2
10
90
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e85f0a472446c28db72a7e0257908241.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YLUXG7vPaCNLhIdP%7EmMy6l3WvHd3fmmNhXNWOG4EHJdP9I2xacAlvxZMwEOMj8z-Cv-0Ojg0IVHceFFQLrdiBrXXhmNcIWpzc7DbkKb2yS11pjUVm6f4OCoiPbEYe6ifvfv-9PqaoXqnD-kK5648oi5lrhsK5WkPkBlklxkJ7L82MmXCfJkzNQImQFJXLcU9dmgncbXSw9Ifig5OchbUGdm%7E3UxFhH9iLE%7Ec072FDgm7INp6Oz57EETgHgEs4XqcA1m0rMwqimjW5j%7E6peoNzkDB-d5%7Eo0ubETpsAfNmpZLwgZ6zfuJDcv4C0%7EXclc-yJAPXBQxY-MJbwp2g9%7E82Wg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fff2d515f30774742a853ce04b561697
PDF Text
Text
£23 36
I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHRISTIANITY
AND
'
SLAVERY.
BY
JOSEPH
SYMES.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 0.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�“ Slave-owners are worthy of all honor.”—Paul.
Slavery—“ That execrable sum of all villainies.”—John Wesley.
“ Slavery is no evil, and is consistent with the principles of revealed
religion; all opposition to it arises from fiendish fanaticism.”—Rev.
J. Thornwell, Wesleyan (Tract 19, “500,000 Strokes for Freedom”)
“Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, should be slaveholders ; yes
—I repeat it boldly—there should be members, and deacons, and
elders, and bishops, too, who were slaveholders.”—Rev. W. Winans,
Wesleyan (Ibid).
“If by one prayer I could liberate every slave in the world, I would
not offer it.'’—Gardner Spring, D.D. (Ibid).
“ In ancient Mexico no one could be born a slave.”—Bancroft’s
“ Native Races of Pacific States,” Vol. II., 221.
�CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY.
Christians—even some who ought to know better—are
very angry with me because I hold and declare that Chris
tianity favors slavery. Instead of waxing wrath will they
do their best to refute my opinion ? And, that they may
have the best of opportunities to do so, I subjoin the evi
dence on which that opinion is grounded.
1. Abraham, the friend of God, had slaves “ born in his
house,” and “boughtwith his money” (Genesis xvii., 12,13).
And it is evident that he claimed and exercised the right to
do as he pleased with them, for when he submitted to the
barbarous rite of circumcision, the slaves were subjected to
the same. Hagar, too, was evidently a slave, at the entire
disposal of her master and mistress.
Now, since Abraham was God’s friend, had God con
sidered slavery a wrong, he would, I presume, have men
tioned it to the Patriarch. And as Jesus, according to
orthodoxy, was living at that time, and as much Abra
ham’s friend as his Father, he, too, tacitly approved of
Abraham’s slavery. It is useless to plead that this slavery
was not so bad as that of America ; for you cannot prove
that—it may have been worse. The case of Hagar shows
what sort of slavery it was. And a man who could, with
impunity, sacrifice his only son (as Abraham almost sacri
ficed Isaac) was hardly the man to value the life of a slave,
except commercially.
2. By the law of Moses, divinely inspired, be it remem
bered, a man might sell his own daughter (Exodus xxi., 7).
It is curious, too, to note in passing, that that crude code,
so much bepraised by Jews and Christians—the Ten Com
mandments—contains no hint that parents owe any duty to
their children.
3. A Hebrew slave might claim his liberty if owned by a
countryman, at the end of six years’ bondage. But if he
married after his slavery began he could not take his wife
�4
Christianity and Slavery.
and children with him ; they belonged to his master, and he
must “go out by himself” (Exodus xxi., 2—4). I can
think of few things more atrocious than this ; perhaps
Christians can. And it should not be forgotten that it
was the “spirit of Christ” which inspired the prophets
(1 Peter i., 11), and Moses among the rest, I presume.
4. A Hebrew slave-master might kill his slave with im
punity, provided he took time enough. “ And if a man
smite his servant, or his maid (saints might strike females !)
with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surely be
punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he
shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus xxi.,
20—21). In these verses we see the worst features of
slavery. (1) A man might whip his slaves, male or female,
and to any extent short of murder on the spot. Here is no
shadow of provision made for any justice to the slave ; he is
not a man, he is only “ money.” (2) Life and death were
in the hands of the owner. In what part of the world has
slavery taken a worse form ? How can Christians pretend
that their religion is opposed to slavery, when their God
gave such instructions to Moses ? Let them have the decency
to repudiate the Bible before they grumble at our criticisms
on their religion I
5. The following verses are also exceedingly plain and
equally atrocious:—“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their fami
lies that are with you, which they begat in your land : and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever : but
over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigor ” (Leviticus xxv., 44—6).
No doubt a thorough-going defender of the Bible could
easily preach an abolition sermon from these three verses,
and prove therefrom that slavery is contrary to the whole
tenor of the Bible and an abomination in the sight of the
Lord.
6. Joshua, not able to kill the Gibeonites, enslaved the
whole tribe ; and made them “ hewers of wood and drawers
�Christianity and Slavery.
5
of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord,
even unto this day, in the place which he should choose ”
(Joshua ix.). Here we find slavery consecrated. They were
“ cursed ; ” and without being asked whether they believed
in the Lord or not the whole nation is compelled, as a
punishment, and as a punishment for daring to save their
own lives by the only way known to them—for this they
are condemned to serve the Lord! A back-handed compli
ment, surely, to their deity and religion ! Or, if their God
sanctioned it, it shows that in those days he was quite
willing to be served even by slaves. This view of the case
is proved by Numbers xxxi., where the Lord’s portion or
“tribute” of the captive Midianites was 32, out of
32,000 (v. 40).
7. The whole Israelitish state or government was, like
Oriental governments generally, a pure despotism, where the
king was supreme, and the people all slaves, entirely at the
disposal of their lord. Samuel well describes this feature of
the state when protesting against the kingship (1 Samuel
viii., 10—18). Solomon could build his temple and other
works only by the aid of forced labor ; and he enslaved the
descendants of the Canaanites for that purpose (1 Kings ix.,
15—22). I do not remember that the Lord ever found
fault with this arrangement, nor did he decline to own a
temple raised by unwilling slaves, and possibly by men who
regarded him as an abomination. Will Christians explain
this ?
Perhaps I may be told that Hebrew slaves were all
liberated in the Year of Jubilee. But I am not aware that
that year ever arrived until the whole nation, slaves, masters,
and all, were carried into captivity. It is singular that the
Bible nowhere, so far as I remember, records the celebration
of the Jubilee. The Old Testament certainly protests
vigorously against slavery — when the writers and their
friends are the victims. It was a dreadful thing for the
Egyptians to enslave the family of Jacob; but Joseph,
though once sold himself, actually bought up the whole of
Egypt, the whole of the cattle, the whole of the money,
and the whole of the people as the property and slaves of
Pharaoh. Yet “ the Lord was with him.”
Perhaps—nay, for certain—Christians will urge that the
New Testament is essentially opposed to all slavery. If so,
�6
Christianity and Slavery.
then (1) It cannot have been inspired by the same God
who gave the Old; unless (2) that God became somewhat
civilized and improved in morals in the interval between the
writing of the two books.
(3) Any being opposed to
slavery would have repudiated the parts of the Old Testa
ment above referred to and quoted, if he had known them.
Was this ever done by the God or Gods of the New Testa
ment? (4) If Jesus was opposed to slavery, why did he
not say as much? The world was then full of the horrid
thing. Why did he not lift his voice against it ? Instead
of fulminating anathemas against unbelief and hurling
threats against riches, why did he never say, “ It is easier
for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a slave
owner to enter into the Kingdom of God ” ? This would
have stamped him a philanthropist, and a lover of liberty.
Let his followers explain how he missed so grand an oppor
tunity. He who uttered the parable of the Laborers, wherethose who worked but one hour received the same wage as
those who worked the whole day, because, forsooth! the
master wished it so, could have had no conception of liberty
and the rights of man. He who uttered the sentiments of
Matthew xxii., 1—-7, and endorsed them as the policy of his
own projected kingdom, must have been a bitter foe to
liberty. What liberty can there be when a city is liable
to a worse doom than that of Sodom for rejecting the
missionaries of Jesus ? Or where individuals are liable to
be damned for unbelief ? It is an outrage on common
sense to affirm that he who could threaten as Jesus did was
a friend of liberty.
The New Testament nowhere forbids slavery, or even
discountenances it. How was it Jesus omitted all mention
of it when he preached his Sermon on the Mount ? or when
he spoke parables founded on the relation of owner and
slave, as that of the talents ? The language of the New
Testament is saturated with the principles of slavery, while
those of liberty scarcely appear. The word SoSXos (doulos)
occurs about 117 times in the Greek Testament, and always
has the meaning of slave—at least I am able to find no
exception. On the other hand, the word p,ur0io<s (misthzos),
a hired man, occurs but twice at most. Doulos not merely
denotes the slaves of men but even of the Lord; indeed,
KvpLos (kurios), or lord oi' owner, and SoDXos (doulos)
�•.
•••■■a
;
■■
*. *
*
‘'
/
.
Christianity and Slavery.
'-
/v
< w-
-
7
or slave, are corresponding words, and the one implies the
other. There cannot be a lord without a slave, nor slave
without a lord. Christianity is but a gigantic system of
the most absolute slavery on the one hand, and of the
most absolute despotism on the other. The Lord owns, in
the most complete sense, all his servants, and can do with
them whatsoever he will. Hence Paul does not blush
to dub himself the Slave of the Lord Jesus Christ
(Romans i., 1). Such a man knew not the meaning or the
value of liberty; he was content to be a chattel.
But the New Testament acquiesces in slavery, and enjoins
its continuance, as the following texts will show: “Ye slaves,
submit to your owners according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling, in the simplicity of your hearts, as to the Christ;
not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as slaves of
Christ, doing the will of the G-od from the soul; with good
will, slaving unto the Owner, and not to men; knowing that
whatever good a man does the same shall he receive from
the Owner, whether he be bond or free. And you owners,
do the same thing to them, forbearing threatening, know
ing that your Owner is in the heavens, and that there is no
respect of persons with him” (Eph. vi., 5—9). I have
revised this text in rather a literal fashion, but no Greek
scholar can say that I have strained it.
Here Paul either dared not recommend abolition, or was
not enlightened enough to understand its value; in the
former case he was a coward, in the latter a semi-barbarian.
In Colossians iii., 22—25, he gives nearly the same injunc
tion to the slaves. 1 Timothy vi., 1—5, runs thus : “ Let
as many as are slaves under the yoke count their own
despots (Greek, despotas) worthy of all honor, that the
name of God and his teaching be not blasphemed. Nor let
those who have believing despots despise them because they
are brethren ; but rather slave for them, for those who reap
the benefit are faithful and beloved. These things teach
and exhort. If anyone teach otherwise, and does not come
in to the sound doctrine which is of our Owner, Jesus
Christ, and to the teaching which accords with religion,
he is stupid, knowing nothing, distressed about questions
and word-battles, whence come envy, strife, blasphemies,
evil surmisings, perverse disputes, among men of corrupt mind,
and destitute of the truth, imagining that the religion is gain.”
�8
Christianity and Slavery.
Here (1) slaves are bidden to remain as they are, and
count their owners worthy of all honor. If a slave owner
is worthy of all honor, there can be nothing wrong in
slavery, except the bad conduct of the wicked slaves.
(2) The owners here referred to were, some of them, Chris
tians. Had Christianity been opposed to slavery, this could
not have been. Christians still hold slaves in some parts,
and they can defend their conduct by the New Testament.
(3) The latter part of the passage is levelled against aboli
tionists : they dispute, they raise questions, they disturb
existing institutions, they oppose slavery, and have evidently
been tampering with the slaves ; and the owners have as
evidently appealed to Paul to fulminate anathemas against
them. Hence the great Apostle of the Gentiles hurls his
thunderbolts at those “ stupid,” “know-nothing,” “corruptminded,” men, who would overturn society by liberating the
slaves. Paul was not an abolitionist when he wrote those
verses, and had he lived in modern England, how he would
have lashed the “ stupidity” and “ corrupt-mindedness ” of
those notorious “ know-nothings,” Clarkson, Wilberforce,
Buxton, and others, who wrought the death of that Chris
tian institution, slavery, in the British Colonies ! Had Paul
lived in America a few years back most likely Jeff Davis
had never been heard of, and Paul might have been elevated
to the throne of a slavedom.
In the Epistle to Titus (ii., 9) Paul holds the same
language :—Slaves must submit to their own despots ; must
please them in all things ; must not reply when corrected ;
must not steal, but be noted for fidelity. All this implies
that slavery was proper, that one man might justly own
another : the poor slave, who had been stolen, must not
steal; he who had no social or political rights, no pro
perty, himself the property of another—this poor chattel is
commanded to obey, and to behave himself well, for the
sake of the doctrine of God 1 Thus this man teaches that
his great father in heaven, as he calls his deity, approves of
the most heinous of all known crimes, slavery, and will hold
the slave guilty who purloins his owner’s goods, or fails to
slave for that owner to his utmost power 1
Thus I have shown what Christianity, as exhibited in the
New Testament, thinks of slavery. And now we may glance
at the Church in later ages. Guizot, while claiming for the
�Christianity and Slavery.
9
'Church much of the credit of abolishing slavery, says : “ It
has been often asserted that the abolition of slavery in
modern Europe was exclusively owing to Christianity. I
think that is saying too much. Slavery long existed in the
heart of the Christian society, without greatly exciting its
astonishment, or drawing down its anathema. A multitude of
causes, and a great development in other ideas of civilisation,
were required to eradicate this evil of evils, this iniquity of
iniquities ” (“ History of Civilisation.” Edition, Chambers,
1848, pp. 108—9).
The Church, in respect to slaves, was far behind the
empire. Slave marriages were not recognised by either
State or Church for many centuries. “ In the old Roman
society in the Eastern Empire this distinction between the
marriage of the free man and the concubinage of the slave
was long recognised by Christianity itself. These unions
were not blessed, as the marriages of their superiors had
soon begun to be, by the Church. Basil, the Macedonian,
(a.d. 867—886), first enacted that the priestly benediction
should hallow the marriage of the slave ; but the authority
of the emperor was counteracted by the deep-rooted pre
judices of centuries.” (Milman’s “Latin Christianity.” Vol.
II., p. 15.)
In this the Church followed Moses (Exodus xxi., 4). And
Jesus and his Apostles forgot to throw out the slightest hint
on this most important social subject. If the West Indian
and American planters held loose views on sexual morality,
as regards the slaves, the Bible certainly was not calculated
to correct them.
*
If Christianity was opposed to slavery, or the chief in
strument of its abolition, how was it it did not begin sooner ?
How was it it took so long to accomplish the work ? Had
the Bible condemned the crime instead of enjoining and en
couraging it, no doubt it would have influenced the Church
in the right direction. But the Church encouraged and
practised slavery, until the humanity of the world compelled
a change.
When abolition was proposed it was Christians who most
strenuously resisted it; and in doing so they entrenched
themselves in Bible ground, and fought with weapons drawn
* See Appendix.
�10
Christianity and Slavery.
from Holy Writ. A few examples shall close this pamphlet.
The quotations are selected from “ Five Hundred Thousand
Strokes for Freedom,” London: W. and F. Cash, 5, Bishopsgate Street, and Tweedie, 337, Strand, 1853. This work
comprises 82 Anti-slavery tracts, edited by Wilson Armistead, Leeds. Tracts, page 2, reports that at that period
the various Protestant Ministers and Church members held
no less than 660,563 slaves in America. No doubt they
understood the letter and spirit of the Bible as well as the
abolitionists. If not, how and why not ? The Rev. James
Smylie, A.M., of the Amity Presbytery, Mississippi, is re
ported to have said : “ If slavery be a sin, and advertising
and apprehending slaves, with a view to restore them to their
masters, is a direct violation of the divine law, and if the
buying, selling, or holding of a slave, for the sake of gain,
is a heinous sin and scandal, then verily three-fourths of all
the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians,
in eleven States of the Union are of the devil. They hold, if
they do not buy and sell slaves, and with few exceptions,
they hesitate not to apprehend and restore runaway slaves
when in their power.” Tract 8, p. 20.
The Charleston Union Presbytery, 7th April, 1836, “ Re
solved, that in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding
of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is
nowhere condemned in his holy word: that it is in accordance
with the example and consistent with the precepts of patri
archs, apostles, and prophets,” etc. Ibid. p. 23.
The Missionary Society of the South Carolina Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by their board of managers,
said: “We denounce the principles and practice of the
abolitionists in toto......................... We believe that the holy
scriptures, so far from giving any countenance to this delu
sion, do, unequivocally, authorise the relation of master and
slave.” Ibid.
The Hopewell Presbytery, South Carolina, issued a docu
ment affirming that “ Slavery has always existed in the
Church of God, from the time of Abraham to this day.”
Ibid.
The Presbyterian Synod of Virginia “ Resolved, unani
mously, that we consider the dogma, that slavery as it exists
in the slave-holding States is necessarily sinful, and ought
to be immediately abolished, and the conclusions which
�Christianity and Slavery.
11
naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably
contrary to the plainest principles of common sense and
common humanity, and the clearest authority of the word
of God.” Ibid.
Professor Hodge, Princeton (N. J.) Presbyterian Theolo
gical Seminary, published an article in the Biblical Repertory
containing this : “At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ
slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the world. The
Savior found it around him in Judea, the apostles met with
it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did they treat it? Not
by denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily sinful.” P. 24.
The Quarterly Christian Spectator, New Haven (Ct.), a
Congregational paper, in 1838, said: “The Bible contains
no explicit prohibition of slavery; it recognises, both in the
Old Testament and in the New, such a constitution of
society, and it lends its authority to enforce the mutual ob
ligations resulting from that constitution.” P. 24.
T. R. Dew, Professor in William and Mary College
(Episcopalian), said: “ Slavery was established by divine
authority among even the elect of heaven, the children of
Israel.” P. 25.
D. R. Furman, Baptist, in an exposition of the views of
his Church, addressed to the Governor of South Carolina,
in 1833, said: “ The right of holding slaves is clearly
established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and
example.” Ibid.
Tract 45 quotes the following from the Boston Emanci
pator, 1846, “ Rev. Dr. Taylor, at the head of the Theolo
gical School of Yale College, stated, in a lecture before the
Theological Class, that he had no doubt if Jesus Christ was
now on earth, that he would, under certain circumstances,
become a slave-holder! ”
Perhaps the following is the very “ richest ” morsel in
this collection: “ Advertisement in the Religious Herald, a
Virginia paper. ‘Who wants 35,000 dollars in property?
I am desirous of spending the remainder of my life as a
missionary, if the Lord permit, and therefore offer for sale
my farm, and the vineyard, adjacent to Williamsberg, con
taining 600 acres, well watered, and abounding in marl;
together with all the crops, stock and utensils thereon. Also
my house and lot in town, fitted up as a boarding establish
ment, with all the furniture belonging to it. Also about
�Christianity and Slavery.
12
(slaves'), mostly YOUNG and likely, and
To a kind
master, I would put the whole property at the reduced price
of 35,000 dollars, and arrange the payment to suit purchasers,
provided the interest be annually paid.—S. Jones.’” Tract76.
I have not met with the biography of this saint; but it is
to.be hoped the Lord did “ permit,” and that he entered the
mission field and proved successful in “ winning souls.”
Probably, before now, he is in glory with the sainted Abra
ham and other slave-holding “ brethren” of Bible times.
What can Christians reply ? The Bible unmistakably
commits itself to, encourages, and enjoins slavery; some of
the most devoted Christians (to wit, S. Jones, the intending
missionary,) have held slaves, and defended themselves by
Bible teachings. Do they not understand the Bible as cor
rectly as modern defenders of the faith, or as abolitionists ?
Are they less honest ?
I rejoice in abolition ; but I am bound to say that it is
decidedly anti- Christian. Wdll some good theologian show
that I am in error ?
40
servants
RAPIDLY INCREASING IN NUMBER AND VALUE.
�APPENDIX.
Not expecting my article to be republished from the N. R.,
I omitted, for brevity’s sake, much matter that might have
been inserted. The following are a few specimens.
Slave Marriages.
44 The Savannah River (Baptist) Association, in 1835,
in reply to the question: 4 Whether, in a case of in
voluntary separation of such a character as to preclude
all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought
to be allowed to marry again ? ’ Answered: 4 That such
a separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is
civilly a separation by death, and they believe that, in the
sight of God, it would be so viewed.............The slaves are
not free agents, and a dissolution by death is not more
entirely without their consent, and beyond their control,
than by such separation.’ ”
The Shiloh Baptist Association held similar views upon
this subject; and the Rev. C. Jones, 4 who was an earnest
and indefatigable laborer for the good of the slave,’ says
of the slave marriage, 4 4 4 It is a contract of convenience,
profit, or pleasure, that may be entered into and dissolved at
the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin, or in
jury to the property interests of anyone.’ ” 44 Key to Uncle
Tom’s Cabin,” p. 393.
44 The Rev. R. J. Brickenridge, D.D., .... says, 4 The
system of slavery denies to a whole class of human beings
the sacredness of marriage and of home, compelling them to
live in a state of concubinage ; for, in the eye of the law,
no colored slave-man is the husband of any wife in par
ticular, nor any slave-woman the wife of any husband in
particular; no slave-man is the father of any children in
particular, and no slave-child is the child of any parent in
particular.’ ” Ibid, p. 406.
I quote the above to show how atrociously and completely
*
�14
Appendix.
the American Christians executed the Mosaic and Christian
principles of slavery. We are frequently informed that
Christianity is the safeguard of the family, the bulwark of
marriage. But this religion, in its ancient form, repudiates
the idea of slave marriage in its proper sense (Exodus xxi.,
3—5) ; in its New Testament form it tacitly endorses the
law of Moses on the subject; the marriage of slaves was not
recognised in the early Church, nor in the churches of
America. Thus in ancient, mediaeval, and modern times
this divine religion, this source of all blessings, this mira
culous system of doctrines and duties, has denied all liberty,
and even the advantages and rights of decency, to countless
millions of those beneath its sway. All its atrocities and
horrors it has perpetrated at the suggestion, the command,
or connivance of its divine book, and in the very name of
its God—a God whose temples were shambles, whose priests
were wholesale butchers, whose attendants have ever been
slaves—a God who solemnly revealed to Moses a whole
system of sacred cookery and devotional millinery, but
forgot to reveal the principles of right, of honor, of justice,
of liberty, or of decency.
Defence of Slavery.
I might fill many pages with quotations showing how
Christians have pummelled abolitionists with Bible principles,
and how other Christians have vainly tried to parry those
divine blows. When Clarkson’s Bill for the abolition of
the slave trade was carried to the House of Lords it is wellknown that Lord Chancellor Thurlow denounced it as con
trary to the Bible—as it really was.
“ The noblest eloquence was expended upon this subject
(the abolition of the slave trade) in vain .... At first all
the country gentlemen rose en masse against any interference
with it. The commercial body fought for it as if it were a
balance of exchanges in perpetuity. The lawyers defended
it as they would an entail. The army and navy stood up
for it as they would for the honor of the British flag.............
And then there were many strictly Christian people who,
like ants, made it a solemn law to themselves to follow in
the track over which the burden of their faith was first
carried, and who, holding the same belief that was held
before the Flood, were convinced, and not to be put out of
�Appendix.
15
their conviction by any human means, that the slave trade
(or slavery, for it was all one to them) was an old Scriptural
Institution, &c.” “Bell’s Life of Canning,” pp. 214—5.
“ The greatest stress of all was laid upon the antiquity of
slavery. This was a difficulty which paralysed many persons
of tender conscience. They felt with you, that slavery was
cruel, that it blighted human beings, crushed the god-like
part of. them, and reduced them to the condition of the
lower animals. But it was a Sacred Institution—it had
flourished in the earliest ages—it had a divine origin—and
was tabooed by the consecrating hand of time.” Ibid, p. 218.
Just so; not the hyprocrites, but the sincere and
“ conscientious ” believers in the Bible opposed abolition out
of respect to their divine book. And they were right, if the
book is right. This is proof positive that the Bible and its
influence tended only to prolong the evils of slavery; and
that the system would have had no feasible defence amongst
an enlightened people but for the Bible. Christians must
have felt, and did feel, that, in consenting to abolish slavery,
they were presuming to know better than their very God,
who sanctioned and enjoined it. What that Deity must
think of his presumptuous servants I do not pretend to
know. With what face they can meet him after deliberately
helping to destroy one of his institutions, is their . concern,
not mine.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
28, Stonecutter Street E.C.
�f
;i
�
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
Christianity and slavery
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1880
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1783
N629
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Slavery
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 (Christianity and slavery), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
Slavery
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/96c6e5f5baa756d0c40b64a963a173a5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pgwmjuYyClCdva%7EHLtIq%7E-EelFa9f9xC6pHmolQAfA62GYJP%7EyXXJ-7Umdu73J3NzfFoscDT29Izn06ceDDkIjxq-X2f5KNMR4sKn2mHsGoNjQWpKCSwkHbRkjtkjfOyeookYU%7E86k37gCt6y0h0M93oWsxF-xWaO9I9M0ZVJZxy42SEBKXxR2V3g7AT3AXcc9q%7EmK3v%7E1eykMyx2DMm0IYCoEUgFvGPC-KTBAoXtyHTdh-fMshULoy4m%7E0e-8%7EtSxBVoX5aOi-B8FCoaAxHVFVE4qZmmQ-6-c2dQ9xCr-3spv4fLpRbQ3MBHkkSE9p%7E64tIv9%7EWG-HIZqPfrg5cRg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0c010422398d527a22f0049b5c109c0
PDF Text
Text
CIVIL & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
WITH SOME HINTS TAKEN FROM
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
BY ANNIE BESANT,
(Second Edition).
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C,
PBICE THREEPENCE.
�LONDON
FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BP.ADLAUGHZ
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E. C.
�g
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
« O Liberty ! how many crimes are committed in thy
name1” So exclaimed Madame Roland, one of the most
heroic and most beautiful spirits of the great French Revo
lution, when above her glittered the keen knife of the
guillotine, and below her glared the fierce faces of the
maddened crowd, who were howling for her death. But
Madame Roland, even as she spoke, bowed her fair head
to the statue of Liberty which—pure, serene, majestic—
rose beside the scaffold, and stood white and undefiled in
the sunlight, while the mob seethed and tossed round its
base. Madame Roland bent her brow before Liberty, even
as the sad complaint passed her lips; for well that noblehearted woman knew that the guillotine, by which she was
to die, had not been raised in a night with the broken
chains of Liberty, but had been slowly building up, during
long centuries of tyranny, out of the mouldering skeletons
<of the thousands of victims of despotism and misrule. The
taunt has been re-echoed ever since, and lovers of repression
have changed its words and its meaning, and they have said
what noble Madame Roland would never have said: “ O
Liberty, how many crimes are committed by thee, and
because of thee 1” They have never said, they have never
cared to ask, how many crimes have been committed against
Liberty in the past; how many crimes are daily committed
against her in the England which we boast as free. They
have never said, they have never cared to ask, whether th©
excesses which have, alas ! disgraced revolutions, whether
the bloodshed which has ofttimes stained crimson-red the
fair, white, banner of Liberty, are not the natural and the
necessary fruits, not of the freedom which is won, bu'c of
the tyranny which is crushed. Society keeps a number of
its members uneducated and degraded; it houses them
worse than brutes; it pays them so little that, if a man
would not starve, he must toil all day, without time for
�4
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
relaxation or for self-culture; it withdraws from them all
softening influences ; it shuts them out from all intellectual
amusements; it leaves them no pleasures except the purely
animal ones ; it bars against them the gates of the museums
and the art galleries, and opens to them only the doors of
the beer-shop and the gin-palace; it sneers at their folly,
but never seeks to teach them wisdom; it disdains their
“ lowness,” but never tries to help them to be higher; and then,
when suddenly the masses of the people rise, maddened by
long oppression, intoxicated with a freedom for which they
are not prepared, arrogant with the newly-won consciousness
of their resistless strength, then Society, which has kept them
brutal, is appalled at their brutality; Society, which has
kept them degraded, shrieks out at the inevitable results of
that degradation. I have often heard wealthy men and
women talk about the discontent and the restlessness of the
poor; I have heard them prattle about the necessity of
“keeping the people down;” I have heard polite and
refined sneers at the folly and the tiresome enthusiasm of
the political agitator, and half-jesting wishes that “the whole
tribe of agitators ” would become extinct. And as I have
listened, and have seen the luxury around the speakers; as
I have noted the smooth current of their lives, and marked
the irritation displayed at some petty mischance which for a
moment ruffled its even flow; as I have seen all this, and then
remembered the miserable homes that I have known, the
squalor and the hideous poverty, the hunger and the pain,
I have thought to myself that if I could take the speakers,
and could plunge them down into the life which the despised
“ masses ” live, that the braver-hearted of them would turn
into turbulent demagogues, while the weaker-spirited would
sink down into hopeless drunkenness and pauperism. These
rich ones do not mean to be cruel when they sneer at the
complaints of the poor, and they are unconscious of the
misery which underlies and gives force to the agitation
which disturbs their serenity; they do not understand how
the subjects which seem to them so dry are thrilling with
living interest to the poor who listen to the “ demagogue,”
or how 'his keenest thrusts are pointed in the smithy of
human pain. They are only thoughtless, only careless,
only indifferent; and meanwhile the smothered murmuring
going on around them, and grim Want and Pain and
Despair are the phantom forms which are undermining their
palaces; and “ they eat, they drink, they marry, and are
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
5
given in marriage,” heedless of the gathering river which is
beginning to overflow its banks, and which, if it be not
drained off in time, will “ sweep them all away.” If they
knew their best friends, they would bless the popular
leaders, who are striving to win social and political reforms,
and so to avert a revolution.
The French Revolution is so often flung, by ignorant
people, in the teeth of those who are endeavouring to extend
and to consolidate the reign of Freedom, that it can
scarcely be deemed out of place to linger for a moment
on the threshold of the subject, in order to draw from past
experience the lesson, that bloodshed and civil war do not
spring from wise and large measures of reform, but from the
hopelessness of winning relief except by force, from over
taxation, from unjust social inequality, from the’grinding of
poverty, from the despair and from the misery of the people.
It shows extremest folly to decline to study the causes of
great catastrophes, to reject the experience won by the
misfortunes and by the mistakes of others, and to refuse to
profit by the lessons of the past.
Of course I do not mean to say, and I should be very
sorry to persuade any one to think, that our state to-day in
England is as bad as that from which France was only
delivered through the frightful agony of the Revolution.
But we have in England, as we shall see as we go on, many
of the abuses left of that feudal system which the Revolution
destroyed for ever in France. The feudal system was spread
all over Europe in the Middle Ages, those Dark Ages when
all sense of equal justice and of liberty was dead. It con
centrated all power in the hands of the few; it took no
account of the masses of the people; it handed over the
poor, bound hand and foot, to the power of the feudal
superior, and it cultivated that haughty spirit of disdainful
contempt for labour, which is still, unfortunately, only too
widely spread throughout our middle and upper classes in
England. This system gradually lost its harsher features
among ourselves ; but in France it endured up to the time
of the Revolution; and in this system, added to the fearful
weight of taxation under which the people were absolutely
crushed and starved to death, lies the secret of the blood
shed of the Revolution.
Therefore, before passing on to the parallel between our
state and that of ante-revolutionary France, I would fain put
into the mouths of our friends an answer to those who say
�6
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
that the excesses of the French Revolution are the necessary
outcome of free thought in religion and of free action in
politics. It is perfectly true that the determination to
shake off a cruel and unjust yoke was implanted in the
bosoms of the French people by the writings of those who
are commonly called the Encyclopaedists. These men were
Freethinkers; some of them—as Holbach and Diderot—
might fairly be called Atheists ; some were nothing of the
kind. These men taught the French people to think; they
nurtured in their breasts a spirit of self-reliance; they roused
a spirit of defiance. These /men rang the tocsin which
awoke France, and so far it is true that Freethought pro
duced the Revolution, and so far Freethought may well be
proud of her work. But not to Freethought, not to Liberty,
must be ascribed the excesses which stained a revolution
that was in its beginning, that might have been throughout,
so purely glorious. For do you know what French Feudal
ism was ? Do you know what those terrible rights were,
which have branded so deeply into the French peasant’s
heart the hatred of the old nobility, that even to the present
day he will hiss out between clenched teeth the word
“ aristocrat,” with a passionate hatred which one hundred
years of freedom have not ’quenched ?
In the reign of Louis XIV. there was a Count, the Comte
de Charolois, who used to shoot down, for his amusement,
the peasants who had climbed into trees,-and the tilers who
were mending roofs. The chasse aux paysans, as it was
pleasantly termed, the “ hunt of peasants,” was remembered
by an old man who was in Paris during the Revolution as
one of the amusements of the nobility in his youth. True,
these acts were but the acts of a few; but they were done,
and the people dared not strike back Then there was
another right, a right which outraged ’ all humanity, and
which gave to the lord the first claim to the serf’s bride.
The terrible story in Charles Dickens’s “Tale of Two
Cities ” is no fiction, except in details, if we may judge from
some of the chronicles of the time. (Dufaure gives many
interesting details on French feudalism.) Then they might
harness the serfs, like cattle, to their carts; they might keep
them awake all night beating the trenches round their
castles, lest noble slumbers should be disturbed by the
croaking of the frogs. When any one throws in*lhe Radical’s
teeth the excesses of the French Revolution, let the Radical
answer him back with these rights, and ask if it is to be
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
7
'wondered at that men struck hard, when the outrages and
the oppressions of centuries were revenged in a few wild
months ? Marvel not at the short madness that broke out
at. last; marvel rather at the cowardice which bore in
■silence for so long.
I pass from these hideous rights of feudalism to its milder
■features, as they existed in France before the Revolution,
and as they exist among us to-day in England. The laws
by which land is held and transmitted, the rights of the
first-born son, the laying-on of taxation by those who do
not represent the tax-payer, a standing army in which birth
helps promotion, the Game Laws—all these are relics of
■feudalism, relics which need to be swept away. It is on
the existence of these that I ground my plea for wider
freedom ; it is on these that I rely to prove that Civil and
Religious Liberty are still very imperfect among ourselves.
In France, before the revolution, people in general, king,
queen, lords, clergy, thought that things were going on very
■nicely, and very comfortably. True, keener-sighted men
saw in the misery of the masses the threatened ruin of the
throne. True, even Royalty itself, in the haggard faces
and gaunt forms that pressed cheering round its carriages,
■read traces of grinding poverty, of insufficient food. True,
some faint rumour even reached the court, amid its luxury,
that the houses of the people were not all they should be,
nay, that many of them were wretched huts, not fit for cattle.
But what of that ? There was no open rebellion; there
was no open disloyalty. What disloyalty there was, was
confined to the lower orders, and showed itself by a fancy
of the people to gather into Republican clubs, and other
such societies, where loyalty to the Crown was not the lesson
which they learned from the speakers’ lips. But such dis
loyalty could of course be crushed out at any moment, and
the court went gaily on its way, careless of the low, dull
growling in the distance which told of the coming storm.
We, in England, to-day, are quite at ease. True, some of
our labourers are paid starvation-wages of ios., iis., 12s.,
a week, but again I ask, what of that? Has not Mr. Fraser
Grove, late M.P., told the South Wiltshire farmers that they
had a right to reduce the labourer’s wage to ns. a week, if
he could livp upon it; and, if he did not like it, he could
take his labour to other markets ? Why should the labourer
complain, so long as he is allowed to live? Then the houses
of our people are scarcely all that they should be. I have
�8
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
been into some so-called homes, composed of two smalF
rooms, in one of which father and mother, boys and girls
growing up into manhood and womanhood, were obliged
to sleep in the one room, even in the one bed. I have seen
a room in which slept four generations, the great-grandfather
and his wife, the grandmother (unmarried), the mother (un
married), and the little child of the latter, and in addition to
these relatives, the room also afforded sleeping accommoda
tion to three men lodgers. Yet people talk about the “im
morality of the agricultural poor,” as though people could
be anything except immoral, when the lads and lasses have.
to grow up without any possibility of being even decent,
much less with any possibility of retaining the smallest
shred of natural modesty. The only marvel is how, among
our poor, there do grow up now and then fair and pure
blossoms, worthy of the most carefully-guarded homes. But
avery short time since there were worse hovels even than those
I have mentioned. Down at Woolwich there were “homes”
composed of one small room, 12 feet by 12, and 8J feet
high in the middle of the sloping roof, and the huts were
built of bad brick, the damp of which sweated slowly
through the whitewash, and the floor was made of beaten
earth, lower in level than the ground outside, and in front
of the fire they kept a plank all day baking warm and dry,
in order that at night they might put it into the bed, tokeep the sleeper next the wall from being wet through by
the drippings as he slept. And in other such huts as* these
four families lived together, with no partition put up between
them, save such poor rags as some lingering feeling of de
cency might lead them to hang up for themselves—and
these huts, these miserable huts, were the property of
Government, and in them were housed her Majesty’s married
soldiers, housed in such abodes as her Majesty would not
allow her cattle to occupy near Windsor or near
Balmoral. Yet among us there is no open rebellion; there
is no open disloyalty. Among us, too, what disloyalty there
is, is chiefly confined to the lower orders, and that, as every
one knows, can be snuffed out at a moment’s notice.
Among us, it also shows itself in that fancy of the people to
gather into Republican clubs and other such societies,
where loyalty to the Crown is not the lesson most enforced
by the speakers. The quiet, slow alienation of the people
from the Throne is going on unobserved ; a people who
are loyal to a monarchy will not form themselves into Repub
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
•
9
lican Clubs; yet our rulers never dream that the people'are
•discontented, and. that these clubs are signs of the times.
They fancy that the agitation is only the work of the few,
and that there is no widely-spread disaffection behind the
Republican teachers; only the leaders of popular move
ments know the vast force which they can wield in case
of need, but the Government will never listen to these men,
any more than in France they would listen to Mirabeau,
until it was too late. Yet do sensible people think that a
• soUjpd and a healthy society can rest upon the misery of the
masses? and do our rulers think that palaces stand firm
when they are built up upon such hovels-as those which I
have described? It appears they do ; for our Queen
and our Princes seem to believe in the lip-loyalty of
the crowds which cheer them when they make us happy
by driving through our streets, loyalty that springs
from the thougl^essness of custom, and not from true
and manly reverence for real worth. For I would not
be thought to ' disparage the sentiment of loyalty; I
hold it to be one of the fairest blossoms' which flower
•on the emotional side of the nature of man. Loyalty
to principle, loyalty to a great cause, loyalty to some true
leader, crowned king of men by reason of his virtue, of his
» genius, of his strength—such loyalty as this it is no shame
■for a freeman to yield, such loyalty as this has, in all ages
of the world, inspired men to the noblest self-devotion,
nerved men to the most heroic self-sacrifice. But just as
•only those things which are valuable in themselves are
-thought worthy of imitation in baser metal, so is this
irue,golden loyalty imitated by the pinchbeck loyalty, which
shouts in our streets. For what true loyalty is possible from
us towards the House of Brunswick ? Loyalty to virtue ?
as enshrined in a Prince of Wales ? loyalty to liberality,
and to delicacy of sentiment ? as exemplified by a Duke of
Edinburgh ? loyalty to any great cause, whose success in
this generation is bound up with the life oi any member of
our Royal House ? «The very questions send a ripple of
, laughter through any assemblage of Englishmen, and they
•Sare beginning to feel, at last, that true loyalty can only be
paid to some man who stands head and shoulders above
his fellows, and not to some poor dwarf, whom we can only
see over the heads of the crowd, because he stands on the
artificial elevation of a throne.
The court in France was very extravagant: it spent
�10
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
^34,000,000 in eight years, while the people were starving;our princes do not spend so much ; they dare not; but that,
the spirit is the same is clearly seen when a wealthy queen
sends to Parliament to dower her sons and her daughters r.
when the scions of a family so rich as are the Brunswicks,
become beggars to the nation, and pensioners on the pockets
of the poor. However, courts are expensive things, and if.
we want them we must be content to pay for them. Now,
in France, the nobles, the clergy, the great landed proprie
tors, paid next to nothing: the heavy burden of taxation
fell upon the poor. But the poor had not much money1
which they could pay out to the State, and it is not easy toempty already empty pockets with any satisfactory results
so, in France, they hit upon the ingenious system called
indirect taxation; they imposed taxes upon the necessaries
of life; they squeezed money out of the food which the
people were obliged to buy. Also, those^who imposed the
taxes were not those who paid them : tney laid on heavy
burdens, which they themselves did not touch with one of
their fingers. We, in England, also think that it conducesto the cheerful paying of taxes that they should be laid
chiefly upon those who have no voice wherewith to com
plain of their incidence in Parliament. If you want to
knock a man down, it is very wise to choose a dumb man,
who cannot raise a cry for help. A large portion of the
working, classes, and all women, have no votes in the election
of members of Parliament, and have therefore no voice in
the imposition of the taxes which they are, nevertheless,
obliged to pay. It is a long time since Pitt told us
that “ taxation without representation is robberyit is a
yet longer time since John Hampden taught us how toresist the payment of an unjust tax, and yet we are still
such cravens, or else so indifferent, that we pay millions a
year in taxation, without determining that we will have a.
voice in the control of our own income. We are crushed
under a heavy and a yearly increasing national expenditure,
partly because of our extravagant administration, partly
because the burden falls unequally, weighing on the poor
more than upon the rich, and wholly because we have not
brotherhood enough to combine together, nor manhood
enough to say that these things shall not be. Our system
of taxation is radically vicious in principle, because it must
of necessity fall unequally. Those who impose the burdens
know perfectly well that it is impossible for the poor to
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
11
refuse to pay indirect taxes, however onerous those taxes
may be : they must buy the necessary articles of food,
whether those articles be taxed or no; a refusal to pay is
impracticable, and no combination to abstain from buying is
possible, because the things taxed are the necessaries of life.
Yet as long as indirect taxation is permitted—and the major
part of our annual revenue is drawn from Customs and from
Excise—so long must taxation crush the poor, while it falls
lightly on the rich.
On this point I direct your attention to the following ex
tract* taken from the Liverpool Financial Reformer, and
quoted by Mr. Charles Watts in his “ Government and the
People —
“ A recent writer in the Liverpool Financial Reformer,
divided the community into three divisions—first, the aristo
cratic, represented by those who have an annual income of
^1,000 and upwards ; the middle classes were represented by
those who had incofties from ^ioo to /’i,ooo; and the artisan
or working classes were those who were supposed to have in
comes under ,£ioo 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 portion contributed ff ,500,000, the middle classes
^19,513,453, 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 result in regard to the upper and lower
classes stands thus :—Amount which should be paid to the
reveime 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 a difference of ^£14.937,688, 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 income 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.5 55
The whole system of laying taxes on the necessaries of life
�12
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTV.
is radically vicious in principle; to tax the necessaries of
life is to sap the strength and to shorten the life of those
men and those women on whose strength and whose life
the prosperity of the country depends; it is to enfeeble the
growing generation; it is to make the children pale and
stunted; it is, in fact, to undermine the constitution of the
wealth-producers. To tax food is to tax life itself, instead
of taxing incomes; it is a financial system which is, at once,
cruel and suicidal. As a matter of fact, taxes taken off
food have not decreased the revenue, and when this policy
of taxing food shall have become a thing of the past, then
a healthier and more strongly-framed nation will bear with
ease all the necessary burdens of the State. Indirect taxa
tion is also bad, because it implies a number of small taxes
(some of which are scarcely worth the cost of collecting),
and thus necessitates the employment of a numerous staff
of officials, whereas one large direct tax would be more
easily gathered in.
It is also bad, because, with indirect taxation, it is
almost impossible for a man to know what he really
does pay towards the support of the State. It is right and
just that every citizen in a free country should consciously
contribute to the maintenance of the Government which he
has himself placed over him; but when he knows exactly
what he is paying, he will probably think it worth while to
examine into the national expenditure, and to insist on a
wise economy in the public service. I do not mean the
kind of economy which is so relished by Governments, the
economy which dismisses skilled workmen, whose work is
needed, while it retains sinecures for personages in high
places; but I mean that just and wise economy which gives
good pay for honest work, but which refuses to pay dukes,
earls, even princes, for doing nothing, This great problem
of fair and equal taxation ought to be thoroughly studied
and thought over by every citizen ; few infringements on
equal liberty are so fraught with harm and misery as arc
those which pass almost unnoticed under the head of
■* collection of the revenue few reforms are so urgently
needed as a reform of our financial system, and a fair adjust
ment of the burdens of taxation.
In France they had Game Laws. If the season were
cold the farmers might not mow their hay at the proper
time, lest the birds should lack cover; they might not hoe
the com, lest they should break the partridge eggs; the
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
13
birds fed off the crops, and they might not shoot or trap
them; if they transgressed the Game Laws they were sent
to the galleys; herds of wild boarand red deer roamed over the
■country, and the farmers and the peasants were forbidden to
interfere with them. Englishmen! who call yourselves free,
do you imagine that these relics of barbarism, swept away
by the French Revolution in one memorable night, are
nothing but archaeological curiosities, archaic remains, fossil
ised memorials of a long-past tyranny ? On the contrary,
pur Game Laws in England are as harsh as those I have
cited to you, and the worst facts I am going to relate you
have no parallel in the history of France. These cases are
so shameful that they ought to have raised a shout of exe
cration through the land ; they have been covered up, and
hushed up, as far as possible, and I have taken them from a
Parliamentary Blue-book; and I have taken them thence
• myself, because I would not quote at second-hand deeds so
■disgraceful, that had.I not read them in the dry pages of a
Parliamentary Commission I should have fancied that they
had been either carelessly or purposely exaggerated in order
to point a tirade against the rich. I allude to the deerforests of Scotland.
But before dealing with these it is interesting to note
the curious points of similarity between our Game Laws
and those of the French. In France, they were some
times forbidden to mow the hay because of the cover
it yielded to the birds : in England, you will sometimes find
a clause inserted in the lease of a farm, binding the farmer
to reap with the sickle instead of with the sbythe, that is, to
reap with an instrument that does not cut the corn-stalks off
close to the ground, so that cover may be left for'the birds ;
thus the farmers’ profits are decreased by the amount of
straw which is left to rot in the ground for the landlord’s
amusement. In France, the game might not be touched
even if the crops were damaged;’ in England, the hares may
ruin a young plantation, and the farmer may not snare or
shoot them. In France, those who transgressed the Game
Laws were sent to the galleys; in England, we send them
to prison with hard labour, and we actually pay for the
manufacture of 10,000 criminals every year, in order that
our Princes of Wales and our landed proprietors may make
it the business of their lives “ to shoot poultry.” In France,
.. the herds of wild boar and red deer might not be molested;
in England we manage these things better; we have, un
�14
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
fortunately, no wild boar, but we-clear our farmers and our
peasants out of the way in order that we may be sure that
our deer are not interfered with. As the son of a Highland
proprietor said, when planning a new deer-forest: “ the first
thing to do, you know, is to clear out the people.” The first
thing to do is to clear out the people I Yes ! clear out the
people : the people, who have lived on the land for years,,
and who have learned to love it as though they had been
born landowners ; the people who have tilled and cultivated
it, making it laugh out into cornfields which have fed hun
dreds of the poor ; the people, who have wrought on it, and
toiled with plough and spade; turn out the people and
make way for the animals; level the homes of the people
and make a hunting ground for the rich. “ It is no deerforest if the farmers are all there,” said a witness before the
Commission; and so you see the farmers must go, for of
course it is necessary that we should have deer-forests. No
less than forty families, owning seven thousand sheep,
seven thousand goats, and two hundred head of cattle,
were turned out from their homes in the time of the
present Marquis of Huntly’s grandfather, their houses were
pulled down, and their land was planted with fir-trees ;
some of the leases were bought up; in cases where they
had expired the people were bidden go. And thus it comes
to pass, according to the evidence of one witness—a witness
whom members of the Commission tried hard to browbeat,
but whose evidence they utterly failed to shake—thus it
comes to pass that “ you see in, the deer-forests the ruins,
of numerous hamlets, with the grass growing over them.”
A pathetic picture of homes laid desolate, of the fair course
of peaceful lives roughly broken into; of helpless and
oppressed people, of selfish and greedy wealth. “ From
Glentanar, thirty miles from Aberdeen, you can walk in
forests until you come to the Atlantic.” And this evil is
growing rapidly; in 1812 there were only five deer-forests
in Scotland: in 1873 there were seventy. In 1870,
1,320,000 acres of land were forest; in 1S73, there were
2,000,000 acres thus rendered useless. Under these cir
cumstances, it is scarcely to be wondered at that the popu
lation is decreasing; the population of Argyleshire in 1831
was 103,330 ; in 1871, forty years later, when it ought to
have largely increased, it had, on the contrary, decreased to
755635 > in Inverness it was 94,983 ; during the same time?
it has gone down to 87,480.
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
15-
But this is not all. While some farmers and peasants are
“ cleared out ” altogether, those who are allowed to remain
suffer much from the depredations of the deer and other
game. In Aberdeenshire alone no less than 291 farmers
complained of the enormous damage that was done to their
crops by the deer. The deer-forest is not generally fenced
in ; and as deer are very partial to turnips, it naturally follows
that the herds come out of the forest and feed off the
farmers’ crops. One proprietor graciously states that he
does his best to keep the deer away from the farms, but—
judging by the complaints of the farmers—these laudable
efforts scarcely appear to be crowned with the success
that they deserve. Not only, however, do the deer stray
out of the forests, but the farmers’ sheep stray in, and as
sheep are not game he is not permitted to follow them to
fetch them out. When such evidence as this comes out,
and we know the pressure that is put upon tenants by their
landlords, and the danger they run by giving offence to their
powerful masters, we can judge how much more remains
behind of which we know nothing. And, in the name of'
common justice; what is all this for? Why should a farmer
be compelled to keep his landlord’s game for him ? Why
should the farmer’s crops suffer to amuse a man who does
nothing except inherit land ? This wide-spread loss, these
desolated homes, these ruined lives, what mighty national
benefit have these miseries bought for England ? They all,
occur in order that a few rich men may occasionally—whenother pleasures pall on the jaded taste, and ennui becomes
insupportable—have the novel excitement of shooting at
a stag. Verily we have a right to boast of our freedom
when thousands of citizens suffer for the sake of the amuse
ment of the few.
• But these deer-forests do not only injure the unfortunatepeople who are turned out to make room for the deer, and
the farmers who lose the full profit of their labour; to turn
cultivable land into deer-forests is to decrease the food-suffly of
the country.. Some people say that only worthless land isused for this purpose; but this is not true, for pasture-ground
has been turned into forests. In one place, 800 head of'
cattle and 500 sheep were fed upon one quarter of the land
which now supports 750 red deer. That is to say, that 1,300.
animals good for food were nourished by the land which is.
now devoted to the maintenance of 187^ useless deer.
Judge then of the decrease of the food supply of the country
�1.6
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
which is implied in the fact that one-tenth part of Scotland
is now moor and forest. A baillie of Aberdeen calculates
the loss to the country at no less than 20 millions of pounds
of meat annually. In England things are not so bad; but
in England, also, the cultivation of the land wasted in game
preserving would increase to an almost incalculable extent
the food supply of the country. There is the vast estate of
Chillingworth, kept for a few wild cattle, in order that a
Prince of Wales may now and then drive about it, and from
the safe eminence of a cart may have the pleasure of shoot
ing at a bull. But at this point the question of the Game Laws
melts insensibly into that of the Land Laws, for under a
just system of Land Tenure such deeds as these would be
impossible; then, men could not, for their own selfish
amusement, turn sheep-walks into forests, and farms into
moors.
With our great and increasing population it is abso
lutely necessary that all cultivable land should be under
cultivation. To hold uncultivated, land which is capable of
producing bread and meat is a crime against the State. It
is well known to be one of the points of the “ extreme ”
Radical programme that it should be rendered penal to hold
large quantities of cultivable land uncultivated. Then,
instead of sending the cream of our peasantry abroad, to seek
in foreign countries the land which is fenced in from them
at home; instead of driving them to seek from the stranger
the work which is denied to them in the country of their
birth; we should keep Englishmen in England to make
England strong and rich, and give land to the labour which
is starving for work, and labour to the land which is barren
for the lack of it. “ Land to labour, and labour to land ”
ought to be our battle-cry, and should be the motto engraven
on our shield.
But it is impossible to throw land open to labour so long
as the laws render its transmission from seller to buyer so
expensive and so cumbersome a proceeding. It is impossible
also to effect any radical improvement so long as the land
is tied up in the hands of the few fortunate individuals who
are now permitted to monopolise it. Half the land of
England, and four-fifths of the land of Scotland, is owned by
360 families. These few own the land which ought to be
'■devoted to the good of the nation. Land, like air, and like
-all other natural gifts, cannot rightly be held as private
.property. The only property which can justly be claimed
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. '
17
in land is the improvement wrought in the soil. When a
man has put labour or money into the land he farms, then
he has a right to the advantages which accrue from his toil
and from his invested capital. But this principle is the very
contrary of that which is embodied in our Land Laws. The
great landowners do nothing for the land they own; they
spend nothing on the soil which maintains them in such
luxury. It is the farmers and the labourers who have a
right to life-tenancy in the soil, or, more exactly, to a
tenancy, lasting as long as they continue to improve
it. The farmer, whose money is put. into the land—
the labourer, whose strength enriches the soil—these are
the men who ought to be the landowners of England. As
it is, the farmer takes a farm; he invests capital in it; he
rises early to superintend his labourers ; the land rewards
him with her riches, she gives him fuller crops and fatter
cattle, and then the landlord steps in, and raises the rent,
and thus absolutely punishes the farmer for his energy and
his thrift. The idle man stands by with his hands in his
pockets, and then claims a share of the profits which accrue
from the busy man’s labour. Meanwhile the labourer—he
whose strong arms have guided the plough, and wielded the
spade, he who has made the harvest and tended the cattle
—what do our just Land Laws give to him ? They give
him a wretched home, a pittance sufficient—generally at
least—to “ keep body and soul together,” parish pay when
he is ill, the workhouse in his old age, and he sleeps at last
in a pauper’s grave. O ! just and beneficent English Law I
To the idle man, the lion’s share of the profits; to the
man who does much, a small share; to the man who
does most of all, just enough to enable him to work for
his masters. But if this gross injustice be pointed out, if
we protest against this crying evil, and declare that these
crimes shall cease in England, then these landowners arise
and complain that we are tampering with the “sacred rights
of property.” Sacred rights of property ! But what of the
more sacred rights of human life ? The life of the poor is
more holy than the property of the rich, and famished men
and women, more worthy of care than the acres of the
nobleman. If these vast estates are fenced in from us by
parchment fences, so that we cannot throw them open to
labour, so that we cannot make the desert places golden
with corn, and rich with sheep and oxen; if these vast
estates are fenced in from us by parchment fences, then I
�is
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
say that the plough must go through the parchment, in order
that the people may have bread.
The maintenance of a standing army, in which birth helps
promotion, is another blot upon our shield. A Duke of
■Cambridge, General Commanding-in-Chief, and Colonel of
four regiments, who holds these offices by virtue of his “ hi^h”
-birth, and in spite of the most palpable incapacity, is°an
absurdity which ought not to be tolerated in a country
which pretends to be free. A Prince of Wales, who has
never seen war, made a Field-Marshal; a Duke of Edinburgh,
•created a Post-Captain; such appointments as these are a
disgrace to the country, and a bitter satire on our army and
■our navy. Carpet-soldiers are useless in time of war, and
they are a burden in time of peace; and to squander
England’s money on such officers as these, simply because
they chance to be born Princes, is a distinct breach of equal
Civil Liberty.
The need of Electoral Reform is well-known to all students
•of politics. No country is free in which all adult citizens
have not a voice in the government. A representation
which is based upon a property qualification is radically
vicious in principle. But not only is our civil liberty
cramped by the fact that the majority of citizens are not
represented at all, but even the poor representation we have
is unequally and unjustly distributed. In one place 136
men return a member to Parliament; in another, 18,000
fail t(jreturn their candidate. In Parliament no members
represent 83,000 voters. The next no represent 1,080,000.
A group of 70,000 voters return 4 members ; another group
■of 70,000 return 80. In one instance, 30,000 voters out
weigh 546,000 in Parliament by a majority of 9. Hence
it follows that a minority of electors rule England, and,
however desirable it may be that minorities should be re
presented, it is surely not desirable that they should rule.
Our present system throws overwhelming power into the
hands of the titled and landowning classes, who, by means
of small and manageable boroughs, are able to outvote the
masses of the people congregated in the large towns. As long
as this is the case, as long as every citizen does not possess
a vote, as long as the few can, by means of unequal dis
tribution of electoral power, control the actions of the
many, so long England is not free, and civil liberty is not
won.
To strike at the House of Lords is to strike at a dying
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
19
institution; but dying men sometimes live long, and dying
institutions may last for centuries if only they are nursed
and tended with sufficient care. A. House in the election
-of whose members the people have no voice ; a House
whose members are born into it, instead of winning their
way into it by service to the State ; a House which is built
upon cradles and not upon merit; a House whose delibe
rations may be shared in by fools or by knaves, provided
only that the brow be coronetted—such a House is a dis
grace to a free country, and an outrage on popular liberty.
As might be expected from its constitution, this House
of Lords has ever stood in the path of every needed reform,
until it has been struck out of the way by hidden menace
or by stern command. Is there any abuse whose days are
numbered? be sure it will be defended in the House of
Lords. Is there a monopoly which needs to be abolished?
be sure it will be championed in the House of Lords. Is
there any popular liberty asked for ? be sure it will
be refused in the House of Lords.
Is there any
fetter struck from off the limbs of progress ? be sure that
some cunning smith will be found to weld the fragments
together again, under the name of an amendment, in the
House of Lords. The only use of the thing is, that
it may act as a political barometer by which to prognosticate
the coming weather; that which the House of Lords blesses
is most certainly doomed, while whatever it frowns upon is
-crowned for a speedy triumph. It has not even the merit
of courage, this craven assemblage of toy-players at legisla
tion ; however boldly it roars out its “ No,” a frown from
the House of Commons makes it tremble and yield; like a
reed, it stands upright enough in the calm weather; like a
reed, it bows before the storm-wind of a popular cry. As a
-question of practical politics, the House of'Lords should be
struck at almost rather than the Crown, because the whole
principle of aristocracy is embodied in that House, the
whole fatal notion that the accident of birth gives the right
to rule. Our puppet kings and queens are less directly
injurious to the commonwealth than is this titled House.
The gilded figure-head injures the State-vessel less than the
presence of hands on her tiller-ropes which know naught of
navigation. And with the fall of the House of Lords must
crash down the throne, which is but the ornament upon its
roof, the completion of its elevation; so that when the toy
house has fallen at the breath of the people’s lips, and we
�20
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
can see over the near prospect which it now hides from our
gaze, we shall surely see, with the light of the morning on
her face, with her golden head shining in the sun-rays, with
the day-star on her brow, and the white garments of peace
upon her limbs, with her sceptre wreathed in olive-branches,
and her feet shod with plenty, that fair and glorious
Republic for which we have yearned and toiled sb long.
Having seen the chief blots upon our Civil Liberty, let us
turn our attention to the defects in our religious freedom.
And here I plead, neither as Freethinker nor as Secularist,
but simply as a citizen of a mighty State, and member of a
community which pretends to be free. For every shade of
Nonconformity I plead, from the Roman Catholic to the
Atheist, for all whose consciences do not fit into the mould
provided by the Establishment, and whose thought refuses to
be fettered by the bands of a State religion. I crave for every
man, whatever be his creed, that his freedom of conscience be
held sacred. I ask for every man, whatever be his belief, that he
shall not suffer, in civil matters,for his faith orfor his want offaith.
I demand for every man, whatever be his opinions, that he
shall be able to speak out with honest frankness the results
of honest thought, without forfeiting his rights as citizen,
without destroying his social position, and without troubling
his domestic peace. We have not to-day, in England, the
scourge and the rack, the gibbet and the stake, by which
men’s bodies are tortured to ' improve their souls, but
we have the scourge of calumny and the rack of severed
friendship, we have the gibbet of public scorn, and the stake
of a ruined home, by which we compel conformity to
dogma, and teach men to be hypocrites that they may eat a
piece of bread. The spirit is the same, though the form of
the torture be changed; and many a saddened life,and many
a wrecked hope, bear testimony to the fact that religious
liberty is still but a name, and freedom of thought is still a '
crime. Public opinion, and social feeling, we can but strive
to influence and to improve; what I would lay stress upon
here, is the existence of a certain institution, and of certain
laws,’ which foster this one-sided feeling, and which are a
direct infringement of the rights of the individual conscience.
First and foremost, overshadowing the land by her gigantic
monopoly, is the Church as by law established. This body
—one sect among many sects—is given by law many privi
leges -which are not accorded to any other religious deno
mination. Her ministers are the State-officers of religion;
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
21
her highest dignitaries legislate for the whole Empire ;
national graveyards are the property of her clergy; and the
best parts of national buildings are owned by her rectors.
■So long as the State was Christian and orthodox, so long
might the Establishment of the State-religion be defensible,
but the moment that the Church ceased to be co-extensive
with the nation, that same moment did her Establishment
become an injustice to that portion of the nation which did
not conform to her creed. Every liberty won by the Non
conformist has been a blow struck at the reasonableness of
the Establishment. ' She is nothing now but a palpable
anachronism. Jews, Roman Catholics, even “Infidels”
(provided only that they veil their Infidelity), may sit in
the House of Parliament. They may alter the Church’s
articles, they may define her doctrines, they may change
her creed; she is only the mere creature of the State,
bought by lands and privileges to serve in a gilded slavery.
The truth or the untruth of her doctrines is nothing
to the point. I protest in principle against the establish
ment by the State of any form of religious, or of anti-religious,
belief. The State is no judge in such matters; let every
man follow his own conscience, and worship at what shrine
his reason bids him, and let no man be injured because he
differs from his neighbour’s creed. The Church Establish
ment is an insult to every Roman Catholic, to every Protes
tant dissenter, to every Freethinker, in the Empire. The
national property usurped by the Establishment might
lighten the national burdens, were it otherwise applied, so
that, indirectly, everynon-Churchman is taxed for the support
of a creed in which he does not believe, and for the main
tenance of ministrations by which he does not profit. The
Church must be destroyed, as an Establishment, before
religious equality can be anything more than an empty name.
There are laws upon the Statute Book which grievously
outrage the rights of conscience, and which subject an
“ apostate ”—that is, a person who has been educated in, or
who has professed Christianity, and has subsequently
renounced it—to loss of all civil rights, provided that the
law be put in force against him. The right of excommunica
tion, lodged in the Church, is, I think, a perfectly fair right,
provided that it carry with it no civil penalties whatsoever.
The Church, like any other club, ought to be able to exclude
an objectionable member, but she ought not to be able to call
in the arm of the law to impose non-spiritual penalties. But
�“2
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
*
the apostate loses all civil rights. The law, as laid down
is as follows : “ Enacted by statute 9 and 10, William III ’
cap 32, that if any person educated in, or having made profes’sion of, the Christian religion, shall by writing, printing,
teaching, or advised speaking, assert or maintain there are
more Gods than one, or shall deny the Christian religion to
be true [this Act adds to these offences, that of “denying any
one of the. persons in the Trinity to be God,” but it was
repealed quoad hoc, by 53 George III., c. 60] or the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be of divine
authority, he shall upon the first offence be rendered in
capable to hold any ecclesiastical, civil, or military office, or
employment, and for the second, be rendered incapable of
bringing any action, or to be guardian, executor, legatee, or
grantee, and shall suffer three years’ imprisonment without
bail. To give room, however, for repentance, if within
four months after the first conviction, the delinquent will, in
open court, publicly renounce his error, he is discharged
for that once from all disabilities.” Some will say that this
law is never put in force j true, public opinion would not
allow of its general enforcement, but it is turned against
those who are poor and weak, while it lets the strong go
free. Besides, it hangs over every sceptic’s head like the
sword of Damocles, and it serves as a threat and menace in
the hand of every cruel and bigoted Churchman, who wants to
■extract any concession from an unbeliever. No law that can
be enforced is obsolete; it may lie dormant fora time, but it
is a sabre, which can at any moment be drawn from the
sheath j the “ obsolete ” law about the Sabbath closed the
Brighton Aquarium, and Rosherville Gardens, and is found
to be quite easy of enforcementj though people would have
laughed, a short time since, at the idea of anyone grumbling at
its presence on the Statute Book. Poor, harmless, half-witted,
Thomas Pooley, in 1857, found the Blasphemy Laws by no
means “a dead letter” in the mouth of Lord Justice Cole
ridge. And there are plenty of other cases of injustice
which have taken, and do take place under these laws, which
might be quoted were it worth while to fill up space with
them, and but little is needed to fan the smouldering fire of
bigotry into a flame, and to put the laws generally in force
once more. . Already threats are heard, murmurs of the old
wicked spirit of persecution, and it behoves us to see to it
that these swords be broken, so that bigots may be unable to
wield them again among us.
,
�CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
23
I do not, as I have said, protest now against these laws as
a Secularist; I challenge them only as unjust disabilities im
posed on men’s consciences, and I appeal to all lovers of liberty
to agitate against them, because they impose civil disabilities
on some forms of religious opinion. And to you, O Chris
tians 1 I would say : fight Freethought, if you will; oppose
Atheism, if you deem it false and injurious to humanity:
strike at us with all your strength on the religious platform ;
it is your right, nay, it is even your duty; but do not seek to
answer our questions by blows from the statute book, nor to
check our search after truth by the arm of the law. I im
peach these laws against “ infidels,” at the bar of public,
opinion, as an infraction of the just liberty of the individual,
as an insult to the dignity of the citizen, as an outrage on
the sacred rights of conscience.
I do not pretend, in the short pages of such a paper
as this, to have done more than to sketch, very briefly
and very imperfectly, the chief defects of our civil and
religious liberty. I have only laid before you a rough draft
of a programme of Reform. Each blot on English liberty
which I have pointed to might well form the sole subject of
an essay ; but I have hoped that, by thus gathering up into
one some few of the many injustices under which we suffer,
I might, perchance, lend definiteness to the aspirations after
Liberty which swell in the breasts of many, and might point,
out to the attacking army some of the most assailable points
of the fortress of bigotry and caste-prejudice, which the
soldiers of Freedom are vowed to assail. I have taken, as
it were, a bird’s-eye view of the battle-ground of the near
future, of that battle-ground on which soon will clash
together the army which fights under the banner of privileges,
and the army which marches under the standard of Liberty.
The issue of that conflict is not doubtful, for Liberty is
immortal and eternal, and her triumph is sure, however it
may be delayed. The beautiful goddess before whom we
bow is ever young with a youth which cannot fade, and
radiant with a glory which nought can dim. Hers is the
promise of the future; hers the fair days that shall dawn
hereafter on a liberated earth; and hers is also the triumph
of to-morrow, if only we, who adore her, if only we can be
true to ourselves and to each other. But they who love her
must work for her, as well as worship her, for labour is the
only prayer to Liberty, and devotion the only praise. To
her we must consecrate our brain-power and our influence
�24
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
among our fellows ; to her we must sacrifice our time, and,,
if need be, our comfort and our happiness; to her we must,
devote our efforts, and to her the fruits of our toil. And
at last, in the fair, bright future—at last, in the glad to
morrow—amid the shouts of a liberated nation, and the joy
of men and women who see their children free, we shall see
the shining goddess descending from afar, where we have
worshipped her so long, to be the sunshine and the glory of
every British home. And then, O men and women of
England, then, when you have once clasped the knees of
Liberty, and rested your tired brows on her gentle breast,
then cherish and guard her evermore, as you cherish the
bride you have won to your arms, as you guard the wife
whose love is the glory of your manhood, and whose smile
is the sunshine of your home.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, 28, Stone
cutter 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
Civil & religious liberty : with some hints taken from the French Revolution; a lecture
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N062
Subject
The topic of the resource
Freedom of religion
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 (Civil & religious liberty : with some hints taken from the French Revolution; 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
Civil Rights
Freedom of Religion
French Revolution
Liberty
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e55ca3fdefe21dcc616b69ada9779fc5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c8VeQrYpCnKKFi6zrvOMhGulUIcpqc1XGFxOJqwIAgGG1oSKxmP0TfEidFNrsrJFC6gjdrqhyaGwRQMu0ilOT3ZPDbrYUBZt6KtSHS3-vQahqyE6on1PSqOyimYnm8DH1JsvqdzOX2ZSBDtjqWLWlZ0950t5adREQfZ-92NN2Z7I8Tv9kYZiPor%7EF3ybM%7EgQlHZIywK2Ckt9mJaB-nv%7ENkcb5JsdLu6fCvQwi91uWJIL67yBOpRWv2VTC7HJch2zraqGI-jpROwoORQJzRG2woo%7ENYXyNLSW03jFtOZCbmXXY9870Ul6Xr-kzImTwbOy-1rmxVR%7Ew9Ud5gKqTEx6YA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0f0ff68edb488848c4a4e6d1fc15e59a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
COMMON
SENSE.
BY
THOMAS PAINE.
Wiflj
arár an
fxr
LONDON:
FREETHOUG-HT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1884.
PRICE
SIXPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, ®.C
�B "2^5
INTRODUCTION.
4
'
In the T08 'years which have passed since Thomas Paine ad
dressed this pamphlet to the Anglo-Saxons in British North
America, the extension of the territory and population has been
of the grandest description. The jurisdiction of the thirteen
colonies was then everywhere circumscribed by the Indian lines,
and the number of the population—when the United States first
declared themselves a confederation—did not exceed three mil
lions. To-day in 88 States and in 10 territories, with an area of
3,603,844 square miles, exclusive of the Indian territory, the
American Republic has a population of more than 50,000,000.
When Paine penned the words now re-printed, the doctrine of
independence was scarcely comprehended by any ; George Wash
ington was a Royalist by education and association, and even the
most advanced disciples of Otis shrank from breaking with the
Monarchy. Paine’s “ Common Sense ” appealed, however, to
the people, and their decision was swift, universal, and perma
nent. The 4th of July was the grand answer of the American
people—an answer they have never had reason to regret.
The very month it was issued Washington regarded the situa
tion as “ truly alarming,” and wrote that “ the first burst of
revolutionary zeal had passed away.” Paine’s pen revived the
zeal, and achieved a victory which at that time Washington’s
sword was insufficient to conquer. In England the fear of
Paine’s pen was widespread, as may be seen by reading the trial
of the shoemaker, John Hardy, for high treason.
|To-day Paine’s “ Common Sense ” has a merit beyond its mere
local significance, mighty as this was, and no apology is needed
for its re-publication.
Chaeles Beadlaugh.
��AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION
-------- ♦--------
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not
yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor ; a long
habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appear
ance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes
more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of
calling the right of it in question (and in matters which might
never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated
into the inquiry), and as the King of England hath undertaken
in his own right to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs,
and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by
the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into
the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of
either.
In the following sheets the author hath studiously avoided
everything which is personal among ourselves. Compliments
as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The
wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and
those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease
of themselves, unless too much pains are bestowed upon their
conversion.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all
mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not
local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers
of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections
are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword,
declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extir
pating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the con
cern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feel
ing ; of which class, regardless of party censure, is
The Author.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
��COMMON SENSE.
-------- ♦--------
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general, with concise
Remarks on the English Constitution.
Some writers have so confounded Society with Government, as
to leave little or no distinction between them ; whereas they are
not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced
by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively, by uniting our affections; the
latter negatively, by restraining our vices. The one encourages
intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron,
the last a punisher.
Society, in every state, is a blessing ; but government, even in
its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an
intolerable one ; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country
without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting, that
we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like
dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are
built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For, were the
impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed,
man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case,
he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to
furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is
induced to do by the same prudence which, in every other case,
advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,
Security being the true design and end of Government, it un
answerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most
likely to ensure it to us with the least expense and greatest bene
fit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in
some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest;
they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of
the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their
first thought. A. thousand motives will excite them thereto ; the
strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so
unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the
same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable
dwelling in the midst of a wilderness; but one man might labor
Out the common period of his life without accomplishing any
thing ; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor
erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would
�Common Sense.
urge him from his work, and every different want call him a
different way. Disease, nay, even misfortune, would be death ;
for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him
from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might be
rather said to perish than to die.
Thus, necessity, like a gravitation power, would soon form our
newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of
which would supersede and render the obligations of law and
government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to
each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it
will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount
the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in
a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attach
ment to each other; and this remissness will point out the neces
sity of establishing some form of government to supply the
defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a state-house, under the
branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliberate
on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws
will have the title only of regulations, and be enforced by no
other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament
every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase
likewise, and the distance at which the members may be sepa
rated will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on
every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their
habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This
will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the
legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at
stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in
the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present.
If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to
augment the number of the representatives ; and that the interest
of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found
best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending
its proper number; and that the elected may never form to them
selves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point
out the necessity of having elections often; because, as the elected
must by that means return and mix again with the general body
of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be
secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for them
selves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a com
mon interest with every part of the community, they will mutually
and naturally support each other: and on this (not the unmean
ing name of king) depends the strength of government and the
happiness of the government.
Here, then, is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
govern the world; here too is the design and end of government,
viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be
�Common Sense.
9
dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understand
ing, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in
nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any
thing is the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier re
paired when disordered : and with this maxim in view I offer a few
remarks on the so-much-boasted constitution of England. That
it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erec
ted is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the
least remove therefrom was a glorious risk. But that it is im
perfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what
it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature)
have this advantage with them, that they are simple ; if the
people suffer they know the head from which their suffering
springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a
variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is
so exceedingly complex that the nation may suffer for years to
gether without being able to discover in which part the fault
lies ; some will say in one, and some in another, and every po
litical physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long-standing pre
judices ; yet if we suffer ourselves to examine the component
parts of the English constitution we shall find them to be the
base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some
new Republican materials.
First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of
the king.
Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons
of the peers.
Thirdly.—The new Republican materials in the persons of the
commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first being hereditary are independent of the people,
wherefore, in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing to
wards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three
powers, reciprocally checking each other is farcical; either the
words have no meaning or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons are a check upon the king, presup
poses two things :
First.—That the king is not to be trusted without being looked
after, or, in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the
natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.—That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the
crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons power
to check the king, by withholding supplies, gives afterwards the
king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to
reject their other bills, it again supposes that the king is wiser
�10
Common Sense.
than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him.
A mere absurdity.
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition
of monarchy ; it first excludes a man from the means of informa
tion, yet it empowers him to act in cases where the highest judg
ment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world,
yet the business of a kiDg requires him to know it thoroughly;
wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and des
troying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus:
the kiDg, they say, is one, the people another; the peers are a
house in behalf of the king, the commons in behalf of the people;
but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against
itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet
when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it always
happens that the nicest construction that words are capable of,
when applied to the description of something which either can
not exist or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of
description, will be words of sound only, and though they may
amuse the ear they cannot inform the mind; for this explanation
includes a previous question, viz., “ How came the king by a
power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged
to check ? ” Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power which needs checking be from
God ; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes
such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either
cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a
felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less,
and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it
only remains to know which power in the constitution has the
most weight; for that will govern ; and though the others, or a
part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity
of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it their endeavors
will be ineffectual, the first moving power will at last have its
way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part of the English con
stitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole
consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions
is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to
shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same
time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of
the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen in favor of their own govern
ment, by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from
national pride than reason. Individuals are, undoubtedly, safer
in England than in some other countries, but the will of the
king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with
this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his
mouth it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of
�Common Sense.
11
an Act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath
only made kings more subtle;—not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in
favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly
owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitu
tion of the government, that the crown is not so oppressive in
England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary : for as we are
never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we
continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither
are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered
with an obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a
prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepos
session in favour of a rotten constitution of government, will
disable us from discerning a good one.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.
Mankind being originally equal in the order of creation, the
equality only could be destroyed by some subsequent circum
stances ; the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure
be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh
and ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression
is often the consequence, but seldom the means, of riches ; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously
poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
Bftt there is another and greater distinction, for which no
truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female
are the distinctions of Nature ; good and bad, the distinctions of
Heaven ; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted
above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth
enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or
of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the Scripture
Chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which
was, there were no wars. It is the pride of kings which throws
mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king, hath enjoyed
more peace for the last century than any of the monarchical
governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark;
for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs have a happy
something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced to the world by
the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the cus
tom. It was the most prosperous invention the devil ever set
on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The heathen paid divine
honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath
improved on the plan, by doing the same to its living ones. How
�12
Common Sense.
impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in
the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be de
fended on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the
Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet ,Samuel,
expressly disapproves of government by kings. All antimonarchical parts of the Scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments; but they undoubtedly
merit the attention of countries which have their governments
yet to form. “ Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,”
is the Scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without
a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic
account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion,
requested a king. Till then, their form of government (except
in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was
a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of
the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to
acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.
And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage
which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that
the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a
form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
of Heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in Scripture as one of the sins of the
Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.
The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
Gideon marched against them with a smsll army, and victory,
through the Divine interposition, decided in his favor. The
Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of
Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, “ Rule thou over
us, thou and thy son, and thy son’s son.” Here was a tempta
tion in its fullest extent: not a kingdom only, but a hereditary
one. But Gideon in the piety of his soul, replied, “ I will not
reign over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord
shall rule over you.” Words need not be more explicit.
Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to
give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented decla
rations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet
charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King
of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again
into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the
idolatrous customs of the heathen, is something exceedingly un
accountable ; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct
of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular
concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to
Samuel, saying, “ Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in
�Common Sense.
13
thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the other
nations.” And here we cannot but observe that their motives
were bad, viz., that they might be like unto other nations, i.e.,
the heathen; whereas their true glory laid in being as much un
like them as possible. “Bat the thing displeased Samuel when
they said, Give us a King to judge us ; and Samuel prayed unto
the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all they say unto thee, for they have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not
reign over them. According to all the works which they have
done since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, even unto
this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other
gods ; so do they also unto thee. Now, therefore, hearken unto
their voice, howbeit protest solemnly unto them, and show the
manner of a king that shall reign over them (z.e., not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after; and notwithstanding
the great difference of time, and distance, and manners, the cha
racter is still in fashion). And Samuel told all the words of
the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he
said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over
you ; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for
his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before
his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men), and he will appoint them captains over thou
sands, and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his
ground, and to reap his harvest, and make his instruments of
war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your
daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be
bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
oppression of kings), and he will take your fields and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants;
and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards,
and give them to his officers and his servants (by which we see
that bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of
kings) ; and he will take the tenth of your men-servants, and
your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your
asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of
your sheep, and you shall be his servants ; and ye shall cry out
in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen,
and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do
the characters of the few good kings who have lived since either
sanctify the title or blot out the sinfulness of the origin ; the
high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially
as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. “Never
theless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and
they said, Nay, but we will have a King over us, that we may be
like all the nations, and that our King may judge us, and go out
before us, and fight our battles.” Samuel continued to reason
with them, but to no purpose ; he set before them their ingrati
�14
Common Sense.
tude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their
folly, he cried out: “I will call unto the Lord and he shall send
thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the
time of wheat harvest), that ye may perceive and see that your
wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord,
in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the
Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly
feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto
Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we
die not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king.”
These portions of Scripture are direct and positive. They admit
of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath there
entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or
the Scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe
that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding
the Scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy
in every instance is the Popery of Government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult
and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equal,
no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in
perpetual preference to all others for ever ; and though himself
might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contempo
raries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of heredi
tary right in kings is, that nature disproves it, otherwise she
would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind
an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public
honors than were bestowed upon them, so the givers of those
honors could have no right to give away the right of posterity.
And though they might say: “ We choose you for our head,”
they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say,
“that your children and your children’s children shall reign over
ours for ever,” because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural com
pact might, perhaps, in the next succession, put them under the
government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their
private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with con
tempt ; yet it is one of those evils which, when once established,
is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from super
stition, and the most powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to
have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable
that, could we take off the dark covering of antiquity and trace
them to their first rise, we should find the first of them nothing
better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose
savage manners or pre-eminence in subtilty, obtained him the
title of chief among plunderers; and who, by increasing in
power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and
�Common Sense.
15
defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.
Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to
his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves
was incompatible with the free and unrestained principles they
professed to live by. Wherefore hereditary succession in the
early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim,
but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no re
cords were extant in those days, and traditionary history is
stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few
generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently
timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats
of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threaten, or seemed
to threaten, on the decease of a leader, and the choice of a new
one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) in
duced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions ; by which
means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good
monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad
ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under
William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French
bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing him
self King of England, against the consent of the natives, is, in
plain terms, a very paltry, rascally original. It certainly hath
no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time
in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so
weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass
and the lion, and welcome ; I shall neither copy their humility,
nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask, how they suppose kings came at
first? The question admits but of three answers, viz., either
by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was
taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which ex
cludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession
was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction,
there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any
country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent
for the next; for to say that the right of all future generations
is taken away by the act of the first electors, in their choice, not
only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel
in or out of Scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which
supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
comparison (and it will admit of no other) hereditary succession
can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the
first electors all men obeyed; so in the one all mankind are
subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty: as our
innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and
as both disable us from re-assuming some further state and privi
lege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary suc
cession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion !
Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
�16
Common Sense.
As to usurpation no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and
that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
contradicted. The plain truth is that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
succession which concerns mankind. Did it insure a race of
good and wise men, it would have the seal of divine authority;
but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the im
proper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men, who look
upon themselves as born to reign, and on the others to obey,
soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their
minds are easily poisoned by importance, and the world they act
in differs so materially from the world at large that they have
but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignor
ant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the
throne is liable to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which
time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, has every
opportunity and inducement to betray its trust. The same
national misfortune happens when a king, worn out with age
and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who
can tamper with the follies either of infancy or age.
The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor
of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from civil
wars; and were this true it would be weighty ; whereas, it is
the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The
whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and
two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the
conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revo
lution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions.
Wherefore, instead of making for peace it makes against it, and
destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession between the houses
of York and Lancaster laid England in a scene of blood for many
years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges,
were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry
prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And
so uncertain is the fate of war, and temper of a nation, when
nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that
Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and
Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as
sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed
him ; the Parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was
not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the
families were united; including a period of sixty-seven years,
viz., from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid, not this or that
�Common Sense.
17
kingdom only, but the world in blood and ashes. It is a form of
government which the word of God bears testimony against, and
blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king we shall find that in
iome countries they have none ; and after sauntering away their
lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation,
withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the
same idle ground. In the absolute monarchies the whole weight
of business, civil and military, lies on the king ; the children of
Israel, in their request for a king, urged this plea, “ that he may
judge us and go out before us, and fight our battles.” But in
countries where he is neither a judge nor a general a man would
be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a Republic the less
business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a
proper name for the government of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present state it is un
worthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown,
by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swal
lowed up the power and eaten out the virtue of the House of
Commons (the Republican part of the constitution), that the
government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France
or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them,
for it is the Republican, and not the monarchical, part of the con
stitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty
of choosing a House of Commons from out of their own body ;
and it is easy to see that when Republican virtue fails slavery
ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the Republic, the crown hath engrossed
the Commons ?
In England the king hath little more to do than to make war
and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to impoverish
the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business
indeed, for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling
a-year for, and worshipped into the bargain ! Of more worth is
One honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the
crowned ruffians that ever lived.
Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs.
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts,
plain arguments, and common sense ; and have no other prelimi
naries to settle with the reader than that he will divest himself
Of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his feelings to deter
mine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will
not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge
his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked
in the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs ; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate
�18
Common Sense.
is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; and
the appeal was the choice of a king, and the continent hath
accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham, who, though an
able minister, was not without his faults, that on his being
attacked in the House of Commons on the score that his measures
were only of a temporary kind, replied: “They will last my time.”
Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies
in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered
by future generations with detestation.
The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. It is not
the affair of a city, a county a province, or of a kingdom, but of
a continent—of, at least, one-eighth part of the habitable globe.
It is not the concern of a day, a year, or an age ; posterity are
involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even
to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed
time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture
now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the
tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the
tree, and posterity read it in full-grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for
politics is struck, a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
plans, proposals, etc., prior to the 19th of April, i.e., to the
commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of last year,
which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the
question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a
union with Great Britain ; the only difference between the parties
was the method of affecting it, the one proposing force, the
other friendship ; but it hath so far happened that the first hath
failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as
we were, it is but right that we should view the contrary side of
the argument, and inquire into some of the many material
injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by
being connected with, and dependent on, Great Britain. To
examine that connexion and dependence, on the principles of
nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if
separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some that, as America had
flourished under her former connexion with Great Britain, the
same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and
will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious
than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because
a child has thriven upon milk it is never to have meat, or that the
first twenty years of our lives are to become a precedent for the
next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I
answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power anything to do
with her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are
�Common Sense.
19
the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating
is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed
us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as
her own is admitted ; and she would have defended Turkey from
the same motive, viz., the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and
made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted of the
protection of Great Britain, without considering that her motive
was interest, not attachment; but she did not protect us from
our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own
account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other
account, and who will always be our enemies on the same
account. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at
peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain.
The miseries of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against
connexions.
It has lately been asserted in Parliament that the colonies have
no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e.,
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England ; this is certainly a very round
about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only
true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and
Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as
Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country say some. Then the more
shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,
nor savages make war on their families; wherefore the assertion,
if true, turns to her reproach ; but it happens not to be true, or
only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for
the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty in every part
of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces
of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so
far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England),
and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood
with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity
of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we sur
mount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaint
ance with the world. A man born in any town in England
divided into parishes, will naturally associate with his fellow
parishioner, because their interests in many cases will be com
mon, and distinguish him by the name of neighbor ; if he meet
B2
�20
Common Sense.
him but a few miles from home, he salutes him by the name of
townsman ; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any
other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and
calls him countryman, ie., county man ; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France, or in any other part
of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that
of Englishman. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
countrymen ; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale, which the divisions of street, town and county, do on the
smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.
Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent
or mother country applied to England only, as being false,
selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of English descent, what does
it amount to? Nothing. Britain being now an open enemy,
extinguishes every other name and title ; and to say that recon
ciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England
of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman,
and half the peers of England are descendants from the same
country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning, England
ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies; that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the
world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of wars is un
certain ; neither do the expression mean anything; for this
continent never would suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants,
to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defi
ance ? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will
secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe ; because it is
the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her
trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and
silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show
a single advantage this continent can reap by being connected
with Great Britain ; I repeat the challenge, not a single advan
tage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in
Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them
where you will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that con
nexion are without number ; and our duty to mankind at large,
as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance, be
cause, any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain tends
to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and set
us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friend
ship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial
connexion with any part of it. It is the true interest of America
�Common Sense.
21
to steer clear or European contentions, which she can never do,
while by her dependence on Britain she is made the make-weight
in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at
peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her
connexion with Great Britain. The next war may not turn out
like the last, and should it not the advocates for reconciliation
now will be wishing for a separation then, because neutrality
in that case would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every
thing that is right or natural pleads for a separation. The blood
of the slain, the weeping voice of nature, cries. It is time to part.
Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England
and America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of
the one over the other was never the design of heaven. The
time, likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds to the
weight of the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled
increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the
discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home
should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form
of government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a
serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward,
under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls
“ the present constitution ” is merely temporary. As parents we
can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently
lasting to ensure anything which we may bequeath to posterity ;
and by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next
generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise
we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line
of our duty rightly we should take our children in our hands,
and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence
will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices
conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence
yet I am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doc
trine of reconciliation may be included within the following
descriptions : Interested men, who are not to be trusted ; weak
men, who cannot see ; prejudiced men, who will not see ; and
a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European
world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged
deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this conti
nent than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene
of sorrow ; and the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors
to make them feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for
a few moments to Boston ; that seat of wretchedness will teach
us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom
we can have no trust; the inhabitants of that unfortunate city,
�22
Common Sense.
who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now
no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg.
Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within
the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their
present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemp
tion, and in a general attack for their relief they would be ex
posed to the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offences of Britain, and still hoping for the best, are apt to call
out: “ Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But
examine the passions and feelings of mankind, bring the doctrine
of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me
whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the
power which hath carried fire and sword into your land ? If you
cannot do all these then you are only deceiving yourselves, and
by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connex
ion with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be
forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of
present convenience will in a little time fall into a relapse more
wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass the
violations over then I ask, hath your house been burnt ? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face ? Are your wife
and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on ?
Have you lost a parent or child by their hands, and you yourself
the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are
you a judge of those who have ? But if you have, and still can
shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy the name
of husband, father, friend, or lover ; and whatever may be your
rank or title in life you have the heart of a coward, and the
spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, by trying them
by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and
without which we should be incapable of discharging the social
duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to
exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to
awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue
determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of
Britain, or of Europe, to conquer America, if she do not conquer
herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an
age, if rightly employed, but if neglected the whole continent
will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which
that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will,
that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and
useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to
all examples of former ages, to suppose that this continent can
longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine
in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human
wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation,
which can promise the continent a year’s security. Reconciliation
is now a fallacious dream. Nature has deserted the connexion
�Common Sense.
and art cannot supply her place ; for as Milton wisely expresses:
“ Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly
hate have pierced so deep.”
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers have been rejected with disdain, and only tended to
convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in
kings more than repeated petitioning ; and nothing hath contri
buted more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe
absolute; witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since
nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake let us come to a final
separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting of
throats under the violated, unmeaning names of parent and
-child.
To say they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary ;
we thought so at the repeal of the Stamp Act, yet a year or two
undeceived us ; as well may we suppose that nations which have
been once defeated will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to
do this continent justice. The business of it will soon be too
weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree
of convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant
of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.
To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale
or petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which,
when obtained, requires five or six more to explain it, will in
a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness. There was
a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to
cease.
Small islands, not capable of protecting themselves, are the
proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there
is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetu
ally governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the
satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and
America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of
nature, it is evident they belong to different systems : England,
to Europe ; America, to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independence. I am
clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the
true interest of the continent to be so ; that everything short of
that is merely patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,
that it is leaving the sword to our children, and slinking back at
a time when a little more, a little farther, would have rendered
the continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards
a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained
worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the
expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
The object contended for ought always to bear some just pro
portion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have ex
�24
Common Sense.
pended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience
which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the Act»
complained of, had such repeals been obtained ; but if the whole
continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is
scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry
only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the Acts, if that
is all we fight for ; for, in a just estimation, it is as great a folly
to pay a Bunker Hill price for law as for land. As I have always
considered the independence of the continent as an event which,
sooner or later, must arise, so from the late rapid progress of thè
continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore,
on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth while to have
disputed a matter which time would have finally redressed, unless
we meant to be in earnest ; otherwise it is like wasting an estate
on a suit of law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant whose
lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for recon
ciliation than myself before the fatal nineteenth1 of April, 1775 ;
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected
the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever, and
disdained the wretch that, with the pretended title of Father of
his People, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and com
posedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But, admitting that matters were now made up, what would be
the event ? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for
several reasons.
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of
the continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate
enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power,
is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies : “You
shall make no laws but what I please ” ? And is there any in
habitant in America so ignorant as not to know that, according,
to what is called the present constitution, this continent can.
make no laws but what the king gives leave to ? And is there
any man so unwise as not to see (considering what has happened)
he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits his pur
pose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws
in America as by submitting to laws made in England. After
matters are made up, as it is called, can there be any doubt but.
the whole power of the crown will be exerted to keep this con
tinent as low and as humble as possible ? Instead of going
forward, we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or
ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater than the king,
wishes us to be, and will he not endeavor to make us less ? To
bring the matter to one point : Is the power who is jealous of
our prosperity a proper power to govern us ? Whoever says no
to this question is an independent ; for independency means no
more than whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the
king (the greatest enemy this continent hath or can have) shall
tell us : “ There shall be no laws but such as I like.”
1 Lexington.
�Common Sense.
25
But the king, you will say, has a negative in England; the
people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of
right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a
youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened), shall say toseven millions of people, older and wiser than himself—I forbid
this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline
this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absur
dity of it, and only answer that England, being the king’s resi
dence, and America not so, make quite another case. The king’s
negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can
be in England ; for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a
bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as pos
sible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be
passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British
politics. England consults the good of this country no farther
than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which
doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it.
A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand
Government, considering what has happened! Men do not
change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name;
and in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous
doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the King at this
time to repeal the Acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the
government of the provinces ; in order that he may accomplish
by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot do by force
and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly
related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms which we can expect to
obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a
kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer
than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state
of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising.
Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country
whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and that is
every day tottering on the brink of commotion and distur
bance, and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of
the interval to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
independence, i.e., a continental form of government, can keep
the peace of the continent, and preserve it inviolate from civil
wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as
it is more than probable that it will be followed by a revolt
somewhere or other ; the consequences of which may be far mor©
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity ! thousands
more will probably suffer the same fate! Those men have other
feelings than we, who have nothing suffered. All they now
possess is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its
service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission.
�26
;
, j
•Common Sense.
Besides, the general temper of the colonies towards a British
government, will be like that of a youth who is nearly out of his
time ; they will care very little about her. And a government
which cannot preserve the peace is no government at all, and in that
case we pay our money for nothing ; and pray what is it Britain
can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil
tumult break out the very day after reconciliation ? I have heard
some men say, many of whom, I believe, spoke without thinking,
that they dreaded an independence, fearing it would produce
civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here ; for there are ten times more
to dread from a patched-up connexion than from independence.
I make the sufferer’s case my own, and I protest, that were I
driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my
circumstances ruined, that, as a man sensible of injuries, I could
never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself
bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and
obedience to continental government as is sufficient to make
every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man
can assign the least pretence for his fears on any other ground
than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz., that one colony
will be striving for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions, there can be no superiority ;
perfect equality affords no temptation. The Republics of Europe
are all, and we may say always, at peace. Holland and Switzer
land are without wars, foreign and domestic: monarchical gov
ernments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a
temptation to enterprising ruffians at home ; and that degree of
pride and insolence, ever attendant on regal authority, swells into
a rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a Republican
government, by being formed on more natural principles, would
negociate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is
because no plan is yet laid down : men do not see their way out.
Wherefore, as an opening to that business, I offer the following
hints ; at the same time modestly affirming, that 1 have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of
giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts
of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials
for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The re
presentation more equal; their business wholly domestic, and
subject to the authority of a continental congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred and ninety.
Each congress to sit * * * * and to choose a president by the
following method :—When the delegates are met, let a colony be
taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot; after which let the
�Common Sense.
27
whole congress choose, by ballot, a president from out of the
delegates of that province. In the next congress, let a colony be
taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which
the president was taken in the former congress, so proceeding on
till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And
in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satis
factorily just, not less than three-fifths of the congress to be
called a majority. He that will promote discord under a govern
ment so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his
revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom and in what
manner this business must first arise; and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent that it should come from some inter
mediate body between the governed and the governors, that is,
between the congress and the people, let a continental conference
be held, in the following manner and for the following
purpose:—
A committee of twenty-six members of congress, viz., two for
each county. Two members from each house of assembly or
provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at
large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province,
for and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified
voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the pro
vince for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives
may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts there
of. In this conference thus assembled will be united the two
grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The
members of congress, assemblies, or conventions, by having had
experience in national concerns, will be able and useful coun
sellors ; and the whole, empowered by the people, will have a
truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their business be to
frame a continental charter, or charter of the united colonies,
answering to what is called Magna Charta of England; fixing
the number and manner of choosing members of congress, mem
bers of assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line
of business and jurisdiction between them ; always remembering
that our strength is continental, not provincial; securing freedom
and property to all men ; and, above all things, the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such
other matter as it is necessary for a charter to contain. Imme
diately after which the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies
which shall be chosen conformable to the said .charter to be the
legislators and governors of the continent for the time being,
whose peace and happiness may God preserve ! Amen.
. Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some
similar purpose, I offer them the following extract from that wise
observer on governments, Dragonetti:—“ The science,” says he,
“ of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness
and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages,
who should discover a mode of government that contained the
�Common Sense.
greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national
expense.”—Dragonetti, on “ Virtue and Rewards.”
But where, some say, is the king of America ? I will tell you,
friend, he reigns above, and does not make havoc of mankind,
like the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to
be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set
apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth, placed
on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed
thereon, by which the world may know that so far we approve of
monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute
governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought
to be king, and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use
should afterwards arise, let the crown, at the conclusion of the
ceremony, be demolished and scattered among the people, whose
right it is.
A government of our own is our natural right; and when a
man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he
will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form
a constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner, while we
have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to
time and chance. If we omit it now, some Masaniello may
*
hereafter arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may
collect together the desperate and discontented, and by assuming
to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government
of America return again to the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief
can Britain have ? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal busi
ness might be done, and ourselves suffering, like the wretched
Britains, under the oppression of the conqueror. Ye that oppose
independence now, ye know not what ye do ; ye are opening a
door to eternal tyranny.
There are thousands and tens of thousands who would think it
glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish
power which hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy
us ; the cruelty hath a double guilt—it is dealing brutally by us
and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us
to have faith, and our affections, wounded through a thousand
pores, instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day
wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them,
and can there b§ any reason to hope that, as the relationship
expires, the affection will increase ; or that we shall agree better
when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel
over than ever ?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to
* Thomas Aniello, otherwise Masaniello, a fisherman of Naples, who, after
spiriting up his countrymen in the public market-place against the oppression of
the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and
in the space of a day became king.
�Common Sense.
29
us the time that is past? Can you give to prostitution its former
innocence ? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The
last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting
addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot
forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can a
lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress as the continent forgive
the murderers of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us
these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes.
They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social
compact would dissolve and justice be extirpated from the earth,
or have only a casual existence, were we callous to the touches
of affection. The robber and the murderer would often escape
unpunished, did not the injuries which our temper sustains pro
voke us into justice.
O ye that love mankind; ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth ; every spot of the old world
is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round
the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her, Europe
regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning
to depart. O receive the fugitive ; and prepare in time an asylum
for mankind.
Of the present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous
Reflexions.
I have never met with a man, either in England or America
who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the
two countries would take place one time or other. And there is
no instance in which we have shown less judgment than in
endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of
the continent for independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion
of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general
survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very
time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for
the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious
union of all things, prove the fact.
It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies;
yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all
the world. The continent hath, at this time, the largest body of
armed and disciplined men of any power under heaven, and is
just arrived at that pitch of strength in which no single colony
is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accom
plish the matter ; and either more or less than this might be fatal
in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval
affairs, we cannot be insensible that Britian would r ever suffer an
American man-of-war to be built while the continent remained
in her hands, wherefore we should be no forwarder a hundred
years hence in that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we
shall be less so, because the timber of the country is every day
�30
Common Sense.
diminishing, and that which will remain at last will be far off
and difficult to procure.
Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings
under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
sea-port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend
and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned
to our wants, that no man need to be idle. The diminution of
trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a
new trade.
Debts we have none, and whatever we may contract on this
account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we
but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an inde
pendent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be
cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile
acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy
the charge, is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because
it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their
backs from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is
unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a
narrow heart and a peddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard, if the
work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
debt; a national debt is a national bond, and when it bears no
interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a
debt of upwards of one hundred and fifty millions sterling, for
which she pays upwards of four millions interest. As a compen
sation for the debt, she has a large navy ; America is without a
debt and without a navy; yet, for the twentieth part of the
English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The
navy of England is not worth more at this time than three
millions and a half sterling.
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing
her with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, together with a pro
portion of eight months’ boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea stores,
as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the Navy, is as
follows:—
For a ship of 100 guns...................................... £35,552
90
.................................... 29 886
80
23.638
70
17,785
60
14,197
50
................................... 10,606
40
7,758
30
5,846
20
3,710
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather,
of the whole British navy, which, in the year 1757, when it was
at its greatest glory, consisted of the following ships and
guns:—
�Common Sense.
Ship.
Guns.
Cost of one.
31
Cost of all.
£35,553 ............. ........... £213 318
100
6
29,886 ............. ...........
358 632
12
90
23,638 ............. ...........
283 656
12
80
17,785 ............. ............
70
764.755
48
14,197 ............. ...........
60
496.895
35
10,606 ............. ...........
40
50
424,240
7,758 ............. ...........
40
344,110
45
3,710 ............. ...........
58
20
215,180
85 Sloops, bombs, and)
fireships, one with;- 2,000 ..........................
170,000
another.
J
----------Cost ......................... 8,270.786
Remains for guns
....
229,214
£3,500,0001
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally
capable of raising a fleet, as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for
nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring
out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are
obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought
to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being
the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money
we can lay out. A navy, when finished, is worth more than it
cost; and is that nice point in national policy in which commerce
and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not,
we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with
ready gold and silver.
In point of manning a fleet people in general run into great
errors. It is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailors.
The “Terrible,’’privateer,Captain Death, stood thehottestengagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board,
though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A
few able and sociable sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number
of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore,
we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than
now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and
our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of
seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New
England, and why not the same now? Ship building is America’s
greatest pride, and in which she will in time excel the whole
world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and
consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her.
Africa is in a state of barbarism, and no power in Europe hath
either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of
materials. Where nature hath given the one she has withheld
1 Mr. Paine would be a little astonished if he could to-day examine
the estimates for an English ironclad.
�32
Common Sense.
the other. To America only hath she been liberal in both. The
vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea ; where
fore her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only
articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet ? We are not
the little people now which we were sixty years ago. At that time
we might have trusted our property in the street, or field rather,
and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or
windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence
ought to improve with our increase of property. A common
pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware and
laid the City of Philadelphia under instant contribution for what
sum he pleased, and the same might have happened to other places.
Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns,
might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a
million of money. These are circumstances which demand our
attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say that after we have made it up with
Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean
that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose?
Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored
to subdue us is, of all others, the most improper to defend
•us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship,
and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last
cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted
into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us ? A
navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on
sudden emergencies none at all. Wherefore, if we must here
after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves ? why do it
for another ?
The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but
not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service,
numbers of them not in being, yet their names are pompously
continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship; and not
a fifth part of such as are fit for service can be spared on any one
station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean,
Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim,
make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of preju
dice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting
me navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the
/vnole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason supposed
mat we must have one as large, which not being instantly prac
ticable, has been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from
truth than this, for if America had only a twentieth part of the
naval force of Britain, she would be by far an overmatch for her,
because, as we neither have nor claim any foreign dominion, our
own force will be employed on our own coast, where we should,
in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had
three or four thousand miles to sail over before they could
attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and
�33
Common Sense.
recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath a check over
our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the
West Indies, which, by lying in the neighborhood of the continent,
is entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in
the time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support
a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to
build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty,
thirty, forty, or fifty guns (the premiums to be in proportion to
the loss of bulk to the merchants,) fifty or sixty of those ships,
with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a suffi
cient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil
so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in
time of peace, to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of
commerce and defence is sound policy, for when our strength and
our riches play into each other’s hands we need fear no external
enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes
even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron
is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to
any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre
and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is
hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and
courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it we
want ? Why is it that we hesitate ? From Britain we expect
nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of
America again, this continent will not be worth living in.
Jealousies will be always arising ; insurrections will be constantly
happening; and who will go forth to quell them ? Who will
venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedi
ence ? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut,
respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a
British government, and fully proves that nothing but continental
authority can regulate continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others
is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet
unoccupied, which, instead of being lavished by the king on his
Worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the
discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of
government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage
as this.
The infant state of the colonies, as it is called, so far from being
against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are suffi.
oiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.
It is a matter worthy of observation that the more a country is
peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers the
ancient far exceeded the moderns; and the reason is evident, for
trade being the consequence of population, men become too much
absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce dimiishes the spirit both of patriotism and military defence; and
history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements
C
�34
Common Sense.
were always accomplished in the nonage of a nation. With the
increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of
London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued
insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to
lose, the less willing they are to venture. The rich are in general
slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling
duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in
individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the
continent into one government half a century hence. The vast
variety of interests, occasioned by the increase of trade and popu
lation, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony.
Each being able, might scorn each other’s assistance ; and while
the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise
would lament that the union had not been formed before. Where
fore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The
intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which
is formed in misfortune, are of all others the most lasting and
honorable. Our present union is marked with both these cha
racters ; we are young, and we have been distressed; but our
concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable era
for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which never
happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into
a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and
by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their
conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they
had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles
or charter of government should be formed first, and men dele
gated to execute them afterwards; but from the errors of other
nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present oppor
tunity—to begin government at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them
law at the point of the sword, and until we consent that the seat
of government in America be legally and authoritatively occupied,
we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruf
fian, who may treat us in the same manner; and then, where
will be our freedom ? where our property ?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all
governments to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I
know of no other business which government hath to do there
with. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that sel
fishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so
unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his
fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls,
and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and con
scientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there
should be a diversity of religious opinions among us; it affords a
larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way
of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for
probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various
�Common Sense.
35
denominations among us to be, like children of the same family,
differing only in what is called their Christian names.
In page twenty-seven I threw out a few thoughts on the pro
priety of a continental charter (for I only presume to offer hints,
not plans), and in this place I take the liberty of re-mentioning
the subject by observing that a charter is to be understood as a
bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to sup
port the right of every separate part, whether of religion, per
sonal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckon
*
ing make long friends.
In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large
and equal representation, and there is no political matter which
more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a
small number of representatives, are equally dangerous ; but if the
number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the
danger is increased. As an instance of this I mention the follow
ing : When the Associators’ petition was before the House of
Assembly of Pennsylvania twenty-eight members only were pre
*
sent; all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it,
and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole
province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger
it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch, likewise,
which that House made in their last sitting, to gain an undue
authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the
people at large how they trust power out of their own hands. A
set of instructions for the delegates were put together, which in
point of sense and business would have dishonored a schoolboy ;
and after being approved by a few, a very few, without doors,
were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of th®
whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know with what
ill-will that House had entered on some necessary public
measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them un
*
worthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which, if
continued, would grow into oppressions. Experience and right
are different things. When the calamities of America required
a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so
proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of As
sembly for that purpose ; and the wisdom with which they have
proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is
more than probable that we shall ever be without a Congress,
every well-wisher to good order must own that the mode for
choosing members of that body deserves consideration. And I
put it as a question to those who make a study of mankind,
whether representation and election are not too great a power
for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are
planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxima
and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr.
Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, treated the petition
c 2
�36
Common Sense.
of the New York Assembly with contempt, because that House’
he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling
number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole.
We thank him for his involuntary honesty.
*
To conclude : however strange it may appear to some, or how
ever unwilling they may be to think so, matters not; but many
strong and striking reasons may be given, to show that nothing
can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined
declaration for independence. Some of which are:
First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for
some other powers not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as
mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace; but
while America calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power,
however well-disposed she may be, can offer her mediation.
Wherefore, in our present state, we may quarrel on for ever.
Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose that France or Spain
will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use
of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and
strengthening the connexion between Britain and America, be
cause those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.
Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain,
we must, in the eyes of foreign nations, be considered as rebels.
The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to
be in arms under the name of subjects ; we, on the spot, can solve
the paradox; but to unite resistance and subjection requires an
idea much too refined for common understandings.
Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and dispatched
to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured,
and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress,
declaring, at the same time, that not being able any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British Court,
we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connexion
with her; at the same time assuring all such Courts of our
peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering
into trade with them ; such a memorial would produce more good
effects to this continent than if a ship were freighted with petitions
to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can
neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all Courts
is against us, and will be so until, by an independence, we take
rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult;
but like other steps which we have already passed over, will in a
little time become familiar and agreeable; and until an indepen
dence is declared, the continent will find itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day,
yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over,
and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
♦Those who would fully understand of what great consequenee a large
and equal representation is to a State, should read Burgh’s “ Political Disquisi
tions.’’
�Common Sense.
37
APPENDIX.
„
5
*
Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or
rather on the same day on which it came out, the king’s speech
made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy
directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought
it forth at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time.
The bloody-mindedness of the one shows the necessity of pursu
ing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge.
And the speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the
manly principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even silence, from whatever motive they may
arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of
countenance to base and wicked performances ; wherefore, if this
maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king’s speech,
as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves,
a general execration both by the Congress and the People. Yet
as the domestic tranquillity of a nation depends greatly on the
chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is
often better to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to
make use of such new methods of dislike as might introduce the
least innovation on the guardian of our peace and safety. And,
perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the
king’s speech hath not, before now, suffered a public execration.
The speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a
wilful, audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and
the existence of mankind ; and is a formal and pompous method
of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this
general massacre of mankind is one of the privileges, and the
certain consequence of kings: for as Nature knows them not,
they know not her; and although they are beings of our own
creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their
creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is
not calculated to deceive; neither can we, even if we would, be
deceived by it; brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it.
It leaves us at no loss ; and every line convinces, even in the
moment of reading, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the
naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of
Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining, Jesuitical
piece, fallaciously called “The Address of the People of England
to the Inhabitants of America,” hath, perhaps, from a vain sup
position that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp
and description of a king, given (though very unwisely on his part)
the real character of the present one. “ But,” says this writer,
“if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration
which we do not complain of ” (meaning the Marquis of Rock* ngham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act), “ it is very unfair in
ou to withhold them from that prince by whose nod alone they
�38
Common Sense.
were permitted to do anything.” This is Toryism with a witness!
Here is idolatry even with a mask! and he who can calmly hear
and digest such doctrine hath forfeited his claim to rationality—
an apostate from the order of manhood—and ought to be con
sidered as one who hath not only given up the proper dignity of
man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and con
temptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She
hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty
to take care of than to be granting away her property, to sup
port a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and
Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a
nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as
ye who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty,
if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by
European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But
leaving the moral part to private reflexion, I shall chiefly coniine
my farther remarks to the following heads:—
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from
Britain.
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
Reconciliation or Independence ? with some occasional remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce
the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on
this continent; and whose sentiments on that head are not yet
publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position ; for no
nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce,
and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive
at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what
opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made
stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but child
hood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at,
had she, as she ought to have, the legislative power in her own
hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would
do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the continent,
hesitating on the matter, which will be her final ruin, if neglected.
It is the commerce and not the conquest of America by which
England is to be benefited ; and that would in a great measure
continue, were the countries as independent of each other as
France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a
better market. But it is the independence of this country of
Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object
worthy of contention ; and which, like all other truths discovered
by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will
be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself, both in public and private
companies, with silently remarking the specious errors of those
who spoke without reflecting. And among the many which I have
heard, the following seems the most general, viz.: That had this
�Common Sense.
39
rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the
continent would have been more able to have shaken off the de
pendence. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this
time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which,
in forty or fifty years’ time, would have been totally extinct. The
continent would not, by that time, have had a general, or even
a military officer, left; and we, or those who may succeed.us,
would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient
Indians. And this single position closely attended to, will unan
swerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others.
The argument turns thus: At the conclusion of the last war we
had experience, but wanted numbers, and forty or fifty years
hence we shall have numbers without experience ; wherefore, the
proper point of time must be some particular point between the
two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a
proper increase of the latter is obtained; and that point of time
is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly
come under the head I first set out with, and to which I shall
again return by the following position, viz :
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain
the governing and sovereign power of America (which, as matters
are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely), we shall
deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have
or may contract. The value of the back land, which some of
the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust exten
sion of the limits of Canada, valued at only five pounds sterling
per hundred acres, amounts to upwards of twenty-five millions
Pennsylvania currency ; and the quit rents at one penny sterling
per acre, or two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk,
without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon will
always lessen, and in time will wholly support the yearly expense
of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying,
so that the lands, when sold, be applied to the discharge of it;
and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being
will be continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz.: Which is the easiest
and most practical plan, Reconciliation or Independence ? with
some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of
his argument, and on that ground I answer generally—that
independence being a Bingle simple line contained within our
selves, and reconciliation a matter exceedingly perplexed and
complicated, and in which a treacherous, capricious court is to
interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man
who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government,
without other mode of power than what is founded on, and
granted by courtesy; held together by an unexampled occurrence
of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which
�40
Common Sense.
every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present
condition is legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a
constitution without a name ; and what is strangely astonishing,
perfect independence contending for dependence. The instance
is without a precedent; the case never existed before ; and who
can tell what may be the event; the property of no man is secure
in the present embarrassed system of things; the mind of the multi
tude is left at random; and seeing no fixed object before them,
they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal ;
there is no such thing as treason; wherefore everyone thinks
himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not to
have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives,
by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of
distinction should be drawn between English soldiers taken in
battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are
prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty,
the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in
some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions.
The continental belt is too loosely buckled ; and if something be
not done in time, it will be too late to do anything, and we shall
fall into a state, in which neither reconciliation nor independence
will be practicable. The Court and its worthless adherents are
got at their old game of dividing the continent; and there are not
wanting among us printers, who will be busy in spreading specious
falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letters which appeared,
a few months ago, in two of the New York papers, and likewise
in two others, are an evidence, that there are men who want
either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes or corners, and talking of recon
ciliation ; but do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task
is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the continent divide
thereon ? Do they take within their view all the various orders
of men, whose situations and circumstances, as well as their own,
are to be considered therein ? Do they put themselves in the
place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier
who hath quitted all for the defence of his country ? If their
ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations
only, regardless of others, the event will convince them “that
they are reckoning without their host.”
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three.
To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain to comply with ; neither will she propose it; but if it
were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question,
by what means is such a corrupt and faithless Court to be kept
to its engagements? Another Parliament, nay, even the present,
may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being
violently obtained, or unwisely granted ; and in that case, where
is our redress ? No going to law with nations; cannon are the
barristers of crowns ; and the sword, not of justice, but of war,
decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not
�Common Sense.
41
sufficient that the laws only be put on the same state, but that
our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state ; our burnt
and destroyed towns repaired or built up; our private losses
made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged ;
otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that envi
able period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year
ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent—but it
is now too late, “ the rubicon is passed.”
Besides, the taking up arms merely to enforce the repeal of a
pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as
repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce
obedience thereto. The object on either side does not justify
the means ; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away
on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to
our persons ; the destruction of our property by an armed force ;
the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscien
tiously qualifies the use of arms; and the instant in which such
a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain
ought to have ceased ; and the independence of America should
have been considered as dating its era from, and published by the
first musket that was first fired against her. This line is a line of
consistency ; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition;
but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were
not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and
well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three
different ways by which an independency can hereafter be effected ;
and that one of those three will one day or other be the fate of
America, viz. : By the legal voice of the people in Congress, by a
military power, or by a mob. It may not always happen that our
soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men;
virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first
of those means, we have every opportunity and every encourage
ment before us to form the noblest, purest constitution on the
face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world
over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened
since the days of Noah till now. The birthday of a new world
is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event
of a few months. The reflexion is awful—and in this point of
view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavillings of
a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the
business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period,
and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we
must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather
whose narrow and prejudiced souls are habitually opposing the
measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons
to be given in support of independence, which men should rather
privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now
�42
Common Sense.
to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but
anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis,
and uneasy rather that it is not yet begun upon. Every day
convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings
yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous
to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first
protected them from popular rage, so a wise and well-established
form of government will be the only certain means of continuing
it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough
to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for
independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep
us together ; we shall then see our object, and our ears will be
legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a
cruel enemy. We shall then, too, be on a proper footing to treat
with Britain; for there is reason to conclude that the pride of
that Court will be less hurt by treating with the American States
for terms of peace, than with those whom she denominates
“rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our
delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our
backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, with
out any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain
a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to
open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England
will be still with us, because, peace with trade is preferable to
war without it; and if this offer be not accepted, other courts
may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet
been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions
of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof that either the doctrine
cannot be refuted, or that the party in favor of it are too
numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each
other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us hold
out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in
drawing a line which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in
forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig
and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard amoDg us than
those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous
supporter of the rights of mankind, and of the free and inde
pendent States of America.
�Common Sense.
43
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called
Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing
a late Piece, intituled: “ The Ancient Testimony and Principles
of the People called Quakers renewed, with respect to the King and
Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these
and other parts of America, addressed to the People in England.'’’
The writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonor
religion, either by ridiculing or cavilling at any denomination
whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable
on the score of religion. Wherefore this epistle is not so properly
addressed to you, as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling
in matters, which the professed quietude of your principles
instruct you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put
yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so the
writer of this, in order to be on equal rank with yourselves, is
under the necessity of putting himself in the place of all those
who approve the very writings and principles, against which your
testimony is directed ; and he hath chosen this singular situation
in order that you might discover in him that presumption of
character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he
nor you can have any claim or title to political representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder
that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner
in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics (as a reli
gious body of men) is not your proper walk ; however well
adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of
good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn
therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages (and the whole doth not make four), we
give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you because
the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is
the natural as well as the religious wish of all denominations of
men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an
independent constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in
our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired
of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in final
separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of intro
ducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils
and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will
steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a con
nexion, which hath already filled our land with blood; and
which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of
future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride
nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and
armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of
�44
Common Sense.
our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and in our own
land, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies
in the character of highwaymen and housebreakers; and having
no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish
them by the military one, and apply the sword in the very case
where you have before now applied the halter. Perhaps we feel
for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the
continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made
its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye
mistake not the cause and ground of your testimony. Call not
coldness of soul religion, nor put the bigot in the place of the
Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles!
if the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more
so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable
defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and
mean not to make apolitical hobby-horse of your religion, convince
the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies,
for they likewise bear arms. Give us a proof of your sincerity by
publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders-in-chief at Boston,
to the admirals and captains who are piratically ravaging our
coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting
in authority under the tyrant whom ye profess to serve. Had
ye the honest soul of Barclay, ye would preach repentance
*
to your king ; ye would tell the despot of his sins, and warn him
of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives
against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye
are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of
that reproach, which ye are bringing upon yourselves, for we
testify unto all men that we do not complain against ye because
ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be, and are not
Quakers.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your
testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was
reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and
that by the people only. Ye appear to us to have mistaken party
for conscience ; because the general tenor of your actions wants
uniformity ; and it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to
many of your pretended scruples ; because we see them made by
the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming
against the mammon of this world, are, nevertheless, hunting after
* “ Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity! thou knowest what it is to be
banished thy native country, to be overruled as well as to rule, and set upon the
throne: and being oppressed,thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor
is both to God and man. If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost
not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in
thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy
condemnation; against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or
do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will
be to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and
which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins.”
Barclay’s Address to Charles II.
�Common Sense,
45
it with a step as steady as time, and an appetite as keen as
death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third
page of your testimony, that when a man’s ways please the Lord,
he maketh “ even his enemies to be at peace with him,” is very
unwisely chosen on your part, because it amounts to a proof that
the tyrant whom ye are so desirous of supporting does not please
the Lord, otherwise his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that for
which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:—
“ It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we are
called to profess the light of Christ Jesus manifested in our con
sciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings
and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative for causes best
known to himself ; and that it is not our business to have any hand
or contrivance therein ; nor to be busy-bodies above our station,
much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of
them, but to pray for the king and safety of our nation and good
of all men ; that we might live a peaceable and quiet life, in all
godliness and honesty, under the government which God is
pleased to set over us.” If these are really your principles, why
do ye not abide by them ? Why do ye not leave that which ye
call God’s work to be managed by himself ? These very principles
instruct you to wait with patience and humility for the event of
all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will
towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
testimony, if you fully believe what it contains ? And, therefore,
publishing it proves that you either do not believe what ye
profess, or have not virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a
man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any and every govern
ment which is set over him. And as the setting up and putting down
of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most
certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore the prin
ciple itself leads you to approve of everything which ever
happened, or may happen, to kings, as being his work. Oliver
Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died, not by the hands of
men; and should the present proud imitator of him come to the
same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the testimony
are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact.
Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in
governments brought about by any other means than such as
are common and human ; and such as we are now using. Even
the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was
effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on
one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other, but to wait
the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority,
to prove that the Almighty, who hath created and placed this new
world at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and
west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of
its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned Court of
�46
• Common Sense.
Britain; unless, I say, ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground
of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people
“ firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and mea
sures as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy con
nexion we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great
Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king,
and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him."
What a slap of the face is here ! the men who, in the very para
graph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the order
ing, altering, and disposal of kings and governments into the
hands of God, are now recalling their principles, and putting in
for a share of the business. Is it possible that the conclusion which
is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid
down ? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could
only have been made by those whose understandings were
darkened by the narrow and crabbed spirit of a despairing poli
tical party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of
the Quakers, but only as a factional or fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony (which I call
upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and
judge of fairly), to which I subjoin the following remark : “ That
the setting up and putting down of kings,” must certainly mean,
the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him
no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in
the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down,
neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with
them. Wherefore, your testimony, in whatever light it is viewed,
serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many other
reasons had better have been left alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all
religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to
make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being
concerned therein and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental
harmony and friendship which yourselves, by your late liberal
and charitable donations, have lent a hand to establish ; and the
preservation of which is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.
Sincerely wishing that, as men and Christians, ye may always
fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right;
and be in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that
the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion
with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabi
tant of America.
�Works by CHAS. BRADLAUGH—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I.¥ Section I.—“The Story
of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and by Science.” Sec
tion II.—“What is Religion?” “How^has it Grown ?” “God and
Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—Ninth edition. Is.
Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is.
Debates—
Four — with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool; the Rev. Dr.
Harrison, in London; Thomas Cooper, in London; the Rev.
R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham ; with Three Discourses by
the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by C. Bradlaugh.
Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s.
. gji-w
What does Christian Theism Teach ? A verbatim report' of two
nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. Second
edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible. A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d.
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the
Universe. A verbatim report of a two nights’ Discussion with
Thomas Cooper. 6d.
Has Man a Soul? A verbatim report of two nights’debate at
Burnley, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and Faith.
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with
Special Replies. 6d.
’
Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial and Immoral.
Threo
nights’ debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is.
Is it Reasonable to Worship God? A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
Is.
The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain
ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons ; Mr. Bradlaugh’s
Three Speeches at the Bar of the House, etc., etc.
0 6
Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th
Thousand
0
May the House of Commons Commit Treason? ...
0
A Cardinal’s Broken Oath
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand
...
0 2
Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family
...
0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle...
0 2
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of
Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles
Sumner and Ledru Rollin ...
0 4
Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast...
0 6
Anthropology. In neat wrapper
0 4
When were our Gospels Written ?
0 6
Plea for Atheism
0 3
Has Man a Soul ?
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
0 6
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population
Question
0 2
�Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole
ridge for Blasphemy, in three Special Extra Numbers of the
National Reformer. 6d.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Bradlaugh and
Besant. Cloth, 5s. With Portraits and Autographs of the two
Defendants. Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the
judgments of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
Works by ANNIE BESANT—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part II. “On Christianity.”
Section I.—“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section
II—“Its Origin Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.”
Section IV.—“Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth,
3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution. Cloth, 2s.
My Path to Atheism. Collected Essays. The Deity of Jesus—
Inspiration—Atonement— Eternal Punishment—Prayer — Re
vealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examiner) and
rejected; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be. Second Edition.
In limp cloth, Is.
Light, Heat, and Sound. In three parts, 6d. each. Illustrated.
Bound in limp cloth, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Christianity on
the World. Two nights’ Debate with the Rev. A. Hatchard. Is.
Social and Political Essays. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate. 2s. 6d.
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
... q 2
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought 0 2
The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny... 0 6
God’s Views on Marriage
...
...
...
... o g
The Gospel of Atheism. Fifth Thousand
...
... o 2
Is the Bible Indictable ?
...
...
...
... q 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the
Standard of Morality. Seventh Thousand ...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment. Third Thousand ...
... 0 1
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker,
with Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his
Sociology. Being a short and convenient resumd of Posi
tivism for the general reader. Third Thousand
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth
Century. His Life and Works. Third Thousand
... 0 1
The Law of Population: Its consequences, and its bearing
upon Human Conduct and Morals. Seventieth thousand 0 6
Social Aspects of Malthusianism
...
...
... 0 q
The Physiology of Home — No. 1, “Digestion”; No. 2,
“Organs of Digestion”; No. 3, “Circulation”; No. 4,
“Respiration”; Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ... 0 4
Electricity and its modern applications. Four lectures.
Id. each. Together, in wrapper
...
...
... 0 4
Eyes and Ears
...
...
...
...
’ q 3
Vivisection...
...
...
...
...
q q
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights.
Fourth Thousand...
...
...
...
... q 2
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, 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
Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Paine, Thomas [1737-1809]
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published Philadelphia: William and Thomas Bradford, 1776. Works by Bradlaugh and Besant listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N526
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Republicanism
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 (Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers), 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
Monarchy
NSS
Political science-History-18th century
United States-Politics and Government-1775-1783
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/09c233b79a06177a209bcc6ff6fa95be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SOuZ8xwD2eW%7EcfSYFtN-r0J4h2Y76EovECl7e6JHy4SnVWUzXmiOAF4lRs2HcQpk00wg0QypTUlbe7COCo2IODCuLw4tEk7e2p1jsIF9tnxqRmY22WDTdSd7TEytAXkhQZlaQa6Ud6X5cC6YuKfcdzwaAksJOFmXPfm2z8tMYf3Bo3SIpkWCgBo4%7E-RpDYsJaJaeUwvdQIoZJibW3%7EvFl55nySxYO0ADYfrDgLeleZUrWrk1M--geMeEYahwBszSKQmaeKTspQZsTGRjYGj1nJzG29liYPUgBREyjqTGy%7EePM3czkoLxEHDzdclvcQaQyNM0twZbcKWhTfuD6xjyiA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0e1aa0aa3a569110d10b2e84fd7acad
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
Fnjv??
■
StL.
S’
. ,
'
80, PiCGAS'.LLY, HANLEi
/---------------------- -------- —,
’
DEATH'S TESTt^
OR
CHRISTIAN LIES ABOUT DYING INFIDELS.
“Those thetr idle tales of dying horrors.”— Carlyle.
There has recently been hawked about the streets of
London a penny pamphlet, called “ Death’s Test on
Christians and Infidels—Echoes from Seventy Death Beds.”
It is not an original performance, but has been “compiled
by R. May,” who appears to be a city missionary, and who
evidently possesses about as much intelligence and know
ledge of literature as usually belongs to that class of men.
Intrinsically, the pamphlet is beneath contempt, but it may
deceive many unsuspecting minds, and in response to
numerous invitations I have decided to honor it with a
reply. Reuben May is an insignificant person; yet like
other venomous little creatures he may cause annoyance to
his betters. I detest all vermin and would gladly shun
them. But sometimes they pester one beyond endurance,
and then one is obliged to sacrifice his dignity and to act
in the spirit of Swift’s maxim, “ If a flea bite me I’ll kill it
if I can.”
Before, however, I reply to Reuben May’s ridiculous com
pilation, let me deal briefly with the subject of
Death-Bed Repentance.
Carlyle, in his essay on Voltaire, has a memorable passageon this subject.
Reuben May, with other Christian
scribblers, is probably alike ignorant and careless of its
existence; but the great authority of Carlyle will have its
due weight in the minds of unprejudiced seekers for truth.
“ Surely the parting agonies of a fellow-mortal, when the
spirit of our brother, rapt in the whirlwinds and thick _ ghastly
vapours of death, clutches blindly for help, and no help is there,
are not the scenes where a wise faith would seek to exult, when
it can no longer hope to alleviate! For the rest, to touch
farther on those their idle tales of dying horrors, remorse, and the
�2
death’s test.
like ; to write of such, to believe them, or disbelieve them, or in
anywise discuss them, were but a continuation of the same
ineptitude. He who, after the imperturbable exit of so many
Cartouches and Thurtells, in every age of the world, can continue
to regard the manner of a man’s death as a test of his religious
orthodoxy, may boast himself impregnable to merely terrestrial
logic.”—“ Essays,” vol. ii., p. 161.
Reuben May and his silly coadjutors are no doubt “ im
pregnable to merely terrestrial logic.” It would probably
require a miracle to drive common sense into their heads.
But I trust there are other readers more accessible to reason,
and it is for them I write, even at the risk of being thought
guilty of “ the same ineptitude ” as those who manufacture
or believe the “ idle tales of dying horrors.”
Suppose an “ infidel” recants his heresy on his death-bed,
what does it prove ? Simply nothing. Infidels are com
paratively few, their relatives are often orthodox; and if,
when their minds are enfeebled by disease or the near
approach of death, they are surrounded by persons who
continually urge them to be reconciled with the religion they
have denied, it is not astonishing that they sometimes yield.
But such cases are exceedingly rare. Most men die as they
have lived.
Old men form the majority of these rare cases, and them
recantation is easily understood. Having usually been
brought up in the Christian religion, their earliest and
tenderest memories are probably connected with it; and
when they lie down to die they may naturally recur to it,
just as they may forget whole years of their maturity and
vividly remember the scenes of their childhood. Old age
yearns back to the cradle, and as Dante Rossetti says—
“Life all past
Is like the sky when the sun sets in it,
Clearest where furthest off.”
It is said that converted Jews always die Jews ; and mission
aries in India know well that converts to Christianity
frequently, if not generally, die in their native faith. The
reason is obvious. Only strong minds can really emanci
pate themselves from superstition, and it needs a lifetime of
settled conviction to undo the work of the pious misguiders
-of our youth.
Christians who attach importance to the “ death-bed
�DEATIl’S TEST.
3
Decantations of infidels ” pay their own religion a poor com
pliment. They imply that the infidel’s rejection of their
creed while his mind is clear and strong is nothing to his
acceptance of it when his mind is weak and confused. They
virtually declare that his testimony to the truth of their
creed is of most value when he is least capable of judging
it. At this rate Bedlam and Colney-Hatch should decide
our faith. There are some people who think it could not
be much more foolish if they did.
Cases of recantation are rarer now than ever. Sceptics
are numbered by thousands and they can nearly always
secure the presence at their bedsides of friends who share
their unbelief. Freethought journals almost every week
report the quiet end of sceptics who having lived without
hypocrisy have died without fear.
Christians know this. They therefore abandon the idea
of manufacturing fresh death-bed stories, and stick to the
old ones which have been refuted again and again. But
surely it is time we had some fresh ones. Voltaire and
Paine have been dead a long time, and many great Free
thinkers have died since. Why do we hear nothing about
them 2 Why have not the recantation-mongers concocted a
nice little story about the death of John Stuart Mill, of
Professor Clifford, of Strauss, of Feuerbach, or of Comte ?
Because they know the lie would be exposed at once. They
must wait until these great Freethinkers have, like Voltaire
and. Paine, been dead a century, before they can hope to
defame them with success. Our cry to such pious rascals is
“Hands off!” Refute the arguments of Freethinkers if
you can, but do not obtrude your disgusting presence in the
death chamber, or vent your malignity over their graves.
On the Continent, however, there have been a few recent
attempts in this line. One was in the case of
Isaac Gendre,
the
Swiss Freethinker.
The controversy over this gentleman’s death was sum
marised in the London Echo, of July 29th, 1881.
“A second case of death-bed conversion of an eminent
'Liberal to Roman Catholicism, suggested probably by that of
the great French philologist Littre, has passed the round of the
Swiss papers. A few days ago the veteran Leader of the Frei
burg Liberals, M. Isaac Gendre, died. The Ami du Peuple, the
�4
death’s test.
organ of the Freiburg Ultramontanes, immediately set afloat the
sensational news that when M. Gendre found that his last hour
was approaching he sent his brother to fetch a priest, in order
that the last sacraments might be administered to him, and the
evil which he had done during his life by his persistent Liberalism
might, he atoned by his repentance at the eleventh hour. This
brother, IV!. Alexandre Gendre, now writes to the paper stating
that there is not one word of truth in the story. What possible
benefit can any Church derive from the invention of such tales ?
Doubtless there is a credulous residuum which believes that
there must be ‘some truth ’ in anything which has once appeared
in print.”
It might be added that many people readily believe what
pleases them, and that a lie which has a good start is very
hard to run down.
Another case was that of
M. Littee,
the great French Positivist, who died a few months ago at
the ripe age of eighty-one. M. Littre was one of the fore
most writers in France. His monumental “ Dictionary of
the French Language ” is the greatest work of its kind in
the world. As a scholar and a philosopher his eminence
was universally recognised. His character was so pure and
sweet that a Catholic lady called him “ a saint who does not
believe in God.” Although not rich, his purse was ever
open to the claims of charity. He was one who “ did good
by stealth,” and his benefactions were conferred without
respect to creed. A Freethinker himself, he patronised the
Catholic orphanage near his residence, and took a keen
interest in the welfare of its inmates. He was an honor to
France, to the world, and to the Humanity which he loved
and served instead of God.
M. Littre’s wife was an ardent Catholic, yet she was
allowed to follow her own religious inclinations without the
least interference. The great Freethinker valued liberty of
conscience above all other rights, and what he claimed for
himself he conceded to others. He scorned to exercise
authority even in the domestic circle, where so much tyranny
is practised. His wife, however, was less scrupulous. After
enjoying for so many years the benefit of his steadfast tole
ration, she took advantage of her position to exclude his
friends from his death-bed, to have him baptised in his last
�DEATH S TEST.
O
moments, and to secure his burial in consecrated ground
with pious rites. Not satisfied with this, she even allowed
it to be understood that her husband had recanted his heresy
-and died in the bosom of the church. The Abbe Huvelin,
her confessor, who frequently visited M. Littre during his
last illness, assisted her in the fraud.
There was naturally a disturbance at M. Littre’s funeral.
As the Standard correspondent wrote, his friends and
-disciples were “ very angry at this recantation in extremis,
and claimed that dishonest priestcraft took advantage of the
■darkness cast over that clear intellect by the mist of
approaching death to perform the rites of the church over
his semi-inanimate body.” While the body was laid out in
Catholic fashion, with crucifixes, candles, and priests telling
their beads, Dr. Galopin advanced to the foot of the coffin,
•and spoke as follows :
“ Master, you used to call me your son, and you loved me. I
remain your disciple and your defender. I come, in the name of
Positive Philosophy, to claim the rights of universal Freemasonry.
A deception has been practised upon us, to try and steal you
from thinking humanity. But the future will judge your enemies
and ours. Master, we will revenge you by making our children
read your books.”
At the grave, M. Wyrouboff, editor of the Comtist review,
La Philosophic Positive, founded by M. Littre, delivered a
‘brief address to the Freethinkers who remained, which con
cluded thus:—
“ Littre proved by his example that it is possible for a man to
possess a noble and generous heart, and at the same time espouse
a doctrine which admits nothing beyond what is positively real,
and which prevents any recantation. And, gentlemen, in spite
of deceptive appearances, Littre died as he had lived, without contra
dictions or weakness. All those who knew that calm and serene
mind—and I was of the number of those who did—are well
aware that it was irrevocably closed to the ‘ unknowable,’ and
that it was thoroughly prepared to meet courageously the irre
sistible laws of nature. And now sleep in peace, proud and noble
thinker! You will not have the eternity of a world to come
which you never expected; but you leave behind you your
■country that you strove honestly to serve, the Republic which
you always loved, a generation of disciples who will remain
faithful to you, and last, but not least, you leave your thoughts
And your virtues to the whole world. Social immortality, the
�f
q
death’s test.
only beneficent and fecund immortality, commences for you
to-day.”
M. Wyrouboff has since amply proved his statements.
The English press creditably rejected the story of M.
Littre’s recantation. The Daily News sneered at it, the Times
described it as absurd, the Standard said it looked untrue.
But the Morning Advertiser was still more outspoken. It
said—
“ There can hardly be a doubt that M. Littre died a steadfast
adherent to the principles he so powerfully advocated during his
laborious and distinguished life. The Church may claim, as our
Paris correspondent in his interesting note on the subject tells us
she is already claiming, the death-bed conversion of the great un
believer, who for the iast thirty-five years was one of her most
active and formidable enemies. She has attempted to take the
same posthumous revenge on Voltaire, on Paine, and on many
others who are described by Roman Catholic writers as calling
in the last dreadful hour for the spiritual support they held up to
ridicule in the confidence of health and the presumption of their
intellect.”
In the Paris Gaulois there appeared a letter from the
Abbe Huvelin, written very ambiguously and obviously
intended to mislead. But one fact stands out clear. This
priest was only admitted to visit M. Littre as a friend, and
he was not allowed to baptise him.
The Archbishop of
Paris also, in his official organ, La Semaine lleligieuse,
admits that “ he received the sacrament of baptism on the
morning of the very day of his death, not from the hands of
the priest, who had not yet arrived, hut from those of Madame
LittreT The Archbishop, however, insists that he “ received
the ordinance in perfect consciousness and with his own
full consent.” Now as M. Littre was eighty-one years old,
as he had been for twelve months languishing with a feeble
hold on life, during which time he was often in a state of.
stupor, and as this was the very morning of his death, I
leave the reader to estimate the value of what the Arch
bishop calls “ perfect consciousness and full consent.” If
any consent was given by the dying Freethinker it was only
to gratify his wife and daughter, and at the last moment
when he had no will to resist; for if he had been more com
pliant they would certainly have baptised him before. Sub
mission in these circumstances counts for nothing ; and in
any case there is forceful truth in M. Littre’s words, written.
�death’s test.
in 1879 in his “Conservation, Revolution, et Positivisme ”
—“ a whole life passed without any observance of religious rites
must outweigh the single final act.”
Unfortunately for the clericals there exists a document
which may be considered M. Littre’s last confession. It is
an article written for the Comtist review a year before his
death, entitled “Pour la Derniere Fois”—For the Last
Time. While writing it he knew that his end was not far
off. “For many months,” he says, “my sufferings have
prostrated me with dreadful persistence. . . . Every evening,
when I have to be put to bed my pains are exasperated, and
often I have not the strength to stifle cries which are
grievous to me and grievous to those who tend me.” After
the article was completed his malady increased. Fearing
the worst he wrote to his friend, M. Caubet, as follows :—
“ Last Saturday I swooned away for a long time. It is for
that reason I send you, a little prematurely, my article for the
Review. If 1 live, I will correct the proofs as usual. If I die,
let it be printed and published in the Review as a posthumous
article. It will be a last trouble which I venture to give you.
The reader must do his best to follow the manuscript faithfully.”
If I live—If I die ! These are the words of one in the
shadow of Death.
Let us see what M. Littre’s last confession is. I trans
late two passages from the article. Referring to Charles
G-reville, he says :—
“I feel nothing of what he experienced. Like him, I find it
impossible to accept the theory of the world which Catholicism
*
prescribes to all true believers; but I do not regret being with
out such doctrines, and I cannot discover in myself any wish to
return to them.”
And he concludes the article with these words :—
“Positive Philosophy, which has so supported me since my
thirtieth year, and which, in giving me an ideal, a craving for
progress, the vision of history and care for humanity, has pre
served me from being a simple negationist, accompanies me
faithfully in these last trials. The questions it solves in its own
way, the rules it prescribes by virtue of its principle, the beliefs
it discountenances in the name of our ignorance of every thing
absolute ; of these I have, in the preceding pages made an ex* To a Frenchman Catholicism and Christianity mean one and the
same thing.
�8
death’s test.
amination, which I conclude with the supreme word of the com
mencement : for the last time.”
So much for the lying story of M. Littre’s recantation.
In the words of M. Wyrouboff, although his corpse was
accompanied to the grave by priests and believers, his name
will go down to future generations as that of one who was
to the end “ a servant of science and an enemy to super
stition.”
Having disposed of M. Littre’s case I return to Reuben
May’s trumpery pamphlet, dealing first with
His Pkefa.ce,
which is a wonderful piece of writing. His fitness to write
on any subject is shown by the following passage:
“I have avoided selecting cases which some would call ‘dying
fancies,’ ‘imagination,’ and ‘ visions.’ Such cases there are, both
on record and within the observation of many of those who have
widely attended the sick and dying; and although we refrain
from entering into the subject here, this is remarkable about
such cases, viz., that they are generally of two distinct classes—
(1) visions of angels, hearing beautiful music, seeing beautiful
places, etc.; (2) of those who have great fear, despondency, and
alarm; seeing fiends, smelling brimstone, feeling scorched by a
huge fire, etc. I believe invariably the first are those who have
professed religion in health, and the latter those who have
neglected it. Anyhow, my personal observation confirms this
opinion.”
If ever a Colney Hatch Gazette is started the proprietors
would do well to engage Reuben May as editor.
Another passage is very interesting:
“There is an intelligent man, close upon fourscore years of
age, now residing in the centre of London, and who I hope is a
Christian, who has for the greater part of his life—for reasons
not necessary to mention here—been conversant and mixed up
with, the followers of the leading infidel lecturers, past and
present, who says, that he has had an opportunity to watch very
many such to their closing earthly days, and that never has a
single instance come under his notice but that there was a
desire to turn from infidelity and in most to receive the con
solations of religion.”
Why is not this “ intelligent man’s ” name given ? Be•cause the lie might then be exposed. Why has he watched
so many infidel death-beds, and how did he obtain so many
opportunities ? Why does Mr. May only hope the man is a
�death’s test.
9
Christian ? If he does not know him well enough to be
sure, how can he have the audacity to publish such a
sweeping assertion on the man’s bare word ? Against this
anonymous and general testimony I put the specific fact that
our journals constantly publish cases of Freethinkers who
have died thoroughly convinced of the truth of their prin
ciples, and without the slightest misgiving ; cases in which
the names and addresses are given, not only of the deceased,
but also of the friends who were with him to the last. For
my own part, I have known many Freethinkers who were
steadfast unto death, but I have never known a single case of
recantation. Nor do I believe Reuben May has. If he has
let him give name, address, place and time, so that it may
be authenticated.
A word as to this pious scribbler’s method of compilation.
He says that “ the cases selected are from various published
and acknowledged authentic works.” What does the man
mean ? An authentic work is simply one written by the
author whose name it bears. Am I to suppose that Mr.
May believes everything he sees in print ? If not, I should
like to know what trouble he has taken to verify the stories
he has printed. My belief is that he has taken none. He
seems to have become possessed of a few antiquated works,
and to have spoiled a quantity of good paper in copying
from them what suited his purpose. What are
His Authorities?
Dr. Simpson’s “ Plea for Religion,” the Rev. Erskine
Neale’s “ Closing Scenes,” and a few more works of that
kind. They are all written by special pleaders ; not one of
them has any authority in the world of literature ; and at
the very best they are worth very little, since none of their
authors witnessed the scenes which are alleged to have taken
place at the death-beds of infidels. Mr. May should have
gone to original sources. No doubt his meagre acquaintance
with literature prevented him from doing so, and perhaps he
thought any stick was good enough to beat the infidel dog.
In exposing him, however, I shall go to original sources, and
the information I give may be useful to ignorant Reuben
May as well as to other readers.
.Erskine Neale’s “ Closing Scenes ” is first laid under con
tribution in the case of
�10
death’s test.
Thomas Paine
The author’s strong bias is apparent in almost' every line.
He describes “ Common Sense ” as a “ clever but malignant
pamphlet.” He states that Paine, when he returned to
America in 1802, was suffering from “intemperance and a
complication of disorders.” He does not cite any authority
in support of the charge of intemperance, nor does he inform
the reader that hard drinking was the custom in Paine’s
time. Fox, the great Whig statesman, was frequently
inebriated, and his great Tory rival, William Pitt, the
Premier of England, was often carried drunk to bed. Mr.
Neale also omits to mention the honorable circumstance
that Paine’s “ complication of disorders ” was brought on by
his long imprisonment in a dungeon of the Luxembourg, for
having, as a member of the National Assembly, spoken and
voted against the execution of Louis XVI.
Mr. Neale cites “an eyewitness” of Paine’s “closing
scene,” but this anonymous person does not pretend that
*
Paine recanted.
He dwells on the fact that the dying
infidel “ required some person to be with him at night, urging
as his reason that he was afraid he should die unattended.”
There is, however, nothing wonderful in this. Few men, I
presume, would like to be left alone on their death-bed.
He further states that Paine called out, in his paroxysms of
pain, “ O Lord, help me 1 God, help me I Jesus Christ,
help me I O Lord, help me ! ” But surely no man would
attach any importance to ejaculations like these. Hospital
attendants will tell you that patients utter all sorts of cries
in their agony, without meaning anything by them. Vanini,
who was burnt to death as an Atheist at Toulouse, in 1619,
is reported to have cried out on seeing the stake, “Ah, my
God 1 ” On which a bystander said, “ You believe in God,
then ; ” and he retorted, “ No, it’s a fashion of speaking.”
This anonymous eyewitness himself refutes the story of
Paine’s recantation, in the following passage:—
“ I took occasion, during the night of the 5th and 6th of June,
to test the strength of his opinions respecting revelation. I pur
posely made him a very late visit; it was a time which seemed
to suit my errand ; it was midnight. He was in great distress,
constantly exclaiming the words above-mentioned, when, after a
Probably Dr. Manley.
�death’s test.
11
considerable preface, I addressed him in the following manner,
the nurse being present:—
“ ‘Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the com
munity, have been treated with deference ; you have never been
in the habit of mixing in your conversation words of coarse
meaning; you have never indulged in the practice of profane
swearing ; you must be sensible that we are acquainted with
your religious opinions, as they are given to the world. What
must we think of your present conduct? Why do you call
upon Jesus Christ to help you ? Do you believe that he can
help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Come, now, answer me honestly; I want an answer as from the
lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not live
twenty-four hours.’ I paused some time at the end of every
question. He did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above
manner. Again I addressed him: ‘Mr. Paine, you have not
answered my questions : will you answer them ? Allow me to
ask again, do you believe, or—let me qualify the question—do
you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”
After a pause of some minutes he answered, ‘ I have NO WISH TO
believe on that subject.’ I then left him, and know not whether
he afterwards spoke to any person on any subject, though he
lived, as I before observed, a few hours longer—in fact, till the
morning of the Sth.”
Reuben May probably thought it impolitic to rest here.
He therefore made another extract from “ The Life and
Gospel Labours of Stephen Grellet.” This pious worthy
states that a young woman, named Mary Roscoe, frequently
took Paine some delicacies from a neighbor. To this young
woman, according to Stephen Grellet, he confided a secret
which he never revealed to his dearest friends. He told
her, With respect to his “Age of Reason,” that “ if ever the
devil ■ had • any agency in any work, he has had it in my
writing that book ; ” and she repeatedly heard him exclaim
“ Lord Jesus, have mercy on me ! ”
Now this young woman is no doubt Mary Hinsdale, the
servant of . Mr. Willett Hicks, a Quaker gentleman who
showed Paine great kindness during his last days. Her
story was published and widely circulated by the Religious
Tract Society in 1824. William Cobbett, who admired
Paine as a politician although he dissented strongly from his
religious views, published a conclusive reply.
While in
America he had investigated the affair. He had called on
Mary Hinsdale herself, at the instance of Charles Collins,
who wanted him to state in his contemplated Life of Paine
�12
death’s test.
that he had recanted. She shuffled, evaded, and equivo
cated ; she said it was a long time ago, and she could
not speak positively. Cobbett left in disgust, thinking the
woman a match for the Devil in cunning. He concludes his
exposure of the recantation story thus:
“ This is, I think, a pretty good instance of the lengths to
which hypocrisy will go. . _ . . . Mr. Paine declares in his last
will, that he retains all his publicly expressed opinions as to
religion. His executors, and many other gentlemen of un
doubted veracity, had the same declaration from his dying lips.
Mr. Willett Hicks visited him to nearly the last. This gentleman
says that there was no change of opinion intimated to him ; and
will any man believe that Paine would have withheld from Mr.
Hicks that which he was so forward to communicate to Mr.
Hicks’s servant girl ? ”
Cheetham, who libelled Paine in everything else, acknow
ledged that he died without any change in his opinions.
And this Mary Hinsdale, subsequently trying to play the
same trick on the reputation of an obnoxious young lady,
Mary Lockwood, as she had played on Paine’s, was proved
by the young lady’s friends to be a deliberate liar.
Perhaps the best answer to the lying story of Paine’s re
cantation, is to be found in the fact that he wrote the
second part of his “Age of Reason” in the Luxembourg, while
under apprehension of the guillotine. He states this in the
Preface. “ I had then,” he writes, “ little hope of surviving.
I know, therefore, by experience, the conscientious trial of
my principles.” Clio Kickman (p. 194) gives also the
testimony of Dr. Bond, an English surgeon in the suite of
General O’Hara, who said:
“Mr. Paine, while hourly expecting to die, read to me parts
of his “ Age of Reason and every night when I left him to be
separately locked up, and expected not to see him alive in the
morning, he always expressed his firm belief in the principles of
that book, and begged I would tell the world such were his
dying opinions.” .
The subject may be left here. I think I have disposed of
Reuben May’s authorities, and satisfactorily shown that
Thomas Paine died as he lived “ an enemy to the Christian
religion.”
Next comes the case of
V OLTAIRE.
This splendid Freethinker, whose name is a battle-flag in
�death’s test.
13
the hottest strife between Reason and Faith, has been the
•subject of more malignant slander than even Thomas Paine.
Superstition has reeled from the blows of his arguments and
writhed from the shafts of his wit, but it has partly avenged
itself by heaping upon his memory a mountain of lies.
Reuben May does not name the author of his section on
Voltaire. Most of it is a translation from the Abbe Barruel,
■who evidently wrote for pious readers ready to believe any
thing against “ infidels.” His diatribe bristles with false
hoods and absurdities.
Voltaire is charged with “ a want of sound learning and
.moral qualifications,” which will “ ever prevent him from
being ranked with the benefactors of mankind by the wise
■and good.” The writer meant by hypocrites and fools!
Voltaire’s reputation is too firmly established to be over
thrown by Christian scribblers. Our greatest living poet,
Robert Browning, salutes him thus—
Ay, sharpest shrewdest steel that ever stabbed
To death Imposture through the armor-joints! *
'Carlyle, who is very grudging in his admissions of Voltaire’s
worth, says “ He gave the death-stab to modern supersti
tion,” and adds “It was a most weighty service.”f Else
where Carlyle reluctantly admits his nobility of character:
“ At all events, it will be granted that, as a private man,
his existence was beneficial, not hurtful, to his fellow-men :
the Calases, the Sirvens, and so many orphans and outcasts
whom he cherished and protected, ought to cover a multi
tude of sins.”j:
Buckle, the historian of civilisation, writes:—
“No one could reason more closely than Voltaire, when
reasoning suited his purpose. But he had to deal with men im
pervious to argument; men whose inordinate reverence for
antiquity had only left them two ideas, namely, that everything
old is right, and that everything new is wrong. To argue against
these opinions would be idle indeed; the only other resource
was, to make them ridiculous, aud weaken their influence, by
holding up their authors to contempt. This was one of the
tasks Voltaire set himself to perform, and he did it well. He,
therefore, used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the
scourge of folly. And with such effect was the punishment
* “ The Two Poets of Croisie.”
t “Essays.” Vol. II., p. 181.
St. 107.
J Ibicl.
P. 154.
�14
DEATH S TEST.
administered, that not only did the pedants and theologians of
his own time wince under the lash, but even their successors feel
their ears tingle when they read his biting words; and they
revenge themselves by reviling the memory of that great writer,
whose works are as a thorn in their side, and whose very name
they hold in undisguised abhorrence........... His irony, his wit,
his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the
gravest arguments could have done ; and there can be no doubt
that he was fully justified in using those great resources with
which nature had endowed him, since by their aid he advanced
the interests of truth, and relieved men from some of their most
inveterate prejudices.”—“ History of Civilisation,” Vol. II.,
p. 308-9.
Taking him as a whole, Buckle thinks he is probably the
greatest historian Europe has produced. Lamartine cha
racterises him as “ ce genie non le plus haut, metis le plus vaste
de la France ”—not the loftiest but the greatest genius of
France. And lastly, Brougham, in his “ Life of Voltaire,”
says—
“Nor can any one since the days of Luther be named, to
whom the spirit of free inquiry, nay, the emancipation of the
human mind from spiritual tyranny, owes a more lasting debt of
gratitude.”
What does Reuben May think now ? These great writers
regard Voltaire as a “ benefactor of mankind.” Surely they
are as “ wise ” as Reuben May’s anonymous author, and
probably as “ good.”
The Abbe Barruel’s first misstatement is glaring and
unpardonable. He writes of Voltaire as “ the dying
Atheist.” Now, Voltaire was a Theist, and he penned
arguments in favor of the existence of God such as few
theologians have equalled. He is 'credited with the saying
that “ If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent
him.” He described an Atheist as a monster created by
nature in a moment of madness. He quarreled with some
of the most eager spirits engaged on the great Encyclo
pedia for going too far in a negative direction. During his
last visit to Paris, only a few weeks before his death, when
Benjamin Franklin’s grandson was presented to him, he
said “ God and Liberty, that is the only benediction which
befits the grandson of Dr. Franklin.”* Yet the Abbe
Condorcet, Vie de Voltaire, p. 111.
�death’s test.
15
Barruel calls Voltaire an Atheist. A writer so grossly
inaccurate is scarcely worth notice.
He also says that Voltaire in his famous phrase Ecrasez
L’Infame (crush the Infamous) referred to Jesus Christ.
This is another gross mistake. Voltaire had great respect
and admiration for Jesus as a man. By the Infamous he
meant the Church with its dogmas, its priestcraft, its op
pressions, and its crimes.
He states that the Abbe Gauthier, with the curate of St.
Sulpice, was unable to gain admission to Voltaire’s apart
ment, in consequence of Diderot, D’Alembert, and other
“ conspirators ” surrounding him. This is another false
hood, as the sequel will show.
Now for the story of Voltaire’s “ recantation.” In those
days every Freethinker wrote with the halter round his
neck. Voltaire was always in peril, from which only his
wonderful adroitness saved him. He disliked martyrdom,
had no wish to be burnt to please the faithful, and thought
he could do Truth more service by living than by courting
death. Consequently, his whole life was more or less an
evasion of the enemy. Many of his most trenchant attacks
on Christianity were anonymous; and although everyone
knew that only one pen in France could have written them,
there was no legal proof of the fact. When Voltaire came
to die, he remembered his own bitter sorrow and indigna
tion, which he expressed in burning verse, at the ignominy
inflicted many years before on the remains of the poor
actress, Adrienne Lecouvreur, which were refused sepulture
because she died outside the pale of the Church. Fearing
similar treatment himself, he is said to have sent for the
Abbe Gauthier, who, according to Condorcet, “ confessed
Voltaire, and received from him a profession of faith, by
which he declared that he died in the Catholic religion
wherein he was born.” This story is generally credited,
but its truth is by no means indisputable ; for in the Abbe
Gauthier’s declaration to the Prior of the Abbey of Scellieres,
where Voltaire’s remains were interred, he says that “when
he visited M. de Voltaire he found him unfit to be confessed!
The Curate of St. Sulpice was annoyed at being fore
stalled by the Abbe Gauthier, and as Voltaire was his
parishioner, he demanded “ a detailed profession of faith
and a disavowal of all heretical doctrines.” He paid the
�16
death’s test.
dying Freethinker many unwelcome visits, in the vain hope
of obtaining a full recantation, which would be a fine
feather in his hat. The last of these visits is thus described
by Wagniere, one of Voltaire’s secretaries, and an eye
witness of the scene. I take Carlyle’s translation :—
Two days before that mournful death, M. l’Abbe Mignot, his
nephew, went to seek the Cure of Saint Sulpice and the Abbe
Gauthier, and brought them into his uncle’s sick-room ; who, on
being informed that the Abbe Gauthier was there, “Ah, well! ”
said he, “ give him my compliments and my thanks.” The
Abbe spoke some words to him, exhorting him to patience. The
Cure of Saint Sulpice then came forward, having announced
himself, and asked of M. de Voltaire, elevating his voice, if he
acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? The sick
man pushed one of his hands against the Cure’s calotte (coif),
shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side,
“ Let me die in peace (Laissez-moi mourir en paix) !” The
Cure seemingly considered his person soiled, and his coif dis
honored, by the touch of a philospher. He made the sick-nurse
give him a little brushing, and then went out with the Abbe
Gauthier.
A further proof that Voltaire made no real recantation
lies in the fact that the Bishop of Troyes sent a peremptory
dispatch to the Prior of Scellieres, which lay in his diocese,
forbidding him to inter the heretic’s remains. The dispatch,
however, arrived too late, and Voltaire’s ashes remained
there until 1791, when they were removed to Paris, and
placed in the Pantheon, by order of the National Assembly.
Having disposed of the “ recantation,” I must refute
another lie. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that—
“In his last illness he sent for Dr. Tronchin. When the
Doctor came, he found Voltaire in the greatest agony, exclaiming
with the utmost horror—I am abandoned by God and man.’
He then said, “Doctor, I will give you half of what I am worth,
if you will give me six month’s life.’ The Doctor answered,
‘Sir, you cannot live six weeks.’ Voltaire replied, ‘Then I
shall go to hell, and you will go with me! ’ and soon after
expired.”
Was there ever a sillier story ? Who, except a lunatic or a
Christian, could believe it ? Why did Voltaire want exactly
six months’ life? He was then in his eighty-fifth year,
and had surely lived long enough. Why did he say he was
going to hell when he believed there was no such place ?
And why did he suppose the Doctor would go to hell too for
�death’s test.
17
being unable to prolong his existence ? The person who
invented this story was a fool, and Reuben May is a ninny
to print it.
The story is an evident lie. After this funny conversa
tion, Voltaire “ soon expired.” Now Wagniere has left
an account of Voltaire’s end which disproves this. Carlyle
translates it thus :—
“ He expired about quarter past eleven at night,
the most
perfect tranquillity, after having suffered the cruelest pains, in
consequence of those fatal drugs, which his own imprudence, and
especially that of the persons who should have looked to it,
made him swallow. Ten minutes before his last breath, he took
the hand of Morand, his valet-de-chambre, who was watching
him ; pressed it, and said, “ Adieu, mon cher Morand, je me meurs ”
Adieu, my dear Morand, I am gone.” These are the last words
uttered byM. de Voltaire.”
Wagniere’s narrative looks true, unlike the rubbish of Dr.
Tronchin, the Abbe Barruel, and Reuben May.
Further on in Reuben May’s pamphlet we read of a parson
who was told by another parson that a friend of his had
seen an old nurse who waited on Voltaire in his last illness,
and who declared that “ not for all the wealth of Europe
would she see another infidel die.” But as no one who
visited Voltaire mentions this woman, and as no nurse is
alluded to by friend or enemy, I unceremoniously dismiss
her as “ a mockery, a delusion and a snare.”
My readers must, I think, be fully satisfied that Voltaire
neither recanted nor died raving, but remained a sceptic to
the last, and passed away quietly to “ the undiscovered
country from whose bourne no traveller returns.”
I take next a foolish story about
Volney,
another great Frenchman, and author of the famous “ Ruins
of Empires ” :—
“ Volney in a Storm.—Volney, a French infidel, was on board
a vessel during a violent storm at sea, when the ship was in
imminent danger of being lost. He threw himself on the deck,
crying in agony, ‘ Oh, my God ! my God 1 ’ “ There is a God,
then, Monsieur Volney ?’said one of the passengers to him.
‘Oh, yes,’ exclaimed the terrified infidel, “there is! there is!
Lord, save me! ’ The ship, however, got safely into port. Volney
was extremely disconcerted when his confession was publicly re
�18
death’s test.
lated, but excused it by saying that he was so frightened by the
storm that he did not know what he said, and immediately
returned to his atheistical sentiments.”
Reuben May gives no authority for this story. He seems
to think that his readers, like himself, will believe anything
they see in print. I have traced it back to the “ Tract Maga
zine ” for July, 1832, where it appears very much amplified
and in many respects different. It appears, in a still dif
ferent form, in the eighth volume of the “ Evangelical
Magazine,” where it professes to be taken from Weld’s
“ Travels in America ” This date is a great many years
after Volney’s time. I cannot find any earlier trace of the
story, and I therefore ask the reader to reject it as false
and absurd.
The next case is that of “ the noble Altamont,” but as I
cannot discover who the noble Altamont was, and suspect
him to be the aristocratic hero of some eighteenth-century
romance, I pass on to the case of
Hobbes.
This great thinker, who knew Bacon, Selden, and Ben Jonson
in his youth, and Dryden in his old age, lived to be upwards
of ninety. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that, when dying,
he said “ he was about to take a leap in the dark.” Well,
that was only an emphatic way of expressing his doubt
whether there is a future life or not. We are also told that
he always had a candle burning in his bedroom, as he was
afraid of the dark. So are thousands of true believers. In
Hobbes’s case, this was partly due to an accident which
caused his premature birth, and partly to the fact that at
the time of the “ candle” story he was a very old man, and
in dread that some religious fanatic might carry out the
threats of assassination which were frequently made. He
knew that the Church of England wanted to burn him
alive, and that he was saved from martyrdom only by the
protection of eminent personages in the State.
Cooke, the Leicester Murderer
is the next case. He attributed his wickedness to “ infidel
associations.” But we have no statement from his own
hand, and his “ confession,” like that of Bailey, the
Gloucester murderer, was no doubt fabricated or improved
�death’s test.
19
by the chaplain. All the other murderers of this century
have been undoubted Christians.
David Hume
comes next. Reuben May gives an extract from one of his
essays, but says nothing about his end. I will supply the
omission. Dr. Adam Smith, author of the “Wealth of
Nations,” received the following letter from Dr. Black,
Hume’s physician, the day after his death:—
“Edinburgh, August 26th, 1776.—Dear Sir,—Yesterday,
about four o’clock, Mr. Hume expired. The near approach of
his death became evident in the night between Thursday and
Friday, when his disease became excessive, and soon weakened
him so much that he could not rise out of bed. He continued
to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings
of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of im
patience, but, when he had occasion to speak to the people about
him, he always did it with affection and tenderness............. When
he became very weak it cost him a great effort to speak, and he
died in such a happy composure of mind that nothing could
exceed it.”
Adam Smith, in sending this letter to his friend William
Stratham, wrote:
“Upon the whole I have always considered him, both in his
life-time and since his death, as approaching as near to the ideal
■of the perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of
human frailty will admit.”
What a contrast to Doctor Johnson, his great contem
porary, the champion of piety as Hume was of scepticism,
who had such a morbid horror of death I While the pious
Johnson quailed at the very thought of death, the sceptical
Hume confronted it placidly, regarding it only as the ringing
down of the curtain after the great drama of life.
Let us take another sceptic, whom Reuben May does not
mention, the great historian,
Edward Gibbon.
Lord Shaftesbury, his confidential friend, wrote thus of
his death:
“ To the last he preserved his senses, and when he could no
longer speak, his servant having asked him a question, he made
a sign to him that he understood him. He was quiet, tranquil,
■and did not stir; his eyes half shut. About a quarter of an hour
before one he ceased to breathe. The valet-de-chambre observed.
�20
death’s test.
that he did not, at any time, evince the least sign of alarm or
apprehension of death.”
In his second pamphlet Reuben May gives a long extract
on the death of
Frederic the Great.
He admits that the old king remained a sceptic to the
last, and when a pious Christian wrote to him on his death
bed about the prospects of his soul, he only remarked, “ Let
this be answered civilly : the intention of the writer is
good.”
Reuben May fills up the rest of his stupid pamphlets with
cases of dying Christians. The first of these is unfortunate.
Addison, when nearing his end, sent for his noble son-inlaw to “See in what peace a Christian can die.” Now Joseph
Addison was a frightful brandy-drinker, and it has been
satirically hinted that in order to go through this pious and
edifying performance he braced himself up with half-a-pint
of his favorite liquor.
The rest I leave without comment. Christians, like other
people, doubtless die in the religion of their childhood.
The adherents of every other creed do the same. My
purpose is simply to show that Freethinkers neither recant
their heresy nor quail before inevitable death, and I think I
have succeeded.
When Mirabeau, the mighty master-spirit of the Revolu
tion, lay dying in Paris amid the breathless hush of a whole
nation, he was attended by the great Cabanis. After a
night of terrible suffering, he turned to his physician and
said, “My friend, I shall die to-day. When one has come
to such a juncture there remains only one thing to do, that
is to be perfumed, crowned with flowers, and surrounded
with music, in order to enter sweetly into that slumber from
which there is no awakening.” Then he had his couch
brought to the window, and there the Titan died, with his
last gaze on the bright sunshine and the fragrant flowers.
He was an Atheist. Why should the Atheist fear to die ?
From the womb of nature he sprang and he will take his last
sleep on her bosom.
PRICE
TWOPENCE, j
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., 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
Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1882]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N189
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels), 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
Death
Last Words
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e9343391d268096749df9e71d91b2b0f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=oFfGCO8Vnk-ZusCG1kj4i6EEh07wnpXxUAIN8eKljki0tnGSRE0C%7EIWLEpmnKzXXaO1D66BnwRdO3VKQlmBPRRRqsyHV6pwnXH8yHymfbpe5YwtXBZ4xbQkosKDEfzTt4qV6sxqAY4ihcm2eaY1YfxBg8Rog5JvbwBdK1wvOw6PHGwP878ymwbT46uzKL%7EFAOUYhUJFffaby9WAt0h6Al1db4Uo-a-5ZQUGkC9JPLDoiHRKTaYo1qcg6-dnhIkUTxdJf5q%7ESB1uOLeckv6zLr1jjbdXtsxbve-I17ukA7NoXr9AApA9D%7EmovL1vA5qQZuupvCmvdD1xmx4uNPR7qHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1794da17c3cdcc3ec53f11500d1df647
PDF Text
Text
—-SEC0ND
EDITION.
DIFFICULTIES
OF BELIEF,
A DISCOURSE DELIVERED TO OVERFLOWING AUDIENCES BY
*
SOLD BY
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63, Fleet Street, London;
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecntter-st., London;
TRUELOVE, 256, High Holborn, London;
MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine-st., Bristol.
The BOOKSTALL, 72, Humbeitone Gate, Leicester;
WITTY, Bookseller, Hull.
The BOOKSTALL, Freethought Institute, Southampton ;
ALEXANDER ORB, Edinburgh.
ROBERT FERGUSON, Glasgow.
wwiupsyaW mstitw
�BISHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
Classification
�DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF.
A DISCOURSE BY
COL.
IKGEBSOLL,
Delivered in Chicago and other Cities in America, to overflowing audiences,
(specially reported.)
Colonel Ingersoll lectured last night at the Opera House. The
night was a most disagreeable one, sleety snow and fierce winds
united in battling with the pedestrians. Indeed, it took a brave
man to venture out of doors. Nevertheless the Opera House was
crammed. From parquette to upper gallery there was not a vacant
seat. The audience was a peculiar one. There were quite a num
ber of the very best people in the city, and not a few church mem
bers, while saloon keepers and sporting men were out in force, and
occupied front seats. Probably one-fifth of the audience were
females. The great bulk of the audience was from the middle class
of society, intelligent, well-dressed, well-behaving men and women,
the class from whom free-thinkers draw most of their recruits. All
in all, it was an excellent audience, just the kind of audience that
suited the orator of the night.
At eight o clock Colonel Ingersoll came to the front in company
with the Rev. Dr. Cravens of the Unitarian Church. The reverend
gentleman in eloquent words introduced the orator as a noble man,
a man of genius and brains who was zealously laboring to break the
chains that bind the religious freedom of mankind. He rejoiced
that liberty and freedom had such a grand champion, who had con
secrated his great talent and his unsurpassed eloquence to the noble
cause.
Colonel Ingersoll bowed to the audience, and was received with
great applause.
He said that he was glad that he had lived long enough to see
one gentleman in the pulpit brave enough to say that God would
not be oftended at one who speaks according to the dictates of his
conscience; who does not believe that God will give wings to a bird
and then damn the bird for flying. He thanked the pastor and he
thanked the church for allowing its pastor to be so brave. He then
tackled the subject of discourse announced for the night, and for
two hours held the close attention of his audience. His argument
was, in the main, as ioilows :—
�4
One of my great objections to religion is that it makes enemies
instead of friends. Whenever a man believes that he has got the
truth of God, there is in him no spirit of compromise. Whenever
a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing or
to believe a certain thing in order to be happy for ever, there is in
that man no spirit of compromise. Our religion to-day divides the
whole world into saints and sinners: into people that will be
glorified, and people who will be damned. It cannot make any
compromise with any foreign nation; it must either compel that
nation to accept its doctrine, or it must remain hostile to that nation.
Another objection is that this religion consists primarily of the
duties we owe to God. In other words, we are taught that God is
exceedingly anxious that we should believe a certain way. Now I
do not believe there is any infinite being to whom we owe anything.
And the reason I say that, is this: I cannot owe any duty to any
being who requires nothing, to any being I cannot possibly help, to
any being that I cannot in any possible way increase the happiness
of ; and if God is infinite, I cannot make him happier than he is.
Anything that I can do, or may do, cannot in the slightest way
effect him, consequently there cannot exist any relations between
the finite and the infinite.
Some tell me it is the desire of God that I should worship him.
What for ? That I should sacrifice something for him. What for ?
Is He in want ? Can I assist Him ? If He is in want and I can
assist him and will not, I would be an ingrate and an infamous
wretch. But I am satisfied that I cannot by any possibility assist
the infinite. Whom can I assist ? My fellow men. (Applause I
can help to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and enlighten igno
rance. I can help at least, in some degree, towards covering this
world with a mantle of joy. I may be wrong but I do not believe
that there is any being in this universe who gives rain for praise,
who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply because
he kneels.
I find, too, that this religion has made man heartless to his fellow
men. Just think of the idea of sending Scotch Presbyterian
missionaries to Africa, and of the cruelties practiced there : is it not
the height of egotism to suppose that anyone could be more savage
and barbaric than the Scotch Presbyterian creed ?
The Colonel then referred to the subject of inspiration, and said
whatever else might be meant by the term they must mean that it
is true, and he added : Well, if it is true there is no need of its being
inspired. Anything actually true will take care of itself. I will
tell you what I mean by inspiration. I go and look at the sea, and
the sea says something to me; it makes an impression on my mind.
That impression depends, first, on my experience ; secondly, upon
my intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He
has a different brain, he has a different experience, he has different
memories and different hopes. The sea may speak to him of joy,
and to me of grief and sorrow. The sea cannot tell the same thing
to two beings, because no two human beings have had the same
�5
Hr
t
experience. So, when I look upon a flower, or a star, or a painting,
or a statue, the more I know about sculpture, the more that statue
speaks to me. The more I have had of human experience, the more
I have read, the greater brain I have, the more the star says to me.
In other words, nature says to me all that I am capable of under
standing. Now when I come to a book, for instance, I read the
writings of Shakespere—Shakespere, the greatest human being
who ever existed upon this globe. What do I get out of him ? All
that I have sense enough to understand. I get my little cup full.
Let another read him who knows nothing of the drama, who knows
nothing of the impersonation of passion; what does he get from
him ? Very little. In other words, every man gets from a book, a
flower, a star, or the sea, what he is able to get from his intellectual
development and experience.
Do you then believe that the Bible is a different book to every
human being that receives it ? I do. Can God, then, through the
Bible, make the same revelation to two men ? He cannot. Why ?
.Because the man who reads is the man who inspires. Inspiration
is in the man and not in the book. There was a time when the
Bible was the best book on geology. Has anybody now the hardi
hood to say that is a standard work on geology? There was a time
when it was the best astronomical treatise that anybody knew any
thing about. Does anybody claim now that it is a standard work
on astronomy ! According to this book a personal God made us all.
It seems to me than an infinite being has no right to make im
perfect things. I may be mistaken, but it has always seemed to
me that a perfect being should produce only the perfect. If God
made us all, why did he not make us all equally well ? He had the
power of an infinite God. Why did God people the earth with so
many idiots ? I admit that orthodoxy could not exist without them
but why did God make them ? If we believe the Bible then he
should have made us all idiots, for the orthodox Christian says idiots
will not be damned, but simply transplanted, while the sensible man
who believeth not will be sent to eternal damnation ? If there is
any God who made us, what right had he to make idiots ? Is a
man with a head like a pin under any obligation to thank God ? Is
.the black man, born in slavery, under any obligation to thank God
tor his badge of servitude ?
What kind of a God is it that will allow men and women to be
put in dungeons and chains simply because they loved him and
prayed to him? And what kind of a God is it that will allow such
men and women to be burned at the stake ? If God won’t love such
men and women, then under what circumstances will he love ?
As I look around I see that justice does not prevail, that inno
cence is not always effectual and a perfect shield. If there is a God
„these things should not be. Famine stalks over the land and
millions die, not only the bad but the good, and there in the heavens
above sits an infinite God who can do anything, can change the
rocks and the stones, and yet these millions die. I do not say there
,is.no God, but I do ask what is God doing ? Look at the agony,
�¿nd wretchedness and woe all over the land. Is there goodness, is
there mercy in this ? I do not say there is not, but I want to know,
and I want to know if a man is to be damned for asking the question.
But to go on: here we are and they say that this God picked
out one tribe and thought he would civilize them. He had no time
to waste upon the Egyptians, who at that time were a vast and
splendid nation, with systems of laws, free schools, who believed in
the rights of women; who believed in the one man marrying the
one wife ; who had courts of justice and understood the philosophy
of damages. He had no time to waste upon India, with a vast and
splendid civilization and a grammar more perfect than ours to-day.
But he took a few of the tribe of Abraham and thought he would
see what he could do with them. He established a perfect despotism,
with no schools, no knowledge of geology, astronomy or medicine.
He told them how to stop the leprosy, but it never occurred to Him
to tell them how to cure it. He told them a few things about what
they might eat, and one thing about cooking, that they should not
cook a kid in its mother’s milk. But He took these people under
His mighty care and for the purpose of controlling them He
wrought many wonderful miracles. Now is it not a remarkable
thing that no priest has ever yet been able to astonish another
priest by telling about a wonderful miracle. It reminds me of a
man who sat imperturbed while another told an improbable story,
and upon being told that he did not appear to take much interest
in it replied, “Well, no, I’m a liar myself.” (Great laughter.)
Now, without desiring to hurt the feelings of anyone, I propose
to give a few reasons for thinking that at least a few passages of
the Old Testament were not written by Jehovah or by the real God.
In all civilized countries it is not only admitted, but fashionably
asserted, that slavery is, always was, and for ever will be, a hideous
crime; and I have no respect for a man who thinks slavery is right.
Such a man ought to be a slave himself, were it not for the fact
that somebody would have to be disgraced by being his master. It
is now asserted that a war of conquest is simply murder, and that a
war of extermination is simply savagery. It is also admitted that
polygamy is the enslavement of woman, destructive to home, and
the degradation of man. We also believe that nothing is more
infamous than the slaughter of decrepit men, helpless women, and
prattling babies. We all admit that nothing is more terrible than
rewarding soldiers after a victory by giving them the captured
w’omcn. We also admit that wives should not be stoned to death
on account of their religious opinions, and any man who does not
admit it is a savage. Any man who believes in slavery, polygamy,
or in a war of extermination, is a savage. But there was a time
when all these things were regarded as divine institutions. To-day,
nations that entertain such views are regarded as savage, and pro
bably, with the exception of the Fiji Indians and some citizens of
Delaware, no human beings can be found degraded enough to deny
these propositions. (Applause and laughter.) To every one except
the theologian it is perfectly easy to account for the mistakes, the
�atrocities and the crimes of the past, by saying that civilization is of
slow growth, that the moral perceptions must be cultivated, and
that it requires centuries for man to put out the eye of self and hold
in equal poise the golden scale of justice ; that conscience is born
of suffering, that mercy is the child of imagination, and that man
advances only as he finds out the laws of nature and his relations
to it and to his fellow-men.
But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to
declare that once God was savage, or that there was a time when
slavery was right; that there was a time when polygamy was the
highest expression of human virtue; that there was a time when
wars of extermination were waged for mercy; when death was the
just penalty for having and expressing an honest thought; that
Jehovah is just as bad now as He was 4,000 years ago, or that He
was just as good then as He is now.
Referring to the doctrine of the atonement, he said that under
the Old Testament dispensation every tabernacle was a slaughter
house and every priest an accomplished butcher. But when we
commit a sin now, we do not have to bring a pair of turtle doves,
nor a sheep, nor an ox. Now we say, “ Charge it.” (Laughter).
But you have got to settle. There are in nature neither rewards
nor punishments; there are consequences. There are in nature
neither love nor hatred; there are consequences. No God can give
you tares when you sow wheat, and no God can give you wheat
when you sowltares.
Speaking of the crimes which have been perpetrated in the name
of religion, he said : If Christ was in fact God, He knew all of the
future; He knew what sects would spring up like poisoned fungi
through every age. He saw the horizon of a thousand years red
with the flowers of the auto-da-fe, and He saw His followers bleeding
in th© dungeons of the Inquisition. He saw women holding their
little babes up to the grated windows so that the poor husband and
father, chained to the floor, might catch one glimpse of the blue
eyes of his babe; He saw His disciples driving stakes into the
earth, saw them chain heroic men and women, pitch the faggots
about them, touch them with fire, and see the flames consume to
ashes the best men and women of the earth. He knew that his
disciples would interpolate His book; He knew that hypocrisy
would write verses, and that these verses would be the foundation
for persecution; He knew that his disciples would make instru
ments of pain and use them ; He knew it, and yet he died voiceless.
Why did’nt He cry out, ‘ You must not persecute your fellow-men.’
Why did He say nothing definite, positive and satisfactory about
another world ? Why did He go dumbly to his death and leave
the world to misery and to doubt ?
'Speaking of the doctrine of eternal punishment, he said : No God
has a right to make a man He intends to drown. Eternal wisdom
has no right to make a bad investment, no right to engage in a
speculation that will not finally pay a dividend, No God has a
�8
right to make a failure, and surely a man who is to be damned for
ever is not a conspicuous success.
Yet upon love’s breast, the Church has placed that asp : around
the child of immortality the Church has coiled the Worm that never
dies. For my part I want no heaven if there is to be a hell. I
would rather be annihilated than be a God and know that one
human soul would have to suffer eternal agony. (Great applause).
Where did that doctrine of hell come from ? I despise it with
every drop of my blood! and defy it. Oh, is it not an infamous
doctrine to teach to little children, to put a shadow in the heart of
a child, to fill the insane asylums with that miserable infamous lie.
I see now and then a little girl—a dear little darling with a face
like the light, and eyes of joy, a human blossom, and I think, “ is
it possible that that little girl will ever grow up to be a Presby
terian ?” (loud laughter). . “ Is it possible, my goodness, that that
flower will finally believe in the five points of Calvanism or in the
eternal damnation of man ? Is it possible that that little fairy will
finally believe that she could be happy in heaven with her baby in
hell ? Think of it. Think of it 1 And that is the Christian religion.
We cry out against the Indian mother that throws her child into
the Ganges to be devoured by the alligator or crocodile, but that is
joy in comparison with the Christian mother’s hope, that she may
be in salvation while her brave boy is in hell. (Applause.) I tell
you I want to kick the doctrine about hell. I want to kick it out
every time I go by it. I want to get Americans in this country
placed so they will be ashamed to preach it. I want to get the
congregations so that they won’t listen to it. (Applause). We
cannot divide the world off into saints and sinners in that way.
There is a little girl, fair as a flower, and she grows up until she
^12, 13, or 14 years old. Are you going to damn her in the 15th,
16th or 17th year, when the arrow from Cupid’s bow touches her
heart and she is glorified—are you going to damn her now ? She
marries and loves, and holds in her arms a beautiful child. Ara
you going to damn her now ? Because she has listened to some
Methodist minister, and after all that flood of light failed to believe.
Are you going to damn her then ? I tell you God cannot afford to
damn such a woman. (Applause.)
A woman in the State of Indiana, forty or fifty years ago, who
carded the wool and made rolls and spun them, and made the cloth
and cut out the clothes for the children, and nursed them, and sat
up with them nights, and gave them medicine, and held them in
her arms and wept over them—cried for joy and wept for fear, and
finally raised ten or eleven good men and women with the ruddy
glow of health upon their cheeks, and she would have died for
any one of them any moment of her life, and finally she, bowed
with age, and bent with care and labor, dies, and at the moment
the magical touch of death is upon her face, she looks as if she
never had had a care, and her children burying her, cover her face
with tears. (Applause) Do you tell me God can afford to damn
that kind of a woman ? (Applause.)
�9
If there is any God, sitting above Him in infinite serenity, we
have the figure of justice- Even a God must do justice and any
form of superstition that destroys justice is infamous. (Applause).
Just think of teaching that doctrine to little children ! When I
was à boy I sometimes used to wonder how the mercy of God
lasted as long as it did—because I remember that on several occa
sions I had not been at school when I was supposed to be there,
(laughter.) Why I was not burned to a crisp was a mystery to me.
There was one day in each week too good for a child to be happy
in. On that day we were all taken to church, and the dear old
minister used to ask us, “ Boys, do yon know that you all ought to
be in hell ?” and we answered up as cheerfully as we could under
such circumstances, “Yes, sir,” (laughter). “ Well, boys, do you
know that you would go to hell if you died in your sins ?” and we
said, “Yes, sir.”
And then came the great test, “ Boys,” I can’t get the tone you
know, (laughter) And do you know that is how the preachers get
the bronchitis. You never heard of an auctioneer getting, the
bronchitis, nor the second mate on a steamboat—never, (laughter).
'What gives it to the ministers is talking solemnly when they don’t
feel that way, and it has the same influence upon the organs ot
speech that it would have upon the cords of the calves of your legs
to walk on your tiptoes—(laughter)—and so I call bronchitis
‘ parsonitis.” And if the ministers would all tell exactly what
they think they would all get well, but keeping back a part of the
truth is what gives them bronchitis. Well, the old man—the dear
old minister—used to try and show us how long we should be in
hell if we should locate there But to finish the other. The grand
test- question was : “ Boys, if it was God’s will that you should go
to hell, would you be willing to go ?”
And every little liar said, “Yes, sir.” Then in order to tell how
long we would stay there, he used to say, “ Suppose once in à
million ages a bird should come from a far distant clime and carry
of in its bill one little grain of sand, the time would finally come
when the last grain of sand would be carried away. Do you under
stand?” “Yes, sir.” “Boys, by that time it would not be sun-up
in hell.” (Laughter.)
I tell you, don’t make slaves of your children on Sunday. Thé
idea that there is any God that hates to hear a child laugh ! Let
the children play and be happy. Give them a chance. When your
child confesses to you that it has committed a fault, take that child
in your arms, and let it feel your heart beat against its heart, and
raise your children in the sunlight of love, and they. will be sun
beams to you along the pathway of life. (Applause). Abolish the
club and the whip from the house, because if the civilized use a
whip, the ignorant and brutal will use a. club, and they will use it
because you use a whip. ' Be perfectly honor bright with them, and
they will be your friends when you are old. Don’t try to teach
them something they can never learn. Don’t insist upon their
pursuing some calling they have no sort of faculty for. Don’t make
�10
that poor girl play ten years on a piano when she has no ear for
music, and when she has practised until she can play, Bonaparte
crossing the Alps,” and you can’t tell after she has played it whether
he ever got across or not. (Loud and prolonged laughter and
applause.)
Every day something happens to show me that the old spirit that
was in the Inquisition still slumbers in the breasts of men. I
know an instance in which a Presbyterian minister has been dis
missed for marrying a Catholic lady. Just as though a woman
could not beat any religion that a man ever heard of. I tell you
when you come to look upon it the love that man bears towards a
woman is a thousand times above any love he can bear toward the
unknown. It is altogether better to love your wife than to love
God; altogether better to love your children than to love Jesus
Christ: and I will tell you why. He is dead ; but if you love your
child you can put a little flower of joy into every footstep from the
time they leave the cradle until you die in their arms.
Men are oaks, women are vines, children are flowers, and if there
is any heaven in this world, it is in the family. It is where the
wife loves the husband, and the husband loves the wife, and where
the dimpled arms of children are about the necks of both. That is
heaven if there is any j and I do not want any better heaven in
another world than that, and if in another world I cannot live with
the ones I loved here, then I would rather not be there. I would
rather resign (applause).
Religion does not and cannot contemplate man as free. She
accepts only the homage of the prostrate, and scorns the offerings
of those who stand erect. She cannot tolerate the liberty of
thought. The wide and sunny fields belong not to her domain.
The starlit heights of genius are above and beyond her appreciation
and power. Her subjects cringe at her feet covered with the dust
of obedience. They are not athletes standing posed by rich life
and brave endeavour like the antique statues, but shrivelled defor
mities studying with furtive glance the cruel face of power.
No religionist seems capable of understanding this plain truth.
There is this difference between thought and action:—For our
actions we are responsible to ourselves and to those injuriously
affected; for thoughts there can, in the nature of things, be no
responsibility to gods or men, here or hereafter. And yet the
Protestant has vied with the Catholic in denouncing freedom of
thought, and while I was taught to hate Catholicism with every
drop of my blood, it is only justice to say that in all essential par
ticulars, it is precisely the same as every other religion. Luther
denounced mental liberty with all the coarse and brutal vigour of
his nature, Calvin despised from the very bottom of his petrified
heart anything that even looked like religious toleration, and
solemnly declared that to advocate it was to crucify Christ afresh.
All the founders of all the orthodox churches have advocated the
same infamous tenet. The truth is that what is called religion is
necessarily inconsistent with Free Thought-,
�A believer is a songless bird in a cage. A Freethinker is an
parting the clouds with tireless wings.
Thousands of young men are being educated at this moment by
the various churches. What for ? In order that they may be pre
pared to investigate the phenomena by which we are surrounded ?
No! The object, and the only object, is that they may learn the
arguments of their respective churches, and repeat them in the dull
ears of a thoughtless congregation. If one after being th us trained
at the expense of the Methodists turns Presbyterian or Baptist, he
is denounced as an ungrateful wretch.1 Honest investigation is
'.utterly impossible within the pale of any church, for the reason
that if you think the church is right you will not investigate, and
if you think it wrong the church will investigate you. The conse
quence of this is, that most of the theological literature is the lesult
of suppression, of fear, of tyranny, and hypocrisy.
Every Orthodox writer necessarily said to himself, “ If I write
that, my wife and children may want for bread, I will be covered
with shame and branded with infamy, but if I write this, I will gain
position, power, and honor. My church rewards defenders, and
burns reformers. (Applause.)
Who can tell what the world has lost by this infamous system of
suppression ? How many grand thinkers have died with the mailed
hand of superstition on their lips ? How many splendid ideas have
perished in the cradle of the brain, strangled in the poisonous coils
of that Python, the church 1
For thousands of years a thinker was hunted down like an escaped
convict. To him who had braved the church every door was shut,
every knife was open. To shelter him from the wild storm, to give
a crust of bread when dying, to put a cup of water to his cracked
and bleeding lips; these were all crimes, not one of which the
church ever did forgive; and with the justice taught of God his
helpless children were exterminated as scorpions and vipers.
Who at the present day can imagine the courage, the devotion to
principle, the intellectual and moral grandeur it once required to be
an Infidel, to brave the church, her racks, her faggots, her dungeons,
her tongues of fire—to defy and scorn her heaven, and her devil
and her God ? They were the noblest sons of earth. They were
the real saviours of our race, the destroyers of superstition and the
creators of science. They were the real Titans who bared their
grand foreheads to all the thunderbolts of all the gods. The church
has been, and still is, the great robber. She has rifled not only the
pockets but the brains of the world. She is the stone at the sepul
chre of liberty ; the Upas tree in whose shade the intellect of man
has withered; the Gorgon beneath whose gaze the human heart
has turned to stone.
» Reason has been denounced by all Christendom as the only un
safe guide. The church has left nothing undone to prevent man
following the logic of his brain. The plainest facts have been
covered with the mantle of mystery. The grossest absurdities have
been declared to be self-evident facts. The order of nature has
j eagle
�12
been as it were, reversed, in order that the hypocritical few might
govern the honest many. The man who stood by the conclusion
of his reason was denounced as a scorner and hater of God and His
holy church.
At present, owing to the inroads that have been made by Liberals
and Infidels, most of the churches pretend to be in favor of religious
liberty. Of these Churches we will ask this question : “ How can
a man who conscientiously believes in religious liberty worship a
God who does not ?” They say to us, “We will not imprison you
on account of your belief, but our God will. We will not burn you
because you throw away the sacred Scriptures, but their author
will. We think it an infamous crime to persecute our brethren
for opinion’s sake, but the God whom we worship will on that ac
count damn his own children for ever.”
“ Why is it that these
Christians do not only detest the Infidels, but so cordially despise each
other? Why do they refuse to worship in the temples of each other?"
There is but one way to get an honest opinion upon any subject
whatever. The person giving the opinion must be free from fear.
The merchant must not fear to lose Lis custom, the doctor his prac
tice, nor the preacher his pulpit. There can be no advance without
liberty. Suppression of honest enquiry is retrogression, and must
end in intellectual night. The tendency of Orthodox religion to
day is towards mental slavery and barbarism. Not one of the
Orthodox ministers dare preach what he thinks, if he knows that
a majority of his congregation thinks otherwise. He knows that
every member of his church stands guard over his brain with a
creed like a club in his hand. He knows that he is not expected to
search after the truth, but that he is employed to defend the creed.
Every pulpit is a pillory in which stands a hired culprit, defending
.the justice of his own imprisonment.
Is it desirable that all should be exactly alike in their religious
convictions ? Is any such thing possible ? Do we not know that
,there are no two persons alike in the whole world ? No two trees,
..no two leaves, no two anythings that are alike? Infinite diversity
is the law. Religion tries to force all minds into one mould.
Knowing that all cannot believe, the church endeavours to make
.all say that they believe. She longs for the unity of hypocrisy and
detests the splendid diversity of individuality and freedom.
(Applause.)
Mental slavery is mental death, and every man who has given up
.his intellectual freedom is the living coffin of his dead soul. In this
.sense every church is a cemetery, and every creed an epitaph.
Let us look at the church of to-day. Now, what is this religion.
To believe certain things that we may be saved, that we won’t be
damned What are they ?
. First, that the Old and New Testament are inspired. No matter
how good, how kind, how just a man may be, unless he believes in
the inspiration, he will be damned.
Second, he must believe in the Trinity. That there are three in
one. That Father and Son are precisely of the same age, the son
�possibly a little mite older ; that three times one is one, and that
■ once one is three. It is a mercy you don't know how to understand
-it, but you must believe it or be damned. Therein you see the
mercy of the Lord. This trinity doctrine was announced several
.hundred years after Christ was born.
Do you believe such a doctrine will make a man good or honest ?
h^Will it make him more just ? Is the man that believes any better
than the man who does not believe ? ,
How is it with nations ? Look at Spain, the last slaveholder in
the civilized world ; she’s Christian, she believes in the Trinity!
And Italy, the beggar of the world. Under the rule of priestcraft
money streamed in from every land, and . yet she did not advance.
To-day she is reduced to a hand-organ. Take poor Ireland, could
she cast off hei* priests she would soon be one with America in
freedom.
Protestantism is better than Catholicism, because there is less of
it. Both dread education. They say they brought the arts and
Sciences out of the dark ages, why, they made the dark ages and
■what did they preserve ? Nothing of value, only an account of
events that never happened. What did they teach the world ?
Slavery!
The best country the sun ever shone upon is the northern part of
the United States, and there you find less religion than anywhere
else on the face of the earth. You will find here more people that
don’t believe the Bible, and you will find better husbands, better
wives, happier homes, where the women are most respected, and
where the children get less blows and more huggings and kissings.
We have improved just as we have lost this religion and thia
superstition.
Great Britain is the religious nation par excellence, and there you
will find the most cant and most hypocrisy. They are always
thanking God that they have killed somebody. Look at the opium
war with China. They forced the Chinese to open their ports and
receive the deadly drug and then had the impudence to send a lot
of drivelling idiots of missionaries into China.
Why should we send missionaries to China if we cannot convert
the heathen when they come here ? When missionaries go to a
foreign land, the poor benighted people have to take their word for
the blessings showered upon a Christian people; but when the
heathen come here they can see for themselves. WLat was simply
a story becomes a demonstrated fact. They come in contact with,
people who love their enemies. They see that in a Christian land
men tell the truth; that they will not take advantage of strangers:
that they are just and patient; kind and tender ; and have no pre
judice on account of color, race, or religion; that they look upon
mankind as brethren ; that they speak of God as a universal Father,
and are willing to work and even to suffer, for the good not only
;Qf their own countrymen, but of the heathen as well. All this the
.Chinese see afid know, and why they still cling to the religion of
their country is to me a matter of amazement.
�•14
Our religion can only be brought into contempt by the actions of
those who profess to be governed by its teachings. It is easy to do
more in that direction than millions of Chinese could do by burning
pieces of paper before a wooden image. If you wish to impress the
Chinese with the value of your religion, of what you are pleased to
call “ The American system,” show them that Christians are better
than heathens. Prove to them that what you are pleased to call
“ the living God” teaches higher and holier things, a grander and
purer code of morals than can be found upon pagan pages. Excel
these wretches in industry, in honesty, in reverence for parents, in
cleanliness, in frugality, and above all by advocating the absolute
liberty of human thought.
Do not trample upon these people because they have a different
conception of things about which even you know nothing.
If you wish to drive out the Chinese do not make a pretext of
religion. Do not pretend that you are trying to do God a favor.
Injustice in His name is doubly detestable. The assassin cannot
sanctify his dagger by falling on his knees, and it does not help a
falsehood if it be uttered as a prayer. Religion, used, to intensify
the hatred of men toward men, under the pretence of pleasing God
has cursed this world.
If we wish to prevent the immigration of the Chinese, let us
reform our treaties with the vast empire from whence they came.
For thousands of years the Chinese secluded themselves from the
rest of the world. They did not deem the Christian nations fit
to associate with. We forced ourselves upon them. We called,
not with cards, but with cannon. The English battered down the
door in the names of Opium and Christ. This iufamy was regarded
as another triumph for the gospel. At last in self-defence the
Chinese allowed Christians to touch their shores. Their wise men,
their philosophers, protested, and prophesied that time would show
that Christians could not be trusted. Events have proved that the
wise men were not only philosophers, but prophets.
Treat China as you would England. Keep a treaty while it is
in force. Change it if you will, according to the laws of nations,
but on no account excuse a breach of national faith by pretending
that we are dishonest for God’s sake.
The Government has nothing to do with the religion of the
people. Its members are not responsible to God for the opinions of
their constituents, and it may tend to the happiness of the consti
tuents for me to state that they are in no way responsible for the
religion of the members. Religion is an individual not a national
matter. And where the nation interferes with the right of con
science, the liberties of the people are devoured by the monster
Superstition.
T^e orthodox Church says that religion does good; that it re
strains crime. It restrains a man from artificial not from natural
crimes. A man can be made so religious that he will not eat meat
on Friday, yet he will steal.
�ib
Go around the world, and where you find the least superstition,
there you will find the best men, the best women, the best children.
Two powerful levers are at work; love and intelligence. The true
test of a man is generosity, that covers a multitude of sms.
The Bible can’t stand to-day without the support of
power. No religion ever flourished except by the support of the
sword, and no religion like this could have been established except
^Doesan Infinite Being need to be protected by a State Legislalature? If the Bible is inspired, does the author of it need tie
support of the law to command respect ? We don t need any law
to make mankind respect Shakespeare. We come to the altar of
that great man and cover it with our gratitude without a statute.
Think of a law to govern tastes! Think of a law to govern mind
on any question whatever!
. , n
Shakespeare was an intellectual ocean whose waves touched all
the shores of human thought, within which were all the tides and
currents and pulses upon which lay all the lights and shadows, and
over which brooded all the calms and swept all the storms and
tempests of which the human soul is capable.
.
I tell you that all the sweet and beautiful things m the Bible
would not make one play of Shakespeare; all the philosophy in the
Bible would not make one scene in “ Hamlet:” all the beauties of
the Bible would not make one scene in “Midsummer Nights
Dream;” all the beautiful things about woman in the Bible would
not begin to create such a character as Perdita or Imogene or
If there is any man here to-night that believes the Bible was
inspired, in any other way than Shakespeare was inspired, I want
him to pick out something as beautiful and tender as Burns poem,
“ To Mary in Heaven.” I want him to tell whether he believes
the story about the bears eating up children; whether that is
inspired. I want him to tell whether he considers that a poem or
not. I want to know if the same God made those bears that
devoured the children because they laughed at an old man out of
hair. I want him to answer it, and answer it fairly. That is all I ask.
Think of the way in which they have supported the Bible.
They’ve terrorized the old with laws, and captured the dear littlo
innocent children and poisoned their minds with their false stories
until, when they have reached the age of manhood, they have been
afraid to think for themselves. Just see in some countries what
the blasphemy laws are now, by which they guard their Bible and
their God. Every honest man should see to it that these laws are
done away with at once and for ever.
See how men used to crawl before Cardinals, Bishops and Popes, _
Before wealth they bowed to the very earth, and in the presence of
titles they became abject. It is not so now. All this is slowly but
surely changing. At one time we thought a great deal of Clergy
men but now we have got to thinking they ain t of as much im
portance as a inan that’s invented something.
�16
As man proceeds, he begins to help himself and to take advantage
of mechanical powers to assist him, and he begins to see he can help,
himself a little, and exactly in the proportion he helps himself lie
comes to rely less on the power of priest or prayer to help him.
Just to the extent we are helpless, to that extent do we rely upon
the unknown.
As religion developed itself, keeping pace with the belief id
theology, came the belief in demonology. They gave one being the
credit of doing all the good things, and must give some one credit
for the bad things, and so they created a devil. At one time it was
as disreputable to deny the existence of a devil as to deny the
existence of a God ; to deny the existence of a hell, with its fire and
brimstone, as to deny the existence of a heaven with its harp and love.
With the development of religion came the idea that no man should
be allowed to bring the wrath of God on a nation by his transgres
sions, and this idea permeates the Christian world to-day. Now*
what does this prove ? Simply that our religion is founded on fear,
and when you are afraid you cannot think. Fear drops on its
knees and believes. It is only courage that can think.
It was the idea that man’s actions could do something, outside of
any effect his mechanical works might have, to change the order of
Nature; that he might commit some offence to bring on an earth
quake, but he can’t do it. You can’t be bad enough to cause an
earthquake; neither can you be good enough to stop one. Out of
that wretched doctrine and infamous mistake that man’s belief
could have any effect upon Nature grew all these inquisitions, racks
and collars of torture, and all the blood that was ever shed by
religious persecution.
Now I assert that there is not a man or woman in this entire
audience that can think of a thing that has not been suggested to
them by Nature, and they cannot think of anything that has been
suggested to them by the supernatural. You can’t get over that,
and you may as well give up speculating over it now as at any
other time.
Day by day, religious conceptions grow less and less intense.
Day by day the old spirit dies out of book and creed. The burning
enthusiasm, the quenchless zeal of the early church have gone,
never, never to return. The ceremonies remain, but the ancient
faith is fading out of the human heart. The worn-out arguments fail
to convince, and denunciations that once blanched the faces of a
race, excite in us only derision and disgust. As time rolls on the
miracles grow small and mean, and the evidencies our fathers
thought conclusive utterly fail to satisfy us. There is an irre
pressible conflict” between religion and science, and they cannot
peaceably occupy the same brain, nor the same world. (Applause.)
While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all
religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for
the hopeful, loving and tender souls who believe that from all this
discord will result a perfect harmony ; that every evil will in some
mysterious way become a good, that above and over all there is a
�.being who, in some way, will reclaim and glorify every one of the
children of men: but for those who heartlessly try to prove that
salvation is almost impossible; that damnation is almost certain;
that the highway of the universe leads to hell: who fill life with
fear and death with horror; who curse the cradle and mock the
tomb, it is impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity,
.contempt, and scorn.
Now, my friends, there’s a party started in this country with the
object of giving every man, woman, and child the rights they are
entitled to. Now every one of us has the same rights. I have the
right to labor and have the products of my labor. I have the right
to think, and furthermore, to express my thoughts, because ex
pression is the reward of my intellectual labor. And yet there are
some States in this country where men of my ideas would not be
allowed to testify in a court of justice. Is that right ? There are
States in this country where, if the law had been enforced, I would
have been sent to the Penitentiary for lecturing All such laws
were enacted by barbarians, and our country will not be free until
they are wiped from the statute books of every State.
These are our doctrines : We want an absolute divorce between
Church and State. We demand that Church property should not
be exempt from taxation. If you are going to exempt anything,
exempt the homesteads of the poor. Don’t exempt a. rich corpora
tion, and make men pay taxes to support a religion in which they
do not believe. But they say churches do good. I. don’t know
whether they do or not. Do you see such a wonderful difference
between a member of a church and one who does not believe in it ?
Do Church members pay their debts better than any others ? Do
they treat their families any better ? Are the people w’ho go to
Church the only good people ? Are there not a great many bad
people who go to Church ? Did you ever hear of a tramp coming
into the town and enquiring where the Deacon of a Presbyterian
Church lived ? (Great laughter.)
Not a Bank in this city will lend a dollar to theman who belongs
to the church, without security, quicker than to the man who don’t
go to church. Has not the Church opposed every science from the
first ray of light until now ? Didn’t they damn into c'ernal flames
the man who discovered the world was round ? Didn’t they damn
into eternal flames the man who discovered the movement of the
earth in its orbit ? Didn’t they persecute the astronomers ? Didn’t
they even try to put down life insurance by saying it was sinful to
bet on the time God has given you to live ?
Science built the Academy, superstition the Inquisition. Science
constructed the telescope, religion the rack ; science made us happy
here, and says if there s another world we’ll all stand an equal
chance there ; religion made us miserable here; and says a large
majority will be eternally miserable there. Should we, therefore,
exempt it from taxation for any good it has done ?
'Ihe next thing we ask is a perfect divorce between Church and
school. We say that every school should be secular, because it’s
�13
just to everybody. If I was an Israelite I would’nt want to be
taxed to have my children taught that his ancestors had murdered
a «aprenie
us teach, not the doctrines of the past, but
the discoveries of the present; not the five points of Calvinism, but
geology and geography. Education is the lever to raise mankind,
and superstition is the enemy of intelligence.
I want, if I can, to do a little to increase the rights of men, to
put every human being on an equality, to sweep away the clouds of
superstition, to make people think more of what happens to-day
than what somebody said happened 3000 years ago. This is what
I want: To do what little I can to clutch one-seventh of our time
from superstition, to give our Sundays to rest, serenity, and recrea• 1 7aUt a day °f enj°ymeilb a day to read old books, to meet
old friends, and get acquainted with one’s wife and children. I
want a day to gather strength to meet the toils of the next.
I want to get that day away from the Church, away from super
stition and the contemplation of hell, to be the best and sweetest
a,nd brightest of all the days in the week. That day is best on
which most good is done for the human race.
I want to have us all do what little we can to secularize the
Government—take it from the control of savagery and give it to
science, take it from the Government of the past and give it to the
enlightened present, and in this Government let us uphold every
man and woman in their rights, that every one, after he or she
comes to the age of discretion, may have a voice in the affairs of
the nation.
Do this, and we’ll grow in grandeur and splendour every day,
and the time will come when every man aud every woman shall
have the same rights as every other man and every other woman
has.
I believe we are growing better. I don’t believe the wail of want
shall be heard for ever: that the prison and the gallows will always
curse the ground.
The time will come when liberty and law, and love, like the Rings
of Saturn, will surround the world; when the world will cease
making these mistakes ; when every man will be judged according
to his worth and intelligence. I want to do all I can to hasten that
day.
(Immense cheering and applause, during which the Colonel
gracefully bowed and withdrew.)
�Reformer’s Library.
s d
VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY, 2 vols
8 0
VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL TALES & ROMANCES,
(cloth) ...
...
...
...
...
... 2 6
THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH, pub. at 2/6 (652 pages) 7 6
VOLNEY’S RUINS OF EMPIRES & LAW OF NATURE,
(cloth extra)
...
...
...
...
... 2 6
ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RELIGION, by Grote, the
Historian
...
...
...
...
... 1 0
THE JESUS OF J. S. MILL, by Antichrist
...
... 1 0
NEW RELIGIOUS THOUGHTS, by Douglas Campbell ... 2 6
ROBERT OWEN’S LECTURES ON MARRIAGE
... 0 8
ROBERT OWEN’S LECTURE ON SOCIALISM
... 2 0
TRUTH, LOVE & JOY, or the Garden of Eden (pub. at 8/-) 4 O'
MAZZINI: HIS LIFE AND WORKS (published at 5/-) ... 8 0
RABELAIS (2 vols) ...
...
...
...
...4 0
“THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE, or Physical.
Sexual and Natural Religion,” 2/6, or in cloth ... 3 0
E. TRUELOVE, Publisher, 256, High Holborn, London.
LESSONS FOR THE DAY.
Consisting of DISCOURSES delivered at South Place Chapel, Finsbury,
BY MONCURE
PRICE ONE PENNY.
D. CONWAY,
M.A,
Published Every Thursday.
THE publication of this Serial was commenced on October 5th, 1882,
to meet the constant application for copies of the discourses delivered
on Sunday Mornings, at South Place Chapel, Finsbury, and, also with
the view of disseminating as widely as possible the principles of
Rational Religion. Of those principles Mr. Conway is recognised as
one of the most able exponents, and when fairly examined they will be
found to meet the requirements of the modern intellect, and to have a
thoioughly piactical bearing on the every-day life of the individual,
the family, and the community.
E. W. ALLEN, Ave Maria Lane, an*1' all Booksellers.
�o
o
PEOPLE'S POPULAR LIBBAEY.
COLONEL INGERSOLL'S WORKS.
Price. Post free.
“BREAKING THE FETTERS,”
...............
2d.
2jd. .
“RELIGION OF THE FUTURE,”
...............
2d.
2|d.
“HEREAFTER,” (and including “ Great Infidels.”)
2d.
2|d.
“HELL.”.........................................................
2d.
2|d.
“ INGERSOLL’S REPLY TO TALMAGE,” ...
2d,
2|d.
(Six copies of any of the above, post free for 1/“FARM LIFE IN AMERICA.”...........................
Id.
3d.
“ MISTAKES OF MOSES.”
...........................
Larger Edition of “ MOSES ” (with illustrations)...
6d.
“THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.”
...............
3d.
“THE GHOSTS.”......................................................
4d.
“WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED.”
3d.
Five other Orations, “ THE GODS,” - “ THOMAS '
1/7
1/6
PAINE,” &c., neat volume-, bound dn cloth
DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF” '|...
2d.
2±d
Splendid PHOTOGRAPH of COL. INGERSOLL
<;d.
taken by “ Saroxy,” of New York
•••)
BIOGRAPHY of COL. INGERSOLL
Id.
l|d.
“ THE MARTYRDOM OF SERVRTUS,” by the '
Rev. II. V. Mills
...
Id.
“ FACTS & INCIDENTS OF REAL LIFE,”
Id.
“ THE STUDENT’S DARWIN,” by Dr. Aveling
5/«TEN DAYS IN JERUSALEM,” just out
...
6d.
■“A Religion which gives Heaven no trouble,” byllol^oake 2d.
“AGE OF REASON,* by Thomas Paine
..." 1/“ RIGHTS OF MAN.”
„
„
...
1/“ VOLNEY’S RUINS OF EMPIRES,” (bound)
“ Impeachment of the House of Brunswick” (Bradlaugh) 1/VOLTAIRE’S Philosophical Dictionary, 2 vols. ...
8/SECULARISM : Debate in London between Rev. Dr.
Mc.Cann and Mr. Bradlaugh, for 3 nights
1/1/
HOLY SCRIPTURES ANALYSED, by R. Cooper Gd.
7d.
Any of the above securely packed and posted to any a< Jil'CSS, 01)
receipt of Stamps or Postal Orders, by
W. H. MORRISH, BOOKSELLER,
18, NARROW WINE STREET, ER1S7CL.
>
�
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
Difficulties of belief : a discourse ... delivered in Chicago and other cities in America, to overflowing audiences
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Notes: Stamp on p.[2]: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library, 21 Nov. 1991. Sold by: Freethought Publishing Company (London); Progressive Publishing Company (London); Truelove (London); Morrish (Bristol); The Bookstall (72 Humberstone Gate, Leicester); Witty (Hull); The Bookstall, Freethought Institute (Southampton); Alexander Orr (Edinburgh); Robert Ferguson (Glasgow)||(WIT) Publishers' advertisements at end include Reformer's Library (E. Truelove, London), and the People's popular library (Ingersoll's works) available from W.H. Morrish (Bristol). Date of publication from Stein's checklist (No. 18b). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1892]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N339
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (Difficulties of belief : a discourse ... delivered in Chicago and other cities in America, to overflowing audiences), 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
Belief and Doubt
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9b5044a49fa229820d2a19275716f07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VBI4xd9TkKPWaMNZOkF7bdT7NaqL-0uoSRysTuI63cZhfYXBvNF1zL2PIVzIhtRNfFz4yXNTIFK7Zidns5lul5qaiR2%7EeTlzmUzCCK-9XvXK0d0XTsCfjPbO5TrjR-RzXcgrpemRMg8QI2tQb0kPGajlV0j7vtukaj5gtByoaY3K839rPdqzkIdmC9dsunctKK%7ERjeh%7EkEq0GXVsxzKDUTdvmAN%7EoWe67DaAuDLLXbeoWpgzllOwvlxXRUQKt57LaRKwkfDe7XHJ9xC%7Eq7Jm1JYpkC8vbGIwntGHNDYBLYrmP5M4mfVUl-FuhUVx44kkU%7EKJEV2YFpyLHMVGtp5kzg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b90e2752ccca26a7c1cc27121b23d16a
PDF Text
Text
.NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FREETHOUGIIT PITBLISHING COMPANY’S EDITION'.
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
[tenth
thousand.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BT ANNIE BESAHT AND CHARLES BRADLAVGII,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�DIVINE
VIVISECTION.
a bell was born of revenge and brutality on the one
side, and cowardice on the other. In my judgment the American
people are too brave, too charitable, too generous, too magnanimous, to believe in the infamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have
no respect for any human being who believes in it. I have no
respect for any man who preaches it. I have no respect for the
man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that in
famous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the
sorrows of this world with that frightful dogma. I have no respect
for any man who endeavors to put that infinite cloud, that infinite
shadow, over the heart of humanity.
For a good many years the learned intellects of Christendom
j
into the religions of other countries in the
world, the religions of the thousands that have passed away. They
examined into the religion of Egypt, the religion of Greece, the
religion of home and of the Scandinavian countries. In the pre
sence of the ruins of those religions the learned men of Christen
dom insisted that those religions were baseless, that they were
fraudulent. But they have all passed away. While this was being
done the Christianity of our day applauded, and when the learned
^?en
brpugh with the religions of other countries they turned
bhen attention to our religion. By the same mode of reasoning,
by the same methods, by the same arguments that they used with
the old religions,. they are overturning the religion of our day.
Why Every religion in this world is the work of man. Every
t?k
bas been written by man. Men existed before the books.
It books had existed before man, I might admit there was such a
thing as a sacred volume. Man never had an idea, man will never
have an idea, except those supplied to him by his surroundings,
very idea m the world that man has, came to him by nature.
You can imagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with the
pouch of the kangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak
of a bn’d, and with the tail of the lion; and yet every point of this
monster you borrow from nature. Every thing you can think of,
eveiy 'thing you can dream of, is borrowed from your surround
ings. And there is nothing on this earth coming from any other
sphere whatever. Man has produced every religion in the world.
And why Because each religion bodes forth the knowledge and
the belief of the people at the time it was made, and in no book is
there any knowledge found, except that of the people who wrote
it. In no book is there found any knowledge, except that of the
�20
firnn in which it was written. Barbarians have produced, and
always will produce, barbarian religions; barbarians have pro
duced, and always will produce, ideas in harmony with then- sur
roundings, and all the religions of the past were produced by
barbarians. We are making religions to-day. That is to say, we
are changing them, and the religion of to-day is not the religion
of one year ago. What changed it ? Science has done it edu
cation and the growing heart of man has done it. And just to the
extent that we become civilised ourselves, will we improve thereligion of our fathers. If the religion of one hundred years ago,
compared with the religion of to-day, is so low, what will it be nr
one thousand years ?
, .
,
3
-u- 1,
If we continue making the inroads upon orthodoxy which we
have been making during the last twenty-five years, what will it
be fifty years from to-night ? It will have to be remonetized by
that time, or else it will not be legal tender. In my judgment,
every religion that stands by appealing to miracles is dishonored.
Every religion in the world has denounced every other rehgion asa fraud. That proves to me that they all tell the truth aBout
others. Why, suppose Mr. Smith should tell Mr. Brown that he
—Smith—saw a corpse get out of the grave and that when he
first saw it, it was covered with the worms of death, and that in
his presence it was reclothed m healthy, beautiful flesh. Ai
then suppose Mr. Brown should tell Mr. Smith I
sa
thing myself. I was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead man
rise.” Shippose then that Smith should say to Brown, You re a
liar” and Brown should reply to Smith, “And you re a bar
what would you think ? It would simply be because Smith, never
having seen it himself, did’nt believe Brown; and Brown, nevei
bavin* seen it, did’nt believe Smith had. Now, if Smith had
really°seen it, and Brown told him he had seen it too, then Smith
would regard it as a corroboration of his story, and he would legard Brown as one of his principal witnesses. But, on the con
trarv he says, “You never saw it.” So, when a man says, 1
was5 upon Mount Sinai, and there I met God, and he told me,
‘ Stand aside and let me drown these people ;
and anotJe1’
savsto him, “ I was up upon a mountain, and there 1 met tne
Supreme Brahma,” and Moses says, “That’s not true and con
tends that the other man never did see Brahma, and he conten
that Moses never did see God, that is in my judgment proof that
tkEver°y\X^onmthS,’ has charged every other religion with
havino-^been an unmitigated fraud ; and yet, if any man had evei
seen the miracle himself, his mind would be prepared to believe
that another man had seen the same thing. Whenever a man
appeals to a miracle he tells what is not true. Truth relies upon,
reason and the undeviating course of all the laws of nature.
Now, we have a religion—-that is, some people have.
ij
pretend to have religion myself. I Believe m
“ *
L t
—that’s my doctrine—to make everybody happy that y ou can.
�21
the future take care of itself, and if I ever touch the shores o£
another world, I will be just as ready and anxious to get into some
ramnn era,five employment as anybody else. Now, we have got in
this country a religion which men have preached for about eighteen
hundred years, and just in proportion as their belief in that religion
has grown great, men have grown mean and wicked; just in pro
portion as they have ceased to believe it, men have become just
and charitable. And if they believed it to-night as they once be
lieved it, I wouldn’t be allowed to speak in the city of New York.
It is from the coldness and infidelity of the churches that I get my
right to preach; and I say it to their credit. Now, we have a.
religion. What is it ? They say in the first place that all this
vast universe was created by a Deity. I don’t know whether it
was or not. They say, too, that had it not been for the first sin of
Adam there never would have been anyMdevil in this world, and if
there had been no devil there would have been no sin, and if there
had been no sin there never would have been any death. For my
part, I am glad there was death in this world, because that gave
me a chance. Somebody had to die to give me room, and when
my turn comes I’ll be willing to let somebody else take my place.
But whether there is another life or not, if there is any being who
gave me this, I shall thank him from the bottom of my heart, be
cause, upon the whole, my life has been a joy. Now they say,
because of this first sin all men .were consigned to eternal hell.
And this because Adam was our representative. Well, I always
had an idea that my representative ought to live somewhere about
the same time I do. I always had an idea that I should have some
voice in choosing my representative. And if I had a voice I never
should have voted for the old gentleman called Adam. Now, in
order to regain man from the frightful hell of eternity, Christ
himself came to this world and took upon himself flesh, and in
order that we might know the road to eternal salvation he gave us
:a book, and that book is called the Bible, and wherever that Bible
has been read men have immediately commenced cutting each
others’ throats. Wherever that Bible has been circulated, they
have invented inquisitions and instruments of torture, and have
commenced hating each other with all their hearts. But I am told
now, we are all told, that this Bible is the foundation of civilisa
tion ; I say that this Bible is the foundation of hell, and we never
shall get rid of the dogma of hell until we have got rid of the idea
that it is an inspired book.
Now, what does the Bible teach ? I am not going to talk about
what this minister or that ministei’ says it teaches ; the question
is: “ Ought a man to be sent to eternal hell for not believing this
Bible to be the work of a merciful Father ? ’ ’ and the only way to
find out is to read it; and as very few people do read it now, I will
read a few passages. This is the book to be read in the schools, in
•order to make our children charitable and good ; this is the book
that we must read in order that our children may have ideas of
mercy, charity, and justice.
�22
Does the Bible teach mercy ? Now be honest. I read : “ I will
make mine arrows drunk with blood; and my sword shall devour
flesh” (Deut. xxxii., 42). Pretty good start for a mercifjil God!
‘ ‘ That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and
the tongue of thy dogs in the same” (Ps. lxviii., 23.) Again:
‘ ‘ And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by
little and little; thou mayst not consume them at once, lest the
beasts of the field increase upon thee” (Deut. vii., 23).
Pead the glorious exploits of Joshua, chosen captain of theLord, and note how, having coveted the fertile land of Goshen, he
smote the people, houghed their horses, despoiled their cities, and
put all that breathed to the edge of the sword, as the moral God
had commanded. Moreover, he came against them suddenly, not
a solitary trumpet blast from the celestial orchestra was therecalling upon the people to yield, or to move out of their country,
bag and baggage. No; instantaneous fire and butchery. Ob
serve, too, the charming naivete of the statement: ‘ ‘ There was
not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the
Hivites.” Why ? Because the Lord “ hardened their hearts, that
they should come against Israel in battle that he might destroy
them utterly.”
Do you wish further examples of a God of mercy ? Pead in
Exodus how the Lord ordered the harrying of cities and thewholesale slaughter of the inhabitants. ‘ ‘ Thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them.”
The old men and the maidens, and the sweet-dimpled babe smiling
upon the lap of its mother.
Pecollect, these instructions were given to an army of invasion,
and the people who were fighting were guilty of the crime of
fighting for their homes. The Old Testament is full of curses,
vengeance, jealousy, and hatred; of barbarity and brutality..
Now, do not for one moment believe that these words were written
by the most merciful God. Don’t pluck from the heart the sweet
flowers of piety and crush them by superstition. Do not believe
that God ever ordered the murder of innocent women and helpless
babes. Do not let this supposition turn your hearts into stone.
When anything is said to have been written by the most merciful
God, and the thing is not merciful, then I deny it, and say he
never wrote it. I will live by the standard of reason, and if'
thinking in accordance with reason takes me to perdition, then I
will go to hell with my reason rather than to heaven without it.
Now, does this Bible teach political freedom, or does it teach
political tyranny ? Does it teach a man to resist oppression ? Does ■
it teach a man to tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned
thing and robber caUed a king ? Let us see. “ Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers ; for there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God ” (Pom. xiii., 1). All the
kings and princes, and governors, and thieves, and robbers that
happened to be in authority were placed there by the infinite fatherof all! “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
�23
ordinance of God.” And when George Washington resisted the
power of George the Third, he resisted the power of God. And
when our fathers said “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,”
they falsified the Bible itself. “ For he is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for,he
beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, the
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for con
science’s sake ” (Eom. xiii., 4, 5).
I deny this wretched doctrine. Wherever the sword of rebellion
is drawn to protect the rights of man, I am a rebel. Wherever the
sword of rebellion is drawn to give man liberty, to clothe him in
all his just rights, I am on the side of that rebellion. I deny that
rulers are crowned by the Most High; the rulers are the people,
and the presidents and others are but the servants of the people.
All authority comes from the people, and not from the aristocracy
of the air. Upon these texts of Scripture which I have just read
rest the thrones of Europe, and these are the voices that are re
peated from age to age by brainless kings and heartless kings.
Does the Bible give woman her rights ? Is this Bible humane ?
Does it treat woman as she ought to be treated, or is it barbarian ?
Let us see. “Let woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1
Timothy ii., 11). If a woman would know anything let her ask
her husband. Imagine the ignorance of a lady who had only that
source of information. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Observe the
magnificent reason. “ For Adam was first formed, then Eve.. And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the
transgression.” Splendid! “But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is of
the man ; and the head of Christ is God.” That is to say, there is
as much difference between the woman and man as there is between
Christ and man. There is the liberty of woman. “For the man
is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman.” Well, who was he created for ?
“ But the woman was created for the man.” “Wives, submit your
selves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.” There’s libe-ty 1
‘ ‘ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is, the
head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore,
as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in everything.” Even the Savior didn’t put man and.
woman upon any equality. The man could divorce the wife, but
the 'wife could not divorce the husband, and according to the Old
Testament, the mother had to ask forgiveness for being the mother
of babes. Splendid!
Here is something from the Old Testament: “ When thou goest
forth' to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath
delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive.
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife. Then thou shalt
�24
bring lier home to thine house ; and she shall shave her head, and
pare her nails” (Deut. xxi., 10, 11, 12). That is in self-defence, I
suppose!
This sacred book, this foundation of human liberty, of morality,
does it teach concubinage and polygamy ? Read the thirty-first
chapter of Numbers, read the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy,
read the blessed lives of Abraham, of David, or of Solomon, and
then tell me that the sacred scripture does not teach polygamy and
concubinage ! All the language of the world is not sufficient to
express the infamy of polygamy ; it makes a man a beast and
a woman a stone. It destroys the fireside and makes virtue an out
cast. And yet it is the doctrine of the Bible. The doctrine
defended by Luther and Melancthon ! It takes from our language
those sweetest words—father, husband, wife, and mother, and
takes us back to barbarism and fills our hearts with the crawling,
slimy serpents of loathsome lust.
Does the Bible teach the existence of devils? Of course it
does. Yes, it teaches not only the existence of a good Being, but
a bad being. This good Being had to have a home ; that home
was heaven. This bad being had to have a home j and that home
was hell. This hell is supposed to be nearer to earth than I would
care to have it, and to be peopled with spirits, hobgoblins, and all
the fiery shapes with which the imagination of ignorance and fear
could people that horrible place ; and the Bible teaches, the ^existence of hell and this big devil and all these little devils. The
Bible teaches the doctrine of witchcraft, and makes us behove that
there are sorcerers and witches, and that the dead could be raised
by the power of sorcery. Read the account of the spiritual séance
at which Saul and the Witch of Endor assisted, and which resulted
in the calling up of Samuel. Does anyone believe that now t
In another place it is declared that ‘witchcraft is an abomination
unto the Lord. He wanted no rivals in this business. Now what
does the New Testament teach ? Turn to the story of Jesus being
led into the wilderness for the devil to experiment upon him. He
was starved forty days and nights, and then asked to work a
miracle ! After that the devil placed him on a pinnacle of the temple,
ami endeavored to persuade him to cast himself down to prove that
he was the Son of God. Is it possible that anyone can believe that
the devil absolutely took God Almighty, and put him on the pin
nacle of the temple and endeavored to persuade him to jump down/
» Again the devil taketh him into an exceeding high mountain,
and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them ; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee,, it thou
wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him. Get
thee hence, Satan, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ” (Matt, iv., 8—11). ^9^’
the devil must have known at that time that he was God, and God.
at that time must have known that the other was the devil.. How
Could the latter be conceived to have the impudence to promise God
a world in which. he did not have a tax-title to an inch of land ♦
�25
Then there is that pig story. When, the “boss devil had left
Jesus and angels had ministered unto him, and he had taken a
short sea voyage, there came out to meet him a man possessed of a
number of minor devils, and a man whom no one could tame, nor
bind, no not with chains, and who dwelt among the tombs. A nice
puict citizen truly ! And after some parley the devils beseech Jesus,
saying:—“Send us into the swine that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits
went out, and entered into the swine ; and the herd ran violently
down a steep place into the sea (there were about two thousand)
and were choked in the sea.” No doubt a good riddance; hut what
the owner of the swine thought of the transaction, or whether he
was indemnified for the loss of his porkers deponent cannot say.
Are we reasonable men in the nineteenth century in the United
States of America and believe this ? I deny it. These fables of
devils have covered the world with blood; they have Tilled the
world with fear, and I am going to do what I can to free the
world of these insatiate monsters. Small and great, they aavG
-filler! the world with monsters, they have made the world a
synonym of bar and ferocity.
_
And it is this book that ought to be read in all the schools this book that teaches man to enslave his brother. If it is larceny
to steal the result of labor, how much more is it larceny to steal
the laborer himself ? ‘ ‘ Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye ouy, and of their
-Families that are with you, which they begat in your- land ; and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an in
heritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a posses
sion; they shall be your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigor ” (Lev. xxv., 45, 46). Why i Because they are not as good
as you will buy of the heathen roundabout.
These are edifying texts. Consult also Exod. xxi., where you
will find a complete slave code. No detail is wanting. . Ender cer
tain conditions the master is to bring his servants to the judges, then
he is to lug him to the doorpost and bore his ear through with an
awl—“And he shall serve him for ever.” This is the doctrine which
has ever lent itself to the chains of slavery, and makes a man im
prison himself rather than desert wife and children. I hate it!
What does this same book with its glad tidings of great joy for
all people say of the rights of children ? Let us see how they are
treated by the “ most merciful God.” “ If a man hath a stubborn
and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father,, or
the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him,
will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother
lay hold of him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and
unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders of
his city : This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey
our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his
city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil
�26
away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear ” ("Dout.
xxi., 18).
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice,
and he intended to obey. The boy was not consulted.
Did you ever hear the story of Jcpthah’s daughter ? Is there in
the history of the world a sadder story than that ? Can a God who
would accept such a sacrifice be worthy of the worship of civilised
men ? I believe in the rights of children. I plead for the republic
of home, for the democracy of the fireside, and for this I am culled
a heathen and a devil by those who believe in the cheerful and
comforting doctrine of eternal damnation. Dead the book of Job I
God met the devil and asked him where he had been, and he said:
“Walking up and down the country,” and the Lord said to him :
c ‘ Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he is ? ” And
the devil said : “Of course he’s good, you give him everything he
wants. Just take away his property and he’ll curse you. Youjust
try it.” And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still
remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been
tried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still
true.. Then he took away his children, but he remained faithfid,
and in the end, to show how much Job made by his fidelity, his
property was all doubled, and he had more children than ever. If
you have a child, and you love it, would you be satisfied with a
God who would destroy it, and endeavor to make it up by giving
you another that was better looking ? Mo, you want that one ;
you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of children
taught in the Bible.
Does the Bible teach you freedom of religion ? To-day we say
that every man has a right to worship God or not, to worship him
as he pleases. Is it the doctrine of the Bible ? Bead Deut. xii., 6.
If a brother, or son, or daughter or wife proposes to serve any god
but your own, or that of your fathers, thou shalt not pity, nor
spare, nor conceal. “ Thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall
be the first upon him to put him to death, and thou shalt stone
him with stones that he die.”
. And do you know, according to that, if you had lived in Pales
tine, and your wife that you love as your own soul had said to
you: ‘ ‘ Let us worship the sun whose golden beams clothe the
world in glory; let us bow to that great luminary; I love the sun
because it gave me your face; because it gave me the features of
my babe ; let us worship the sun ; ” it was then your duty to lay
your hands upon her, your eye must not pity her, but it was your
duty to cast the first stone against that tender and loving breast!
I hate such doctrine' I hate such books ! I hate gods that will
•write such books ! I tell you that it is infamous! That is the
religious liberty of the Bible—that’s it. And this God taught that
doctrine to the Jews, and said to them, “Anyone that teaches a
different religion, kill him ! ” Now, let me ask, and I want to do
it reverently:
If, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws to the Jews,
�and afterwards this same God took upon himself flesh, and came
among the Jews, and taught a different religion, and these Jews,
in accordance with the laws which this same God gave them, cruci
fied hire, did he not reap what he had sown. ? The mercy of all
this comes in what is called “the plan of salvation.” What is
that plan? According to this great plan the innocent suffer "for
the guilty to satisfy a law.
What sort of a law must it be that would be satisfied with the
suffering of innocence ? According to this plan, the salvation of
the whole world depends upon the bigotry of the Jews and the
treachery of Judas. According to the same plan, there would have
been no death in the world if there had been no sin, and if there
had been no deaths you and I would not have been called into ex
istence, and if we did not exist we could not have been saved, so
we owe our salvation to the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery
of Judas, and we are indebted to the devil for our existence. I
speak this reverently. It strikes me that what they call the atone
ment is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its merciful provisions
man is allowed the privilege of sinning credit, and whenever he is
guilty of a mean action, he says : “Charge it.” In my judgment,
this kind of bookkeeping breeds extravagance in sin.
Suppose we had a law in New York that every merchant should
give credit to every man who asked it, under pain and penitentiary,
and that every man should take the benefit of the bankruptcy sta
tute any Saturday night ? Doesn’t the credit system in morals
breed extravagance in sin ? That’s the question. Who’s afraid of
punishment which is so far away ? Whom does the doctrine of
hell stop ? The great, the rich, the powerful ? No ; the poor, the
weak, the despised, the mean. Did you ever hear of a man going
to hell who died in New York worth a million of dollars, or ■with
an income of twenty-five thousand a year ? Did you ever hear of
a man going to hell who rode in a carriage ? Never. They are the
gentlemen who talk about their assets, and who say: “ Hell is not
for me, it is for the poor. I have all the luxuries I want, give that
to the poor.” Who go to hell ? Tramps !
Let me tell you a story. There was once a frightful rain, and all
the animals held a convention to see whose fault it was, and the fox
nominated the bon for chairman. The -wolf seconded the motion,
and the hyena said, that suits. When the convention was called to
order, the fox was called upon to confess his sins. He stated, how
ever, that it would be much more appropriate for the bon to com
mence first. Thereupon the lion said: “I am not conscious of
having committed evil. It is true I have devoured a few men, but
for what other purpose were men made ? ” And they all cheered,
and were satisfied. The fox gave his views upon the goose ques
tion, and the wolf admitted that he had devoured sheep, and occa
sionally had killed a shepherd, but “ ab acquainted with the history
of my family wib bear me out when I say that shepherds have been
the enemies of my family from the beginning of the world.” Then
away in the rear there arose a simple donkey, with a kind of Abra-
�28
hamic countenance. He said: “I expect it’s, I. I had eaten nothing
for three days except three thistles. I was passing a monastery;
the monks were at mass. The gates were open leading to a yard
full of sweet clover. I knew it was wrong, but I did slip in and I
took a mouthful, but my conscience smote me, and I went out.”
Then all the animals shouted, “He’s the fellow! ” and in two
minutes they had his hide on the fence. That’s the kind of people
that go to hell.
Now, this doctrine of hell, that has been such a comfort to my
race, which so many ministers are pleading for, has been defended
for ages by the fathers of the Church. Your preachers say that the
sovereignty of God implies that he has an absolute, unlimited, and
independent right to dispose of his creatures as he will, because he
made them. Has he ? Suppose I take this book and change it
immediately into a sentient human being. Would I have a right
to torture it because I made it ? No ; on the contrary. I would
say: Having brought you into existence, it is my duty to do the
best for you I can. They say God has a right to damn me because
he made me. I deny it.
Another one says: God is not obliged to save even those who
believe in Christ, and that he can either bestow salvation upon his
children or retain it without any diminution of his glory. Another
one says : God may save any sinner whatsoever, consistently with
his justice. Let a natural person—and I claim to be one—moral or
immoral, wise or unwise, let him be as just as he can, no matter
what his prayers may be, what pains he may have taken to bo saved,
or whatever circumstances he may be in, God, according to this
writer, can deny him salvation, without the least disparagement of
his glory. His glories will not be in the least obscured; there is
no natural man, be his character what it may, but God . may cast
him down to hell, without being charged with unfair dealing in any
respect with regard to that man. Theologians tell us that God’s
design in the creation was simply to glorify himself. Magnificent
object! “ The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of .God,
which is poured out • without mixture into the cup of his indigna
tion ; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb
(Rev. i., 10).
Do you know nobody would have had an idea of hell in this
world if it hadn’t been for volcanoes ? They were looked upon as
the chimneys of hell. The idea of eternal fire never, would have
polluted the imagination of man but for them. An eminent theolo
gian, describing hell, says : ‘ ‘ There is no recounting up the million
of ages the damned shall suffer. All arithmetic ends here ” and
all sense, too .' “ They shall have nothing to do in passing away
this eternity but to conflict with torments. God shall have no other
use or employment for them.” These words were said by gentle
men who died Christians and who are now in the harp business in
the world to come. Another declares there is nothing to keep any
man or Christian out of hell except the mere pleasure of God, and
�29
their pains never grow any easier by their becoming accustomed to
them P It is also declared that the devil goes about like a hon, ready
to devour the wicked. Did it never occur to you what a con
tradiction it is to say that the devil will persecute his own friends
He wants all the recruits he can get; why then should he PerS0cute
his friends ? In my judgment he should give them the best hell
It is in the very nature of things that torments inflicted have no
tendency to bring a wicked man to repentance. Then why tor
ment him if it will not do him good ? It is simply unadulterated
revenge. All the punishment in the world will not reform a man
unless he knows that he who inflicts it upon him does it for the
sake of reformation, and really and truly loves him and has his
¡rood at heart. Punishment inflicted for gratifying the appetite
makes man afraid, but debases him. Various, reasons are given
for punishing the wicked; first that God will vindicate his ^jured
majesty. Well, I am afraid of that 1 Second, He will glorify his
justice-think of that. Third, He will show and glorify his grace
Every time the saved shall look upon the damned in hell it will
cause in them a lively and admiring sense of the grace of God.
Every look upon the damned will double the ardor and the joy of
the saints in heaven.' Can the believing husband in heaven look
down upon the torments of the unbelieving wife in hell and then
feel a thrill of joy ? That’s the old doctrine—that if you saw your
wife in hell—the wife you love, who, in your last sickness, nursed
you, that perhaps supported you by her needle when you were ill ;
the wife who watched by your couch mght and day, and held youi
corpse in her loving arms when you were dead—the sight would
give you great joy. That doctrine is not preached to-day. Ihey
do not preach that the sight would give you joy; but they do
preach that it will not diminish your happiness. That is the doc
trine of every orthodox minister in New York, and I repeat that
I have no respect for men who preach such, doctrines, lne signt
of the torments of the damned in hell will increase the ecstasy of
the saints for ever ! On this principle a man never enjoys a good.
dinner so much as when a fellow-creature is dying of famine before
his eyes, or he never enjoys the cheerful warmth of his own fiiesi e
so greatly as when a poor and abandoned wretch is dying on the
door-step. The saints enjoy the ecstasy, and the groans of the
tormented are music to them. I say here to-night that you cannot
commit a sin against an infinite being. I can sm against my
brother or my neighbor, because I can injure them. There can be
no sin where there is no injury. Neither can a finite being commit
infinite sin.
......
r
n.
An old saint believed that hell was in the interior of the earth,
and that the rotation of the earth was caused by the souls trying
to get away from the fire. The old church at Stratford-on-Avon,
Shakspere’s home, is adorned with pictures of hell and the like.
One of the pictures represents resurrection-morning. People are
getting out of their graves, and devils are catching hold oi tneir
�30
heels. In one place there is a huge brass monster, and devils are
driving scores of lost souls into his mouth. Over hot fires hang
chaldrons with fifty or sixty people in each, and devils are poking
the fires. People are hung up on hooks by their tongues, and
devils are lashing them. Up in the right-hand corner are some of
the saved, with grins on their faces stretching from ear to ear.
They seem to say: “Aha, what did I tell you ? ”
Some of the saints—gentlemen who died in the odor of sanctity,
and arc now in glory—insisted that heaven and hell would be
plainly in view of each other. Only a few years ago, Eev. J.
Furniss (an appropriate name) published a little • pamphlet called
“ A Sight of Hell.” I remember when I first read that. My little
child, seven years old, was ill and in bed. I thought she would
not hear me, and I read some of it aloud. She arose and asked :
“Who says that?” I answered: “That’s what they preach in
some of the churches.” “ I never will enter- a church as long as I
live ' ” she said, and she never has.
The doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that the damned shall
suffer torment for ever and for ever. And if you were a wanderer,
footsore, weary, with parched tongue, dying for a drop of water,
and you met one who divided his poor portion with you, and died
as he saw you reviving—if he was an -unbeliever and you a believer,
and he called you from hell for a draught of water, it would be
your duty to laugh at him.
Eev. C. Spurgeon says that everywhere in hell will be written
the words “for ever.” They-will be branded on every wave of
flame, they will be forged in every link of every chain, they will
be seen in every lurid flash of brimstone—everywhere will be the
words ‘ ‘ for ever.” Everybody will be yelling and screaming them.
Just think of that picture of the mercy and justice of the eternal
Father of us aU. If these words are necessary why are they not
written now everywhere in the world, on every tree, and every
field, and on every blade of grass ? I say I am entitled to have it
so. I say that it is God’s duty to furnish me with the evidence.
In old times they had to find a place for hell, and they found a
hundred places for it. One said that it was under Lake Avernus,
but the Christians thought differently. One divine tells us that
it must be below the earth because Christ descended into hell.
Another gives it as his opinion that hell is the sun, and he tells us
that nobody, without an express revelation from God, can prove
that it is not there. Most likely. Well, he had the idea at aU
events of utilising the damned as fuel to warm the earth. Another
divine preached a sermon no further back than 1876, in which he
said that the damned will grow worse, and the same divine says
that the devil was the first Universalist. Then I am on the side
cf the devil.
The fact is, that you have got not merely to believe the Bible ;
but you must also believe in a certain interpretation of it, and,
mind you, you must also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
If you don’t understand it, it is your own fault. You must believe
�31
in it all the same. If you do not all the orthodox churches agree
in condemning you to everlasting flames. We have got to burn
through all our lives simply with the view of making them happy.
We are taught to love our enemies, to pray for those that perse
cute us, to forgive. Should not the merciful God practise what he
preaches ? I say that reverently. Why should he say ‘ ‘ Fosgive
your enemies ” if he will not himself forgive ? Why should he say
‘ ‘ Pray for those that despise and persecute you, but if they refuse
to believe my doctrine I will burn them for ever?” I cannot
believe it. Here is a little child, residing in the purlieus of the
■city—some little boy who is taught that it is his duty to steal by
his mother, who applauds his success, and pats him on the head
.and calls him a good boy—would it be just to condemn him to an
eternity of torture ? Suppose there is a God; let us bring to this
■question some common sense.
I care nothing about the doctrines of religions or creeds of the
past. Let us come to the bar of the nineteenth century and judge
the matter by what we know, by what we think, by what we love.
But they say to us : “If you throw away the Bible what are we to
depend on then ? ” But no two persons in the world agree as to
what the Bible is, what they are to believe, or what they are not to
believe. It is like a guide-post that has been thrown down in
some time of disaster, and has been put up the wrong way. No
body can accept its guidance, for nobody knows where it would
direct him. I say, “ Tear- down the useless guide-post,” but they
.answer : “ Oh, do not do that or we will not have nothing to go
by.” I would say: “ Old Church, you take that road, and I will
take this.” Another minister has said that the Bible is the great
town clock, at which we all may set our watches. But I have said
to a friend of that minister: ‘ ‘ Suppose we all should set our
watches by that town clock, there would be many persons to tell
you that in old times the long hand was the hour hand, and be
sides, the clock hasn’t been wound up for a long time.” I say, let
us wait till the sun rises and set our watches by nature. For my
part I am willing to give up heaven to get rid of hell. I had
rather there should be no heaven, than that any solitary soul
should be condemned to suffer for ever and ever. But they tell
me that the Bible is the book of hope. Now, in the Old Testa
ment there is not, in my judgment, a single reference to another
life. Is there a burial service mentioned in it, in which a word of
hope is spoken at the grave of the dead ? The idea of eternal
life was not born of any book. The wave of hope and joy ebbs
and flows, and will continue to ebb and flow as long as love kisses
the lips of death.
Let me tell you a tale of the Persian religion—of a man who,
having done good for long years of his life, presented himself at
the gates of Paradise, but the gates remained closed against him.
He went back and followed up his good works for seven years
longer, and the gates of Paradise still remaining shut against him,
he toiled in works of charity until at last they were opened unto
�32
him. Think of that, and send out your missionaries among those
people. There is no religion but goodness, but justice, but charity.
Religion is not theory—it is life. It is not intellectual conviction
■—it is divine humanity, and nothing else. There is another tale
from the Hindu of a man who refused to enter Paradise without a
faithful dog, urging that ingratitude was the blackest of all sins.
“And the god,” he said, “ admitted him, dog and all.” Compare
that religion with the orthodox tenets of the city of New York.
There is a prayer which every Brahmin prays, in which he de
clares that he will never enter into a final state of bliss alone, but
that everywhere he will strive for universal redemption,' that
never will he leave the world of sin and sorrow, but remain suffer
ing and striving and sorrowing after universal salvation. Comparethat with the orthodox idea, and send out your missionaries to the
benighted Hindus.
The doctiine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express. I
wish there were words mean enough to express my feelings of
loathing on this subject. What harm has it not done? What
waste places has it not made ? It has planted misery and wretched
ness in this world; it has filled the future with selfish joys and.
lurid abysses of eternal flame. But we are getting marc sense
every day. We begin to despise those monstrous doctrines. If
you want to better men and women, change their conditions here.
Don’t promise them something somewhere else. One biscuit will do
more good than all the tracts that were ever peddled in the world.
Give them more whitewash, more light, more air. You have to
change men physically before you change them intellectually. I
believe the time will come when every criminal will be treated as
we now treat the diseased and sick, when every penitentiary will
become a reformatory; and that if criminals go to them with
hatred in their bosoms, they will leave them without feelings of
revenge. Let me tell you the story of Orpheus and Eurydice.
Eurydice had been carried away by the god of hell, and Orpheus,
her lover, went in quest of her. He took with him his. lyre, and
played such exquisite music that all hell was amazed. Ixion forgot
his labors at the wheel, the daughters of Danaus ceased from their
hopeless task, Tantalus forgot his thirst, oven Pluto smiled, and,
for the first time in the history of hell, the eyes of the Furies were
wet with tears. As it was -with the lyre of Orpheus, so it is to-day
with the great harmonies of science, which are rescuing from theprisons of superstition the torn and bleeding heart of man.
�
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
Divine vivisection
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: [19]-32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N340
Subject
The topic of the resource
Hell
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Divine vivisection), 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
Devil-Christianity
Hell
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c52086dca71b0ed83cb53d75bda3a8ea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nWpD9%7EU1UAS3IOo86RCYWIV32Msdw4rHnKNLmCzPoLGS0TXKmwGdqhFveh8T%7EqRerMzzZtyJqfbrDjikvFXKBTDQo1qek4URIOqrceLQql86C8MZ5ImsouGoKClj7lhmDJnuutBSsBywlgiSK2UVlf5EBzkGMSqUwG7scm3XewtMgf2aA3GoGm6ws%7EhApSMlaAEaRwqR2o2XWUCZkwbo3-NCt8eqwVRE%7Elf-hW8P0rhOo4Vm8A%7EnwYKOjARHUjaYE0bWu%7EXU8XYl0mOIliTWd0RDe%7EzHUDfxP5vPFb7wUkGon7-ed6aV6vPUnkVDsbL8zJbXx2MKv20i6KU-dhwZAw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ad9e85b989a0c13b0084e223c3073d02
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
grfte Atheistic platform.
X.
DOES
ROYALTY
PAY?
GEORGE STANDRING,
Editor
of
“The Republican.”
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 884.
PRICE
ONE PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
1. —“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By Annie Besant.
2. —“ Mind considered as a Bodily Function. By Alice
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveljng,
D.Sc.
4. —“ England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh.
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
G.—“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7. —“ Some Objections to Socialism.” By Charles Brad
laugh.
8. —“Is Darwinism Atheistic?” By Charles Cockbill
Cattell.
9. —“ The Myth of the Resurrection.” By Annie Besant.
�DOES ROYALTY PAY?
TFriends,—Napoleon I. is said to have described the
English as a “nation of shopkeepers,” that is, a people
whose minds were “cribb’d, cabin’d, and confin’d” by the
sordid considerations of commerce, and were unable to
rise to the grandeur of the occasion when wars of conquest
and schemes of European domination were in question.
It is to you as shopkeepers or as commercial men that I
now wish to propound this question: 11 Does Royalty
Pay<n Is it a profitable investment to the nation? Is
?'
our servant paid too high a wage? Is it necessary, or
even prudent, to retain his “ services ” any longer ?
No employer of labor would fail to ask himself such a
question as regards the men in his employ. A large mill
owner, paying an overseer £1000 per annum to superin
tend his business, would find it necessary to make some
alteration in his arrangements if he were to find that, for
several months during the year his servant’s coat, thrown
over an empty chair, alone represented the individual
whom he employed! Such a system of business surely
would not “ pay.”
The national balance-sheet in regard to royalty would
stand thus :
Expenditure.
Receipts.
£
s. d.
£ s. fd.
To Guelph & Co., one
year’s salaries and
expenses .. .. 1,000,000 0 0
By services ren
dered per con
tra ................... 0 0 0
Surely this is a most unsatisfactory item in the accounts
of the nation! Let us see in what fashion this expensive
encumbrance of a useless monarchy has come down to us.
�148
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
By tracing the history of royalty in England through a
few of its most important phases, we shall be able to arrive
at a true estimate of its position and character in these latter
days. We shall see monarchy gradually dwindling from
a position of absolute dominance to its present degraded
and anomalous condition. Together with an oppressed
and uncivilised people we find a powerful sovereign; with
a free and enlightened nation monarchy exists but as a
mere costly sham. From this I think we may fairly infer
that the system we are discussing is fit only for a crude
and barbarous stage of society; and that with the growth
of popular intelligence and patriotism the old dominance
becomes less and less possible.
When William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, assisted
by a select band of continental cut-throats, invaded Eng
land and vanquished the Saxons, he established the feudal
system in its most rigorous form. The barons to whom he
allotted the land were responsible to him, and to him alone,
for their actions. The people were simply serfs or villeins,
without rights or duties as citizens. They were mere
chattels appertaining to the estates of their lords and
owners, and politically were of no account whatever. Thus
the centralised power of the Crown was originally domi
nant ; the nobles existed as dependents of the Crown, and
the people, as a political power, were practically non
existent. Thus was the “ State ” constituted towards the
end of the eleventh century.
It would be a most interesting study,'but it is absolutely
impossible to pursue it within the limits of a lecture, to
trace the gradual development of popular liberty; to see
the quarrels between the Crown and the nobles ; to observe
the first struggles of the populace in the direction of
freedom and independence. It will, however, be possible
to glance at certain epochs of our history in which the
gradual decay of the monarchical institution may be
traced.
First, then, let us turn to the period when the principle
of “Divine Bight ” was eliminated from English royalty.
Charles I. appears to have conscientiously held the view
that the Almighty had selected the Stuart family as “fit
and proper persons” to hold absolute and irresponsible
sway over the British people. With the courage of his
convictions, he sought to enforce his views, even to the
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
149
-desperate length of a resort to arms. God upon that occa
sion did not support his chosen one; and when the head of
Charles fell upon the scaffold at Whitehall it may be said
the doctrine of divine right fell with it, for it has never
been seriously maintained, as a political principle, in Eng
land since that time.
If we turn now to the end of the seventeenth century,
we shall note a further advance in the direction of popular
freedom. James II. had become so obnoxious to the
■country that he wisely fled and abandoned the throne.
William, Prince of Orange, was therefore invited by the
Lords and Commons to assume the Crown. An attempt
was made, however, to limit William’s authority, and to
this the Dutch prince would not agree. He told the English representatives that he was perfectly contented with
his position in Holland; a crown was no great thing, and
he had no wish for it; the English had sought him and
not he the English; and if they wished for his services
“they must agree to his terms. Ultimately the Dutchman
ascended the throne of Great Britain as William TTT.
upon a distinct contract with the [nominal] representatives
•of the people. “The Constitution,” says Hume, in his
History of England, “had now assumed a new aspect.
The maxim of hereditary indefeasible right was at length
venounced by a free Parhament. The power of the Crown
was acknowledged to flow from no other fountain than
that of a contract with the people. Allegiance and pro
tection were declared reciprocal ties depending upon each
other. The representatives of the nation made a regular
claim of rights on behalf of their constituents ; and Wil
liam III. ascended the throne in consequence of an express
capitulation with the people.”
Here, then, is a great advance. The people and the
'Crown are the two parties to a contract. Such a contract
may be determined by either of the parties ; and the con
stitutional Republican agitation of to-day is a movement
directed towards the lawful, peaceful termination of such
contract, as being no longer useful or necessary. The
object is a purely legal and justifiable object; and when
our opponents describe the Republican agitation as “sedi
tious” they merely expose their malice and ignorance.
It would be at once interesting and instructive to trace
-the history of English monarchy from the commencement
�150
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of the eighteenth century down to the present time. We
should see how the importation of a disreputable German
family brought the Crown into contempt—how the German
mistresses of George I. and his successor had “ exploited”
the British—and how the people had been estranged from
their rulers. We should see the pious but stupid and pre
judiced George III. exercising his authority upon the side
of privilege and oppression, and retarding, to the full ex
tent of his power, every movement in the direction of
popular progress and freedom. The foes of liberty were
the “King’s friends,” and, necessarily, the friends of the
people were the “King’s enemies.” The student of his
tory will be aware that the influence thus exercised by
George III. was a very real and weighty factor in political
affairs. That estimable monarch died sixty-four years ago;
and it will be instructive to note the vast change in the
power and status of the Crown that this comparatively
brief period has brought about.
Queen Victoria ascended the throne of England seyenteen years after the death of George III. • and in the year
1840 was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. This
gentleman came from a small German court, and the pro
spect of wielding a certain degree of influence over the
affairs of a mighty nation was very attractive to his mind.
His position in this country was somewhat anomalous ; the
Queen took precedence of her Consort, and politically
Albert was a fifth wheel in the coach. w It was taken for
granted by the people that the Prince would not meddle in
political business, and time after time he was publicly com
plimented on the supposed fact that, recognising his posi
tion in this country, he had abstained from interference in
the national affairs. Albert, however, had been so inter
fering in a secret and underhand fashion; and when the
fact became known, public indignation was aroused. The
Queen and her Consort thereupon wrote to Baron Stockmar, asking for his advice and assistance. Stockmar, it may
be explained, had been a long-life friend and counsellor
of the Queen, and his direction would naturally have much
weight with her. In reply to the Queen’s appeal, Stockmar wrote a long and tedious letter (given at length in Sir
Theodore Martin’s “Life of the Prince Consort”) from
which one or two passages may be given. He pointed out
that, “in our time, since Reform .... and the growth
�DOES ROYALTY DAY?
151
of those politicians .... who treat the existing Consti
tution merely as a bridge to a Republic, it is of extreme
importance that this fiction should be countenanced only pro
visionally, and that no opportunity should be let slip of vindicat
ing the. legitimate position of the Crown.11 Stockmar then
discusses the imaginary situation of a stupid or unscrupu
lous Minister pursuing a foolish or mischievous policy, to
the detriment of the public welfare. The only punishment
that could be inflicted in such a case is “the removal or
resignation ” of the offender. But the divine system of a
properly-constituted monarchy would, Baron Stockmar
alleged, provide an efficient safeguard against such dis
astrous mismanagement. Who, he asks, “could have
averted the danger, either wholly or in part ? Assuredly
he [the Sovereign], and he alone, who, being free from
party passion, has listened to the voice of an independent
judgment [i.e., his own]. To exercise this judgment is,
both in a moral and constitutional point of view, a matter
of right, nay, a positive duty. The Sovereign may even
take a part in the initiation and the maturing of the Gov
ernment measures ; for it would be unreasonable to expect
that a King, himself as able, as accomplished, as patriotic (
as the best of his Ministers, should be prevented from
making use of these qualities at the deliberations of his
Council.”
Writing thus to a member of the House of Hanover,
Stockmar must have been singularly ignorant or strangely
oblivious of the history of that family. Where, since the
Guelphs first landed upon our shores, shall we find the
sovereign “as able, as accomplished, as patriotic as the
best of his ministers ” ? Can we so describe George I.,
ignorant of the English tongue, absolutely indifferent to
the national welfare, contented to pass his time carousing
with his fat German mistresses ? Is it possible thus to re
gard his scarcely more estimable successor, George II.;
the ignorant, bigoted, obstinate madman, George III.; the
profligate and unprincipled George IV. ; or his successor,
William IV., who, as Greville declared, would make a
good king if he did not go mad? And, looking to the
future, can we dare to anticipate that the Prince of Wales,
if he ever ascend the throne, will display either ability o
patriotism in a very eminent degree ? Baron Stockmar
urged the Queen to avail herself of every opportunity to
�152
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
vindicate the “legitimate position of the Crown.” This clear
and decided advice, it must be remembered, was given by
the Queen’s most trusted counsellor in response to a direct
appeal for such aid; but can it be pretended that Her
Majesty has ever followed it? Is it under the reign of
Victoria that the dwindling prerogatives of the monarch
have been strengthened and extended ? On the contrary,
the forty-seven years of the present reign have seen the
almost absolute self-effacement of the sovereign as a politi
cal and social factor. Parliament is opened by “commis
sion ” in the absence of the Queen; drawing-rooms are
held by the Princess of Wales, in the absence of the Queen.
Whilst the political machine is running, and the wheels of
society are swiftly revolving in their appointed fashion, the
nominal head alike of the State and of Society is buried in
the remote fastnesses of Balmoral, the solemn glories of
Windsor, or the sylvan glades of Osborne. Privacy of the
most complete nature is all that is apparently sought. In
short, Her Majesty is teaching the English how easily and
comfortably they may exist without a Queen!
Politically, the Sovereign now only operates as a machine
for affixing the sign-manual. The responsibility for every
measure, for every action, rests upon the official advisers
of the Crown. Without their aid there could be nothing
to sign; but—according to the glorious principles of our
constitution—the result of their labor and genius would be
null and void, minus the signature of the Sovereign. The
sole object, then, for which monarchy now exists, politi
cally, would be equally well served by an india-rubber
stamp, an impression of which could be affixed to any
document or measure that had received the sanction of
both Houses of Parliament. And the cost of this need not
exceed the moderate sum of one shilling.
With reference to the functions of the Sovereign, I am,
however, bound to admit that the view I have just endea
vored to state is not universally accepted as correct. There
can be no possible doubt that the principle that “ the Sove
reign reigns but does not govern ” is the only one upon which
the majority of Englishmen would tolerate the existence of
royalty. The spirit of democracy has so deeply permeated
English political life that the exercise of an irresponsible
unrepresentative power in public affairs would not long be
permitted to exist. Supposing, for instance, that a Fran-
�DOES ROYALTY I’AY ?
153
•chise Bill, after being passed by the Commons and Lords,
should be vetoed by the Crown, such use of the royal pre
rogative—although legally perfectly justifiable—would be
the death-warrant of the monarchy. But, judging from
■certain statements that have been made public, and which
have emanated from responsible sources, it seems probable
that, in truth, the Queen does exercise a very real influence
over public affairs, but it is an influence of which the
public officially knows nothing. Several years ago Mr. Dis
raeli stated in a public speech, at Hughenden, that the duties
performed by the Queen were “weighty,” “unceasing,”
and “laborious.” “There is not,” he said, “ a dispatch re
ceived from abroad, nor one sent from this country, which
is not submitted to the Queen. ... Of our present SoveTeign it may be said that her signature has never been
placed to any public document of which she did not know
the purport, and of which she did not approve.” Now Mr.
Disraeli was on many occasions extremely parsimonious of
the truth; and it is quite possible that the startling statement
there made was merely a vivid flash of the imagination.
Dor what does it amount to ? If the Queen signs no
document of which “she does not approve,” then her
influence in the State is paramount, and if any difference
of opinion arise between the Sovereign and the Ministry
it is the latter that must accommodate itself to the former
before anything can be done. If all that Mr. Disraeli
said at Hughenden on thjs subject be true, it is difficult
to detect the essential difference between the “ constitu
tional rule” of Victoria and the “autocratic sway” of
Alexander III. of Russia! I for one cannot believe it.
If the judgment of the Prime Minister and the Govern
ment is to be on occasion subjugated to the conflicting
judgment of a doubtless honest and well-meaning, but
very commonplace old lady, the sooner the people under
stand this the better for us all. But, I repeat, I cannot
believe it. Shrewdness is a prominent trait in the Queen’s
character; and I cannot conceive it possible that she
should dare to follow the course of action indicated by the
words of Mr. Disraeli. Certain it is that the people
officially know nothing of it; and, judging from the facts
as they are displayed before us, we are justified in re
garding the monarchy as simply useless—not worse than
useless.
�154
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
At present our india-rubber stamp costs us at least a
million sterling per annum. The Civil List of £385,000'
represents but a portion of the outlay which the mainten
ance of royalty involves. The pensions and allowances to
members of the Queen’s family; the cost of maintaining
and repairing the numerous palaces required for their
accommodation ; and innumerable indirect expenses which
are carefully dispersed amongst various branches of the
public accounts, fully make up the enormous total given.
Sir Charles Dilke, for instance, whilst investigating this
matter some years ago, found that a certain number of
men were continually employed in painting the ornamental
fire-buckets on board one of the royal yachts. Year in
and year out their sole duty was to paint these buckets.
As soon as they were finished the work was begun over
again.
What advantage does the nation derive from the exer
tions of its most expensive “servant”? The Daily Tele
graph and other pious and loyal journals sometimes urge
that the Queen furnishes us with a noble example of a
sovereign and mother. But how ? Officially she has for
over twenty years almost entirely neglected the public duties
of her high position. And where is the nobility of her ex
ample as a mother ? Many a poor widow toils incessantly
in order to maintain her young family, denying herself
proper rest and food, so that her children may be decently
clothed, fed, and educated, and obtain a fair start in life.
Such cases of devotion and self-denial are frequent amongst
the poorest classes of society. Is not this a nobler example
than that of a lady in possession of immense wealth, who
is perfectly well able to support the whole of her numerous
family, but who yet permits the burden of their mainten
ance to be thrown upon the nation ? The private wealth
of the royal family must be enormous, and abundantly
adequate for their needs; and yet how many appeals for
charitable grants have been made upon their behalf I
Prince after prince, and princess after princess, have thusbeen quartered upon the nation as out-door paupers, re
cipients of a charity that is disgraceful, and would be de
grading to any family save the Guelphs.
Let us glance at the long roll of pauper princes, and
see what advantage the nation derives in return for their
generous allowances. The Prince of Wales receives an
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
155-
income of more than £150,000 a year, including his wife’s
allowance, but not including the accumulations of the
Duchy of Cornwall, or various sums that have been voted
for exceptional purposes. His Royal Highness is a Field
marshal of the British army, and honorary colonel of
several regiments. Now, what is the work that H.R.H.
performs in return for his ample wage of £3,000 per week?
Upon this point I will cite the evidence of the Daily News,
a Liberal, pious, and respectable authority: “The Prince
of Wales had a hard day’s work on Saturday. In tho
afternoon, besides holding a levee, he unveiled a statue of
Sir Rowland Hill at Cornhill, and in the evening he dined
with the Lord Mayor and the provincial mayors at the
Mansion House, afterwards witnessing part of the per
formance of ‘ The Marriage of Figaro ’ at the Covent
Garden Theatre.” And this, O ye Gods ! was a hard day’a
work! Not one of the simple rounds of daily toil, but
over-time - into the bargain ! Cannot such labor be per
formed at a cheaper rate ? Cannot some patriotic indi
vidual be induced to expend his energies in the service of
the State at a more reasonable rate of remuneration than
£3,000 per week? Surely if the contract were submitted
to public competition the Prince’s post could be filled, his
arduous labors performed, more economically than is now
the case.
Take, again, the Prince’s oratory. He opens bazaars,
lays foundation stones, and performs similar ornamental
if not useful functions. At Norwich, opening the Agri
cultural Hall in that city, Albert Edward eloquently re
marked: “Mr. Birkbeck and Gentlemen,—I have the
greatest pleasure iu declaring this hall to be now open.
It is worthy of the County of Norfolk and the City of
Norwich. (Loud cheers.)” Is this the oratory of our
£3,000 per week Demosthenes? Without any desire to
over-estimate my own ability, I could venture to under
take to make a much better speech than that at a mere
fraction of the cost.
As to the Prince’s military worth I am not in a position
to offer any facts or opinion. His uniforms are covered
with medals, and it therefore follows that the Prince must,
during some portions of his career, have earned those
decorations by many acts of bravery and devotion. I have
searched the pages of contemporary history for the records
�156
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of these deeds of heroism, but, alas! I have found them
not. It is difficult to account for the remissness of histori
ans in this matter. * In none of their works do we find a
line or a sentence referring to the Prince’s exploits on the
battle-field, to the deeds of valor which bear their outward
and visible signs in the Prince’s medals. I do not, how
ever, despair of obtaining the information some day.
Take another Guelphic hero and warrior, the Duke of
■Connaught. This young man is a major-general in the
British army, and in due course—if the monarchy survive
long enough—will doubtless be appointed commander-inchief when the Duke of Cambridge shall have passed
away, and his umbrella alone shall remain as a memento
of his glorious career. The Duke of Connaught has taken
a more or less active part in the military service, and it is
clearly to his ability alone that his rapid promotion is to
be traced. Unlike the heir-apparent, our major-general
can point to the records of history in proof of his achieve
ments. When the English troops were sent to Egypt to
crush the national movement organised and directed in
that country by Arabi, it was deemed advisable that a
prince of the blood should accompany the expedition. The
flagging popularity of the Crown needed a stimulant, and
it was hoped that the participation of a member of the
royal family in the noble work of suppressing Egyptian
freedom would bring about this result. Statements were
circulated to the effect that the Prince of Wales, inflamed
with military ardor, desired to take part in the war, but
that, “in deference to the highest authority,” he had
decided to remain at home. His younger brother, how
ever, was nominated to an important command, and his
departure from our shores was the signal for the most
fulsome and ridiculous panegyrics from “loyal” journa
lists. The Daily Telegraph in bombastic and inflated
language described the satisfaction that every Englishmen
must feel at the sight of one of the princes placing himself
at the head of British troops and leading them to glory on
the battlefield. A special general was sent out to see that
the duke got into no danger; a special doctor accompanied
him, and every precaution was taken for his comfort and
safety. Soon after his arrival the battle of Kassassin was
fought, and telegrams reached this country extolling the
bravery of the duke during the combat. It subsequently
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
157
became known that while the battle of Kassassin was
taking place the Duke of Connaught was ten miles in the
rear! It is not a difficult matter to display the most reck
less heroism when one is ten miles from any danger.
Artemus Ward escaped a fatal wound at Sebasto
pol by not being there, and our major-general owes
his preservation to a similar piece of good fortune.
I believe the only privation to which the Duke was sub
jected during the campaign was a temporary scarcity of
soda and brandy. At the conclusion of the war many of
the troops returned to England, and were enthusiasti
cally received by their countrymen. A certain number of
picked men were summoned to Windsor, when the Queen
affixed a medal to the breast of every soldier who had
distinguished himself. And, as a grand climax, the Duke
of Connaught came forward, his royal mother fastened
a decoration upon his already overloaded uniform, and affec
tionately imprinted a kiss upon his martial brow I Could
any more ridiculous farce be imagined ? The carpet
warrior who had merely accompanied the expedition as an
ornamental appendage, who was never in real danger—to
him was vouchsafed the same reward as to the men who
had risked their lives in the discharge of their duty.
However little we may admire the trade of the soldier, it
is matter of credit to him when he bravely performs the duty
imposed upon him, and the decoration earned by devotion
and heroism is an honor to him. But as for the rows of
medals and ribands that are so thickly strewn upon the
uniforms of princely toy«soldiers, they might just as well
be fixed upon a German sausage for any relevance that
they bear to the object upon which they appear.
The sham heroes of English royalty are in perfect keep
ing with the system to which they belong. They form
part of an institution that was once terrible and powerful,
but which is now as weak as it is contemptible and ridicu
lous. The political aspect of monarchy has entirely dis
appeared ; it is not merely useless, but an actual clog and
nuisance in the work of the State. Its social duties are
frivolous and unimportant, and its “services” could be
dispensed with, not only without detriment, but with
actual advantage to the nation. We are sometimes told
that England is a wealthy country and can afford to
bear the expense entailed by royalty. I deny the state
�158
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
ment absolutely and in all earnestness. Whilst we find
large numbers of people dying from starvation in our
midst; whilst we see so many thousands of our country
men barely able, by the most arduous exertions, to keep
the wolf at bay; whilst we find that misery and want are
rife among the laboring classes of the community, I say
that it is criminal extravagance to maintain in idleness
and luxury a family that perform no service to the country,
and whose position is based upon a barbarous and obso
lete form of government.
I should be performing but a portion of the task which
I have undertaken, if I failed to point out one considera
tion that is too often overlooked. The huge sum of money
appropriated to the maintenance of royalty does not go
into the pockets of the royal family, and by far the greater
portion of it is absolutely outside of their control. The
institution of monarchy is in this country the means of
supporting that huge crowd of lazy aristocrats who have
been irreverently but not inaptly termed “Court Flun
keys.” If the British tax-payer were to take the trouble
to enquire what is done with the money which he grum
bles so loudly at paying, he would find that it filters in
many ways into the pockets of the Crown’s most devoted
adherents. The royal family are bound by the iron fetters
of custom and precedent, and many huge establishments
have to be supported, at enormous expense to the country,
for their accommodation. A glance at the composition of
the royal household would show “about one thousand
unselected, vested-interest, hungry, hereditary bondsmen
dancing round the Crown like Red Indians round a stake,
and scrambling for £325,000 of the £385,000 that is
thrown to them every year by a liberal and unenquiring
country.” Royalty requires a whole army of attendants,
and all of them have to be highly paid. Many of the
superior officials do absolutely nothing. Their offices are
sinecures; and, in many cases, even when certain duties
have to be performed, the country, while paying A. a
handsome salary for occupying the office, obligingly pays
B. to do the work. It would be instructive to repro
duce the mere list of officials and servants employed in the
service of royalty. It comprises offices that are obsolete,
offices that are ridiculous, and offices that are unnecessary.
We have an aristocratic Master of the Tennis Court, with
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
159
a large salary but no Tennis Court; a barge-master with
two men to help him, but no barge—only the salary;
there are chamberlains of various kinds, chief clerks, ordi
nary clerks and assistant-clerks; lords in waiting, grooms
in waiting; gentlemen ushers and ushers who presumably
are not gentlemen ; masters of the ceremonies, assistants,
and people to assist the assistants; state pages, pages of
the back-stairs, a page of the chambers, pages of the
presence, and pages’ men to wait upon the pages, of whom
—reckoning all varieties—there are sufficient to make a
large volume ; several kinds of serj eants-at-arms, kings-ofarms, heralds, chaplains, dentists, painters, librarians;
gold sticks, silver sticks, copper sticks and sugar sticks;
secretaries to everybody and under-secretaries to the secre
taries; inspectors, equerries, footmen, “three necessary
women,” priests, painters, organists, composers, etc., ad
infinitum.
These officials pass their lives comfortably and luxu
riously, subsisting upon the public money. If any one of
them has any work to do it will be found that three or
four others are provided and paid to help him; and their
assistance is sometimes afforded when there is actually
nothing to be done. To these men and to their relations
royalty is the best possible form of government, and
they will defend to the last gasp the institution which
enables them to live in idleness upon the fruits of honest
industry.
I should like to suggest a possible way in which many
of these tax-eaters could be got rid of. A short Act might
be passed ordaining that the salaries of “Court Flunkeys”
should in future be collected direct from the people by the
holders of the offices in person. The “bargemaster” and
his two “watermen,” who so efficiently help him to do
nothing, might possibly be able to gather in the £400 per
annum that they receive for their valuable services; but I
am rather doubtful whether, after deducting wear and
tear of clothing (damaged in frequent kickings-out),
doctors’ bills, time, trouble, etc., they would find the
pecuniary results to be worth consideration. There would
be fair ground for hoping that in a very few years the
greater part of these useless offices would fall into
desuetude.
We may venture to trust that, in time, the English
x
�160
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
people will open their eyes to the anomaly of their position.
With a political system in which the Republican spirit is
the very breath of life, we foolishly continue the ex
pensive luxury of a useless monarchy. The only terma
upon which we consent to retain and maintain the mon
archical element is, that it shall do nothing to logically
justify its existence. The misfortune is that the nation
has not the courage of its convictions. The facts of our
political existence are democratic; the fictions—and most
expensive fictions—are monarchical. But the day is not
far distant when the scales of prejudice and ignorance will
fall from the eyes of our people; when they will be
aroused to the dignity and independence of their man
hood ; when, being no longer children, they will put’ aside
childish things, dismiss the useless representatives of a
bygone system, and transfer their allegiance from the
Crown to the Commcnwealth.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugii,
63, 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
Does royalty pay?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [147]-160 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 10
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Publisher's series list on p. [146]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N621
Subject
The topic of the resource
Republicanism
Monarchy
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 (Does royalty pay?), 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
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f753951dfd4b6904a0ed1734381cd2b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=csAn800SP8tUTcnoY47wsBBMgAvav9aclVbXFru4Wl2SM8WSTniDeb%7EMCuP%7EpNk4SRoU0jhG-%7EEJ7%7EP55Mt%7ErKSWopc-uoQK%7Edrg4hEGcSqAsB7bJOuKZR23Qa2QCf-OU18wmcFkXVPuIQY2z-uXR5SXvypLPrGDlPuNit6GL9z2vu3NFMcJCjrltwY5dvSKcHrMtCN9Qo22PGTkOvaf6oUKThVlPJ6xM65891xVoy0G7HX0wZeg9N1ms1YOYupNH8VGWuKIS9aerFTAs1-gECc-dpnvpkIfEKa6FjOKlgEJB%7EZ4LcnOCe2H4JamZwUTcAn7bR8pwaqO8bpxiBsQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d85639b812b8c68209956ddaad9250b4
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULnk SOCIETY
THE
FABLES OF FAITH:
Immmrdxfg anb ^tarbifjL
BY
AN EASTERN TRAVELLER.
“Il est affreux sans doute que l’Eglise chretienne ait toujours ete
dechiree par ses qtterelles et que le sang ait could pendant tant de
siecles par des mains qui portaient le Dieu de la paix.”—“ Le Siecle de
Louis XIV.,” par Voltaire.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1882.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�6 2-40'2-
CU-CA"
TO
HIS EMINENCE
CARDINAL MANNING.
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER,
THIS ESSAY IS DEDICATED,
AS A TOKEN OF RESPECT
FOR
HIS CHARACTER AND LIFE,
SO HIGH ABOVE THE LEVEL OF HIS
ADOPTED FAITH.
�PREFACE.
The writer of this little essay was born and educated in the
Church of England. The prejudices of his education were
strong enough (as is usually the case) to bind him to the
belief in a church, and, on arriving at years of discretion,
his reason convinced him that if there be a church it must
be an infallible one, and thus he “ submitted ” to the Church
of Rome as the only church claiming infallibility. A study
“ on the spot ” of Mahometanism and other Eastern faiths
led him to a comparison of all faiths, and ultimately to the
reluctant conclusion that they are all founded on assump
tions more or less inconsistent with truth, and that their
doctrines and practices are prejudicial to morals and human
happiness. His reasons for coming to this conclusion are
sketched in the following pages—pages which must inevi
tably be painful to the “ faithful,” and not only to them,
but also to him who has felt forced to retire from their
ranks, and thus abandon many cherished theories, many
beloved friends. The sacrifice he has thus made is a great
one, but truth is a sufficient consolation.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
------- ♦-------
CHAPTER I.
Fnth: its Definition, its Origin, its Evidences and their
Value.
(1) It is not to the faithful only, but also to the sceptical,
that faith is a matter of profound interest, for it is closely
woven into the history of every country, in every age, and
remains an important factor in many vital questions of the
present and of the future. Who, for example, would
venture to govern India without taking into account her
religions and sects ? We may disbelieve and despise these
religions, but the “lively faith” reposed in them by 250
millions of our fellow subjects is a fact which, however much
we may deplclre it, we cannot ignore.
(2) What is, then, this “ faith,” so dear to its votaries,
so praised by poets and painters, so pregnant with influence
on the destinies of nations and of individuals ? St. Paul
defines it as the “ substance of things hoped for, the evi
dence of things not seen.” But this definition, however satis
factory to a Christian believer, falls short of presenting any
accurate idea to a mind of another “ persuasion,” or to that
of a mere philosopher. If faith be the “ substance of things
hoped for ” it must be undiluted happiness; and yet those
who possess it do not appear any happier than those who
possess it not. And if it be the “ evidence of things not
seen,” how is it that, as regards such things, the faithful
know just as much and just as little as the unbelievers?
The revolution of the earth round the sun is, in a sense, a
thing not seen ; yet the faithful Joshua was ignorant of the
fact, and when it was discovered, the Prince of the faithful
hurled his anathemas against the unhappy astronomer who
had dared to find better evidence of “ things not seen ” than
the combined faith of the college of cardinals was able to
accumulate.
�6
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(3) Faith would be better defined as the belief in things
unproved by evidence; and if faith be in itself evidence, as
St. Paul advances, it is merely evidence of credulity in its
votary. In the ordinary affairs of life we believe little that
we hear, and not all we see, and the laws of every country
discourage the admission of hearsay evidence. But in the
concerns of our salvation we are less exacting: an envoy
from heaven is never asked for his credentials, and we
believe greedily and gratuitously all he alleges with regard
to his instructions from his august master. If a trades
man’s assistant call to collect his master’s account, we take
care to have evidence of his authority ; but if an ignorant
shoemaker or a reformed thief ties a bit of white cambric
round his neck and announces his arrival on a mission from
the king of kings, we rush in our thousands to heai' the
glad tidings, without even thinking of demanding a sight of
his “ full powers.”
(4) Man has an innate love of the marvellous, and from
his cradle yearns for something higher than his own
standard. His imagination is equally great and permeates his
thoughts and even his language, which is more or less impreg
nated with hopes and figures in proportion to the accuracy, or
rather the inaccuracy, of his mode of thought. And so
possessing both the will and the way, he easily conjures up
for himself “ troops of spirits,” “ black spirits and white, red
spirits and grey,” witches, fairies, hobgoblins, demons, gods,
and hosts of other “things not seen.” And with the lapse of
time these “ vain imaginings ” crystalise into faith—faith by
which the cunning often live, and for which the credulous
often die. The awe of ignorance, and the zeal of fanaticism
have covered the earth’s crust with altars of all shapes and
sizes, to the “ great unknown
and no mystery, however
improbable, or even impossible, can exceed the bounds of
the faith of the faithful. Indeed, the very merit of faith is
credulity; and so we are told that St. Thomas was rebuked
for requiring evidence of what he had heard, haphazard as
it were, and which appeared to him too improbable to
deserve credence.
(5) But the difficulty of believing things without evidence
presented itself very early to those who undertook to syste
matise faith ; but they scrambled over it, sans cere'monie, by
declaring faith to be a gift. But if it be a gift, who has
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
7
selected the donees, and how has it come to pass that each of
them has a gift of a different sort ? For every religion
differs from every other religion, and there are no two
members of the same religion whose gifts of faith are
exactly alike. Indeed one may go farther and say, that
if all the dogmas of all the religions were tabulated, and so
arranged as to give a bird’s-eye view of their various
similarities and differences, we should see at a glance
that one half of the faithful anathematises what the other
half looks on as essential portions of the “ deposit
of faith.”
And as all these faiths are different
they cannot all be true, and so in spite of the old pro
verb about looking a gift horse in the mouth, the re
cipients, as well as the non-recipients, of the gift of faith,
are at last reduced to the necessity of going more or less
into the question of evidence. The faithful enter on the
inquiry with excusable reluctance, for they have the case of
St. Thomas before their eyes; and in the end they argue the
case in a circle and produce as evidence a book 1 bound and
lettered, which they claim should be received without evidence
as the Word of God ; or they call into court a witness who
proposes to be Vicarius Dei Generates in terris,1 though he
possesses no power of attorney duly “ signed, sealed, and de
livered ” by his supposed august principal. If one accept
the book or the “ Vicar ” as being what they profess to be,
we must believe a host of improbabilities, and not a
few contradictions and impossibilities—all, it must be
admitted, for we wish to be candid, attested by the blood of
martyrs, the best possible evidence of sincerity, and which
would settle the question at once and for ever if it were
only one of sincerity. But it is not: it is a question of
truth, and on such a question sincerity, if mistaken, has no
bearing. If a honest but stupid ignoramus tells me in all
sincerity that three times one make one or five, his mere
sincerity does not convince me ; I prefer demonstration to
his stupid but sincere miscalculation. And if he assure me
that three Almighty persons make one Almighty God, I
1 As we are writing in the English language we have here, for the
sake of brevity, selected the two “ rules of faith ” best known to the
English-speaking faithful, and which are in fact more than “ equal to
average” when compared with the rest. Faith has, therefore, the
advantage of being judged “ in bulk” by flattering “ samples.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
stop his arithmetic at once by pointing out the impossibility of more than one Almighty person existing at the
same time. His sincere belief in this impossibility does not
prove it to my mind, even if he die for it.
(6) The value of evidence does not, therefore, depend
entirely on the witness’s sincerity, but also on his means of
knowledge, and on his capacity for availing himself of these
means. A hundred persons may see a man die, but if the
question be one of poisoning it might well be that not one
of them would be competent to give material evidence ; one
would require a post-mortem examination by surgeons and
physicians, assisted by analysts learned in poisons—in fact,
the evidence of persons with good means of knowledge, and
competent to avail themselves of those means. And yet,
after all this would only be a question of the shortening by
a few years of the life of one single individual. How much
more careful ought we not to be in receiving evidence on
which depends (according to theologians) the length of life
of millions upon millions of human beings, and that not for
a question of a few short years, but of the countless ages of
eternity, when clocks and watches and calendars shall have
perished in an universal fire and “ time shall be no
more.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
9
CHAPTER II.
The Miracles and Prophecies of the gods of faith.
(7) “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; ”
but then he was but a fool, though not, it would seem, the
greatest of fools, for he does not appear to have been guilty
of the supreme folly of attempting to prove openly the
negative proposition which formed the subject of his secret
sayings, “ in his heart.” We are not such fools as to say,
even in our own heart, there is no God. We cannot help
admitting, indeed, we gladly avow that the universality of
nature’s laws, and the absolute impossibility of disobeying
them, are quite consistent with the existence of a Supreme
Being of absolute power to do all that is possible, and of
unchanging will. We say advisedly, all that is possible, for
there are things absolutely impossible, such as making twice
two into five, or making that not to have existed which, in
point of fact, has existed. If God were to persuade all his
creatures of any such nonsensical impossibility, he might be
said to have wrought a “ miraclebut it would be a mere
triumph of falsehood over truth, and the fact would remain
the same.
(8) But the gods created by “faith” are neither
Almighty nor of immutable will; they are supposed to
have made a huge universe for the benefit of a few preda
tory tribes, whose common ancestor, although a miserable
savage, was powerful enough to frustrate the will of his
maker and make that maker repent of having carried
out his original design! It is not against the Supreme
Being that we write (God forbid!), but against tribal gods,
the creation of their own votaries, the offspring of man’s
imagination and woman’s credulity, “crossed” with igno
rance and superstition.
(9) The faithful may demand : “ If we are wrong, how is
it that the great bulk of the human race are with us ? ”
�10
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
Because man is a gregarious and imitative animal—indepen
dent minds with original thoughts are rarities, the great
mass of mankind are followers, they are like sheep at a gap,
or the “field” at a fox-hunt, they must be “shown the
way ”—and the leaders ? Are as a rule themselves mere
followers though of a higher class ; their imitation is not so
immediate, they follow, at a more respectful distance, some
model, forgotten of the multitude, making the path a little
broader here, a little narrower there, but still following it.
The fashion of faith changes like the fashion in costume,
and the leaders of both fashions are equally arbitrary; to
be out of fashion is to be out of favor, and so the faithful
and the fashionable are always numerous, though always
divided into contradictory sections and sub-sections. All
they have in common is the belief in things unproved by
evidence; that is their fundamental principle, the founda
tion on which each separate section of the faithful builds its
house, in its own style, and repairs in the same style, or
in another, in accordance with the prevailing fashion. If
all these houses formed a beautiful and united city it
would be strong and possibly impregnable. But the city
of faith is always divided against itself, always in a state
of civil war, and its gutters often flow with the blood of
its citizens. Faith has, it is true, a great following, but
no one of her followers can say he has the rest with him ;
he should rather say against him. Ishmael is the patron
saint of every faith, if not of every “ faithful.”
(10) “But we have our prophets and our miracles, which,
attest the truth of our faith.” Every faith has its prophets,
“true” and “false,” and its miracles and counter-miracles;
but is salvation a mere prize for the guessers of conundrums
and the connoisseurs in jugglery ? The Egyptian wizards
were, perhaps, cleverer than Messrs. Maskelyne and Cooke;
they turned sticks into snakes, but Aaron, the idolator, was,
according to his brother Moses, a better juggler still ; he
turned his stick into a snake that eat up the Egyptian
snakes. But does this prove that Aaron’s god was a better
god than those of the Egyptians ? and if so, in what propor
tion, calculated in decimals ? (for w’e should be accurate
in theological matters, and decimals sound more respectful
to the gods than mere vulgar fractions.) Let us state the
case thus: God A can turn sticks into snakes, God B can
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
11
turn sticks into snakes that will eat up other sticks turned
into snakes—assuming the value of God A to be unity, or 1,
what is the value of God B ? On the answer to this
absurd sum depends the future of millions! not of sticks or
of snakes, as one might think, but of intelligent human
beings!
(11) Raising the dead is a favorite miracle with some faiths,
but it is an unsavory one, and no one seems to have gone
close enough to it to have the testimony of his senses on its
genuineness. When the experiment is tried under the noses
of experts it invariably fails; there is not one solitary
instance of success. And it is an unnecessary miracle which
would be much better replaced by the miracle of keeping a
good and true witness of the faith alive for ever. A respect
able venerable-looking old man of two or three thousand
years of age, living a regular life without eating or drinking,
and enjoying good health and the “ possession of all his
faculties,” and the memory of all the remarkable events of
his lifetime, would be a standing witness of the faith, and, at
the same time, a useful historian. No one would doubt Azs
word, and the faith would be “ kept,” not only by enthusiasts
but by philosophers and men of business; and thus a multi
tude of silly miracles, such as the liquefaction of some old
bloodstains, the periodical appearance of saints to patients
suffering from those effects of indigestion which are known
as nightmare, would be as unnecessary as they are to most
minds ridiculous.
(12) But to come to the prophets: they are divided into
two classes, “true” and “false;” but both classes are so
much alike that each has nearly the same chance of deceiving
the very “ elect ”—i.e., the persons who have been privately
supplied with the only “ correct card of the race ” for heaven,
including the winners’ names, or at all events their own. A
prophecy, according to the faithful, is not the accurate and
definite anticipation of a future event incapable of calcula
tion ; on the contrary, it is the use of indefinite language
capable of various interpretations, and is generally of the
nature of a conundrum or riddle. All definite, or compara
tively definite, promises have failed. The greatest of all
prophets is reported to have said that the generation in which
he lived should not pass away till all should be accom
plished. Yet his generation has passed away many centuries
�12
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
ago, and no part of his prophesy has been accomplished, and
his followers have nothing left but a miserable play on the
word “ generation.”
(13) But the most celebrated of all prophecies, the one
on which millions of the most educated of the faithful rely
for the origin of a third of their deity was not so definite,
and was therefore not open to immediate refutation.
‘ Behold,” said the prophet, “ a virgin shall conceive.” No
particular virgin is indicated and no particular time is
fixed for her conception, so that no precautions are possible
for providing evidence of the conception not being the
result of human agency. We wish to speak with all respect
for the faith of our fellow-men, but it is necessary to
examine this matter somewhat closely, and if it be indeli
cate, the prophet is to blame and not we. If a married
woman conceive a child the world and the law assume, as
a matter of prima facie evidence, that her husband is the
father of it: and that evidence is not likely to be rebutted.
But when an unmarried woman conceives a child, who
does not recognise the difficulty of proving its paternity?
Yet every modest matron and every innocent virgin of the
Christian faith is bound to examine or rather to believe
this matter of a virgin having conceived! Can it be
possible that the true God, who alone can be called the
god of purity, ever intended to exact from his creatures—
men, matrons, or maids—a belief on a question of pater
nity under penalty of death ? And without any evidence ?
For under what circumstances did the virgin in question
—(i.e., begging the question for the sake of argument)—
under what circumstance did she conceive ? She was living
in daily intercourse with her intended husband, in an age
when the forms of marriage were not respected so much as
they are now; both were young, both were poor, and both
probably had the average of human instincts and passions
—there is absolutely no evidence that they did not anticipate
the formal ceremony of their marriage. Yet in her case
we are called upon to assume that she was the virgin
alluded to by the prophet, and that his most indefinite
prophecy was fulfilled in her person 1 The prophesy and
its fulfilment are equally unsatisfactory, and neither can be
accepted by any but the faithful—i.e., by those who can
believe without evidence. And even they would find a diffi
�the fables of faith.
13
culty if, as magistrates, or judges or jurymen, they had to
deal with a similar case of our own times, even if it only
involved the legitimacy of an insignificant “ bit of
humanity,” the inheritance to a few “ dirty ” acres, or
a miserable pittance of a few shillings per week. Yet in
the affairs of “ salvation ” they greedily swallow an
“opening statement” unsupported by a tittle of satis
factory evidence and improbable in the highest degree.
Why ? It is the foundation of their faith, the rock on
which they have built their house, and they do not dare to
blast it “ in the mere interest of scientific investigation.”
In time, when the flood of knowledge shall have under
mined their little bit of sandstone, or when it shall itself
have crumbled gradually away, the house will fall, and
the dwellers therein will then be able to see the scientific
difference between the sandstone of Faith and the eternal
rock of Truth. Meanwhile, they will live in their house
and occupy their time in mending their own windows
and breaking those of their neighbors.
(14) If a prophet wish to prophesy a birth and be
believed, let him select the mother by name, and let him
indicate the day and hour of the birth, the sex of
the child, the color of its hair and eyes, and any other
“ distinguishing marks;” it is idle to say a virgin shall
conceive without naming the person, place, or time, and it
does not help the matter to say that the child shall bear a
certain name, because names are generally given by parents,
and parents naturally select a good one, especially if any
thing is to be got by it. Or if the prophet know that the
“ sun is going to stand still” let him name the day and hour,
so as to give us an opportunity of consulting our clocks and
almanacks, and of thus testing his prophecy. It is playing
with us to give the prophecy and its fulfilment as pages from
his own history, when he was engaged in carrying fire and
sword into the country of his “ unbelieving ” neighbors.
And the matter is not mended when we consider that the
movement (if any) of the sun had absolutely nothing to do
with the matter, and that it was the earth, and not the sun,
that he wanted to “stand still,” to give him time to
slaughter his fellow-men and their women and children.
The unblushing ignorance of this prophet and the re
volting circumstances of his alleged prophecy (or “ com
�14
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
mand ” as he calls it) are sufficient to stamp him as an im
poster ; but his prophesy is so old that it has “ crystalised ”
on the deposit of faith and the faithful believe it implicitly.
Would the faithful believe a modern “ prophet ” who should
incidentally mention that the world is flat, and that we have
only to walk to the end of it and look over the wall to see
the Ksole inhabitant of the moon chopping up the old moons
into stars ? Yet that would scarcely be more absurd than
Joshua’s ignorance of the motion of the earth round the
sun, for he professed to be on intimate terms with the
Supreme, and to be authorised to speak in His name. It is
childish to say that when Joshua said the sun he meant the
earth, and that he only used the language of ignorance to
ignorant people that they might the better understand him.
If he had had miraculous powers he could have used the
language of truth and have given his hearers the capacity
of understanding it. Or are miracles inconsistent with
truth ? Let the faithful ponder a little over that question.
(15) But, say the faithful: “ We do do not pin our faith
on Joshua; we'have the whole of the Old Testament, we
have the New, we have the Koran, and many other good
books, and all containing intrinsic evidence of divine inspir
ation, and all attested by the blood of martyrs.” The blood
of martyrs is, as we have seen, a mere evidence of perfect
sincerity. There is, or was, a patient in a lunatic asylum
in Staffordshire whose only trouble was that they would
not recognise him as Jesus Christ come a second time. He
was not Jesus Christ, but he merely believed he was, and
was willing to be crucified “ again,” as he put it, to prove
the authenticity of his mission. If he had lived when the
inquisition flourished, his blood would have possibly testified
to his belief in his identity with the founder of the greatest
religion on earth; but it would not have proved that
identity. Let us therefore leave for the moment the poor
martyrs on their crosses, their gridirons, their slow fires, and
cast a glance at the intrinsic evidence of the divine inspira
tion of what are called the “ sacred scriptures.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
15
CHAPTER III.
Science
The Inspiration of the Scriptures and their Internal
Evidences.
(16) No one who is sincerely convinced of the inspiration
of the scriptures can possibly doubt anything they contain,
and where they clash with the so-called discoveries of
modern science, he is bound to accept the higher evidence
of God in preference to the lower evidence of science, how
ever perfect it may seem to be—he must believe with
Joshua that the sun goes round the earth, and reject as an
optical illusion the “appearances” which have led men of
science into the “ erroneous ” belief that the earth goes
round the sun. It is uncandid and illogical to “ cut and
snip at inspiration and science in order to make them
dove-tail into each other. Let us therefore be candid and
just, though the heavens fall, or our cherished notions on
astronomy, geology and the other sciences have to be re
jected as pretty but fatal fancies into which our weak
judgments have seduced us. What, then, are the scrip
tures ? Let us first consider the collection of books known
as the Old Testament. They are said to express the will
of the creator to his creatures. But we find a difficulty at
the outset; they are not signed either in person or by proxy,
or duly attested. When a human legislator makes laws
he signs them, and publishes them over the whole area of
territory to which they are to apply, and it very seldom
happens that a question arises as to the making of these
laws or their publication. The scriptures of the Old Testa
ment, on the other hand, are unsigned, and were never
published to the world until most of them had lost all
interest except that of history. This difficulty is, however,
surmounted by the assumption that the scriptures in ques
tion contain intrinsic evidence of divine inspiration. Let
us, then, “ search the scriptures” for this evidence, and let
�16
THE EABLES OF FAITH.
us not forget what we are looking for—viz., an expression
of the will of the Supreme to his creatures. What ought
we to expect to find? Omnipotence, Justice, Purity,
Knowledge. What do we find ? God ingloriously defeated
in his grand design by an anti-god! God inciting to murder
and pillage! God relating indecent stories! God ignorant
of his own works ! God speaking in a language almost un
known I God scolding his people and repenting his crea
tion of them! In one word, we find a tribal god, “ the god
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
(17) “But all these charges are false.” Let us see, and
first as to the defeat of this tribal deity. According to the
scriptures, he made man in his own image, intending that
man should always be his faithful and obedient servant—
that was his will. But a strange personage, who seems to
have created himself, and who, besides working that miracle,
had the habit of miraculously assuming various forms and
shapes, turned himself into a serpent, and in that form
seduced the brand new man from the service of his maker !
Both wanted the servant; the serpent got him, and was
not that a defeat for the God ? Where was his omnipotence
when this miserable, miraculous, self-created serpent took
to talking, and talking with success, on the “ other side ? ”
And, moreover, the serpent’s advice was in favor of know
ledge, whilst the “ god ” inculcated ignorance as a virtue.
And, indeed, well he might, for he was himself ignorant of
the works he claimed as his own. He made the sun to rule
the day (in going round the earth!) and the moon to rule
the night (though, as a matter of fact, she often dances
attendance on mid-day), and we are told parenthetically by
the scriptures “he made the stars also,” as though that
brilliant assemblage of bigger worlds than ours were thrown
in as kinds of understrappers to the moon! Then as to the
creation itself, the account of it is grotesquely inaccurate,
and Noah’s ark is only fit to be a plaything for children’
What naturalist could believe the absurd story of a perfect
menagerie being established in one ship long before Great
Easterns were thought of. And where was the food for the
carnivora kept ?—not to mention the hay, straw and chaff
for the other animals. The writer of this story must have
been a thorough ignoramus, who wrote for a “ public ” even
more ignorant than himself, and the notion of his having
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
17
obtained his ideas from God is as absurd as the belief of his
story by sane people is strange and wonderful.
(18) All this is only grotesque. The incitement to
murder and rapine is more serious, and places at once the
“ god of Abraham ” on the same level with the “ one god”
who has Mahomet for “ his prophet.” Both gods are
equally bloodthirsty, equally narrow-minded, equally partial
to their robber bands; in a word, both are tribal gods in
the strictest sense of the term, and neither evinces the
slightest trace of the character of the God of the Universe,
who made heaven and earth.
(19) As to the indecent stories, it is a difficult matter
even to allude to them without shocking that sense of
decency which God has implanted in the nature of man, and
which even the most abandoned (with the exception of tribal
gods) cannot thoroughly eradicate. We will only mention
the stories told of Lot, referring our readers to the
Bible for the details, which are too foul for our pages.
An edifying composition of drink, debauchery, and incest
for the delectation of the children of faith! And the
story is told without a single word of condemnation of its
disgusting depravity! This gutter literature never flowed
from the pen of the God of purity, and it is mere blasphemy
to impute it to Him. Yet this is part of the intrinsic
evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures 1
(20) As to the language in which each book of the
Scriptures is written, the fact that it is not a universal
language proves that the writings themselves were not in
tended for universal circulation. God is almighty, and if
he wants to speak to his creatures, he does not require inter
preters ; and the story of his having confounded the tongues
of men when they were building the Tower of Babel, lest
they should “ climb up to heaven,” is no apology for the
non-universality of the language ; it is merely a proof that
the writer of that story was utterly ignorant of the necessity
of oxygen for the existence of animal life, and knew nothing
of the law of gravity or of the distance of “ heaven ” from
earth. This story of the confusion of tongues may be in
teresting to the admirers of the “ Thousand and One Nights,”
but the crass ignorance of its writer proves conclusively that
the Supreme took no part in concocting it. The simple
circumstance that the god spoken of was jealous of men
�18
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
and afraid they would “ climb up to heaven ” is sufficient to
stamp that god as a mere tribal god, the creation of ignorant
superstition.
(21) “ But the New Testament is of a higher standard of
morality, and evinces nobler ideas of God. Surely the New
Testament is true? ” The New Testament is but a supplement
to the Old, as is proved by the first chapter of its first book,
where we find the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham
to Joseph, and the statement that Joseph was not his father,
but that the Holy Ghost was, and that his birth was a mira
culous fulfilment of the prophecy we have considered (§ 13),
“ Behold, a virgin shall conceive.” The New Testament is,
therefore, founded entirely on the Old; and if the founda
tion be rotten, the superstructure must perish with it. The
Old Testament was the “rule of faith” of the Jews:
Jesus Christ was a Jew and a great Jewish reformer, but
he founded all his reforms on the prophets of the Old
Testament. It is true that Jesus Christ’s morality is of a
much higher standard than that of the Old Testament; but
what does that prove ? That the god of his father Abraham
was a changeable god, willing one thing at one time and
something very different at another—was, in fact, a mere
tribal god.
(22) “Then, was Jesus Christ an impostor?” We do
not say so : he gave the best proof of his sincerity, his life;
but the enthusiasts of other religions have done the same, and,
as we have seen, martyrdom proves nothing beyond the mar
tyr’s individual sincerity. “ But his miracles ? ” Were not
recorded by himself, but by his followers, chiefly ignorant
and all superstitious, and ready to believe anything and every
thing wonderful with regard to their great and good leader.
They idolised him during his life, and in their writings after
his death they deified him, and magnified his “ miracles,”
which are unproved by any tittle of independent and im
partial evidence. If Jesus Christ had had a mission from
the Supreme to his creatures, he would have been provided
with credentials sufficient to satisfy those creatures of the
reality of his mission ; but, as a matter of fact, Jesus
Christ spent the best part of his life working at a humble,
though honorable, trade, and the rest of it in vainly
attempting to persuade his people, in a remote corner of the
world, that he had received a divine mission. The great
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
19
mass of mankind was absolutely ignorant of his existence,
and the few who were not, only knew him as an itinerant
street preacher, who was endeavoring to form a schism in
the religion in which he had been born. And his judicial
murder was only regarded by those who knew of it as an
execution for heresy, or as a result of that religious intole
rance which has in all ages spilt the blood of religious
enthusiasts. And if the “King of Kings” really sent Jesus
Christ on a mission, why did he not protect his ambassador,
or demand immediate satisfaction for his murder ?
(23) One final word as to the New Testament. Although
it is the second dispensation of the “ God of Abraham,” it
is by no means the last. That wonderful dreamer, St.
John the Divine, in his “revelations,” tells us, amongst
other things, that Satan was, or is to be (when, as is usual
in such matters, left doubtful), bound for a thousand years,
during which his privilege to “ deceive the nations ” is to
be suspended, though it is afterwards to be revived for “ a
little season! ” Now this Satan has played a grand part
under the two dispensations of the two testaments, and, as
we have seen, succeeded in defeating the original design
of the God of Abraham, and, moreover, was powerful
enough to seize that God’s son and place him on a pinnacle
of the temple ; in fact, Satan has played the important
role of god’s rival, and successful rival. But St. John tells us
that he is to be shut up for a thousand years: and it is
reasonable to suppose that during that period God will have
it all his own way. This will, indeed, be a new dispensa
tion—an Almighty without a rival has the appearance of
a real Almighty. But, unfortunately, it is only another
temporary arrangement, and after a thousand years the
rival is to play his part again for a “ little season,” as St.
John, the stage manager, indefinitely phrases it.
(24) It is difficult to write seriously of the “ prophecy ”
of St. John, especially as he told us nearly two thousand
years ago that the time of its fulfilment was “ at hand,”
and it remains unfulfiled to the present day. It is a
mixture of grotesque romance and unintelligible conundrum,
all very well for a midsummer night’s dream or nightmare,
but totally unworthy of a Supreme Being of infinite power
and unchangeable will. And yet it is the foundation of a
new dispensation of the will of the God of Abraham !
�20
THE
fables of faith.
(25) The Koran and other sacred scriptures of “ faith,”
although containing here and there moral precepts of uni
versal application are, like the Bible, all strongly impreg
nated with the principles of tribal theology: they all picture
a god of limited power and wisdom, of vacillating will, of
strong passions, of absurd partiality for his own particular
tribe—on which he lavishes all his gifts and all his little
power, to the neglect of the greater part of this tiny
world, and in complete oblivion of those bigger and brighter
worlds, whose light reaches us through millions of miles of
space.
The scriptures tell us nothing that is new and much that
is not true ; and it is only by an “ act ” of blind “ faith ”
that we can find in them any internal evidence of having
been written under the inspiration of the God and Maker of
the universe.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
21
CHAPTER IV.
The Substitute for Faith—Truth—Future Rewards and Punish
ments—A Glance at “ Heaven” and “ Hell.”
(26) “ But if we abandon the ‘ faith of our fathers’ what
can you give us in its stead?” Truth! demonstrated truth,
who claims no sacrifice of her votaries’ reason. Truth, who,
conscious of her own power and ultimate victory, has no per
secution for her ignorant enemies. If faithful enthusiasts
believe that the Alps were once in the ocean, and were
removed to their present site by an “ act of faith ” on the
part of some pious prince in want of a “scientific frontier,”
truth does not burn them alive to extinguish their foolish
faith; she pities them and patiently watches for an oppor
tunity to convince them of the folly and absurdity of their
unfounded faith. Truth does not preach ignorance as a
virtue, she does not coquet with drunkenness and impurity;
she is the foundation of all morality, and the great
antagonist of all crime. A thief is a liar (“ Show me a liar,
I will show you a thief ”). A seducer is a liar, for truth
cannot seduce. An adulturer is a liar, for he breaks his
marriage vow. A murderer is a liar, for he always denies
his crime (those who plead guilty to murder are invariably
insane or consider their homicide justifiable). In short,
there is no offence against morality that is not at the same
time an offence against truth. Do the “faiths” inculcate
a higher morality than Truth ? The Bible sanctions
murder and rapine of neighbors, including women and
children. The Bible and the Koran sanction plurality of
wives, which is an untruth to the first. Then holy books
wink at slavery, which is opposed to the now recognised
truth of the freedom of man. The Bible visits the sins of
the fathers on the children. The Bible winks at lying, for
Abraham, who “walked with his god,” said his wife was
his sister. The Bible inculcates religious persecution, the
“ casting out of the heathen.”
�22
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(27) “ But the Christian religion is more moral.” Possibly ;
but what explanation is there of the murders and tortures
of the Inquisition, of the autos da fe, of the fires of Smithfield, of the dragonnades, and of the horrors that followed the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes ? The blood shed by
Faith in all ages has stained almost every page of the history
of every country; “religious” war is par excellence the
war of inhumanity and of extermination ; and it borders on
a miracle that Faith has not depopulated the world. If the
wretched gipsies under Moses had fully carried out their
god’s commands where should we Gentiles be now ? And a
similar question may be asked with regard to almost every
“ faith.”
(28) “ Good, but the truth you speak of has no system of
future rewards and punishments, such as faith has, and with
out these inducements and deterrents it is impossible to rule
mankind.” No one has, as yet, made any serious attempt
to rule without them, and all the attempts to rule with them
have failed, and failed miserably. The heaven and the hell
invented by faith are too clumsily made for the purposes for
which they were intended, and the conditions of admission
are simply absurd. Heaven, according to the Christian, is
a huge concert-room, in which 144,000 Jews and a “ multi
tude which no man could number ” of other persuasions sing
without ceasing a monotonous bit of flattery to their tribal
god: terms of admission, simple credulity 1 The Mohametan is not so musical; he furnishes his heaven with beauti
ful women; it is a sort of “ gay ” house without the drunken
ness: price of admission, simple credulity. Then look at hell
—its temperature is kept up at a ridiculously high degree,
and the fuel, though always burning, is never burnt ; its
aboriginal inhabitants enjoy an immortality which they
appear to have created for themselves, and their chief takes
a change of air as often as he pleases, and plays an occa
sional game at cards with the chief of the “ other place,” in
which he sometimes loses, but more frequently wins ; for,
according to theologians, hell is more frequented than
heaven : terms of admission quite as easy, incredulity. “ He
that believeth not shall be damned.”
(29) There are “ faiths,” rewards, and punishments : how
do they work in practice ? Do they lead men to lead good
lives? Not at all: they lead men to slaughter the “ un
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
23
believers,” and steal their goods or burn them—to commit,
in a word, all the atrocities of a “ holy war.” Good lives ?
It is good deaths that the faithful prize. A life spent in
bloodshed and plunder is atoned for by a death-bed re
pentance—the giving of a share of the plunder to “ holy
church,” and falling asleep in her bosom. The brigand,
whose profession is a combination of habitual robbery with
occasional murder, goes regularly to his “ Easter duties he
fulfils the condition of admission to heaven; he believes, and
he is safe. But let us take another and a better-known son
of the Faith—Louis XIV. of France—the sovereign of his
century. Louis was a “ patriot,” a “ pattern king,” and a
powerful “ defender of the faith/’ and lived his life under the
eyes of his resident confessor. What kind of life ? He
carried fire and sword amongst his weaker neighbors, he
revoked the edict of Nantes, he broke “ unbelievers ” on the
wheel, and, whilst his dragoons were protecting the faith
against thousands of harmless unarmed citizens, he was lying
in the lap of debauched luxury, surrounded by his mistresses
and his illegitimate children, and attended by his faithful
confessor, ever ready to give him absolution when he felt in the
humor to receive it. Did the hope of heaven, or the fear of
hell, influence his life for good ? Or take another king of
the same kidney—David. He was also a defender of the
faith. Did he scruple to seduce Uriah’s wife and murder her
husband out of fear of future punishment? (And, by the
way, this guilty pair are said by St. Matthew to be direct
ancestors of Jesus Christ!) Or, to come to our own times.
Some of the Glasgow Bank directors were shining lights of
faith: they even built churches. Did the fear of hell induce
them to look on other people’s money as sacred ?
(30) As a matter of fact the heaven of faith is too in
definite, her hell is too absurd and too easily evaded, to form
any real inducement to a good life or deterrent from a bad
one. They are mere “ bogies,” whose real influence has
never done the world any good, though the faith they are
supposed to enforce has done the world incalculable mischief.
(31) Having supped full of the horrors of Faith, having
seen “ in a vision,” the nightmare of the ghosts of her
millions of victims, let us awake to the beauty of Truth.
Her hands are not stained with innocent blood, she is not
guilty of any amorous embrace of Ignorance, she puts no
�24
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
prohibition on the tree of knowledge, she has no slaves, she
is not capricious, she is the same to all men, in all ages, she
has no worthless favorites. She is eternal and, conscious
of her own strength, and of her ultimate triumph, she has
no hatred to cherish, no enemies to punish ; she would con
vert them all into friends, her triumphs are the triumphs of
peace. The pursuit of truth and of peace are the only
noble pursuits, and they alone contribute to the happiness
of the human race. War and Faith,1 despite their sham
glory, bring but misery and ruin alike to their devotees and
their victims.
(32) We do not know all the laws of the Supreme, but
such as we do know are certain and unchangeable : let us
search diligently after the others, reserving our judgment
on them until they be demonstrated, and respecting, at the
same time, the judgments of others. Let us be charitable,
and endeavor to shame Faith out of her intolerance, her
ignorance, her superstition, her immorality; and we shall
certainly ultimately be successful, if we only live that good
moral life which Truth, and the experience of enlightened
minds, demonstrate to be most consistent with the real
happiness of the human race.
Truth is the blessing, par excellence ; and it is this blessing
which the author of this humble vindication of her wishes
his readers, both friends and foes.
1 The faithful have always admitted the likeness Faith bears to War:
we recognise the likeness as perfect.
�
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
Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Essay, dedicated to Cardinal Manning "as a token of respect for his character and life, so high above the level of his adopted faith." Published anonymously. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N204
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
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 (Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller), 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
Fables-History and Criticism
Faith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ed3f169efd20cdb63384006417569d3e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VzUof8tli1o8UVnfB72byeUZ2LrWuq%7EfThhgEYqMt9uKqfA8-kWFMwK4zr0AFA5M7DcT9wDYrCPbmefxWOFn4KiZ2z-hhyXO9dYcEAe2ss-kt124OkaHIts1eyOZRMxh4IQ6JE011mkQVSt9zmwjI6S8UdA29W0ZHqLbKROnPTGiQZJGPvDO99s842-LEBtMqzCxUENRB9n-dhsPeOIBCJx%7EbzptvGS21kC5QYZUdk2qrEGRVFBhS%7EgQqd4mdu-gopCPgbeAUHqrBa2A-39rT3tzSX3DcFWROpcBDyWPzdUfPSD0-sf4kEJkGw3cuNgvEx94z%7E3XagpolaJF59Sm5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
79d35399cc2c0452a3224c5e4c0ae067
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FIRST SEVEN ALLEGED
PERSECUTIONS.
A.D. 64 TO A.D. 235.
Tpìs pèv
, èXéeiv Tè p,c Ovftòs avwyeiV)
rpìs 8é jLtoi €K xeiP^v
Ìirrar’.
Ka^ òvelpip
*■ 206- 8-
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
Price Sixpence.]
��B2.4-2./
KJ 2.24
THIS TRACT IS
TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE
Sheinas (Statt, ®aq.,
Born 26th April, 1808, Died 30th December, 1878 ;
WHO, BETWEEN THE YEARS
KNOWN
1856 AND 1877,
and
BY HIS WELL-
Series of Tracts, most ably advocated
THE RIGHT OF ALL MANKIND TO
“ FREE EXPRESSION AND FREE INQUIRY.
��All dictionaries and other compilations on the subject
of “ Boman Antiquities,” are quite silent regarding the
existence of any laws or edicts directing the Romans to
persecute on account of religious opinions. Roman
History does not record any such thing. The pun
ishment of the Bacchanals was inflicted for purely
criminal and political reasons. The Romans never
punished anyone on account of his religion. On the
contrary, all their conquered nations—including the
Jews, and some Persians, both of whom were mono
theists—were permitted to continue in their own
religions. Therefore the question arises naturally, on
what foundation do those stories rest which relate per
secutions of the Christians for their religious opinions,
by the Roman Emperors Nero, Domitian, Trajan,
Hadrian, Aurelius, Severus, and Maximin ? Ignorance
regarding the correct answer to this question misled
Gibbon, and caused him to make very erroneous con
cessions to the friends of Christianity, especially in the
sixteenth chapter of “ The Decline and Fall.” Those
who wish for the answer to this question will find it in
the following pages.
Kilferest,
Feast of St Mark,
1879.
��FI RST SEVEN ALLEGED PERSECUTIONS.
O 11 sweet is pleasure after pain ” that men, who have
S experienced very painful sufferings, delight in re
lating them. To this rule the Christians are not any
exception whatever. Immediately after the time, a.d.
313, when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, took the
Christian Church under his protection, several Chris
tians entertained themselves with compiling traditions
regarding alleged persecutions of the early Christians
by Roman Emperors who reigned during our first and
second centuries. This we know from the ancient but
spurious Acta Martyrum and from the stories con
tained in the Acta Sanctorum, the compilation of which
was commenced by John Bolland, about a.d. 1640. It
does not appear that these supposed persecutions were
originally confined or increased to any particular num
ber. In the time of Eusebius, a.d. 315, they were in a
very uncertain state. He does not mention any num
ber, but he relates about eight supposed persecutions.
It was not until the fifth century of our supposed
Christian era that the number of these alleged persecu
tions amounted to ten. Sulpicius Severus, a.d. 422,
was the author of this computation. But even he is
not quite clear on the subject; for he seems desirous of
reserving the tenth and greatest persecution for the
coming of Antichrist.
Those alleged persecutions, and the dates at which
they are supposed to have occurred, are now generally
stated by the Christian writers, who are “ the best
authorities,” as follows, namely: that by Nero, a.d. 64;
by Domitian, a.d. 95 ; by Trajan, a.d. 107; by Hadrian,
�8
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
a.d. 125 ; by Aurelius Antoninus, a.d. 165 ; by Septimius Severus, a.d. 202; by Maximinus, a.d. 235; by
Decius, a.d. 249; by Valerianus, a.d. 257; and by
Galerius, a.d. 303.
THERE ARE NOT EXTANT ANY LAWS ENACTED
BY THE ROMANS OR EDICTS ISSUED BY
THEIR EMPERORS AGAINST THE CHRIS
TIANS.
Dr John L. Mosheim, (“ Institutes of Ecclesiastical
History,” century 1, part i. chapter 5,) says : “ The
persecutions of the Christians by the Romans, have for
ages been accounted ten in number. But the ancient
history of the Church does not support exactly this
number; for if we reckon only the general and more
severe persecutions, they were fewer than ten ; but, if
we include the provincial and more limited persecutions
the number will be much greater than ten. Some
Christians of the fifth century were led by certain pas
sages of scripture,—especially one in 1 Revelation,’
xvii. 12,—to believe that it was decreed the
Christian Church must pass through ten grievous per
secutions ; and to this opinion they afterwards en
deavoured, in different ways, to accommodate the
reluctant testimony of history .... An ancient law
yer named Domitius, collected all the imperial laws
against the Christians, in his treatise ‘ De Officio Proconsulis,’ which, if it were now extant, would doubt
less throw much light on the history of the Church
under the Pagan emperors. In the meantime very
much is left wholly to conjecture.”
Our New Testament does not mention any laws or
edicts against the Christians, nor does it record any
of those alleged ten persecutions. Even the writer of
our “ Acts ” does not appear to know anything regard
ing a persecution of Christians at Rome during a.d. 64,
the date commonly ascribed to a supposed persecution
of Christians by Nero. On the contrary (Acts xxviii.
30, 31,) the writer of our “Acts” represents St Paul
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
9
preaching Christianity freely from a.d. 63 to a.d. 65,
the year after the alleged persecution of Christians by
Nero. For, after representing St Paul as having ar
rived a prisoner at Pome, a.d. 63, the writer says,
“And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired
house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching
the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which
concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man
forbidding him.” It is scarcely conceivable and most
improbable that if Paul were a prisoner on account of
his being a Christian, he would have been permitted to
preach the doctrines of that belief while he was in cus
tody,—or to preach Christianity at Rome the year be
fore Nero’s alleged persecution of the Christians there,
—to continue preaching it during the year of that
alleged persecution,—and during the year following.
So then, if our book of “Acts” be written by divine
inspiration, or even if it be a genuine and authentic
narrative of the events and persons that it purports to
relate, it contradicts and utterly subverts the story that,
ad. 64, Nero persecuted the Christians.
To obviate this and many other chronological diffi
culties, Dr William Smith has edited in a unique
manner a work which he is pleased to call “ The New
Testament History.” The period comprised in that socalled “History” extends from a.d. 1 to a.d. 70, and
dates are assigned to the events narrated with such care
and skill that all contradictions, like that above indi
cated, are avoided. The consequence is an arbitrary
chronology which is at variance with all other New
Testament chronologies, both ancient and modern.
One of Dr Smith’s dates is peculiarly remarkable. He
states (p. 155,) that the birth of Jesus Christ took
place “ b.c. 4.” This date bears a significance of which
most probably Dr Smith was not aware. For the fact
is that
CHRISTIANITY IS OLDER THAN JESUS CHRIST.
Hermas, author of “ The Shepherd,” is supposed to
have flourished about a.d. 140. This work is quoted
�io
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
by Irenaeus, “ Against Heresies,” iv. 20, 2, as “ scrip
ture.” Origen, “Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans,” bk. x. 31, gives it as his opinion regarding
“ The Shepherd,” that it is “ divinely inspired.” We
know from Eusebius, “E. H.” iii. 3, that in his time
“ it had been already in public use in our churches.”
Yet in that tract Jesus Christ is never mentioned, nor
does the writer ever quote from our New Testament.
Theophilus, of Antioch, has left us an apology for
the Christians in three books, addressed to his friend
Autolycus. He is supposed to have flourished about
a.d. 168. He never mentions Jesus Christ, nor does he
quote from our New Testament. His authorities for
the doctrines he inculcates are Homer, Hesiod, the
Greek Tragics, the Septuagint, and the prophecies of
the Sibyl. He professes to be a Christian, and says,
“ we are called Christians on this account, because we
are anointed with the oil of God.”
Athenagoras is supposed to have flourished about
a.d. 171. He calls himself a Christian in his “Plea
for the Christians.” Yet he never mentions Jesus
Christ, nor does he quote from our New Testament.
The authorities he quotes are Homer, Hesiod, the Greet
Tragics, the Septuagint, and “ Sayings of the Logos.”
Tatian is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 172.
In his “Address to the Greeks ” he endeavours at once
to defend Christianity and to expose the enormities of
heathenism. He never mentions Jesus Christ, nor does
he quote from our New Testament. The authorities
he quotes are Moses, the Logos, Orpheus and Demo
critus.
In his “ Evidences of Christianity,” bk. i., ch. 3, first
three lines, Paley says, “ Of the primitive condition of
Christianity a distant only and a general view can be
acquired from heathen writers. It is in our own books
that the detail and interior of the transaction must be
sought for.”
In his “ Roman History,” translated by Hare and
Thirlwall, ed. of 1831, vol. 1, 176-195, in the section
relating to “2Eneas and the Trojans in Latium,”
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
11
Niebuhr avows that his aim is “to determine whether
the Trojan legend is ancient and homesprung, or
adopted by the Latins from the Greeks, and whether
there is any chance of explaining how it originated.”
The conclusion he arrives at is “ That the Trojan legend
was not brought into Latium by Greek Literature, but
must be considered as homesprung; and that it has
Hot the least historical truth—any more than the des
cent of the Goths from the Getes, or that of the Franks
and. Saxons from the Macedonians, all which are re
lated with full faith by native writers—nor even the
slightest historical importance,” and that the Trojan
legend was manufactured from Roman names and
ceremonies the meaning of which had been forgotten,
and from poverty of materials for compiling early
Roman History, and from national vanity.
It is a historical fact that during the first seventy
years of our first century, and during almost the whole
of our second century, all heathen writers are silent
regarding the existence of Christianity and the Chris
tians. The traces of them in the writings of Josephus,
Suetonius, Pliny junior, and Tacitus, between a.d. 70
and 110, are uncertain, scanty, dubious and improbable.
Consequently Paley’s candid statement regarding the
fact that there are few, if any, genuine notices of pri
mitive Christianity or primitive Christians by heathen
writers, amounts on his part to a confession of weak
ness. It reduces Jesus Christ to the condition of such
heroes as Meleager, Adrastus, Ajax, Prince Arthur,
William Tell, and the like. In fact the very name
“Christians” is traceable to the worshippers of the
-Egyptian god Serapis, as appears by a letter from the
Emperor Hadrian to his son-in-law, Servianus, preserved
by the historian Vopiscus, who flourished about a.d.
294. It is given in his history of Saturninus, and was
written about a.d. 134. The scope of that letter is as
follows :—
“ Hadrianus Augustus, to the consul Servianus,
greeting. The -Egyptians [of Alexandria], whom you
so praise to me, I thoroughly know : they are frivolous,
�12
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
undecided, and always shifting with every changing
report. The worshippers of Serapis are Christians ;
those are devotees of Serapis who call themselves
bishops of Christ. We have not any one there who is
a chief of the synagogue of the Jews, not any follower
of the Samarians, not any elder of a Christian flock,
not any astrologer, not any soothsayer, not any one to
anoint the wrestlers in the schools. . The Patriarch
himself, when he visits /Egypt, is compelled by one
party to pray to Serapis, by another to Christ. The
sort of men that you have there are seditious, conceited,
mischievous to a degree : the city, as a state, is wealthy
both in money and in produce ; because there is not any
one who lives there that is without some occupation.
Some melt glass, others make paper, others are linen
weavers ; all have at least the appearance of following
some trade, and are considered to do so. Even the gouty
have something to do,’ and so have the blind, even
those who have rheumatism in the hands are not idle.
They believe in one God, who is worshipped by Chris
tians and Jews and by all the people. I wish only that
the city were more moral than it is ; for in truth on
account of its greatness and antiquity it deserves to
stand at the head of all /Egypt. To this city I have
made all the concessions demanded, besides restoring
its ancient privileges and adding new ones with such
liberality that they offered me their thanks when I was
present in person; and when at length I left them
they immediately paid many compliments to my son,
Verus, and you know of course what they also said
about Antoninus.”
Outside the Christian Church, this letter of Hadrian
contains the earliest mention of the Christians that is
genuine and authentic. It is quoted by Vopiscus to
shew the character of the Alexandrians. It has not
been quoted by the advocates of Christian evidence.
From Hadrian’s statements it appears probable that
Christianity originated among the worshippers of Sera
pis, regarding whom the account may be stated briefly
as follows:—
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
13
Isis was the goddess who taught the .¿Egyptians the
cultivation of wheat and barley. She was the wife of
the Nile god Osiris, who taught the .¿Egyptians the
use of the plough. In fact, Isis was the goddess of
the Earth, which the .¿Egyptians called their mother.
Hence it was that Isis and Osiris were the only deities
worshipped by all the .¿Egyptians. In later times Isis
was identified with Demeter and Ceres, while Osiris
was identified with Dionysus and Bacchus. When
Osiris was overthrown by Typhon, Isis was left with
out a husband until the reign of Ptolemy Soter, B.o.
285-250. By that king the worship of Serapis was in
troduced into Egypt, and that God became identified
with Dionysus and Bacchus. Soon afterwards Serapis
became the husband of Isis. The offerings sacred to
Isis were bread and the fruits of the Earth. The offer
ings sacred to Serapis were wine and such things as
were offered to Bacchus. The worship of both Serapis
and Isis was celebrated with licentious orgies. Here
we have the bread, wine, and dove of Christianity,
about three centuries before Christianity existed accord
ing to commonly received chronology !
But the fact is that our “Homer,” our “New Testa
ment,” and the first four books of Eusebius’ “ Ecclesias
tical History,” are merely pieces of comparatively
modern patchwork.
HOMER, NEW TESTAMENT AND EUSEBIUS.
Morality is a growth, like mathematics or any other
science; and ancient literary morality is not an excep
tion to this rule.
Until the time of Aristotle, b.c. 340, all the Greek
epic poems on the Trojan war were attributed to Homer.
It was Aristotle who first confined the name of Homer
to our Iliad and Odyssey. His reason for doing so
was because those epics were written very much better
than the older Cyclics. Here he omitted the considera
tion that in point of time rude and uncouth works of
art must always precede those of their own kind which
�14
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
are wrought with artistic skill. So, putting the cart
before the horse, he ascribed to old Homer our skilfully
constructed Iliad and Odyssey, while he attributed the
rude and uncouth Cyclics to persons bearing the names
of much later rhapsodists. But observe how Aristotle’s
“ Homer ” discloses the cloven foot of modern ideas.
He describes (Iliad xxiv. 155-8) the savage Achilles as
one 11 who is not silly, nor inconsiderate, nor a trans
gressor against the divine commands; but will very
heartily spare a suppliant man.” And (Iliad vi. 90)
he represents the Trojans as offering to Minerva the
Athenian sacred shawl,
Whoever wrote the book of “ Ecclesiastes ” did not
perceive any difficulty in representing Solomon as a
philosophical Atheist, who (ix. 11) represents all things
as taking place without the influence of Divine Provi
dence. He says, “ the race is not to the swift, nor the
battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor
yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to
men of skill; but time and chance happen to them alL”
Neither did he who wrote the book of “ Wisdom” con
sider that it was utterly impossible that Solomon could
have written in Hellenistic Greek, a language which had
not any existence until several centuries after the sup
posed time of that mythical king.
Pythagoras did not leave behind him any of his
philosophy committed to writing. Yet his Neopythagorean biographer eulogises the later writers who com
piled the Pythagorean philosophy; because, he said,
they renounced the fame that was their own, inasmuch
as they attributed their works to the Master of the
School.
At an early period in primitive church history
(Hierome, De Script. Eccl. tom. i., p. 350; ex Ter
tulian, lib. “De Baptisma,” cap. 17) a priest published
* See the admirable edition of our “ Iliad ” in two volumes
in the “ Bibliotheca Classica,” by Mr Frederick A. Paley, M.A.
The reader should especially read and carefully consider the
“ Introduction,” a piece of classical criticism which has never
been equalled.
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
15
a book entitled “ Acts of Paul and Thecla.” It was
proved against him that he had forged that compila
tion. Thereupon he plainly confessed that the love he
entertained for St Paul was the only cause that incited
him to do it. When he made this confession the
church authorities pardoned him, continued to use his
work, dedicated a festival day to these saints, and the
story of Paul and Thecla is still extant in the Apocry
phal New Testament writings.
From these circumstances regarding Aristotle’s
“ Homer,” the forgeries of the Neopythagoreans, the
double forgery of Solomon’s name, and the confessed
forgery of the story regarding Paul and Thecla, it is
highly probable that the names Mark and Luke attached
to our second and third gospels are names of men who
were famous in the Christian Church before Jesus
Christ and the Twelve Apostles were thought of. A
subsequent writer in the places where Mark and Luke
respectively flourished would put their names to his
compilation as a matter of course, and make them write
a history regarding persons of whom those saints had
never heard. The coincidences between the gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are certainly far less re
markable than the contemporaneous discovery of
fluxions by Leibnitz and Newton, or that of develop
ment by Wallace and Darwin.
A glance at the table of contents in the Apocryphal
New Testament, referring to “The Epistles of Jesus
and Abgarus, or Agbarus,” and the gospels of “James,”
“Thomas,” “Nicodemus,” &c., will shew how freely
the early Christian writers used names attributed to
primitive worthies of their church.
From St Jerome we know that the Galatians spoke
a language similar to that of the Gauls. Yet “ Paul ”
is made to address them in Greek as naturally as Aris
totle’s “ Homer ” transformed Achilles into a Quaker !
And the compilers of the Pentateuch represent the
Moses, who is supposed to have lived about fifteen
centuries before the Christian era, as writing in the
Syro-Chaldee language!
�16
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
Both Mosheim (“Institutes,” century 1, part ii., § 16)
and Strauss (“Life of Jesus,” Introduction, 13) agree
that there is not any reliable trace of our New. Testa
ment until about the middle of our second century.
The extant apocryphal literature is universally admitted
to be not older than our second century. When
(“ Acts” xxviii. 5) Paul shook a viper off his hand and
did not feel any harm, he performed the last miracle
recorded in the so-called inspired pages of our New
Testament. That exploit was performed a.d. 62.
Protestants say that they make use of their private
judgment. The miracles related among the incidents
recorded in our New Testament during the period
(Luke i. 5, Acts xxviii. 5) from b.o. 6 to a.d. 62, are
the only miracles, outside our Old Testament, which
Protestants recognise. Regarding those miracles and
incidents the contemporary Pagan world was as silent
as the grave. That commonly received chronology of
our first and second centuries is grounded partly on
the statements of Eusebius, written about a.d. 315, and
partly on the fancies and conjectures of subsequent
ecclesiastical historians. In his “Ecclesiastical His
tory,” bk. i. ch. i., Eusebius declares expressly that he
was the first historian who -had undertaken to write a
history of the Christian Church—that it was beyond
his power to present that history in a full and con
tinuous state (gmXJj na.1 atfapaXwrrov), that in attempt
ing the subject, he was entering on a trackless and
unbeaten path—that he was utterly unable to find even
the bare vestiges (7%^ yo/z.i'a) of those who may have
toiled through the way before him, and that he had
not been able to find that any of the Christian ecclesi
astical writers had directed their efforts to present any
thing carefully in this department of writing. And,
accordingly, Eusebius prudently deals with chronology
for the most part only in a general manner, that is to
say, he assigns certain events and names handed down
by ecclesiastical tradition as either taking place or
doing or suffering certain things under the reigns of
the Boman Emperors who governed during those two
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
17
centuries. But he seldom assigns to any event or
person a particular date that we have sufficient means
of testing. The definite dates which adorn some
editions of Eusebius have been arrived at partly by his
general and avowedly very imperfect arrangement, and
partly by the fancies and conjectures of subsequent
writers. However, while writing the history of that
period, on one occasion, at least, the prudence and
caution of Eusebius forsook him. The supposed birth,
death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are regarded by
all Christians as being the most important events in
the whole history of the Christian Church.
Yet,
strange to say, the dates of those events have never
been agreed on by the extant ecclesiastical historians.
In a rash moment Eusebius (“ Ecclesiastical History,”
bk. i., ch. 5, 10 and 13) attempted to ascertain the
exact date of those events. Assuming most erroneously
that our third gospel is the genuine and authentic work
of a writer who flourished about the middle of our first
century, Eusebius, ch. 5, represents the birth of Jesus
Christ as having taken place “ the same year when the
first census was taken, and Quirinus was governor of
Syria.” And Eusebius adds, “ this census is mentioned
by Flavius Josephus, the distinguished historian among
the Hebrews.” Josephus (“Antiquities,” xviii. 1, § 2)
does mention this census; but he says it was “ made
in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar’s victory over
Anthony at Actium.” This brings us down to a.d. 7,
a date which neither the writer of our third gospel nor
Eusebius could have intended to assign to the birth of
Christ. Again, (ch. 10) Eusebius says, “ It was about
the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius .
when our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, was in his
thirtieth year, that he came to the baptism of John,
and then made the beginning of promulgating his
gospel ... he passed the whole time of his public
ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas
. . . the whole of this interval does not give even
four years.” Be it so; nevertheless, this period would
cause his ministry to terminate about the first year of
�18
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
the two hundred and third Olympiad. But (ch. 131
when relating that after the ascension of Jesus, and in
accordance with a promise made by him to Abgarus,
Prince of Edessa, St Thomas sent Thaddeus, one of the»
seventy, to Abgarus, whom Thaddeus miraculously
cured of a disorder, Eusebius adds, “ these things were»
done in the three hundred and fortieth year/’ That
year, according to the account of the Edessens, corre
sponded with the first year of the two hundred and
second Olympiad. For the Edessens numbered their
years from the one hundred and seventeenth Olympiad,
thereby fixing their era upon the first year of Selucus’
reign in Asia. This we know from the “ Chronicon,”
compiled by Eusebius himself ! From that year to the
beginning of the two hundred and second Olympiad
there are three hundred and forty years exactly. The
beginning of the two hundred and second Olympiad
coincides with the fifteenth year in the reign of Tiberius,
in which year, according to both Luke and Eusebius,
the ministry of Jesus Christ commenced. So Eusebius
thereby contradicts himself completely. The fact is
that Eusebius was here trying to assign accurately a
time to events that never really took place. Outside
the pages of our New Testament and ecclesiastical tra
dition, there is not a single event in the history of
Jesus Christ which is recorded hy contemporary civil
history, Grecian, Jewish, or Latin. Moreover, outside
the pages of our New Testament there is not anything
implicitly believed in our day regarding the lives,
actions, doctrines, and ultimate fate of the Twelve
Apostles and the other characters who figure in the
narratives therein contained. And even those narra
tives are far from being perfect or even self-consistent.
Even Dr William Smith, in his “ New Testament
History,” p. 210, says, “ It is impossible to determine
exactly from the gospels the number of years during
which the Redeemer exercised his ministry before the
Passion.” So unerring and luminous are the con
tents of
the Book divine, by inspiration given !
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
19
As already stated, our New Testament is not older
than about the middle of our second century. The fact
is that it is a much later compilation. The most ancient
ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, flourished more than
three centuries after the commonly received date of
Christ’s birth. That historian compiled his history in
a manner far from being accurate, or even self-consistent.
But it is an act of only bare justice to him to keep con
stantly before our mind, that he candidly avows his
inability and utter want of valid and available materials
for his work. So then, how can we reasonably be called
on to rely on the dates and statements which Eusebius
gives ? And, a fortiori, how much less reasonably can
we be called on to rely on dates assigned by subsequent
ecclesiastical writers to such obscure individuals as the
so-called Apostolical Fathers, and the still more obscure
writers who are commonly but unwarrantably supposed
to have succeeded them ? Instead of doing so our duty
is to disregard all mere authorities, since the oldest
authority, Eusebius, is too modern and too self-contra.,
dictory to be depended on. We must examine the
works of the so-called Apostolical Fathers and their
alleged successors, and from the contents of those works
we must draw inferences and arrive at conclusions
grounded on sound philological principles. For our
purposes here two inferences will be sufficient.
I. Ignorance and inefficien&y must precede know
ledge and skill. Consequently the writings
attributed to Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theo
philus being more meagre and unskilfully
written than those attributed to the Apostolical
Fathers we are rationally bound to consider
the former as being older than the latter.
II. Of the extant early writings attributed to our
first and second centuries, the first that shews
unmistakably a knowledge of the greater part
of the writings contained in our New Testa
ment are those of Irenaeus, who is alleged
erroneously to have been Bishop of Lyons in
Gaul, a.d. 178. But if the Apostolical
B
�20
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
Fathers flourished, between a.d. 90 and a.d.
149, how is it that the writings attributed to
them do not shew unmistakably any know
ledge of our New Testament 1 Moreover there
is not any evidence to prove that there was
any Christian church in Gaul prior to A.D.
249. Of Irenaeus we do not know anything
except his name and his treatise, “ Against
Heresies.” That work is first quoted by
Eusebius, a.d. 315. Consequently from these
facts the correct inference is that our New
Testament had not any existence until some
time prior to the days of Irenaeus, who
flourished at a period considerably later than
the date commonly but erroneously assigned
to him by writers who knew very little, if
anything at all, about him beyond what we
of the present day know, namely, his own
name and. that of the treatise which he is said,
to have compiled.
Now let us examine the account of the persecutions
given by Eusebius.
TESTIMONY OF EUSEBIUS.
For the alleged persecution of the Christian church by
Nero, Eusebius (“ E. H.” ii. 25) quotes only Tertullian,
who was not born until about a century after the date
of that alleged persecution. To say the least of it, a
very remarkable circumstance relating to this matter is
the fact that Tertullian does not quote Tacitus,
“ Annals ” xv., 44, in support of that alleged persecu
tion, although Tertullian was well acquainted, with the
works of Tacitus. And a still more remarkable circum
stance is the fact that our book of 11 Acts ” represents
St Paul as preaching at Eome before, during, and after
that alleged persecution.
For the alleged persecution of the Christian Church
by Domitian, Eusebius (“E. H.” iii, 17—20,) doesnot
quote any authority whatever. He does not give any
�■first Seven Alleged Persecutions.
2I
details, or even any general narrative, any date or any
locality concerning that alleged persecution. Dr William
Smith says, “ Christian writers attribute to him [Domitian] a persecution of the Christians, hut there is some
doubt upon the matter; and the belief seems to have
arisen from the strictness with which he exacted tribute
from the Jews, and which may have caused much
suffering to the Christians also.”
For the alleged persecution of the Christian Church
by Trajan, Eusebius (“E. H.”iii. 33) quotes Hegesippus,
who is supposed to have flourished, at Corinth and
Rome, about a.d. 170.
For his existence our only
authority (“ E. H.” ii. 23) is Eusebius, who says,
“ Hegesippus, born in the time of those who imme
diately succeeded the apostles, gives the most accurate
account of James, the brother of the Lord.” But there
has not been anything really ascertained about Hege
sippus. Eusebius places him in our second century.
How then could Hegesippus have been born “ in the
time of those who immediately succeeded the apostles ?”
Of course this question is based on the supposition that
we are dealing with history, not miracles.
Regarding the alleged persecution of the Christian
Church by Hadrian, Eusebius does not say anything
about it. On the contrary, “ E. H.” iv. 9, he repre
sents Hadrian as protecting the Christians ; and Euse
bius quotes a letter said to have been written in their
favour by Hadrian, and addressed to Minucius Fun
danus, the Roman proconsul for the government of
Asia Minor.
Regarding the alleged persecution of the Christian
Church by Antoninus Aurelius, Eusebius does not say
anything about it. On the contrary, “E. H.” iv. 13,
h® attributes to Antoninus a letter addressed to the
Assembly of Romans, who governed Asia, in which
letter Antoninus is represented as directing that the
Christians are not to be persecuted. Niebuhr and Dr
William Smith are silent regarding this alleged perse
cution. And Dr Charles Merivale, in his “ General
History of Rome,” ch. Ixvi., says, 11 the great merit of
�22
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
this paternal ruler [Antoninus] was his protection of
the Christians.”
Regarding the alleged persecution of the Christian
Church by Severus, Eusebius, “ E. H.” vi. 2, says, “ It
was in the tenth year of the reign of Severus . . . that
the kindled flame of persecution blazed forth mightily,
and many thousands were crowned with martyrdom.”
But for this statement Eusebius does not give any
authority. Moreover, his statements imply that this
alleged persecution was almost entirely confined to
Egypt. Dr William Smith and Dr Charles Merivale
are silent regarding this alleged persecution. Niebuhr
(“Lectures on R. H.” by Dr Leonhard Schmitz, Vol.
ii. ch. 72), says, “ In the reign of Severus Christianity
had not obtained any political importance. Severus
himself, but more especially his wife, Julia Domna,
was favourably disposed towards Christianity, though
she confounded it with magic ceremonies. Unction
was at that time often prescribed as a remedy in cases
of illness, and Severus had once received the unction
in a severe attack of illness, and as he attributed his
recovery to the influence of the unction and to the
prayer of the bishops he afforded protection to Christi
anity by special regulations.”
Regarding the alleged persecution of the Christian
Church by Maximinus, Eusebius, “ E. H.” vi. 28, says,
“ The Emperor Alexander [Severus, the predecessor of
Maxi-minus] being carried off after a reign of thirteen
years, was succeeded by Maximinus, who, inflamed
with hatred against the house of Alexander, consisting
of many believers, raised a persecution, and commanded
at first only the heads of the churches to be slain, as
the abettors and agents of evangelical truth. . . . Maxi
minus did not reign longer than three years.” During
his short reign, Maximinus never passed an hour at
Rome. His authority over the Roman Empire was
never fully established. He was constantly engaged in
carrying on war with the Germans. And, altogether,
he had on his hands matters which were to him of
much more importance than the existence or persecu-
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
23
tion of the Christians. Niebuhr is silent regarding this
alleged persecution. So are Dr William Smith, Dr
Charles Merivale, and Dr John Lempriere. Gibbon,
“Decline and Fall,” ch. xvi., gives an exceedingly pro
bable explanation of this myth. He says, “In his
domestic chapel he [Alexander Severus] placed the
statues of Abraham, of Orpheus, of Apollonius, and of
Christ, as an honour justly due to those respectable
sages, who had instructed mankind in the various
modes of addressing their homage to the supreme and
universal Deity. A purer faith, as well as worship,
was openly professed and practised among his house
hold. Bishops, perhaps for the first time, were seen at
court; and, after the death of Alexander, when the
inhuman Maximin discharged his fury on the favourites
and servants of his unfortunate benefactor, a great
number of Christians, of every rank and of both sexes,
were involved in the promiscuous massacre, which, on
their account, has improperly received the name of
Persecution.”
Now, we are in a position to examine the passages
regarding the Christians, at present found in
PUNY, Junior, JOSEPHUS, SUETONIUS, AND
TACITUS.
Tertullian, who flourished about a.d. 195, is the first
apologist who quotes a heathen writer as evidence for
the historical existence of Christianity during our first
century. Pliny the younger was proconsul of Bithynia,
about a.d. 110. Tertullian appeals to a letter on the
subject of the Christians, supposed to have been writ
ten from that province by Pliny to the Roman Em
peror Trajan. A German critic and divine, John S.
Semler, considers this letter to have been a fabrication
of Tertullian, and this opinion is borne out by the
scope of the letter.
In that supposed letter, Pliny expresses a wish to be
favoured with the orders and guidance of Trajan.
�24
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
Pliny says, or rather is made to say, “ Having never
been present at any trials concerning those persons who
are Christians, I am unacquainted not only with the
nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punish
ment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examin
ation concerning them.” After expressing some minor
doubts, Pliny is made to say, “ In the meanwhile, the
method I have observed towards those who have been
brought before me as Christians is this : I interrogated
them whether they were Christians : if they confessed, I
repeated the question twice, adding threats at the same
time; and if they still persevered, I ordered them to
be executed immediately?’ Such an alleged piece of
conduct as this is utterly at variance with all we know
about the conduct of the Romans in general, and con
cerning that of Trajan, and Pliny in particular. Pliny
is also made to say that of the persons brought before
him, “ some said they neither were, nor ever had been
Christians; they repeated after me an invocation to the
gods, and offered wine and incense before your statue,
which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose,
together with those of the gods. . . . These, I thought,
ought to be discharged.” Regarding this passage more
will be said hereafter. Finally, Pliny is made to re
present the “ absurd and extravagant superstition ” of
the Christians as being very prevalent in Bithynia,
a.d. 110, so much so, that “the temples were almost
abandoned.” This is a silly statement, and forms a
strong contrast to the lamentations of Basil and Gregory
of Nyssa, who, in the middle of the third century of
the supposed Christian era, complain that the exten
sive diocese of Neo Csesarea—comprising, amongst
other territories, Bithynia—then contained only about
seventeen Christians! Regarding this persecution,
more will be said hereafter.
Eusebius is the next Christian writer who quotes
external evidence regarding the existence of the Chris
tians. He quotes from a pretended passage which he
alleged was written by Josephus, who flourished about
a.d. 70. The passage so quoted is at present found in
the “Antiquities of the Jews,” Bookxviii., ch. iii., §3.
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
25
There Josephus is made to say, “At this time there
existed Jesus, a wise man, if it be allowed to call him
a man, for he performed wonderful works, and in
structed those who received the truth with joy ; he
thus drew to himself many Jews and many Greeks ; he
was Christ; Pilate having punished him with crucifixion
on the accusation of our leading men, those who had
loved him before still remained faithful to him ; for on
the third day he appeared unto them, living anew;
just as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him ; and
the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not
extinct even at the present day.” This is a translation
of the whole passage as it now stands in Josephus’
“ Antiquities.” It has not the least connection with
What precedes or follows. It is not quoted by any of
the previous defenders of Christianity. Josephus was
a Jew, and always remained such. It is quite contrary
to the Jewish creed to say that Christ has appeared on
earth. The destruction of Jerusalem and the disper
sion of their nation are to them standing proofs that
the real Christ, their triumphant deliverer and restorer,
never can have come on earth. Consequently, it is
impossible that Josephus wrote this passage.
Still more remarkable than this passage, even if we
admit that it is genuine, is the silence of Josephus
regarding the Messiah all through his works. On this
subject, the Rev. Charles Merivale, in his “ Romans
under the Empire,” vol. vi., 536, observes painfully,
that, Josephus “ makes no more allusion to the false
Christ than to the true Christ. The subject of the
Messiah was one he shrank from ! ” Such an assertion
is utterly unwarranted. All that can be said on this
subject is this, namely, that Josephus, writing about
the time of a.d. 70, when the Christians had not any
real existence, does not mention the “false Christs” of
our Gospels (Matthew xxiv. 24, Mark xiii. 22, Luke
xxi. 8), who never were heard of until after the second
destruction of Jerusalem in the reign of Hadrian, 14,
July a.d. 135.
�26
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
Orosius, who flourished about a.d. 416, quotes a
curious passage regarding the Christians, which is now
found in the life of “ Nero,” § 16, by Suetonius.
There that writer is represented as stating that Nero
devised a new style of building in Rome, and that he
designed to extend the city walls as far as Ostia, and
then there follows a statement that “ many severe
regulations and new orders were made in his time.
A sumptuary law [to check expense in banquets] was
enacted. Public suppers were limited to the sportulae,
and victualling-houses were restrained from selling any
dressed victuals, except pulse and herbs, whereas before
they sold all kinds of meat. He likewise inflicted
punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who
held a new and mischievous superstition. He forbade
the revels of the charioteers, who had long assumed a
license to stroll about, and established for themselves a
kind of prescriptive right to cheat and thieve, making a
jest of it. The partisans of the rival theatrical per
formers were banished, as well as the actors them
selves.”
After a lapse of about three hundred years, we are
by Orosius called on to accept this exceedingly abrupt
mention of the Christians in a passage attributed to
Suetonius, where the profession of Christianity and
expense in banquets, and other public amusements,
are huddled together in one and the same paragraph !
Sulpicius Severus, who flourished about a.d. 422, is
the first writer who quotes a passage, which is now to
be found in Tacitus’ “ Annals,” xv. 44. After relating
a conflagration which consumed a considerable part of
Rome, in the reign of Nero, a.d. 64, and that a report
had broken out among the populace to the effect that
Nero had ordered the conflagration, Tacitus is repre
sented as saying, “ Hence to suppress the rumour, he
falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most
exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Chris
tians, who were hated for their enormities.
The
founder of that name, one Christus, was put to death
as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
27
the reign, of Tiberius ; but the pernicious superstition,
repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through
Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the
city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and dis
graceful flow from all quarters, as to a common recep
tacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly,
first those were seized who confessed they were Chris
tians ; next, on their information, a vast multitude (!)
were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning
the city, as of hating the human race.”
It is remarkable that while in the writings attributed
to some early fathers of the Christian Church even the
name of Jesus Christ is never mentioned, yet, in the
foregoing extracts supposed to belong to the genuine
works of Pliny junior, Josephus, and Tacitus, those
Writers are represented as being comparatively well
acquainted with his history—so called.
So, this alleged passage from Tacitus, “ Annals,” xv.
44, after having been unnoticed by Tertullian (who
has quoted largely from Tacitus,) or by Eusebius,
or by any of the early Christians in their various
Apologies and their disputes with objectors, and after
a lapse of more than three hundred years subsequently
to the time when the composition of this passage is
alleged to have taken place, we are called on by Sulpicius Severus to believe this passage to be genuine !
The truth of this allegation is most improbable. And the
facts, namely, (i.) That this passage is uncorroborated
by any contemporary heathen testimony; (ii.) That it
is contradicted by “Acts” xxviii. 30, 31; (iii.) That
there could not have been “ a vast multitude ” of Chris
tians at Rome a.d. 64, since there was not “a vast
multitude ” of them at that time even in Palestine; and
(by-) That Tacitus is represented as being well acquainted
with the original locality of Christianity, with the name
of its founder, and with that of the alleged procurator
who was said to have put him to death, “ suffered under
Pontius Pilate,” sufficiently prove that we are here
dealing with matters the last of which, at least, was a
disputed point in the Christian Church centuries after
�28
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
the time of Tacitus. For even in the time of Eusebius
(“E. H.” i. 9,) the statement that Jesus Christ suffered
under Pontius Pilate was not universally received in the
Church, and was introduced into the so-called “Apostles’
Creed,” a composition which, according to Mosheim
(“Institutes,” century i., part ii., ch. iii., § 4,) was re
ceived by the Church so lately as our fourth century.
Moreover all our present editions of Tacitus are only
copies of one manuscript, which was in the possession
of one individual who could have made any interpola
tions he pleased without having his accuracy tested by
a second manuscript.
All the Pagan writers, who flourished during our
supposed second century, and during the first forty
eight years of our third century, are silent regarding
both Jesus Christ and the Christians. Paley, in his
“ Evidences,” is sadly puzzled to find “ evidence of the
sufferings of the first propagators of Christianity, from
profane testimony.” The only quotation he gives is
from the “Meditations,” bk. xi., ch. 2, of Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus, a.d. 161, namely, “Let this pre
paration of mind [to die] arise from its own judgment,
and not from obstinacy like the Christians.” But
Aurelius does not say what class of Christians he refers
to. He may here refer to the Christians, who (as we
have seen by Hadrian’s letter) worshipped Serapis at
Alexandria. The truth is, Paley felt that the above
quotation from the “ Meditations ” did not prove any
thing ; for, in the very next sentence, quoted above, p.
10, Paley says, “ Of the primitive condition of Christi
anity, a distant only and general view can be acquired
from heathen writers. It is in our own books that the
detail and interior of the transaction must be sought
for.” To say the least of it, this is a decided confes
sion of weakness. So, it is quite evident, that all the
Pagan writers, who flourished during our supposed
second century, and during the first forty-eight years
of our third century, are silent regarding both Jesus
Christ and the Christians.
Now, therefore, the question naturally arises: Is it
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
29
probable that Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny junior, and
Tacitus, really knew more about Jesus Christ than
Theophilus, Hernias, Athenagoras, and Tatian who
»ever name him ? Or, if “ a vast multitude” of Chris
tians (as Pliny junior and Tacitus are made to represent)
during our first century attracted the attention of one
Jewish and three Pagan writers, who flourished towards
the end of that period, is it probable that not even one
Pagan writer would have taken notice of so remarkable
a sect during the whole of our second century, and
during the first forty-eight years of our third century ?
Further, is it conceivable that Nero persecuted “ a vast
multitude” of Christians at Rome during a.d. 64, and, at
the same time, during all that year permitted the apostle
Paul to live at Rome, in his own hired house, “ preach
ing the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things
which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confi
dence, no man forbidding him ? ” These improbabilities
amount to an impossibility. And the facts (i.) that
there is not any Pagan writer of our second century
who mentions Christ or the Christians; (ii.) that the
statements in Suetonius and Tacitus are contradicted
by the writer of “Acts” xxviii. 30, 31; and (iii.) that
those early apologists for the Christians, namely, Theo
philus, Athenagoras, and Tatian, never mention Jesus
Christ, amount to positive proof that those passages now
found in Pliny junior, Josephus, Suetonius, and Taci
tus are forgeries.
To this may be added the consideration, that although
an uncritical antiquity might not instinctively antici
pate the doubts of modern criticism regarding the his
torical reality of Jesus Christ, yet it should be borne
in mind (i.) That the historical reality of the Gospel
narratives was assailed at an early period, even before
the time of Tertullian; (ii.) That, as we have seen, so
lately as our fifth century, the Christians were fre
quently destroying, altering, and substituting narra
tives and doctrines in their various, numerous, and
very different gospels; and (iii.) That during several
centuries the members of the Christian Church had
�30
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
uncontrolled possession of all the remains of both
Pagan and Christian literature now extant, and fre
quently corrupted them for apologetic purposes.
If the statements made in the foregoing pages re
garding the first two hundred and forty-eight years
during which the Christian Church is supposed to have
existed rest on a substantially sound critical foundation,
it follows necessarily that of the alleged ten persecutions
of the Christian Church by Roman Emperors, the first
seven of those persecutions, namely, those by (1) Nero;
(2) Domitian; (3) Trajan; (4) Hadrian; (5) Antoni
nus; (6) Severus; and (7) Maximinus, are unreal and
unhistorical. Taken as represented by those who re
late them those seven persecutions were only local.
Those by Nero and Domitian were confined to Rome.
That by Trajan was confined to Bithynia,—unless we
accept the exceedingly improbable story referred to in
Gibbon’s “ Decline and Pall,” chapter xvi. note 74, that
“ten thousand Christian soldiers were crucified in one
day by Trajan or Hadrian [it does not matter which] on
mount Ararat.” Those by Hadrian, Antoninus, Septimius Severus, and Maximinus are not assigned to any
definite time or place : they have neither a when nor
a where. So, on the very face of the stories on which
belief in those seven persecutions rests we have not any
definite statement regarding a general persecution of the
Christian Church prior to that by Decius, a.d. 249.
In fact the principal authority for primitive Christian
mythology is Tertullian. His extravagant statements
form the foundation-stone on which rests the fabric of
Patristic miracles and stories regarding persecutions of
the primitive Christians by the Roman Emperors Nero,
Domitian, and Trajan.
Some of Tertullian’s statements are incompatible
with sanity. Yet they have been hitherto received as
if they were self-evident truths. So, according to the
limits of our space, let us estimate the real value of the
evidence borne to those miracles and persecutions by
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
31
TERTULLIAN.
Tertullian flourished about a.d. 200, and in our
standard dictionaries, cyclopaedias, histories, and bio
graphical repertories that treat of Tertullian’s character
as a writer, the authorities are virtually agreed in their
opinions regarding him. Perhaps the best estimate
of his character is that briefly and forcibly given by
Mosheim (“ Institutes,” cent, ii., pt. ii., ch. ii., § 5),
who says, “ Whether his [Tertullian’s] excellences or
defects were the greater it is difficult to say. He pos
sessed great genius, but it was wild and unchastened.
His piety was active and fervent, but likewise gloomy
and austere. He had much learning and knowledge,
but he was changeable and credulous, and he was more
acute than solid.” To this may be added with perfect
truth and safety, that whenever an assertion suited
Tertullian’s purpose there is not any evidence in his
writings that he was ever hindered from making one
either by reason of its improbability or even of its im
possibility. Of this characteristic all that can be given
here are a few specimens.
Tertullian (“Apology,” 21) says that Pilate was a
Christian : ipse pro sua conscientia Christianus.
He says (5), that Tiberius wished to deify Jesus
Christ.
He says (20), that the offices of the seasons and the
proper changes of the elements are out of course : etiam
officio, temporum et elementorum munia exorbitant.
He sayso(23), that he believes in magicians, daemons,
&c., and he asserts that when a person possessed by a
daemon “ is commanded by any Christian to speak,
that spirit will declare itself a daemon;” and, he adds
triumphantly, “ If this be not so, shed upon the spot
the blood of that most impudent Christian.” And
then he asks, “ If they be gods why do they feign
themselves daemons ? ”
He says (“On Prescription against Heretics”) that
the apostle John “ was plunged into boiling oil and
�32
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
did not suffer anything.” That “ between Peter and
Paul there was a common faith and preaching.” And
shortly afterwards Tertullian exclaims, “ Away with
those who pass judgment on Apostles 1”
He says (“ Against the Jews ”) that except the Jews
“ all nations believe in the Christ now come.” And
that Christ is believed on “ in unexplored regions and
unknown islands.” A vainglorious and stupid asser
tion. Even in the present day the Christians do not
constitute more than about a fourth part of the human
race.
From these cases of assertions, which every rational
man is perfectly aware are contrary to facts as we
know them, it may be safely concluded that the testi
mony of Tertullian is utterly worthless.
So, if we desire to ascertain the truth or falsehood
of those stories which relate the first seven alleged
persecutions of the Christians by Roman emperors,
we must make search in a quarter never dreamed of
by Mosheim or even Gibbon. In short, we must in
quire and ascertain what were the laws and customs of
the Romans regarding religious toleration and prosely
tism ? The true answer to this question will prove a
crucial test.
ROMANS AND RELIGION.
It is well-known (Macrobius “ Saturnalia,” iii. 9)
that the Romans thought that all cities were under the
protection of some patron deity. When they were
besieging a city, and had made such progress that they
considered themselves able to take it they used an
incantation, carmen, whereby they supposed that they
called out of the city its tutelary god. They did this
because they thought it would be a wicked and dan
gerous act to carry the god into captivity. For this
same reason the Romans wished the name of their own
city’s patron god and the name of the city itself to remain
wholly secret; or, at least, known only to a chosen
few. See Pliny’s “ Natural History,” xxviii., 4, and
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
33
ill, 9. So, the names Jupiter Optimus Maximus,
and Rome were not the secret names of their tutelarygod or of their city.
Among the Romans the Christian vices of prosely
tism and religious intolerance were unknown. They
had a national religion based on the principle of poly
theism, which does not know of any false gods. So,
the Romans conceded to all other nations that which
they claimed for themselves, namely, the observance of
their traditional rights; for their religion, like other
religions with which it came in contact, was purely
ceremonial. It taught how the gods were to be con
ciliated, but not what the gods were. ' It had not any
dogmatic belief. Their view is concisely expressed by
Cicero (“ For Flaccus,” 28), “ Each state has its own
religion: we have ours.” They could not understand
how any rational people could entertain a feeling of
religious intolerance. Hence the point in Juvenal’s
satire, xv., 33-38, where he says, “ Between neigh
bouring towns (Copti and Tentyra) there had been an
inveterate and ancient feud, immortal hatred, and an
incurable wound burns there yet. Thence on both
sides the utmost fury raged in the people; because
each place hates the deities of its neighbours, since it
believes those are to be held as gods only whom itself
worships.” But the Romans were more than tolerant
to alien deities : they regarded them with reverence
and awe. This is clearly seen in that curious cere
mony above mentioned and called the “evocatio
deorum,” or “ evocatio numinum,” by which when a
town was about to fall into their hands, a Roman
general sought to induce the gods of the town to leave
it, in order that the soldiers might not do anything
displeasing to those gods while the town was being
pillaged or destroyed. Further, that the Romans
might if possible secure the aid of gods who reigned in
other places, observe (Livy v. 21) the form of evocation
used at the siege of Veii, “ Thou also, queen Juno, who
inhabitest Veii, I beseech, that thou wilt accompany
us when victors, unto our city, soon to be thine, where
�34
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
a temple worthy of thy majesty will receive thee.”
This is somewhat rationalistic. The story, as told by
Livy, runs thus, “ When all human wealth had been
carried away from Veii; they began to remove the
offerings of the gods and the gods themselves, but
more in the fashion of worshippers than plunderers.
Youths, selected from the entire army, to whom was
assigned the charge of conveying Juno the queen to
Rome, having purified their bodies and arrayed them
selves in white garments, entered her temple with pro
found adoration, applying their hands at first with
religious awe, because, according to Etruscan usage, no
one but a priest of a certain family had been accus
tomed to touch that statue ; afterwards when some
one, whether moved by divine inspiration or with youth
ful mirth said,£ Juno, art thou willing to go to Rome ?’
the rest cried out together that the goddess has nodded
assent. To the story an addition is made, that her
voice was heard declaring that she was willing. Cer
tain it is that having been raised from her place by
machines of trifling power, she was lightly and easily
removed, as if she followed willingly.” Other wellknown historical instances of this public recognition of
foreign objects of divine worship are the reception of
Demeter, Persephone and Dionysus under the Roman
names of Ceres, Proserpine, and Bacchus. Sometimes
these identifications were very absurd. For instance:
the Romans had a god of the hereditary homestead or
“ herctum,” whom they called Herculus or Hercules.
He was properly a farmer’s god, but he was identified
with the Greek hero Herakles who cleared Greece from
wild beasts, tyrants and monsters. Of course here the
identification was made through similarity in the sound
of the names. But foreign deities were introduced
at Rome without any such identification. Thus, b.o.
291, on the occasion of a plague, the Grecian deity,
.¿Esculapius, was solemnly brought to Rome from Epidaurus. And, B.c. 205, during the life and death
struggle with Hannibal, the great mother of Ida, Rhea,
or Cybele, was brought to Rome from Pessinus in
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
35
Asia Minor. In these terrible emergencies it was
thought wise to strengthen the religious garrison with
alien powers.
It is obvious how much this disposition and conduct
in reference to the religions of the vanquished facilitated
conquest. At least one great source of disunion was
avoided, namely, the antipathy of rival religions; as an
ancient writer says, “ In acknowledging the religious
rites of all nations, they deserved to reign.” This exer
cise of tolerance was easy to the Romans, and almost a
necessary consequence of their belief in local gods : a
belief which further precluded the idea of proselytism.
The more value the Romans placed on the protection of
their native deities, the less disposed they were to share
that protection with foreigners. Far, therefore, from
wishing to impose their religion on the vanquished, the
Romans were very circumspect in even permitting the
vanquished to adopt it. Thus, Livy, xliii. 6, tells us
that when allies asked to be allowed to sacrifice to
Jupiter Optimus Maximus in the Capitol it was only to
those allies who had best served the commonwealth that
the permission was accorded. As, for instance, he says,
“ The Alabandians said that they had erected a temple
to the city Rome, and had instituted anniversary games
to the goddess; that they had brought a golden crown,
of fifty pounds weight, to be deposited in the Capitol as
an offering to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, also three
hundred horsemen s shields which they were ready to
deliver to any one appointed to receive them; and they
requested permission to lodge that offering in the Capitol
and to .perform sacrifice donum ut in Capitolio ponere
et sacrificare liceret, petebant. In connection with these
facts, it is curious to remark how the religious sentiment
may change its aspect under different circumstances, and
produce even opposite effects; for amongst the intolerant
Christians excess of devotion ordinarily impels to pro
selytism and persecution, while it made the Romans
averse to their employment.
Toleration, however, was not without political limits.
The same reason that made the Romans tolerant out of
c
�36
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
their native country hindered them from being com
pletely so at home. Since they thought a form of
religious worship is made specially for a people, they
inferred that each deity should be master in its own
domicile; and as they did not impose their gods on
foreign nations, so they reserved to themselves control
over foreign objects of divine worship at Rome. In
exercising this control, however, they were actuated by
political, not by religious, motives; and whenever a
foreign ceremonial was proscribed at Rome this was done
not in the interest of the gods, but for the preservation
of the state. We are told by ancient authorities that
people were prohibited from introducing new gods at
Rome without the sanction of the Senate; but Cicero
and Livy seem to differ. The former (“ De Legibus,”
ii. 8) quoting the old law, says, “ Let not anyone have
distinct gods, nor let him worship any in private whether
they be new or brought from abroad, unless they have
been sanctioned by the state?’ But Livy, xxv. 1, says,
££ Let not anyone in a public or in a sacred place sacri
fice with a new or foreign religious ceremony.” Probably
the reconcilement of these authorities will be found in
the fact that whatever the law may have been, that law
was but little enforced, or rather never, unless the exer
cise of the foreign rites were attended with gross immo
rality and scandal. Thus, on one occasion, b.c. 186,
the Senate intervened, and with terrible effect in the
suppression of the Bacchanals, when hundreds of persons
were executed. But the grounds of this suppression had
not anything to do with religion. It was necessary to
deal with a secret society that had reduced to a system
murder and other hideous and revolting crimes. Yet
even this case illustrates the extreme tolerance of the
Roman authorities as regards the exercise of religion.
These orgies were suppressed only when practised on a
large scale. But “ where two or three were gathered
together ” those orgies were allowed to continue even
though they disturbed the night; for, as Livy, xxix. 15,
tells us “ with clatterings and howlings they resounded
through the whole city.” The Romans had an indis
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
37
position to meddle with what might be really religious
worship; and, therefore, when at last authority was
forced to strike, provision was made for tender con
sciences, and persons wishing to perform Bacchic rites
were allowed to do so on application to the praetor,
provided those rites were not attended by more than five
persons.
If a great antisocial movement, veiling itself under a
religious guise, was dealt with thus, it may be easily
conceived how, in ordinary cases, sometimes with, more
frequently without, the sanction of the Senate, foreign
rites were continually insinuating themselves into Borne
according as she increased her points of contact with the
nations of the earth ; until at last foreign rites almost
flooded the city to the extent we find these things
described in the satirists.
Of course if the Christians, or any other monotheists,
destroyed idols, desecrated pagan temples, or in any
other manner did public violence to the religion of the
Romans such transgressors would be put to death. That
some Christians did transgress in this manner is evident
from the fact that the sixtieth canon of the council of
Illiberis, a.d. 324, refuses the title of martyr to those
who exposed themselves to death by publicly destroy
ing idols. See “ Decline and Fall,” ch. xvi. note 94.
An eminent writer observes that “ The intolerance of
almost all religions, which have maintained the unity of
God, is as remarkable as the contrary principle of poly
theists. ... A sacrifice is conceived as a present; and
any present is delivered to the deity by destroying it or
rendering it useless to men : by burning what is solid,
pouring out the liquid and killing the animate. For
want of a better way of doing him a service, we do our
selves an injury; and fancy that we thereby express, at
least, the heartiness of our goodwill and adoration.
Thus our mercenary devotion deceives ourselves, and
causes us to imagine it deceives the deity. . . . Few
corruptions of idolatry and polytheism are so pernicious
to political society as this corruption of theism. The
human sacrifices of barbarous nations consist of victims
�38
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
chosen by lot. But virtue, knowledge, love of liberty
are the qualities which call down the fatal vengeance of
inquisitors ; and when expelled, leave the society in the
most shameful ignorance, corruption, and bondage. . . .
So sociable is polytheism, that the utmost fierceness and
aversion, which it meets with in an opposite religion,
are scarcely able to disgust it, and keep it at a distance.”
Further light is thrown on this subject by a criticism
of the popular religion, partly preserved to us in St
Augustine’s treatise “ De Civitate Dei,” from the pen
of the great jurist Quintus Mucius Scaevola, a younger
contemporary of the Scipio who destroyed Carthage.
This Scaevola fell a victim in the civil war of Marius,
b.c. 82. Qf this distinguished man we are told that
he separated critically three forms of religion, namely,
(a.) the religion of the poets, (6.) the religion of the
philosophers, and (c.) the religion of statesmen (principes civitatis). Regarding the first of these forms of
religion he expresses himself most unfavourably. He
considers that what the poets tell us of the gods is for
the most part degrading and puerile. They make the
gods commit murder, adultery, theft, and change them
selves into the lower animals for the vilest purposes;
in short, there is not anything so cruel, unjust, sensual,
monstrous, or shameless, there is not anything so in
consistent or irreconcilable with the idea of deity, that
the poets do not attribute to the gods. From all these
things the philosophic theology is free. This freedom
is common to pantheism, the necessity which excludes
the providence of the gods, and Atheism. But, accord
ing to Scaevola, the philosophic theology is unfit for
public use. It cannot be made the state religion; not
only because it is beyond the comprehension of the
people, and has not anything to do with the practical
object of religion, but further, because it contains what
it would be dangerous that the people should know, as,
for instance, that the images of the gods in the temples
have not the least resemblance to their true nature.
It may be well to mention here very briefly that
Scaevola is quite in error in supposing that there is
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
39
the slightest connection between morality and religion.
So far as regards fortitude, justice, temperance, and
prudence, it is evident that they cannot in the least
depend on whether the deity is round or square, or
whether heaven is in the seen or the unseen universe.
But so far as regards the payment of tithes religion is
all important.*
To return to Scaevola. St Augustine does not give
us the development of Scaevola’s views regarding the
religion of the magistrate, but they are easily inferable.
It could not be anything except a form of belief
intended to be adapted only to the masses, therefore
remote from the true conception of the deity, namely,
his manifestation only as Energy, and disfigured with
gross errors. Its point of view and standard of refe
rence were only those which were supposed to be con
sistent with public utility. What rendered the philo
sophic theology inadmissible was the supposition that
although it was true, yet that its doctrines could not
with safety be publicly inculcated.
In the theory that underlies these speculations we
have the solution for which we are seeking. That
which lends them importance is the fact that they pro
ceed not merely from a man of the highest eminence,
the founder of Roman jurisprudence, but from one who,
as Pontifex Maximus—a position which combined the
functions of a minister of public worship and an arch
bishop—was the head of the Roman religion. Now,
then, what are we to think regarding the belief enter
tained by the Roman aristocracy in the state religion ?
Moreover, we are to remember that it was the members
of the aristocracy who had been the mainstay of that
religion from the foundation of the state. Yet such a
man as Scaevola, without the least compunction, withers
with his contempt things most closely fastened together
with that religion, openly states that it is disfigured
with grave errors, and regards much that is essential to
* On this subject see Hallam’s “Middle Ages,” ch. ix.
part ii. and Francis Newman’s “Phasesof Faith,” page, 54, 5.
�40
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
it as a concession made npon grounds of policy to the
ignorant masses !
But not only did Scaevola do this, but also, what is
still more remarkable, he did so without the least dis
paragement to the man who, on the contrary, continued
to be one of the greatest lights of Roman theology.
Bor although Quintus was far superior to his father
Publius, yet the latter was very highly esteemed, as
we find in Cicero (“ De Natura Deorum,” iii. 2, 5)
where Cotta, who had been a consul, says, “ In matters
of religion I submit to the rules of the high priests, T.
Coruncanius, P. Scipio, and P. Scaevola, not to the
sentiments of Zeno, Cleanthes, or Chrysippus, and I
pay greater regard to what C. Laelius, one of our augurs
and sages, has written concerning religion in that noble
oration of his than to the most eminent of the Stoics;
and, as the whole religion of the Romans at first con
sisted in sacrifices and divination by birds, to which
have since been added predictions; if the interpreters
of the Sibylline oracle [the Quindecimviri] or the
haruspices have foretold any event from portents and
prodigies, I have ever thought that there was not any
point of all these holy things that deserved to be
despised ■ even I have been persuaded that Romulus,
by instituting divination, and. Numa^ by establishing
sacrifices, laid the foundation of Rome, which un
doubtedly would never have risen to such extreme
advancement if the gods had not been rendered propi
tious by this worship.” In this same treatise Cotta
maintains the cause of the Academical or Sceptical
philosophy, yet he professes full confidence in the
haruspices and augurs. In like manner, although Julius
Ca?sar was an avowed atheist, yet in Africa he carried
about with him a certain Cornelius, an utterly obscure
man, but whose name might be deemed auspicious on
the battlefields of Sulla and Scipio. Thus, also, with
the instinct of self-preservation, Napoleon preserved
his white overcoat which he had worn at the battle of
Marengo. To the human mind so difficult is the task
of liberating itself entirely from the shadows, illusions,
and nonentities of religion!
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
4i
Be that as it may, in the matter of religion the
Roman was almost utterly unconcerned about dogma.
What he cared for was ceremonial or what we call
witchcraft. That is to say, the performance of certain
rites and customs, from which acts certain definite
effects were expected. With these acts the faith or
morals of the worshipper or of the priest had not any
thing whatever to do, just as in the Christian Church
“ The unworthiness of the ministers hinders not the
effect of the Sacrament.”
It should be observed here that the worship of the
Roman Emperors was not a worship that originated
among the Romans. It originated in the conquered
provinces, and was based on the same idea as that
which originated the worship of the city Rome among
the Alabandians. In both cases it was simply homage
offered to what appeared to the worshippers to be
irresistible and supreme power. But in neither case
did the Romans suggest or enforce it. The exercise of
such worship was left entirely to the discretion of those
who wished to use it for their own advantage. The
passage in Pliny’s supposed letter to the effect that he
punished Christians for not worshipping the Emperor’s
image proves that letter to be a forgery.
So it was possible to make a distinction between
the man and the citizen, and while binding the latter
with a chain of adamant, to leave to the former un
bounded liberty of speculation. This is the genuine
Roman point of view, and we find it illustrated at almost
every turn. This same distinction that was made by
Scaevola was made by Varro, who lived a generation
later (b.o. 115-25), and whose great work on “The
Antiquities of Rome” was the main authority to after
ages upon Roman religion. But in fact the whole
treatise of Cicero “ De Divinatione” is itself a palmary
example of this view which appears to us so extraor
dinary. There Cicero ruthlessly demolishes the science
of divination. He covers with abuse the gods and
their fables, and ridicules without mercy diviners and
their miracles. Yet Cicero was an augur, and he was
�42
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
most vain of the office, the duties of which he performed
with the utmost and most scrupulous exactness !
In short this divorce between the sentiments of
private and public life did not shock any Roman. He
considered that a magistrate in the exercise of his func
tions ought to assume a certain attitude—a conventional
mode both of thinking and speaking—that he should
seem ignorant of things he knew, and that he should
express opinions which might be utterly discordant
with his own; but all this was prescribed, and its
decorous performance was universally admired. The
hypocrisy was so organised that it ceased to be hypo
critical, and consequently there was not any Roman
who was at all scandalized by the election of the atheist,
Julius Caesar, to the office of Pontifex Maximus.
From the foregoing facts and arguments it is easily
perceived that even the Epicureans who denied the
providence of the gods, and the Atheists who denied the
very existence of the gods, would not be sought out for
the purpose of being persecuted. As a matter of fact
we know that such was the case. In the Senate we are
told that Julius Caesar denied the existence of the gods
and derided them at his dinner table. Yet he was
chosen, b.c. 63, to be the Roman pontifex maximus.
Dean Merivale (“ General History of Rome/ p. 278)
tells us that “ Neither the notorious laxity of his
[Caesar’s] moral conduct, nor his avowed disregard for
the religious traditions of the state, hindered Caesar’s
advancement to the highest office of national worship.
His duties indeed were simply ceremonial, however
firmly the Romans believed that the welfare of the state
depended on their due execution.” As before stated,
the Roman was not in the least concerned about dogma,
while, on the other hand, he attached the greatest con
sequence upon the most accurate and solemn performance
of certain rites and ceremonies, from which definite
effects were supposed to be caused by these external
acts, and wholly unconnected with the faith of the
worshipping priest or people. The truth of these facts
we learn distinctly from Scaevola, b.c. 82, Cicero, b.c.
43, and Varro, b.c. 26.
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
43
Nor was the case different with regard to Christianity.
Regarded as a religious system the Roman magistrate
did not see any reason for excluding it from the general
tolerance extended to other sects. The speech of Gallio
(“ Acts ” xviii. 14, 15), when Paul was brought by the
Jews before him, charged with persuading men to wor
ship God contrary to the law, expresses with perfect
precision the Roman sentiment and practice. On that
occasion Gallio is reported to have said, “ If it were a
matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, 0 ye Jews, reason
there would be that I should bear with you ; but if it
be a question of words and names, and of your law, look
ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.” And,
according to this story, “ he drave them from the judg
ment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the
chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the
judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of these
things.” But we know that, however little Gallio might
care for religious nonsense, neither he, nor any Roman
governor, would suffer his judgment seat to be desecrated
by an act of violence. The beating of Sosthenes before
Gallio proves the whole story to be mythical; and the
story is valuable merely as showing the well-known
indifference of the Romans to every religion held by
foreigners. The author of “ Supernatural Religion,”
(vol. iii., p. 320), says, “ The Acts of the Apostles is
not only an anonymous work, but, upon due examina
tion, its claims to be considered sober and veracious
history must be emphatically rejected.”
It was the almost utter impossibility of obtaining the
crown of martyrdom from the Romans that caused some
Christian writers to invent stories about persecutions of
Christians by Roman Emperors. Among the foremost
of those mendacious writers is Tertullian. It is to him
that we owe the stories about the persecutions under
Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Aurelius, and the story
(“Apology,” § 5) that “Tiberius, in whose time the
name of Christ entered into the world, laid before the
Senate, with his own vote to begin with, things
announced to him from Palestine in Syria, which had
�44
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
there manifested the truth of the divinity of that person.
The Senate, because they had not themselves approved
it, rejected it.” It is ridiculous to suppose that the
Senate would have dared to refuse such a request from
Tiberius, whom we know from Tacitus (“ Annals ” iv.,
37, 38), the Senate was willing to deify: just—as
before mentioned, page 30—we have been called upon
to believe that in one day Trajan or Hadrian crucified
ten thousand Christian soldiers on Mount Ararat! But
when once “ a system of enormous lying ” has been
successfully introduced it is difficult to discern its “ two
grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff,—you shall
seek all day ere you find them; and, when you have
them, they are not worth the search.”
We now leave the region of mythology, and proceed
to deal with real history. But, before entering into the
region of history, let us examine the extant stories re
garding the treatment of St Paul and St Ignatius while
they were undergoing imprisonment. Those stories
abound with alleged incidents, that are utterly at vari
ance with what we know regarding the treatment of
prisoners by the Romans, or by any other ancient people
with whose treatment of prisoners we are tolerably well
acquainted. To avoid confusion in our argument as
much as possible, we shall make this examination the
subject of a
feCHOLlUM.
An error, similar to that of supposing that the Romans
persecuted people on account of their religious opinions,
is the error of supposing that a prisoner in the custody
of Roman soldiers was permitted to write and publish
doctrinal essays, to have intercourse with his friends,
and to preach sermons. Among the Romans when a
man was made a prisoner, he was put into the common
jail (in carcerem) and cut off from all communication
with the external world. If a man were made a
prisoner at a distance from Rome he was strictly
guarded, and as much cut off from intercourse with his
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
45
friends as if he were in jail. The writers who have
handed down to us the epistles attributed to St Paul,
and those attributed to St Ignatius, and the stories
regarding the respective imprisonments of those saints,
have fallen into this error. The names of those
writers are unknown. But the writer of the book
called “ The Acts of the Apostles,” xxvii. 1; xxviii.
13, 14, 15, 16, relating the journey of St Paul in
chains, from Caesarea to Rome, accompanied by the
writer, tells us that “ they delivered Paul and certain
other persons unto one named Julius, a centurion of
Augustus’ band ” [which band never had any existence];
and at “ Puteoli we found brethren, and were desired
to tarry with them seven days, and so we went to
ward Rome . . . and from thence, when the brethren
heard of us they came to meet us as far as Appii Porum,
and the three Taverns; whom when Paul saw he
thanked God and took courage; ” And “ when we
came to Rome the centurion delivered the prisoners to
the captain of the guard; but Paul was suffered to
dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.”
Further (30, 31) we are told that in this manner,
11 Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house,
and received all that came in Unto him, preaching the
kingdom of God, and teaching those things which con
cern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man
forbidding him.” In his epistle to the Philippians,
i., 13, Paul says, “ my bonds in Christ are manifest in
all the palace, and in all other places.” In the original
the words here rendered “ in all the palace,” are sv o'Xw
rw vpairupibj, from which Dr Smith (“New Testament
History,” p. 491) infers that Paul “was suffered to
dwell by himself in his own hired house, of course
within the precincts of the Praetorium, and—what he
valued far more—to receive visitors and discourse
freely with them of the Gospel.” And Dr Smith ex
plains in a note that the praetorium means the camp
close to Rome constructed by Tiberius for the accommo
dation of the praetorian soldiers—in the midst of whom
Paul preached Christianity ! Dean Alford agrees with
Dr Smith; but neither of them gives authorities.
�46
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
In like manner Ignatius, in his epistle to the
Romans, v., supposed to have been written while he was
travelling in chains from Syria to Rome, is made to say,
“ From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts,
by sea and by land, by night and day; being bound
amongst ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers; who
even when they receive benefits show themselves all
the worse.”
These statements regarding Paul and Ignatius are
incompatible with Roman laws and usages. But the
fact is that the narratives, contained in the extant
apocryphal and canonical New Testament literature,
are merely fragments of a once extensive “system of
enormous lying” in which the supernatural ceases to be
miraculous, and the suspension of nature’s laws becomes
a sort of order. When a Christian prisoner is in the
hands of Roman soldiers he is treated like a respected
guest, or in “honourable captivity;” he preaches in
the praetorian camp until Divine Providence chooses
to release him, and then a little earthquake, perceived
only by the prisoner, opens the doors of the prison
and looses the prisoner’s bonds, the city gate opens of
its own accord, an angel leads the prisoner to the
house of “ Mary the mother of John whose surname
was Mark,” and then “ function is smothered in sur
mise, and nothing is but what is not.”
A good example regarding ancient prisons and the
treatment of prisoners is given in the case of Jeremiah,
xxxviii, concerning whom (b.c. 589) we are told that
“ They took Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon
of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the
court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with
cords. And in the dungeon there was no water but
mire : so Jeremiah sunk in the mire.” But all savages
have a fear of injuring madmen, consequently we are
told that “ the king commanded Ebedmelech the
Ethiopian, saying, Take from hence thirty men with
thee, and take up Jeremiah the prophet out of the
dungeon, before he die. So Ebedmelech took the men
with him, and went into the house of the king under
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
47
the treasury and took thence old cast clouts and old
rotten rags, and let them down by cords into the dun
geon to Jeremiah. And Ebedmelech the Ethiopian
said unto Jeremiah, Put now these old cast clouts and
rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords.
And Jeremiah did so. So they drew up Jeremiah
with cords and took him up out of the dungeon : and
Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison.”
Were the Romans more merciful than the Jews ?
Or were the Romans more merciful than the Greeks ?
To answer these questions in the affirmative is simply
impossible. For the treatment by the Romans of their
slaves, their prisoners, and even of their conquered but
unoffending provincials was cruel in the extreme.
During the period from the battle of Zama, b.c. 202,
to that of Actium, B.c. 31, the Roman patricians prac
tised towards the subject world a system of treatment
very little better than a system of extermination.
Even in Italy the severity of this system was felt.
When Marius (b.c. 88) fled from his enemies to Minturnae, a once flourishing town about seventy miles
south east of Rome, that town was reduced to a coast
guard station, and the district in its neighbourhood
was a howling wilderness. Appius Claudius called the
Roman jail “a receptacle for the commonalty.” A
Roman centurion would be quite as likely to give St
Paul his liberty as permit him to go about visiting his
friends, and preaching Christian metaphysics to Roman
soldiers.
But to ascertain the severity with which prisoners
used to be treated it is needless to go back to such
remote dates. The imprisonment of a Christian sub
ject by a Christian king, and the death of that Chris
tian prisoner during his imprisonment are beautifully
exemplified in the history of Sir John Eliot, a.d. 1632.
�48
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
DECIUS WAS THE FIRST PERSECUTOR OF THE
CHRISTIANS.
After the mythical persecution of the Christian
Church by Maximinus, the next alleged persecution of
that church is the persecution of it by Decius, a.d.
249. This persecution is recorded by the writers of
the 11 Historia Augusta,” and by Zosimus. Its histori
cal reality is generally admitted, and it is the first of
the alleged persecutions of the Christians by Roman
emperors of which this can be safely and correctly
said. That it was the first of such persecutions is
corroborated by the following circumstances.
A Christian Bishop of Sardis, Melito, who is said to
have flourished about a.d. 170, addressed a letter to the.
Roman Emperor, Aurelius Antoninus, on behalf of the
Christians, A portion of that document has been pre
served by Eusebius, “ E. H.,” book iv., ch. 26. There
Melito says, “What indeed never before happened, the
race of the pious is now persecuted (3/wxsra/), driven
about in Asia, by new and strange decrees. Eor the
shameless informers, and those that crave the property of
others, taking occasion from the edicts of the emperors,
openly perpetrate robbery, night and day plundering
those who are not guilty of any crime.” And further
on Melito adds, “ The philosophy which we profess
first indeed flourished among the barbarians (tv
fiapfidpoif), but afterwards, when it grew up, also
among the nations under your government, under the
glorious reign of Augustus your ancestor, it became,
especially to your reign, an auspicious blessing.”
These statements by Melito show clearly that he did
not know anything about the alleged persecutions of
the Christians by Roman emperors between a.d. 1 and
a.d. 170.
So we have now to account for a period of
only about seventy-nine years.
One of the Christian fathers, Lactantius, was bom
about a.d. 250 and died about a.d. 330. In his work
“ De Mortibus Persecutorum,” c. 3, 4, Lactantius says,
�First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
49
11 After many years that execrable animal appeared,
Decius, who persecuted the church.” The “ many
years” here spoken of need not be more or less than
the seventy-nine for which we have to account. Of
course it took “ many years ” to make the Christian
Church worthy of political consideration. In the time
of the Emperor Philip the Christians had become of
sufficient political importance to induce him to befriend
them, The Romans never persecuted any sectaries of
any kind except on account of political considerations.
Of course the friends of Philip were regarded by Decius
as his political enemies, and as such, and only as such,
he persecuted them.
In his “Roman History,” vol. v. p. 322, Niebuhr says
that Decius “ was the first who instituted a vehement
persecution of the Christians, for which he is cursed
by the ecclesiastical writers as much as he is praised
by the pagan historians (the writers of the “ Historia
Augusta ” and Zosimus). The cause of this persecu
tion, I think, must be sought for in the feeling anta
gonistic to the tendency of his predecessor.
The
accounts which we have of earlier persecutions are
highly exaggerated, as Henry Dodwell has justly
pointed out. The persecution by Decius, however,
was really a very serious one ; it interrupted the
peace which the Christian Church had enjoyed for a
long time.”
At this point the human mind naturally pauses to
take a retrospective view of the uncertain and shadowy
figures which occupy the two hundred and forty-eight
years which we have here passed under review. Dur
ing all that period we cannot find any reliable Pagan
authority for the alleged persecutions of the Christian
Church by Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Aurelius,
Severus, and Maximinus. In his “ Ecclesiastical His
tory ”—so called—of that period, Eusebius gives a large
number of stories regarding alleged events, and a still
larger number of names regarding alleged persons sup
posed to have been connected with the Christian
Church during that period. But those stories and
�50
First Seven Alleged Persecutions.
those names have not any perceptible existence outside
the Christian Church. Even Eusebius does not give
us a satisfactory, or even a self-consistent account of
their times and their places. A man named Natalius,
supposed to have flourished a.d. 193, alleged that he
had been “flogged by holy angels.” Reproved this
allegation by shewing that he had been flogged. This
satisfied Eusebius ! Moreover, how did Eusebius as
certain that Natalius was a Christian ? How did
Eusebius ascertain that the majority of the names that
figure in his pages during our first and second centuries
represented real persons who were orthodox Christians ?
He does not inform us. He may have been told that
the names in question Were the names of persons who
were supposed to belong to the orthodox church because
they were called Christians. But what did the name
“ Christian ” signify during our first and second cen
turies 1 In the present day, what does the name
“ Christian ” signify ? We know that at present the
name/1 Christian” has at least ninety-five significations
attached to it!
In short, when we try to write a history, properly so
called, of the Christian Church during the first two
hundred and forty-eight years of its supposed existence,
we find that almost all the extant stories regarding it
are utterly unreal. Concerning that history we may
say as Ulysses said concerning the soul of his deceased
mother :
“ Thrice I endeavoured it to clasp,
Thrice it escaped my eager grasp,
Between my close pressed hands outspread
Like shadow or mere dream it fled.”
TURNBULL AND SPKABS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
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
First seven alleged persecutions, A.D. 64 to A.D. 235
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 50 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Published anonymously. "This tract is sacred to the memory of the late Thomas Scott, Esq., born 26th April,1808, died 30th December,1878, and who, between the years 1856 and 1877, by his well-known series of tracts, most ably advocated the right of all mankind to free expression and free inquiry."--p.[3]. Published by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1879]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N221
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Persecution
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (First seven alleged persecutions, A.D. 64 to A.D. 235), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Persecution
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2c331e6b1a8fce291457e54e19baecdd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GSf899LYN4JT4uICmQ3V8xE6w65ONm2NAEEjaU6-860IVCNfvKmdhuaoBpkuTaELqHNRxAjRUgkNuuw86Iq2did0vUB9wUo1PtTG8ZSRRVrv9ev-jkTm2FT6YkYwGpfIa%7E42DqQc1BmC8yrktHmEtAsjhhptqa9XLTMB3dVrtay4jtOZ3dY7hdTJ3w5KTiWoQQplgty5fFZXvCU9TE04ATWU7CCodBXgtvb66vMmYsp2x6yTzn%7E0JNMAzq6aDgcd5T%7ELR3%7EtbZ5LxBq7JYDealG4FJ6BpF0ZWZX1z%7EmSmInlKUnUjA0jBz5QEMYlvQ-BUY%7EGPVPl4hJ7DTkaBxvY0g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f767386c2f0699a1259dffb2b7eb141a
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Fruits of Philosophy. An essay on the population question
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 47 p.
Notes: Published by Freethought Publishing Company, with a preface by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. The copy has been annotated with reference to anatomical, psychological and medical evidence given by Bradlaugh and probably used by him in the trial of Bradlaugh (and Annie Besant) for publishing the pamphlet.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Knowlton, Charles, 1800-1850
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles, 1833-1891
Besant, Annie, 1847-1933
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1876]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Subject
The topic of the resource
Birth control
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<div class="field two columns alpha"><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> </div>
<div class="element-text five columns omega">
<p><span>This work (Fruits of Philosophy. An essay on the population question), 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></p>
</div>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
NSS/7/11/1
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
Health
NSS
Obscenity
Trials
Women