s great advantage.
Without the vanity of insinuating that what I may say will ever be
recorded in history, and knowing that the force of the argument of the
present paper can only apply to certain states of society in certain coun
tries, I wish to record for the first time convictions which I have enter
tained for many years, believing and hoping sincerely that they will be
productive of benefit and not of evil to others.
That most delicate of all subjects, the Population Question, the news
papers generally shun lest they should lose caste, and the medical periodi
cals are dead against it. But then it is a question which presses for
solution more and more every day, and which underlies the happiness of
the great mass of the population in all old and over-populated countries;
it therefore becomes imperative that some one should endeavour to point
out a remedy, or at least a palliative for the widespread misery, suffering,
and disease which are kept up and perpetuated from generation to genera
tion. This topic has been dilated upon by men whose names will
be remembered in history, and all honour to them for their courage. The
Rev. Mr. Malthus, though his views in some respects I believe to have
been radically defective, did more good by the attention he called to this
question, than by all the dogmatic sermons he ever preached. Robert
Dale Owen, the worthy son of a worthy sire, wrote his invaluable tract
entitled “Moral Physiology;” Dr. Knowlton published his pamphlet
“ Fruits of Philosophyand later has appeared a work—to which is due
the honour of having revivified Subject which had become dormant from
the close of the Socialist agitation in 1844, till the time of its appearance
— “The Elements of Social Science.” Other works treat upon population,
from Mr. John Stuart Mill’s great treatise on “ Political Economy,”
down to a penny tract entitled “ Poverty: its Cause and Cure. ” This
question is the political problem of to-day, and he who solves it will be the
most useful man of his age.
�.Large or Small Families ?
Various schemes are propounded for the amelioration of the growing
want and misery of this country, such as Home Colonisation, Emigration,
Co-operation, Trades’ Unions, and the like. All writers and statesmen
admit the fact of an increasing population, and consequently an increasing
poverty, pauperism, and starvation. But this may be taken as an absolute
truth, that no one scheme could supply an universal remedy, the causes of
poverty and suffering in our civilised mode of life being so multifarious.
I do not intend to travel over the whole field of politics, or out of this
small country of ours. I wish to narrow the question to a very small
compass, and to individualise it; here is the root of the evil, and when
the root is diseased, neither branches nor leaves can be healthy.
England is a small island, and, in proportion to the land under cultiva
tion for human food, it is over-populated No one disputes that fact
The over-population produces disease, suffering, starvation, and death.
If instead of thirty, we had twenty millions of human beings, would there
not be a better chance of health and food for all ? Home colonists say that
as long as there is land in this country, it ought to be cultivated, and then
double the present number could be maintained. This is not to be disputed.
But supposing that by some grand act of legislation, the whole land of this
country were to be suddenly distributed to the people, and made to main
tain double the present population, how long would society be in a better
state than it is now? Just twenty-five years! But supposing it took
longer, still the inevitable result would ultimately come, unless some sys
tem of regulating the population were adopted. This island is limited,
and unless the people on it consent to limit their numbers, the evils from
which we now suffer, will not only not diminish, but will go on increasing.
I am not unmindful of the disproportions and inequalities which abound,
and which must be considerably modified before anything approaching to a
rational state of society can obtain. I have always warred against the
injustice of our societary arrangements, and I believe the efforts of the
social reformers of this century have been productive of lasting good to
our race. But in the present day, in spite of all the teaching and
preaching we have had during the last half century, we find ourselves in
the midst of a more widespread misery and starvation than perhaps
England has ever known before. We talk of the sacredness of human life,
but human life shares the fate of every other “ article ” which gluts the
market—it becomes depreciated in value; and it will, as amatter of course,
never rise in value so long as the supply is abundant. England’s weak
ness at this moment is her oyerwhelming population. We devise schemes
of emigration to get rid of those who are compelled to abandon the place
of their birth, and sever the ties of kindred and home, and seek for a sub
sistence in the uncultivated wilds of a foreign land thousands of miles
away from the associates of their youth and the friends of their maturity.
Let those who think it is a good thing that the Anglo-Saxon race should
people the world, watch the poor emigrants as the ships leave our shores,
and also look into the faces of the relatives and friends whom the expa
triated are parting with for ever, and t^n say if it would not be more
humane to prevent so much agony in the world. Granted there may be
plenty of beautiful spots on this globe which are suitable for new colonies,
still it is the last duty I should consider incumbent upon me to send my
children to inhabit them. It is no concern of mine, or any man’s in
particular, whether these places are populated or not. The aborigines of
every sparsely peopled country that the Anglo-Saxon race have seized
upon to which to carry the “ blessings of rum and true religion
�Large or Small Families ?
whether it be Africa, America, Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere—
have never had reason to believe in the righteousness of the “ pale faces ”
over-running their land; for wherever Englishmen go, there they spread
vice, disease, and death among the “ untutored savages,” and never rest
till they have exterminated the ancient possessors of the soil.
More than nine-tenths of the natives of England would prefer to
remain in the land of their birth, if they could be ensured a moderate
return for their industry. The “ roving Englishman ” is generally a
person of means, who travels about the world for his own amusement,
knowing he can return at any moment he feels “ home sick.” The great
majority of people object to leave even the town in which they have been
reared, hence the crowding of large cities, London especially. And if
this question were confined to the town-life aspect of it alone, there would
be much to be said in favour of limitation. In fact, it is here that it
presses with such peculiar force upon the thoughtful artisan, the small
tradesman, and the professional man,
A working man in London, with a large family, if he be reflective, and
a person of some refinement, cannot have a happy home. The conditions
of happiness to him do not exist. He has no privacy, and the proper de
cencies of domestic life are not at his command. His children are not
surrounded by the necessary conditions to ensure their healthy training,
either physically or mentally. His eldest boy may be his pride, and he
thinks he would make a bright man if he could be sent to a good school for
a number of years; but then there are five or six others to be considered,
and in justice to them he cannot spend money in the education of one, which
is required for the food and clothing of the others. And so that wish of his
heart is thrust down, and the boy, instead of becoming a brilliant man in
some profession, is made a carpenter, a shoemaker, or blacksmith, and is
known in after years as “ Harry Despond, who would have been a clever
fellow if he had been educated when young?” And in times of trade
disputes, when the toiler is impelled to resist some reduction in his wages,
trifling though it may seem, but which will make the difference to him
between subsistence and semi-starvation—who is it who holds out longest
in “strikes” (those battles of the poor swarms against the rich few), he
who has one or two children, or the man who “ has a large number depend
ing upon him?” The thoughtless working man supplies the weapons for
his own defeat.
The small tradesmen—that large section of the population of England
who form what is called “ the lower middle-class”—are influenced in the
same degree, though in a different way. At periods of public excitement
—it may be a municipal election, or a general election, or when some dar
ing attempt of a retrograde Government is made to wrest from the people
one of their dearly-bought liberties—if you appeal to the small tradesman
for his active co-operation in the popular cause, you are constantly met by
the reply,I would if I dared, but then you know I have a large family
dependent up me; I would not care for myself, but I am bound to think of
them. My sympathies are entirely with you, but I am obliged to keep
quiet, for it is as much as I can do to pay rent and taxes, and keep the
wolf from the door.” And so the ever-present obstacle in this island, “ a
large family,” stands in the way of education, reform, social comfort, and
a thousand necessary and desirable changes. But to what do we mainly
owe this state of things ? Why, to that pestilential doctrine derived from
the Bible, “ Increase and multiply,” which is taught in our churches
as an “ ordinance of God, ” and which has been the cause of more crime
�4
Large or Small Families ?
and anguish in England than any other false doctrine that ever cursed the
land. No one is bound to increase and multiply, excepting it be perfectly
agreeable to him and suitable to his circumstances in life. No man is
master of his fate so long as he keeps on multiplying “ circumstances”
which control him at every turn.
The class of clerks in London are numbered by the thousand. They
may be in Government departments, in laweyrs’ offices, in banks, in mer
chants’ warehouses, and other places. They have to sustain the external
appearance of gentlemen, and their incomes are fixed, or if they increase,
it is only by slow degrees, providing they remain in one establishment for
a number of years. But as domestic matters are usually managed, their
responsibilities multiply yearly, and there is no corresponding increase of
means. And all know what a misery genteel poverty is. During the first
three or four years of the married life of a poor professional man, he can
manage to live in a decent neighbourhood in town ; but as time goes on,
he must either remove into an inferior locality, or move out of town into
the suburbs, as, having a number of children, he is “ objected to on
account of his family ” in every desirable house where he wishes to occupy
apartments only. And let every man reflect hew much he loses of rest, of
time, of money, and of opportunities of instruction, of amusement, or of
friendly intercourse, by being obliged to “catch a train” or an omnibus
every night of his life; and the same anxiety and excitement have to be
repeated every morning, when he who has to pursue a daily occupation
in town is compelled, by economical considerations, to live out of it. A
physician some time ago gave it as his experience, that the mortality
among city men whs lived out of town, was greatly in excess of that among
those who lived only a walking distance from their places of business,
owing to the excitement induced by anxiety to catch the train or omnibns
night and morning.
Hitherto I have viewed this question almost entirely ffom the man’s
point of view. But that is not the whole aspect of the case. There is the
woman’s, which is quite as important, as the happiness of the world may
be said to be in her keeping. The marriage state is the only rational and
moral state for the vast majority of adult human beings, and anything that
prevents or even hinders that, injures the individual and society. But
then the advocates of unlimited families do not hesitate to praise the pru
dence of the young man who says “ he cannot marry until he has made a
position in the world.” They surely cannot reflect upon the many evils
arising from delay. Look at the state of our streets, and read the pro
ceedings of the coroners’ courts. We are taught to regard with horror the
custom in China of regulating their population by killing a certain propor
tion of the female children; but what is the condition of London, where,
Dr. Lancaster says, the hands of thousands of mothers are imbrued in the
blood of their infants, and where specimens of “ God’s image ” done to
‘death may be picked up in the squares, on door steps, and fished out of
the river between the rising and setting of every sun ? Is this a state of
things to be pleaded for, and is there no remedy to be devised to put an
end to so much brutalising demoralisation ? If persons understood tha1 it
was possible to have early marriages and small families, a marked change
would be visible in society in a few years. In the present state of the
population in England, if every adult male were to take a wife, there
would then remain an enormous number of women without husbands.
Some persons think they see in the plan of Dale Owen and others, the door
opened to wide-spread immorality. This fear would be entitled to respect
�La/rge or Small Families ?
5
if the present state of society were perfect. There is no plan on 3ny sub
ject that may not be abused. In spite of the deadly consequences arising
from immorality now, thousands upon thousands of reckless and vicious
people abound who dare all consequences. Everybody agrees that the social
problem wants solving, and that “ some remedy ought to be devised," but
very few have the courage to broach this population question, owing to the
sneers and odium they have to encounce. The remedy now proposed can
be adopted by every individual as soon as its expediency is seen.
All men, generally speaking, not only admire their own wives, but are
gratified when other people speak approvingly of their healthy and
pleasing looks after years of married life. But those men who admire their
wives most, are too often reckless of the charms which win admiration.
Constantly do we hear it said by persons when speaking of married women
—“ Ah, I knew Mrs.------ before she was married. She was one of the
prettiest girls in our neighbourhood a few years ago; but she has had
children so fast, that she is a complete wreck of her former self.” This is
of so common occurrence, that almost every adult person knows a case in
point. But how cruel all this is to the woman. No man, however philoso
phical he may be, or however “ high ” his moral principles, feels the same
interest in a faded wife, as he does in a bright and healthy one. There
are exceptions, of course, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the
deterioration of the wife arises from the selfishness of the husband. Man first
destroys the greatest charm of his life, and then has the “ consolation" of
knowing that he is the author of his own misery. He who is blessed with
a wife who retains the bloom of youth through a number of years, glides
into the vale of life unconscious of a thousand troubles which rack the
souls of men not so fortunately circumstanced. There is much talk about
conservatism in politics; but if there were a little more thought devoted to
conservatism in domestic life, it would be better for the human race. In
married life, the domestic affections may be more perfectly realised by a
small family than a large one, and the truest love and the most generous
consideration go hand in hand.
It has been frequently maintained, that the children of large families
make better men and women than those of small ones, because, having to
go out into the world from the earliest age, they learn to “ rough it, ”
whereas the children of small families are brought up more tenderly, and
are apt to be a little pampered. It is undeniable that two children only
in a family are more likely to be better nurtured than four or six, but that
they are always spoiled thereby, is no more true than that the roughly
“dragged up” always make industrious and useful citizens. If there be
any truth in the alleged refining influence of education and good surround
ings, the balance of probabilities is against the roughly trained being so
useful in the world as the cultivated. And at what a cost is this “ rough
and vigorous ” member of society produced. The mother of a numerous
progeny risks her life eight or ten times, besides passing the best portion
of her existence in continual suffering. A grave charge made by oppo
nentsis, that to check the population is an “ abnormality,” and must im
pairs the health of both man and woman. This is not true; but if it were,
it would be easy to show that the ailments forced upon women in a
“natural” way, far exceed any possible to arise from an exercise of
prudence. In hundreds, nay thousands of families in this country, the
doctor and the undertaker are constantly in attendance; and where such
is the case, who can say that there is a “home,” in the true sense of
that term, for either the father or r >ther? With a large family, the
�6
La/rge or Small Families ?
father is never free from the harassing care of providing the means for
their bare subsistence. A working man who has to support six or eight
besides himself, has little leisure and small desire to cultivate his own mind,
and this is a fact worthy of consideration by all who wish well to the
present generation. The most delightful impulses of our mature years are
excited and called forth by the love of children, but the impulses are
always checked, and sometimes almost obliterated, when anxiety and de
privation enter the house. To preserve the happy medium is a wise
economy of the small share of happiness which falls to the lot of man.
(It must not be forgotten, that the whole of my arguments have
special reference to the working classes, of whatever degree.)
Duggan, the man who recently murdered his wife and six children,
and then committed suicide, might have been alive and compara
tively happy, and the world have been saved the remembrance of an
appalling crime, if he had had two children instead of six. He was a
journeyman silversmith with a moderate wage, and for eight persons to
be sustained out of so limited an income, meant semi-starvation, with no
education for the children, and perpetual drudgery for the mother, for how
was she to maintain a servant out of her scanty weekly allowance ? Dug
gan was a man of weakly body, and possibly weakly mind, and had he
been relieved of sixty-six per cent, of his “ responsibilities,” in all
probability he would have been able to have borne his burden through
life.
Children who are well cared for and gently reared, experience in their
early days the purest and most unalloyed happiness that life can give.
But how few members of large and poor families ever wish to pass their
childhood over again. And if one or both parents should die early, how
rarely is it that more than two or three out of a family of six or eight
ever “do well.” Their number is a bar to their prospects, and their
relatives being totally unable to provide for such a “ swarm,” they are
left to the tender mercies of an already over-stocked society, and their
destiny becomes impossible of calculation.
It is urged, that to interfere with the domestic relations, will be to press
with peculiar hardship upon the poor. I think this is a mistaken notion.
I have been endeavouring to show that the tradesman and professional
man, as well as the artisan, would be more independent with fewer “ en
cumbrances,” as the supposed child-loving population designate children;
but the poor man, in consequence of his poverty, has most to gain by pru
dence. The real objection underlying the opposition, though it is not openly
expressed, is the idea of the deprivation of pleasure supposed to be involved.
But this by no means follows. And if it were so, I think I have shown
that it would be but tbe substitution of one advantage for a greater. Earl
Russell, in a non-Parliamentary address, said, a few years ago, that life
was a “compromise.” He was certainly right, look at life as we may.
The same passion or desire, though felt by all, does not operate in all with
the same intensity. Some require more sleep than others, but they can
not indulge in it if their position in life does not admit of it. One man has
an inordinate craving for drink, but when he gratifies it at tbe expense of
his means and his sobriety, all “ society ” condemn him. Another has a
dainty appetite, and must have expensive dishes and plenty of them—he
is an epicure, A sluggard who is selfish, will only work half a day, when
he ought, to keep his family in decent circumstances, t© labour a whole
one—him we shun as lazy. But the man who has ten children, when he
can only keep two, we pity, and subscribe for, and regard as unfortunate.
�Large or Small Families ?
1
But where is the difference? Why should one passion or desire have
more immunity than the others?
Some opponents of the practice of limiting the population, urge that the
future state of society should be considered, and profess to dread the pros
pect of the world being without inhabitants. I confess that this consider
ation does not disturb me. In fact, I do not consider it incumbent upon
me to provide for a “ possible ” future. I am interested in the improve
ment of the present state of society, and I feel perfectly assured the future
populations of this globe will be more likely to know how to regulate
their own affairs than we are. The present generation being anxious to
control the future, is like a miser wishing to dispose of his wealth even
after his death. The great difficulty in politics is how to get rid of the
laws and restrictions bequeathed to us by our ancestors, who were no
doubt very solicitous that people in after ages should be “ well governed,”
forgetting that every new generation has fresh ideas and fresh require
ments.
I never heard but one argument, from a national point of view, against
limiting the population, which struck me as possessing any force, and it is
this. It is said, and said justly, that the thoughtful people who are
capable of self-control, are the best citizens; and if they reduce their own
numbers, by limiting their families, they are virtually abandoning society
to the vicious and improvident classes—the swarms who generate and
overspread the land like some of the prolific lower animals. This is a
little startling to the man who is desirous, not only of improving present
society, but that which is to follow. But hitherto the competition between
the two classes has not been very encouraging, for while “ every day a
wise man dies, every minute a fool is bom.” Of course it will be urged,
why seek to lessen the chances of the inferior classes being counter-balanced
by the superior? I think the prudence inculcated by the system of early
marriages and small families will not have that effect, for it is not exclu
sively from the lower, or even the lowest class that all criminals spring.
The younger sons and daughters of middle and upper class parents, having
the notions of “gentility ” without the means, frequently have recourse to
questionable practices to keep up “appearances.”
This question, viewed physiologically, to the student of human nature
is a most interesting one. Our present system of haphazard marriages
is productive of a great deterioration of the human race. Unions
are daily contracted between people who ought never to come to
gether, and if the evil could be limited to the contracting parties,
it would be of inestimable advantage to society. There are also others
who are attracted to each other by the strongest feelings of love,
and to prevent their marriage would be a real hardship; but for such
people to become parents is a crime. Robert Owen was a firm believer in
the influence of circumstances in the formation of character, and advocated
the surrounding of every individual at birth with superior associations, in
order to develop the good, and suppress the evil, tendencies of their natures.
This is sound and rational. But a vast amount of disease and vice would
oe prevented if the “ education ” commenced earlier—namely, if parents
Were only to have children when they themselves were perfectly healthy,
and when their means would allow of their properly nurturing and educat
ing all their offspring alike. The late Pierrepont Greaves was a strong
advocate of this system of regenerating the world, and was somewhat op
posed to Robert Owen’s doctrine of circumstances. Robert Owen’s cele
brated saying was this—“ Man’s character is formed for him and not by
�8
Large or Small Families ?
him." Mr. Greaves formulated his thesis thus—" As being is before
knowing, so education can never remedy the defects ef birth." There is a
world of truth in both sayings, and if Greaves were acted upon first,
and Robert Owen afterwards, a few generations hence would be the
heritors of sound bodies and sound minds; and the enormous sums now
spent in doctors to cure diseases which need never exist, in parsons who
flourish out of the superstition engendered by ignorance, and the policemen
and jailors who are employed to punish the vice and crime arising from
defective organisations and immoral training—might be devoted to schools
where real knowledge would be taught, and in the purchase of necessaries'
for domestic happiness, without which no family is free to develop to the
full its mental and moral attributes.
There is no possibility of gainsaying the fact, that this country is overpopulated, that at our usual rate of increase it must always remain so, and
not only not improve, but gradually grow worse. There is only one of two
ways of relieving the over-stocked labour market, and that is by death or
emigration, and either one is a calamity from which we all instinctively
shrink. I have not considered the state of any other country than Eng
land, and I have not directed my remarks to any other, whether continen
tal or American. The social problem at home presses for solution, and in
adducing this as a remedy for much of the evil which threatens to over
whelm us, 1 do not pretend that it is free from objection, but I do submit
that it is worthy of serious consideration.
In this tract I have endeavoured to show, that persons of a ** philoso
phical ’’ turn of mind may marry early and avoid the evils of delay; may
cultivate the domestic affections at a moderate cost of health and anxiety;
may conserve the charms which yield the keenest joy in wedded life; may
ensure to their offspring sound bodies and sound minds; may train those
minds to the fullest extent and under the happiest circumstances; may keep
their children around them and get them well placed; may control their
own fate and maintain their independence; and if my conclusions be sound,
there can be little doubt on which side lies the balance of comfort.
[Those who are not acquainted with the practical remedies, will find all
necessary information in the little tract “ Poverty: its Cause and Cure,”
price one penny. J
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed and Published by Austin & 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
Large or small families? On which side lies the balance of comfort?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4952
Subject
The topic of the resource
Birth control
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 (Large or small families? On which side lies the balance of comfort?), 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
Birth Control
Marriage
Population Increase
Poverty
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/64200c44f9eda95a0afd5e8f3857e985.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tIRiXJ4mTb-esHWSMJ9gscFaC8iwVP71GmtG0KGul1JbDEqSOZMdnoYTONfbhCpX0CtDZlXfnBG0c8ybFsad6hG6grIiv-AF9lLgCQEJYjIx7Xb7HxgiGboHZJ1orjbwZp6n0OnzNBH2m-8e-O7d4Cu4syrJ9T2DqQ3WOA3HKTHTRItx92Fz16JfOgPHRq0LLPG19wtnnN8dSn2ngRM3wZvsX0vA6kiEeZZOb8SxmuP9BUmW4u2vzW2Mbyc8Xq9wEEeEOcuCxPvRN87ojYSx4RznvgY6vlCkd5-Uqi2kv4k-VwIlIINytEAQCMF2j723jjdgQmtFZ7a6hNPv3%7EEByQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d10277bbdb1f3b3f731bb147f5e729f
PDF Text
Text
A PLEA EOR ATHEISM,
Bf C. BEADLAUGH.
Gillespie says that “ an Atheist propagandist seems a nos^
descript monster created by nature in a moment of mad
ness.” Despite this opinion, it is as the propagandist of
Atheism that I pen the following lines., in the hope that I
may succeed in removing some few of the many prejudices
which have been created against not only the actual holders
of Atheistic opinions, but also against those wrongfully sus
pected of entertaining such ideas. Men who have been
famous for depth of thought, for excellent wit, or great
genius, have been recklessly assailed as Atheists, by those
who lacked the high qualifications against which the spleen
of the calumniators was directed. Thus, not only has
Voltaire been without ground accused of Atheism, but
Bacon, Locke, and Bishop Berkeley himself, have, amongst
others, been denounced by thoughtless or unscrupulous
pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the accusa
tion being that they manifested an inclination to improve
human thought.
It is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation
to speak in unmeasured language of Atheism as favouring
immorality, and of Atheists as men whose conduct is neces
sarily vicious, and who have adopted atheistic views as a
desperate defiance against a Deity justly offended by the
badness of their lives. Such persons urge that amongst
the proximate causes of Atheism are vicious training, im
moral and profligate companions, licentious living, and the
like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his “ Instructions on Chris
man Theology,” goes so far as to declare that “ nearly all
the Atheists upon record have been men of extremely
debauched and vile conduct.” Such language from the
Christian advocate is not surprising, but there are others
arho, professing great desire for the spread of Freethought,
�2
A PLEA FOE ATHEISM,
and with pretensions to rank amongst acute and liberal
thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, #nd its teachings
cold, barren, and negative. In this brief essay I shall
except to each of the above allegations, and shall en
deavour to demonstrate that Atheism affords greater possi
bility for human happiness than any system yet based on
Theism, or possible to be founded thereon, and that the
lives of true Atheists must be more virtuous, because more
human, than those of the believers in Deity, the humanity
of the devout believer often finding itself neutralised by
a faith with which it is necessarily in constant collision.
The devotee piling the faggots at the auto da fe of an
heretic, and that heretic his son, might, notwithstanding, be
a good father in every respect but this. Heresy, in the
eyes of the believer, is highest criminality, and outweighs
all claims of family or affection.
Atheism, properly understood, is in nowise a cold,
barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful
affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion
and action of highest humanity.
Let Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned
—its defence unheard—on the ex parte slanders of the pro
fessional preachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose courage
is bold enough while the pulpit protects the sermon, but
whose, valour becomes tempered with discretion when a free
platform is afforded and discussion claimed; nor misjudged
because it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so
unpopular as to render its advocacy impolitic. The best
policy against all prejudice is to assert firmly the verity.
The Atheist does not say “ There is no God,” but he says,
“ I know not what you mean by God ; I am without idea
of God; the word ‘ God ’ is to me a sound conveying no
clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because
I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and' the
conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that
he is unable to define it to me.” If you speak to the
Atheist of God as creator, he answers that the conception
of creation is impossible. We are utterly unable to construe
it in thought as possible that the complement of existent has
been either increased or diminished, much less can we con
ceive an absolute origination of substance. We cannot con
ceive either, on the o^e hand, nothing becoming something,
�A PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
or on the other, something becoming nothing.
3
The Theis t
who speaks of God creating the universe, must either sup
pose that Deity evolved it out of himself, or that he pro
duced it from nothing. But the Theist cannot regard the
universe as evolution of Deity, because this would identify
Universe and Deity, and be Pantheism rather than Theism.
There would be no distinction of substance—in fact no crea
tion. Nor can the Theist regard the universe as created
out of nothing, because Deity is, according to him, necessa
rily eternal and infinite. His existence being eternal and
infinite, precludes the possibility of the conception of
vacuum to be filled by the universe if. created. No one can
even think of any point of existence in extent or duration
and say, here is the point of separation between the creator
and the created. Indeed, it is not possible for the Theist to
imagine a beginning to the universe. It is not possible to
conceive either an absolute commencement, or an absolute
termination of existence; that is, it is impossible to con
ceive beginning before which you have a period when the
universe has yet to be ; or to conceive an end, after which
the universe, having been, no lunger exists. It is impos
sible in thought to originate or annihilate the universe.
The Atheist affirms that he cognises to-day effects, that
these are at the same time causes and effects—causes to the
effects they precede, effects to the causes they follow.
Cause is simply everything without which the effect would
not result, and with which it must result. Cause is the
means to an end, consummating itself in that end. The
Theist who argues for creation must assert a point of time,
that is, of duration, when the created did not yet exist. At
this point of time either something existed or nothing;
but something must have existed, for out of nothing no
thing can come. Something must have existed, because the
point fixed upon is that of the duration of , something.
This something must have been either finite or infinite;
if finite, it could not have been God, and if the something
were infinite, then creation was impossible, as it is impos
sible to add to infinite existence.
If you leave the question of creation and deal with the
government of the universe, the difficulties of Theism are
by no means lessened. The existence of evil is then a
terrible stumbling-block to the Theist.
Pain, misery,
�4
A
PLEA FOB. ATHETSM.
crime, poverty, confront the advocate of eternal goodness,
and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of
Deity as all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful. Evil is either
caused by God, or exists independently; but it cannot be
caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good;
nor can it exist independently, as in that case he would not
be all-powerful. Evil must either have had a beginning,
or it must be eternal; but, according to the Theist, it can
not be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it
have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have ori
ginated in God, or outside God; but, according to the
Theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good,
and out of all-goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil
have originated outside God, for, according to the Theist,
God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or
beyond infinity.
To the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely
different aspect. He declares that evil is a result, but not
a result from God or Devil. He affirms that by conduct
founded on knowledge of the laws of existence it is possible
to ameliorate and avoid present evil, and, as our knowledge
increases, to prevent its future recurrence.
Some declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check
to crime. They allege that the Atheist may commit murder,
lie, or steal without fear of any consequences. To try the
actual value of this argument, it is not unfair to ask—Do
Theists ever steal? If yes, then in each such theft, the
belief in God and his power to punish has been inefficient
as a preventive of the crime. Do Theists ever lie or mur
der ? If yes, the same remark has further force—hell-fire fail
ing against the lesser as against the greater crime. The
fact is that those who use such an argument overlook a great
truth—i.e., that all men seek happiness, though in very
diverse fashions. Ignorant and miseducated men often mis
take the true path to happiness, and commit crime in the
endeavour to obtain it. Atheists hold that by teaching
mankind the real road to human happiness, it is possible to
keep them from the by-ways of criminality and error.
Atheists would teach men to be moral now, not because God
•ffers as an inducement reward by and by, but because in
the virtuous act itself immediate good is ensured to the doer
and the circle surrounding him. Atheism would preserve
�A
PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
O
man from lying, stealing, murdering now, not from fear of
an eternal agony after death, but because these crimes make
this life itself a course of misery.
While Theism, asserting God as the creator and governor
of the universe, hinders and checks man’s efforts by de
claring God’s will to be the sole directing and controlling
.< power, Atheism, by declaring all events to be in accordance
, with natural laws—that is, happening in certain ascertain'■ able sequences — stimulates man to discover the best condi
tions of life, and offers him the most powerful inducements
to morality. While the Theist provides future happi
ness for a scoundrel repentant on his death-bed, Atheism
affirms present and certain happiness for the man who does
his best to live here so well as to have little cause for re
penting hereafter.
Theism declares that God dispenses health and inflicts
disease, and sickness and illness are regarded by the Theist
as visitations from an angered Deity, to be borne with meek
ness and content. Atheism declares that physiological
knowledge may preserve us from disease by preventing our
infringing the law of health, and that sickness results not
as the ordinance of offended Deity, but from ill-ventilated
dwellings and workshops, bad and insufficient food, exces
sive toil, mental suffering, exposure to inclement weather,
and the like—all these finding root in poverty, the chief
source of crime and disease ; that prayers and piety afford
no protection against fever, and that if the human being be
kept without food he will starve as quickly whether he be
Theist or Atheist, theology being no substitute for bread.
When the Theist ventures to affirm that his God is an.
existence other than and separate from the so-called mate
rial universe, and when he invests this separate, hypothe
tical existence with the several attributes of omniscience,
omnipresence, omnipotence, eternity, infinity, immutability,
and perfect goodness, then the Atheist, in reply, says—“ I
deny the existence of such a being.”
It becomes very important, in order that injustice may
not be done to the Theistic argument, that we should have
—in. lieu of a clear definition, which it seems useless to ask
for—the best possible clue to the meaning intended to be
conveyed by the word God. If it were not that the word
is an arbitrary term, invented for the ignorant, and the
�6
A PEEA FOR ATHEISM.
notions suggested by which are vague and entirely contin
gent upon individual fancies, such a clue could be probably
most easily and satisfactorily obtained by tracing back the
word “ God,” and ascertaining the sense in which it was
used by the uneducated worshippers who have gone before
us ; collating this with the more modern Theism, qualified
as it is by the superior knowledge of to-day. Dupuis
says—“ De mot Dieu parait destine a exprimer l’idee de la
force universelie et eternellement active qui imprime le
mouvement a tout dans la Nature, suivant les lois d’une
harmonie constant et admirable, qui se developpe dans les
diverses formes que prend la matiere organisee, qui se mele i
tout, anime tout, et qui semble etre une dans ses modifica
tions infiniment variees, et n’appartenir qu’a elle-meme.”
“ The word God appears intended to express the force uni
versal, and eternally active, which endows all nature with
motion according to the laws of a constant and admirable
harmony; which develops itself in the diverse forms of
organised matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all;
which seems to be one through all its infinitely varied modi
fications, and inheres in itself alone.”
In the “ Bon Sens ” of Cure Meslier, it is asked, “ Qu’estce que Dieu?” and the answer is “ C’est un mot abstrait fait
pour designer la force cachee de la nature; ou c’est un
point mathematique qui n’a ni longueur, ni largeur, ni profundeur.” “ It is an abstract word coined to designate the
hidden fo'rce of nature, or rather it is a mathematical point
having neither length, breadth, nor thickness.”
The orthodox fringe of the Theism of to-day is Hebraistio
in its origin—that is, it finds its root in the superstition
and ignorance of a petty and barbarous people nearly desti
tute of literature, poor in language, and almost entirely
wanting in high conceptions of humanity. It might, as
Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, be fairly expected
that the ancient Jewish Records would aid us in our search
after the meaning to be attached to the word « God.” The
most prominent words in Hebrew rendered God or Lord in
English are nin11 Jeue, and
-A-leivn. The first word
Jeue, called by our orthodox Jehovah, is equivalent to “ that
which exists,” and indeed embodies in itself the only possible
trinity in unity—i.e., past, present, and future. There is
nothing in this Hebrew word to help you to any such defini—
�A
PLEA FOE ATHEISM.
7
tion as is required for the sustenance of modern Theism.
The most you can make of it by any stretch of imagination is
equivalent to the declaration “ I am, I have been,I shall be.’’
The word iTin'1 is hardly ever spoken by the religious Jews
who actually in reading substitute for it, Adonai, an entirely
different word. Dr. Wall notices the close resemblance
in sound between the word Yehowa or Yeue, or Jehovah,
and Jove. In fact Zevc iran)p Jupiter and Jeue—pater
(God the father) present still closer resemblance in sound.
Jove is also Zevg or Qeog or Aevc, whence the word Deus
and our Deity. The Greek mythology, far more ancient
than that of the Hebrews, has probably found for Christi
anity many other and more important features of coincidence
than that of a similarly sounding name. The word 0eoc
traced back affords us no help beyond that it identifies Deity
with the universe. Plato says that the early Greeks thought
that the only Gods (0EOY3) were the sun, moon, earth,
stars, and heaven. The word
Aleiin, assists us
still less in defining the word God, for Parkhurst translates
it as a plural noun signifying “ the curser,” deriving it from
the verb
(Ale) to curse. Finding that philology aids
us but little, we must endeavour to arrive at the meaning
of the word “ God ” by another rule. It is utterly impos
sible to fix the period of the rise of Theism amongst any
particular people, but it is notwithstanding comparatively
easy, if not to trace out the development of Theistic ideas,
at any rate to point to their probable course of growth
amongst all peoples.
Keightley, in his “ Origin of Mythology,” says—“ Sup
posing, for the sake of hypothesis, a race of men in a state
of total or partial ignorance of Deity, their belief in many
gods may have thus commenced. They saw around them
various changes brought about by human agency, and hence ?
they knew the power of intelligence to produce effects, j
When they beheld other and greater effects, they ascribed
them to some unseen being, similar but superior to man.”
They associated particular events with special unknown
beings (gods), to each of whom they ascribed either a pecu
liarity of power, or a sphere of action not common to other
gods. Thus one was god of the sea, another god of war,
another god of love, another ruled the thunder and lightning;
�8
A
PLEA FOB ATHEISM.
and thus through the various elements of the universe and
passions of humankind, so far as they were then known.
This mythology became modified with the advancement of
human knowledge. The ability to think has proved itself
oppugn ant to and destructive of the desire to worship.
Science has razed altar after altar heretofore erected to the
unknown gods, and pulled down deity after deity from the
pedestals on which ignorance and superstition had erected
them. The priest who had formerly spoken the oracle of
God lost his sway, just in proportion as the scientific teacher
succeeded in impressing mankind with a knowledge of the
facts around them. The ignorant who had hitherto listened
unquestioning during centuries of abject submission to their
spiritual preceptors, at last commenced to search and examine
for themselves, and were guided by experience rather than
by church doctrine. To- day it is that advancing intellect
challenges the reserve guard of the old armies of super
stition, and compels a conflict in which humankind must in
the end have great gain by the forced enunciation of the
truth.
From the word “ God” the Theist derives no argument
in his favour; it teaches nothing, defines nothing, demon
strates nothing, explains nothing. The Theist answers that
this is no sufficient objection, that there are many words
which are in common use to which the same objection
applies. Even admitting that this were true, it does not
answer the Atheist’s objection. Alleging a difficulty on the
one side.is not a removal of the obstacle already pointed out
on the other.
The Theist declares his God to be not only immutable,
but also infinitely intelligent, and says:—‘‘Matter is either
essentially intelligent, or essentially non-intelligent; if mat
ter were essentially intelligent, no matter could be without
intelligence; but matter cannot be essentially intelligent,
because some matter is not intelligent, therefore matter is
essentially non-intelligent: but there is intelligence, there
fore there must be a cause for the intelligence, independent
of matter—this must be an intelligent being—i.e., God.”
The Atheist answers, I do not know what is meant,
in the mouth of the Theist, by “ matter.” “ Matter,”
* substance,” “ existence,” are three words having the
�A
PLEA FOR ATHEISM.
9
same signification in the Atheist’s vocabulary. It is not
certain that the Theist expresses any very clear idea
when he uses the words “ matter” and “ intelligence.’
Beason and understanding are sometimes treated as
separate faculties, yet it is not unfair to presume
*> that the Theist would include them both under the word
v intelligence. Perception is the foundation of the intellect.
| The perceptive faculty, or perceptive faculties, differs or differ
I in each animal: yet in speaking of matter the Theist uses
the word “ intelligence” as though the same meaning were
to be understood in every case. The recollection of the per
ceptions is the exercise of a different faculty from the per
ceptive faculty, and occasionally varies disproportionately;
thus an individual may have great perceptive faculties, and
very little memory, or the reverse—yet memory, as well as
perception, is included in intelligence. So also the faculty
for comparing between two or more perceptions ; the faculty
of judging and the faculty of reflecting—all these are subject
to the same remarks, and all these and other faculties are in
cluded in the word intelligence. We answer, then, that
“ God” (whatever that word may mean) cannot be intelligent.
He can never perceive ; the act of perception results in the
obtaining a new idea, but if God be omniscient, his ideas
have been eternally the same. He has either been always, ana
always will be perceiving, or he has never perceived at all.
But God cannot have been always perceiving, because if he
had he would always have been obtaining fresh know
ledge, in which case he must have some time had less know
ledge than now, that is, he would have been less perfect;
that is—he would not have been God : he can never
recollect or forget, he can never compare, reflect, nor
judge. There cannot be perfect intelligence without un
derstanding ; but following Coleridge, “ understanding is
the faculty of judging according to sense.” The faculty
of whom? Of some person, judging according to that
person’s senses ? But has “ God” senses ? Is there any
thing beyond “ God” for “ God” to sensate ? There
' cannot be perfect intelligence without reason. By reason
we mean that faculty or aggregation of faculties which avails
itself of past experience to predetermine, more or less
accurately, experience in the future, and to affirm truths
which sense perceives, experiment verifies, and experience
�10
A PLEA FOE ATHEISM.
confirms. To God there can be neither past nor future,
therefore to him reason is impossible. There cannot be per
fect intelligence without will, but has God will ? If God
wills, the will of the all-powerful must be irresistible; the
will of the infinite must exclude all other wills.
God can never perceive. Perception and sensation are
identical. Every sensation is accompanied by pleasure or
pain. But God, if immutable, can neither be pleased nor
pained. Every fresh sensation involves a change in mental
and perhaps in physical condition. God, if immutable, cannot
change. Sensation is the source of all ideas, but it is only
objects external to the mind which can be sensated. If God
be infinite there can be no objects external to him, and
therefore sensation must be to him impossible. Yet without
perception where is intelligence ?
God cannot have memory or reason—memory is of the
past, reason for the future, but to God immutable there can
be no past, no future. The words past, present, and future
imply change; they assert progression of duration. If God
be immutable, to him change is impossible. Can you
have intelligence destitute of perception, memory, and
reason? God cannot have the faculty of judgment—judg
ment implies in the act of judging a conjoining or dis
joining of two or more thoughts, but this involves change
of mental condition. To God the immutable, change is
impossible.
Can you have intelligence, yet no per
ception, no memory, no reason, no judgment ? God
cannot think. The law of the thinkable is, that the
thing thought must be separated from the thing which
is not thought. To think otherwise would be to think
of nothing—to have an impression with no distinguishing
mark, would be to have no impression. Yet this separation
implies change, and to God, immutable, change is impossible.
Can you have intelligence without thought ? If the Theist
replies to this, that he does not mean by infinite intelligence
as an attribute of Deity, an infinity of the intelligence found
in a finite degree in humankind, then he is bound to explain,
clearly and distinctly, what other a intelligence” he means,
and until this be done the foregoing statements require
answer.
The Atheist does not regard “ substance” as either essen
tially intelligent or the reverse. Intelligence is the result of
�A PLEA POE ATHEISM.
11
certain conditions of existence. Burnished steel is bright—
that is, brightness is the necessity 01 a certain condition of
existence. Alter the condition, and the characteristic of the
condition no longer exists. The only essential of substance
is its existence. Alter the wording of the Theist’s objection.
Matter is either essentially bright, or essentially non-bright.
If matter were essentially bright, brightness should be the
essence of all matter I but matter cannot be essentially
bright, because some matter is not bright, therefore matter
is essentially non-bright; but there is brightness, therefore
there must be a cause for this brightness independent of
matter—that is, there must be an essentially bright being—
e.,
i. God.
Another Theistic proposition is thus stated:—“ Every
effect must have a cause ; the first cause universal must be
eternal: ergo, the first cause universal must be God.” This
is equivalent to saying that “ God” is “ first cause.” But
what is to be understood by cause ? Defined in the absolute,
the word has no real value. “ Cause,” therefore, cannot be
eternal. What can be understood by “ first cause ?” To us
the two words convey no meaning greater than would be
conveyed by the phrase “ round triangle.” Cause and effect
are correlative terms—each cause is the effect of some prece
dent ; each effect the cause of its consequent. It is impossible
to conceive existence terminated by a primal or initial cause.
The “ beginning,” as it is phrased, of the universe, is not
thought out by the Theist, but conceded without thought.*
To adopt the language of Montaigne, “ Men make themselves
believe that they believe.” The so-called belief in Creation
is nothing more than the prostration of the intellect on the
threshold of the unknown. We can only cognise the ever
succeeding phenomena of existence as a line, in continuous
and eternal evolution. This line has to us no beginning;
we traee it back into the misty regions of the past but a little
way, and however far we may be able to journey, there is still
the great beyond. Then what is meant by “ universal cause ?”
Spinoza gives the following definition of cause, as used in its
absolute signification, “By cause of itself I understand that,
the essence of which involves existence, or that, the nature of
which can only be'considered as existent.” That is, Spinoza
treats “ cause” absolute and “ existence” as two words
having the same meaning. If his mode of defining the word
�12
A PLEA FOE ATHEISM.
be contested, then it has no meaning other than its relative
signification of a means to an end. “ Every effect must have
a cause.” Every effect implies the plurality of effects, and
necessarily that each effect must be finite ; but how is it
1 possible from a finite effect to logically deduce an universal—
e.,
i. infinite cause ?
4
There are two modes of argument presented by Theists,
I and by which, separately or combined, they seek to demonstrate the being of a God. These are familiarly known as
the arguments a priori and a posteriori.
The a posteriori argument has been popularised in Eng
land by Paley, who has ably endeavoured to hide the weak
ness of his demonstration under an abundance of irrelevant
illustrations. The reasoning of Paley is very deficient in
the essential points where it most needed strength. It is
utterly impossible to prove by it the eternity or infinity of
Deity. As an argument founded on analogy, the design
argument, at the best, could only entitle its propounder to
infer the existence of a finite cause, or rather of a
multitude of finite causes. It ought not to be forgotten
that the illustrations of the eye, the watch, and the
man, even if admitted as instances of design, or rather
of adaptation, are instances of eyes, watches, and men,
designed or adapted out of pre-existing substance, by a
being of the same kind of substance, and afford, there
fore, no demonstration in favour of a designer, alleged
•to have actually created substance out of nothing, and also
alleged to have created a substance entirely different from
himself.
The a posteriori argument can never demonstrate infinity
' for Deity. Arguing from an effect finite in extent, the most
it could afford would be a cause sufficient for that effect,
j such cause being possibly finite in extent and duration.
?. And as the argument does not demonstrate God’s infinity,
neither ean it, for the same reason, make out his omniscience,
as it is clearly impossible to logically claim infinite wisdom
for a God possibly only finite. God’s omnipotence re
mains unproved for the same reason, and because it is
clearly absurd to argue that God exercises power where he
may not be. Nor can the a posteriori argument show God’s
absolute freedom, for as it does nothing more than seek to
prove a finite God. it is quite consistewi with the argument
�k PLEA FOB ATHEISM.
13
that God’s existence is limited and controlled in a thousand
ways. Nor does this argument show that God always existed;
at the best the proof is only that some cause, enough for the
effect, existed before it, but there is no evidence that this
cause differs from any other causes, which are often as
transient as the effect itself. And as it does not demon
strate that God has always existed, neither does it demon
strate that he will always exist, or even that he now exists.
It is perfectly in accordance with the argument, and with
the analogy of cause and effect, that the effect may remain
after the cause has ceased to exist. Nor does the argument
from design demonstrate one God. It is quite consistent with
this argument that a separate cause existed for each effect,
or mark of design discovered, or that several causes con
tributed to some or one of such effects. So that if the
argument be true, it might result in a multitude of petty
deities, limited in knowledge, extent, duration, and power;
and still worse, each one of this multitude of gods may have
had a cause which would also be finite in extent and dura*
ition, and would require another, and so on, until the design
argument loses the reasoner amongst an innumerable crowd
of deities, none of whom can have the attributes claimed for
God.
The design argument is defective as an argument from
analogy, because it seeks 'to prove a Creator God who
designed, but does not explain whether this God has been
eternally designing, which would be absurd; or, if he at
some time commenced to design, what then induced him so
to commence. It is illogical, for it seeks to prove an im
mutable Deity, by demonstrating a mutation on the part of
Deity.
It is unnecessary to deal specially with each of the many
writers who have used from different stand-points the a
posteriori form of argument in order to prove the existence
of Deity. The objections already stated apply to the whole
class; and, although probably each illustration used by the
theistic advocate is capable of an elucidation entirely at
variance with his argument, the main features of objection
are the same. The argument a posteriori is a method of
proof in which the premises are composed of some position
of existing facts, and the conclusion asserts a position ante
cedent to those facts.* The argument is from given effects
�14
A PLEA FOB ATHEISM.
to their causes. It is one form of this argument which
asserts that man has a moral nature, and from this seeks
to deduce the existence of a moral governor. This form
has the disadvantage that its premises are illusory., In
alleging a moral nature for man, the theist overlooks the
fact that the moral nature of man differs somewhat in each
individual, differs considerably in each nation, and differs
entirely in some peoples. It is dependent on organisation
and education: these are influenced by climate, food, and
mode of life. If the argument from man’s nature could de
monstrate anything, it would prove a murdering God for
the murderer, a lascivious God for the licentious man, a
dishonest God for the thief*, and so through the various
phases of human inclination. The a priori arguments are
methods of proof in which the matter of the premises exists
in the order of conception antecedently to that of the con
clusion. The argument is from cause to effect. Amongst
the prominent theistic advocates relying upon the d priori
argument in England are Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev.
Moses Lowman, and William Gillespie. As this last
gentleman condemns his predecessors for having utterly failed
to demonstrate God’s existence, and, as his own treatise
on the “Necessary Existence of God” comes to us certified
by the praise of Lord Brougham and the approval of Sir
William Hamilton, it is to Mr. William Gillespie that the
reader shall be directed.
The propositions are first stated entirely, so that Mr.
Gillespie may not complain of misrepresentation :—
1. Infinity of extension is necessarily existing.
2. Infinity of extension is necessarily indivisible.
Corollary.—Infinity of extension is necessarily immov
able.
3. There is necessarily a being of infinity of extension.
4. The being of infinity of extension is necessarily of
unity and simplicity.
Sub-proposition.—The material universe is finite in ex
tension.
5. There is necessarily but one being of infinity of expan
sion.
Part 2, Proposition 1.—Infinity of duration is neces
sarily existing.
2. Infinity of duration is necessarily indivisible.
�A TLEA FOB ATHEISM.
15
-Corollary.—Infinity of duration is necessarily immovable.
3. There is necessarily a being of infinity of duration.
4. The being of infinity of duration is necessarily of unity
and simplicity.
Sub-proposition.—The material universe is finite in dura
tion.
Corollary.—Every succession of substances is finite in
duration.
5. There is necessarily but one being of infinity of dura
tion.
Part 3, Proposition 1.—There is necessarily a being of
infinity of expansion and infinity of duration.
2. The being of infinity of expansion and infinity of dura
tion is necessarily of unity and simplicity.
Division 2, Part 1.—The simple sole being of infinity of
expansion and of duration is necessarily intelligent and
all-knowing.
Part 2.—-The simple sole being of infinity of expansion
and of duration, who is all-knowing, is necessarily allpowerful.
Part 3.—The simple sole being of infinity of expansior
and of duration, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, i
necessarily entirely free.
Division^.—The simple sole being of infinity of expansion
and of duration, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and en
tirely free, is necessarily completely happy.
Sub-proposition.— The simple sole being of infinity of
expansion and of duration, who is all-knowing, all-powerful,
entirely free, and completely happy, is necessarily perfectly
good.
The first objection against the foregoing argument is, that
it seeks to prove too much. It affirms one existence (God)
infinite in extent and duration, and another entirely
different and distinct existence (the material universe)
finite in extent and duration. It therefore seeks to sub
stantiate everything and something more. The first pro
position is curiously worded, and the argument to demon
strate it is undoubtedly open to more than one objection.
Mr. Gillespie has not defined infinity, and it is possible
therefore his argument may be misapprehended in this
paper. Infinite signifies nothing more than indefinite.
When a person speaks of infinite extension he can on!)
�16
A
PLEA FOB ATHEISM.
mean to refer to the extension of something to which he
has been unable to set limits. The mind cannot conceive
extension per se, either absolute or finite. It can only
conceive something extended. It might be impossible
mentally to define the extension of some substance. In
such a case its extension would be indefinite j or, as Mr.
Gillespie uses the word, infinite. No one can therefore
possibly ha^b any idea of infinity of extension. Yet it is
upon the existence of such an idea, and on the impossibility
of getting rid of it, that Mr. Gillespie grounds his first pro
position. If the idea does not exist, the argument is des
troyed at the first step.
Mr. Gillespie argues that it is utterly beyond the power
of the human mind to conceive infinity of extension non
existent. He would have been more correct in asserting
that it is utterly beyond the power of the human mind to
conceive infinity of extension at all, either existent or non
existent. Extension can only be conceived as quality of
substance. It is possible to conceive substance extended.
It is impossible in thought to limit the possible extension
of substance. Mr. Gillespie having asserted that we cannot
but believe that infinity of extension exists, proceeds to
declare that it exists necessarily. For, he says, everything
the existence of which we cannot but believe, exists neces
sarily. It is not necessary at present to examine what Mr.
Gillespie means by existing necessarily; it is sufficient to
have shown that we do not believe in the existence of infinity
of extension, although we may and do believe in the existence
of substance, to the extension of which we may be unable to
set limits. But, says Mr. Gillespie, “ everything the ex
istence of which we cannot but believe is necessarily exist
ing.” Then as we cannot but believe in the existence of
> the universe (or, to adopt Mr. Gillespie’s phrase, the ma| terial universe), the material universe exists necessarily. If
I by “ anything necessarily existing,” he means anything the
essence of which involves existence, or the nature of which
can only be considered as existent, then Mr. Gillespie, by
demonstrating the necessary existence of the universe,
refutes his own later argument, that God is its creator.
Mr. Gillespie’s argument, as before remarked, is open to
misconception, because he has left us without any definition
of some of the most important words he uses. To avoid the
�A PLEA EOK ATHEISM.
17
same objection, it is necessary to state that by substance or
existence I mean that which is in itself and is conceived
per se—that is, the conception of which does not involve
the conception of anything else as antecedent to it. By
quality, that by which I cognise any mode of existence. By
mode, each cognised condition of existence. Regarding
extension as quality of mode of substance, and not as sub
stance itself, it appears absurd to argue that the quality
exists otherwise than as quality of mode.
The whole ofthe propositions following the first are so built
upon it, that if it fails they are baseless. The second proposi
tion is, that infinity of extension is necessarily indivisible.
In dealing with this proposition, Mr. Gillespie talhs of the
parts of infinity of extension, and winds up by saying that
ne means parts in the sense of partial consideration only.
Now not only is it denied that you can have any idea of
infinity of extension, but it is also denied that infinity
can be the subject of partial consideration. Mr. Gillespie’s
whole proof of this proposition is intended to affirm that the
parts of infinity of extension are necessarily indivisible from
each other. I have already denied the possibility of con
ceiving infinity in parts ; and, indeed, if it were possible to
conceive infinity in parts, then that infinity could not be
indivisible, for Mr. Gillespie says that, by indivisible, he
means indivisible, either really or mentally. Now each part
of anything conceived is, in the act of conceiving, mentally
separated from, either other parts of, or from the remainder
of, the whole of which it is part. It is clearly impossible
to have a partial consideration of infinity, because the part
considered must be mentally distinguished from the uncon
sidered remainder, and, in that case, you have, in thought,
the part considered finite, and the residue certainly limited,
at least, by the extent of the part under consideration.
If any of the foregoing objections are well-founded, they are
fatal to Mr. Gillespie’s argument.
The argument in favour of the corollary to the second pro
position is, that the parts of infinity of extension are ne
cessarily immovable amongst themselves ; but if there be no
such thing as infinity of extension—that is, if extension be
only a quality and not necessarily infinite; if infinite mean
only indefiniteness or illimitability, andif infinity cannot have
parts, this argument goes for very little. The acceptance of the
�18
A PLEA FOB AtfHElSliG
argument that theparts of infinity of extension are immovable,
is rendered difficult when the reader considers Mr. Gillespie’s
sub-proposition (4), that the parts of the material universe
are movable and divisible from each other. He urges that
a part of the infinity of extension or of its substratum must
penetrate the material universe and every atom of it. But
if infinity can have no parts, no part of it can penetrate the
material universe. If infinity have parts (which is absurd),
and if some part penetrate every atom of the material uni
verse, and if the part so penetrating be immovable, how
can the material universe be considered as movable, and
yet as penetrated in every atom by immovability ? If pene
trated be a proper phrase, then, at the moment when the
part of infinity was penetrating the material universe, the
part of infinity so penetrating must have been in motion.
Mr. Gillespie’s logic is faulty. Use his own language, and
there is either no penetration, or there is no immovability.
In his argument for the fourth proposition, Mr. Gillespie
—having by his previous proposition demonstrated (?) what
he calls a substratum for the before demonstrated (?) in
finity of extension—says, “it is intuitively evident that the
substratum of infinity of extension can be no more divisible
than infinity of extension.” Is this so ? Might not a com
plex and divisible substratum be conceived by us as possible
to underlie a (to us) simple and indivisible indefinite exten
sion, if the conception of the latter were possible to us ?
There cannot be any intuition. It is mere assumption, as,
indeed, is the assumption of extension at all, other than as
the extension of substance. In his argument for proposi
tion 5, Gillespie says that “ any one who asserts that he
can suppose two or more necessarily existing beings, each
of infinity of expansion, is no more to be argued with
than one who denies, Whatever is, is. Why is it more dif
ficult to suppose this than to suppose one being of infinity,
and, in addition to this infinity, a material universe? Is it
impossible to suppose a necessary being of heat, one of light,
and one of electricity, all occupying the same indefinite
expansion ? If it be replied that you cannot conceive two
distinct and different beings occupying the same point at
the same moment, then it must be equally impossible to
conceive the material universe and God existing together.
The sec md division of Mr. Gillespie’s argument is also open
�A PLEA FOE ATHEISM.
19
to grave objection. Having demonstrated to his own satis
faction an infinite substance, and also having assumed in
addition a finite substance, and having called the first, infi
nite “ being•” perhaps from a devout objection to speak of
God as substance, Mr. Gillespie seeks to prove that the infi
nite being is intelligent. He says, “ Intelligence either
began to be, or. it never began to be. That it never began
to be is evident in this, that if it began to be, it must have
had a cause; for whatever begins to be must have a cause.
And the cause of intelligence must be of intelligence; for
what is not of intelligence cannot make intelligence begin
to be. Now intelligence being before intelligence began to
be, is a contradiction. And this absurdity following from
the supposition, that intelligence began to be, it is proved
that intelligence never began to be: to wit, is of infinity of
duration.” Mr. Gillespie does not condescend to tell us
why ** what is not of intelligence cannot make intelligence
begin to bebut it is not unfair to suppose that he means
that of things which have nothing in common one cannot
be the cause of the other. Let us apply Mr. Gillespie’s
argument to the material universe, the existence of which is
to him so certain that he has treated it as a self-evident
proposition.
The material universe—that is, matter, either began to be,
or it never began to be. That it never began to be, is evi
dent in this, that if it began to be, it must have had a cause;
for whatever begins to be must have a cause. And the cause
of matter, must be of matter; for what is not of matter,
cannot make matter begin to be. Now matter being
before matter began to be, is a contradiction. And this
absurdity following from the supposition that matter—i.e.,
the material universe, began to be, it is proved that the mate
rial universe never began to be—to wit, is of indefinite
duration.
The argument as to the eternity of matter is at least as
logical as the argument for the eternity of intelligence.
Mr. Gillespie may reply, that he affirms the material
universe to be finite in duration, and that by the argument
for his proposition, part 2, he proves that the one infinite
being (God) is the creator of matter. His words are, “ As
the material universe is finite in duration, or began to be, it
must have had a cause; for, whatever begins to be must have
�20
A PLEA FOB ATHEISM.
•
And this cause must be [Mr. Gillespie does not
explain why], in one respect or other, the simple sole
being of infinity of expansion and duration, who is all-know
ing [the all-knowing or intelligence rests on the argument
which has just been shown to be equally applicable to matter]
inasmuch as what being, or cause independent of that being,
could there be ? And therefore, that being made matter
begin to be.” Taking Mr. Gillespie’s own argument, that
which made matter begin to be, must be of matter, for what
is not matter, cannot make matter begin to be; then Mr.
Gillespie’s infinite being (God) must be matter. But there
is yet another exception to the proposition, which is, that
the infinite being (God) is all-powerful. Having as above
argued that the being made matter, he proceeds, “ and this
being shown, it must be granted that the being is, necessarily,
all-powerful.” Nothing of the kind need be granted. If it
were true that it was demonstrated that the infinite being
(God) made matter, it would not prove him able to make
anything else; it might show the being cause enough forthat
effect, but does not demonstrate him cause for all effects.
So that if no better argument can be found to prove God allpowerful, his omnipotence remains unproved.
Mr. Gillespie’s last proposition is that the being (God)
whose existence he has so satisfactorily (?) made out, is ne
cessarily completely happy. In dealing with this proposition,
Mr. Gillespie talks of unhappiness as existing in various
kinds and degrees. But, to adopt his own style of argu
ment, Unhappiness either began to be, or it never began to
be. That it never began to be is evident in this, that what
ever began to be must have had a cause ; for whatever be
gins to be must have a cause. And the cause of unhappi
ness must be of unhappiness, for what is not of unhappiness
cannot make unhappiness begin to be. But unhappiness
2 being before unhappiness began to be, is a contradiction;
therefore unhappiness is of infinity of duration. But pro
position 5, part 2, says there is but one being of infinity of
duration. The one being of infinity of duration is therefore
necessarily unhappy. Mr. Gillespie’s arguments recoil on
himself, and are destructive of his own affirmations.
In his argument for the sub-proposition, Mr. Gillespie
says that God’s motive, or one of his motives to create, must
be believed to have been a desire to make bappin^-ss., besides
a cause.
�A PLEA FOB ATHEISM,
„
-j
|
•
■
21
his own consummate happiness, begin to be. That is God,
who is consummate happiness everywhere for ever, desired
something. That is, he wanted more than then existed.
That is, his happiness was not complete. That is, Mr. '
Gillespie refutes himself. But what did infinite and eternal complete happiness desire ? It desired (says Mr. Gil- '
lespie) to make more happiness—that is, to make more than
an infinity of complete happiness. Mr. Gillespie’s proof, on
the whole, is at most that there exists necessarily substance,
the extension and duration of which we cannot limit. Part
of his argument involves the use of the very a posteriori
reasoning justly considered regarded by himself as utterly
worthless for the demonstration of the existence of a being
with such attributes as orthodox Theism tries to assert.
If Sir William Hamilton meant no flattery in writing
that Mr. Gillespie’s work was one of the “ very ablest ” on
the Theistic side, how wretched indeed must, in his opinion,
have been the logic of the less able advocates for Theism.
Every Theist must admit that if a God exists, he could have
so convinced all men of the fact of his existence that doubt,
disagreement, or disbelief would be impossible. If he could
not do this, he would not be omnipotent, or he would not
be omniscient—that is, he would’ not be God. Every
Theist must also agree that if a God exists, he would wish
all men to have such a clear consciousness of his existence
and attributes that doubt, disagreement, or belief on this
subject would be impossible. And this, if for no other
reason, because that out of doubts and disagreements on
religion have too often resulted centuries of persecution,
strife, and misery, which a good God would desire to prevent.
If God would not desire this, then he is not all-good—that
is, he is not God. But as many men have doubts, a large
majority of mankind have disagreements, and some men
have disbeliefs as to God’s existence and attributes ; it follows either that God does not exist, or that he is not all- ■'
wise, or that he is not all-powerful, or that he is not all
good.
Every child is born into the world an Atheist; and if he
grows into a Theist, his Deity differs with the country
in which the believer may happen to be born, or the people
amongst whom he may happen to be educated. The belief
is the result of education or organisation. Religious
�22
A PLEA FOE ATHEISM.
belief is powerful in proportion to the want of scien
tific knowledge on the part of the believer. The more
ignorant, the more credulous. In the mind of the Theist
“ God ” is equivalent to the sphere of the unknown ; by
the use of the word he answers without thought problems
which might otherwise obtain scientific solution. The more
ignorant the Theist, the greater his God. Belief in God
is not a faith founded on reason; but a prostration of
the reasoning faculties on the threshold of the unknown.
Theism is worse than illogical; its teachings are not only
without utility, but of itself it has nothing to teach. Sepa
rated from Christianity with its almost innumerable sects,
from Mahomedanism with its numerous divisions, and sepa
rated also from every other preached system, Theism is a
Will-o’-the-wisp, without reality. Apart from othodoxy,
Theism is a boneless skeleton; the various mythologies give
it alike flesh and bone, otherwise coherence it hath none.
What does Christian Theism teach ? That the first man
made perfect by the all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God,
was nevertheless imperfect, and by his imperfection brought
misery into the world, where the all-good God must have
intended misery should never come. That this God made
men to share this misery, men whose fault was their being
what he made them. That this God begets a son, who is
nevertheless his unbegotten self, and that by belief in the
birth of God’s eternal son, and in the death of the undying
who died to satisfy God’s vengeance, man may escape the
consequences of the first man’s error. Christian Theism
declares that belief alone can save man, and yet recognises
the fact that man’s belief results from teaching, by establish
ing missionary societies to spread the faith. Christian
Theism teaches that God, though no respector of persons,
selected as his favourites one nation in preference to all
others; that man can do no good of himself or without
God’s aid, but yet that each man has a free will; that God
is all-powerful, but that few go to heaven and the majority
to hell; that all are to love God, who has predestined from
eternity that by far the largest number of human beings are
to be burning in hell for ever. Yet the advocates for Theism
venture to upraid those who argue against such a faith.
It is not pretended that this inefficient Plea for Atheism
contains either a refutation of all or even the majority of
�A
PLEA FOB ATHEISM,
23
Theistic arguments, or that it offers an explanation of every
objection against Atheism; but it is hoped that enough is
here stated to induce some one of ability on the Theistic
side to write for the better instruction of such as entertain
the views here advocated—views held sincerely, views pro
pagated actively, and views which are permeating more
widely than is generally supposed.
Either Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must
help to spread its influence; if false, the sooner it ceases
to influence human conduct the better for human kind. It
will be useless for the clergy to urge that such a pamphlet
deserves no reply. It is true the writer is unimportant,
and the language in which his thoughts find expression
lacks the polish of a Macaulay, and the fervour of a Burke;
but they are nevertheless his thoughts, uttered because it is
rot only his right, but his duty to give them utterance. And
this Plea for Atheism is put forth challenging the Theists to
battle for their cause, and in the hope that the strugglers
being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and the
vanquished; laurels to the victor in that he has upheld
the truth; laurels still welcome to the vanquished, whose
defeat crowns him with a truth he knew not of before.
London: Austin & Co., Printers and Publishers, 17, Johns«u’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
A plea for atheism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & 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
G4951
N101
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A plea for atheism), 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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0e1e8aad6192652acad80bbb72dc7b99.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vG1035wZe50QGNpbndEXzLtS74oNeSo5MjacBnF5DrquHYIETnqzt714Gl%7EoS0VDEEwNIdYrRHMwS0KZfauDmu%7EYfEMwrljyJFupRZeUohr3dIVbzt1h02QnFTcEW23TlpUkF6bVPDoHPnBSkr58n08ariTgzDfJfqYEPGpETe3Dm8T7YRW%7Ekl0HiypSpLlJJrT0GKdQNYcYtxFJRve4NtRVmgzlY3R%7E4k19p59Lopnd74tVzpkWX3qtQZ7ysAjIVSMV6VakdhrSO5Eb1MWFxs-YC0pch-yi0uycqmYulG34wRa2Zp3q2pkBamScWM8Tju9bzKNJGo4YS4ojo05OHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
115ad165450cde28109501d4ccda3f7f
PDF Text
Text
FREETHOUGIIT AND MODERN PROGRESS.
A LECTURE
By Charles Watts, Secretary or
Secular Society.
the
National
The present is a very opportune time to point out the rapid
progress which is taking place throughout society, and to
endeavour to ascertain the position Freethought occupies in
that advancement. Liberalism has recently achieved a vic
tory over a Tory Government, which is sufficiently indicative
of the characteristics of the age. In spite of the existence
among us of the relics of arbitrary faith and narrow creeds,
the Attorney-General found that the period had passed when
he would be allowed to fetter the press by successfully prose
cuting the National Reformer, and thereby prevent the pub
lication of a paper that boldly exposed political corruptions
and theological restrictions. The love of inquiry and freedom
has such a firm hold upon the minds of the present generation,
that unless considerable retrogression takes place, prosecutions
for heretical opinions will not be tolerated by a people who
have paid so dearly for the liberty which to-day they possess.
The year 1868, so far as it has gone, is certainly not per
fect. Bigotry still reigns, prompting its adherents to seek to
re-enact the barbarous laws of a rude age ; religious zeal still
urges its devotees to persecute those who do not accept the
prevailing faith ; fanaticism is still in our midst impelling
its victims to denounce the “infidel” as one unworthy the
fellowship of general society. The Freethinker is still re
garded by the civil power as an outlaw, being deprived of the
means of obtaining justice in a court of law unless he submits
to a sham, or, what is worse, resorts to hypocrisy and deceit.
The Statute Book of England still contains^ Acts against
blasphemy,” and enactments against free speech, which, if
they dare be enforced, would imprison every man who writes
or speaks ,against the “ Holy Religion.” Notwithstanding,
however, these remaining blots upon our civilisation, if we
take a retrospect of the last two hundred years, and glance
at the important changes which have taken place, we shall
recognise that the struggles of the pioneers of the past were
not in vain. It was necessary for them to till and prepare
the soil for the reception of that plant, which the persistent
Tract No. 4.
�2.
toil of subsequent ages has caused to yield such encouraging
fruit. True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but rather
the growth of years, “ Our Elliots, our Hampdens, and
our Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed with their
broad-swords a rough pathway for the people. But it was
reserved for the present century to complete the triumph
which the Commonwealth began.” The foundation of Freethought has long been laid in England. And although the
edifice of progress erected thereon has been slow m its
erection, it has now reached such a height of grandeur that
it commands the admiration of the world. When in 1062,
the 2,000 clergymen resigned their benefices, and gave up
the national religion of the time, because. they could not
submit to the pet doctrine of the church, which was “ passive
submission,” they adopted the very basis of Freethought prin
ciples. If their attachment to theology impeded their further
advancement, it does not argue one iota against the efficacy
of the principles. Truth may be crushed, but it cannot be
annihilated ; it is as permanent as the earth which contains it.
Unfortunately, to secure the general recognition of truth,
and the possession of popular right, requires not only time,
but also personal sacrifice. The battle of the freedom of the
press has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the
victory cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile Williams, He
therington, Watson, and many others their liberty, and im
posed upon them privations which were keen to endure.
For selling the Poor Man's Guardian only, upwards
of 500 persons were thrown into prison. For publishing
the “ Age of Reason” in 1797, Williams suffered twelve
months’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In lol2,
Daniel Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months
imprisonment and the pillory, for the same grave offence;
and the following year, Mr. Houston was sentenced to be
imprisoned for ±wo years in Newgate, and fined £200,
for publishing his book called “Ecce Homo. , In Octobe ,
1819 Carlile was tried for publishing Paine s Theological
Works, and Palmer’s “Principles of Nature,’ and con
demned for the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of £1000,
and for the second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of
£500, and had to find security for good behaviour for him
self in £1000, and two securities in £100 each. His wife
and sister were afterwards convicted of. similar acts, and
suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of thirty other persons, £
many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile, and the rest small
�booksellers, have also been subjected to fine and imprison
ment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles
Southwell was imprisoned and fined £100, for publishing
an article in the Oracle of Reason.
Liberty of speech was another achievement, to obtain
which, imprisonment and death had to be endured. In the
early part of the seventeenth century, LegatandWrightman
were burned by English bishops, for avowing heretical opi
nions. Since that time we have had the Rev. Robert Taylor
imprisoned and fined for lecturing against the prevailing reli
gious opinions, and the arrest and imprisonment for six
months of Mr. Holyoake, for words spoken in the heat of
debate. Society has subsequently undergone great changes,
civilisation has advanced. The fact is being acknowledged
that opinion is the result of organisation and evidence. And
instead of inflicting punishment for the imperfections of the
one, or the limitation of the ether, the modern Secular policy
is to recognise the widest and most diversified thoughts,
seeking to correct those which are erroneous by unfettered
inquiry and honest criticism.
The terms Freethought, Heretic, and Secularism, will be
used on the present occasion synonymously, as conveying
the same idea. Those who object to think freely are not
likely to become heretical, and until a man dissents from
orthodoxy he can never adopt the principles of Secularism,
inasmuch, as Secular philosophy suggests that nothing must
be accepted as truth merely upon authority, but, on the
contrary, all questions should be submitted to the test of
reason and careful examination. This course is never adopted
by those who believe any creed or principle without investi
gation. It will be also necessary in this inquiry to regard
the term Freethought, in its most comprehensive sense,
as not being confined exclusively to religion. While it
is too true that theological enslavement has in all ages
been productive of the greatest of wrongs, stimulated
a« it has been by the fiercest passions of human nature,
still, political and social fetters are also antagonistic
to the happiness and progress of a people. Political liberty
is as essential as religious freedom to a nation’s welfare. In
fact, in many instances, the one is the necessary consequence
of the other. A people politically free will not long submit
to religious oppression. And, moreover, those who are the
least trammelled with dogmas and creeds are the first to
welcome political progress. Hence sceptical Germany can
�4.
adopt the principle of the full representation of the people,
accompanied with the ballot, while Christian England denies
such rights and necessities to the wealth-producers of this
country. If we take the principal Catholic countries we
shall find that religious restrictions are as numerous as
political rights are limited. The Queen of Spain can pay her
religious devotions to the Virgin Mary, while she gags the
press to prevent the corruption of her priestly-arranged
system being exposed to her slave-bound subjects. The
present ruler of France can sit securely upon bis perjured
and bloodstained pedestal of power, giving vent to his “ re
ligious” emotions, while the freedom of the press is fettered,
and the political regenerators banished from their country.
The Pope of Rome can prepare pastorals condemning
scientific progress, while he issues an allocution against
the freedom of the press, the choice of education, im
provements in the marriage laws, and the burial ceremo
nies as contained in the recent liberal policy of Austria.
Even in our own land, the foremost opponents to poli
tical emancipation, are those who would bind us with the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. At the
present time those who are struggling to maintain that
scandal of the age, and that impediment to progress—the
Irish Church—are clergymen of the Protestant faith. Those
obstructionists can muster their clerical forces at St. James’s
Hall, to condemn the advanced Gladstonian policy, while
they preach to their flock, “Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers, for there is no power but of God . . .
Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power resisteth the
ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation.” Equally desirable is it to have Freethought and free utterance upon social questions.. . As
political liberty and religious freedom are absolute requisites
to the vitality of modern society, so are social restrictions
detrimental to the permanent happiness and comfort of a
nation.
Viewed in this broad and expansive light, it can be readily
seen that Freethought cannot co-exist with an absolute belief
in the teachings of the New Testament. What stimulant
did Christ give to think freely when he said, “I am the way,
the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by
me. . . if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,
(ind is withered ; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned ?” Is there any incentive to
�O'
impartial investigation in the gloomy words,a He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned?” Once establish among mankind
the erroneous notion that truth is confined to one particular
channel, and that those who do not go in that direction are
to be cast forth as a “ withered branch,” and then the im
possibility of unfettered thought will immediately be apparent.
Put a man to examine a subject, and tel! him that regardless
of evidence, he must arrive at one conclusion or be damned,
the pursuit of truth is then made a hypocritical farce rather
than a noble and useful reality. It is indeed asserted
sometimes that Freethought has been encouraged by
Christianity.
The encouragement, however, which it
received from Christians when they had the power,
was that they would not only torture and imprison those
who, exercising the right of Freethought, would publicly
oppose their faith; but they also committed to the flames
those works which demonstrated the fallacy and absurdity of
their system. Christian desire to promote free inquiry in
its early history is exemplified in the memorable proclama
tion of the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he de
clared that the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all
others who had written against the Christian religion, should
be committed to the fire. This, truly, was a novel mode of
promoting Freethought. The writings of Celsus met with
an equally warm reception, and for a proof that the same
desire has existed in modern times, it is necessary not only
to read the history of those Freethought pioneers of the last
and early part of the present century, but also to remember
that now, whenever Christians have the power, they close the
halls against us, in order that we may not have the oppor
tunity to promulgate the materials for free enquiry. Still,
notwithstanding this display of burning zeal and exclusive
action, Freethought has triumphed. Indeed, its very nature
is such as to render its ultimate defeat an utter impossibi
lity. Man is a progressive being ; having within him an in
herent love for freedom, he cannot therefore long tolerate
anything which cramps his mind, or fetters his thought.
The truth of this has been illustrated within the last few
years in our universities. The desire manifested by ortho
dox students to discourage free inquiry, might have checked
its victory, but it cannot destroy it. That which is congenial
to modern civilisation must obtain admission sooner or
later into the national seats of learning. Mr. Coleridge per-
�6.
Htion^Oxford Test Bffl ±g tt<!
rea,linS of the Ab°Ci u? hav®’and he would be bold enough Free inquiry
l 1 Bdl’two years ago, he said, “ to say^hey
ought to have free inquiry, as the only real foundation o^
reasonable conviction and intelligent belief. • It would break
n upon the university from without, and it was far better
that it should come on legitimately and openly than doubt
S “ he”
aS “ ?idy
—“Vte
been too much fear of inquiry, and this bad too often been
accompanied by wbat had been aptly termed -murmuring
TutSn T’’
Seen the Pa!l>ftl Pietur“o™ bhnf
iLblt
r. ,9
child ’l-o might hare led
1L,
Mr-Coleridge had learned an useful lesson
and the n 6? C? W,nhng^f the E’sayists and Eeviewers,
and the heretical policy of Bishop Colenso. These men experiencmg the advantages of Freethought themselve“ def
ined to carry it into that church which had so long dreaded
and opposed its approach. The result is a Freetho^ght serThe nlrf!ied t0 c.lvlllsatlon’ which cannot be overestimated,
is another•nrnS?tlAnb°f Prosecutions for non-religious belief
s another proof of the success of Freethought. True, a Tory
Government may threaten to prosecute the Reformer and
f unbXr7 S?ZndeaTr t0 blacken
but that on!1"’ aijd fre^?en^y seek to ruin his reputation ;
of an hon^r
’ °rgJTed P?rsecuti°n for the frank avowal
and noX TT™’ whwh dlsSraced the history of the last,
At aK \ he Pr6Sent Centur^ has almost disappeared
was\ Xn
7 Pemx°le’-t0 imPeach the prevailing faith,
then^bp6^1'6'0!11'°f
be^d U?t0 Public scorn, and
waifs Nn h
fr01? bo“e and located within the prison
Zkhnnf? ’ ^^.theological truth can be proclaimed
Zcution 7 apprehension of a successful Government pro- _
conTfb1%tri?mph ofJreethougbt is further illustrated in the
duct
°Ur Pubhcrmen’ and the mode in which they con.
Ration of this country. Such men as J. 8.
their Dublin
now never attemPt to regulate
, Thev Pdob not ndUC! ^tiw teachings of the New Testament.
fosMonable TfPen ymSSa11 the
becaU8e to do 80 is not
fashionable. It would impair their utility in a “ Christian
�country.” If they were once to attack Christianity ever so
mildly, Christians, with that “ charity which thinketh no
evil,” would at once denounce them, irrespective of their
conduct, as enemies to the public good. Taking warning
from the treatment Mr. J. S. Mill recently received because
he rejected the Bible God and the Christian doctrine of
“inherent depravity,” our liberal public men pursue a pro
gressive course, regardless of any faith. And if during their
march Christianity will help them, then they accept its
services; if, however, it opposes their progress, then it shares
the fate of all obstructions—it is quietly ignored, the wel
fare of a nation being more important than the considera
tion for any religion. In the House of Commons all public
measures now introduced are tested by the Freethought
standard of utility. Even Thomas Hughes, in bringing
bis Sabbatarian Bill recently into the House, announced
his intention to argue the merits or demerits of the
Bill apart from theology altogether. The religious aspect
of the question was a subject upon which he cared not to
enter. In fact, no measure is now recommended to atten
tion and preference, solely because it is supposed to accord
with “ God’s declared will ” and the spirit of religion. This
is a positive proof of the decline of Christian influence on
modern advancement. When civilisation was paralysed by
Christianity, God’s will was the standard by which all pro
gressive movements were tested. Now, however, it is
different. Before any measure has a chance of being accepted,
it must be shown that its provisions are necessary and use
ful. The stronghold of the successful statesman to-day is
the standard of utility. In his reasoning, his whole argu
ment is made to rest upon this, the foundation of permanent
progress. This fact is admitted by the liberal press of the
country. The Inquirer for May 6th, 1865, in speaking of
the career of two good men, said, “Both Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Lincoln are illustrations of the secularisation of our modern
public life. They reveal to us the path by which those must
tread whose ambition it is to benefit their age. Had they
lived a few hundred years ago, they might have built churches,
or founded monasteries, or endowed colleges,—been the
Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot was
rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry,
to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppressed free; to
remove impediments from the path of national progress, that
human development might be left to its own laws, to seek
�8
thoseg[New £esS,“t
-ference to
cannot be obeyed in ‘^
reason wh r -:
wor(is of M^”ttbithr^/:rcK X those laws
deasrt“d feeh-tSlnC0?Pfete-3nd onesided> ™d that unless
he formation‘‘?8P
San?tl°ned by it, had contributed to
won d haXen f„TPei“ “ “??• charac‘er’ h™> affairs
thXhrare1”8^
the last fiftv
contributmg to modern progress. Within
be last fifty years there are but few of our public men who
ChrisTor St Sul6 dn tehehamed "P the ad™e eith“ »f
dennved of thf Ja h h 7 h?d ,done 80 we sh°uld have been
Fronep tb 7 advantages of the commercial treaty with
th PostOffi^Tnnien^nnuities BiU>the Divorce Act, and
?ank BilL Jf the House of Comstifi hP
ld iP
the Advice of St Pau1’ the Jews would
the1 Catbn Uded fr°m Parliament, and the emancipation of
the cattlenV°UldfTT haV6 been granted, during
we cattle plague of last year the Christians anulied
mverTndT" r° ?P0lnt a “fast da^” in
that by
timp b d suPPhcation the calamity might be averted. The
Ssed0^: 7 7"" days’’is gone” The Govetment
delusions nf6 advanlage® of science were preferred to the
had for its ohi/Tw A?6 ?oiform vote of Allegiance Bill
restrictions wb7°
6 breaking down of those religious
“°^
was parabeen bronabt nbn
°t anti-Christian legislation has just
r ught about by the secular policy of Mr. Gladstone
�9.
in reference to the Irish Church. It is not difficult to fore
see that the downfall of this monstrous injustice in Ireland
is only a precursor to the cessation of Church power in
England. In spite of his theological training, Mr. Gladstone
is impelled on to the performance of Secularistic work. The
watchwords of modern progress are, religious liberty, politi
cal freedom, and social advancement. These rights have
never been recognised in Christian times or by Christian
Governments, and they have only been obtained in England in
proportion as Ereethought has prevailed in the House of
Commons, and among the masses of the people. If this fact
be questioned, I may refer, in corroboration of my statement
•—that Secular knowledge has been the precursor of modern
improvements—to Buckle, who (after showing that until doubt
began, civilisation was impossible, and that the religious toler
ance we now have has been forced from the clergy by the
secular classes) states “that the act of doubting is the
originator, or at all events, the necessary antecedent of all
progress. Here we have that scepticism, the very name of
which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it disturbs
their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles their
cherished superstitions; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish
understandings to ask if things are as they are commonly
supposed, and if all is really true which they from their
childhood have been taught to believe. The more we
examine this great principle of scepticism, the more dis
tinctly shall we see the immense part it has played in the
progress of European civilisation. To state in general terms
what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may be said,
that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry, which,
during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on
every possible subject; has’reformed every department of
practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the
authority of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty
on a surer foundation; has chastised the despotism of
princes ; has restrained the arrogance of the nobles, and has
even diminished the prejudices of the clergy. In a word it
is this which has remedied the three fundamental errors of
the olden time: errors which made the people, in politics
too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too in
tolerant.” After this important admission by one of the
greatest of modern historians, who can fail to see the mighty
difference between sceptical and Christian times ?
�10.
Another triumph of Freethought, is the fact, that
the highest ecclesiastical tribunals have virtually sanetioned the preaching of “ heresy” in State pulpits. Every
Sunday, clergymen give utterance to Secular truths from
their pulpits, the promulgation of which, a few years ago,
would have cost them their position, if not their liberty.
The same liberal and progressive spirit pervades the high
class literature of modern times. In fact, our newspapers,
with but few exceptions, are compelled to adopt in practice
the very principle which in theory they deny. Three years
ago, the Rev. W. Binns, of Birkenhead, in a speech reported
in the Inquirer of Oct. 7th, 1865, bears testimony to the
prevailing tendency of Freethought in modern literature.
The rev. gentleman said: “ Scientific men pursue their studies
and proclaim their discoveries, as if the old theology were
non-existent. Owen extolled the serpent as perfectly formed,
notwithstanding the curse pronounced; Lyall said there
were men before Adam ; ethnologists found races distinct
in spite of original sin and the federal headship; philolo
gists spoke of varieties of language long before the supposed
time of Babel; and science everywhere asserted the univer
sality and unfailingness of law, spite of traditionary miracles.
General literature breathed the same healthy spirit, at once
free, reverent, and inquiring. What natural depravity was
taught in the muscular Christianity of Kingsley’s novels ?
Dickens condemned cant, Sabbatarianism, and narrowness
wherever found; and Thackeray, in the ‘ Newcomes,’ looked
for the salvation of honest James Binnie, though James was
a disciple of that extremest of heretics, David Hume. As
to poetry, it could only flourish where genius was unfettered
by creeds. It needed to live in freedom, and when freedom
was lost, it sunk into Spurgeonite doggrel and nursery
imbecilities. It was objected that much modern literature
was destructive, but if so, it still had many compensating
advantages. It had in theological matters a fairness of
spirit and a thoroughness of treatment far in advance of old
times. The lives of Jesus by Renan and Strauss threw new
light on familiar subjects, and though many might dissent
from some of their theories, yet still the world could not
afford to spare them as a whole. It was a remarkable fact
that we were indebted to heterodoxy for the best Biblical cri
ticism, and the most learned and philosophical biographies of
Christ. Indeed, it seemed as if the taint of heresy were
needed in theology to make books either readable or precious.’*
�11
This, certainly is a high testimony to the power of FreeLZon1?.the held Of?terAUre; Bufc the rev- gentleman’s
statements were confirmed by Archdeacon Sinclair, when
said %ln- SiLC^r?t m tHe dergy of Middlesex, he
said . Dming the last half century, however, anti-Christian
sonhtrS
desce?ded popularise their so-called philo
sophy, and to disseminate the poison of eternal death among
the masses of the community. The ability they had shown
in this work of destruction was as unquestionable as their
design was abominable. They had contrived to make them
selves not only intelligible but interesting to the artisan the
for whom?? ” sh.“p“an’.tlle elerk< “d otter similar classes
or whom they write.
As a writer in the Reformer some
time ago observed, one of the most signal prooft that FrS
hought is widely diffused throughout o?r literateTwas'
k ”d u”1
of tte organs of public opinion in Eng
land during the prosecution of two of the Essayists and
Ke? Mrr WilT™ ‘heSe ‘W° ™torS’ Dr’
“nd the
Kei Mr. Wilson, were prosecuted for alleged heretical views
contained m the above work, the ablest dlily paper? as the
Morning Star, and Daily ^Telearavh
wi h the ablest weekly organs, as the Spectator, Saturday
Bis^atch’ “d others> a» defended thlse
men against the prosecutions of the bishops and clergy
When the same party in the Church prosecuted Bish™
Colenso for his work on the Pentateuch, the same organs of
defendedPthebreXPpSlied
SymPathF with> and boldly
defended, the brave Bishop m his efforts to spread the truth
against his bigoted persecutors. The same pXeX ’
principle has been manifested in the literature of Germany
where, during the last hundred years, more thinkers ami’
more eminent writers have been produced than in any other
country in the same period. And according to BucMe this
literature is the result of the scepticism which so extensAelv
existed among the Germans. “ The German philosophL}”
says the above author, “possess a learning and a reach of
thought, which place them at the head® of the Ssed
In order that our statements of Secular progress shall
not be considered hypothetical, it may be asiJeZproduce
the testimony of literary and Christian authority in Lnnort
of our position. In speaking of the increase of heretic^
October lP6Othse r“TTCTS,itfe.3> th<> We,fainter Beeiew of
October 1860, says, - Indeed, no one that knows the reli.
�12.
gious state of the Universities could doubt that such a book
[the “ Essays and Reviews”] would be eagerly welcomed,
but welcomed only as a partial instalment. Eew, perhaps,
are aware how far the decay of belief extends beneath those
walls. . . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed I When
they are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every
phase, from mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Pro
fessors, tutors, fellows, and pupils are conscious of this wide
spread doubt.” “ It must be a profound evil,” continues
the writer, “ that all thinking men should reject the national
religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the tale
by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who
have long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the
text-book, the manuals for study of youth and manhood, the
whole mental food of the day; science, history, morals, and
politics, poetry, fiction, and essay; the very lesson of the
school, the very sermon from the pulpit.” In Eebruary,
1864, Fraser's Magazine, noticing that Freethought prin
ciples were extending, remarked that it is “true that for the
last one hundred and fifty years at least, such opinions have
been steadily increasing, not only in popularity, but in
what may be called respectability. They were once con
fined to a small number of persons, who had very little
weight with the world at large, and who perhaps neither
sought nor deserved more influence than they possessed;
they were afterwards professed by furious enthusiasts, whose
violence, fruitful both of good and evil, prevented the mass
of mankind from judging calmly of the merits of their views;
they are now spreading widely and quietly through all
classes of the community, and derive great weight from the
demonstration supplied by history, science, and criticism of
the fact, that whatever else we may or may not possess, there
is in the world no such thing as an infallible Church or an
infallible book.” In 1865, the Rev. D. Moore, M.A.,
published a book entitled, “ The Age and the Gospel,” on
pages 10 and 11 of which he says—“The tendencies to
scepticism in the present day show themselves more or less
in every direction. Much especially have we to appre
hend from the prevalence of these tendencies among our
poorer classes. No doubt, among the eight-and-twenty
millions of infidel and vicious tracts computed to be annually
circulated among our English poor, many are but reproduc
tions of the coarse accusations of Richard Carlile, and Taylor,
and Paine. But, mixed up witlUthem, are attacks upon.
�13.
kind—made up from
„ nk>;aHinitv of a more dangerous the admissions of the
the infidel philosophy ofAmerica, or
instanceS!
writers in the • Essays and Bbvwot,
m of the Conof translated extracts fro
bodies of persons working
tinent—so that in the case^J^f^rnwho lever heard the
together, as m shops
1
Strauss, can retail, withflipnames of Hegel, or Scaling, or btra^,
pant tongue, their “j,
, do tbe promoters of popular
not by the agency of trac
J’ ™
have their Sunday
I yot deistical serwiees
meetings for homing.
onen to receive and deal
Weekly or monthly periodicals a
P
Associations
out the freshest contributions of inMel thong
are formed, 0Sfen.S1 y ^science and the statements of Reveplace the conclusion
,, • all being so many painful
fation in array agamst eaj
" National mindhave proofs bow much the recent advances ol
influence and
Un unaccompanied "‘Xrets in Ill mlnctifled knowledge
showing what ? tenden7*abelief in departing from the living
to foster an evil heart of unbeiie
P
s gentleman furGod.” On page 29 ofthe same work^the rev.^g
ther
XX systematised and scientific forms as it
presented itself in sue y
no longer—an obliteration of
Exhibits now. It IS a “8^^
and pretension, at
old faiths no longer. In ou ward!
epeed;,
least, it is a science, a p o p y
Jf any addltiona]
These words were penned , . L- tetbeir truth, it is given
evidence were required o ..
yet on “ Popular Eduby P" "On page 53 the
cation m England, wr
thorougb? tbe most logical,
rev. gentleman says
nn-nn^pd to us is that of the
and the ^ost distinct ^Tain to close our eyes to the fact
Secularists. Ifc
and rapidly increasing.” Alluding
that their numbers ar° bought works, the doctor observes,
to the circ^la^°Q
y rm and our sorrow have a deeper reon page 67— Ou
„nnreciated after an examination of
ference, and can only
PP
which is circulated
th8 rationaleP>»s andpolitios.
among the masses, aim
r expensive works of mWithout speaking of large
Messrs Longman could
’and low.
�stantTale’and cireulXn
'™rts are in con-
mand for them has increased sf largely"TatTh' The 1!“'
;XhTKxthh:ir ”?ots
‘‘-otyPaesartht
facts as to the spread of Seeid d'V°ted-S°“etlmeto ac<iuire
following information From hi, "0“’
.read™ tbe
‘‘there are three or four establish Wn Per.sonalknowledge”
where printing preSseare elm • 7®
“ London alone
publications. The T)oeZ b
on Secular
halls in London “and th ppp n°ws of thirteen Freethought
Sunday attendance at the s!
man^more-” “ The average
in London alX ?slthd0S^t\tr FJeethought meetings,
subject at about 1,201/
authorifcy °n this
meetings held every week throuX, T2 least thirty such
such lectures are given bv Mr gRout the country. Wherever
Atheist school the audipnnp ' ^ra(Pau&b, the leader of the
large majorities evidentlv fflJ are J?ld £?. be crowded, and the
of Secularist views appears to hp^^’ The greatest extension
where large number mavhLancashire and Yorkshire,
probably, in London K bePound “ every town; next
hood; then in Glasgow- nexS?8th
neighbour~
great popularity of extreme
“ Northampton, where the
date.” From theserefeXeftonhd <? °f recent
writers, it will be seen thnt t * philosophical and Christian
ciples are making ranid
° assert that Freethought prin“ empty boast.” Added to thi/r ,tbroughout society is no
the vast amount of latent Sp i e?tlmoiH must be recognised
classes. We have then ,hSet£laFlsm which exists among all
fast increasing in number eJ!atlonaIlstie believers, who are
BUCSfebe°td0Xy
‘b-hXWhlCh arerapid‘y
Robert Owen must nrtbe/m/ Jree^hkough.^ the name of
promulgation of which he dp^/MPrinciPIes to the
tbe basis of th6 constirtt
schools, Which are now so
tbls country. Infant
by this much misrepresented^•? PP^Uded’ were funded
been for the doctrines of Pit ®d Pb]lanthropist. Had it not
by Owen, we should doubtle h^^8 and utlIity as taught
tians going to Social Srie
bave heard but little of Chrissuch questions asT0.ODerZ Con?resseJs..
considering
amelioration and the nenero)11’ Prison discipline, sanitary
me general amendment of the relation
�between Mpital and labour.
When Christians were oonsistenl and obeyed the command to “take no thought for the
morrow.’’ to “ lore not the world or the things of the world,
these questions were never publicly heard of. Their consi
deration now is the result of the operation of agencies the
very antithesis of Christianity. And this doctrine of cireumstances it is cheering to know is recognised in modern
legislation. The vengeful character of our penal system is
gradually disappearing from our statute book. We are be
ginning,through our laws, to look upon the criminal more
and more as unfortunate and less and less guilty. Accord
ingly is our system of the treatment of those who offend
against our laws becoming more preventive and less punitive.
What is this but the partial destruction of the religious
tenets of responsibility and sin, and the enthronement upon
their ruins of the doctrine of circumstances? In the held
of social reform what was the pet topic at the recent Social
Science Congresses ? Was it not the great question of the
Co-operative Stores ? And what are Co-operative Stores but
a careful and cautious step in the direction of that true
democracy, that thorough principle of social equality, that
blow struck in favour of the rights of labour and against the
monopoly of property, which, when uttered by that great
modern apostle of New Lanark, produced against him the
epithets of atheist, leveller, revolutionist, and. rebel ?
In claiming these Freethought triumphs, it is not intended
to credit any particular class of Freethinkers with the
achievement thus obtained ; neither is it desired to rob the
religious reformers, the Nonconformists, a Knox, a Luther,
and a Wickliffe, of the laurels they won in resisting the
power which was arrayed against them. Doubtless, in fight
ing for freedom they gave an impetus to thought. But un
fortunately, dauntless as they were, they lacked consistency.
Waving reached the pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged
* path up which they climbed. Having overcome the tyranny
of their oppressors, they themselves persecuted those who
desired to travel further on the road of progress. Hence,
civilisation was deprived of valuable service through the
influence of theology on the minds of men who commenced
fighting the battle of freedom, but who had to yield to the
dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The progress of
modern time has been stimulated by men who cared little or
nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was
at its lowest ebb.
The last century, the years from
�1700 to 180A, was the least religious, the least Christian
century of the Christian era. It was the era of phi
losophy, of science, and of Freethought; of Voltaire, of
Rousseau, and of Hume; of Black with his discovery of the
true principles of heat, of Dalton with his discoveries in
chemistry, of Watt with his perfection of the steam engine,
of Hume with his demonstrations of the absurdity of reli
gion, and of Thomas Paine with his clear exposition of the
great fundamental principles of government. These are the
men who have really assisted in the progress of the world.
Their principles have sown the seeds of happiness and pro
gress among mankind. To their efforts we are indebted for’
much of the prosperity of the 19th century. As Theodore
Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of Christen
dom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science and
philanthropy in modern times, are men who have the love
of truth and the love of justice, who possess large and bene
volent hearts, but who have no practical faith in Chris
tianity. This assertion has since been confirmed by J. 8.
Mill, who frankly states that it “ can do truth no service to
blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary
acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the
noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work
not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and
rejected the Christian faith.” These truths place Pree
thought in a prominent position in Modern progress.
price
TWorr.xcE,
Printed and Published by Austin & 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
Freethought and modern progress : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N669
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 (Freethought and modern progress : 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
Free Thought
NSS
Progress
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/595598f4b18088925fc53f5a42ada7c4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hwYBGWLQyNso8FXG8OUbK184wdgUrIgyBnxi9If1aWup2QT4-YMWuT0WDE6kDNLHd1f0NV6-OymaPDW2gtTnm7ibjJJsCCrBkGJXBx8TKuCWPb7oYnr6d2L%7E3twQ-l0nOi08vygYO5RoWtN2gxcBHQmaCEVZryIV9mo42DN3sXFMjsPPcpbAFoW3WeLEMpZ7%7EZGKutRi3txboC50wq32NHNqrep2b5ioitXhwKIWKunlf1MVsKpAlNce6JiPvK56%7EpdzbnWRv9Wr6YiXXOgKZB7UFstOrL0wwb4y9OkNPrdb%7EnjQxIHdcABhT2xjodfDDcmeO%7EgJT3YHC4VzZQj6oA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7e25f6b6a31bd2dc55bb5ad2e75356ee
PDF Text
Text
FACETLE FOR FREETHINKERS :
A COLLECTION OF GENUINE JOKES, SPECIMENS OF FANCIFUL PHILOSOPHY, & MATTER FOR MIRTH.
When Dante was' at the court of Signore della Scala, then sovereign of
Verona, that prince said to him one day, “I wonder, Signor Dante, that
a man so learned as you are should be hated by all my court, and that
this fool (pointing to his buffoon who stood by him) should be beloved.’ ’
Highly piqued at this comparison, Dante replied, “Your .excellency
would wonder less, if you considered that we like those best who most re
semble ourselves.”
A lady, very fond of her husband, notwithstanding his ugliness of person,
once said to Rogers, the poet, “What do youthink? My husband has
laid out fifty guineas for a baboon on purpose to please me.” “ The dear little
man,” replied Rogers, “it’s just like him.’’
• It is said that the late Chief Baron Thompson was a very facetious com
panion over the bottle, which he much enjoyed. At one of the judges’
dinners during the assizes, there was present a certain dignitary of the
Church. When the cloth was removed, the reverend guest said, “ I always
think, my lord, that a certain quantity of wine does a man no harm after
dinner.” “Oh, no, by no means,” replied the Chief Baron, “it’s the
uncertain quantity that does all the mischief.”
The wit of Dr.’Samuel Johnson resembled the fun of a bull, who would
toss a man merely as a sort of practical joke. A rather sentimental young
man, one day, plaintively remarked to the great lexicographer
Shakspeare was indeed right when he said, ‘ All the world’s' a stage;’ but he
forgot to add that a farce was being played on that stage.” .“ Sir,” replied
Dr. Johnson, “ life is a tragedy, and you, sir, are a supernumerary.”
Sheridan was once talking to a friend about the Prince Regent, who took
great credit to himself for various public measures, as if they had been
directed by his political skill, or foreseen by his political sagacity. “ But,”
said Sheridan, “ what his Royal Highness more particularly prides himself
in is the late excellent harvest.”
A would-be agreeable, taking his seat between Madame'de Stael and. the
reigning beauty of theday, said, “How happy I am to be thus seated be
tween a wit and a beauty!” Yes,” replied Madame de Stael, “and without
possessing either.”
A stupid author went one morning to the house of Rulhieres, in order to
read two tales of his own composition. After having heard the first, and
before the author could take the second sheet out of his pocket, Rulhieres
said to him, “I like the other best.”
“ Does your officiating clergyman preach the Gospel, and is his own
conversation and carriage consistent therewith?” was a circular from a
bishop to the churchwarden of his diocese. A vestryman near, replied,
“ He preaches the Gospel, but does not keep a carriage.”
Cardinal Richelieu used to boast that he could extract matter to send
any man to a dungeon out of four or five ordinary words. One of his
attendants immediately wrote upon a card, “ One and two make three."
“Three make only* one," exclaimed the Cardinal. “ It is blasphemy against
our Holy Trinity; to the Bastile with him.”
�2
Facetiae for Freethinkers,
Sir James Mackintosh invited Dr. Parr to take a drive in his gig. The
horse became restive. “ Gently, Jimmy,” said the doctor, “don’t irritate
him; always soothe your horse, Jimmy. You’ll do better without me ;
let me down, Jimmy.” Once on terra ftrma, the doctor’s view of the
case was changed. “ Now Jimmy,” said he, “ touch him up. Never let
a horse get the better of you. Touch him up, conquer him, don’t spare
him—I’ll walk back.”
“We must be unanimous,” observed Hancock, on the occasion of sign
ing the Declaration of American Independence, “ there must be no pulling
different ways.” “ Yes,’’ observed Franklin, “ we must all hang together,
or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
In the midst of a stormy discussion, a gentleman rose to settle the matter
in dispute. Waving his hand majestically he began—“ Gentlemen, all I
want is common sense.” “ Exactly,” interrupted Jerrold, “that is pre
cisely what you do want.”
Baron Rothschild once complained to Lord Brougham of the hardship
of not being allowed to take his seat in Parliament. “You know,” said
he, “ I was the choice of the people.” To which the ex-Chancellor, with
his usual causticity, replied, “ So was Barabbas.”
A confirmed toper was bothered how to honour his birthday. A bril
liant idea struck him. He kept sober.
A rather profane churchgoer one day asked his clergyman what was the
meaning of the passage in the Psalms, “He clothed himself with cursing
as with a garment.” “ The meaning,” replied the clergyman, “is plain
enough; I think that the man, like you, had a habit of swearing,”
A Quaker giving his evidence before a magistrate, who had been a car
penter, was asked why he would not take off his hat. “ It is a privilege,”
said he, “ that we, as Quakers, are allowed.” “ If I had it in my power,”
said the angry magistrate, “I would have your hat nailed to your head. *’
“I thought,” returned Obadiah, “thou hadst given over the trade of
driving nails."
“ How do you like the character of St. Paul ?” asked a parson of his
landlady one dayj during a conversation about the old saints and the
Apostles. “ Ah!” said she, “he was a good, clever old soul, I know, for
he once said, you know, that we must eat what is set before us, and ask
no questions for conscience sake. I always thought I should like him for
a boarder.”
A schoolmaster, after giving one of his scholars a sound drubbing for
speaking bad grammar, sent him to the other end of the room to inform
another boy that he wished to speak to him, and at the same time pro
mising to repeat the dose if he spoke to him ungrammatically. The
youngster, quite satisfied with what he had got, determined to be exact,
and thus addressed his fellow pupil:—“ There is a common substantive, of
the masculine gender, singular number, nominative case, and in an angry
mood, that sits perched upon the eminence at the other side of the room,
wishes to articulate a few sentences to you in the present tense.”
“Well, uncle, do you see any particular difference in neighbour Pearce
since he joined the Church?” “Oh, yes,” was the reply, “a great differ
ence. Before when he went out into his garden on Sunday, he carried
his garden tools on his shoulder, now he carries them under his overcoat. ’
A story is current that Mr. Thomas Carlyle refused the Edinburgh Uni
versity degree of LL.D., on the ground that he had a brother a Dr. Carlyle
(an M.D., and known in literature as a translator of “ Dante,”) and that
if the two Dr. Carlyles should appear at Paradise, mistakes might arise.
�’'tWKO'-.
Facetvs for Freethinkers.
3
A French preacher was once descanting from the pulpit with great elo
quence on the beauties of creation. “ Whatever,” said he, “comes from
the hands of Nature is complete; she forms everything perfect.” One of
his congregation, very much deformed, and having a large hump, went up
to him at the close of his discourse, and asked, “ What think ye of me,
holy father?—am I perfect?” To which the preacher replied, very coolly,
“Yes, for a hump-backed man, quite perfect.”
Curran was asked one day what an Irish gentleman, ju3t arrived in
England, could mean by perpetually putting out his tongue. “ I suppose,”
replied Curran, “ he is trying to catch the English accent.”
Talleyrand was worried for his autograph, and to one of his persecutors
he thus wrote:—“ Will you oblige me with your company to dinner on
Wednesday next, at eight o’clock? I have invited a number of exceed
ingly clever persons, and do not like to be the only fool among them,”
Lord Chesterfield, in the latter part of his life, called upon Mrs. Ann
Pitt, the sister of the great minister of that name, and complained of his
bad health, and his inability to exert his mind, “ I fear,” said he, “ that
I am growing an old woman.” “I am glad of it, my lord,” replied the
lady. “ I was afraid you were growing an old man, which you know is
much worse.”
Poor Milton, when blind, married a shrew. The Duke of Buckingham
called her a rose. “ I am no judge of colours,” replied Milton, “ but I
dare say you are right, for I feel the thorns daily.”
It was once ruled in an action for libel brought by a clergyman against a
pamphleteer, that to call a lawyer a fool was actionable, because one could
not be a fool without being a bad lawyer; but that the same term applied
to a clergyman was not actionable, since a maD might be a fool and yet a
very good parson.
In a speech at Manchester, Lord Stanley said: “ There is a story of an
admirably-conducted man in gaol, who, by extra work, managed to lay
by a respectable sum, which was duly paid him on his release, and which
he immediately proceeded to invest in a first-rate set of house-breakers’
tools.”
The method most in repute among our forefathers for killing time was
to kill each other; and we are getting to be exceedingly like our fore
fathers.
A partisan paper says, “ It is a mistake that the (opposite) party plays
upon a harp of a thousand strings. The organ of that party is a lyre.”
A Persian merchant, complaining heavily of some unjust sentence,
was told by the judge to go to the cadi. “ But the cadi is your uncle,”
urged the plaintiff. “ Then you can go to the grand vizier”—“ But his
secretary is your cousin”—“Then you may go to the sultan”—“But his
favourite sultana is your niece”—“ Well, then, go to the devil!”—“Ah,
that is a still closer family connection!” said the merchant, as he left the
court in despair,
“ Now then, when are we going to have a settlement of this account?”
exclaimed an irascible creditor to an imperturbable debtor. “ We have
had a settlement,” was the reply. “When—where—how?” began the
creditor. “Didn’t I come to see you about it last month?” asked the
debtor. “ Yes.” “ And I meant to settle it then, didn’t I?” “ Well—
yes, I believe so.” “ Very well, then, wasn’t that a settle meant?”
A teacher at a national school recently asked a boy which was the
highest dignitary of the church. After looking up and down, north, east,
south, and west, the boy innocently replied, “ The weather-cock.”
�4
Facetw for Freethinkers.
Some of the fences alongside of the Naugatuck Railroad are covered
with the query, “Where shall I spend eternity?” A Waterbury wag
remarks that no one who has been obliged to travel from Bridgeport to
Winsted can ever have any trouble in answering the conundrum.
A student who was declaiming vigorously—and, as he doubtlessly
believed, eloquently—on the “Languageof Man,” burst forth with “The
indispensable contributions of the inferior members of the animal king
dom to our noble language, and------ ” but here his tutor stopped him, and
satirically requested an explanation of the “indispensable contributions”
referred to. Whereupon the student, without being at all abashed, at
once replied, ‘ ‘ They may be found, sir, in such words as <Zo^-matism,
cai-echism, cro-nology, j?ws-illanimous, «Z«c-tility, Aen-pecked, osc-ygen,
core-slip, ^iy-ment, as-teroid, and ratf-ification.”
A Master in Chancery, a very wealthy man, was on his death-bed.
Some occasion of great urgency occurred, in which it was necessary to
make an affidavit, and the attorney, missing one or two other Masters
whom he inquired after, ventured to ask if this one would be able to re
ceive the deposition. The proposal seemed to give him momentary
strength; his clerk was sent for, and the oath taken in due form. The
Master was lifted up in his bed, and with difficulty subscribed the paper:
as he sank down again, he made a signal to his clerk—“ Wallace.”—
“ Sir?”—“Your ear—lower—lower. Have you got the half-crown?”
He expired before the morning.
The celebrated Bubb Doddington was very lethargic. Falling asleep
one day after dinner with Sir Richard Temple and Lord Cobham, the
general reproached Doddington with his drowsiness. Doddington denied
having been asleep, and to prove that he had not, offered to repeat all that
Lord Cobham had been saying. Cobham challenged him to do so. Dod
dington repeated a story, and Lord Cobham owned he had been telling it.
“And yet,” said Doddington, “I did not hear a word of it; but I went
to sleep because I knew that about this time of the day you would tell that
story.”
Dr. Clarke was a man of genuine piety, but much opposed to the
noisy zeal that seeketh “ to be known of men.” A young divine, who
was much given to enthusiastic cant, one day said to him, “ Do you
suppose you have any real religion?”—“None to speak of,” was the
reply.”
“ Pray,” inquired one minister of another, “ seeing so many ladies
attend your church, why do you invariably address your congregation as
‘dear brethren?’ ”—“ Ob, the answer is easily given,” he replied; “the
brethren embrace the sisters.”
A gentleman who was rescued from drowning in the river Cam declared
that the accident would be an advantage to him hereafter, as he should be
able to say that he had been brought up at Cambridge.
A lawyer was once witnessing the representation of “Macbeth,” and on
the Witch replying to the Thane’s inquiry, that they were doing a “ deed
without a name,” catching the sound of the words, he started up, exclaim
ing, to the astonishment of the audience, “A deed without a name! Why
it’s void ; it’s not worth sixpence.”
When does a man sit down to a melancholy dessert? When he sits down
to wine and pine.
Sydney Smith said that a certain person was so fond of contradiction,
that he would throw up the window in the middle of the night, and contra
dict the watchman who was calling the hour.
�Facetiae for FreetMnkers.
5
“ Why, John,” said a minister to a tipsy man who couldn’t get along
on his way home, “ where do you suppose you will go when you come to
die?”—“Well,” said John, “if I can’t go any better than I can now, I
shan’t go anywhere.”
In New Zealand a chief with ten wives was told that he could not be
baptized unless he confined himself to one. At the end of about two
months he repaired to the nearest missionary, and stated that he had got
rid of nine. “ What have you done with them?” was the natural interro
gatory. “ I have eaten them,” was the ready reply.
“ He has ‘ honest man ’ written in his face,” said a friend to the
late Douglas Jerrold, speaking of a person in whom Jerrold’s faith was
not great. “ Humph,” replied Jerrold, “then the pen must have been a
very bad one.”
A reprobate was once asked, when dying, if he had lived an upright
and creditable life. “Well, no, not exactly,” said he; “but, then, I must
say I’ve had a good time.”
If the hours get weary in America there is a fund of amusement in
studying the odd characters the passengers are made up of, from the old
lady who is travelling alone, and who is “ sure the engineers drink, and
that the boilers are going to bust,” to the emigrant who has left his
fatherland for a home in the New World. We made lots of acquaintance,
but one old gentleman rather got the “deadwood” on us. Wishing to
open a conversation with him, in an artless and unaffected manner we
asked him: “ Who he thought wrote Junius?” He looked at us a mo
ment. “Young man,” said he, “I do not think it was you, but it was
probably some other fool.” We did not make Ms acquaintance.
A would-be prophet down South lately said, in one of his sermons,
that “he was sent to redeem the world and all things.” Whereupon one
of his audience pulled out a Confederate note, and asked him to fork over
the specie for it.
Herod’s wife is said to have been like a Fenian organisation, because
she had a "head sent lier (head centre).
A little boy, some six years old, was using his slate and pencil on the
Sabbath, when his father, who was a clergyman, entered and said, “ My
son, I prefer that you should not use your slate on the Lord’s-day.” “ I’m
making meeting houses, father,” was the prompt reply.
A drunkard upon hearing that the earth was round, said that accounted
for his rolling about so much.
Why are bankrupts more to be pitied than idiots?—Because bankrupts
are broken, while idiots are only cracked.
Dr. Lockhart, when he left the rectory of Inchinnan, left a number of
his sermons and other documents in an attic room of the manse, intending
to remove them subsequent to his return from a continental tour. He had
occasion to communicate with Dr. Gillan, his successor, and in the course
of his letter he expressed a hope that the manuscripts were safe and free
from damp. Dr. Gillan replied that “ all the papers were quite dry, es
pecially the sermons.”
A clergyman told a negro he should love his enemies. “ Me do love
’em.” “What enemies do you love most?” “ Rum and cider, massa.”
A German minister was walking in procession at the head of his
parishioners over cultivated fields in order to procure a blessing upon the
crops. When he came to one of unpromising appearance, he would pass
on, saying, “ Here prayers and singing will avail nothing; this must have
manure.”
�6
Facetiae for Freethinkers,
A gentleman entered one of the leading music shops some time since,
and stated his wishes in this wise: “ Have you Solomon’s song? I want
to get a copy.” “ No,” said the salesman, not being able to recollect at
the moment any lithographed sheet with that title. “No, I am afraid
not.” “Ah!” said the inquirer, drawing on his kid, “ perhaps it isn’t
out yet. Our rector spoke of it last Sunday as a production of great genius
and beauty, and I want my daughter to learn it.”
One of the wickedest and most successful hoaxes perpetrated on the
first of April was the work of a lady in Philadelphia. She sent up to the
pulpit iu a Methodist church a notice purporting to announce a meeting in
aid of another church. A number of names of prominent clergymen were
mentioned as to take part in the exercises. The preacher read the manu
script to his large congregation without hesitation until he came to a pas
sage that a certain layman would sing a comic song, when he became
confused, suddenly remembered the day, and abruptly sat down.
A celebrated dignitary of the Church once preached a charity sermon
remarkable for its pith and point, as well as for its brevity. He took for
his text, “He who giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord,” and com
menced and concluded his discourse by adding, “Let those who like the
security down with the dust.”
A Yankee thus winds up a notice to correspondents:—“ In konclusion, fustly, we would sa tu moste writers: Write often and publish
seldum. Secondly, to sum writers: Write seldum and publish seldumer.”
It was the habit of Lord Eldon, when Attorney-General, to close his
speeches with some remarks justifying his own character. At the trial
of Home Tooke, speaking of his own reputation, he said; “ It is the little
inheritance I have to leave my children, and, by God’s help, I will leave
it unimpaired.” Here he shed tears, and, to the astonishment of those
present, Mitford, the Solicitor-General, began to weep. “Just look at
Mitford,” said a bystander to Horne Tooke; “ what on earth is he crying
for?” Tooke replied, “He is crying to think what a small inheritance
Eldon’s children are likely to get.”
Phrenologists allow that the organ of drunkenness is a barrel-organ.
The Bishop of Carlisle—who thinks that every boy and girl should
learn to repeat the Thirty-nine Articles as well as the Catechism—asked
a youthful scholar if he had read the Thirty-nine Articles. “ No,”
said the boy, “ but I have read the Forty Thieves," “ You may stand
down, sir,” said the Bishop.
An Irish witness was recently asked what he knew of the prisoner’s
character for truth and veracity. “ Why, in troth, yer honour, since ever
I’ve known her, she has kept her house clane and dacent.”
What is the difference between the Hebrew idea of a slave and the
modem notion of a wash-hand stand? The former is stated to be a
“ hewer of wood and a drawer of water,” while the latter is a “ drawer
of wood and a ewer of water. ”
A pious old lady was asked why she named her dog 11 Moreover?’
“Why,” said she, putting on her spectacles to find the place in her Bible,
“it is a Bible name. Here—‘Moreover the dog eame and licked his
sores.’ ”
The following sally of wit took place one day at Dr. Whately’s dinner
table, between him and the present Bishop of Cork, shortly after the con
secration of the latter:—“My Lord of Cork," said Archbishop Whately,
“ you stop the bottle.” If Ido,” replied John of Cork, “I ought to be
screwed^
�Facetia for Freethinkers,
A clergyman, being deposed from his ministry for holding certain he
retical opinions, said 11 it should cost a hundred men their lives." This
alarming speech being reported, he was taken before a magistrate and
examined, when he explained himself by saj ing, that “ he intended to
practise physic."
The man who first introduced the fanning mill into Scotland' was de
nounced as an Atheist; he was getting up gales of wind when Providence
willed a calm.
A Naples evening paper contained the following lines in large type:—
‘ ‘ The arrests of Bourbons and clergymen continue with praiseworthy
energy.”
The following appeared in a New York paper:—“ To Schoolmasters.
—To be sold a thrashing machine, in good working order; has birch, cane,
and strap barrels; warranted to whip a school of fifty boys in twenty
minutes, distinguishing their offences into literary, moral, and impertinent.
Only parted with because the owner has flogged all his school away, and
his sons are too big to beat.”
The celebrated Malherbe dined one day with the Archbishop of Rouen,
and fell asleep soon after the meal. The prelate, a sorry preacher, wa3
about to deliver a sermon, and awakened Malherbe, inviting him to be an
auditor. “ Ah! thank you,” said Malherbe, ‘' pray excuse me; I can
sleep very well without that.”
A gentleman,wishing to discover the religion of an Irish guide, inquired,
“Paddy, what’s your belief?” To which Paddy replied, “Wisha, then,
your honour, but I’m of my landlady’s belief,” “ What’s that, Paddy?”
4‘ Sure, and I’ll tell you: I owe her five half-years’ rent, and she believes
that I’ll never pay her, and that’s my belief, too.”
A pleasant anecdote is told of Dr. Franklin. The town of Franklin
was named after him. While in France, a gentleman of Boston wrote to
him of the fact, and added that as the town was building a meeting-house,
perhaps he would give a bell. Franklin wrote the characteristic reply,
that he presumed the good people of Franklin preferred sense to sound, and
therefore he would give them a town library,
A Punning Sermon in the Reign of James I.—This dial shows that
we must die all; nevertheless, all (pronounced nil) houses are turned into
ale houses; our cares into cates; our paradise into a pair o’dice; matrimony
into a matter o’ money; and marriage into a merry age. Our divines have
become dry vines. But ah, no, it was not so in the days of No-ab*
Ah, no!
Wonders of the English Language.—The construction of the
English language must appear most formidable to a foreigner. One of
them, looking at a picture of a number of vessels, said, “ See, what a
flock of ships!”
He was told that a flock of ships was called a
fleet, and that a fleet of sheep was called a flock. And it was added,
for his guidance in mastering the intricacies of our language, that a
flock of girls is called a bevy, a bevy of wolves a pack, a pack of thieves
a gang, a gang of angels a host, a host of porpoises a shoal, a shoal of
buffaloes a herd, a herd of children a troop, a troop of partridges a covey,
a covey of beauties a galaxy, a galaxy of ruffians a horde, a horde of
rubbish a heap, a heap of oxen a drove, a drove of blackguards a mob,
a mob of whales a school, a school of worshippers a congregation, a con
gregation of engineers a corps, a corps of robbers a band, a band of locusts
a swarm, and a swarm of people a crowd.
�8
Facetias for Freethinkers.
ICHTHYOLOGICAL.
“ The Lord Chancellor has conferred the vacant living of St. Margaret
Pattens on our excellent sub-editor, the Rev. J. L. Fish, M.A., of Exeter
College.”—John Bull.
A wise appointment. Long in sacred togs
May this good priest read vespers and read matins;
But though we’ve often seen a sole in clogs,
We never saw before a Fish in Pattens.
A FEW CORRELATIVE THOUGHTS.
There is a bankruptcy even in the natural world. The day breaks and
the light fails.
Are jury-masts regulated by the law of storms ?
Are you wedded to your own opinions ? Then never court inquiry.
Did you ever meet with a “ maiden sword ?” How well one would match
with a single stick!
There is an old book called The Praise of Folly. Authors, actors, and
artists, who are suffering from the effects of too much literary pastry in the
shape of puffs, might compile an instructive work, and name it The Folly
of Praise.
A gin-sling does not suit a broken arm.
It may be easy to cook accounts, but it is a very hard matter to digest
them.
The Orange River has its correlative, Lake Leman.
How odd, yet how appropriate it would be to go to a tournament in a
tilt-cart 1
Some people like to argue in a vicious circle; we prefer to talk in a
virtuous square.
If you jump at conclusions, you may take a leap in the dark.
It is quite possible to have a brown study in a green room.
What corresponds to an archdeacon ? A cunning priest.
RULES FOR THE PRESERVATION OR HEALTH.
Don’t eat much more than your stomach will hold.
Keep your temper. Temper your keep.
If business compels you to go out before breakfast, have some breakfast
first I
Beware of the ices of summer-and the snows of winter.
Use tooth-powder instead of gunpowder.
Neither sleep in hot rooms, nor eat mushrooms.
Don’t let your physique go to the dogs.
Rise early, before you are twenty-five, if possible.
A NEW VERSION OF AN OLD PROVERB.
If late a man’s in, and late out of bed,
He’ll get thin, short of tin, and thick in the head.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed and Published by Austin & 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
Facetiae for freethinkers: a collection of genuine jokes, specimens of fanciful philosophy, & matter for mirth
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4954
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Facetiae for freethinkers: a collection of genuine jokes, specimens of fanciful philosophy, & matter for mirth), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
Humour
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e13a1a3baf4573dedb1085df0ee352e3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bkOVldQxJ8Pb7ni7RQrI-D%7EgJisScgXVv5HCC3UR-xS4wDKbQyzzIJbt3%7ExWOkfnHK7Ctc59y-tdwr4Xy0Tr7f-4DlclGXxJyUWMrEYYxzjhpdPP7wobdyX%7E2R9B-SpzHDjplPwRCMou0ysIjFj4WWdZVN2470TVfP0ulc72k4mLNO06sps5jul1URqzwq4Ntmnby7o%7E3WMUbhGdMu8Ld7VFXXFqgQGERWx5NYg4zFjlDsoqxyON%7EM4BnhgAY-QfbGbg1LwWkwoRlBVSlpmovntyxMGECq4UsVhEyvjBU07jqvgPfGCvuK5dOmRugzojmNFNUKq1FC9b59m9fP8BCw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18e65bb164036a345f640bdb71cc74c5
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
BY C. BRADLAUGH.
ht is it that human beings are starved to death, in a
wealthy country like England, with its palaces, its cathe
drals, and its abbeys ; with its grand mansions, and luxu
rious dwellings, with its fine enclosed parks, and strictly
guarded preserves ; with its mills, mines, and factories ; with
its enormous profits to the capitalists ; and with its broad
acres and great rent rolls to the landholder ? The fact that
men, old, young, and in the prime of life; that women, and
that children, do so die, is indisputable. The paragraph in
the daily journals, headed “ Death from Starvation,” or
« Another death from Destitution,” is no uncommon one to
the eyes of the careful reader.
In a newspaper of one day, December 24th, 1864, may
be read the verdict of a London jury that “ the deceased.
Robert Bloom, died from the mortal effects of effusion or>
the brain and disease of the lungs, arising from natural
causes, but the said death was accelerated by destitution,
and by living in an ill-ventilated room, and in a court
wanting in sanitary requirementsand the verdict of
another jury, presided over by the very Coroner who sat oil
the last case, “ that the deceased, Mary Hale, was found
dead in a certain room from the mortal effects of cold and
starvationas also the history of a poor wanderer from the
Glasgow City Poor House found dead in the snow.
In London, the hive of the world, with its merchant
millionaires, even under the shadow of the wealth pile, star
vation is as busy as if in the most wretched and impo
�2
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
verished village; busy indeed, not always striking the victim
so obtrusively that the coroner’s inquest shall preserve
a record of the fact, but more often busy quietly, in the
wretched court and narrow lane, up in the garret, and down
in the cellar, stealing by slow degrees the life of the poor.
Why does it happen that Christian London, with its mag
nificent houses for God, has so many squalid holes for the
poor? Christianity from its thousand pulpits teaches,
“ Ask and it shall be given to you,” “ who if his son ask
bread, will he give him a stone ?” yet with much prayer the
bread is too frequently not encugh, and it is, alas 1 not seldom
that the prayer for bread gets the answer in the stone of
the paved street, where he lays him down to die. The
prayer of the poor outcast is answered by hunger, misery,
disease, crime, and death, and yet the Bible says, “ Blessed
be ye poor.*’ Ask the orthodox clergyman why men starve,
why men are poor and miserable; he will tell you that
it is God’s will; that it is a punishment for man’s sins.
And so long as men are content to believe that it is God’s
Will that the majority of humankind should have too little
happiness, so long will it be impossible effectually to get
them to listen to the answer to this great question.
Men starve because the great bulk of them are ignorant
of the great law of population, the operation of which coiltrols their existence and determines its happiness Or misery.
They starve, because pulpit teachers have taught them for
centuries to be content with the state of life in which it has
pleased God to call them, instead of teaching them how to
extricate themselves from the misery, degradation, and igno
rance which a continuance of poverty entails.
Men starve because the teachers have taught heaven in
stead of earth, the next world instead of this. It is now
generally admitted by those who have investigated the sub
ject, that there is a tendency in all animated life to increase
beyond the nourishment nature produces. In the human
race, there is a constant endeavour on the part of its mem
bers to increase beyond the means of subsistence within
�WHY DO MEN STARVE?
3
their reach. The want of food to support this increase
operates, in the end, as a positive obstacle to. the further
; spread of population, and men are starved because the great
, mass of them have neglected to listen to one of nature’s
clearest teachings. The unchecked increase of population is
in a geometrical ratio, the increase of food for their subsist
ence is in an arithmetical ratio. That is, while humankind
would increase in proportion as 1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32, 64, 128,
256, food would only increase as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
The more the mouths the less the proportion of food. While
the restraint to an increase of population is thus a want of
food, and starvation is the successful antagonist of strug
gling human life, it is seldom that this obstacle operates im
mediately—its dealing is more often indirectly against its
victims. Those who die of actual famine are few indeed
compared with those who die from various forms of disease,
induced by scarcity of the means of subsistence. If any of my
readers doubt this, their doubts may be removed by a very
short series of visits to the wretched homes of the paupers
of our great cities. Suicide is the refuge mainly of those
who are worn out in a bitter, and, to them, a hopeless struggle
against accumulated ills. Disease, suffering, and misery
are the chief causes of the prevalence of suicide in our coun
try, and suicide is therefore one form, although comparatively
minute, in which the operation of the law of population may
be traced.
From dread of the pangs of poverty, men, women, and
children are driven to unwholesome occupations, which des
troy not only the health of the man and woman actually
employed, but implant the germs of physical disease in their
offspring. A starving woman seeking food mixes white
lead with oil and turpentine for a paltry pittance, which
provides bare existence for her and those who share it; in
a few weeks, she is so diseased she can work no longer, and
the hospital and grave in turn receive her. Men and
women are driven to procure bread by work in lead mines•
they rapidly dig their own graves, and not alone themselves,
�4
WHY DO MEN STARVE.
but their wretched offspring are death-stricken as the
penalty; the lead poisons the blood of parent and child
alike. Young women and children work at artificial flower
making, and soon their occupation teaches that Scheele’s and
Schweenfurth green, bright and pleasing colours to the eye,
are death’s darts too often fatally aimed. The occupation
may be objected to as unhealthy; but the need for food is
great, and the woman’s or child’s wages, wretchedly little
though they are, yet help to fill the mouths at home: so the
wage is taken till the worker dies. Here, again, the checks
to an increase of population all stop short of starvation—the
victims are poisoned instead of starved. So where some
forty or fifty young girls are crowded into a badly ventilated
work-room, not large enough for half the number, from early
in the morning till even near midnight, when orders press;
or in some work-room where slop clothes are made, and
twenty-five tailors are huddled together in a little parlour
scarce wide enough for three—they work to live, and die
slowly while they work. They are not starved, but is this
sort of asphyxiation much better ? The poor are not only
driven to unhealthy, but also to noisome dwellings. There
are in London, Liverpool, G-lasgow, Edinburgh, Man
chester, and other large cities, fearful alleys, with wretched
hoftses, and small ill-ventilated rooms, each room containing
a family, the individuals of which are crowded together
under conditions so wretched that disease, and often speedy
death, is the only possible result. In the East of London,
ten, eleven, and, in some cases, fourteen persons have
been found sleeping in one wretched little room. Is it
wonderful that some of these misery-stricken ones die
before they have time to starve? • Erom poverty the
mother, obliged to constantly work that the miserable
pittance she gets may yield enough to sustain bare life, is
unable properly to nurse and care for baby-child, and often
quick death, or slow but certain disease, ending ultimately
m the grave, is the result.
The poor live by wages. Wages popularly signify the
�WHY DO MEN 8TAB.VE ?
5
amount of money earned by the labourer in a given time;
but the real value of the money-wages is the amount in
quantity and quality of the means of subsistence which
the labourer can purchase with that money. Wages may
be nominally high, but really low, if the food and com
modities to be purchased are, at the same time, dear in price.
An undue increase of population reduces wages in more
than one way : it reduces them in effect, if not in nominal
amount, by increasing the price of the food to be purchased;
and it also reduces the nominal amount, because the nominal
amount depends on the ©mount of capital at disposal for
employ, and the number of labourers seeking employment.
No remedies for low wages, no seheme for the prevention
and removal of poverty can ever be efficacious until they
operate on and through the minds and habits of the masses.
It is not from rich men that the poor must hope for deliver
ance from starvation. It is not to charitable associations
the wretched must appeal. Temporary alleviation of the
permanent evil is the best that can be hoped for from such
aids. It is by the people that the people must be saved. Mea
sures which increase the dependence of the poor on charitable
aid can only temporarily benefit one portion of the labour
ing class while injuring another in the same proportion; and
charity, if carried far, must inevitably involve the recipients
in ultimate ruin and degradation by destroying their mutual
self-reliance. The true way to improve the worker, in all cases
short of actual want of the necessaries of life, is to throw him
entirely on his own resources, but at the same time to teach
him how he may augment those resources to the utmost. It is
only by educating the ignorant poor to a consciousness of the
happiness possible to them, as a result of their own exer
tions, that you can induce them effectually to strive for it.
But, alas 1 as Mr. Mill justly observes, “ Education is not
compatible with extreme poverty. It is impossible effec
tually to teach an indigent population.” The time occupied
in the bare struggle to exist leaves but few moments and
fewer opportunities for mental cultivation to the very poor.
�6
WHY DO WEN STAHWE?
The question of wages and their relation to capital and
population, a question which interests a poor man so much,
is one on which he formerly hardly ever thought at all, and;
on which even now he thinks much too seldom. It is neces
sary to impress on the labourer that the rate of wages de
pends on the proportion between population and capital. If'
population increases without an increase of capital, wages
fell; the number of competitors in the labour market
being greater, and the fund to povide for them not having
increased proportionately, and if capital increases without
an increase of population, wages rise. Many efforts havebeen made to increase wages, but none of them can be per
manently successful which do not include some plan for
preventing a too rapid increase of labourers. Population
has a tendency to increase, and has increased, faster than
capital; this is evidenced by the poor and miserable condi
tion of the great body of the people in most of the old
countries of the world, a condition which can only be
accounted for upon one of two suppositions, either that
there is a natural tendency in population to increase faster
than capital, or that capital has, by some means, been pre
vented from increasing as rapidly as it might have done. That
population has such a tendency to increase that, unchecked,
it would double itself in a small number of years—say
twenty-five—is a proposition which most writers of any
merit coneur in, and which may be easily proven. In some
instances, the increase has been even still more rapid. That
capital has not increased sufficiently is evident from the
existing state of society. But that it could increase under any
circumstances with the same rapidity as is possible to popu
lation, is denied. The increase of capital is retarded
by an obstacle which does not exist in the case of popu
lation. The augmentation of capital is painful. It can
only be effected by abstaining from immediate enjoyment.
In the case of augmentation of population precisely the
reverse obtains. There the temporary and immediate plea-,
sure is succeeded by the permanent pain. The only pos-i
�WHY DO MEN STAI1VE?
7
sible mode of raising wages permanently, and effectually
'benefitting the poor, is by so educating them that they shall
be conscious that their welfare depends upon the exercise of a
greater control over their passions.
In penning this brief paper, my desire has been to
provoke amongst the working classes a discussion and
careful examination of the teachings of political economy,
as propounded by Mr. J. S. Mill and those other
able men who, of late, have devoted themselves to ela
borating and popularising the doctrines enunciated by
Malthus. While I am glad to find that there are some
■amongst the masses who are inclined to preach and put in
practice the teachings of the Malthusian School of political
economists, I know that they are yet few in comparison
with the great body of the working classes who have been
taught to look upon the political economist as the poor
man’s foe. It is nevertheless amongst the working men
alone, and, in the very ranks of the starvers, that the effort
must be made to check starvation. The question is again
before us—How are men to be prevented from starving ?
Not by strikes, during the continuance of which food is
scarcer than before. No combinations of workmen can ob
tain high wages if the number of workers is too great. It
is not by a mere struggle of class against class that the poor
man’s ills can be cured. The working classes can alleviate
their own sufferings. They can, by co-operative schemes,
which have the advantage of being educational in their
operation, temporarily and partially remedy some of the
■evils, if not by increasing the means of subsistence, at
any rate by securing a larger portion of the result of
labour to the proper sustenance of the labourer. Systems
of associated industry are of immense benefit to the work
ing classes, not alone, or so much from the pecuniary
improvement they result in, but because they develop
in each individual a sense of dignity and independence,
which he lacks as a mere hired labourer. They can per
manently improve their condition by taking such steps as
�8
WHY DO MEN STARVE?
shall prevent too rapid an increase of their numbers, and,
by thus checking the supply of labourers, they will, as
capital augments, increase the rate of wages paid to the
labourer. The steady object of each working man should
be to impress on his fellow-worker the importance of this
subject. Let each point out to his neighbour not only the
frightful struggle in which a poor man must engage who
brings up a large family, but also that the result is to place
in the labour market more claimants for a share of the
fund which has hitherto been found insufficient to keep the
working classes from death by starvation.
The object of this pamphlet will be amply attained if it
serve as the means of inducing some of the working classes
to examine for themselves the teachings of Political Economy.
All that is at present needed is that labouring men and
women should be accustomed, both publicly and at home, to
the consideration and discussion of the views and principles
first openly propounded by Mr. Malthus, and since elaborated
by Mr. Mill and other writers. The mere investigation of
the subject will of itself serve to bring to the notice of the
masses many facts hitherto entirely ignored by them. All
must acknowledge the terrible ills resulting from poverty,
and all therefore are bound to use their faculties to discover
Ft’ possible its cause and cure. It is more than folly for the
working man to permit himself to be turned away from the
subject by the cry that the Political Economists have no
sympathy with the poor. If the allegation were true, which
it is not, it would only afford an additional reason why this
important science should find students amongst those who
most need aid from its teachings.
;
1
London: Austin & Co., Printers and Publishers, 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
Why do men starve?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4940
Subject
The topic of the resource
Social problems
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why do men starve?), 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
Poverty
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6159c0289d5cfec1aaa42ee72e04f892.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ue1kI-dxE3uuwsqvwMtipusoF2hxKyWDbfAf1QHdpk7rMPn0Z0dwQfSG6-hJP6V2%7EXVuSdc5ZLRxaV70cxPaD41SZVamljXcX4nlUcN-RLZ0a09XFhFSz6YmTpuAN0QHZRZiRGKBPX6eRMLdYJytHywv3WZFjn1zBCOrK8FR1sXKkjE3L1QoqHxVMjgbQv-iUWzDgwMknugvZYGu%7Ef2L7eTHIk2anheyuyKUneNvTdPQf7HxMSEJfZia2YHCwEsJ6jiml7IpdYifj8r%7El3y9itd5SUlmQ9apw713TNvCtfpNiXZt4-L3zJn-fx1e%7EOEUQ4QTwK-VasvGdDVwLN%7EvSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9bf4d3a448962ee8e698fe8de44078f3
PDF Text
Text
THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST:
A FARCE IN SEVERAL ACTS.
“Did it ever occur to you to read the Acts of the Apostles?”—Bishop
of Peterborough.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
The Bishop of Peterborough, preaching on March 3Qth, 1871, in the
Cathedral of Norwich to a very large congregation on “ Christianity and
Faith,” incidentally and with delightful simplicity asked his audience,
“ Did it ever occur to you to read the Acts of the Apostles ?” as one might
ask, “ Did you ever happen to look into the Koran ?” The Bishop evi
dently thinks that it is only by a rare chance that any lay Christians ever
open the Bible, in every word and letter of which they nevertheless most
fervently believe. I am not a Christian, either lay or clerical, and this
may account for the fact that it has occurred to me to read the Acts of the
Apostles; and I now lay before the Right Rev. Bishop, and the public
generally, the result of my reading. If the impression produced on my
mind by these remarkable stories is not what an orthodox Christian would
expect, this may be because I opened the book unprejudiced by religious
notions, and with the same desire for information as I should have in com
mencing to peruse any ordinary biographical or other narrative.
Who wrote the book called the Acts of the Apostles? It is unlikely
that it was the production of any of the four Evangelists, as in style it is
different from them all. It is in the shape of a letter addressed to one Theo
philus, but it seems doubtful whether this was the proper name of a real
personage, or was used only in the general sense of a “ lover or friend of
God,” according to the original meaning of the word. The first verse says
—-■“ The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus
began both to do and teach.” The present treatise is but a clumsy and
ungrammatical one, and is a feeble copy, in many places, of the records of
the doings of Jesus. There is no originality about it. Its author, who
ever he was, had evidently read some of the manuscripts, or more likely
was acquainted with the traditions, which afterwards became incorporated
in the collection called the New Testament. He appears to have been
tolerably familiar with one or other of the synoptical Gospels; or, at any
rate, with the materials used in them. He makes Peter and Paul accom
plish some feats very like those of Jesus; hence one is lead to believe that
there were two or three favourite tricks common to all the thaumaturgi, or
miracle-workers of those days; just as we see certain tricks performed alike
by all the conjurors who appear before the public in these times—such as
Frikell, Robin, Houdin, and Anderson.
These Acts of the Apostles are represented as commencing in the year
A.D. 33, that in which Christ was crucified; but when the book was really
written cannot be determined by the most erudite scholars—it may have
been one or two centuries after the occurrences narrated are said to have
happened. If we were judging of an ordinary book produced under such
�'2
The Apostles of Chriit.
circumstances, an allowance would naturally be made for any discrepancies
in the record; but when we have to deal with “ inspired penmen ” and
“ God’s holy word,” the case is very different. We are at once removed
from the sphere of human things, and called upon to receive all that is set
down without questioning, as infallible truth, the penalty of doubting
which is the destruction of our immortal souls. If the writer of the Acts
was inspired from heaven, it is to be regretted that he was not inspired to
write the truth. He commences with a blunder, if judged by the Four
Gospels which his book immediately succeeds. He says:—“The former
treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and
teach, until the day in which he was taken up.” And after mentioning
things which Christ said, he continues— “ And while the apostles looked
■tedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in
white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing
up into heaven? this same Jesus, Which is taken up from yoH into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Now,
nothing of the kind ever happened, and nothing of the kind was ever said;
it is a pure fabrication. And if a book, which purports to be a true his
tory, divinely inspired, of the doings of certain men who were the inheri
tors of the supernatural powers of the Saviour of the world, actually com
mences with a palpable untruth, how shall we be able to trust those state
ments which do not admit of corroboration by, or comparison with, other
parts of the Bible? Not that this kind of verification is of much value,
as the Bible itself can never be taken as the proof of its Own statements;
we must look elsewhere for independent testimony, and where is it to be
found? How can we obtain proof of the supernatural?
There were eleven apostles at the beginning of this book, who all “abode
in an upper room,” which, though a sign of high life, bespeaks great
poverty of means. Their names were: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip,
Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes,
and Judas, the brother of James; to whom was afterwards added (by lot
or by ballot, the text as usual being exceedingly vague) one Matthias, to
fill the place of Judas the betrayer, the man to whom the world owes its
salvation, as without his so-called treachery, there would have been no
crucifixion and no atonement. The first actor who enters upon the stage is
Peter, who is by no means “well-graced,” as he is not remarkable for his
veracity. It will be remembered that he once declared to Jesus that though
he should die with him, he would not deny him; yet immediately after,
when asked if he had not been with Jesus, who had just been arrested, he
cursed and swore that he knew not the man. In his first statement here,
speaking of Judas, he says: “Now this man purchased a field with the
reward of iniquity; and, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the
dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is calledintheir proper
tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.” This is not
true. Judas was not so loose a man as to crack his sides, for he went
and tied himself up with a rope, and hanged himself. One of the two
accounts must be incorrect, and from what we read of Peter, we feel pretty
sure that his should not be preferred. Judas could not well have died
both ways; if he did, it is difficult to decide which he could take first.
Neither did Judas purchase the field “ with the reward of iniquity,” but a
field was purchased with it by the high priests, for a cemetery in which to
bury strangers.
Chapter ii. opens with a strange story in language as strange. The
�The Apostles of Christ.
3
eleven apostles were all together in one place, but whether in Jerusalem is
uncertain. It is supposed to have been somewhere in the East; so that
if there happens to be any sceptic who wants definite information, it is to
be hoped be will be quite satisfied. “ And suddenly there came a sound
trom heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where
they were sitting.” Seeing that the winds generally come from heaven,
and sometimes make a rushing sound, there is nothing novel so far. But
as it is an ill wind that blows no one any good, the apostles soon found
that this breeze bore some good to them. “ And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance.’* What was it that sat upon the
apostles ? The cloven tongues or the fire ? It is impossible to determine
by the construction of the sentence. However, the apostles began to talk
in all sorts of strange languages, which very much puzzled the devout
Jews from every nation under heaven. But their discourses failed to have
any very striking effect, and certainly the gift of the Holy Ghost did not
count much in their favour, for after listening to them, some of their
auditors said, “ These men are full of new wine!” Peter rebutted this
accusation in a singular manner. He said, “ For these are not drunken,
as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” He did not
venture to say that these holy men of God, who were specially commis
sioned to preach the glad tidings of great joy to all the world, never got
intoxicated, but that it was absurd to suppose they were drunk so early
in the day! After this Peter makes a speech, very obscure and very
incoherent, about “ wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth
beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of strike.” And in the midst of
this vapouring, he said to his listeners, “ Repent, and be baptised every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But what benefit is there in
receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, if its manifestation is to make us
appear to be “ full of new wine ?” Surely this is no recommendation, or
advantage. But who or what is the Holy Ghost ? and how do persons
feel when possessed of or by that mysterious power, or person, or influence ?
Are they better in health, happier, or more moral ? Are they able to
themselves discover their new state, or do they require to be assured of it
by others? It is necessary to know what advantage this gift is to any
one before we can be attracted by Peter’s promise.
In this same address to the men of Israel,Peter speaks of his former friend,
Jesus of Nazareth, as a man “ being delivered by the determinate counsel
and fore-knowledge of God,” and in the same breath charges his hearers
with having “by wicked hands crucified and slain him.” But where is
the wickedness if it was (all done by the determinate counsel and fore
knowledge of God ? The wickedness, if possible, would have consisted in
refusing to carry out the determinate counsel and foreknowledge, thus
rebelling against the good God and baulking his whole scheme of redemption.
After Peter’s speech, about three thousand souls were added to his fol
lowers that same day. "With the slight drawback that “ fear came upon
every soul,” or, in other words, that every soul became superstitious, one
grand result was achieved for the time, which, if it was designed by
God, and ordained to be preached by his chosen messenger to the people,
should have endured and become the established order of society throughout
the Christian world. It is said, “ And all that believed were together,
and bad all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and
�4
The Apostles of Christ,
parted them to all men, as every man bad need.
And they, continuing
daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to
house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” If no
other result than this had followed the preaching of the apostles, mankind
would have had reason to bless their names. But who are farther away
from this perfect mode of life than Christians themselves ? Who have
been more virulent opponents of everything in the shape of Communism,
than the successors of the apostles ? Who was it that preached a doc
trine akin to this, and who laboured through a long and useful and
honourable life to realise it in practice, but the late Robert Owen ? And
who were more abused, traduced, and persecuted than he and his fol
lowers, by the very men who profess to regard this book of Acts as a Divine
revelation, sent as a guide to the world! What are the atoning blood of
the Lamb for the sins of Adam; the hope of a resurrection from the calm
sleep of death, to a life beyond the grave amid the blood, and thunder, and
“ all the menagerie of the book of Revelationcompared with the life of
bliss here., free from poverty and the crimes that inevitably follow in its
track, the life of true fraternity and equality, which we are told these
earliest Christians enjoyed; where competition and avarice, luxury and
beggary, arrogance and envy, were unknown ;
“ Where the many ceased their slavery to the few?”
But where do we now find more cheating, lying, knavery, greed, misery,
and starvation, than in this Christian land, where the hired priesthood, the
paid exponents of this Bible, which is thrust upon us by the State, set the
example of selfish clutching and hoarding of wealth 1 ('ur bishops receive
princely incomes, whilst the peasants around their palaces drag out a
wretched existence, which is not so much a life as a death-in-life.
Peter of course could work miracles like his late master, but they lack
originality, and are indeed so like others previously performed that we
cannot help suspecting that they are the same old wonders in a new dress.
One day as Peter and-John were going to the temple, they saw a man who
had been lame from his birth. Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, took
him by the hand and lifted him up, and the man was enabled to walk. The
people were astonished, but Peter told them not to wonder, as it was the
name of the Prince of life through faith in his name which had made this
man strong ; an explanation which must satisfy the most critical reader.
But this “ name through faith in his name” did not prevent both Peter
and John being seized for performing the miracle, and they were locked up
till next day.
Peter was a desperate man, as well as a miracle-worker. His anger
was sufficient to frighten some persons to death, as poor Ananias and
Sapphira proved. When the Christian converts were wont to sell all their
lands and possessions, and give the proceeds for distribution among the
brethren, one Ananias, like many modern believers, wished to be thought
generous at a small outlay; so instead of giving up all his wealth, he gave
only a portion, probably thinking that if the promised millennium should
not speedily arrive, it would be as well to have something to fall back
upon. At least we are told that he did keep back part, but how it became
known is not stated. Nobody appears to have informed Peter, yet he
knew all about it, for he at once said to Ananias, “ Why hast thou con
ceived this thing in thine heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto
God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the
ghost.” “ And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him
�The Apostles of Christ.
6
out and bnried him.'* Now this was a terrible rebuke, but we may attri
bute the mortal terror of Ananias to the weakness of his nerves. The
case however was very different with his wife Sapphira, who, ignorant of
the fate of her husband, on entering the place about three hours later,
was suddenly and fiercely assailed by the Apostle. He said— “ Tell me
whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt
the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy
husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down
straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men
came in, and found her dead, and carrying her forth, buried her by her
husband.”
While not for a moment wishing to palliate deception in any shape, one
cannot help remarking the severity of the punishment for the reticence of
Ananias and the falsehood of Sapphira. All deceivers are not equally
punished in the Bible. Take the lives of some of its favourite characters
to witness—Abraham deceived Pharaoh, saying that Sarah his wife was
only his sister, and God plagued not the deceiver, but the dupe. Abraham
deceived Abimelech, saying that Sarah his wife was only his sister, and
God threatened not the deceiver, but the deceived. Jacob cheated his
father and lied unto him, and thus obtained the blessing which waB meant
for his elder brother, and God ratified the blessing, and was always pleased
to call himself and to be called the God of Jacob. Even Sarah who lied
to the face of God was not punished; and Peter, who thus condemned
Ananias and Sapphira, had lied three times, denying that he knew his own
dear Lord and master ; yet that same Lord and master afterwards trusted
him to feed his lambs and his sheep. It is true that the crime involved in
the deception of Ananias and Sapphira was of the most deadly nature—
they did not give enough money to the church; and this crime is punished
with pains and penalties even now I A few years ago a widow’s two sons
were shot down at Kathcormack in Ireland for refusing to pay tithes. Can
it be wondered at, that such deeds should make some doubt of the
humanising tendency of the glad tidings of the blessed Gospel ?
These things becoming noised abroad, the authorities put Peter and
John in the common prison. “ But the angel of the Lord by night opened
the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak
in the temple to the people all the words of this lifeand they did so.
This was an act of rebellion on the part of these escaped prisoners, which
ought to have met with the severest condemnation, but it did not; on the
contrary, it was approved of. Are we not told that the powers that be are
ordained of God ? yet here is the Lord himself breaking the peace, opening
prison doors, defying the authority of the very rulers he had ordained. But
one soon learns not to be astonished at anything in the Bible. The
priests were much incensed, and took counsel together to slay the apostles.
But one Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, exhorted them to let the delinquents
go vnvtouGlted. This they agreed to, but in the drollest way imaginable.
Listen to the passage. “ And to him they agreed: and when they had
called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should
not speak in the name of J esus, and let them go.” This striking proof of
their acquiescence was feelingly acknowledged by Peter and his friend,
and they went away rejoicing. This mode of treating Peter and John
may be likened unto a judge who should say, “ Prisoners at the bar, you
are acquitted, therefore I sentence you to twelvemonths’ hard labour?”
One Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost, was appointed by
�6
The Apostles of Christ.
the twelve apostles a deacon, but his career was short and painful. He
was able to do ‘‘great wonders and miracles among the people,” and
being clever at disputation, he naturally raised up enemies to his preach
ing. The same thing happens in these days. There is no Freethought
advocate now who defeats his opponents in fair argument, but is denied by
large numbers of Christians the possession of honour and honesty, and not
a few clamour to have him silenced by means more material than reason
and rhetoric. Stephen is accused of blasphemy, for he spoke against the
fashionable religion of his time, and the admirers of Stephen in these days
raise the same cry against all who disbelieve what he taught.
Stephen
delivered a long defence, and ended by calling his accusers uncircumcised
murderers. “ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart,
and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But be, being full of the Holy
Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and
Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” If Stephen did see so far, he
must have been blessed with wonderful powers of vision. When he an
nounced what he saw, his hearers could restrain themselves no longer, but
at once fell upon him, and stoned him to death. His assailants, probably
to be more free in their actions, “ laid down their clothes at a young man’s
feet, whose name was Saul,” and he was a consenting party to the brutal
and fanatical murder. This man was afterwards known as the apostle
Paul, who to some extent realised the saying, “ The greater the rascal,
the greater the saint,” and his first appearance on the Christian stage, it
must be admitted, was in a most unpromising character.
Peter went to Joppa, and there raised up from the dead Tabitha, who
was called Dorcas for her good deeds.
She appears to have been really
dead, but on Peter taking her by the hand and calling her, she rose
up. Jesus, when he raised Jairus’ daughter, declared that she was not
dead, but only slept; so that Peter’s feat far excelled that of his master.
This proves that a man need not have a miraculous birth to be able to
raise people from the dead, and throws a doubt upon the value of divinity.
Peter, a saint with as few virtues and as many vices as any mortal was
ever blessed with, was altogether an extraordinary man; very valiant and
yet a coward; an ardent disciple yet a renegade. He cut off a soldier’s
ear when they arrested Jesus, yet was afraid of being himself arrested;
by his frown and rebuke he frightened poor Ananias and Sapphira to death;
and his shadow only, as it alighted on the sick, straightway healed them.
Cornelius the centurion, who had been fasting four days, had a vision,
as most hungry men will have, for an empty stomach maketh a light head;
and in this vision an angel of God appeared to him, and told him to send
for Peter to Caesarea. This he did, and his three messengers reached
Peter’s house about the sixth hour on the following day, just as Peter had
gone on to the house top to pray. Zfe there became so hungry that he
fell into a trance (or fainted), and like St. John he saw heaven opened,
when a most curious sight presented itself. He saw “ a certain vessel
descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and letdown to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts
of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him saying, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Now
Peter was a dainty man, and this dish was not dainty enough to tempt
him, hungry as he was. He said, “Not so, lord; for I have never eaten
anything that is common or unclean.” So the vessel was drawn up into
heaven again, with all its strange inhabitants. It was a cruel thing to do,
*9 mock a poor, weak, hungry man so. He had just fainted fromexhaua-
�The Apostles of Christ.
7
tion, and he was invited to kill and eat a tiger, it might be, or a grisly
bear; bat he could not bear the idea, so he refused. On being aroused
from his trance, and told by the Spirit to go down and receive the three
messengers from Cornelius, he did so, and went with them to the house of
the centurion, though Cornelius was not a Jew. Peter interpreted the
vision to be an intimation that he was to preach the Gospel to the Gen
tiles, who were typified by the unclean beasts in the vessel—a doubtful
compliment, truly, to all not of the Jewish race; that is to say, to all
mankind except a most insignificant minority.
About this time Herod began to persecute the faithful, and he killed
James with the sword, and had Peter arrested. But whilst Peter was
lying in prison between two soldiers, bound with two chains, the angel of
the Lord came and released him as easily as the spirits release the Daven
port brothers. Peter thought he must still be in a dream, although he
had already been delivered from gaol in much the same manner ; but on
finding himself in the street alone, he no longer doubted the reality of his
release. He made good his escape to another place, much to the annoy
ance of Herod, who was shortly afterwards eaten of worms, and gave up
the ghost. Thenceforward we hear but once more of Peter in the Acts of
the Apostles. He perhaps was soon promoted to that situation, which he
has held so long, of gate-keeper in heaven.
Philip goes down to Samaria to preach, and he too works miracles,
which attract the attention of the people. “ For unclean spirits, crying
with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and
many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.” Philip is
not original, for Christ did the same thing, and sent his evil spirits into
the swine, much to the dismay of the poor pigs. One Simon a sorcerer
fell before th6 prowess of Philip, and was afterwards baptised and believed
in Jesus Christ, and beheld with astonishment the miracles and signs
which were done, they far outstripping any witchery he had been capable
of in his humble way.
An angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, and told him to go to Gaza,
and he went. He there met with an Ethiopian, a man in high authority
under Queen Candace. The Ethiopian was sitting in bis chariot, and
reading Esaias the prophet. Philip’s companion, the spirit, told him to go
near and join himself to the chariot. He then ran after it, and asked the
Ethiopian whether he understood what he was reading. He answered, how
can I, unless some man should guide me ? And he desired Philip to come
up and sit with him. The passage he was reading was this—“He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
so opened be not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken
away; and who shall declare bis generation ? for his life is taken from the
earth.” Something like this is to be found in Isaiah liii., 7 and 8, and
is said to have been written 1746 years before; and though more than
1800 years bare elapsed since, we are still in Ethiopian darkness as to its
meaning. Philip evidently did not know, for he began topreach Jesus to him.
Neither did the spirit seem to know, for he said nothing. But the preach
ing had wonderful effect. As they went on their way, they came to some
water, when the Ethiopian said, “ See, here is. water ; what doth hinder
me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God.” Here is an instance of conversion almost with tebw
graphic speed. This man, who had never before heard of Jesus, and the
mysteries of the incarnation, the crucifixion, and resurrection, at once de
�8
The Apostles of Christ.
dares his belief, and is baptised. No other question is asked than “ Do
you believe ?” and straightway he is received among the elect. He is not
told to take time to ponder over these things, and to show by his conduct
that he is sincere in his new belief; he is received at once, without any
more hesitation than is shown in regard to any criminal who is about to be
sent on the unknown journey from Newgate, and who, no matter what
his life has been, and the crime that has caused its forfeiture, if he only
call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, is assured of a blissful resurrection
to eternal life. This is indeed cheap salvation—so cheap that it is not
•worth having. After they came out of the water, Philip’s companion,
the spirit, flew away with him, and the Ethiopian saw him no more, but
went on his way rejoicing; whether at Philip's disappearance, or at the
pleasurable sensations of the bath he had just taken, is not specified.
Though the spirit flew away with Philip, it did not take him up to heaven.
He “ was found at Azotus, and passing through he preached in all the
cities till he came to Caesarea.” Here we lose sight of him altogether, so
far as this book of the Acts of the Apostles is concerned.
We now come to Saul, alias Paul, the tentmaker ofTarsus, who, though
brought up to a trade, is supposed by some writers to have been a man of
education and social position. He commenced by being an unrelenting
persecutor of the new sect, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against
the disciples of the Lord, and ended by being a devout believer. His
conversion, like most of the events related in this book, was miraculous.
While on his way to Damascus, seeking victims to persecute, he was sud
denly surrounded by a light from heaven, which was not very extraordi
nary, as it happened to be in the daytime. ** He fell to the earth, and
heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And
he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest.” Let us analyse the incidents of this event. Saul was a
wicked man, and yet he no sooner heard a voice, than he knew it to be
the voice of the Lord; from which we may infer that he was on very
familiar terms with him. And then, he not only knew the Lord, but
asked the Lord who he was; and the Lord answered that he was somebody
else. It can only be likened to a conversation between two friends on
their suddenly meeting, to this effect—“ John, who are you?” And John
answers, “ I am Joseph.” Saul trembled very much and was astonished.
He asked what he was to do; and he was requested to go into the city and
there he would be told. This conversation bad been carried on while Saul
was on the ground with his face downwards, which was a most undignified
way of talking to any one; but it was a habit indulged in by one Daniel nearly
600 years before. He was then led into Damascus totally blind, where he
remained three days without food or sight. It is difficult to understand
why a man should be made blind to enable him to see the truth of the
divinity of Christ, and why he should be starved tor three days to enable
him to digest the mysteries of the incamatioo. After Paul had taken
something really substantial, he was strengthened, and became a great
preacher. The Jews were not pleased with this apostacy, so they lay in
wait to kill him as he passed out of the gates. The disciples hearing of
this, took Paul by night and let him down by the wall in a basket, and so
he made bis escape to Jerusalem. Why there was not a miraculous deliver
ance here is inexplicable. The spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,
wbo was a much less important man than Paul; and Peter, who was any
thing but an amiable creature, was twice delivered from prison by an angel.
Sehamyl, the late hero of Circassia, who was called a prophet by his people,
�The Apostles of Christ.
9
on one occasion made his escape from a fortress in precisely the same
way as Paul from Damascus, and showed his sense in trusting to the good
offices of the basket, instead of praying for deliverance, for mere prayer
would have been sure to leave him in the hands of the Russians.
Paul in the company of Barnabas, works miracles, and the first recorded
of him is exactly the same as one wrought by Peter. He saw a man who
had been lame from his birth; gazed stedfastly at him, and the man rose
and leaped and walked. After this Paul was stoned and dragged out of
the city, and left for dead; but he naturally rose up, and went again into
the city, and left the next day as sound as ever. Soon a quarrel broke out
between Paul and Barnabas, which was so sharp that they had to separate.
Then Paul and Silas went together, and one day they were met by a young
damsel, who was a sorceress, and who earned much money for her
employers. She seems to have jeered at Paul, and vexed his Christian
temper; so he turned and said to the spirit—“ I command thee in the name
of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” Of
course the damsel lost her bewitching power, and her employers lost the
income derived through her, which made them so angry that they procured
the arrest of Paul and Silas, who, after being stripped and scourged, were
cast into prison and their feet put into the stocks. “ And at midnight Paul
and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the
prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every
one’s bands were loosed.” Now all this noise and manifestation of heavenly
power was for nothing, for not a prisoner escaped. It is true that the
keeper was alarmed when he saw that the doors were opened, though it
was dark. He called for a light, and sprang into the inner prison, and came
trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas. He then brought them
out, and said—‘ ‘ Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?” The two prisoners
were not at all surprised at the abruptness of the question, but told him
“ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house.” Then followed another conversion swift as lightning. “And
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes: and
was baptised, he and all his, straightway.” What can be the good of
baptism under such circumstances ? or of what value is a profession of
faith wrung from a man in fear and trembling ? Nearly all the instances
of conversion given in the Bible, are brought about after the persons have
had their judgments humiliated, and their nerves shocked. A faith that
wins its way by such means is not a manly or reasonable faith; is unworthy
the acceptance of the vigorous intellect and the self-reliant judgment.
Paul preached on Mar’s Hill at Athens, and said to the Athenians—
“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too supersti
tious. For as 1 passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar
with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” Now, in what respect does
Paul’s Deity differ from that of the Athenians ? Is God known more now
than he was in days of old ? Is he not still the unknown God ? Has
any man penetrated the secret? Can any man give an intelligent,
a coherent description of the being he pretends to worship ? The Chris
tian superstition differs from the heathen, but it is a superstition. As
mankind advance in knowledge, and still farther penetrate the mysteries
of nature, and learn the laws around them, their ideas become expanded,
and occurrences which, in their ignorance, they attributed to supernatural
agency, and to the workings of good and evil spirits, they now find pro
�10
The Apostles of Christ.
ceed from purely natural causes. In the dark ages of ignorance and
superstition, God or the Devil was ever present at a man’s side; but now,
with increased mental light, both God and Devil are fading farther and
farther away, and they will ultimately vanish from the human mind, and
man will be left face to face with the nature which he knows, which
ministers to his every want, and at last like a loving mother folds him to,
her gentle bosom as he falls into his everlasting sleep.
Paul went to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, “he said unto them,
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto
him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”
This surprised him much, so he rebaptised them all, and laid his hands
upon them, and' the Holy Ghost descended at once, and they spake
with tongues, and prophesied. We are to suppose that these disciples
understood what the Holy Ghost meant after that; and if so, it is a pity
they did not leave some information behind them, which would have en
lightened all succeeding generations. The mystery of the Holy Ghost
is still as profound as ever. W hat it is no mortal can tell, whether a
spirit or an influence, or both. After this act of animal magnetism per
formed on twelve disciples, Paul “ went into the synagogue, and spake
boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things
concerning the kingdom of God.” This may with confidence be pronounced
the longest speech on record. What a valuable party man Paul would
have made in our House of Commons. He would have been without a
rival as a “ talker against time ” when some obnoxious measure had to be
got rid of. If later on a discourse of Paul’s, of only a few hours’ duration,
brought one person to an untimely end, what must have been the fate of
the listeners in this synagogue ? Probably not a man was left alive at
the conclusion of the sermon 1
Any one attempting to infringe Paul’s patent for working miracles
speedily came to grief. “ Certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took
upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord
Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there
were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know;
but who are ye ? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on
them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled
out of that house naked and wounded.” What the evil spirit said must
be taken as a great compliment to the exorcists, for while be declared his
perfect knowledge of Jesus and Paul, he was totally ignorant of the vaga
bond Jews. If we are to judge of a man by the company he keeps, what
are we to think after this declaration ? And the intimacy between the
Devil and the Christians has been maintained from that day to this.
They first introduced him into the world, he still remains the special pet
and property of the followers of the carpenter of Nazareth, and they alone
are entitled to any credit accruing from the acquaintanceship.
When Paul reached Troas he preached to his disciples an uncomfortably
long sermon, lasting to midnight,
One young man, named Eutychus,
could not for the life of him keep his eyes open any longer ; so like many
a modern churchgoer, he fell asleep. But the unlucky wight forgot that
he was sitting in a window, so “as Paul was long preaching, he sunk
down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up
dead.” But as the preacher had caused the mischief, so he repaired it. “ He
fell upon the young man, and restored him to life again,” which was a
very clever feat indeed, seeing that he was not dead at all.
�The Apostles of Christ.
11
Paul went to Jerusalem, and preached there more boldly than ever, and
all the city was moved, and the people ran together and sought to kill
him ; but the chief captain with soldiers and centurions saved him from
the tumult, and took him in chains to the castle. Panl, when before the
Council, got struck in the mouth for saying what was unpleasant to the
high priest, but when he learnt that the Council itself was composed
of men of different religious beliefs, he threw a burning brand into their
midst, which set them almost tearing one another, like our good church
men at their meetings. The Pharisees strove with the Sadducees, and
there arose snch a fierce dissension that the chief captain feared that Paul
would be pulled to pieces among them, and sent soldiers to take him away
by force and lodge him in the castle again. And the night following
the Lord stood by him, and said, “ Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou
hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Borne.”
In all previous instances of heavenly interference, it has been accom
plished by the agency of the spirit of the Lord, or an angel of the Lord ;
but here Paul is comforted by the Lord himself. If the Lord, the very
God of very God, were only to come down in these days, and prompt and
empower some specially chosen servants to do certain much-needed work,
what mighty things might be accomplished!
Enthusiasts do assert
occasionally that they are chosen vessels, but they can never convince
the Commissioners in Lunacy of the truth of their assertions.. Is there
not as much need now as there ever was for miraculous interferences, if
such can take place ? We are daily performing miracles of science^ but
they have their limits as well as their difficulties. The world would
receive with gratitude the power of raising from the dead some of the
great and good men who are prematurely stricken down.
We are
constantly losing men and women of great intellect and virtue, the
prolongation of whose lives would be of service to humanity; but there
is no one gifted with the power to restore them, to animation, and the
scene of their uncompleted labours.
Paul was a brave and candid man, very earnest in all things he took
in hand, from the slaughter of the Christians up to the defence of the n.
When brought before Felix, the only charge against him was that of
preaching the resurrection of the dead; and he said, “But this I confess
unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God
of my fathers.” Paul commenced as a persecutor, and ended in being
persecuted.
He attacked the heretics, and afterwards gloried in being
one. It was in the days of Paul, as it is in these days, an offence to
differ from the established religion. But though heresy may be shunned,
and the heretic be persecuted, and lose his social position, and suffer all
the annoyance of having to live on the shady side of society ; still all this
does not prove that the Established Religion is right, that it is the only
true guide to salvation. The only way to salvation and the highest hap
piness is the path of progress, which leads to truth and right, and these are
not bound up with any particular creed or dogma, but are attainable by
every member of the human family, if he but diligently prosecute the
inquiry.
Paul was handed over by Felix to Festus, his successor, who was sur
prised to find that his accusers had nothing against him of the nature of
sedition: “ But had certain questions against him of their own supersti
tion., and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
And here we find ourselves disputing about the same thing eighteen hun
dred years after. It is true that there are now more persons who believe,
�12
The Apostles of Christ.
ot fancy they believe, in the dogma, but this is no proof of its truth; it
is at most belief, and nothing more. But why is there more dispute
about the existence of Jesus, than about that of Socrates, or Plato, or
Julius Cffisar, all of whom lived before him? Simply from the fact that
Jesus, the man, is taken out of the sphere of humanity, and placed where
no man can comprehend him; and where his sayings and doings, instead
of confirming the idea of his Godhead, only serve to make him look ridi
culous. It really does not concern humanity who said this, or who did
that; all that we care to know is, was the saying true, was the deed useful ?
Paul was brought by Festus before King Agrippa, and their meeting
was altogether a very pleasant one, notwithstanding that Paul was bound.
He gave a third version of how he came to be converted by the vision of
Jesus on his way to Damascus. Judas died two different deaths, and Paul
was converted in three different ways. And while he was describing how
Christ should suffer, and be the first that should be raised from the dead,
Festus, regarding this as the veriest raving, “ said with a lond voice,
Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.”
Paul answered boldly and without hesitation, “I am not mad, most
noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For
the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely:
for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for
this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the
prophets? I know that thou believest.” Agrippa answered, with a smile
on his face, we can imagine, at Paul’s earnest effrontery, and said:
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Paul, in the same vein,
answered, “ I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me
this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am—except these
bonds I" The king was so pleased with this answer, that he agreed with
Festus, “ This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds,” and said,
“ This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto
Casar.” Paul, with other prisoners, was then shipped off to Italy, to
take his trial at Borne; and while the ship was on its way, he endeavoured
to persuade the captain not to put out to sea from a port they had called
at, owing to the lateness of the season, and the state of the weather, for if
he did they would get wrecked. This showed Paul’s knowledge, but not
his miraculous power; for the late Admiral Fitzroy was as highly favoured
as the Apostle, and daily kept the sailors on our coasts fully informed as
to whether it was safe for them to venture out in their little barks in pur
suit of miraculous draughts of fish. Well, as Paul had foretold, the
wreck came ; and while it was imminent, the sailors despaired, and fasted,
and took nothing for fourteen days, and got very low spirited; but Paul,
like a brave-hearted and sensible man, seeing the ship driving on to the
shore, told the men to be of good cheer, that they would all be saved, and
he persuaded them to eat that they might have strength to save themselves
by swimming. In the night, when they cast anchor, to keep the ship off
the rocks, Paul saw the sailors in the boat, about to make their escape,
and leave the others to save themselves as best they could. Paul said to
the centurion and the soldiers, “ Unless these men remain, yon cannot be
saved.” Of course, he saw that it was necessary to have sailors in order
to work the ship. To see this needed no miraculous gift of sight, and it
only showed his good sense in taking every secular precaution to avoid a
watery grave. However, as many a ship has done since, in spite of every
effort, their vessel went to pieces on the rocks, but all were saved by the
most natural means possible. “ The centurion commanded that they which
�The Apostles of Christ.
13
cenld swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land: and
the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so
it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land.” Now if it was part
of the divine plan that Paul should be saved at all costs, that he might
preach the Gospel in Rome, how simple it would have been for the angel
of the Lord to have whisked him off, as the spirit did Philip, and have
set him down in the capital of the seven hills, without all this long and
tedious process of a sea-voyage and a shipwreck. It makes Paul’s life a
little more picturesque, but it does not in the slightest degree enhance our
estimation of his spiritual powers, or prove the truth of one tittle of his
new creed. W hen they got to land they found themselves on the island
of Melita, and were received with great kindness by the inhabitants, whom
the narrator terms barbarians. A fire was kindled, and Paul gathered a
bundle of sticks and laid them on it, when out of the heat a viper crawled
and fastened on his hand. The people when they saw this, said among
themseWes, “ No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath
escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.” This was no great
compliment to the heaven-sent messenger of the Gospel. But it only shows
how people may be deceived by appearances; for have we not had amongst
us men who have appeared as angels of light till they were found out;
whose conduct proved that they were more fitted for the hulks than the
pulpit ? However, the viper did not sting Paul sufficiently to cause him
to swell, or suddenly fall down dead; whereat the people changed their
minds, and said that he was a God. Which showed that they were again
mistaken. After this Paul, to show his power, healed the father of
Publius, the chief man of the island, of precisely the same disease that
Christ healed in a woman. The people of Melita appear to have been
peculiar in their bodily conformation, for the text goes on to say, “ So
when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island,
came, and were healed.” This is a part of the human frame that must be
unknown to modern physiologists, as it is never mentioned in books on
anatomy. Perhaps, like the modes of cure adopted by Jesus and his
apostles, it has become obsolete. Paul then went to Rome, but was never
brought to trial. “ He dwelt two whole years in his own hired house,
preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern
the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” But
Paul was not quite free from the usual overbearing and uncharitable
nature of the Christian.
When he called the Jews, his brethren,
together in Rome, he preached as usual to them from morning until
evening, when some believed, and some, did not, which is a very com
mon case in the propagation of new views. But “when they agreed
not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word,
Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this
people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes
have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I
should heal them.” He was evidently disappointed, like all enthusiasts,
that he could not make all people see as he saw, at the first time of asking.
Here closes the book of Acts, but what became of Peter, and Philip, and
Paul, is not recorded. How long they lived, and where they died, or if
they died at all, we know not. They were not ordinary men, and there
fore we must not expect an ordinary biography of them. Hew few of the
�14
The Apostles of Christ.
doings of the twelve Apostles have been deemed worthy of record! Only
three out of twelve did anything of note according to this book, and* the
greatest of the three was not added to their number till years after the
death of the master. All they did was of a miraculous nature, intended to
astonish and overawe the judgment of their listeners; at least so it is
represented. But of what value is all this in these days? Who that
makes reason his guide and nature his standard, is influenced by such
exhibitions? A moral truth that cannot be enforced without the aid of
startling effects, is not likely to be universally or even generally received^
Truth wins its way silently and surely, and makes the greatest progress
when taught in the most simple manner. If men want the marvellous
now, they can have it in abundance without the aid of supernatural power.
Nature furnishes marvels enough, far transcending any of the reputed
miracles of the Bible.
The foregoing remarks by no means exhaust all the points worthy of
comment in this most extraordinary narrative—or rather series <4 narra
tives, for it is improbable that one relator could have been an eye-witness
of all the acts said to have been performed by the apostles on so many
different stages, I contend that the said remarks are not unnecessarily
severe, or characterised by a levity calculated to wantonly outrage the
feelings of believers. Whatever partakes of the ludicrous in these pages
is provoked solely by the wording of the text. And why should an ab
surdity, in whatever form it may present itself, escape the shafts of the
satirist ? Folly is folly the world over; and quite as many abuses have
been “ put down ” by the wholesome application of ridicule as were ever
preached out of existence by the sententious utterances of the pulpit. The
word “ farce,” employed in the beading to this paper, may seem to some
readers harsh, and therefore need a justification. I would not knowingly
use any word that I could not reconcile to my own mind; I therefore pro
ceed, by giving a summary of the argument, to endeavour to justify the
use of a phrase which may never have struck the ordinary reader as
applicable to any Book of the New Testament. The Bible is so continu
ously read through the green spectacles of faith, that the orthodox
believer is astounded and alarmed when assured that the book is simply
black and white, and not of the tint his coloured medium imparts to it.
It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a volume that
claims to have supernatural advantages over every other book in the
world; that its writers were specially inspired; that every word, letter,
and point is in its right place; and that implicit belief in its contents is
absolutely necessary to salvation. A book endowed with all these advan
tages should not only be easily understood, but it should be so worded
that it can by no possibility be misunderstood. Its contents should
appeal to every judgment alike. But does it? If so, how is it that
there are hundreds and hundreds of differing sects in the Christian world ?
I read the Bible as I would any other book, and I cannot, spite of the
most strenuous efforts on my part., see in it, as a whole, the sublimity the
orthodox sects pretend they see there. In the reputed sayings and doings
of Jesus I perceive the most ludicrous elements; and these Acts of the
Apostles, which are so largely made up of the miraculous, and which are
intended to overawe the judgment of mankind, if viewed in the light of
modem intelligence, are farcical from beginning to end.
The book commences with the statement of an alleged fact totally
different from any of the previous accounts, though the reader is led to
suppose that it is penned by the writer of one of the Gospels. This at
�'Hie Apostles of Christ.
15
once destroys its claim to infallibility, and reduces it to the level of an
ordinary human production, and justifies any criticism which may be
brought to bear upon it. Peter, “ an unlearned and ignorant man,”
makes a blundering statement about the death of Judas, as might be ex
pected of him; and he relates several other matters during his career
which may be equally erroneous. We have it upon this man’s authority
that “ God had sworn with an oath ” to David, “ that of the fruit of his
loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”
Christ never sat upon the throne of David, and Peter’s word is utterly
untrustworthy.
The very first display made by the apostles, after the cloven tongues, or
fire, or something, had “sat upon them,” was so impressive, that their
listeners mistook the outpourings of the Holy Ghost for a manifestation of
drunkenness! An anti-climax, truly, not worthy of the highest order of
poetry.
The one bright spot in all this book is the description of the comma*
nistic life led by the apostles at a certain period, but this is marred by the
brutal incident relating to the treatment of Ananias and Sapphira, though
one cannot help smiling at the matter-of-fact way in which the young
men wind up the bodies, and bury them side by side. Peter and John, as
ringleaders in the murder, were put in prison; but locks, bolts, and bars,
though they did not fly asunder, were unable to hold them in durance vile,
for the angel of the Lord at night set them free. Notwithstanding this
display of heavenly power on their behalf, both Peter and John are again
taken, and get well beaten before they are allowed to go. If it was neces
sary to release them from prison to show that God approved of the murder
of Ananias and Sapphira, why were the apostles beaten? This is as
amusing as the way in which the authorities acquiesced in the suggestion
of Gamaliel.
Peter’s raising of Tabitha from the dead raises one or two pertinent
questions. Do persons raised from the dead ever die again ? One wonders
how they can have the conscience to depart this life a second time. Peter,
an ignorant, unlettered fisherman, is represented as possessing the power
of recalling the spirit from its flight to the judgment seat, of keeping the
court of Heaven waiting, and of causing a person to go through the agony of
two deaths and two resurrections. Does any Christian ever reflect upon the
disarrangement of the Divine economy which must ensue from the per
formance of such a miracle as this ?
The kind of vision that appeared to Peter in his hungry trance, if told
of Mahomet, or of Joseph Smith the Mormon, would be made the laughing
stock of the Christi',n world. Here we have a foreshadowing of the
heaven of St. John, as depicted in the Book of Revelation, where all sorts
of beasts and strange animals are kept, and which are put into a vessel
made of a sheet, and let down from above as a meal for a man of delicate
appetite. The ropes that held the vessel at the four corners, must have
been of enormous length and very tough, like the “yarn ” itself. Peter
is the most extraordinary man of all the apostles, for though the voice of
God entreated him three times to partake of the not dainty dish set before
him, he flatly refused, and yet was allowed to live. After this who can
say that disobedience to the will of God is a deadly sin?
Herod is represented as being smitten by the Lord and brought to a
speedy end, not for any fault of his own, but because “ the people gave a
shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.” We fail to see
the retributive justice here. But we have net much sympathy for a king
�16
The Apostles of Christ.
who could keep a chamberlain with the ominous name of Blastns! He
could not expect to flourish long with such an individual as chief of his
household.
Philip’s proceedings are very similar to those of his fellow apostles; they
are all miraculous. He is on the most intimate terms with the angel of
the Lord, who prompts him what to do, and who is so obliging as to carry
him from one place to another free of charge, and in a carriage not made
with hands. This is the cheapest mode of locomotion yet invented. Do
Christians wish us to believe that angels and devils wandered about the
land of Judea as freely as sheep and goats do now? And if the Lord and
his Angels and Spirits were then on the earth interfering with and in
fluencing the actions of true believers, why are they not doing so now,
and in countries where the faithful most do congregate ? God’s chosen
ones need guidance quite as much in the nineteenth century as in the
first. And the most friendly earthquakes are always at hand to shake the
masonry of houses and prisons and frighten the inmates, that speedy con
versions may ensue. The assertion that such events happened in order
that one particular dogmatic religion might be promoted over all others, is
sufficient to shake the faith of any rational man in the truth of the whole
narrative. If Christianity were to be now propagated by means of
earthquakes, it would speedily be put down as a shocking nuisance. But
why is it not so propagated ? We are told, because “ the age of miracles
is past ”—yes, past all comprehension 1
St. Paul has done more for the spread of Christianity than Christ
himself, yet he is first introduced with very doubtfal credentials. Several
persons are mentioned in this book of Acts who meet with shameful treat
ment, who did not a tithe of the harm wrought by Paul. But that is
strictly in accordance with divine justice! Paul himself was deceived by
a false promise in a very glaring instance. In chapter xviii. 10, the Lord,
after urging him to keep on with his preaching, distinctly says, “For I am
with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much
people in this city.” But Paul must have been very much astonished at
the way in which this promise was fulfilled, for after this he is beaten by
a rabble, he runs great risk of being torn to pieces, he is struck in the
mouth, he is put in prison, he is sent in chains on a dangerous sea voyage,
he is shipwrecked, haying been consigned to the tender mercies of sailors
who took nothing to eat for jov/rteen days, he is bitten by a viper, and
he ends his career in this book of Acts in anything but an amiable temper,
his mission to the Jews having completely broken down. This protection
may have been intended to apply only to the city of Corinth in which
Paul was at the time it was promised, and that the Lord did not intend to
depend upon his own power, but on that of his friends who were numerous
there; but if so, it is a mystery why the Lord should not have wished to
protect so valuable a servant as Paul was against all trouble and suffering
everywhere. But the ways of the Lord are past finding out.
If the Acts of the Apostles is not a farce, it certainly lacks the gran
deur of a tragedy; perhaps it may be designated a Comedy of Errors.
PBICE TWOPENCE.
Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet
Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The apostles of Christ: a farce in several acts
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4953
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Jesus Christ
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The apostles of Christ: a farce in several acts), 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
Bible (N.T.)-Acts of the Apostles