1
10
90
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7a236ea8fa63007c19f4396cc3d11272.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c9PAct7xGyAqO80OExeC4qmlHRwA8kToGz2iShw7c5QRsB0%7EW17OXV%7Et9DtTWkBzBisQ6fsUAWJG5RxIb4eMxLFr3KhHBGewbqCZbLdV4IJYGge0jlF2Rc9YDhnM%7Ee2Ym-rGjDMEE%7EkL2E0GbjlUMLB%7EAZPmdQzrPCxwLN%7EXJ-5AuR2xEJHh3-Vyxbsi5qApdGk5EzIbLSFFyteGFM281NujVJd2qjrW3%7E6Z4NMxLl183vMWZ1VC4uRMyhk-gNXu%7EjGaZtH5Tnd%7ERxe9NUzZZd4-Kf3EbCwdk7xk75q262J81vHsA2jwPC-YzhIR7OHWS%7Eqy1C9kstLa%7E4rlto4MoA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e22db135e0c0ed07823d69c8a5c5d34d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECL’LAT.COCZnT
N)63O
HOSPITALS & DISPENSARIES
NOT OF
CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
8T
J.
S Y M E S.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY.
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE ONE
PENNY.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, stonecutter street, e.c.
�HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
NOT OF
CHRISTIAN
ORIGIN.
A very frequent question put to Secularists is, What
hospitals have you built or endowed? And an equally
frequent assertion is made to the effect that the world owes
all those institutions for the care and cure of the sick to
Christianity. A greater mistake was never made, as I shall
try to show.
In the first place, I make bold to assert that mercy, compas
sion, humanity, and benevolence did not, and could not, spring
from religion. All the Gods, or nearly all, were origi
nally cold, callous, and cruel. They inflicted upon man
(if fables may be trusted) all the horrors he endured, and
then quietly and stolidly looked on while he writhed in
his agony No Gods sinned more in this respect than those
of the Jews, in proof of which I refer to the story of the
Flood, of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the Israelitish march
through the desert, of the conquest of Palestine, and other
tales of the Old Testament. It was only when man became
civilised that the Gods forsook their barbarism, and the very
mercy man learnt in civilised life was by-and-by ascribed to
the Gods. Every kindly feeling man has must have been learnt
in society—must have been produced there, for Nature
knows nothing of kindness, mercy, or compassion. Nature
and the Gods have not only inflicted flood, pestilence,
famine, and fire, upon man and beast, but they never
interfered to relieve the poor wretches of their suffering.
Wherever man, therefore, learnt his humanity and pity,
most certainly no God or religion ever taught him.
Secondly, as most religions have enjoined the belief in
miracles and miraculous cures of disease, their very spirit
has been antagonistic to the founding of hospitals, in
firmaries, and dispensaries. No religion has done moie
�4
HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
harm in this respect than Christianity. Look through the
New Testament, and you will not find a single commenda
tion of medicine, surgery, or any other healing art. All
diseases are there to be cured by miracles ; the physician is
dispensed with, and physic is entirely thrown to the dogs,,
and the priest and the elder are exalted as the miraculous,
healers of both body and soul. Had the spirit of Christianity
been carried out successfully there would not have been a
hospital or anything of the sort now in the world. If this
religion had spread first among barbarians, instead of the
civilised nations of the Roman empire, and if her converts
had been docile instead of independent, we should have
seen, long ere now, what a curse she was to man. But
Christianity inherited all the learning, the arts and sciences,
the laws and social institutions of Greece and Rome. All
these (with few exceptions) she did her best to destroy, and
when that proved impossible, she coolly adopted and claimed
them as her own productions.
What has been said above will tend to show that we owe
none of our best sentiments to religion; but I will now
proceed to exhibit a few facts which will set the matter at
rest, and demonstrate that hospitals and kindred institutions
are not the product of Christianity. In doing this I shall
quote from, and refer to, an article in the current number
(Oct. 1877) of the Westminster Review, on “ Pre-Christian
Dispensaries and Hospitals.” The writer says :—“ It is in
the medical officers, appointed and paid by the State,
that we find the earliest germ and first idea of the
v?s.t. network of hospitals which has spread over the
civilised countries of the world. These medical officers
were an institution in Egypt from a remote antiquity, for in
the eleventh century b.c. there was a College of Physicians
in receipt of public pay, and regulated as to the nature and
extent of their practice. At Athens, in the fifth century
b.c., there were physicians elected and paid by the citizens;
there were also dispensaries in which they received their
patients, and we find mention made of one hospital.”
Turn we next to India. “In the fourth century b.c. an
edict was promulgated in India, by King Asoka, command
ing the establishment of hospitals throughout his dominions;
and we have direct proof that these hospitals were flourish
ing in the fifth and in the seventh centuries a.d.”—they
flourished then for a thousand years. “Among the Romans
under the empire physicians were elected in every city in
�NOT OF CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
5
proportion to the number of inhabitants, and they received
a salary from the public treasury.”
Leaving the Westminster Review for a moment, I will
quote an extract from Tacitus. Referring to the fall of an
amphitheatre at Fidenae, in the ruins of which 50,000
people were killed or otherwise maimed, he says: “Now
during the fresh pangs of this calamity, the doors of the
grandees were thrown open, medicines were everywhere
supplied and administered by proper hands; and at that
juncture the city, though of sorrowful aspect, seemed to
have recalled the public spirit of the ancient Romans, who,
after great battles, constantly relieved the wounded, sustained
them by liberality, and restored them with care.”—“Annals,”
iv. 65. This extract shows not merely what the Romans
did at this date, about 27 a.d., but points back to periods
long past, when their forefathers regularly relieved and healed
the wounded soldiers. Such a nation, though still dread
fully barbarous in some respects, did not require the aid of
Christianity to set it on the path of humanity and mercy ;
the germs of those virtues had been there for ages, and only
required time to develop. Those who wish to see what
the best Romans, in the first century before our era, thought of
benevolence may consult Cicero “ De Officiis,” Bk. I., 14, 15.
Turning again to the Westminster Review, we read that
even the “ancient Mexicans had hospitals in their principal
cities ‘ for the cure of the sick, and the permanent refuge of
disabled soldiers.’” The Mexicans, by the way, and the
Peruvians as well, were working out a splendid civilization
for themselves at the time the barbarians from Spain dis
covered and ruined them. The more we know of those
ancient civilisations the more we must admire them; and it
cannot be denied that Spain herself was, at the time of the
conquest, more superstitious and less civilised than Mexico
or Peru; the eruption of those Christian savages into
Central America threw back the civilization of the continent
for four or five hundred years. I have nothing to say in
palliation of either Mexican or Peruvian religion; but I
must say that the Spaniards, in destroying those ancient
creeds, put nothing better in their place.
It is remarkable, viewed from the Christian standpoint,
that the Mohammedans were the first people known to
have had asylums for lunatics. As Mr. Lecky says, “ Most
commonly the theological notions about witchcraft either
produced madness or determined its form, and through the
�6
HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
influence of the clergy of the different sections of the
Christian Church, many thousands of unhappy women, who
from their age, their loneliness, and their infirmity, were
most deserving of pity, were devoted to the hatred of
mankind, and, having been tortured with horrible and
ingenious cruelty, were at last burnt alive.”—“ Hist.
European Morals,” ii., 93. While this barbarity, the
genuine and legitimate fruit of Christ’s own action towards
the “possessed,” was practised wholesale among Chris
tians, the Mohammedans were, as early as the seventh
century, housing and nurturing the insane in asylums
at Fez, and they founded another at Cairo, probably about
a.d. 1304. The first Christian asylum for insane persons
was erected at Valencia in Spain, in a.d. 1409, or 700
years later than those first built by Mohammedans. Thus,
it was in the very country which the Mohammedans had
conquered, ruled, and partially civilised, that the first
Christian lunatic asylum was founded, and it is not difficult
to recognise their influence in this humane act. It should
also be remembered that the kind-hearted monk who
founded the asylum in Valencia, did it to shelter the poor
lunatics from the insults, jeers, and other persecutions of
their Christian neighbours, who never allowed them to pass
through the streets in peace.—(See “Europ. Morals,” ii.,94-5.
See also ii., 92).
To quote again the Westminster Review—li The most
remarkable instance of a military hospital was one in Ire
land. The palace of Emania was founded about 300 b.c.,
by the Princess Macha of the golden hair, and continued to
be the chief royal residence of Ulster until 332 a.d., when
it was destroyed. To this palace were attached two houses,
one, the house in which the Red Branch Knights hung up
their arms and trophies, the other in which the sick were cared
for and the wounded healed; this latter was called by the
expressive name Broin Bearg, the House of Sorrow.”
What has been put forward above will be sufficient to
show that we owe neither medicine nor hospitals to Chris
tianity ; indeed, I am not aware that any one ever ascribed
the former to this religion, though it would be just as
rational as to ascribe the latter to it. Neither Judaism (as
found in the Old Testament) nor Christianity (as found in
the New) shows any favour to medicine. The spirit of the
Old Testament may be found in the following passage :—
“ And Asa, in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was
�NOT OF CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
7
diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great;
yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the
physicians.” (2 Chron. xvi., 12.) The context tells us he
died; the inference is plain—he lost his life because he pre
ferred medical attendance to miraculous power. The Jews
could not more strongly have condemned medicine than
they have done in this passage, for not only did the patient
die, but the physicians are set in direct rivalry with Jehovah.
And here I may ask how it was that the Jews, who were so
favoured of God, had to learn all their medical knowledge
from other nations ? Their God revealed to them all those
senseless ceremonies found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, but never told them how to heal one
single disease ! Four books, filled for the most part with a
burdensome ritual or instructions in the art of worship,
were vouchsafed by their divinity, but not a word about
healing ! Large portions of those books, too, are occupied
in directions for finding leprosy, but not a word about the
cure of the disease (See Levit. xiii., 44-46). The whole
dress of the priest was prescribed, colour, shape, texture, and
everything—these were of supreme importance, and involved,
of course, the weal or woe of the world—so momentous
were they that their chief divinity went out of his way to
reveal them ; but human suffering was of no concern at all,
and their divinity forgot to reveal the art of healing. Indeed,
he himself claimed the sole right to kill and make alive, to
inflict or to heal disease. All this was fatal to the study of
medicine.
The same remarks, slightly modified, will apply to the
New Testament, where miraculous agency is the only
recognised mode of healing. This may be due to the fact
that the Jews went into captivity in Babylon, rather than in
Greece or Rome, for “ the Babylonians and Assyrians alone,
among the great nations of antiquity, had no physicians.
The sick man was laid on a couch in the public square, and
the passers-by were required to ask him the nature of his
disease, so that if they or any of their acquaintance had
been similarly afflicted they might advise him as to the
remedies he should adopt.” (West. Review, ibid.') How
much this resembles the Gospel story of the pool of Bethesda,
leaving out the angelic descent 1 (John v., 2.) The Baby
lonians were also fond of charms, for they mistook diseases
for devils, as Jesus did. Mr. H. F. Talbot, in his “Assyrian
Talismans and Exorcisms,” quotes a tablet as follows :—•
�HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES.
“ God shall stand by his bedside ; those seven evil spirits
He shall root out and expel from his body; those seven
shall never return to the sick man.” This superstition re
appears in the Gospels :—“ Then goeth he, and taketh with
himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and
they enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that man
is worse than the first.” (Matt, xii., 45.) Jesus actually
cast this number of devils out of Mary Magdalene. (See
Mark xvi., 9.) In face of this most debasing superstition,
people still worship Jesus as an almighty and omniscient
God ! And though he, beyond all men, taught the mira
culous causes and cures of disease, his professed followers
claim for him and his religion all the credit of originating
the scientific treatment of human ills. For certain, science
never met a more determined foe than Christianity; but
science no sooner gains a victory than Christianity turns
round and claims all the merit of inventing the very thing
she did her utmost to destroy.
That people bearing the name of Christ have, in modern
times, built and founded hospitals, I cheerfully acknowledge;
it matters not to me what names men bear so long as they
do good. But this I fearlessly affirm, that every hospital
ever erected has been built on or by principles which Christ
condemned, so that if he was right, the founders of
hospitals must have been wrong. Not only did Jesus teach
that diseases were to be healed by miracles (Mark xvi., 17,
18), but he strictly forbade the laying up of treasure : as
pointedly as he forbade murder or adultery, he also forbade
the accumulation of wealth. Without the wealth, hospitals
could not have been built, nay, all must have been paupers.
Religion and religious teaching, had they been obeyed,
would have made the world bankrupt; but in Secular
principles lies the salvation of man. Religion points to
another world, to reach which we must renounce this;
Secularism teaches to make the best possible—in money,
intelligence, humanity, and morality—of this world, and to
leave the next—a mere dream, most likely—to look out for
itself. I admit there are good things in the Bible ; but all
the good it contains would have been outweighed a thousand
times by a simple and effectual remedy for only one disease.
Why did divine mercy omit such a remedy ? Let Christians
explain.
�
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
Hospitals & dispensaries not of Christian origin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Date of publication from British Library record. 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
[1879]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N630
Subject
The topic of the resource
Health
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 (Hospitals & dispensaries not of Christian origin), 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
Health
Health Services
Hospitals
NSS
-
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/b922f0307111d288268b92e20499552c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=crVMkHUuDcSJpvzZgll4Cr%7E03bTgLAFa-EAS2G6O4BR-OuOcbGpCS%7ECzjxb8ECnCSrNxNsiHOLEjDq00it9mBj1TRmFcW-9oFYkwgKV2qgVXPERyGMoHQ%7EPs-LD9ytVtdw0IMufu%7EmPetVHEy9KVbv2CO9W0pX9k%7EfVtgOvtIe3NWr2YrwGe5s3r1pd33zpbxhSqSxjtrx3aCAR-RdxrWhL0AcNEu%7E7A4Q6RW-sbCy5Y70O3CmNGMZmGT8uttpX1Z3Wq4Dk6GVRftjO1dxvo1KSdTMqbF0-BLl2lQ95SbE7dweCgmYVdYwcAcoHFAzXFxzMuGWlJJdrhLzZSHLJpvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6179d0ed2e7de464fa4210ebb42987a9
PDF Text
Text
5
IM e$( v ° NATIONAL secular society
B'7-(X5
NJ633 PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
■---- *—God
or no
God ?
I.
It has, been long my conviction—arrived at, I may. say,
against my deepest prejudices and the oldest tendencies of
my mind—that Atheism is not merely a logical position or
mental state, but as logical as any.
It appears , to me
that, approach the subject from which side we will—-the
purely intellectual or the moral—philosophy leads inevitably
up to Atheism. I can fully sympathise with the millions
who look upon Atheism as a monster, of absurdity and
immorality, for I once had the same ideas and feelings
myself, and no more dreamt of journeying to Atheism than
to the moon. I have discovered several things in recent
years which I formerly deemed impossible; among others,
that Atheism is not in the least like what popular prejudice
represents, and that Theism is as unfounded as Transubstantiation. Every argument yet produced in evidence of
divine existence fails even to satisfy a previous believer.
Judging from my own experience, I should say that the
most unshaken faith in a God is found in him who never
argued; the reasoner, even on the very smallest scale, starts
I doubts on the subject that can never be solved or destroyed. Once pass beyond the bounds of that innocent
state of spontaneous faith, possible only to early life or to
imbecility, and wrestle with a doubt respecting a God’s
■existence, and I question if the struggle will ever terminate
.entirely, except in Atheism or death. It is true, Orthodoxy
■promises you peace and rest, a solution of your difficulties,
■to be found in certain arguments, which, if rightly con■ ducted, will infallibly lead up to satisfaction. Alas ! how
fallacious the promise and the hope I I spent many years
R in following this will-o’-the-wisp ; but neither logic, prayer,
nor faith, nor all together could give settled satisfaction,
r This is not surprising, when the matter is fully examined.
Let us see.
The teleological argument is no doubt the oldest of the
so-called proofs of divine existence; it is, at least, as old as
Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and seems to have been used by
�4
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
Socrates. The argument, which is based upon a fallacy,
runs thus:—“We see in works of handicraft and Art
evidences of Design and adaptation of means to ends; we
see similar marks of design, &c., in Nature; and as
evidences of design in Art imply a designer, so do they in
Nature.” This, if logical, would be an exceedingly “ short
and easy method” of settling the dispute; but there is
really not one point of analogy between Art and Nature,
regarded either as a whole or in detail.
1. But for our education or experience in handicraft, &c.,
we could not possibly suspect anything like it in Nature.
We could never have gathered the conception of design
even from a work of art, were we not able, in some cases, at
least, to see both the means and the end, and to watch the
one resulting in the other. Now who can say what is the
end of Nature in any one department, to say nothing of
the final cause or ultimate aim of the whole ? This I shall
return to by-and-bye; at present I merely point to the want
of analogy between an art production (whose whole theory
•and action, inception and results, we can grasp) and any
particular part of Nature of which we know little or nothing
beyond the barest phenomena.
2. The analogy fails in another and more serious point.
We have seen and can see the maker of any human produc
tion. The identical man may be out of our reach, but we
have thousands like him all around us continually; ancL
though we may never have seen a given work in course onI
manufacture, yet we have seen artificers at work upon other!
artificial productions; and as all artificial things have!
certain points of resemblance, by the observation of which ,
we can readily pass from the known to the unknown, we
have little or no difficulty in recognising as a work of art
even an article we never saw before. Now where is the
analogy between this and any natural thing ? In Nature
the artificer has never once been seen, nor any one of his
fellows; we never saw any one making a single natural
product. Where, then, is the analogy? To establish it
you must show us some natural thing in course of produc
tion, and the maker himself, or some part of him, must be
seen at his work. Let this be done and our disputes end ;
but until we see some one making things in Nature—I don’t
say all things, but some—we have no right to institute an
analogy between a thing we know to be made and one that
may not be made at all.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
5
3. It is idle to say that the 11 Great Artificer ” is invisible;
that begs the question.
First prove your Artificer, and
then we must perforce admit his invisibility until we see
him. We see all around us the processes of Nature going
on—the revolution of the planets, and alternations of day
and night, storm and calm, summer and winter. We see all
this, but we never see the maker.
4. Not only have we never seen the Artificer of Nature,
we may further say that we have never seen Nature’s Art.
Is there not necessarily a distinction between the two
departments of Nature and Art ? And is not that distinction
essential? It is the height of linguistic- impropriety to
apply the terms of Art to the subjects and phenomena of
Nature. We have the best of proofs that artificial things
are made. Nature was never made ; it is not in any sense
a manufacture, it is an eternal existence as a whole, and its
various phenomena are growths, not Art productions. To
say the contrary is to abuse language and bewilder the
reader. I ask any intelligent man to take a coat and a
sheep, and say if there be any analogy between them. The
animal was not made, it grew; the coat did not grow, it
was made. The materials of the coat also grew; the act
of putting them together was the making of something that
did not and could not grow, any more than the sheep
could have been made. To talk, therefore, of animals
being made is not less incorrect than to speak of coats,
boots, chairs, &c., growing. A wise man will try to avoid
such confusion of • language, while the wisest will see in
natural phenomena nought but pure growths, and will thus
. escape the need of looking for a maker where none is
possible. Theology and false philosophy have done much
to confuse people on these matters, but there can be nothing
more incorrect, in the present state of human knowledge,
than to speak of the making or creation of the earth or of
any natural thing in it. Therefore it is not reason that
desiderates a maker or creator, it is faith that both demands
and supplies one or more, according to its whims or circum
stances.
5. But more serious objections remain. If nature does
manifest design we can discover the fact only by discovering
both the means and the end. This must be apparent at
once. In Art, did we not know why things are made, the
notion of design would be impossible; I don’t say in every
case. We cannot tell why some things have been made,
�6
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
they puzzle us; but these exceptions prove the rule, for if
we were not accustomed to recognise the end or object in
the majority of cases, we could never feel either curiosity or
doubt respecting the end to be answered by the few excep
tions. Now where is the man who will pretend to tell why
Nature was created? Consider its vastness, its intricacy,
how small a speck of the whole is known to us, and the
immense periods occupied in some of its processes. Who
can guess the meaning and the end of such immense and
intricate changes ? Only the most consummate rashness
would venture to attempt an explanation here. And if we
cannot tell the final cause of the whole, by what right do we
pretend to explain the design of a part ? Every part must
contribute to the total results, and must therefore be sub
ordinate to the whole, and without knowing the final upshot,
the end and aim cannot be guessed. Let the bold theologian
show us Nature’s means and her ultimate aim, or confess
that, like the rest of us, he is in total darkness respecting them.
If we cannot discover the end and means of Nature in
her immensity, let us try on a smaller scale. Take the
solar system. Was it designed, or is it the result of
accident ?—that is, the interaction of the materials and
forces of the system ? If designed, why are some planets
iso much farther from the sun than others? All might have
“been accommodated at distances much more nearly equal.
¡As it is there is a great waste of light and heat. If two
thousand millions of globes, each equal to the earth, were
/placed round the sun, side by side, and all at the same
/distance (from 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 miles), they
i would form a complete (omitting interstices) shell, with the
I sun in its centre. Now with the present expenditure of
[ light and heat, the sun would light up and warm the whole
interior of that enormous shell as brilliantly and intensely
as he does the earth at present. Think of what this means.
The sun which could, with the present emission of
1 energy, amply supply with light and heat an area of
1100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles and more, actually
«supplies about 50,000,000 square miles ! In this estimate
U omit all the planets except the earth, for their aggregate
receipts of light and heat are a trifle compared with the
lolar waste.
If, then, the solar system does manifest
Resign, it is not design executed by either wisdom or
aconomy.
Then consider how unequally the distances of the planets
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
7
are arranged. How hot must Mercury or Vulcan (?) b<!
how cold Uranus and Neptune ! Besides, some of the
planets have satellites, others none, as far as yet known.
Where is the design here ? Our earth has but one satellite^
though it is well known we could do with more. What!
do we not need moonlight as much when it is absent as
when it is shining ? If one moon is good, it is my firm
belief that two would be twice as good.
Leaving the earth as a mere planet, let us descend fb
particulars, regarding it as a home for man and oth|r
animals. Look at the distribution of light and heat. Ip.
the tropics the people have far too much of both; in the
temperate regions, the alternations are dreadfully sever®
but in polar regions they are simply monstrous. A loi|g
day of six months’ duration is by-and-bye replaced by^,
night of equal length ! Does that show design and wisdor^?
Then consider the cold—land and sea frozen to an extent
to us almost incredible. What is the object? Is it to test
the enduring powers of seals and polar bears ? or to grfe
the Esquimaux an opportunity of displaying his voracity
upon blubber and his dexterity in travelling over the snow4?
Is there one good thing accomplished by such exaggerate^
cold ? Will the natural theologian explain ? He sees the
<£ hand of God ” and the “ footsteps of deity ” everywhere^
his eyes are so completely opened that he sees “ good in
everything.” He might, therefore, enlighten us a little on
these mysteries of nature. I have never yet heard of an
Esquimaux praising God for his wisdom and goodness as
displayed in Arctic nights and snows. They are people of
a milder clime, and whose civilisation enables them to defy
the malice of Nature, that praise the blessings of so;
extreme a cold.
Winds and rains show equal want of design.
One
country is devastated by storms, another is panting for a
breeze; one land is flooded by excessive rains, another is
parched and famine-stricken for want of water. During
the recent famines in Bengal, Bombay, and China, England
was flooded. Is this design ?—this wisdom ? Let a water
company follow the example of Nature, and flood one part
of a town week after week, while the rest is parched and
dusty as a desert, and your very Tories will demand reform.
Where and what is that supernal wisdom, which cannot be
imitated, except at the expense of common sense ? What
good thing is ever accomplished by a flood?—by a famine?
�8
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
by a hurricane? If the arrangements and processes of
Nature manifest wisdom, the best and most regular actions
of men are foolish in the extreme.
Now since we cannot discover the end or aim in the
above cases, and multitudes more that time forbids me to
mention, how can any one pretend to be able to discover
design in them ? And—
6. If we cannot discover the object or final cause of
Nature’s details, how can we discover it in any large depart
ment—say in the whole earth? Why was this planet made?
—for the sake of man ? Let us adopt that supposition, and
then proceed to test it by human experience. If the earth
was really made for man’s sake, if man is the final cause of
its creation and arrangement, I think he has abundant
reason to grumble, being at once so honoured and so grossly
outraged and insulted. He has no choice—it is not left to
him to take this world or some other. He enters it as he
enters into being; Nature throws him up like a waif tossed
to shore by the waves. If he can endure her treatment
and dodge her malicious blows, he survives; if not, he dies
before he fairly lives. Let him survive, for what does he
live? Ignorance, superstition, want, cold, hunger, fever,
accidents, tempests, volcanoes, wars, and death 1 This the
final cause of the world ! What!—the lord of the estate
knocked about in this fashion ! He for whom all was made
treated with contempt, get his bones broken, his blood cor
rupted, his person maltreated by the ill-arrangement of his
natural and only home 1 How grotesque ! How silly is
theology ! Was it worth while to expend all this care, pains,
and thought in the production of man, if he was to be
treated after all like the most worthless of beings ?
It is here that theology most completely collapses; after
going to the expense of producing what theology regards as
the final cause of the world, the final cause is treated as of
no conceivable value ! Either, therefore, man is not the
final cause of the world’s creation, or the wisdom displayed
in creation ends in a wretched farce. And if we cannot
find the ultimate end aimed at, by what right can we assume
that Nature shows any marks of design ? And, further, is
it not preposterous to speak of a final cause, or ultimate
aim, in an endless series of natural and inevitable events ?
The natural theologian is neither scientist nor philosopher ;
he is a man of faith; and faith can find its basis anywhere
—except in the region of fact and experience.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
9
7. If Nature in one or most parts manifests design, we
must be prepared to find it in all; for every event of Nature
must be as much designed as any that may be named. This
consideration the divine quietly and conveniently ignores.
He recognises design and divine goodness and wisdom in
all agreeable things; the rest are explained or overlooked.
It is our duty, however, to correct his mistakes and bring
up his omissions.
Let us grant then that Nature does undoubtedly manifest« ’
design.
(1) A hurricane that spreads devastation over
large tracts of the globe must be designed for that purpose. |
Smashing houses, rooting up trees, sinking ships, and i
drowning or killing men and animals are the chief works |
performed by those storms. Let the divine show the i
wisdom and goodness of his deity in them. (2) The I
eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum 1
must have been intended for that work; and the earthquake |
that swallowed up Lisbon was equally designed for that |
purpose. (3) The malaria that rises from the swamp and |
breeds a yellow fever epidemic, is designed for that; else
why does it exist ? What else does it accomplish ? The
evaporation that by-and-bye distils in the fruitful shower is
not more natural than the rise of the poisonous effluvia that
cause the death of thousands. (4) The coals stored up in
the earth’s strata were originally intended for—what?—to
torture poor men, women, and children in extracting them,
to exhale gases that should explode and kill the daring
intruders into Nature’s preserves, to burst steam boilers, I
and to drive machinery by which workers are maimed or ■
crushed to death, to manufacture cannon, torpedoes, and
other deadly instruments. And those coals perform evil
deeds with as much earnestness and effect as good ones ; a j
fire made of them will boil the kettle for tea or burn a child j
to death with equal indifference. What were they designed |
for ? Only stupidity can assert that they were designed for |
good, and not evil.
If design shows itself in one part of Nature, we must ex
pect it in all parts. (5) Theologians recognise design when
Nature turns out a Newton, they are silent when she pro
duces an idiot. And yet, there may be as great an expendi
ture of force and pains in producing the one as the other.
Is the idiot designed or not ? It is idle to lay the blame
upon parents or adventitious circumstances—the forces and
conditions that resulted in that idiot are as truly natural—
B
�IO
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
as much a portion of the original plan as those were which
culminated in the philosopher. How will the divine secure
his dogmas in face of this ? And what is the final cause of
an idiot ?
(6) I once read of the birth of an animal—a dog, I
think—perfect and beautiful in all things, except in one
respect—it lacked its head. Let us pause ! In this case
Nature worked as carefully as she ever does—bones, muscles,
blood-vessels, skin, hair, and everything were carefully made,
and all for what ? A being that could not live. Did Nature,
or Nature’s author and ruler, know that the head was want
ing ? If so, why was the work not stopped, or the defect
supplied? Now, either this dog was designed, or Nature
worked independently of her maker; if it was designed, it
reflects the highest discredit upon the designer, and the
keenest ridicule. We have all heard of the wright who built
a waggon in an upper room, never once considering how it
was to be got out after it was finished. Is this case any more
ridiculous than that of Nature turning out a dog that had no
head? Verily, those who use the design argument employ
a sword with two edges, a weapon that cuts its owners far
more than their enemies. I beg the reader to consider
that in speaking of Nature “ making ” and “ working,” I
merely use the language of theology.
(7) A year or two since I visited a curious little museum
kept by an old sailor in Stockton-on-Tees, and among
other “ queer ” things I saw two that impressed me. One
was a little piggy Siamese twins. They were perfect, as far
as I could see, but fastened together, breast to breast, by a
short tube, so that walking would have been an utter im
possibility. The other was more curious still. It was a
lamb, single as to the head and neck, but double from the
shoulders backwards. There were eight legs and eight feet,
and the two bodies slightly receded from each other the
whole length behind the shoulders. One might have thought
Nature would have been content without sporting or blunder
ing further; but no. From the double shoulders of this
compound animal there grew an extra pair of legs, which
stretched backwards and slightly hung down between the
two bodies. They were fully grown, and had their front
parts turned upwards. I am writing from memory, but can
vouch for the general correctness of what I say. Now, what
could Nature mean—if she really meant anything—by pro
ducing such monsters ? Twin pigs that could never have
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
II
lived, and a compound lamb dreadfully overdone with
bodies and limbs ! Was it divine wisdom that produced
these, or did blind Nature, operating by necessity, give rise
to them ? Let theologians say.
8. Many things in Nature are designed and adapted to
produce pain, if designed at all, and they never do or can
produce anything else. I may mention, as examples, ex
cessive heat and cold, stings of insects, poisons of serpents,
scorpions, &c., bites of beasts—many diseases, such as in
flammation, cancer, and others. Perhaps one of the most
dreadful is childbirth. What pangs, and how perfectly
objectless! There is not one good thing, as far as I can
learn, ever accomplished by any of the above. Indeed, if
I am not much mistaken, ninety-nine per cent, of all the
pain in the world is worse than useless. Theologians say
that, under given circumstances, “ labour is rest and pain is
sweet ” ; but you should not understand them literally. As
a French proverb says, “ One can regard evils with equani
mity—when they are another’s.” Theologians are no
more fond of pain than the rest of us, and they despise it
most thoroughly when they don’t feel it. They may preach
up the benefits of pain as long as they please; pain is pain,
call it by what names you may, and the world has a deal too
much of it to endure. If it was ever intended to do good,
the world’s designer miscalculated, and should long since
have tried to work on some other plan.
It has been asserted by some who are anxious to defend
their fancied deity, that animals which are devoured by
beasts and birds of prey feel no pain. Their own Bible
might have confuted them. Did Jonah feel no sort of pain
in the whale’s belly ? And does not Paul say, “ The whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
now ” ? Perhaps a bite from a tiger, or even from a dog,
might bring those divines to their senses. One thing is
certain, the animals that are eaten up by others show all the
signs of pain that man shows except those of speech, and
none but the perverse can doubt that they really feel pain.
The question to be answered is, Was pain designed ? If so,
what can be said of its designer? Did he ever feel pain, or
would he like to ?
9. Turn we next to another class of topics. What is to
be. said by a believer in design respecting parasites? I
believe the true parasites cannot live except in or on the
other living beings they inhabit. Which way shall we read
�12
PHILOSOPHIC A'IHEISM.
Nature’s declaration of design in these cases ? Must we
read it, “Parasites were designed for other animals,” or
“ Other, animals were designed for their parasites ” ? This is
a puzzle, and no divine can explain it. Leaving the less
important parasites, let us ponder for a moment the case of
trichina spiralis. This minute worm cannot live except in
an animal body. In the muscles of a pig or of a man he
can make himself very comfortable, though he gives great
pain to his guest and living habitation.. The tapeworm is
worse still—the very thought of it is sufficient to give one
the horrors ! But to the point—Is man designed as the
habitation of the trichina and tapeworm ? If so, which is
the greater, and which, after all, is the final cause of this
world—the man who protects and feeds the tapeworm, or
the tapeworm that dwells in and lives at the expense of the
man ? I think it cannot be doubted that the worm has the
best of it. The man he inhabits is tortured with a horrible
disease ; the worm has every want supplied, and is as happy
as his nature and conditions permit. It seems then, that not
man, but the tapeworm, or some other human parasite,
must be the great end of this world’s creation ! What an
issue and a fate for the celebrated “argument from
design ” !
Having shown that the design argument, when fairly
conducted to its logical conclusion, leads to the interesting
discovery that human parasites are the final cause of the
existence of the earth, I must next proceed to attack Theism
in other directions. I do not think the above conclusion in
the least flattering to human vanity ; but that reflection by
no means militates against its correctness. I suppose no
one will deny that the less, where adaptation prevails, is
subservient to the greater. It cannot be denied, the theo
logian affirms, that Nature manifests design, and it will not
be pretended that man is benefited by the trichina, or tape
worm; it is equally impossible to deny that these most
interesting beings, like princes and priests, are furnished
gratuitously with everything they desire by and at the ex
pense of man. If those parasites are of a superstitious
turn, no doubt they spend much of their time in chanting
“ Te Deums ” to the Bountiful Parent of All Good, who has
created such a delightful world as a human body for them
to dwell in.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
13
II.
But leaving this subject, let us next survey the doctrine
of cause and effect. This doctrine I accept, though I deny
emphatically that it logically conducts us to a first cause or
to a final cause. I suppose the materials and forces of the
universe—that is, the complete round of existence—to be
eternal. I shall not just now attempt to prove the doctrine,
or even to give any reason for my faith in it; the reader will
please observe that I merely assume it here for the sake of
argument. Whether it be true or not, no one can deny that
we find ourselves in the very midst of an exceedingly long
series of causes and effects. We also find ourselves in the
very midst of infinite space, partially occupied, though pos
sibly not entirely so; we are, further, in the very midst of
infinite time or duration. I shall not stop to discuss the
nature of these two infinities, but assume that most people
are agreed respecting their existence, at least.
Now let me ask the theologian if he can put his finger
upon the central point in space, or tell us how far off is the
circumference or limit of space in any direction he may
prefer. To say that this demand is absurd is no objection
to it, for I make it for the purpose of exposing another
absurdity, exactly parallel, though not quite so obvious.
I may assume, I think, that none but an enthusiast, a circlesquarer, or a maniac will try to find either the centre of
space or one of its limits.
Next, I ask, will the theologian find for me the middle,
the last, or the first moment (or any other unit of time) in
eternal duration? I need not press this either, since all
must see its absurdity as soon as it is fairly propounded.
But why cannot my demands be met ? The reason is,
Space has no centre, no limit; Time or duration no begin
ning, no end. We cannot conceive that, though we travelled
in one direction for ever, we should ever come to a spot
beyond which there was no space, or that we should be any
nearer its limit than we now are. It is the same with time
or duration; there never was a first moment, there never
can be a last.
Well, is it not equally absurd to speak of a First Cause
and a First Moment? There were former moments and
former causes; but a first is inconceivable in either case.
Had theologians set up a First Moment in capital letters,
thrown round it an air of mystery, and spoken of it with
�14
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
bated breath, it would have been worshipped ; temples and
churches would have started up by thousands, and the priest
hood would have grown rich upon devotion’s offerings ;
gushing songs would have been composed to the Great First
Moment, the Fount of Eternity, the Source of Being, and
the Ever-adorable Mystery ! I am afraid it is too late now ;
but had theologians begun in time, the Great First Moment
would have brought them a world of wealth and influence.
They have accomplished their purpose, however, by invent
ing and parading their Great First Cause, a fiction equally
absurd with the Great First Moment.
The bewilderment of the theologian is really one of the
most amusing features in the history of our race. He can
not account for the succession of events, or of causes and
effects, as he sees them occurring around him ; so he
deliberately concludes that there must have been a Great
First Cause, and this hypothesis seems to content him. But
sober reason can never rest in such an assumption; for (i)
Why suppose a First Cause ? The sole reason is to account
for phenomena you cannot otherwise explain, and which
you think are explained by your assumption. Really, then,
the First Cause is but a phrase invented to hide human
ignorance, a mere fiction to save appearances, and to keep
men from confessing frankly that they do not know what lies
beyond the circle of their knowledge. (2) But it won’t
serve them. To say there is a First Cause is equivalent to
the confession, “ I don’t know anything at all about the
matter, and am too idle to inquire further.” To assume the
existence of a First Cause certainly does shift the difficulty
one degree farther back, and affords a fictitious explanation
of Nature’s phenomena ; but it is not logical. A is a
mystery you wish to explain ; B explains it ; but what ex
plains B? C will do it. True; but can we stop at C?
“ Yes, if we call it the First Cause,” say you. But how
can you know that D does not precede it ?
Besides, as all must admit, if there really is a First Cause,
the mystery of its existence must be far deeper than that of
all other existences combined. It is not philosophical to
explain a phenomenon by something still more inexplicable ;
to attempt it only deepens the mystery. What then must
be said of thè attempt to explain an inexplicable chain of
causes and effects by the assumption of a great First Cause,
which is infinitely more inexplicable still ? The attempt
may be the result of credulity and ignorance ; most certainly
�logic never led people to it. The mind can no more rest
upon a so-called First Cause than it could on a pre
tended First Moment; in each case it demands what pre
ceded the one, and what caused the other. This difficulty
is not obviated by calling the fiction God, or printing it in
capitals ; investigation may be. forbidden for a time, but at
length the human mind demands a sight of your First
Cause, walks round, and finds an unexplored region at the
back of it. Once tell us how your First Cause rose without
a prior cause, and you will teach us to dispense with all
causes-, for if the infinite First Cause holds his being without
cause, surely the finite phenomena of nature may be allowed
a similar privilege.
Besides, if the infinite is without cause, why look for
cause and effect anywhere ? The doctrine is exploded if
theologians are correct; and thus, in the discovery of
the First Cause they demonstrate that no cause was needed,
and they and their system fall together in the very success of
their undertaking. If the doctrine of cause and effect be
true, every cause must be the effect of some prior cause ; if
they find a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause,
the doctrine they start with cannot be true; and thus success
in either direction is destructive of their position. If the
doctrine of cause and. effect be true, no First Cause is
possible ; if it is not true no such cause is required. Let them
take which horn they please.
III.
If Theists find no support from the Design Argument,
and if their First Cause is shown to be a very late effect
—of ignorance, what have they else to rest their faith
upon ? There is one more refuge to which they may run,
but it it can prove nothing but a temporary shelter, for the
pitiless “hail” of modern thought “shall sweep away the
refuge of lies, and the water ” of common sense “ shall
overflow the hiding-place.” The case of orthodoxy, whether
we begin at one end or the other, needs but to be stated in
plain words to be refuted. Not willing to ascribe any
inherent power to what is known and familiar to everybody,
they credulously credit some totally unknown substance
with all possible power, and assign to it the task of impart
ing to matter all its attributes and qualities. It is
impossible, say they, that “blind,” “dead ” matter should
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
move itself, and assume all the beautiful and wonderful
forms we see. The world could not have made itself; there
are to be seen in it beauty, splendour, intelligence; these
could not have originated in mere matter; they must have
been bestowed by a being who himself possesses
them.” All this is specious but hollow, prime faith but
not logic.
Is matter so “dead” and “blind” a thing as they
represent ? Do not divines discredit matter to enhance the
greatness of their fictitious deity ? Those who divest their
minds of prejudice find in matter food for ceaseless wonder ;
and it is quite gratuitous to tell us matter cannot think, feel,
&c. How do you know? Matter has shown such mar
vellous properties, single and combined, that he must be
reckless who will venture to say that he knows all its attri
butes. The facts of nature—the glowing of suns, the
ceaseless revolutions of planets, the endless currents in the
air and sea, the ever changing face of the sky, the resur
rection in spring, the marvels of vegetation and animal
life—all proclaim the power of matter, and rebuke the
ignorance of those who call it “blind” and “dead.”
What! a thing that is in eternal flux, ever changing into
shapes and motions more enchanting than all romances
—this thing “ dead ” and “ blind ” ! Because its mode of
life is different from yours, dare you say it does not live at
all ? Because it sees not as you do through lenses, does it
therefore not see at all? In sooth, you are fine judges of
such profound mysteries !
We see the magnet attract steel; we see chemical action
day by day; we observe the mutual attraction of the earth
and bodies near its surface; this experience is our sole
reason for supposing that the magnet and the earth do at
tract, that elements possess chemical cohesion. In orga
nised bodies, on the other hand, we see all the phenomena
of what we are pleased to call “ life,” and in the higher
ones of intelligence. Why ascribe magnetism to that piece
of soft iron, if you won’t ascribe life to the tree or the man ?
The magnetism is an essential attribute of the magnet, the
life is such of the man. Why suppose there is a living
being who bestows the life, unless you also assume a mag
netic being to bestow the magnetism? Really orthodox
talk on this subject is mere trifling. They say that a being
cannot bestow an attribute itself does not possess. Very
well; if that be so, their God must be a curiosity.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
17
Let us suppose that they are correct; then their God
must have had, in his own person, all the qualities now pos
sessed by all matter—weight, size, colour, shape, taste,
odour, extension—he must be solid, liquid, and gaseous;
freezing, boiling, burning ; must be magnetic and non-inagnetic, gravitating, attracting, repelling; must be both resting
and moving, living and dead, blind and seeing, intelligent
and foolish, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rough and
smooth, etc. These are but a few of the qualities we
observe around us, they must be native or imported, belong
ing essentially to matter, or else imparted by some other
substance which possessed them all before. The Deist
may .charge me with trifling and flippancy; but I am merely
delivering his own doctrines, and trying as bestaI can to
show their real absurdity.
IV.
I do not think logic or common sense requires more than
is given above, but orthodoxy is so slippery, so protean in
its shapes; so unscrupulous, so plausible, and gifted with
such astonishing powers of turning and twisting, that I feel
impelled to track it into another region still. The best way
to deal with divines is to admit (for argument’s sake) their
fundamental principles or assumptions, and then proceed to
show their logical consequences. Now, the orthodox
assure us that there exists a being whose nature is infinite,
whose presence is everywhere; and these terms they use in
their absolute or unlimited sense—at least they did in my
orthodox days. Be it so, then ; there is one infinite being;
he must have or must be an infinite substance, no matter
what that substance may be. Now every substance or
being must necessarily occupy some space, since no real
being can exist which is not more or less extended; and
every being must fill space exactly commensurate with itself;
indeed, we have no means of ascertaining or conceiving
the size of anything except by ascertaining or conceiving the
quantity of space it fills, that is, its extension in one, two,
or three directions.
If the above be correct, an infinite being cannot occupy
less than infinite space; all possible space must be so full of
it that nothing more could be introduced anywhere; for if
there be but space enough left for the insertion of one
atom, molecule, or the smallest possible division of sub
�Io
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
stance, the being we are supposing must be less than
infinite, which is contrary to the hypothesis. Now since
an infinite being fills by itself or by its own substance all
possible space, there can be no space left to be occupied by
any other being or substance whatsoever, and thus we are
inevitably led to the interesting discovery that there is no
existence, no being, except the infinite one; that the ortho
dox God is alone, is everything, that nothing but itself
exists or can exist, for there is no unoccupied space for it to
fill. The divine, therefore, is reduced to this dilemma;
either he must give up his infinite substance or all other
substances ; he must renounce his God, or deny existence
to Nature, including himself. If we say that it is past
denying that we and other beings do really exist, and that we
occupy space commensurate with our substance—that being
so, we occupy some, of that space which an infinite being
must have occupied if he had existed; therefore no infinite
being exists. There is but one refuge for the divine from
this conclusion, namely^ to say that all Nature is but a part
of God; though I do not suppose that any one will per
manently abide in such a mental condition.
But let us allow the theologian his infinite God, and
doing so, let us analyse the conception. An infinite God 1
Such a being must be an absolute WzT, for all space must be
filled to its utmost capacity by its substance. It must also
be immovable. It would take infinite time for an infinite
being to move, no matter at what rate he did it. In an
absolute solid there can be no internal motion ; in an infinite
being ho external motion is possible, for there is no space
except what it already fills absolutely. Such a being could
not feel, think, will, or act in any way; for it would take a
whole eternity for a throb to pass through it The think
ing faculty or apparatus must be either located in a par
ticular part, or else diffused through the whole; in either
case thought would be impossible, except only a mere part
of the being thought. There is no act, mental or physical,
possible to any being butwhat takes time in its performance,
and the said time must bear a certain ratio to the size,
structure, organisation, or nature of that being. An infinite
one, therefore, could not perform the most simple or ele
mentary action without spending eternity in doing it, even
on the supposition that it could do it at all.
An infinite God, then, must be helpless, thought-less,
motionless; as void of sense as a block of marble. The
�few
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
19
conception is a conglomeration of the wildest absurdities;
nay, it is not a conception, since none ever conceived it—
it would take eternity to do so. The word God, as used
by Pagans, generally meant something; in orthodoxy it
stands for nought, a label covering the very darkest corner
of the human mind, a word without meaning, a symbol
symbolising nothing.
.
.
It is idle for the divines to appeal to spirit; for an infinite
spirit must be a substance of some kind, and must fill
infinite space, and must be infinitely powerless. Besides,
What is spirit? “Breath, wind,” say I. “Nay,” replies
the theologian, “ it is something more refined; it has no
weight, shape, colour, taste, smell, or sound.”. Exactly so;
it is abstract. To find spirit I give the following receipt:
Take a man, remove his physical being—all that you can
weigh, touch, taste, smell, see, or burn—in a word, all that
is material. Next remove from him all that you can possibly
conceive; persevere and exhaust the subject completely.
Well, all that is left is spirit. Yes; that imponderable, im
measurable, intangible, inodorous, invisible, tasteless, sound
less, and inconceivable nothing—this purest of abstractions—
is the spirit or soul. The believer is heartily welcome to his
■ “find.” If his God is a spirit, we can only say, as Paul
said of other Gods : “ Now we know that an idol is nothing
in the world,” or, in the language of Jesus, we may say to
the most devout: “ Ye worship ye know not what ”—in fact,
Nothing.
If I am not vastly-deceived, on all lines of intellectual
inquiry, the orthodox belief leads inevitably to absurdity. I
shall be glad to be corrected if I am in error, .and if some
one who is able will take the trouble to grind my notions to
powder, I shall take it as a favour. I hate wrong ideas;
they are amongst the foremost of human evils. Will some
one, therefore, do his best to enlighten me, as I am sincerely
trying to enlighten others ?
&
jL-
§
V.
I am not sufficiently vain to suppose that what I have
written previously on this subject has been exhaustive; I
have merely touched some of the more important intel
lectual difficulties that surround and interpenetrate the
Theistic position, and have endeavoured to show howabsurd is the orthodox belief. Just now I shall turn from
3
�20
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
the purely intellectual aspects of the subject and point out
a few of the Moral difficulties which meet the Theist__ diffi
culties he either ignores or explains in a very unsatisfactory
way.
J
The Theist proclaims a God who is infinitely good—
goodness itself, in fact ; whose “ tender mercies are over all
nis works, who is Humanity’s Great Father, and whose
nature is Love. Now all this might have continued undis
turbed in the world’s creed, if, unfortunately, the facts of
every-day life did not ceaselessly protest against such false
doctrines.
If infinite goodness really existed, such a thing as evil
would be impossible. I suppose no one will deny the
existence of evil; even the most thorough optimist must
sometimes be in doubt as to the correctness of his creed,
except he be too stupid to reflect. A fit of the gout,
sciatica, or a cancer would, I should suppose, convert the
most devout optimist into something more or less rational.
In the esteem of most men both physical and moral evils
exist in far too great plenty. Let us therefore reflect, i. If
I had the power I would remove every evil out of nature
and leave only what is useful and good. This I cannot
do for lack of ability. Give me the power and I will under
take the task. But if I have the power to remove one evil
and don t do it, you have the best of reasons for saying that
I am not so good as I should be. Now the orthodox
preach a God who, they solemnly assure us, is infinite in
being and in all his attributes j his power and knowledge
are absolutely infinite, and his goodness equal to either.
But this muet.be false, for such-a being could never have
suffered to exist any evil whatever, even for one moment.
A being infinitely good must will the existence of nothing
but good ; if he has all power and knowledge these must be
subservient to his will—if he be sane. But evils do exist:
these are the result (i) of his design or arrangement, for
nothing could slip in unawares to him; or (2) he had not
power to prevent nor is able now to destroy them ; or (3) he
is careless about their existence, and so does not wish them
to be destroyed; or (4) he desires their existence, and
actively favours their continuance. Which of these hypo
theses is correct ? No matter which , any one of the four
is. fatal to orthodoxy. If he arranged for evils in the
original creation, or introduced them subsequently, he must
himself be evil in the direct ratio of his knowledge and
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
21
power; that is, on orthodox showing, he must be infinitely
evil, for he is infinitely knowing and able. Did a being of
boundless power and knowledge create evils, or create
materials and forces that in their “ workings ” must evolve
evils? The orthodox creed fairly implies this, though
believers shrink from its open and blank avowal. So be it—
the conclusion is inevitable, that he who made Nature, sup
posing it ever was made, and had full knowledge of what
he did, must be solely responsible for all that Nature
evolves.
Evils and goods are equally his offspring, not
begotten by momentary impulse, but after an eternity’s
(aparte ante) deliberation. But herein lies a contradiction;
goods and evils, or in the abstract, good and evil, are
diametrically opposed and incompatible. Therefore, an
infinite being could not will both goods and evils, except
alternately; and in that case they could not exist simulta
neously, for infinite power would instantly execute any wish
such a being might have ; the moment he willed evils goods
would cease, and vice versa. If the orthodox prefer to
suppose a God who wills both goods and evils simulta
neously, I will not at present contend with such an
absurdity.
Again, no Theist would aver that evils crept into Nature
or sprang up in its midst without his God’s knowledge or
power to prevent, as that would involve the conception of
ignorance or weakness. Nor could the orthodox suppose
that he without whom “ a sparrow falleth not,” and who
“ numbereth the very hairs of your head,” could be careless
of the existence of evils—that would un-God the deity at
once. Lastly, to suppose the creator and ruler of Nature
to desire the existence of evils, argues such a wicked or
malicious state of mind as really to shock the most callous
dogmatist in the world. What, therefore, can the Theist
say? Evils exist. How can he hold the doctrine of an
infinitely good, powerful, and wise God, with these un
deniable facts so constantly around him ?
Of course, most believers resort to the fiction of a future
life, and thus create a Utopian world to redress the wrongs
of this ; but that does not explain, it merely evades the
difficulty. For the question is, not the continuance or
redress of evils, but their existence. If the Theist could
prove that evils existed but for one moment, he would still
have to reconcile their existence with his God-theory—the
length of time is quite another affair. If, again, the believer
�22
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
could demonstrate that all evils would be redressed and
fully compensated, either here or hereafter, still that leaves
the real point untouched; for the question is, How does he
reconcile the existence of infinite goodness with the exist
ence of evils? Compensation may make amends, it never
can undo. Evils exist and the children of men groan
under them. Bitter are the tears that daily run down
sorrow s cheeks ; deep are the pangs and woes of humanity.
What ! can they be compensated ? Never. An eternity of
unmitigated bliss would not obliterate the furrows ploughed
by some woes that last but for an hour ■ if it could, what
of the existence of the evil, no matter how short its life ?
/ It seems to me beyond dispute that logic and common
/sense require the Theist to prove that no evil exists or ever
( did, or else give up his belief in an infinitely good God.
To talk of his “ permission ” of evil for wise but mysterious
reasons is mere shuffling. He who “permits” a known
evil he has power to destroy or prevent is so far guilty of
wrong ■ but with an Almighty God, to “ permit ” is to do,
since there is no power but his existing, and hence the evil
that results from his so-called “ permission ” is as actively
produced by him as any other thing he ever effects. When
man “permits ” he merely declines to check the operation
of certain forces not his own; when Almightiness “permits ”
he as actively works as he ever does.
Besides, it is sheer assumption to affirm that the unknown
purposes of the deity are wise. We can never know that a
man is wise except from his words and deeds : he whose
words and deeds are best we regard as the wisest. Now we
can read the character of God only in his deeds, for his
voice we never hear. It is only those works that strike us
as wise that can argue the wisdom of the designer of
nature and its ruler. If some of his deeds are wise, others
very doubtful, and others exceedingly unwise, tested by our
own and our only standard, we can but conclude that his
character is similarly mixed, uncertain, or heterogenous,
rv Theist will, prove the existence and perfect wisdom
of his deity by independent means, then we will readily
ajdmit that we have the best of reasons for supposing even
the most perplexing and staggering processes of nature are all
wise and good, only at present we are too ignorant to com
prehend how they are so. But the Theist first proves the
existence of his God from these very processes of nature, and
then argues the absolute perfection of his character from
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
23
the same data; whereas nature merely presents evidence of
an imperfect, unwise, weak, and very evil-disposed or else
unfortunate deity. To argue perfection of character fromimperfect works; absolute goodness from a mixture of
goods and evils, in which the latter predominate; and;
infinite wisdom from a course of action in which wisdom;
and folly are freely mingled, is to ignore logic and to per-|
petrate an outrage upon common sense. And that the1
“constitution and course of Nature” do exhibit evils andt
goods, and at least as much folly as wisdom, none can!
intelligently deny.
■
’
On the whole I cannot avoid the conclusion that the
Theistic belief in a being of infinite goodness is entirely at
variance with the evidence. There is not, so far as I am
aware, a single fact or logical argument to support it; while
on the other hand, we know for certainty that infinite good
ness does not exist, for if it did, evils would be impossible.
What should we say in reply to one who asserted the theory
of an infinite light ? The only reply necessary would be to
point to one dark corner ! this would at once destroy the
hypothesis. Just so the existence of one evil is sufficient to
destroy all rational belief in infinite goodness. It is surely
time for the orthodox, if they wish to escape universal scorn,
to bethink themselves, and furnish some reasonable basis
for their faith; So far they have done nothing of the kind;
their whole creed is subjective, a genuine picture of their
own imagination, but as destitute of objective reality as
witchcraft or astrology.
But I shall be told, perhaps, that to destroy the belief in
a God is to annihilate the very basis and sanctions of
morality ! There are people, by no means insane, who' still
use this bugbear to frighten people into the orthodox fold.
It is curious to note how in every proposed change, the
timid and the designing raise the silly cry that reformers
are opening the floodgates, bursting the bonds of society,
and otherwise ruining the world! Alas ! how often this
world has been ruined by reformers, inventors, discoverers,
and others. I suggest that the theologian should go a step
further, and declare roundly that, without belief in a God
men would not know how to make boots, to till the ground,
to eat or drink, to build houses, and so forth. This would
be no more absurd than their cry about morality. I once
heard a man in serious debate affirm that we should have no
era to reckon the flight of time from, but for Christ! This
�24
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
I heard myself, and I was the unfortunate being who had to
reply to it. I further heard once of a monarchist who
solemnly assured a republican, that if we abolished the
present form of government we could have no current
money ! “ for,” he queried, with invincible logic, “ whose
head could we put upon the coins but the queen’s ? ”
Many believers are astonished when you tell them that
morality, like science, art, money, manners, language, etc.,
is a purely social growth or production, in fact, no more
divine than the art and weapons of war, or the skill and
weapons of the poisoner. And yet it would be quite as
easy to prove that money came from heaven as to prove
that morality did. It is not my intention at present to go
into the abstract question of morality, nor shall I attempt a
philosophy of ethics; I shall merely show that the Theist
has no monopoly of morality, that his theory respecting it is
.incorrect, and that, whencesoever its sanctions may be drawn,
they do not arise from theology. Let us see:
I. The Bible is held by a very large number of European
Theists to be a book inspired by God, and a sufficient moral
and a religious guide for man. I say they hold these doc
trines, that is, have them in their creeds and formulas, but
the best of them in real life, ignore the Bible, and walk by
higher rules than it contains. As to the divine origin of
the Bible, that has never been proved; the so-called evi
dence is unsatisfactory in the highest degree; and it would
be nothing less than a calamity if such a book could be
proved to have had any higher origin than other ancient
works. It contains the silliest of stories—told, too, with all
solemnity—the worst morality in the world; and we are
assured it is all divine. Its precepts the churches them
selves never think of obeying; its examples they dare not
follow, while large portions of it shock and horrify all
civilised persons. The best morality of the Bible is common
place enough, though paraded with such solemnity as to
impose upon many tolerably enlightened people. The
Bible is certainly not the source, nor can it ever be the
standard of the world’s Morality.
Let us next see if the Theist can draw lessons or
elements of morality from Nature. I speak now of Nature
apart from society, and I roundly affirm that Nature knows
nought of morality, nor do ethics enter at all into her
processes.
i. All through Nature the strong oppresses and eats up
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
25
the weak, and the life of one being involves the destruction
of another, often of thousands daily. This is not morality,
and if done by the arrangement, or even connivance, of a
being able to have prevented it, it must be characterised as
monstrous iniquity.
2. Nature nowhere, in no way, manifests government.
An overruling Providence finds a place in creeds—that is,
in the fictions of the churches; but it exists nowhere else.
Consider these few undeniable facts: (i) Nature has never
yet been able to distinguish, in the very simplest cases,
between right and wrong, crime and accident, sin and mis
fortune. For example—if a man jump down a precipice he
is dashed to pieces—perhaps he deserves it; but if he should
accidentally fall down he suffers to precisely the same
extent; yes,-if he is wilfully flung down by murderers, it is
all the same in the end. Is that justice? Let us compare.
A jumps wilfully off a house and is killed; B accidentally
falls off, and meets the same fate; C is flung off by his
enemies, and is also killed. The three bodies are taken
before a coroner, and the jury, after being made acquainted
with all the facts of each case, return the same verdict for
all three. What should we say if they pleaded that, whereas
A, B, and C did all come by their deaths by too precipitate
a descent from the top of the house, therefore A, B, and C
all alike deserved the fate they met ? Such a verdict and
defence of it would involve about equal quantities of truth,
absurdity, and injustice. But Nature would justify that
stupid jury, and they might plead in self-defence that,
whereas the three died in consequence of their respective
falls, it was evident that Nature regarded them as equally
guilty, and they did not in the least desire to improve upon
the ways of Nature. Now, if Nature must be taken as the
exponent of deity, we can only conclude that deity cannot
distinguish between right and wrong, for in the course of
Nature, by which he governs (?) the sentient beings of this
world, he treats accidents, mistakes, and the greatest mis
fortunes as if they were the greatest crimes, and oftener
inflicts pain upon the innocent than upon the guilty.
(2) Further, if Nature teaches anything in the cases just
supposed, it teaches that murder is an innocent deed, if not
a commendable one; for, while the three who are the sub
jects of accident, suicide, and crime are killed summarily
by the forces of Nature, those who murdered the one not
only survive him, but possibly, as often happens, actually
�26
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
enjoy property and pleasures that honestly • belonged to
their victim. And it must not be forgotten that all natural
forces are, ifTheists speak truth, forces of God; in fact,
mere results of his own will.
This is a point so often ignored that I must spend another
sentence or two upon it to impress it on the reader’s mind.
All that is was created, so Theists say, by an Almighty and
otherwise Infinite God. That being so, the forces of Nature
are such only by derivation, nay, not derivation even—they
are merely the power or powers of God himself, exhibited
under certain circumstances or conditions. Now all natural
processes must be nothing more than actions of deity—he
does all that is done—if the premises of Theism are correct.
This being so, the destructive processes of Nature, and
those that give pain, are actions of God equally with those
which evolve new life or mantle the face of man with,
pleasure. If all this is true, we have in Nature a clear,
constant, and truthful exponent of God’s moral character;
and what a character ! Justice and wisdom are entirely
absent. Indeed, you look in vain to Nature, that is (in
directly) to God, for any one of those qualities esteemed
among men, while many of those society everywhere punishes
are very painfully and palpably present.
(3) To pursue this somewhat further, we may look for a
few moments at some of the frightful evils that have and
still do curse the world :
In an earthquake, a flood, or a storm, we see the deity
roused to fury and venting his rage indiscriminately upon
all who happen to be within reach. Not one of the victims
deserves such treatment, as far as we know; certainly the
infants don’t; yet they are ground to powder, drowned or
otherwise killed, as if they were the greatest offenders. . Is
that government ? and moral government ? The Turkish
manner of ruling Bulgaria was a trifle to this !
Again, how deaf the deity is to cries and prayers ! In
railway collisions, falls of bridges, shipwrecks, and other
catastrophes, you may call, no matter how passionately, to
the ruler of Nature.
He no more attends you than does
the wind, the wave, the iron, the rocks that surround you.
He might help without the smallest trouble or inconveni
ence, for he knows all, he hears all, is ever present, and has
almighty power— so Theists say. A man who will not help
when he sees calamity fall upon his fellows, is next to a
murderer, and is justly execrated. Yet he may plead some
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
27
seeming or partial excuses. What could we say, if we were
certain there really existed a God who could look coolly on
in the direst calamity that ever befals men ? The thought
is so sickening I dare not dwell upon it. .Yet that is only
one part of the subject. Human calamity! It is all planned
and executed by the deity; no wonder he does not move to
the rescue. And what does he, can he gain ? It is all for
nought! The devil is said to torment for his pleasure;
not so the Almighty—he can never want a pleasure.
There have been millions of occasions in the world’s
history when the worst government worthy of the name must
have interposed to prevent or remedy mischiefs among its
subjects. What priesthood ever existed that did not speak
and act in the name, and professedly by the authority
of God, the Great Ruler ? Where was that ruler when
Moses and Joshua perpetrated such horrible villanies in his
name? Where was he.when the Pope and the Inquisition
were perpetrating horrid lies in his name, and burning Jews
and heretics for his pleasure ? Did he ever interpose to
prevent or close a war, or famine, or pestilence ? When ?
One case stands out in glaring colours as I sweep the
horizon of the world’s history. A company of fanatics or
knaves concocted a scheme for conveying letters to the
Virgin. Mary in heaven. It was the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception, and the church of La Compania, in Santiago,
Chili, was crammed with 2,000 women, deceived in the name
of Deity, and panting to communicate with the Mother of
God. Thousands of lamps lit up the temple, and thousands
of yards of muslin festooned the place. Suddenly rose the
flames, and played in horrid sport along the drapery. There
is a panic, wild and horrible ! a stampede for the doors,
which are soon choked with quivering, dying humanity, and
all exit is stopped. The ceiling catches fire, and streams
of molten lead pour down upon their living flesh ! The
paraffin lamps burst in the heat, and shower down their
contents in sheets and jets and wreaths of fire !
What an opportunity for a God ! Where was he that he
missed it! The people across the street could look through
the church windows and see the agonised victims running
to and fro in that hell, wringing their hands, and calling
upon men, and angels, and God, to save them. Not a
person who saw that sight—except Ugarte, the fiend-priest,
who saved the Virgin’s image and his own carcase, while he
left the women to seethe and burn—except him, no other
�28
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
being in the universe would have hesitated to risk his own
life to snatch one of those women from perdition ! But
Theist, where was your God? Your great ruler of the
world ? Your Father which is in heaven and everywhere ?
Whose tender mercies are over all his works? Did he
know ? Was he by ? O, Sir ! you are the blasphemers,
not we
You invent a God and give him all power, make
him all-knowing, and invest him with absolute and bound
less rule—then you write history, every page of which
proclaims your deity an infinite fiend! Sir, burn your
creed, or destroy history! Confess your errors, or else
reconcile the course of the world with the character of your
God ! At present you outrage our best sentiments. Be
ashamed and blush ! Your Bible tells us your God at one
time could so far demean himself as to order Aaron a bran
new suit of holiday clothes, giving minute directions for
every article, even to the pantaloons ! At another time he
stood or sat in stolid indifference, watching the agony of
2000 burning women deceived in his name, whose bodies
were roasting in 7zA own fire—for that fire would not have
burned had he not supplied the power.
I might pursue this subject, but there is no need. I do
not pretend to understand Nature; glimpses and broken
gleams of truth are all that fall to my share. But what little
I do know is all in favour of Atheism. The best light I
have leads up that path; the purest and noblest feelings of
my nature make me shudder at the God-conception—
yea ! even for its own sake. I cannot endure the thought that
any being exists so great and so wicked as the ordinary
orthodox God. The conception is altogether monstrous,
unnecessary, and full of mischief; for the history of Godism
is also the record of the densest ignorance, the worst folly,
the deepest degradation, and the foulest crimes of our most
unfortunate and bewildered race.
�THE
METHODIST
CONFERENCE
AND
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT:
Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine ?
By J. SYMES, formerly Wesleyan Minister.
HOSPITALS
and
3d.
DISPENSARIES,
Are they of Christian Growth ?
By J. SYMES,
id.
MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE,
Or Man an Animal amongst Animals.
By J. SYMES.
4<1-
�VERY CHEAP REMAINDERS.
THE
GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.
All New, Handsomely Bound, and Uncut.
REDUCED to Is. 3d. each.
If sent by Post 3d. extra.
Bayard Taylor’s Diversions Leigh Hunt’s Essays: A
of the Echo Club.
Tale for a Chimney Corner, and
other Pieces. With Portrait,
The Book of Clerical Anec
and Introduction by Edmund
dotes.
Ollier.
Mallory’s (Sir Thos.) Mort
Byron’s Don Juan.
d’Arthur : The Stories of King
Arthur and of the Knights of the
Emerson’s
Letters
and
Round Table.
Edited by B.
Social Aims.
Montgomerie Ranking.
Godwin’s (William) Lives Pascal’s Provincial Letters.
of the Necromancers.
A New Translation, with
Historical Introduction and
Notes, by T. M‘Crie, D.D.,
Holmes’s Professor at the
LL.D.
Breakfast Table.
Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works.
Hood’s Whims and Oddities.
Complete. With all the Origi Rochefoucauld ’s
Maxims
nal Illustrations.
and Moral Reflections. With
Notes, and an Introductory
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Essay by Sainte-Beuve .
of a Traveller.
St. Pierre^ Paul and Vir
ginia, and the Indian Cottage.
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Edited, with Life, by the Rev.
of the Alhambra.
E. Clarke.
Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes and Lamb’s Essays of Elia. Both
Occupations of Country Life.
Series Complete in One Volume.
“A series of excellently printed and carefully annotated volumes, handy
in size, and altogether attractive.”—Bookseller.
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on two unnumbered pages at the end. Marginal markings in red pencil. Date of publication from KVK.
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
RA1778
N633
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41ddba7f8bd061e132faa678909c65a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Blz3hGE12foX%7EvgJrnQ00L0nQPRc%7EAt6JUPvdrvKaX5JCKKCZ4mcZIYFFeOO1NjxlrnB2hdKfa8ZBdnHoyfogAIJlrq5IeqBD31MpT3gy2IRo5R-3jvygMmJgggh84B3bKeiWSQPq%7EbR62EhyFDIJ9nV68XVPx0MWEfsWITZBgUJBBHKxybAQaJBKhGPclR8X-t91MAlS-Aw9%7Ee1Skzleos4ejfhzGcvp6q7DIMKNWGFoMrDNyHpTOqXpJMQnzDUjfVNAElt2M-DHJz0QHAyaj2JB0lBLlRqyZC91JgNDXKuS3aE-HUSvGcn6PKwtJNlUbM5R5S6RgXr594qtYW2HA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fc7f1688aeec4e0f2375401825e4367f
PDF Text
Text
S'txOASié3l
MORE RATIONAL?
DISOtrSSION
I
BETWEEN
4
Mr. JOSEPH SYMES
GEORGE
■ ♦
LONDON :
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET
E.C.
�H
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
... .IS ATHEISM OR THEISM THE MORE
RATIONAL!
LETTER I.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Some weeks ago, Mr. St. Clair delivered a discourse in Bir
mingham on “ The Folly of Atheism.” When informed
thereof, I wrote to that gentleman, respectfully inviting him
to a public oral debate on the question now at the head of
this letter. This he courteously declined, but suggested a
written discussion instead. It now falls to my lot to furnish
the first of. twelve letters,, six by each disputant, to appear
alternately at intervals of not more than a fortnight. Mr.
Bradlaugh deserves our best thanks for'So readily opening
the columns of the National Reformer for this discussion.
Without any “ beating about the bush,” I shall at once
proceed to show why I regard Atheism as being more
rational than Theism. Theism is belief in a God, or deus,
or theos. Atheism is the absence of that belief, with the
general implication, as I apprehend, that the individual
destitute of that belief has done his best to weigh the merits
of conflicting theories, to sift the Theistic evidence, and has
logically concluded that Theism is irrational.
Atheism, requires no direct evidence, nor is it susceptible
of "it. It is arrived at,^n the most logical fashion, by a
course of destructive criticism applied to the God-theorjt.
This theory, when fairly examined, crumbles to dust, and
then evaporates, leaving the investigator without a Godiiand
without belief in one.
As I desire this contest to be definite, earnest, and real,
1 will state my objections to Theism plainly and fairly,
'so jthat my opponent may have the best opportunity of
refuting them. And let it be borne in mind that to state
valid objections to Theism is to put forward equally valid
reasons in favor ofAtheism. Now, as Theistic arguments
usually- take two forms, the intellectual and the moral; as
�4
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Theism is as much an assertion of or belief in God’s moral
attributes as in his natural attributes or in his bare existence,
I cannot be straying from the subject in discussing the
moral aspects of the question. To show that the moral
attributes of God are fictions will go very far indeed towards
refuting Theism and justifying Atheism. The following
questions will covey most of the ground :—
I. Does there «Assist an infinitely good God ?
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness
exceeds his evilness ?
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God ?
IV. Does there exist an infinite God whose wisdom exceeds
his folly ?
V. Does there exist a God of absolutely unlimited power?
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his
weakness ?
VII. Does there exist a God who is in any sense infinite?
VIII. Does there exist any God at all ?
I. The first question, Does there exist an inhnitelugood God?
may be dismissed without any discussion ; for infinite good
ness would render all evil for ever impossible. Infinite
goodness could produce nothing less than infinite good.
Evil, if existent, must limit goodness ; evil does exist; there
fore infinite goodness does not.
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness exceeds
his evilness ? I am sorry to have to use so uncouth a word
as “ evilness,” but I have no other that will so well express
my meaning.
1. It is generally held among Theists that an Infinite God
created all other things. If so, what motive could have
prompted the act ? That motive could not have been an
■exterior one. From the nature of the hypothesisJLit musthave been one confined solely to himself, arising from his
own unrestrained, uninfluenced desires. In a word, he must
ha^made the universe for his own sake, his own ends, his
own pleasure.
Now a being who accomplishes his own pleasure or profit
by or through the pleasure or profit of others, and no ptherwise, must be pronounced just and benevolent. But he who
gains his own ends irrespective of the rights, the profit,
and the pleasure of others, is selfish. He who sends others,
who are helplessly under his sway, on errands for his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
5
personal advantage alone, and knowing they must suffer
excruciating pain and die in the undertaking, is a horrible
^Tr-is said that an infinite God created the universe, and peopled it with sentient beings. Those sen
tient beings, in the nature of the case, could not
be consulted beforehand: their life, organisation, circum
stances of all kinds were decided for Hem and imposed
upon them. And a being more good than evil would have
felt himself in honor and justice bound to provide for the
happiness of those creatures before giving them life while
a being more evil than good would have consulted his own
pleasure chiefly, if not entirely, and have cared little or
nothing for the happiness of his creatures. The last clause
seeems to me to describe, but partially only, the action of the
hypothetical God who is supposed to have created the uni
verse. For pain and misery have been the cruel lot of
his creatures from the remotest epoch to which geology
carries U8 back.
“The whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in pain together until now.” Want, disappoint
ment, bitter warfare, pain, and death are the normal con
dition of the universe as far as it is known. No natural
law has been more fully ascertained than this :—Life is an
endless strife; and each combatant must must kill or be
killed, must eat or be eaten. Another law is, That victor
and vanquished succumb to another foe and die, despite their
struggle for existence. These laws hold good not merely as
regards individuals: races also die out. And if there be
purpose and plan in nature it can only be such purpose and
plan as uses sentient beings for the pleasure of the creator,
who cai®s no more for their welfare than the worst of slave
owners does for his human chattels.
.
2. Nay! more. According to the creation hypothesis,
every pang endured by the creature must have been fore
seen and provided for beforehand. The man who invents
an infernal taachine, say Thomassen of Bremer Haven
notoriety, must be immensely less selfish than the creator
of the world. Thomassen had some want to supply,,^ome
sort of excuse for his awful deed. But an infinite and
eternal being is without excuse; and a being that does
wrong without excuse, knowing what he is doing, must be
actuated by pure malignity ; especially when, as is the case
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of all creatures of this hypothetical God, his victims are
absolutely helpless:—they cannot resist him, cannot out
manoeuvre him, and can get no sort of redress for any wrong
they may suffer.
It may perhaps be safely laid down, that he is extremely
good, who does good according to his knowledge and power.
But he “ who know^th to do good and doeth it not, to him
it is sin.” An infinite God knows everything, and his
power is unlimited. Why does he not do good “ as he hath
opportunity ? ”
The only conceivable reason must be
that he is unwilling. He must therefore be extremely evil.
When to this is added the fact that he does immeasurable
evil to helpless beings, we shall at once perceive that the
Theistic object of worship must be totally evil; for even
the seeming good he does is done merely to please himself.
Even if the world contained as much good as evil, theft
would not prove the creator good, for reasons I have given.
But the existence of only one evil would legitimately raise
the suspicion that he was evil, because a moment’s effort on
his part would remove that evil and replace it by good.
But when we find that evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe; when we find that during all its ascertainable
history, and in every direction, at least as much evil as good
has prevailed, we cannot hesitate, except in deference to
old prejudices, to pronounce judgment to the -effect that the
world’s creator is the embodiment of selfishness and ma.bgnity, and destitute of any discoverable redeeming trait in
his character.
It is at present unnecessary to enlarge upon this subject.
But if the goodness of the hypothetical creator cannot
logically be maintained, and if the extreme contrary can be
p logically'and truthfully propounded, as I contend, the next
i question to be answered is,
I
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God? This, too,
' must be examined and answered by the study of the facts of
Nature ; and it need not delay us longer than did the ques
tion of infinite goodness. If there were infinite wisdom^Mo
such things as fools and folly would exist. These are enor
mously plentiful; whence come they ? Wisdoniicannot
produce folly; a perfectly wise being could not produce a
fool. Some say the great majority of men are fools;
certain it is that large numbers are such. Who made them
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
7
so ? If there be a creator, he makes the philosopher and the
dolt, the mathematician and the idiot. No wise father
would have an idiot son, if he foresaw its possibility and
knew how to prevent it. Yet the great father, as people
call their deity, produces idiots by the score and fools by the ,
million. Infinite wisdom, therefore, is no better than a
myth, nor more accordant with known facts than the infalli
bility of the Pope.
Want of space compels me here to break off my argument abruptly, though I hope to resume it in my next.
LETTER IT.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
As I expect to find in Mr. Symes an honest and fair
opponent, I shall not require a definition of all the terms he
uses, but I may point out that if his definition of Atheism
is correct, we shall want some other word to set forth the
denial of God’s existence. Theism is belief in a God ; and,
according to Mr. Symes, Atheism is simply the absence of
that belief, and valid objections to Theism are equally
valid-reasons in favor of Atheism. I should have thought
this more accurately described Agnosticism than Theism;
but as I am equally opposed to both, perhaps it will not
matter. If the Deity is said by one person to be dead, and
by another to be dumb, I confute them both if I prove that
he speaks. It is only fair I should allow that one sentence
of Mr. Symes’s seems to separate the Atheist from the
Agnostic—the sentence, namely, which says that the Atheist
has logically concluded Theism to be irrational. The
Agnostic does not pretend to do that. At the same time
the question is here begged, or else the language is a little
loose, for, if I am right, no individual can logically conclude
that Theism is irrational, but can only come to such a
conclusion illogically.
I am prepared to prove the existence of an intelligent
Creator of man, and to defend his perfect goodness. I shall
not attempt to defend all the positions which Mr. Symes
sets out to assault. His eight questions, which he says will
cover most of the ground, would no doubt do so, and lead
�8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
us into oceans of talk as well. I have no desire to meddle
much with the unfathomable and the incomprehensible, and
must decline to be drawn into a discussion of the infinite,
which I do not understand. Six questions out of Mr. Symes’s
eight concern the infinite ! They were, perhaps, prompted
by his idea of what I, as a believer in God, would be likely
to assert; for he says, “It is generally held among Theists
that an Infinite God created all other things.” When he
understands that I maintain a humbler thesis, perhaps he
will withdraw or modify some of these questions. I main
tain that there is an intelligent Creator of Man, against
whose perfect goodness nothing can be proved. If man has
a Creator, that Creator must be called God.; and if there
is a God, the evidence of whose action is to be seen in us
and about us, then Atheism is irrational. It is a larger
question whether God is infinite in all his attributes. It is
another question whether God created all things, matter
and its properties included. I am certainly not going to
maintain that every attribute of God is infinite ; for the
clue and the key to the mystery of evil are to be found in
limitation of power. Like John Stuart Mill, I conceive a
limit to Omnipotence, and that enables me to maintain God’s
perfect goodness. Or rather, I define omnipotence to be the
power of effecting all things which are possible, and I show
that some things are impossible to any worker, because they
involve mathematical or physical contradictions. When,
therefore, Mr. Symes advances to show that “ the moral
attributes of God are fictions,” I have an answer for him
which some Theists have not.
The first question of the eight is in the form, “ Does there
exist an infinitely good God ? ” and in the answer to it there
is a semblance of mathematical demonstration. But I
venture to think that the word “ infinite ” leads to a little
unconscious conjuring. I shall be satisfied to defend God’s
perfect goodness against all attacks. I will not say whether
the goodness is infinite, and what ought, to follow then; but
I calmly assert that the bare fact that “ evil does exist” is
no proof that perfect goodness does not. Mr. Symes con
cludes his demonstration with the Q. E. D. that “ therefore
infinite goodness does not.” I should be glad if he would'
come out of the unfathomable and tell me what he has to
show against perfect goodness. I admit that some evil exists
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
9
but limited evil for a limited time is quite consistent with
perfect goodness. It was consistent with goodness in the
case of a father I knew, who submitted his child to the
operation of tracheotomy in order to save its life. Limited
evil for a limited time is forced upon every child who is
kept to his lessons; and it argues no want of goodness
in the parent, but only a certain intractableness in things,
making it impossible to attain desired results except
by means and methods which may sometimes be a little
unpleasant. I feel myself at liberty to use these human
illustrations because I have left out the word “ infinite ” and
am considering the action of a Deity who creates and educates
man. The Iggfiitions of all work are similar, whether the
worker be human or divine.
Space exists, and matter exists. Mr. Symes must allow
that they can exist without having been created, because he
does not believe in a Creator at all. So far I am inclined
to agree with him that space and matter may always have
existed. But whether matter has been created or not is
of little importance in this discussion, if it be allowed
that without matter and space nothing could be made
and no processes could go on—that for instance there
could be no world like this and no human creatures to com
plain of its arrangements. In fact there could be no
arrangements, if there were nothing to arrange and no space
to arrange it in. The Creator is, we may say, bound to have
matter—whether created or uncreated—if he is to accom
plish anything at all. No blame, therefore, can attach to
him on account of the mere existence of matter. All
depends upon what use he will make of it. Now the mere
existence of matter implies certain properties, such as
extension and impenetrability. Further, nothing can be
done with matter without moving it, to bring its parts and
particles into new positions. But the motion of matter in
space is according to the laws of motion, which cannot well
be imagined to be different from what they are. Without
these laws of motion and properties of matter there could
be no universe and no human life, and no printing of this
discussion in the pages of the National, RefdjSffier. At the
same time the Worker, using these mean^and materials,
does his work under conditions which preclude certain results
as physically impossible, as for instance that there should be
�10
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
adjacent mountains without a valley ; and which sometimes
involve concomitant results which may not be wished for,
as when a sculptor chisels out a statue but makes a mess of
chippings ¿ha dust. The end desired is achieved, and more
than compensates for the temporary inconvenience. The
inconvenience is no accident and no surprise, but is foreseen
and deliberately accepted, on account of the good that shall
follow.
Seeing that I regard the matter in this way, many things
which Mr. Symes has said shoot wide of my position. I
am not obliged to consider what motive induced the Deity
to create the universe—whether it was an exterior motive
or one confined solely to himself. I maintain that he
Seated man. I allow that he must have found his own end
in doing it. I do not allow that he has done it regardless
of the good of his creatures: else creatures so logical
ought all to commit suicide at once. Mr. Symes defines
the Creator’s obligations to his creatures in a way which
ought to prevent most men from marrying and becoming
fathers. Because sentient creatures suffer pain and misery,
a good Being, he says—even a Being more good than evil—
would have refrained from creating them without consulting
them. The force or weakness of such an argument depends
very much upon the amount of pain and misery compared
with enjoyment, and very much upon the question whether
pain and misery are to be temporary or permanent. On
both points Mr. Symes holds a view which in my estimation
is not justified by the facts. He dwells on the struggle for
existence—which he describes as a law that each combatant
must either kill or be killed, either eat or be eaten—he
describes the strife as prevailing from the earliest geologic
ages ; and he infers that the Creator cares no more for the
welfare of his creatures than the worst of slave owners does
for his human chattels. But here, in the first place, some
illusion is produced by looking down a long vista of pain
and death. When we look along a grove the trees seem to
touch one another; yet in reality the open spaces are more
than the trees. We may, if we choose, look down that vista
of the ages and see young life and happiness, and mother’s
love and joy at every stage. Nor is it the fact that there are
no deaths but such as are violent. Nor is it the case that
violent deaths occasion much pain and misery. Follow the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
11
life of an individual bird, or dog, or human being, and
inquire whether misery or enjoyment preponderates : that is
the fair way to judge, and not by bringing all the misery of
long ages into a near focus.
And then, as to the permanence of pain, misery, evil, Mr.
Symes declares that “ evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe.” This statement he emphasises, and gives no hint
that he expects evil to work itself out. I should have
thought that, as an Agnostic and an Evolutionist, he would
have followed Herbert Spencer in this as well as in other
things; and Spencer has a chapter to show that evil must be
evanescent. By the law of evolution the human race is
progressive—the purpose of nature (the Creator’s purpose,
as I should say) is being worked out, stage after stage. It
is therefore delusive to judge the present condition of the
world as though it were intended to be final ; it is unfair to
judge the past and present without taking into account the
drift and tendency of things. In a manufactory we don’t
judge in that way of the things which are being made, and
which we chance to see “ in the rough.” If evil is evanes
cent, and the consummation of things is to be glorious, it is
not irrational to believe that present pain is like the tem
porary evil of the sculptor’s chippings, the passing irksome
ness of the school-boy’s discipline, and that “ the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the
glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.”
And here, Mr. Editor, I must break off abruptly, like
Mr. Symes, having come to the end of the space allotted.
Else I could easily double the length of this letter, without
departing from the text Mr. Symes has given me : for he
does at least say something.
LETTER III.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
The first paragraph of Mr. St. Clair’s letter requires no
remark; the second may detain us for a few minutes. The
infinity of deity, it appears, is given up. That being so,
Mr. St. Clair should have clearly defined the term god.
The sense he attaches to the word must be exceedingly
�12
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
different from that which Theists in general attach to it;,
and, as I am totally at a loss to know what his god is, I
can neither aecept nor attack his views until he favors me
with them. I shall feel obliged if in his next he will define,
as clearly as possible, “god,” “ creator,” “created,” “intel
ligent creator.” A further favor will be conferred upon me
if Mr. St. Clair will give his reasons in detail for believing
that man was created by “ an intelligent creator,” and also
his grounds for supposing that creator to possess “ perfect
goodness.” At present he merely declares his belief ; I need
his evidence.
Why does my opponent call limited power Omnipotence ?
Is it not equivalent to limited illimitability ? or finite
infinity ?
Mr. St. Clair is prepared to defend the perfect goodness
of man’s creator. But how can a finite, that is, an imperfect
being, be perfect in any respect? My former objections to
infinite goodness press with equal force against perfect good
ness, for perfect and infinite are here the same. Goodness,
perfect or imperfect, finite or infinite, must from its very
nature prevent or remove evil in the direct ratio of its power
or ability. Mr. St. Clair contends that “ limited evil for a
limited time is quite consistent with perfect goodness.” He
may as rationally contend that “limited darkness for a
limited time is consistent with perfect light.” Darkness,
however limited, is incompatible with perfect light; so evil,
though but for a day, and covering but an area of one square
inch, would prove that perfect goodness did not exist. The
illustrations used—the case of tracheotomy and the unplea
sant processes of education—are both as wide of the mark
as possible. They are not cases of perfect goodness resort
ing to temporary evil, but of imperfect goodness and limited
power choosing the less of two evils where it is impossible to
shun both.
“ The conditions of all work are similar, whether theworker be human or divine.” This may, for aught I know,
be true, for I have no notion of a divine worker. But does
Mr. St. Clair mean to say that his god is compelled to
choose between two or more evils, just as we are? If so,
what necessity urges him ? We are driven to labor by
hunger, cold, storms, and innumerable pains and diseases.
Does god, too, labor for his bread, his clothes, shelter, or
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
13
medicine? If not, how are “ the conditions of all labor
similar, whether the worker be human or divine ? ” Will
Mr. St. Clair explain ?
How does my worthy opponent know that evil is limited
as to time ? Can he assure me that any square foot of the
earth’s surface is or ever was totally free from evil ? How
does he know, or why does he assume, that any square foot
of the earth’s surface ever will be entirely free from evil ?
That many evils will diminish in process of time, through
man’s growing wisdom, I cheerfully believe. But, no
thanks to deity for that. Man is improving on god’s
work, and removing evils that ought never to have been in
it. Here the consumer has to labor and suffer and spend
all his energy rectifying the blunders of the manufacturing
deity, or making improvements he never thought of, or else
was too idle, or too weak, or too evil, to introduce.
But does any man conceive that all evil will ever be
removed ? Will the storms be hushed into eternal calm ?
the earthquake heave its final throb and cease for ever ?
the volcano spout no more its terrible agents of destruction?
disease and death prey no longer upon animals and men ?
If these are ever conquered, man must do it, for they are
god’s agents for destroying men—if god there be. Can
Mr. St. Clair name one evil his god ever removed ?
Mr. St. Clair seems to hold the eternity of matter. Is
god also eternal; and if so, how do you ascertain that ?
I am not just now much concerned to inquire whether the
creator found matter ready to his hand, or first made it; but
I contend that he who arranges matter as we find it in
Nature (not in art) is not good. The tree is known by its
fruit. Matter is so arranged as to give pain, produce
misery, and death universal! And if so arranged by an
intelligent creator, he must therefore be more evil than
good. When Mr. St. Clair speaks of the “ end desired ” in
the “ chippings and dust ” of the sculptor, I can pretty well
understand him; but does he know the aim and end of the
creator ? If not, what is the value of his illustration ?
It is of no use to say that creatures “ ought to commit
suicide,” if my contention is correct—ought not to marry,
&c. Has not the creator rendered that impossible for most
men by passion and an invincible love of life ? And is it
kind to stretch a poor wretch longer upon the rack of this
�14
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
rude world by so forbidding him to die, though his every
breath is on® of pain ? Goodness never arranged it thus.
I am not concerned with striking the balance between evil
and good; I merely contend that goodness cannot originate
evil, except unwittingly; that perfect goodness would render
all evil impossible. I do not yet see any just cause to retract
or soften a single statement in my first letter; and shall
therefore proceed now to deal with my questions as far as
space will permit.
But Does there exist an infinite god whose wisdom
exceeds his folly ? Wisdom conducts its affairs with reason,
prudence, economy, and directs its energies to the attain
ment of some definite and worthy end. Does any man
know the final cause of the universe, the latest and highest
end aimed at by the creator ? It seems only reasonable that
the Theist should know this before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to his deity.
I grant that if the “ works ” of Nature exhibited evidences
of wisdom as far as men can observe them, and no cases of
evident folly were discoverable, the Theist would have the
best of reasons for assuming that all the universe was equally
well arranged and conducted. But if the known parts of
Nature exhibit folly in its worst conceivable forms, then
the only rational view to take is that the universe at large is
a blunder, and its creator a blunderer.
It is frequently assumed that a fool is reprehensible for
his folly, and that if men are fools, it must be their own
fault. But that cannot be the case, for no man makes him
self. The creator must take all the responsibility. He who
made men made most of them fools ; therefore he must be
more foolish than wise. And man, be it remembered, is
according to Theists the most important part of the creation
hereabouts. Man, they say, is the crowning piece of his
creator’s workmanship; and all else in the solar system is
subservient to his welfare. Be it so ! But what folly to
make all this and then to people the world with fools !
Such folly cannot be excelled, even by the lowest of
intelligent creatures. And my objections to the wisdom or
“ intelligence ” of deity are equally forceful, whether god
be finite or infinite; for I contend that he is far more foolish
than wise.
The folly of the hypothetical creator, whatever his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
15
power, is seen everywhere—at least, I know of no spot free
from it. Here grow beautiful grass, and herbs, and trees ;
and human industry turns the region into a paradise, dotted
over with towns and villages. The people increase rapidly,
and their flocks, and herds, and farm produce keep pace
with them. Civilisation in all its branches rises and pro
gresses. There dawns a day when the sun shines in
splendor, the breezes gently blow, birds pour out their
melody, and man is contented and happy in some degree;
but there comes a dismal sound, and a mysterious shaking;
and ashes, and stones, and dust shower down in torrents
burying all life in a burning tomb. If an “ intelligent
creatoiiS makes men, why does he thus destroy them ? If
they need destroying, why did he make them so ? Those
creatures of his are of all ages from the youngest embryo to
the oldest man. Why destroy what is scarcely begun ?
Why begin what is to be so quickly destroyed ?
This “ intelligent creator ” produces blossoms in spring,
and then nips them by senseless frosts ; he makes the grain
to grow, and then destroys it by wet or a summer storm, or
parches it by drought; splendid crops of potatoes to flourish,
and then turns them to corruption by the fungus known as
“ the diseasethe cattle to multiply, only to die by
pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease ; a whole human
population to flourish for years, only to die by famine and
fever. And all this is the constant, every-day conduct of
man’s “ intelligent creator ! ”
I am deeply interested and anxious to see how my re
spected opponent will be able to reconcile divine “ intelli
gence ” or goodness with the phenomena of the earth.
The next question I have set down for discussion is:
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his weak
ness ? This question, to my surprise, has been answered
already by Mr. St. Clair, by implication at least; for he
informs us that, “Like John Stuart Mill, he conceives a
limit to Omnipotence.” That conception, when rendered
into plain English, can only mean that Mr. St. Clair’s god
is of merely finite power ; and as finite power can bear no
comparison with infinite power, we must conclude that Mr.
St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater weakness than
strength.
If I were contending merely with Mr. St. Clair, I could
�16
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
at once pass on to the next question; but I am attacking
Theism in its broadest sense ; and, with all due respect to
my opponent, must decline to narrow the ground to the
dimensions of his peculiar Theism, except by easy and
logical stages.
I hold the doctrine, that force or power can be measured
only by its effects. A force may produce motion in several
phases, or it may be expended in resistance, stress, etc.
But in every case the effect is exactly equivalent to the
cause. An infinite cause could result in nothing short of
infinite effect. But infinite effect does not exist; nor can
any conceivable sum of finite effects amount to one infinite
effect; therefore no infinite cause or infinite power exists.
Now Theists do not pretend to know their god except as
a cause—unless I am mistaken. But if no infinite cause
exists, their god must be finite. But that which is finite
can bear no comparison with the infinite; therefore the power
of a finite being, however great, must be immensely less
than his weakness.
I will close by asking whether it was good, or wise, or
honest for a being of such limited capital, that is, power,
etc., to undertake so great a work as the creation and
direction of the universe ? Though he may be making his
own fortune and ensuring his own pleasure, he is doing it
by the most reckless expenditure of human and animal life,
and by the infliction of unspeakable misery upon helpless
beings. A god of honor and mercy, it seems to me, must
either have stopped the machine in utter disgust, or else
have committed suicide countless ages ago.
LETTER IV.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Space did not permit me to deal with the whole of Mr.
Symes’ first letter ; and now I must let it go, because his
second letter gives me text enough for a second reply. In
this discussion I should be glad if a respectful tone can be
observed in speaking about the Deity. It cannot serve the
purpose of my opponent, nor of the Editor, that Theists who
begin to read our arguments should throw down the paper
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
17
in disgust. Mr. Symes expresses himself “ totally at a loss
-to know what my god Is.” I shall be grateffflF if he will
•oblige me by spelling the word with a capital G, because, for
one thing, my God is not the same as Mumbo Jumbo or
any little imaginary divinity worshipped by an African
tribe. Mr. Symes asks for definitions of “ god,” “ creator,”
“ created,” “intelligent creator;” but probably a dictionary
will supply his want at the present stage. In my previous
letter I told him distinctly enough what I understand the
tgrm God to mean: God is the intelligent Creator of man.
This is sufficient for our present purpose. To believe in a
.Creator of man—not a blind force, not an unguided pro
cess wjkich has resulted in his coming into existence, but in
an intcmigent being who made him—this is to be a Theist.
And since the evidence of God’s operation is to be seen in
man’s own frame, this theistic belief is rational, and the
opposite is irrational. This is what we have to argue about,
-and I should be glad if my opponent would keep to the
subject. If it could be shown that the Creator of man is
an evil Being, it might be reasonably maintained that he
ought to be called a Devil instead of a God ; and therefore
I have undertaken to rebut all attacks upon his perfect
goodness. In my last letter I repelled some objections of
this kind, and was enabled to do so successfully, because I
did not foolishly contend that the Deity possesses infinite
power, adequate to the accomplishment of all manner of
impossibilities.
Mr. Symes exclaims, “ The infinity of Deity, it appears,
is given up.” I never maintained it, and therefore I have
not given up anything. It seems to be inconvenient to my
opponent that I do not maintain it. He declines, he says,
“ to be narrowed to my Theism; he attacks Theism in its
broadest sense.” That is to say, he is confident that he
could confute other Theists, but he cannot easily confute
me. I showed him that his eight propositions about the
Infinite, mostly shoot wide of my position ; but he thinks it
well to return to them, and persists in attacking the impos
sible compound which he has set up as the God of those
who believe in God. No doubt he can do some amount of
iconoclastic work here; but what is that to me? If-he
amuses himself and your readers by wasting half the space
at his disposal, perhaps I ought not to complain ; but I am
�18
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
not bound to follow him into this region, and shall only do
so when I can spare the time. I will pursue him just a little
way now. He considers that a Theist ought to know the
final cause of the universe before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to the Deity 1 But surely I may admire the struc
ture of the eye, and perceive it to be well adapted for
seeing, without waiting to examine the heart or learn the
use of the spleen. I may study and admire the human
frame as a whole, and not feel obliged to be dumb concern
ing it because I have not begun the consideration of the
solar system. My opponent wants me to begin at the cir
cumference of the universe, because it has no boundsg and
he wishes to see me bewildered and floundering^ Yet
immediately he himself ventures to judge of the universe as
a whole, and pronounces it a blunder, and its creator a
blunderer, on the strength of some exhibitions of folly (a£
he counts them) in its known parts.
One exhibition of folly, he considers, is the creation of
fools. Repeating a statement of his former letter, he asserts
that most men are fools, and that he who created them so
must himself be more foolish than wise. My reply is that,
whatever the actual proportion of fools, ignorance comes
before knowledge, folly before wisdom, in the natural order
of things. The crude and unfashioned material must date
earlier than the wrought and finished. The educated man
is a production of a more advanced sort than the ignorant
and uncultured man ; he is the same creature in a later stage
of development. But Mr. Symes—whom nothing will satisfy
save impossibilities—demands the later before the earlier.
My opponent thinks that infinite goodness is incompatible
with the existence of the slightest evil at any time. He
imagines that infinite goodness in the creator would prevent
any evil outside of him. To my mind this is not so, unless
the creator, besides being infinitely good, is also omnipotent,
and omnipotent in a sense which enables him to overcome
physical and mathematical contradictions and accomplish
impossibilities. But, to simplify the discussion, I refrain
from contending for infinite goodness, and contend for per
fect goodness. My opponent does not see the difference,
but conceives that his former objections to infinite goodness
press with equal force against perfect goodness. He con
tinues his unconscious legerdemain with the word infinite.
�; ■ w:./ -’
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
•
w’
19
He asks, “ How can a finite, that is, an imperfect being, be
perfect in any respect ? ” Amazing! We am to suppose
there is no perfect circle conceivable unless it be infinite in
its dimensions, and that no man could be perfectly truthful,
no child perfectly innocent, no flower perfect in its beauty.
The flower must be as large as the universe, it seems, before
its beauty can be perfect. The argument against the per
fect goodness of Jesus Christ would have to run in the form
that his body and soul together were not so big in cubic
measure as all the worlds and spaces which make up the
TCT7rai/, or grtffttall! “ Goodness will prevent or remove evil
to the extent of its ability.” Yes; but since no ability
whatever can be sufficient to surmount impossibilities, limited
^evil nifty exist for a limited time, and be subservient to
greater good (like the inconvenience of scaffolding during
the building of a house). Mr. Symes uses what he supposes
to be a parallel, that limited darkness is not consistent with
perfect light. But this shows some obscurity of thought.
Darkness and light are opposites, and so are good and evil ;
but not goodness and evil. I did not say that limited evil
was consistent with perfect good, as an existing condition
of things everywhere; I said it was consistent with perfect
goodness as an element of character existing in the Deity.
With God, in the higher plane of his operations, as with
man on a lower, it may be wise and good to “ choose the
less of two evils where it is impossible to shun both.”
“ How do I know that evil is limited as to time ? ” How
does Mr. Symes know that it is not ? Let him read Herbert
Spencer’s chapter on the “ Evanescence of Evil.” Let him
ask himself what prospect there is of the eternal duration
of a thing which is continually diminishing in amount. He
admits that evils are diminishing through man’s agency,
man’s growing wisdom. So they ought some day to end.
But he declines to give God the glory. Now the Creator of
man is the author of man’s wisdom. He employs man as
his best instrument to improve the face of the earth and
weed out evils from society. To a Theist this is so, of
course; the creator of man’s body is the author of his spirit
and the guide of his course. But with curious blindness to
the Theistic position, Mr. Symes seeks to infer that man is
wiser than his maker. He reckons disease and all destructive
forces as God’s agents for evil, but does not reckon physi
�20
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cians, philanthropists and reformers as his agents for good.
He fails to see that on the theistic hypothesis the evils which
man remov^God removes.
Mr. Symes contends that “ he who arranged matter as we
find it, is not good,” because it produces pain and other evils.
He would not say this of any human operator. When I
saw him the other day at a public meeting, he complained
of neuralgia and talked of going to a dentist. I am afraid
the dentist would have to arrange matter so as to give tem
porary pain, and yet the dentist might be good and might do
good. It is not the poser which my oppontml thinks it is,
to ask me whether I equally know the end and aim of fhp
Creator. I’m not going to search for it among the infinities.
Looking at the human jaws, and the apparatus of the teeth,
in connexion with food and the digestive organs, I think I
know the aim and end of the Creator in giving us teeth. It
is that we may chew our victuals. And then their occa-wr
sionally aching is an incidental evil, which may have some
bearing on his omnipotence, but does not bear witness against
his goodness. Mr. Symes’ next paragraph is curiously con
tradictory. He considers life a torture, every breath pain,
death preferable ; but does not commit suicide because lie
has an invincible love of life !
I have agreed with Mr. J. S. Mill that physical “ con
ditions ” put some limit to omnipotence as we might other
wise conceive it. Mr. Symes pounces upon this, but does
not seize it well. He says, “ Here is an admission of finite
power, and since finite bears no comparison to infinite we
must conclude that Mr. St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater
weakness than strength.” Does this sound conclusive ? I
may correspondingly argue as follows,—My God can do
something, therefore his weakness is not utter inability, not
infinite weakness ; it is finite, and bears no comparison with
the infinite, therefore he has infinitely greater strength than
weakness. Why does not Mr. Symes give up dabbling in
this ocean of the infinite, which is too deep for both of us,
but where, if I choose to follow him, I can make quite as
great a show as he of letting down a plumb-line ? He wants
me to tell him—“ Is god eternal, and how do I ascertain
it?” What I think on the subject, I’ll tell him another
time : at present I assert that the human frame had a
creator—it is a designed machine, and machines must have
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
21
intelligent makers—and I challenge him to show that this,
my belief, is irrational.
“ Why do I call limited power omnipotence ? ” If power
to do all possible things is not to be called omnipotence we
must drop the term. I found the term in use and I used it:
but it is not essential to my argument. If Mr. Symes can
imagine the ability to do impossible things, he has powers
of imagination which transcend mine. I do not expect the
Deity to cause two and two to be five, and the whole to be
less than one of its quarters; I do not look for him to
make squares without angles, and a succession of days without
intervening nights. I believe in a Deity who can do all
¿lings not Involving contradictions. Can Mr. Symes show
that this belief of mine is irrational ? The kind of world
which my opponent demands—brand-new and straight off—
would involve impossibilities. His cry is for the moon.
He wants blossoms which never suffer from frost; he asks
for anjunbroken succession of good crops; he desires the
absence of all liability to disease in man and beast. Can
he suggest how a fleshly body, or any animal organism
could be made free from all liability to disease ? His
notion of the universe leaves no room for incidental evils,
necessary concomitants, “ partial evil, universal good ”—in
which I find the explanation of many difficulties.
I have only space to assert afresh that the human
frame is a machine, the human eye is an instrument;
machines and instruments have to be made ; the maker of
man is God; therefore Theism is true and it is rational to
believe it.
LETTER V.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
I cannot say if it was my fault or the printer’s that “God”
was spelt with a small g ; but I am not anxious to be read
by those who would throw down the paper in disgust for
such a trifle. I cannot induce Mr. St. Clair to give me a
sight of his deity, and therefore do not know what it is he
worships. It is not Mumbo Jumbo, nor yet an infinite god;
it is “ the intelligent creator of man,” he informs me. But
�22
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
no such being exists, as far as I can ascertain ; and why
should I give a capital G to a myth ? My opponent is
illogical in demanding honor for his god before he has
proved that he has one worthy of honor, especially when all
known facts are so strongly against his position. I respect
Mr. St. Clair, for I know him ; I don’t know his god ; to
give him capital letters might be construed to signify that
I both knew and honored him.
“The intelligent creator of man” is no more a description
of deity than “the tree that bears oranges” is of the orange
tree. I wish to know what the deity is; he merely speaks
of what he does. What was he before creating man ?
What is he apart from that action altogether ? I cannot
believe Mr. St. Clair knows, nor do I believe he has any
god at all. He can confute and confound me by a real
exhibition of his deity in his next letter.
My opponent rather unceremoniously sends me to “a
dictionary ” for definitions of “ God,” etc. I go. “ GOD,
n. [Sax., god; G., gott; D., god; Sw. and Dan., gud;
Goth., goth or guth.~\ 1. The Supreme Being ; Jehovah ;
the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sove
reign of the Universe,” etc. (Webster’s Improved Diet. ;
Glasgow, W. Mackenzie.) What am I to think of Mr. St.
Clair’s consistency ? In both letters he has, almost indig
nantly and with something akin to sneering, repudiated the
“ infinity ” of god ; and yet I find this attribute duly set
out in the only definition of his deity which he has as yet
condescended so much as to indicate ! I must now pi ess
him to be candid : Is the definition to which he directed me
correct? If so, why does he reject the “infinity” or
decline to “maintain” it? If this definition be incorrect,
why did he refer me to it ?
I will next deal with a few of the fallacies and mistakes
of his second letter. 1. Mr. St. Clair is mistaken in as
suming that he “ successfully repelled ” any objections of
mine to god’s goodness. The strength of my objections
lies in the well-known and horrible facts of nature, which
cannot be explained away. Goodness, finite or infinite,
removes or prevents every evil in its power. Does Mr. St.
Clair venture to assert that there is no evil now in the world
which his deity could remove if he would ? If be cannot
remove so much as one of them—say cancer or neuralgia—
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
23
why call such a weakling god ? If he can and will not,
where is his goodness ? I demand no “ impossibilities ” of
deity, unless he is extremely weak. If he is not able to do
immensely more than I require, he should retire from his
post.
2. Mr. St. Clair, in not “ maintaining ” the infinity of !
I his god, “gives it up”—in the only sense I intended. I
j have suffered no sort of “ inconvenience ” from this. Oh
i dear, no! The only inconvenience I feel in this contest '■
lies in the fact that I have nothing but shadows and tinCertainties to contend with, phantoms,
“That flit e’er you can point the place.”
Would Mr. St. Clair kindly furnish me with one or two
stubborn Theistic facts, if he has them ?
3. It is amusing to learn that I waste “ half my space ”
in demolishing the “infinite” god, the very deity my
opponent sent me to the dictionary for! I presume that
must be his own ? 4. “ Ignorance comes before knowledge,
folly before wisdom.” No doubt. And in many millions
of cases the ignorance and the folly are never superseded by
anything better. Does Mr. St. Clair hold that, “whatever
is best ” ? What point has his remark else ? A perfectly
good and wise god would have permitted no folly, nor have
left his creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be
known. I expect Mr. St. Clair to contend in his next that
folly argues the wisdom, and evil the goodness, of his deity,
while inability to remove evils is proof positive of his
omnipotence.
5. My opponent jumbles mathematics, morality, and
botany in the most edifying manner in his allusion to the
circle, the child, and the flower. Geometrical conceptions
are not “ beings;” they are abstractions. Innocence and
beauty may be perfect in a very imperfect and extremely
limited sense ; is that so with god’s goodness ? Mr. St.
Clair is extremely unfortunate in his analogies. All that
he has yet tried are failures. Or else his god is one of
very slender means. He is a surgeon performing “ tracheo
tomy,” a sculptor chipping stones into shape, a parent
“ educating ” his children, a builder employing “ scaffolds,”
etc. Before he has done, I fear he will rouse my sympathy
for this god as the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
�24
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
that ever lived. The orthodox divinity is certainly superior
to this. He never loses his power, and is self-reliant all
throughout his career. But Mr. St. Clair’s deity is so com
pletely under the control of circumstances, mostly adverse
ones, that I expect my opponent to announce next that a
memorial of condolence is to be despatched to him, and a
subscription opened to replenish his exhausted exchequer.
With the old-fashioned Christian god “ all things were
possible ; ” with Mr. St. Clair’s it seems quite the reverse.
No excuse could possibly be urged for any wrong done by
the orthodox deity ; nothing hut excuses have yet been urged
for this new one. I point out his misdeeds and show up his
criminal conduct. But Mr. St. Clair is ever ready with an
apology—“ Well, yes, but he couldn’t help it.” And this
poor thing must have a capital G-! Well, well. He needs
one!
6. Unless Mr. St. Clair knows that his god has removed
one evil, it is irrational to expect him to remove all. If
evil and good are compatible at all, and “ for a limited
time,” why not for ever ? How long must evil last to be
inconsistent with goodness ? “ Darkness and light are
opposites, so are good and evil; but not goodness and evil.”
Is that “ legerdemain ” or theology? It cannot be called
“ confusion of thought,” for thought is absent. We were
informed in Mr. St. Clair’s first that the conditions of all
labor were the same. What now does he mean by in
sinuating that man works on a “ lower plane ” than god ?
How is that assumption to be reconciled with the further
statement that god works by man ? God’s work is man’s
work, and man’s is god’s, if that be so. I shall be delighted
to be assured that all evil will be removed. But what are
its laws ?—laws of origin, progress, and decay ? Will
death and pain go ? Suppose they did go; the crime of
their introduction or creation remains.
7. God employs man to “ improve the face of the earth
and to weed out evils from society.” Assertion without
evidence. If true, what must be thought of a god that
creates evils and nourishes and perpetuates them for indefinite
periods, and ultimately uses man as his catspaw to remove
them ? How horribly they burn their fingers often in the work!
What confusion of thought and of moral perception must
possess a man who can count the author of all evil good,
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
25
and thank him for removing evils by the agency of human
suffering. What a monument that deity would have if all
the bones of his miserable agents could be collected and
reared into one stupendous pyramid—the bones of the
swarming millions who have perished horribly in removing
divine evils, of the poor blind slaves whipped on by the
crudest taskmaster that ever lived to undo the mischiefs
his folly or malice created. What can be the state of mind .
that supposes the “ physician ” who does his best to heal
sickness to be incited thereto by the author of that sick
ness—that the philanthropist who shelters, feeds, and
clothes the orphan is inspired by the being who murders the
parents ? When you “ gather grapes of thorns or figs of
thistles,” then may the author of evil incite to good deeds.
Or must we suppose the deity to be destitute of moral
qualities, and engaged in supernal legerdemain, throwing
in evils with one hand and removing them by the other, using
men as sentient and suffering marionettes in operating his
play ?
8. A dentist would have no calling if deity had not
“ scamped ” his work. If he inflict more than necessary
pain, he is considered cruel. An infinite god, such as I was
sent to the dictionary for, could have been under no
necessity to inflict any pain. Mr. St. Clair’s god seems able
enough for mischief, but almost powerless for good—a being
that needs endless apologies.
9. If my opponent’s deity renders death infinitely desirable
as a refuge from bis tyranny, and yet blocks the path to
it by inspiring an invincible love of life, wherein lies the
“ contradiction ” of my reference to it ?
10. I must leave my opponent for the present floundering
in the hopeless task of proving that his deity must be infi
nitely powerful because he can do “something.” Not I, '
but he, is the one who “ dabbles in the ocean of the infinite.”
11. Mr. St. Clair seems to hold that omnipotence is equiva
lent to the power to do all possible things. Is that new? I
never heard of its being used to signify the power to do
impossible things. I thought from his former letter that
“ omnipotence ” with him designated limited power ; it now
returns to its old condition, and in this letter signifies what
is indicated above. I wish Mr. St. Claii’ would be a little more
definite. He now “ believes in a deity who can do all things
�26
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
not involving contradictions.” Well, I have asked for no
contradictions, the very reverse. This belief of Mr. St.
Clair’s is highly irrational. You cannot possibly know how
many things could be done not involving contradictions ;
nor can you possibly know what power might be necessary
to perform them ; nor is it possible you should have any
reason for believing your deity to possess such power. If
that confession of faith is not a “ dabbling in an infinite
ocean,” what is it ? It is immensely amusing to see how
Theists and semi-Theists talk ! Their knowledge and ex
perience is about on a par with ours; yet they profess
belief in that into which, in the very nature of the case,
they can have no insight. But faith not founded on know
ledge must be irrational. Thus I show Mr. St. Clair’s creed
to be baseless and destitute of reason.
12. Perhaps my opponent will kindly show that a world
such as I desire would involve “ impossibilities,” or that a
God such as he believes in could not have made such a one ?
I do want “ blossoms that never suffer from frost; ” who
does not ? I do desire “ an unbroken succession of good
crops ; ” will Mr. St. Clair say that he does not ? Else why
is he pleased at the thought that all evil will ultimately
cease ? To judge from my opponent’s remarks, one might
suppose that it were a fault to desire good and not evil. Is
it so ? I hope it is no sign of depravity to hate evil and to
protest against evil-doers, even when they are deities. Does
Mr. St. Clair enjoy evil ? Would he not remove it all, if he
could ? He hates evil as I do ; but, like a lawyer with an
utterly indefensible client, he struggles to show a case
where there is none, and tries to defend an incongruous
rabble of half-formed and contradictory conceptions, mostly
remnants and tatters of old superstitions, loosely and unsymmetrically strung together on verbal threads, and col
lectively called God. It is pitiable to see a man of his
intellect and goodness engaged in hot conflict defending
error against truth, and palliating and excusing all evil for
the sake of the fancied author of it all.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
27
LETTER VI.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
I regret that Mr. Symes should persist in speaking con
temptuously of the Deity. The little matter of the little
g ” in the name of God, if it was the printer’s fault, he
now makes his own. He considers he is not called upon to
give a capital G to a myth. No, but until he has proved God
to be a myth, he must allow the possibility of his existence;
and he ought to speak respectfully. In this third letter he
uses language about the Deity which renders it painful for
me to continue this discussion. It is a smaller matter that
he should forget the courtesy due to an opponent, and
insinuate a want of candour, as he does by “ now pressing
me to be candid.”
The question we were to discuss is set forth thus : “ Is
Atheism or Theism the more rational ? ” As Mr. Symes is
a professed Atheist, one would expect him to advance
reasons for believing that Atheism is rational, that there is
Ho God, and that the word ought to be spelt with a small g.
But it would be a difficult task, and as yet he has not at
tempted it. He would have to explain how things came to
be as they are without any intelligence either originating,
guiding, or controlling. His position is, that the eye was
not made to see with, the teeth were not made for mastica
tion, the human frame was not made at all. Like Topsy,
he “ specks it growed !” He knows that steam-engines do
Hot grow, except under the hand and mind of intelligent
engineers, but he thinks that human bodies do. He is
aware that telescopes and opera glasses have to be fashioned,
but he imagines that that'more wonderful instrument, the
human eye, is a sort of accident. Human intelligence has
grown up out of the dust; and there is no other origin for a
mother’s love or a martyr’s self-devotion. There is intelli
gence in every workshop, and at the head of every successful
business in the world, but none presiding over the universe.
Out of the fountain head have come greater things than
ever were in it. These are a few of the things which Mr.
�28
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Symes has to defend and show to be rational. No wonder
that he defers the task !
He has not even fairly set about the alternative task of
showing Theism to be irrational. I have let him know
that I believe in an intelligent creator of man, worthy to be
called God because of the greatness of his power and the
goodness displayed in his operations. I have explained that
by “ creator ” of man I mean former of man out of pre
existing materials, and author of him as man. I have
urged that this belief of mine is rational, because the human
frame is a machine—in fact, much more, for it is a compli
cation of machines and instruments—and all machines and
instruments at all comparable to the bodily parts and organs
have required intelligence to form them. Telescopes are made,
and for a purpose; so must eyes have been: steam-engines
are made, and for a purpose, and so is the machine of the
human body. This is my rational belief. To deny these
things is to deny that similar effects require similar causes
to produce them, and is quite irrational. But instead of
showing my Theism to be irrational my opponent sets forth
a form of Theism which is irrational, and, therefore, easy to
refute, and picks out some inconsistencies in that. His
method may be summarised as follows:—“ Theism is belief
in an infinite God, a God of infinite power can do all things,
a God of infinite goodness would do all good things, but all
conceivable good things have not been done, therefore, a
God does not exist.” But this argument is fallacious : all
that follows is that either the power or the goodness of God
is less than infinite, and 1 have shown that we have no
right to credit the Deity with a power of effecting impossi
bilities. Omnipotence must be limited in that sense and to
that extent, and we must not expect to see contradictions
reconciled. God’s goodness I defend, and undertake to
show the inconclusiveness of anything which may be urged
against it. I do not contend for infinite power in the sense
of power to effect impossibilities. I do not deny almightiness if properly defined; though it is not essential to my
argument to contend for it, since something less than
almightiness may have sufficed for the creation of man.
Mr. Symes does waste ink in trying to commit me to his
absurd definition of Deity. The “infinite God” whom he
considers that he demolishes is only the image which he
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
29
himself had set up and wrongly exhibited as mine. I can
not allow it is mine any the more because he has found one
something like it in “Webster’s Dictionary.” Certainly,
when he demanded definitions, I said that a dictionary
might serve his purpose at that stage ; but I did not say it
would serve or satisfy me at all stages. Mr. Symes also
amuses me by his awkward gymnastics in the ocean of the
infinite. I followed him into the deep just to drive him out ;
so now he tries to get to shore before me, and shouts out
that it is I who am dabbling in the bottomless sea. Seeing
that I am leaving the waters, he tries to entice me back
again. He protests that he will now be reasonable. He
will confess himself confuted and confounded if I will afford
him, in my third letter, a real exhibition of my Deity!
Very likely; but I really cannot allow myself to make the
attempt. Regarding myself as only a creature, inferior to
my Creator, I do not presume to comprehend all his great
ness, so as to be able to give an exact description, or paint
an adequate portrait. I have heard of genii being induced
to go into a bottle, and I can imagine a Goliath taking a
Tom Thumb in his hand; but I for my part do not profess
to have th’s superiority over God. To define God would be
to chalk out his limits. As I decline to contend for a Deity
possessing contradictory infinities, my opponent wishes to pin
me to the equally foolish alternative of a God with no infinity
at all, a very limited marionette figure, such as I might
comprehend all round and put forth upon the stage for
Mr. Symes to laugh at. If God is not infinite in all senses,
I am to describe him ! But I do not feel shut up to any
such dilemma. God is the intelligent Being who consciously
and deliberately gave existence to man.
Mr. Symes complains that “ intelligent Creator of man ”
is no description. I have not promised a description, and
my argument does not require it. I judge that man had a
maker, as I judge that Cologne cathedral had an architect.
The architect of that cathedral is not known ; his name has
not come down to us, and no description could be given that
should distinguish him from others ; but the cathedral is
sufficient evidence that he existed. It is more rational to
believe in an architect than to disbelieve. I defend the
rationality of believing in God. I am not bound to give an
exact description of him. The question “ What was he
�30
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
before creating man ? ” I am not obliged to answer. I offer
Mr. Symes the “stubborn Theistic facts” which he asks for.
Human eyes are instruments superior to opera-glasses;
opera-glasses are designed for a purpose, and formed only
under intelligent direction; therefore nothing less than
intelligence will account for the existence of human eyes.
The human frame is a machine, including within itself
several subordinate machines of engines and levers ; repeat "
the above argument. A mother’s affection is intended for !
the good of her offspring, for the preservation of its life, for
securing the succession of generations ; and yet this affection
is not accounted for by saying it is of human origination ;
it owes its origin to the author of life, who planned the
succession of generations. These are Theistic facts, so
stubborn that no Atheist can satisfactorily dispose of them,
if I may judge from such attempts as I have seen As I
gave my opponent two out of these three facts before, he
had no ground for crying out that he has nothing but
shadows to contend with.
I define omnipotence to be the power of doing all things
not involving contradiction and impossibility. Mr. Symes
questions whether this view is new. I am not much con
cerned about that: it is the view I hold and I challenge
him to prove it irrational. He says he never heard of
“ omnipotence ” being used to signify the power to do im
possible things. If, then, my view is the only one he has
ever heard of, why does he ridicule it and allude to it as
semi-theistic? why does he say the orthodox divinity is
superior to mine ? why does he complain that I give him no
sight of the deity I worship ? But in truth my opponent
himself assumes that omnipotent goodness ought to do im
possible things—ought to give us the full-blown flower of
creation before the bud, and accomplish grand results
without processes involving incidental evil. He wishes me
to explain to him how it is that a God, such as I believe in,
cannot make such a world as is asked for. I have only to
say that no God could do it, because all operations must
have a beginning, a process and an end, and no conceivable
power, out of Hibernia, can make the end come before the
beginning. Will my opponent show me how it is to be
done ? Will he state a method by which the earth and
moon may be allowed to keep their present orbits, and light
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
o1
01
remain subject to its present laws, and yet eclipses be
rendered impossible ? Can he devise a human body that
can live and move and yet not be at all composed of flesh
subject to wounds ? Does he not see that a great and good
result may carry some minor undesirable concomitants along
with it ? Does he think he could show that any of the
evils he complains of are not of this sort ?
He seems to have great difficulty in grasping the thought
that all operations imply a process, take up time, and
involve incidental results which are not directly bargained
for. They may not be desired, yet may be foreseen and
accepted, because they lie in the path by which greater good
is to be attained. Mr. Symes says that he points out the
misdeeds and shows up the criminal conduct of God, and that
when he does so I reply, “ Yes, but he couldn’t help it.”
This is my opponent’s way of admitting that when he
charges the sufferings of mortals upon the Deity, as a Being
who could prevent them but will not, I have a reply for
him. I show that instead of limiting God’s good intent and
beneficent action, it is equally a solution of the difficulty if
we suppose a limitation of power. Then I show that limita
tions actually exist, in the ever-present conditions under
which operations are performed and ends wrought out. This
view of mine, which I reverently maintain, the language
of my opponent grossly misrepresents as equivalent to
making God “ the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
that ever lived.” It makes him and it leaves him almighty.
The alternative would have been to maintain that the power
of deity is without limits of any sort—that he can make
squares without angles, or diffuse a limited quantity of
material through a greater space without spreading it thinner.
This might have pleased Mr. Symes, who now parades
“the orthodox divinity who never loses his power, the oldfashioned Christian God with whom all things were pos
sible.” He never heard of any view of omnipotence different
from that which I maintain ; but he has heard of this oldfashioned Christian God so different from mine, and thinks
such a conception of God preferable. Naturally so, because
it is the conception which he feels able to demolish, as it is
composed of inconsistent parts.
Mr. Symes, unable to comprehend the temporary use of
scaffolding, except for human builders, inquires how long
�32
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
evil must last to be inconsistent with goodness ? Probably
as long as the good process which necessitates it as a con
comitant is still proceeding, and has not got beyond the
stage which requires it. I am surprised it should appear1
to Mr. Symes’s intelligence that the evil which is compatible
with goodness for a limited time, may as well be so for ever.
A stormy voyage may be endured because of the desirability
of migrating to a better country; but surely the storms
must be differently regarded if it is known that they are to
be perpetual and there is no port to be reached. Mr. Symes
forms his impression of the storms while he is sea-sick,
and refuses beforehand to find any compensation in reaching
the haven of rest. Suppose the storms go, he maintains
that the crime of their introduction or creation remains.”
He persists in charging all evils upon the Deity as crimes, as
though he knew enough of the ultimate issues of things to
justify him in saying there has been the least departure
from wise and good arrangements. If impossibilities could
be effected we might have the fruit before the bud, and ripe
apples before sour ones. If Mr. Symes is going to be
reasonable he must not ask for such things. He does ask
for them when he demands wisdom before ignorance and
declares that a good and wise God would not have left his
creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be known. And
he does ask for them, in my opinion, when he complains
against God on account of any evil whatever. He cannot
show that whatever is is not best, in the sense of being the
best possible at the present stage of the general progress.
As usual I leave much unsaid for want of space.
LETTER VII.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair’s third is no stronger in facts or arguments
than his two former letters. It would, however, be unkind
to grumble, as he cannot present a strong case for Theism,
for the very sufficient reason that no such case exists.
He complains of my “ language about the deity.” Well,
in that he shows himself as unreasonable, though not so
cruel, as Nebuchadnezzar when he sent the three Hebrews
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
33
to the fiery furnace for refusing to worship his image. Mr.
St. Clair thinks I should “ advance reasons for believing
Atheism to be rational.” Each of my letters has teemed
with such reasons, not one of which has been yet refuted.
Has my opponent read what I have written ? I have also
shown how irrational it is to believe in a good and omni
potent god. The facts of nature proclaim aloud that no
good god exists; and there does not exist one fact, or one
aggregation of facts, to warrant the belief that an omni
potent god lives. Therefore Mr. St. Clair’s belief is
irrational. The believers in Mumbo Jumbo, the infalli
bility of the Pope, transubstantiation, or witchcraft, are not
more irrational than a Theist. They all believe, no doubt,
sincerely enough, but without any adequate reason.
In my last I expressed the anticipation that my opponent
would in his next argue the omnipotence of his deity from
his “ inability to remove evils.” Mr. St. Clair, in the
penultimate paragraph of his third letter, obligingly fulfils
my prediction by affirming that “ a limitation of power ”
, . . “ makes and leaves god almighty.”
Mr. St. Clair takes umbrage at my request that he would
be “ candid.” The request arose from that reference to the
dictionary and its necessary connexions. I do not yet know
whether the dictionary contains a definition he approves.
It seems to me—I may be in error—but it seems to me that
candor would have set me at rest on that before now.
At length Mr. St. Clair plunges into the Design Argu
ment—the most fallacious and ill founded of all the argu
ments for divine existence.
1. Adaptation argues an adapter, and an intelligent one.
Does it? Water is as well adapted for drowning land
animals as it is for marine animals to live in. Fire is
beautifully adapted to burn men; falling stones, trees, etc.,
storms, floods, explosions, fevers, famines, wild beasts, earth
quakes, and a thousand other evils are delightfully fitted to
kill them. Old age, too, will do it equally well. It cannot
be denied that the processes of decay and destruction show
as much regularity of action and as perfect adaptation of
means to ends as the processes which result in life. Perhaps
Mr. St. Clair regards an earthquake, a cantier, or any other
destructive agency as a “ sort of accident;” he fails to see,
probably, how beautifully, cunningly, and maliciously
�34
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
they are fitted for their work of destruction and misery 1
Certain skin diseases, tic-doloreux, sciatica, cramps, the
stone—how beautifully they are all adapted to the work of
inflicting pain ! Racks, wheels, stakes, gyves, “ boots,”
thumbscrews, bastinadoes, swords, guns, etc., are all made,
and argue or imply makers ; but earthquakes, plagues, frost
and snow, floods, famines, wild beasts, fevers, small-pox,
cancer, and what not, are immensely superior as agents of
pain and death, and yet Mr. St. Clair seems to see no design
in them, and fails to recognise the existence of a perfectly
malignant god, who made them all for his own pleasure !
Can perversity of intellect proceed farther? My worthy
opponent can readily enough perceive the design and the
malice of an infernal machine, and yet fails to recognise
the design and the malice of diseases and famines! He
recognises the folly or the malice of warriors, murderers,
and tyrants who kill or torture a few; and yet cannot admit
that there must be an omnipotent god, who cunningly con
trives and maliciously sets in motion the grand and perfect
machinery of nature to destroy all living things 1 He admits
the existence of folly and malice amongst mankind, and yet
refuses to admit that far greater folly and malice “ preside
over the universe ! ”
Of course, it cannot rationally be contended that god is
infinitely foolish and malicious, though he is “ perfectly” so.
He cannot do “ impossibilities,” nor things involving “ con
tradiction.” He found matter to his hand, and had to work
under the “ same condition of labor ” that men work under ;
and so, though the universe is not absolutely and infinitely
bad, yet it is as bad as the deity could possibly make it.
And, further, we are not to argue that because some scraps
of good, or seeming good, really do exist, that therefore the
good is eternal; for “ limited good for a limited time ” may
be consistent with perfect evil, and the deity is working by
various agencies to remove all good from his universe; and
then nought but evil will remain for ever!
There is Mr. St. Clair’s argument simply reversed.
2. But I must notice in detail the very few natural pheno
mena my opponent condescends to mention. The eye he
instances as a proof of design and beneficent divine work
manship. He says it is superior to opera-glasses. The best
eyes, no doubt, are better than opera-glasses. But our best
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
35
telescopes and microscopes far transcend the eye as optical
instruments. Its qualities are coarse and rudimentary com
pared with theirs. Eyes ! They are beautiful and ugly,
of good color and of disagreeable ; there are blear eyes,
goggle eyes, squint eyes, wall eyes ; color-blindness is a
defect observed in many thousands. Millions upon millions
of eyes never see at all. Were they made to see with ?
Had a beneficent creator made eyes, he would have
ensured their good performance. Had he meant them
for human advantage, he would have turned out
respectable workmanship. I wonder he did not do that
for his own credit. What optician could follow his example ?
All over the civilised world are ophthalmic institutions,
where men are constantly engaged patching up, or actually
improving, the work of Mr. St. Clair’s divine manufacturer,
who made eyes of water, jelly and soft fibres, whereas they
should have been made of hard and tough material, so that
disarrangement and destruction were next to impossible.
And these eyes, good, bad, useless, are palmed off upon us
by the maker, whether we like them or not. He gives no
guarantee for their performance either, as a respectable
jnanufacturei’ would, nor does he ever repair them when
dace out of order. There is no sense of honesty, decency or
shame in this deity. If he bestows eyes as a duty, they
ought all to be good ; if out of charity, it is a mockery to
give a poor wretch the eyes we often see !
If the eye is a divinely-manufactured article, as Mr. St.
Clair says (without attempting to prove it), then the worker
knew less of optics than I do, or else carelessly did his
work. The eye is not achromatic, and it has too many
lenses, the many surfaces of which waste light. It has the
defect of astigmatism, which shows that its maker did not
know much of mathematical optics. This grand instru
ment, the crowning work of an almighty god, has two
odd curves in the front—that is, in the cornea.
Everyone knows that the common run of spectacles
have a longer curve horizontally than perpendicularly,
and so has the eye !
Our best lenses are ground to
mathematical correctness, and the same curve prevails all
over the same side ; but the eye is herein defective. Hence
we cannot see, at the distance of clear vision, a horizontal
and perpendicular line distinctly at once : one of them is in
�36
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
focus when the other is out. Had there been a wise and
beneficent creator, he would long since have corrected this
defect, for opticians pointed it out generations ¡fince in
their critiques upon the eye. The eye, therefore, if made at
all, must be considered as the work of a mere amateur, and
-of one who worked more for his own amusement than for
human welfare.
3. The teeth! First of all, we are born without any;
later we “cut” them in misery, convulsions, often at the
expense of life.' The teeth thus cut are not permanent,
after all; in a few years they drop out, or are pushed out
by the so-called permanent teeth. And these!—in many
cases they begin to decay in a very few years ; henceforth
the victim of this dishonest tooth-maker is subject to tooth
ache, neuralgia, and dyspepsia. He also has to go to the
expense of new teeth, stuffing, etc., if he can afford them.
And may I ask my opponent what he would think of a
dentist who furnished him with teeth that ached, and
and decayed, and tumbled out ? What would he say if any
dentist treated him half so badly as his deity treats thousands?
If eyes and teeth are really manufactured by deity, Mr. St.
Clair must refute my criticisms, or admit that his deity is a
clumsy or careless worker, and also very dishonest and cr^jel.
These facts must be met and explained before Theism can
be shown to be rational.
4. But Mr. St. Clair seems to me virtually to give up all
possible right to use the Design Argument by admitting, as
he does, the independent existence of matter. If there be a
mystery in nature, then the existence of matter is that
mystery. And, further, there must be, from the nature of the
case, as much, at least, as much, if not more, design and
adaptation in the very elements of matter as in any living
thing. And, further still, I am not aware that anyone has
yet drawn the line between living matter and non-living
matter, nor have I any reason to suppose such a line
possible. All matter is probably alive, and always was
so, and ever will be so, though in far different degrees.
I affirm, too, that the adaptation between the molecules,
or atoms, or whatever the ultimate elements of matter may
be called, must be more perfect than between the parts of a
man. No man is perfect; nor is his best organ beyond the
range of adverse criticism. No man is perfectly adapted to
�ATHEISM Oli THEISM ?
37
his environment—at best his adaptation is but a makeshift,
a “ roughing it,” a period of unstable equilibrium, a tight
rope dance for dear life, with absolute certainty in every
case of a fatal fall by way of finale.
Turning from man, look at the ocean. Its waves swell
and roar and break a million million times ; but its water
changes not. Its atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are in
perfect equilibrium, in perfect mutual adaptation. So was
it when the first water flowed ; so will it be for ever. And
could that adaptation, so perfect, so absolute, so time-defy
ing, be the result of an accident, or natural result of merely
natural forces, as Mr. St. Clair implies ? And will he con
tend that the most perfect adaptations require no adapter,
while asserting that the imperfect, evanescent, and miserable
adaptations seen in man required for their production
an almighty and intelligent god ? To do so may be
prime theology, but it is not philosophy, nor science, nor
reason.
Mr. St. Clair now admits that he cannot define deity. I
suspected as much—he has no deity to define. Then why
does he contend for what he does not understand ? Like
the woman of Samaria, he “ worships he knows not what.”
“A mother’s affection is intended for the good of her off
spring,” my opponent informs me. It is impossible that he
can know that it is “ intended” for anything; that it does
effect the good of her offspring, though not invariably, is at
once conceded. What more does Mr. St. Clair know about
it ? And what is a mother’s hate “ intended ” for ? And
this hate “ owes its origin to the author of life.” Rabbits
frequently eat their young; is that also at the instigation
of deity ? Such arguments as my opponent deals in are
not “ Theistic facts,” as he supposes; they are merely
superstitious fictions unworthy the respect of a man
like Mr. St. Clair. To talk about deity caring for a
mother’s offspring is to me simply shocking. Who is
it' kills children in millions by measles, whooping cough,
convulsions, fever, small-pox, by earthquake, flood and
famine ? If there really does exist a deity, he kills millions of
children every century by famine. Has Mr. St. Clair ever
reflected on that fact ? Why, if a mother’s love has any
“ intention ” at all, it is to defend her child as long as
possible against the murderous attacks of this very deity,
�88
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
who meets us at every turn and “ seeks to kill us ” at every
stage of life.
Will Mr. St. Clair give me one proved Theistic fact in
his next ?
LETTER VIII.
From Mr. Gr. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Robinson Crusoe was puzzled as to his whereabouts in the
great ocean, but he was able to explore his little island;
and he might have made canoe voyages and gradually
extended the area of his knowledge, though hopeless of
including all the world. Mankind, in like manner, have
mapped the solar system, and delved down to the Silurian
rocks with their fossils, and they find their knowledge real
and useful, though it brings them no nearer to the beginning
of time or the boundaries of space. Our inability to com
prehend the Infinite is not a reason for undervaluing the
things within our reach. It is foolish to say we explain
nothing, because we cannot fully understand the first origin.
Things are explained, in a degree which gives the mind
some satisfaction, when we trace them back to their causes.
The trade winds, for instance, are accounted for by the
sun’s heat and the earth’s rotation : and this explanation is
not rendered inaccurate by pointing out that the cause of
the earth’s rotation is not known, and that the sun’s heat
itself requires accounting for. I, in my Crusoe fashion,
explore, and am obliged to be content with something less
than infinite knowledge. I trace some things to man’s intel
ligent action as their cause, and am convinced that certain
steam-engines, pumps, microscopes, &c., would not have
existed but for his operation. I find other things which I
can only explain by ascribing them to an intelligence which
is not man’s. The worker is not seen, but the work is seen;
and I know there must have been an architect of the human
frame, as I know there must have been a designer of
Cologne cathedral.
The human eye would be enough evidence if I had no
other. “ Was the eye constructed without skill in optics ? ”
asks that great mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton—“ or the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
S9
ear without knowledge of sounds ? ” The argument is a
thousand-fold stronger for regarding the human frame as a
designed structure taking it as a whole ; for the eye stands
to the body only as the east window to the cathedral. The
teeth are a beautiful apparatus, surpassing human inven
tions, when we consider their growth, their enamelled pro
tective covering, their office, and their position at the
entrance of the alimentary canal, in proximity to the
tongue and the sources of saliva. The valves in the blood- vessels are so manifestly placed there with a view of securing
the circulation of the blood that Harvey inferred the Crea
tor’s intention, and so was guided to his discovery. It is a
question which all great investigators ask—“ What is the
creative intention in this arrangement ?■ ” for they find it a
clue to discovery. I must not linger over the human body:
let Atheists read Paley, Brougham, and Bell, and some of
them will give up their Atheism and take to refuting Mr.
Symes’s worn-out objections. Every creature is admirably
adapted to its mode of life and to the element in which
it lives. If we desired to give the body of a fish the best
form for moving through the water we should have to
fashion it as a solid of least resistance. “ A very difficult
chain of mathematical reasoning, by means of the highest
branches of algebra, leads to a knowledge of the curve which,
by revolving on its axis, makes a solid of this shape ....
and the curve resembles closely the face or head part of a
fish.” Let the young reader, perplexed by Mr. Symes’s
objections, read more of this in Lord Brougham’s “ Objects,
Advantages and Pleasures of Science.” The feathers of the
wings of birds are found to be placed at the best possible
angle for assisting progress by their action on the air. In
the Duke of Argyll’s “ Reign of Law ” there is a chapter
concerning the admirable mechanism of the bird’s wing. A
bird is heavier than the air in which it is sustained, and it
has to make headway against a resisting atmosphere. Man’s
poor attempts to make wings usually result in the disaster
of Imlac in Dr. Johnson’s “ Rasselas ” ; man’s attempts to
navigate the air by balloons are so poor that the Customs
Officers have no fear of being eluded. If we wish to see
how material laws can be so bent as to effect a designed
purpose we must study the problem of a bird’s flight.
Leaving birds for insects, how marvellous it is that the
�40
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cabbage butterfly should always lay its eggs on the cabbage,
the leaves of which are so suited for the nourishment of the
young grubs, and will be so much relished! That butter
fly has no taste for cabbage leaves itself, and it will not live
to see its offspring, yet its instinct—which is not of its own
creation—guides it aright. These are samples of Theistic
facts, in one department. When Mr. Symes has dealt with
them I can furnish more.
In my Crusoe fashion, I discern an intelligence at work
which is not my own, nor that of my brother man, which
immensely transcends mine and his, though, with my Crusoe
limitations, I have not the means of deciding the measure
of its greatness. I discern a worker, whether infinite or
not—a worker operating under conditions, whether the con
ditions be self-imposed or not. He accomplishes many
things which I can appreciate ; He seems to be working
out greater purposes which I do but dimly grasp.
As an evolutionist I discern something of a purpose
running through the ages, independent of the will of kings
and legislators. I perceive a gradual advance to higher
platforms of life, at present culminating in man. Man did
not come until the earth had been prepared for him, and
stores of coal and iron laid up for his use. Apparently he
could not come without lower creatures preceding him ;
because he had to be born from them. As a race, we have
had to go through our schooling, for in no other way could
we become educated; our struggle with difficulty makes
men of us, unless we neutralise it by taking the discipline
sulkily. Had the Creator been perpetually at our elbow to
do our lessons for us, to work for us while we slept, and to
help us over all stiles, we should never have attained intel
lectual manhood and moral strength. Man is progressing
still, and therefore will be a nobler creature by and bye.
His surroundings are subject to an evolution and improve
ment, which advances pari passu with himself. He himself
is the Creator’s latest-fashioned and best-adapted instru
ment for effecting these desirable adaptations, commissioned
to carry on and carry out some of the highest purposes of
God. It is a great thing to be conscious of this ; and I am
bold to say that thousands of good people are conscious of
communion with a Higher Soul, of inspirations received
from him, and of tasks assigned by him, the act omplish*
4
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
41
meut of which is another phrase for co-operation with him
and doing his will on earth.
This Divine Worker seems to be limited by “the con
ditions of all work.” rAs regards ourselves and our own
work, we candlbt conceive how we could live at all in a
dreamy, shifting, chance world, not subject to fixed con
ditions. We are finite and conditioned, and cannot realise
an utterly different kind of existence. It would follow from
this alone that anything which the Creater may do with us
or for us must be conformable to the conditions of the
world we live in if it is to be comprehensible to us. Although,
therefore, He be great beyond all assignable limits, he must
necessarily look limited to us. Where we see him operating
we see him making use of natural forces, moulding and
directing them. The natural forces in themselves are neither
moral nor immoral—steam, electricity, and strychnine have
no conscience, and are not to be blamed or praised for their
effects. They may be turned to good uses or to bad uses—
strychnine to poison or to relieve, steam to work a locomo
tive or propel a murderous bullet. We infer a worker and
his moral character from the use made of natural forces.
Mr. Symes does not distinguish between forces working
blindly and forces working under intelligent direction, but
insists on ascribing all results to God, or else none. This
is not what I discern, for I perceive that some things have
been contrived by some Intelligence, and of other things I
do not perceive it.
An enlightened evolutionist ought to know that “ Evil ”
is “ Good in the making.” It has been so in the past,
again and again. Perfect goodness is producing more and
more good constantly (evil, as Spencer shows, is evanes
cent) and may probably produce infinite good in the course
of time. But Mr. Symes is not content to have it produced,
he wants his bread before the cake is baked.
Mr. Symes finishes his last by asking “Will I give him one
proved Theistic fact?” Well, something depends upon
what is allowed to be “ proof,” and that again depends upon
whether you have to convince a man of common sense or a
man of uncommon obstinacy. If folk possess eyes it is no
guarantee that light will reach their minds, if they choose
to live in a camera obscura. My opponent closes the shutters
and then complains that things are dark. What can I do
�42
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
with a man who does not believe that eyes are given him
to see with ? On the same principle his faculties are not
given him to enable him either to reason correctly or to
understand arguments. Perhaps I ought not to be surprised
that my proofs are thrown away upon him.
1 have noticed in going through a cut-glass manufactory
that although the workmen are skilful and the processes are
ingenious by which the crude “ metal” is blown, annealed,
ground on wheels of iron for the pattern, and on wheels of
stone and wood for smoothing and polishing—I have noticed
that accidents are liable to occur at every stage, and some
few cruets, wine-glasses, decanters, etc., get broken and
thrown into the waste tub. But if I want to see what is
being produced, and was designed before it was manufac
tured, I go not to the waste-tub, but to the show-room.
Certainly even a fractured salt-cellar in the waste-tub
would show design—a formative design accidently baulked,
not a design to produce fracture and waste—but a wise man
will rather go to the show-room. Mr. Symes, I imagine,
would go to the waste-tub and refuse to see anything out
side of it. He invites us to contemplate blind eyes, rotten
teeth and people suffering from cancer. He assures us that
had a beneficent Creator made our eyes He would have
ensured their good performance. I should reply that He
does so. “ Not in all cases,” says my querulous friend,
“ why I find squinting eyes and blind eyes, and here are
ophthalmic institutions ! ” True, man’s heart of pity leads
him to heal. Man’s intelligence enables him to understand
something of optics. In both respects he is growing up in
the ways of his Heavenly Father. The modest Newton
admired the Divine skill in optics: but Mr. Symes claims
to “ know more of optics himself,” and to be able to teach
the Creator his business. The eye “ought to have been made
not of water, jelly, and soft fibres, but of hard and tough
material.” Surely Alphonso of Castile has come back again.
That monarch said that had he been of the privy council of
the Deity he could have advised the formation of the solar
system on a better plan ! Had he said this concerning the
actual solar system instead of against the false system of
Ptolemy, it would have been irreverent, not to say blasphe
mous. I count it rather inconsistent in Mr. Symes to want
any uyes at all, as he thinks they were not made to see with
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
43
and are an endlass bother. Perhaps the hard and tough one£
which he would substitute would be faulty in their re
fraction (for all work is conditioned by the material).
Can my opponent assure me that it would not be so ? Has
he got any of these eyes ready-made, and do they answer
perfectly ? or is this an empty boast of his about improving
upon the Creator’s work ? I doubt not that there is a good
reason for employing soft humors and delicate fibres in the
eye, and then I admire the care and wisdom which have
provided so well for the protection of such a delicate organ,
by the position given to it, in a bony socket defended by lids
and lashes and ramparts. “ But the eye lacks achromatism,
and has the defect of astigmatism, and follows the pattern
of inferior spectacle-glasses in having two curves in the
cornea.” Rather random assertions these : take for instance
the first. Chromatism is color-ism; a double convex lens
or magnifying glass causes objects to appear with rainbow
colored fringes. This was a defect for a long time in
telescopes, and telescopes free from the defect are called
achromatic. Well, are we troubled and inconvenienced by
seeing these colored fringes when we use the naked eye ?
Is any reader conscious of it ? Now what is the fact ? All
telescopes were defective in this particular, and Sir I.
Newton had said that there could be no remedy, until it
occurred to an ingenious optician that the difficulty must
have been overcome by the Maker of the eye. So he
examined the eye till he discovered how it was overcome,
and then by imitation of the Creator’s method invented the
first achromatic telescope. I would call my opponent’s
attention to this, but I suppose it is of no use ; he will
persist in regarding the eyes as clumsy workmanship and in
complaining that they are palmed off upon us whether we
like it or not. The traveller Vambery mentions that in
Bokhara they punish slaves by gouging out their eyes. Mr.
Symes, to be consistent, ought not to protest against the
■cruelty, since in his estimation it involves no loss, and the
Chief cruelty is in having the eyes thrust upon us. But in
answer to his astounding assertion that the eye is not
respectable workmanship and that the best telescopes far
transcend it as optical instruments, it is sufficient to say
that we can see with our eyes, unaided by telescopes, whereas
we cannot see with telescopes unaided by eyes.
�44
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
My opponent not only damns his eyes, but curses his
Jreth. First because he is born without them! On his
theory this ought to be an advantage, so far as it goes. But,
considering that other beautiful provision of the beneficent
Creator, which supplies a fountain of milk for the infant
lips to draw from, teeth are not only not required for a milk
diet, but would be inconvenient to the mother. Then Mr.
Symes cries out, “ We cut them in misery! ” He is always
afraid of a little pain. “The first set are not permanent.”
No, becau-e the child will grow, the jaws will lengthen, and
there will be room enough for larger teeth, and for thirtytwo instead of twenty. Mr. Symes, as a child, had less
jaw; which reminds me, however, of a pun made by John
Hunter, the famous surgeon. While he was once lecturing,
and pointing out that in the higher animals the jaw is
shorter, while the intelligence, of course, is greater, his
pupils were chattering nonsense to one another. “ Gentle
men,” said Hunter, “let us have more intellect and less
jaw!” I don’t know whether those young men had attained
their wisdom-teeth. Mr. Symes is annoyed that even the
second set of teeth are subject to neuralgia and decay.
This he considers a great Atheistic fact. The evil appa
ratus of the teeth is thrust upon us in the same cruel
manner as our clumsily-made eyes, and we may any day
have an attack of neuralgia. At length, however, the
teeth decay and leave us, and then what do we do ? Why,
it appears, we have to go to the expense of a new set, so
essential are they, and this is made an additional subject of
complaint! By the bye, I suppose I must not pass over the
question put—what should I say if a dentist supplied me
with teeth that ached ? I should say that he was cleverer
than any other dentist I had met with, for the aching was
proof that he had connected the teeth with nerves, and made
them live. I should say I was glad to have living teeth in.
my mouth, instead of dead ivory, and that I was satisfied
the teeth were contrived for me to eat with, while their very
occasional aching was only an unpleasant incident, and per
haps brought on by my own folly. Careful people will not
often catch cold in the face, and good, moral people will not
so devote themselves to Venus and mercury that their teeth
fall out.
Let us come to adaptations. Of course I am not going.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
45
to be pinned to any definition which makes adaptation the
same thing as design. Some adaptations may not be
designed. There’s a distinction to be drawn between mere
fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness which intends
to secure the result. But Mr. Symes as usual does not
perceive distinctions which make all the difference. He
says that water is adapted for drowning and fire for burning.
Granted: but are they purposely adapted, deliberately
designed and fitted ? This is the very essence of the question.
When the jeweller’s boy drops a watch, gravity and “ the
law of falling bodies” are adapted to smash it; but that is
an accidental adaptation, not to be compared with the
adaptation of part to part in the construction of the watch
—not to be compared with it, but rather contrasted.
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall, and the egg thus smashed
could not say that gravity was unadapted to produce the
result ; but compare this with the purposive adaptation of
an egg, as I will now epitomise it from Professor Owen’s
lecture on “ Design.” An egg is made convex and dome
like, to bear the weight of the sitting bird. It contains a
whitish spot, which is the germ, in which the development
of the chick begins. The germ is on one side of the yolk,
quite near to the shell, for it is necessary that it should be
brought as close as possible to the hot brooding skin of the
sitting hen. Now it is a fact that though you take as many
eggs as you please, and turn them about as often as you
like, you will always find this opaque white spot at the
middle of the uppermost surface of the yolk. Hunter com
pared this phasnomenon to the movements of the needle to
the pole. Of course there is an apparatus -which secures
this result; but it is an apparatus, a piece of machinery.
“ As the vital fire burns up, organic material is reduced to
carbon ; a membrane, over which the blood spreads in a
net-work of minute vessels, like a gill or lung, then extends
from the embryo to the inner side of the shell, between it
and the white; the shell is made porous to allow the air
access to this temporary respiratory organ ; and the oxygen
combining with the carbon, it exhales as carbonic acid. As
the chick approaches the period of its extrication, it is able
to breathe by its proper lungs, and in the vesica aeris, or
collection of air at the great end of the egg, it finds the
wherewithal to begin its feeble inspirations, and to utter the
�46
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Jow chirp which may be heard just before it chips the shell.
And how does it effect this ? By means of a hard knob
specially formed upon the end of the upper beak, and which,
after it has done its work, disappears.” All this appears to
me something very different from the adaptedness of the
hard ground to break the egg if it falls; but Mr. Symes
would have us believe that the adaptation is of the same
sort! His words are, “ It cannot be denied that the pro
cesses of decay and destruction show as perfect adaptation i
of means to ends as processes which result in life.”
He argues that if anything is designed, earthquakes,
plagues, cancer, etc., are designed to cause pain, and must
be regarded as proving a malignant God. But can he show
that the fitness or adaptation in these agencies is purposive ?
I can see design in an infernal machine ; oh yes ! but I am
not convinced that earthquakes are an infernal arrangement,
much less that teeth are a diabolical invention because
they sometimes ache. The adaptedness of the teeth for
mastication bears the appearance of a good purpose; the
adaptedness of an earthquake to rock down houses is
not clearly purposive at all. There are influences of
destruction and of decay, I admit; but the constructive
operations are what I see design in. If I don’t attribute
the former to God, my opponent must not object, since he
does not either.
I have a word to say which must be fatal to this idea
that the forces of decay and destruction are purposive, if
any are, and prove a malignant deity. A malignant deity
finding pleasure in destruction, would soon destroy every
thing. But, in fact, the agencies which build up are
stronger than the agencies which destroy; construction
gains upon decay, good gains upon evil. For evil is evanes
cent as Herbert Spencer shows, in a chapter which Mr.
Symes will not deal with. Even if destruction had to be
ascribed to a destroying deity, construction would have to be
ascribed to a deity engaged in building up. Then, as the
same being would hardly build up with one hand and destroy
with the other, Mr. Symes would be landed in Dualism, or
the old Persian belief in two Gods. The further fact that
construction is gaining upon decay, good gaining upon evil,
would force him to admit that the good deity was the
stronger. The way out of this difficulty is only to be found
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
47
fai Theism as I advocate it—one God, operating under con|
ditions. One proof and test of this Theism consists in the
fact that evil and decay do not carry purpose on the face of
them, while organised adaptations do.
If the reader grasps this fact he will see through my
opponent’s curious attempt to turn my argument round and
make it appear equally good for proving the existence of a
malignant deity. He suggests such a being, “ laboring
under conditions ” which prevent infinite evil from being
effected at once, but “ working by various agencies to remove
all good from his universe.” He does not seem to see
that this implies a universe of “ good ” to begin with, and
that this is another form of his irrational demand that the
finished thing should exist before the crude and unwrought,
the perfect v^ork before there has been time for its elabora
tion. He wants his cake before it is baked, before the flour
is kneaded, before the wheat is grown.
LETTER IX.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair says he “ knows ” there must have been
an “ architect of the human frame,” as he knows there
must have been “ a designer of Cologne Cathedral.” Well,
then, the human frame must be an architectural production,
or building. Of what Order, of what Style is it ? I never
saw it described in any book on Architecture : how is that ?
So baseless is my opponent’s Theism that he confounds
language in order to support it. If he will prove that
man’s frame is an architectural structure, I will prove
Cologne Cathedral to be a mushroom, of an edible sort, too.
Mr. St. Clair having no case, no real god, no facts to
support his superstition, cherishing a blind belief in an
impossibility, resorts to the unconscious legerdemain of
deceiving himself and his readers by the use of poetical and
mythical language, in which the distinction between natural
objects and human manufactures is ignored, and a potato
is dubbed a building and a building designated a turnip.
This is what the “Design argument” resolves itself into;
and under its witchery, men, not otherwise unfair or
�4 <8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
^logical, run through fantastic mazes of bewilderment,
vainly persuading themselves that they are reasoning, when
they arc only floundering in “ Serbonian bogs,” following
the Theistic will-o’-the-wisp, manifestly benighted and lost,
and yet assuring you with the utmost gravity that they and
they alone are perfectly self-possessed and well know their
whereabouts, and whither they are tending.
With Mr. St. Clair, teeth are yet a beautiful apparatus
designed and intended for mastication. Has he never
reflected that nutrition is totally independent of mastication
and teeth in countless millions of beings ? The child lives
without teeth, so does many an old man ; sheep and cows
have no front teeth in the upper jaw; the whale, the
dugong, the ornithorhynchus, ant-eaters, and all birds are
destitute of teeth. If presence of teeth argues design, what
does their absence argue ? If ^od gives a man teeth to eat
with, I presume he means him to cease eating when he
destroys them. Instead of that, my opponent and other
irreverent and disobedient Theists, either misunderstanding
or disregarding the divine intimation, rush away to the
dentist and get other teeth wherewith to obstruct the divinf
intentions ! Will he explain his conduct?
Of course, I admit that nature can in some departments
immensely exceed man, but that does not prove any exis
tence ctbopc nature. The valves of the blood-vessels are
manifestly placed there to secure the circulation of the
blood, says my opponent. He might as well affirm that a
river-bed is manifestly placed where it is to secure the flow
of the river that way. Which existed first, rivers or river
beds? Which existed first, valves or blood-circulation?
There is in the animal world abundant circulation without
valves or veins. The cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises,
&c.) have no valves in their veins; and yet, I presume,
their blood circulates as well as ours. Circulation goes on
in a speck of protoplasm where there is no structure at all.
Even in organisms, the heart may be very diverse, and yet
serve the owner as well as we are served. In frogs, toads,
&c., there is but one ventricle; in most fish there is but one
auricle and one ventricle; in the lancelet there is but a
single tube. But their blood circulates as well as ours.
Had Mr. St. Clair’s deity felt any deep concern for
human welfare, he would have placed, had it occurred to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
49
him, valves in the deep arteries, so that the poor wretcH
who ruptures one of them should not bleed to death.
I grew out of Paley, Brougham, and Bell’s theology years
ago. What naturalist or physiologist to-day shows any
respect to their crude Design argument ? Besides, Mr. St.
Clair has no right to refer to them; his god is not theirs—
theirs was almighty and infinitely wise; his a poor puny
thing for whom his single high priest is ever making
apologies.
If every creature were adapted, !< admirably ” or not, “to
the element in which it lives,” it wmuld never die. Geological
strata furnish absolute proofs that no creatures, no race of
creatures, were ever yet “ admirably adapted to their con
ditions.” Whole races have died out. Will my opponent
kindly explain ? Has he ever read of famines, coal-pit
disasters, earthquakes? What sort of a world does he live in?
Has he never passed a shambles or a cemetery ? Do the
creatures of his marvellously concocted god die of excessive
adaptation to their environments, or what ?
The fish is of just the right shape—the solid of hast
resistance fits it for its element. This looks learned and
imposing. But are all inhabitants of the water of one shape?
How is the solid of least resistance realized in the spermaceti
whale, with its big, blunt, square-fronted head ? In the
hammer-head? In the “ Portuguese man-of-war ? ” In
those slow ones that fall a prey to the swift ? Mr. St. Clair
reminds me of that venerable lady who could not sufficiently
admi re the ■wisdom of god in making rivers run down hill
and along the valleys. That, certainly, is a very strong
proof of divine existence; for rivers would run the other
way if there were no god, just as surely as fishes would be
of divers shapes, instead of being all of one pattern as they
now are, if there were not a god to make them all in his own
image.
The feathers of a bird’s wings are placed, I am informed,
at the “ best possible angle for assisting progress,” etc.
And cold is found in the best possible conditions for freezing
the early buds and blossoms and for killing men and children
exposed to it. Heat is well adapted to warming purposes.
Had there been no god, heat would probably freeze things,
and frost would roast, boil, or burn them. There is as much
design in the one case as in the other. Mr. St. Clair may
�50
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
next tell us the design in the wings of a penguin, a moa, or
an apteryx.
The cabbage butterfly deposits its eggs by instinct, says my
opponent. How does he know that sight or smell does not
guide it ? Has he consulted the insect ? What is instinct ?
And what right has Mr. St. Clair’s god to destroy my cabbages
by the disgusting caterpillars which spring from those eggs ?
Gardeners kill those caterpillars by myriads every year; but
the real destroyer of our gardens is Mr. St. Clair’s god.
Whose instinct or instigation leads the ichneumon to deposit
its eggs right in the body of a caterpillar, so that its
murderous brood should eat up their living host ? Whose
instinct guides the tapeworm to a human body ? Whose
instinct guides the locusts to lay waste a country and produce
a famine ?
My opponent says that butterflies and other objects men
tioned in his second paragraph are “ samples of theisti®'
facts.” So much the worse for deity and Theism, if true. I
had supposed, however, that Mr. St. Clair knew the differ
ence between Theology and Natural Science 1 Must I
enlighten him ? The eye and the circulation of the blood
are anatomical and physiological facts, not Theistic; birds
and fishes are subjects in zoology, and insects belong to the
sub-science of entomology. Cannibalism is as much, possibly
more, a Theistic fact as any yet named. Though if my
opponent will claim for his god the credit of creating all
noxious and destructive pests, including fleas, bugs, tape
worms, etc., I suppose an Atheist need not complain.
What my opponent says of “ discerning an intelligence
at work,” a “ worker .... whether infinite or not,” a
“ purpose running through the ages,” etc., is no doubt
borrowed from one of his discourses; and sure I am it
edified all the devout who listened to it. But discussion is
not a devotional exercise exactly, and I must beg him to
translate those liturgical scraps into plain language,
specially that about the “purpose running through the
ages.” The language is good ; I wonder if the purpose is.
I am in a fever-heat of anxiety to hear what it is my
opponent discerns, whether anyone else may get a glimpse
of it—at not too great a cost. The man that can “ discern
a purpose running through the ages ” of human history
must be either very much clearer sighted or immensely
�ATHEISM OB THEISM ?
51
more superstitious than anyone that I know. Indeed, I
must, till evidence be forthcoming, regard the boast as
nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. Is Mr. St. Clair a
clairvoyant, I wonder, or subject to second sight ?
“Man,” we are gravely told, “did not come until the earth
had been prepared for him.” Neither did the tapeworm, till
man had been prepared for him. It is worthy of note, too, that
pickpockets, forgers, swindlers, fortunetellers, inquisitors,
aristocrats, and vermin generally “ did not come till the
«
earth had been prepared for them.” And, who would credit
it ? there never was a chimney sweep till chimneys existed !
In that fact “ I discern ” a profound “ purpose ” of a two
fold nature:—1st. Chimneys were intended and designed to
be swept, and to this end divine Providence made coals
black and sooty, else sweeps would never have had any
work; 2nd. He made the sweeps in order to clear the flues
of their foulness. Mr. St. Clair may close his eyes to these
facts as long as he pleases ; they are Theistic facts—if any
and are a most remarkable proof of design and
intelligence. It was just as impossible for man to antedate
his necessary epoch, or to postpone it, as for sweeps to precede chimneys. Man’s coming was the natural and inevitable Outcome or result of all the phænomena that preceded
him io-flis own line of development. You have no better
proof that water is a natural product than that man is such.
He had nbJntelligent creator, nor was one required. Man
is a natural, not supernatural, phænomenon. His so-called
creator is Really his creation, a fancy, a bugbear, and
nothing more. It is high time for Atheists, I think, to
cease beating about the bush, and tell the Theist bluntly
that his gods are figments neither useful nor ornamental,
th® offspring of ignorance, fear, and slavery—to-day mere
grim and curious survivals of the epochs when superstition
was unchecked in its growth and sway.
Mr. St. Clair at length takes refuge in inspiration and
. infallibility. “ I am bold to say,” says he, “ that thousands
of good people are conscious of communion with a higher
soul, of inspirations received from him, and of tasks assigned
by him.” Here my opponent chooses for his comrades the
phrenzied prophets and priestesses of ancient superstitions ;
the hysterical nuns who converse with Mary at Lourdes and
where not; Johanna Southcott, Joseph Smith Edward
�52
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Irving, Brigham Young, Mother Girling, et hoc genus
omne, whose name is legion, whose “ inspirations ” and god
given “ tasks ” have been “ thick as autumnal leaves in
Vallombrosa,” and have included every absurdity and every
crime known to history. What has god not “inspired?”
What has he not imposed as a task? “I could a tale
unfold,” but space forbids.
Will my opponent name one syllable of truth or an original
idea that either he or any other person ever derived from
“inspiration” or in “communion” with this higher soul?
Ah, me! This world is very wonderful. Socrat^ had a
deemon, Prospero was served by Ariel, Faust had his Mephistopheles, and Mr. St. Clair has his “ higher soul,” spelt with
initial capitals ! This higher soul of his—I may speak
with some authority—is but himself, in dim, shadowy, and
magnified outline, a very Brocken Spectre, projected on the
soft clouds of his superstition. I once had the diswg^
badly, but recovered long since. Do not despair, good sir;
the rising sun of common-sense and healthy Atheistic
thought will soon fling his powerful beams on the very spot
where your magnified and ghostly shadow now sits, and the
mists which form the throne of your deity will rarify and
vanish along with the occupant!
But to claim inspiration is to claim infallibility. If you
are sure you have communion with some one, to discuss the
question of his existence, to ask if belief in it is rational, are
highly improper—you have settled the matter by fact, and
there is an end of it. There is no arguing with an inspired
man ; nor should he himself attempt reason, it is unneces
sary. An inspired man should merely dogmatise—as Mr.
St. Clair does. He never argues, he merely states. I under
stand him now; he is weak in logic, but invincible in
faith. Men who hold communion with higher souls rarely
argue well. The reason is obvious:—no man that can
reason well and has a good case ever thinks of rushing into
inspiration. Inspiration is the despair of logic; it is the
refuge of those who are bankrupt of reason. Mr. St. Clair
must no more grumble with the Pope and his infallibility ;
he claims it too, and for exactly the same reasons. Had
the Pope been able to prove his other claims, he would have
had no excuse for claiming infallibility and “ communion
with the higher souls.” Just so, if Mr. St. Clair had been
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
53
able to make out even a passable, lame, blind, and limping
case in this discussion, we should have heard nothing about
inspiration and “ consciousness ” of deity. Any devout
worshipper can extort just as much real inspiration from
old clouts and mouldy bones as my opponent derives from
his god. Of course there is no arguing with this new
Moses—he is up among the crags of Sinai contemplating his
god, speaking to him face to face, reflecting on his feet, or
viewing other “ parts ” of his splendid person. I hope he
will publish his inspirations when he descends.
I should not show any respect to Mr. St. Clair were I to
notice some few sentences in his letter, one close to the end
for example. No man not near his wit’s end could permit
himself deliberately to publish that about gouging out
eyes, &c.
Lastly, Mr. St. Clair has written four out of his six
betters, and yet no shadow of a Theistic fact. Assertions
—-bold enough many of them—we have had in abundance,
but no sound reasoning, no evidence of a divine existence
yet. Is he reserving his arguments and facts for his last
letter, and does he intend to overwhelm me then without
leaving me the possibility of reply? I should like to know
what his god is. Has he not yet made up his mind about
him ?
____
Postscriptum.—I have now, Friday evening, seen the
conclusion of Mr. St. Clair’s long letter. I understood
we were to confine ourselves to two columns and a-half each
letter; but here is one from my opponent of nearly five
columns. If his logic were equal to the length of his
epistles, I should soon be hors de combat, but the logic is in
the inverse ratio of the cubes of the lengths, and so I have
but little to do.
The first sentence of his supplement seems very much like
swearing. I do not “ damn eyes ” or “ curse teeth ; ” I
point out their faults and thus damn their maker, if there be
one. All I have done is to employ fair and honest criticism
respecting the manufactures of this new deity manufactured
by Mr. St. Clair. The really good things of Nature I no
more ignore nor despise than my opponent; I merely show
what sort of a god he has, if he has one. The excuses and
apologies he makes for his most unfortunate deity sufficiently
�54
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
show that Mr. St. Clair feels what I say and cannot refute
my criticisms. This is all I desire of him. He cannot deny
my facts, nor can he successfully defend his poor god upon
one single point, except by representing him as being weak
to contempt. Why contend for such a god ?
Considering how much Mr. St. Clair can write without
saying anything to the point, how long are his letters, how
weak his arguments, how many his words, how few his facts,
and how pointless even those are which he produces, it seems
to me that Hunter’s joke about the “ Jaw ” should have
been reserved for his own behoof. I have nothing at all to
do with the size of the jaw. If the deity made the jaw toe
small for its purpose, my opponent will need to make another
apology for him. I beg to ask : could Mr. St. Clair’s deity
have made the jaw and teeth so that they could grow at an
equal rate, or could he not? Could he have given every
person a good set of teeth that would do their work without
aching, or could he not ? Does he know when producing a
set of teeth that they will begin to decay almost as soon as
completed ? Does he intend them to do so ? Does he intend
them to give pain, or not ? I ask the same about the eyes.
Does this poor deity know when making a pair of blind eyes
that they will never see? Does he intend them to see, or
not? Mr. St. Clair will not answer these questions; his
false position will not allow him.
He would like a dentist who could give him an aching set
of teeth! I have long suspected him of joking, now I am
sure of it. If two of his new teeth pinched his gum, he
would return to the dentist to have them rectified. It is
only when Quixotically defending his poor god that he
pretends to despise pain. It seems to me very heartless to
speak of “ Venus and Mercury ” as he does when he must
know that many people, children for example, who devote
themselves to neither, suffer horrible pain both in connexion
with teeth and eyes—ay, every organ of the body. Is
human suffering a thing to be joked with? Evidently
“ communion with that higher soul ” whom he supposes to
have made this dreadful world, has produced its natural
effects and rendered my opponent callous to the sufferings
around him. Of course, it is only when the spirit of the
lord is upon him and he rises in wrath to do battle for his
deity that he feels no sympathy for human pain. It was
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
i
1
5S
converse with fancied deities that led to all the atrocit’js
of the middle ages. Once believe in a god that inflicts pain,
that makes people deformed, sickly, that afflicts them with
all the horrible diseases that flesh is heir to, and you make
, light of all pain but your own, out of sympathy for your
god and in acquiescence with his supposed intentions. This,
1 I fear, is my opponent’s condition. During this discussion
' he has persevered in ignoring suffering, and has spoken of
all evils as if they were flea-bites. It is, I am sure, his
irrational Theism that makes him do so.
The egg is descanted upon by my opponent. Well, did it
never occur to him that, here, as in every other case he can
mention, the creator, if such there be, must have made the
necessity for his design and adaptation before meeting that
necessity by contrivances? Young are produced in a great
variety of ways. Was it necessary that eggs should be
laid and then brooded over for weeks by the bird ? If so,
whence came that necessity? And does the deity know
whe# he is so carefully constructing an egg that it will
never be laid ? that fowl and egg will both die and rot
together? Or does he know that Mr. St. Clair will eat
g it for breakfast ? What a silly deity to manufacture such
countless millions of eggs, eggs of fishes, and eggs of fowls,
for the purpose of developing them into animals, when he
knows all the while that only a very few of them can
possibly reach their destination ! If he does not know their
destiny, he must be equally contemptible.
Mr. St. Clair tries to establish a distinction between
a mere fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness
which intends to secure the result. This is a bold flight.
He won’t be “ pinned to definitions,” but he will assume
ability to distinguish between accidents and purposed events
in Nature. I presume his “ communion with the higher
soul ” must have been exceedingly close to authorise him to
speak thus. Is he the grand vizier of his deity, or who ?
Does he suppose his god would overdo his adaptation?
The destructive forces and processes of nature are just as
much organised and arranged for the set purpose of destroy
ing as anything that can be named. To the point: Does
Mr. St. Clair argue or hold that all pain is accidental?
That death is not intended, not designed ? Will he venture
to give a direct answer to these questions ? Are the teeth
�56
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of cats, tigers, lions, etc., less evidently adapted to their
work of killing than the egg for its supposed intention ? Is
an earthquake less adapted to the destruction of life than
warmth and eggs are to produce or extend it ? Is a famine
less adapted to destroy than a harvest to sustain ? Is the
Spring more fit to produce blossoms than the frost is to nip
them ?
No; a malignant deity would not at once destroy every
thing, for two reasons : 1st. He might be too weak, as Mr. St.
Clair’s is ; 2nd. He would lose most of his horrible pleasure.
Malignancy would do just what my opponent’s god is doing,
raise up generation after generation, as long as he is able,
for the gratification of torturing and destroying them. No .
doubt, if Theism be at all rational, Dualism is the only '
logical form it can take. I am neither Monotheist nor
Duotheist: the whole belief appears to me so irrational and
absurd that I cannot think that civilised men of to-day
would be swayed by it, were their minds not perverted in
that direction in early life.
Indeed, it vastly surprises me to find a partial sceptic,
like my opponent, resuscitating the Design Argument,
which the “ Bridgewater Treatises ” so long ago elaborated
to death. I wish he would say a word or two on the tape
worm, the trichina, and other pests. It is so delightfully
amusing to me to hear a Theist expatiating on the goodness
of deity as displayed in the evils of life 1 “Evil and decay
do not carry purpose on the face of them, while organised
adaptations do.” Indeed 1 What would become of all new
organisms if the old were not cleared off by decay and
death? Beasts, birds, and fishes of prey, are not then
organised to destroy ? The wings of the hawk, the legs of
the tiger, the shape and tail of the dolphin were not
organised to enable them to destroy their prey ? The smut,
a fungus that destroys wheat, the dry rot, barnacles that
eat ships to destruction, locusts, caterpillars, phylloxera,
the empusa muscoo, a fungus that kills flies, the botrytis
bassiana, a fungus which attacks the silkworms, and reduced
the annual production of cocoons in France between the
years 1853 and 1865 from 65,000,000 to 10,000,000; thepotato disease, which caused such suffering and misery in
Ireland—these fungi are not organised, Mr. St. Clair, by im
plication, affirms! What will not Theism lead a man to say?
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
57
He quotes Professor Owen—Does he not know that Owen
and other great Naturalists can tell by the examination of
a tooth whether an unknown animal was a carnivore or a
vegetarian, etc. ? Were the teeth, muscles, viscera, etc.,
of a carnivore “purposively” adapted for killing, tearing,
, and digesting other animals, or not ? Yes, or no ? pray.
!■
My opponent must try again—I wish to encourage him.
He has not yet laid the first stone of rational Theism. No
Theistic fact has he given us yet, no argument or criticism
of mine has he upset so far. I don’t blame him. He has
undertaken an impossible work. All material, all force,
all arrangements (except those of art), all causes, all effects,
all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but a dream.
LETTER X.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes, in his postscript, again tilts at somebody who
believes in the supernatural. When I spoke of conscious
jbommunion with a Higher Soul, and inspirations received
from Him, I knew 1 was saying something the seeming
refutation of- which was easy; sol prefaced it with—“I
am bold to say.” No doubt all sorts of fanatics have
claimed inspiration. But I do not contend for the divine
ness of phrensies, nor argue for the special inspiration of the
Hebrew prophets. I hold reasonably that all new light of
knowledge and all new impulse to duty is inspiration. Tracing
effects back to causes, I come at last to One Divine Fount.
To Him I ascribe all life, all faculty in man, all insight
into truth, and all the development, improvement and refine
ment which are synonymous with progressive civilisation.
So, when I am requested to name one syllable of truth or a
single original idea derived from inspiration, I name all, for
there is not one which has had any othei’ ultimate source.
I may be referred to secondary or proximate sources, but
that would be like referring me to the printer’s types and
the compositor’s muscular exertions as an explanation of
Tennyson’s poem on “ Despair ” in the November number
of the Nineteenth Century. I am told that the Higher Soul
of which I speak is but myself projected in magnified form
�58
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
on a cloud, and there is just that modicum of truth in as
sertions of this sort which serves to lead some persons into
Atheism. Mr. Symes need not address me as though I were
ignorant of all that has been urged in the way of proving
that “ man makes God in his own image.” I believe man
has often done so, and I employ myself sometimes in destroy
ing such images. But just as there is true astronomy,
notwithstanding early and still-lingering superstitions of
astrology, so there is a true theology. I have shown that
there are evidences of purpose in nature—proofs of a Mind
at work—and there is a mind in man which reads and
understands the realised thoughts in nature and the designs
in progress. Hence it is true to say there is a God, and
that man, intellectually, is made after his likeness.
The closing paragraph of the postscript shows again how
Mr. Symes mistakes the issue. He says: “ All material,
all force, all arrangements (except those of art), all causes,
all effects, all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but
a dream.” Is this supposed to be good against me? I might
almost claim it as my own. My opponent denies the dis
tinction between the natural and the supernatural. So do I,
unless you define “ supernatural” to be the action of mind,
whether human or divine. He maintains a distinction be
tween the natural and the artificial. So do I. I perceive
for myself, and I point out to him, that all “ arrangements ”
made by man, and therefore called artificial, are effected by
the use of “ material ” and “ forces ” and “ causes ” ; so
that to judge whether they be artificial or not we have to
look for evidences of mind, purpose, design. Then I point
out that, judged in this way, the human eye is an artificial
production ; yet not a production of man’s art, and therefore
must be the work of some other Artificer. For similar
reasons, I am forced to the same conclusion regarding many
other things, and in a general way regarding the evolution
of the human race and the progress of the world,
“ I see in part
That all, as in some piece of art,
Is toil co-operant to an end.”
I don’t call these works supernatural; but seeing that they
are superhuman I reckon them as divine art. But Mr.
Symes, because it is po-sible to distinguish between divine
art and human, denies all resemblance; as though that
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
59
followed ! In his first paragraph, flippant and foolish, be
cause he does not find the human frame classed with orders
of architecture, he objects to my saying it has been built
up. He ought to have read a little book called “ The
House I live in”—a work on the human body. But he
would like, if he could, to laugh my legitimate analogies out
of court.
Paley, Brougham, and Bell—my God is not theirs. If
he means that my theology is not quite the same as theirs,
I assent, for I take into account Evolution, which they, in
their day, could not do. The arguments of Paley only
want restating in terms of the Evolution theory. The
machinery, and arrangements, and adaptations which Paley
ascribed to the Creator, some Atheists now ascribe to Evo
lution, as though Evolution were an intelligent creative
entity. Mr. Symes has been slow in launching this
boomerang, probably being little familiar with it, or know
ing it to be ineffective against Theism as I defend Theism ;
but now, for lack of better missiles he hurls it, though
timidly, as one who fears it will come back upon himself.
He disputes my argument that the valves in the blood
vessels are intended to secure the circulation of the blood,
OD the ground that a river makes its own channel. A few
zoological facts are adduced to support the inference, I
imagine, that the blood has constructed the blood-vessels
and given them a gradually increasing complication as we
advance from protoplasm through animals of low organisa
tion, up to man. This is an argument from Evolution.
So there is a gradual advance, is there? with increasing
Complication in the apparatus, and with the noble frame of
man as the result, and yet no design in any of it! Topsy
’spects it comes of itself! natural causes account for it!
Topsy does not comprehend that in divine art, as well as
in human, what is designed by the mind has to be accom
plished by the aid of ‘‘natural” instruments. All that the
eye can see is the instrument and the process; for the
existence of the originating mind has to be mentally
inferred, the guiding and governing spirit is only spiritually
discerned.
Alphonso suggests an improvement in the circulating
apparatus ; he would “ place valves in the deep arteries, so
that the poor wretch who ruptures one of them should not
�60
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
bleed to death.” It seems that valves in the blood-vessels'
might be placed there for a purpose if Alphonso were taken
into counsel! Now there are valves in the arteries, which
allow the blood to flow out from the heart, through the
system, and prevent its regurgitating. If this is the very
thing which Alphonso considers a wise arrangement, why
does he object to it when I call it wise? Or would he make
them to open the reverse way ? Then certainly the heart’s
blood would not pour through an accidental rupture, but
neither would it flow through the system at all, and there
fore we could not live. The arrangement suggested for the
arteries is that which does prevail in the veins; and there
fore there is much less danger from a ruptured vein than
from a ruptured artery. But how could you have circula
tion, if both sets of valves were adapted for sending blood
to the heart, and neither set would allow it to come away ?
Alphonso here shows himself very wise indeed. He is
again asking for contradictory arrangements; he again
fails to see that the Creator is working under conditions.
Mr. Symes, who has not a syllable to say in the way of
proving his Atheism to be rational, can only find material
for his letters by drawing out his opponent—“ Could God
make jaws and teeth in a certain way?” .“What isinstinct?” “Will I make plainer the purpose running
through the ages ? ” etc. Though aware of the trick, I will
say as much as my space allows, about Evolution. Briefly,.
Evolution explains the introduction of new species on to
this planet, in the following way. Taking some alreadyexisting species, the offspring inherit the parental likeness
with variations ; afterwards, in their individual life, they
may undergo modifications, which in turn they transmit to
their offspring. The particular varieties best suited to
external conditions, survive, and leave offspring equally
well suited, or even better suited. Variation upon variation,
in successive generations, causes the difference from the
original to become great, and the creatures are then classed
as a distinct species. In this way one species is born from
another, as truly as an individual is born of its parents.
This inheritance with modifications, is creation by birth.
If external conditions change, the modification takes a
direction which adapts the creature to them. If the crea
ture changes its habits, or migrates and comes under new
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
61
conditions, the modification takes the form of increased
growth in the organs and parts now especially called into
use, and diminished growth of the parts disused. It is no
poser for Mr. Symes to ask me the design of the wings of
the penguin, the moa and the apteryx: their wingshave
become reduced to remnants too small to fly with, because
they changed their habits, because they found a paradise
and preferred not to fly away from it. The wings of their
progenitors served their purpose well; inheritance repro
duced them as long as they were wanted; and when new
conditions or changed habits demanded the greater growth
of other organs, the forces of development were turned in
that direction. Could any self-acting arrangement be more
beautiful ? This is creation from age to age. This is part
of the method by which the purpose of the ages is being
elected. I am not contending for the supernatural instan
taneous creation of elephants with tusks full grown, but for
creation by natural means ; and here we see it going on.
Does Mr. Symes know anything at all about Evolution ?
Has he even read Darwin and Herbert Spencer? His
notion of creation seems to exclude evolution, and his
notion of evolution to exclude creation : but there are two
things he cannot do.: (1) explain any possible process of
creation without evolution, (2) explain how Evolution got
itself into geai’ without a Creator—I mean into such gear
as we find, when its machinery produces organised creatures
of higher and higher sort, culminating in man ; yes, in man,
with his marvellous frame and flesh, blood and brain, reason
and conscience, heart and hopes.
God created man; that is to say, the human race
has been born in fulfilment of the divine purpose. The
i idividual, tracing his parentage backwards, must pass
beyond “Adam” to some creature who was the common
progenitor of men and apes. Of course, man could no
more antedate his necessary epoch and come before his
time than sweeps could precede chimneys, to' use Mr.
Symes’s sooty illustration. I will grant Mr. Symes that; I
will grant him that man could not be born before his parents.
With equal readiness I assent to the proposition that, just as
with the individual infant, the human race was the necessary
result of the phenomena which preceded it in its own line of
development. That is to say, man is a product of natural
�62
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
causes, “ a natural and not a supernatural phenomenon.”
But if this is supposed to exclude a creative Mind, which
designed and fashioned man, I need only ask whether the
statue of Priestley, in Mr. Symes’s town of Birmingham, is
not at once the production of the sculptor’s design and the
inevitable result of particular movements of chisels upon a /'■
block of marble. There is no human production except by
the agency of natural causes ; there are no marks of inten
tion stamped upon such productions without a mind to give 5
them origin and authorship.
Mr. Symes, because I twitted him for crying so much
about his toothache, wrongfully represents me as being
callous to human sufferings. I think, if he had studied
Evolution, he would hardly speak of “ a God that inflicts
pain .... and afflicts people with all the horrible diseases
that flesh is heir to.” He wishes to know, “ Do I hold that
all pain is accidental ? and will I venture to give a direct
answer ? ” Of course I will. As I understand this discus
sion, Mr. Symes does hold that all pain is accidental.
Topsy ’spects that all pain comes of its own self. I, for my
part, have no hesitation in saying that the capacity to suffer
pain is deliberately designed, is manifestly for the gcod of
the individual, and a necessary factor in the evolution of
the higher animals. It may seem a paradox to say that
pain, when it occurs, is a good thing, and yet that it should
be removed as quickly as possible. Nevertheless I say it,
and can show it to be true. If you rest your hand on a
heated iron plate, it will disorganise the flesh. That is un
desirable, because it deprives you of a handy servant. The
pain which tells you that you are running this risk is no
evil, but a sentinel’s warning, a red-light danger signal, a
telegraphic intimation to use caution. We should be badly
off without the capacity for pain, while we should be want
ing in sense not to try and get rid of it by removing its
cause. Returning to “ the purpose runuing through the ,
ages,” it will be found that the animals with the most highly
developed nervous system and greatest capacity for pain
have become the higher animals in other respects, and are
classed high by the naturalist. Sensibility to pain has saved
theii’ progenitors from many dangers, has given them an
advantage in the “ struggle for existence,” and has promoted
their upward evolution in proportion to its acuteness.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
63
Mr. Symes, who, two or three letters back, thought life
not worth living, has a great objection to death. I thought
so, because when I showed that he ought logically to commit
suicide it was not agreeable to him. When he passes a
cemetery, or reflects that whole races of creatures have died
out, he is much concerned, and marvels that I can retain
my Theism. As with pain, so with death, he demands to
know, “ Do I hold that death is not intended or designed ? ”
and how about beasts of prey—“Yes or no, pray ”? This
peremptory attitude, when used on a platform, might cow a
timid man, and at all events helps to produce an impression
that he is shirking a difficulty. To shirk difficulties is not
my custom. But when Mr. Symes adduces the earthquake
as apparently designed to destroy men, I cannot accept the
instance, because I cannot see that earthquakes are pur
posely adapted to rock down cities. Having some idea of
geological facts, I believe that earthquakes were before
cities in the order of time, and men in their ignorance have
built their cities on the earthquake lines. But the tiger’s
claws and fangs I accept as being plainly designed to fit the
animal for catching and tearing prey. I have before asserted-—and my opponent cannot disprove it—that every
organ is for the good of its possessor. If any exceptions
can be brought forward, I will show that they literally
prove the rule. The tiger’s organs are for the tiger’s
advantage ; so far there is design, and even beneficence.
It is equally true, of course, that the tiger’s claws are a dis
advantage to the tiger’s prey—to the individuals which fall
victims. This has been a great difficulty to the minds of
many good people who have not ransacked nature to find
atheistic arguments. I have only space to say that the
weeding-out of inferior and ill-adapted animals, with the
survival of the fittest, who leave offspring “fit” as them
selves, is a necessary part of the machinery for the evolu
tion of the higher animals. Without this arrangement
there never would have been a race of mankind. It ill
becomes us to quarrel with the process which gave us birth.
The death of those weak individuals is for the good of the
species, and the entire arrangement adds to the sum of
animal enjoyment. Death, in the form in which it comes
to the lower animals, is generally unexpected and seldom
painful; death, as it comes to man, is no evil if it be the
�64
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
portal to higher life. But Atheists, of course, are without
hope. The moral difficulties of the “ struggle for life ” are
dealt with in a volume which may be seen in the British
Museum and in the Birmingham Free Library—a volume
called “ Darwinism and Design,” written by George St.
Clair.
LETTER XI.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair entered upon this discussion with the
ostensible object of showing that Theism is rational and
more rational than Atheism. But either he has never
seriously engaged in the work or else has wofully failed in
spite of honest and earnest effort. • What a iheos, deus, or
god is has yet to be learned—my opponent has no settled
opinions upon the subject. If he has, why does he not
straightforwardly state the proposition he intends to main
tain, and then allege only such facts and employ only such
reasoning as may tend to establish his theory ?
His Theism has evidently never been thought out ; he has
adopted it as he adopted the fashion of his coat, and has
never investigated the one or the other critically. If he has
investigated his Theism and really does understand its
nature, ramifications, and bearings, he most scrupulously
keeps it all secret, as Herodotus did much of what he was
told about the gods in Egypt—the most secret mysteries he
refused, from the most pious motives, to reveal. This is to
be regretted, especially as my opponent has so much to
reveal, if he could be induced to do it, being imbued with
plenary inspiration. Though, like most modest men, now
that I ask him to let us know what his god has told him, I
find his bashfulness so overpowers him that he cannot
summon up sufficient courage to give the world a single
syllable of what he heard or saw on Horeb or in the third
heaven. It is a pity the deity did not select a more appro
priate prophet ; but the ways of divine providence are
notoriously odd, capricious, uncertain, contradictory, and
insane.
Mr. St. Clair asks if I know anything of evolution. No
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
65
doubt that is intended to be a tit for some tat of
mine,
I may say that I understand Darwin and the
resMf the evolutionists sufficiently to know that evolution
is purely Atheistic, that nature is all-sufficient for all her
operations; that no god is wanted, needed, or desirable for
‘ any of her processes. I am obliged to Mr. St. Clair for
calling attention to his own book on the subject, though fir
the purposes of this discussion it was unnecessary ; and, if
Mr. St. Clair does not understand Darwin far better than
he does his poor deity, the book cannot be worth reading.
A man who can write five long letters on Theism without
naming one Theistic fact, or attempting a logical or rational
argument in support of his position—five letters full of
irrelevancies, side-issues, platitudes, uncertainties apologies
for deity, misrepresentation of natural facts, pompous
boasts of divine inspiration, and ability to “ discern the
purpose” of god “running through the ages,” and the dis
tinction between accidents and “purposive” events in
nature—whatever knowledge such a man may have, his
temper and disposition, his total want of ballast and critical
acumen must unfit him entirely for writing a work on
-evolution or any other philosophical subject.
If nature operates her own changes, evolution is a
beautiful theory ; but admit a god who works by means of
evolution, and the whole aspect of the subject is changed;
evolution becomes the most perfect system of red-tapism
that can be conceived. If evolution results in good, all
that good was as much needed millions of years back as
now; but red-tape decided that whole generations must
perish, that evils and abuses could not be removed, except
by an interminable and bewildering and murderous process,
complex beyond expression or thought—whereas an honest
■ and able god would have done the work out of hand and
i shown as much respect for the first of his children as for
later ones. But Mr. St. Clair’s murders generation after
J generation of his family for the sake of working out some
change, the evolution of a new organ, the gradual atrophy
or decay of old ones, the rise of a new species or the
destruction of aboriginal races.
I shall not further follow up Mr. St. Clair’s remarks.
They are not to the point, even approximately. He con
founds language and mingles art and nature, and thus
�66
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
bewilders his unwary reader instead of informing him. Long
since I should have ignored what my opponent says, only
my action would have been misunderstood. To prove
Theism rational one must prove that there is a god. This
has not been done. Then you must connect god and nature.
This has not been done; in fact, Mr. St. Clair is reduced to
the necessity of admitting that his god is weak and even a
part of nature—a big, stupid giant, most probably living in
that region to which the celebrated Jack climbed up by a
bean-stalk.
Here follow some positive evidences that there is no god
existing, except the mere idols and fictions of worshippers,
etc.—
1. No trace of one has been observed, no footstep, copro
lite, or what not. The only life of which mankind has any
knowledge is animal life and vegetable life; and it is in
conceivable that there should be any other.
2. The world was never made, nor any natural product
in it ; and therefore a maker is impossible.
3. The universe, so far as it is known, is not conducted
or governed, nor is any department of it, except those de
partments under the influence of living beings. Nature’s
processes consist in the interaction, attraction, repulsion,
union and disunion of its parts and forces, and of nothing
else.
4. All known substances and materials have definite and
unalterable quantities and attributes or qualities. Their
only changes are approximation, recession, combination, and
disunion; and all the phenomena of nature are the sole re
sults of these, one class of phenomena being no more
accidental or designed than another. Design is nowhere
found beyond the regions of animal action, and animal
action is nothing more nor anything less than the outcome
or the result, however complex, of the total forces and
materials which alternately combine and segregate in all
animals. An animal is what he is by virtue of his ante
cedents, his physical combinations and disunions, and his
environments.
All known facts lead logically to the above conclusions,
and it is naught but superstition or irrational belief that
assumes or predicates the contrary. Nor is any honest result
ever gained by assuming the existence of a god: it explains
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
67
nothing, it leads to nothing but confusion. More than that,
it is an attempt to explain nature’s mystery by creating a
still ^eater mystery, which is unphilosophical. Further
still, it is an attempt to expound nature by (1) that which
is not nature, or (2) by a natural phenomenon or set of
phenomena; for your god must be either natural, super1 natural, or artificial. Mr. St. Clair’s is not supernatural,
but natural. Very well; if it be natural, as he says, it is
an unknown phenomenon, or substance, or force ; and there
fore cannot be utilised in any way by reason. A false
philosophy or imposture may appeal to the unknown to
explain difficulties ; the whole round of religion consists of
nothing else than examples of it. But true philosophy
never attempts to explain the known by the unknown.
5. Mr. St. Clair believes in evolution, and yet holds the
dogma of a former creation. That is to play fast and loose
with reason; for why do you ascribe any power to physical
causes, if you refuse to regard them as sufficiently power
ful to originate, as well as to develope the phsenomena of
Nature ? Mr. St. Clair ascribes all the evils of life to
second causes, all its goods to deity. That is good Theology,
but the worst Philosophy. If life is physically sustained,
developed, and modified, it must be physically originated.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from Theistic pre
misses is that each event, each phenomenon, each change is
the work of a separate god, or fairy, or devil—beings of
whom nothing is known beyond the fact that everyone of
them was created by man for the express purpose of creating
and governing the world or parts of it. But the philosopher
will never think of using them in any way till their real
existence and action have been placed beyond a doubt.
6. If the world was really made, it was not intelligently
made,, for it is chiefly a scene of confusion, strife, folly,
insanity, madness, brutality, and death. No intelligent
creator could endure the sight of it after making it:—be
would put his foot on it and crush it, or else commit suicide
in disgust. In geology the world is but a heap of ruins ; in
astronomy an unfortunate planet, so placed as regards the
sun that one part roasts while another freezes.
7. Men talk of the wisdom and goodness seen in God’s
creation ! He made man, and left him naked and houseless,
ignorant of nearly all he needed to know, a mere brute. He
�68
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
showed neither goodness nor wisdom here. It is only by a
painful process “ running through the ages,” a prqgtes of
blood, murder, starvation, and the death of millions %pon
millions that our civilisation has been achieved; and what
is it even now ? A civilisation of fraud, brutality slightly
veiled, hypocrisy wholesale, superstitions the most costly
and profound, a civilisation that houses the dead better than
the living, that pauperises survivors to bestow costly tombs
upon the dead, that builds splendid temples for gods and
priests to sport in, and leaves men and women to rot physi
cally, mentally and morally, in dens !
8. But this god never interferes for human good. This
governor of men never governs. He might prevent all
crime ; he prevents none. What is the use of a god who
could not or would not prevent the murder of Lincoln, Gar
field, and thousands of others ? If he could, and was by,
he is an accessory or worse ; if he couldn’t, he has in man
a creature he cannot control, and is therefore contemptible.
9. I am aware that some Theists urge that god could not
interfere, as I suggest, without violating man’s free-agency.
Whether Mr. St. Clair holds that opinion I cannot just now
say; but all along I have aimed at a much wider Theism
than that of Mr. St. Clair, and shall therefore make a remark
or two on this subject.
(1.) All government interferes with free-agency. And no
one complains that a government should try to prevent
crime. Indeed, that is one of its main functions. And a
government that does not, to its utmost knowledge and
power, prevent crime, is a bad government. Well, the socalled divine government prevents none ; what is its use?
Not to prevent crime is to encourage its commission. This
the divine government does.
(2) The free-agency plea is silly. Every murderer, every
tyrant destroys the free-agency of his victim. Does god
respect the free-agency of the victim less than that of the
villain ? Does he scrupulously refrain from checking the
latter while he inflicts wrong and death upon the former ?
Human laws are professedly (many of them really) framed
to protect the innocent and weak, and to restrain the strong
and vicious; divine laws must have a contrary intention, if
the free-agency plea is correct.
Finally.
I am well aware that my style of treating thia
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
69
subject must be very offensive to some. But I make no
apoloev for it. I adopt it deliberately and of set purpose.
I regard Theism as immensely stupid, so much so that
serious argument is wasted upon it, just as it would be
waste labor to try to disprove transubstantiation or to
show that Laputa could not fly as Gulliver describes.
Uncompromising ridicule seems to me the best weapon
wherewith to attack this miserable fetishism of my
opponent. I have used it unsparingly and heartily, and hope
my opponent has enjoyed the discussion as much as I
have.
I close without a spark of ill-will towards Mr. St. Clair,
and beg to express the opinion that his failure is not due
to any intellectual defect in him, but to the utterly im
possible proposition he undertook to defend. It is no
disgrace to fail where success is impossible. Nor do I
claim any credit to myself—Atheism is so easy to defend
that I must have been totally excuseless to have failed in it.
LETTER XII.
Fi‘‘om Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes goes off the platform with a laugh, and tells the
audience he has won a victory ; but he must be conscious
all the time that he has not dislodged his antagonist from
his entrenchments. I have been disappointed in my op
ponent. His first letter confirmed the assurance which he
had given to me privately—that this discusssion should be
“ definite, earnest, real ”—but his last contains the con
fession that he has deliberately adopted an offensive style
and dealt in uncompromising ridicule, because he considers
that serious argument would be wasted upon so stupid a
subject as Theism.
All through this discussion I have only used half the
notes made on a first reading of Mr. Symes’s letters, and
now, in order to find room for a general summing up, I
must withhold the detailed reply which I could give to his
last. It is annoying to have to leave so many fallacies
unanswered ; but I think I have replied to most statements
which could claim to be arguments, as far as my space
allowed.
�70
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Mr. Symes opened the discussion, and ought to have
advanced some reasons for considering Atheism rational;
but he confessed at once that he had nothing positive to
urge in favor of his negative, but should confine himself to
picking holes in Theistic arguments. His letters have
abounded with peremptory questions, and every answer I
have given has afforded material to tear to pieces or snarl
at. My opponent began by asking eight questions, six of
which involved a discussion of the infinite, the infinite being
easy to juggle with. The definition of God which he pre
ferred was the vulgar definition, which involves a contradic
tion, and would therefore have given him an opportunity of
dialectical victory. He wished me to say that God is a
Being infinite in power and infinite in goodness, and he
wanted the former part of this definition to mean that the
power of Deity is adequate to accomplish things which are
in their very nature impossible. Then he would have argued
that infinite goodness would desire to free the world at once
from all evil, pain and inconvenience; that infinite power
could accomplish this ; but that it is not done, and there
fore no God exists. I refused to define Deity in the way
dictated to me, but it was all the same to my opponent—
his arguments were only good against the vulgar definition,
and so he attacked that. He set forth at large that there
was a good deal of pain and trouble in the world, which, to
his mind, must be inconsistent with the existence of an
infinite God. Of course, it is not really so unless, besides
possessing infinite goodness of nature, the Creator possesses
unlimited power, and that in a mathematical sense. Now, I
have shown that the Creator cannot possess unlimited power
in this sense, and therefore my opponent’s objection to God’s
existence on the ground that “ evils ” exist is not conclusive.
The analogy of human labor employed in building a
cathedral shows us that a fine pile may be completed in the
course of time. It leads us to compare past phases of the
world with the present, that we may discover the movement
and tendency of things, for
“We doubt not, through the ages one increasing purpose runs.”
We go as deep down into the past as Evolution will enable
us to do, and, beginning at the lowliest forms of life, we
find a gradually ascending series. At length we come to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
71
man, who, even as a savage, is superior to all that went
be£a^. But the savage, as Gerald Massey says in his
“TSe of Eternity,” is only the rough-cast clay model of the
perfect statue. The savage advances into the condition of
a barbarian, and the barbarian, in time, becomes civilised.
But God has not yet finished the work of creating man into
his own image. It is astonishing that any student of Evolu
tion, possessing two eyes, should go to the quarry and fetch
out fossils for the purpose of showing that creatures have
suffered and died, and should fail to get any glimpse of “ a
purpose running through the ages.” But this is the case
with my opponent, to whose eye Evolution “ is purely
atheistic.” He also fails to see that, on this rational view
of creation, evils may be only temporary ; nay, more, that
they are certainly diminishing, and tend to vanish altogether.
I have invited my opponent three times over to find any
flaw in the reasoning of Herbert Spencer, where he main
tains that evil is evanescent; but it would have suited him
better if he could have quoted Spencer in a contrary sense.
The Creator’s power is exerted under conditions and
limitations arising out of the mathematical relations of
space “and time. It is, therefore, not “ in fining’ in the
vulgar sense. The vulgar definition of God wants mending;
and this is about all that Mr. Symes has been able to show.
As I, for my part, never put forth the vulgar definition, he
ought not to have given us a panorama of the evils of the
world, much less have made it revolve ad nauseam. The
rational Theism which I hold is not overturned by the
temporary occurrence of evil. But, when Mr. Symes found
this out, he took to ridiculing my God as a being who is
less than infinite in the vulgar sense, and professed to find
the orthodox God immensely superior.
Besides exposing the fallacy of the chief objections
brought against the existence of a Divine Being, I have
advanced positive proofs, from the marks of design in his
works. I lay stress on the fact that organs such as the
eye, and organisms such as the body, are instruments and
machines comparable to those designed and made by man,
and which never come into existence except when contrived
by intelligence. We never see the human mind going
through the process of designing. We never see the mind
at all. We have to look for marks of design in the work.
�72
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
It is the same with regard to the Divine Spirit. Objection
is made to Design, on the ground that Evolution explains
all things without a Creator; but I have shown that this is
not the case. Mr. Symes has hunted up all the blind eyes
he can find, and the perverted instincts, which do not effect
their asserted purpose, and is daring enough to say that
eyes are not made to see with. The difficulty is fully
explained by what I have said of the analogy between
divine and human work, performed under conditions, and
with concomitants of evil. I have challenged our clever
Alphonso to show us a pair of those superior eyes which he
says he could make, but he does not do so. He had only
made an empty boast.
Connected with Design is Adaptation. Mr. ¡Etames is
irrational enough to say that if anything is designed all
things are designed, and if Adaptation is seen in anything
it is seen iu all things. He sees it as much in the accidental
smashing of an egg as in the wonderful formation of the
egg to be the ark of safety for an embryo chick. This
astounding nonsense is forced upon him by his Atheism,
and must be charged to the irrational theory rather than to
the man4 But in seeking to bolster it up, Mr. Symes made
use of one argument which might seem to possess force un
less I exposed its weakness, and I had no space to do that
in reply to his fourth letter. He said that if there be design
anywhere it must be in the elements of matter especially,
where I do not seem to see it, as I bring forward organised
structures, living things. He says all matter is probably
alive—“ probably ! ” An instance of modesty in Mr. Symes,
though immediately afterwards he becomes positive again,
and says “ I affirm.” He affirms something about invisible
atoms, namely, that there is adaptation between the atoms,
and “ an equilibrium stable, perfect, time-defying,” far
superior to the unstable adaptation of living creatures to
their surroundings. My reply must be brief. An atom is
that which has no parts. It cannot therefore have any
organs, nor be an organism, nor possess life. Out of atoms,
as out of bricks, larger things are built up, and in some of
them I discern a certain architecture which speaks of Design.
Whether the bricks themselves are a manufactured article
does not affect my conclusion. The “ adaptation between
the atoms ” which Mr. Symes discerns and affirms cannot be
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
73 ’
in their interiors, for they are without parts. If he means
an adaptation of atom to atom, as in the chemistry of water,
I ne«d not deny it, though two or three bricks in combina
tion don’t impress me like the cathedral of the human body;
and as to the “ perfect, time-defying equilibrium ” of the
atoms of oxygen and hydrogen which form water, electricity
will unsettle it at once.
Has Mr. Symes proved Atheism to be rational? He
began by declaring that “ Atheism requires no direct evi
dence,” which I must interpret to mean it has none to offer.
What he now pretends to offer in his last comes late, and is
not good. Has he disproved the rationality of Theism ?
No, not as I present Theism to him. He said, very early,
that he “ must decline to narrow the ground ” to Theism as
I preset it, and, accordingly, what he has chiefly attacked
has be$n the vulgar definition of Theism. Now the dictionary
definition may go as far as I am concerned, but God remains.
If there are some difficulties on the theory of Theism,
they are only increased when we fly to Atheism. Atheism
accounts for nothing. Pain and misery, which are so much
complained of, are just as much facts whether there be a
God or no. Atheism does nothing to explain them, to
release us from them, to help us to bear them. An en
lightened Theism shows that sensibility to pain is a gracious
provision, warning us in time to escape greater evils and
contributing to our upward evolution. Evil is accounted
for as “ good in the making” or the necessary accompani
ment of greater good, or the temporary inconvenience lying
in the path to some glorious goal. Whatever is, is the best
possible at the present stage, if only all the relations of
things were known to us. Death enters into the great
scheme, for, by the removal of the aged, room is made for
younger life, and the total amount of enjoyment is increased.
At the same time, this is no hardship to those who pass
away, for the life of the individual soul is continued here
after and carried higher. This belief brightens the whole
of life and gives a very different aspect to pain and trouble and
death, which might fairly cause perplexity if death were the
final end.
The one advantage I derive from Mr. Symes’s letters is
that they seem to show me how men become Atheists.
There are certain questions which cannot be answered, and
�74
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
they are always asking those questions. There are certain
difficulties of belief, and these they cherish in preference to
the stronger reasons for faith and hope. There is sunshine
and shadow in the world, and they prefer to dwell in the
gloom. They search out all the crudities and failures, stinks
and sores, diseases and evils which the world affords, or ever
has afforded, and look at them through a magnifying glass.
Impressed with the magnitude of the loathsome heap, and
oblivious of everything else in creation, they presume to
think they could have advised something better if the
Creator had only consulted them. Had there been a wise
Creator he surely would have done so 1 Henceforth they
shriek out that there is no God; and nevertheless, illogical
as they always are, they whimper at pain instead of bearing
it, and complain of evils as though therewere some God
who was inflicting them. They complain that life is not
worth living, and yet speak of death as though it were
maliciously desigued and the greatest evil of all. They
have got into a world which is “ a fatherless Hell, “ all
massacre, murder and wrong,” and ought logically to commit
suicide, like the couple of Secularists in Mr. Tennyson’s
“ Despair!’ But, alas ! not even death will land them in
any better place. They are
• “ Come from the brute, poor souls—no souls
—and to die with the brute 1 ”
Yet that couple cherished love for one another and pity for
all that breathe, and ought to have inferred thence that
unless a stream can rise higher than its source, there must
be much more pity and love in the Great Fount and Heart
of All Things.
�Three Hundred and. Seventy-second Thousand.
January, 1882.
. "W ORKS
SOLD BY THE
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, FAhRINGDON STREET, E.C.
Orders should be sent to the Manager, Mr. W. J. Ramsey, accompanied
with Post Office Order, payable at Ludgate Circus, or Cheque
crossed “ London anddsouth Western Bank.”
The International Library of Science and Freethought.
Volume I., “ Mind in Animals,” by Professor Ludwig Buchner.
Translated, with the author’s consent, by Annie Besant,
price 5s. Volume II., “The Student’s Darwin,” by Edward B.
Aveling, D.Sc. (Loud.), F.L.S., Fellow of University College
(Lond.), etc., price 5s. Volume III., “Jesus and the Gospels,”
and “ The Religion of Israel,” by Jules Soury, price Is.
The Freethinker’s Text-Book.—Part I. By 0. Bradlaugh.
Section I.—‘ ‘ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible
and by Science.” Section II.— “ What is Religion ? ” “ How has it
Grown ? ” “God and Soul.” Each Section complete in itself, with
copious index. Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Part II., by Annie Besant. ■—“ 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.—By Annie Besant
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—By Charles
Bradlaugh. Eighth edition. Is.
What does Christian Theism Teach P—A verbatim report of
two nights’ Public Debate between the Rev. A. J. Harrison and
C. Bradlaugh. Second edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible.—A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool between the Rev. Dr. Baylee and C.
Bradlaugh.
This is the only debate extant on the purely Socratic method. 6d.
Heresy; its Morality and Utility.—A Plea and a Justification.
By Charles Bradlaugh. 9d.
�2
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor
of the Universe.—A verbatim report of a two nights’Discussion
between Thomas Cooper and C. Bradlaugh.
6d.
When were our Gospels Written?—A Reply to Dr. Tischendorf
and the Religious Tract Society. By Charles Bradlaugh.
6d.
Has Man a Soul ?—A verbatim report of two nights’ debate at
Burnley, between the Rev. W. M. Westerby and C. Bradlaugh. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and
Faith.—-Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with
Special Replies by Charles Bradlaugh.
to fid.
New edition, reduced
Is it Reasonable to Worship God?—A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham between the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
and C. Brad laugh. Is.
National Secular Society’s Tracts.-—1. Address to Christians.
2. Who was Jesus ? 3. Secular Morality. 4. The Bible and
.Woman. 5. Secular Teachings. 6. Secular Work. 7. What is
Secularism ? 8. Who are the Secularists ? 9. Secular Responsi
bility. 11. Creed of an Atheist. 7|d, per 100, post free.
My Path to Atheism.—Collected Essays of Annie Besant.—The
Deity of Jesus—Inspiration—Atonement—Eternal Punishment—
Prayer—Revealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examined
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.
By
Annie Besant. In limp cloth, Is.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Brad
laugh and Besant.—Neatly bound in cloth, price 5s., post free.
With Portraits and Autographs of the two Defendants.
Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the judgments of
Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
The Biography of Charles Bradlaugh.—Written by Adolphe
S. Headingley. Crown 8vo., cloth, 332 pages, price 7s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Chris
tianity on the World.
Two nights’ Debate between the
Rev. A. Hatchard and Annie Besant.
Is.
PAMPHLETS BY ANNIE BESANT.
s. d.
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
Free Trade v. “Fair” Trade—No. 1, “England before the Repeal
of the Corn Laws” ; No. 2, “The History of the Anti-Corn
Law Struggle ” ; No. 3, “ Labor and Land: their burdens,
duties and rights ” ; No. 4, “ What is Really Free Trade ” ;
No. 5, “ The Landlords’ Attempt to Mislead the Land
less ”; Id. each. In neat wrapper with Appendix
... 0 6
q-
�3
s. d.
God’s Views on Marriage...
....
...
...
... 0 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the Standard
of Morality ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker, with
Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his Sociology.
Being a short and convenient resume of Positivism for the
general reader
...
...
...
...
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth Cen
tury. His Life and Works ...
...
...
...0 1
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights ... 0 2
Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hints taken from the
French Revolution ...
...
...
...
...
0 3
The Gospel of Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Is the Bible Indictable ? ...
...
...
...
... 0 2
England, India, and Afghanistan ...
...
...
... 0 9
The Story of Afghanistan...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The preceding two pamphlets bound together in limp cloth, Is.
The Law of Population : Its consequences, and its Bearing upon
Human Conduct and Morals. Fiftieth thousand...
... 0 6
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity ...
...
...
...0 1
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will, from the German of
Ludwig Buchner
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment
...
...
...
...0 1
Landlords. Tenant Farmers, and Laborers ...
...
...0 1
The God Idea in the Revolution ...
...
..
...0 1
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought
... 0 2
English Marseillaise, with Music ...
...
...
... 0 1
English Republicanism ...
...
...
...
...0 1
Christian Progress
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
The English Land System
...
...
...
...0 1
The Transvaal ...
...
...
...
...
...
Q p
Vivisection
...
...
...
...
...
...
q p
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
...
...
o 2
Or bound in cloth,
Social and Political Essays.—By Annie Besant. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate.—By Annie Besant. 2s. 6d.
PAMPHLETS BY C. BBADLAUG1I.
s. d.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand
...
... p q
Cromwell and Washington : aContrast
...
...
... q y
A Lecture delivered to large audiences throughout the United States.
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of Robert
Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner
and Ledru Rollin
...
...
...
’ q 4.
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population Question 0 2
Life of George, Prince of Wales, with Recent Contrasts and Coin
cidences
...
... ...
...
.
Q g
�Real Representation of the People...
...
...
... o 2
Toryism from 1770 to 1879
...
...
...
... 0 1
Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry
... 0 1
Why do Men Starve?
...
...
...
...
...0 1
Poverty and its effect upon thePeople
...
...
...0 1
Labor’s Prayer ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle
...
... 0 2
Plea for Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 3
Has Man a Soul ? New Edition ...
...
...
... 0 2
Is there a God ? ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 p
Who was Jesus? New Edition ...
...
...
...
0 1
What did Jesus Teach ? ...
...
...
...
...
0 1
The Twelve Apostles
...
_ ...
...
...
... 0 1
The Atonement ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of David ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
Life of Jacob ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 p
Life of Abraham
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Moses ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Jonah ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
A Few Words about the Devil. New edition
...
...
0 1
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
...
...
...
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Thirtieth thousand ...
...
...
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
...
...
0 6
Four Lectures on Anthropology. Id. each. Together in neat
wrapper ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 4
Or to be obtained in volumes.
Political Essays.—By C. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays.—By 0. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Four Debates between C. Bradlaugh and 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. Price 3s.
• Large Photograph of Mr. Bradlaugh for Framing, 2s. fid.
Large Portrait of Mrs. Besant, fit for Framing, 2s. 6d.
A splendidly executed Steel Engraving of Mrs. Besant, price 2d.
Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Cabinet size, Id. In Letts’s
protecting case, post free 2d.
Splendid Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Large size, 6d.
In Letts’s protecting case, post free 7d.
Cabinet Photographs of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant.—
By the Stereoscopic Company. 2s. each.
Also Cabinets.—By the Van der Weyde Light process, very remark
able. 2s.
Past and Present of the Heresy Laws.—By W. A. Hunter,
M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University
College, London. (The Counsel who so ably defended Mr. Edward
Truelove before the Lord Chief Justice of England, and again
before Mr, Baron Pollock). Price 3d.
�5
Natural Philosophy; or, Elementary Physics.
This subject
is the basis of all scientific work, and should be understood by
those who would study Botany, Zoology, or Biology. Especially
adapted for London University Matriculation. The only work
dealing with all the subjects required for that examination. By
Edward B. Aveling. Price 4s.
Pamphlets by Edward. B. Aveling, D.Sc., F.L.S., Fellow
of University Oollege, London.—“ The Value of this Earthly .Life,”
Is. “ Biological Discoveries and Problems,” Is. “ Science and
Secularism,” 2d. “Science and Religion,” Id. “ The Sermon on
the Mount,” Id. “ Superstition,” Id. “Creed of an Atheist,” Id.
“Wickedness of God,” Id. “ Irreligion of Science,” Id. “ Why I
dare not be a Christian,” Id. “God dies: Nature remains,” Id.
“ Plays of Shakspere,” 4d.
Wealthy and Wise. A lecture introductory to the Study of Poli
tical Economy. By J. Hiam Levy. 6d.
Pamphlets by Geo. Standring.—“Life of C. Bradlaugh,” with
portrait and autograph, 12 pages, Id. “Life of Colonel R. G.
Ingersoll,” with portrait and autograph, and extracts from his
Orations, in wrapper, Id. “Court Flunkevs: their Work and
Wages,” Id.
The Education of Girls.—By Henry R. S. Dalton, B.A., Oxen.
Second Edition. Price 6d.
Ish’s Charge to Women. By H. R. S. Dalton. 4d.
Religion and Priestcraft. By H. R. S. Dalton. 2d.
On the Connection of Christianity with Solar Worship.
By T. E. Partridge.
Is.
(Translated from Dupuis.)
Clericalism in France.—By Prince Napoleon Bonaparte (Jerome).
Translated by Annie Besant. Price fid.
The Cause of Woman.—From the Italian of Louisa To-Sko.
By
Ben W. Elmy. Price 6d.
Studies in Materialism.—By Ben. W. Elmy. Price 4d.
Lectures of Colonel Robert Ingersoll.—“ Oration on the Gods.”
Price fid.—“Oration on Thomas Paine.” Price 4d.—-“Heretics
and Heresies.” Price 4d.—“ Oration on Humboldt.” Price 2d.—
“ Arraignment of the Church.” Price 2d. These can be supplied
in one volume neatly bound in limp cloth. Price Is. 6d. Also, by
same author, “ The Ghosts.” Price 4d.—Religion of the Future.”
Price 2d.—-“Farm Life in America.” Price Id.—“Mistakes of
Moses.” Price 3d.
The Ten Commandments.—By W. P. Ball. Price Id.
Religion in Board Schools.—By W. P. Ball. 2d.
The Devil’s Pulpit, being Astronomico-Theological Dis
courses.—By the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A., of St. John’s
College, Cambridge. (Reprinted verbatim from Richard Carlile’s
original edition). In two vols., neatly bound in cloth, 8s. Or in
forty-six numbers, 2d. each. Also, by same author, “ The
Diegesis,” 3s. fid., cloth, and “The Syntagma,” Is., both dealing
with the origin and evidences of Christianity.
�6
Four Lectures on the “ Chemistry of Home,” by
Hypatia Bradlaugh.—“ Air, I.” “Air, II.,” “Water, I.,”
“ Water, II.”
Id. each, or the whole, in neat wrapper, 4d.
City Missionaries and Pious Frauds.—By W. R. Crofts. Id.
Natural Reason versus Divine Revelation.—An appeal for
Freethought. By Julian. Edited by Robert Lewins, M.D. 6d.
Pamphlets by J. Symes. — “The Methodist Conference and
+
Eternal Punishment: Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine/’3d.
“ Hospitals and Dispensaries, are they of Christian Growth ? ” new
and revised edition, Id. “Man’s Place in Nature, or Man an
Animal amongst Animals,” 4d. “ Philosophic Atheism,” 4d.
“ Christianity and Slavery,” 2d. “ Christianity at the Bar of
Science,” 3d, “Debate on Atheism with Mr. St. Clair,” Is.
Robert Cooper’s Holy Scriptures Analysed, with Sketch of
his Life. By C. Bradlaugh. 6d.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.—With New Introduction. By
Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
New Theory of Poverty.—By H. Aula. Id.
Liberty and Morality. By M. D. Conway. 3d.
Shelley’s Works, reprinted from the original MSS.—The Poet of
Atheism and Democracy.—In four handsome volumes, each com
plete in itself. Vol. .1, Early Poems. Volume 2, Later Poems.
Vol. 3, Posthumous Poems. Vol. 4, Prose Writings. 2s. each.
Pamphlets by C. R. Drysdale, M.D.—“ The Population Ques
tion,” Is. “ Tobacco, and the Diseases it Produces,” 2d. “Alcohol,”
6d.
The History of Clerkenwell. By the late W. J. Pinks, with
additions and Notes by the Editor, Edward J. Wood, complete in
one vol., fully gilt, 800 pp., 15s.
Paine’s Theological Works; including the “Age of Reason,”
and all his Miscellaneous Pieces and Poetical Works ; his last Will
and Testament, and a Steel Portrait. Cloth. 3s.
The Age of Reason. By Thomas Paine. Complete, with Pre
face by C. Bradlaugh. A new edition, the best ever issued,
printed in large type on good paper, Is.; cloth gilt, Is, 6d.
Paine’s Rights of Man. A Reply to Burke on the French Revo
lution. Is.
The Immortality of the Soul Philosophically Considered.
Seven Lectures by Robert Cooper.
Voltaire’s
Philosophical
Is.
Dictionary.
The edition in six,
re-printed in two thick volumes. Two portraits and a memoir. 8s.
Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the
temporal Happiness of Mankind. By Philip Beauchamp (a
pseudonvm adopted by G. Grote, the historian of Greece). Pp.
123. Is.
Shelley’s Song to the Men of England. Set to Music for
four voices. By Herr Trousselle. 2d.
A Manual of Political Questions of the Day, with the
arguments on either side. By Sydney Buxton. 130 pp. 6d.
�7
Fine Large Portrait of John Bright, for framing, size 23| by
17|.
Is.
P. 3d.
The City of Dreadful Night, and other Poems.
Thomson (“ B. V.”)
By James
Cloth 5s.
Pamphlets by G. W. Foote.—“ Secularism the True Philo
sophy of Life,” 4d. “ Futility of Prayer,” 2d. . “ Atheism and
Morality,” 2d. “Death’s Test, or Christian Lies about Dying
Infidels,” 2d. Bible Romances, Id. each : “ Noah’s Flood,” “ Cre
ation Story,” “Eve and the Apple,” “The Bible Devil,”
“Jonah and the Whale,” “The Ten Plagues,” “ The Wandering
Jews,” “ The Tower of Babel,” “Balaam’s Ass,” “ God’s Thieves
in Canaan,” “Cain and Abel,” “Lot’s Wife.” Or the 12, in colored
wrapper, Is.
Fine Steel Engravings of William Ewart Gladstone and
John Bright. 3d. each ; the two sent post free for 6d.
The Life of Jesus. By Ernest Renan. Authorised English
Translation. Crown 8vo, pp. xii.—312, cloth, 2s. fid.; stitched in
wrapper. Is. fid.
The Crisis in Farming; its Radical Causes and then only
Remedies. Twenty-two evils arising from Landlord, thirteen from
Tenant. By the Author of “ Hints to Landlords and Tenants.” 6d.
The First Seven Alleged Persecutions, A.D. 64 to A.D. 235.
By Thos. L’Estrange. fid.
The Eucharist. By the same Author. 6d.
These two pamphlets are highly recommended as able contri
butions to Freethought enquiry.
Chrestos : a Religious Epithet; Its Import and Influence.
By J. B. Mitchell, M.D., Mem. Soc. Bib. Arch.
Is.
Volney’s Ruins of Empires, with Plates of the Ancient Zodiac,
etc., carefully reprinted from the best edition, cloth, lettered, 2s.
The Three Trials of William Hone, for Publishing Three
Parodies ; viz., The late John Wilkes’s Catechism, The Political
Litany, and The Sinecurists’ Creed; on three ex-offleio infor
mations, at Guildhall, London, during three successive days—
December 18tli, 19th, and 20th, 1817—-before three special juries,
and Mr. Justice Abbot, on the first day, and Lord Chief Justice
Ellenborough, on the last two days. 2s.
The House of Lords. How it grew—Fifty years ago—Blueblooded Legislators—Broad-acre Legislators—Professional Legis-'
lators—Against Parliamentary Reform—Against Municipal Reform
—Against Religious Liberty—Against Social Reforms—Its Deal
ings with Ireland—-Its Foreign Policy—Concluding Remarks. By
H. R. Fox Bourne. (Reprinted from the “Weekly Dispatch.”)
80 pp. 3d.
Land Law Reform, and its relation to Work, Wages,
and Population. 2d.
The True Principle of Population, Trade Profits, &c.,
and the Land Laws. By T. R, 2d.
�8
The True Source of Christianity; or, a Voice from the
Ganges. By an Indian Officer. Originally published at 5s.
This work is now republished verbatim, in paper covers, Is. ;
cloth gilt, Is. 6d.
The Roll Call: a Political Record of the years 1775 to
1880. Commencing with the great wars of the last century, and
brought down to the close of 1880, with full Index. In paper
covers, 78 pp., 6d.
Under which Lord? By the author of “Joshua Davidson.”
Originally published in 3 vols. at £1 11s. 6d., now issued complete
in 1 vol., cloth gilt, 2s. 6d.
The Rev. Joseph Cook: A Critical Examination. By Professor
Fiske. Id.
The Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lords. By Pro
fessor Blackie. 2d.
Religion in the Heavens ; or, Mythology Unveiled. In
a Series of Lectures. By Logan Mitchell. Uniform with
International Series. Cloth, gilt, 5s.
LIST B.
Special List of Remainders, in cloth, new and uncut—All
the books in List B are at the lowest price, and no reduction can
be made to the trade, the object being to supply readers of the
National Reformer with literature at specially low rates.
Orders must be accompanied by cost of Postage, which is inserted
after the letter P. Where no postage is mentioned, the books go by
Sutton at cost of purchaser, and 2d. in addition to price must be
sent for booking.
Eminent Radicals in and out of Parliament. By J. Morri
son Davidson, Barrister-at-law. Being sketches of W. E. Glad
stone, John Bright, P. A. Taylor, Sir C. Dilke, J. Cowen, Sir W.
Lawson, H. Fawcett, J. Chamberlain, T. Burt, H. Richards, L. H.
Courtney, A. J. Mundella, John Morley, Robert William Dale,
Joseph Arch. Edward Spencer Beesly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
Charles Bradlaugh, Frederic Augustus Maxse, James Beal, Mon
cure Daniel Conway, James Allanson Picton, The Hon. Auberon
Herbert, Edward Augustus Freeman. Demy 8vo., 262 pp. Pub
lished at 10s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 7d.
The Outcast. — By Winwood Reade.
Handsomely bound,
pp. 262., Is. 6d. P. 3jd.
Ancient Mysteries described, by William Hone. With En
gravings on Copper and Wood. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
The Apocryphal New Testament, bein? all the Gospels,
Epistles, &c., attributed to Christ, his Apostles, and their com
panions in the first four centuries of the Christian Era. By
W. Hone. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Three Essays on Philosophical Subjects — The Infinite;
Arabic Peripateticism; Sir W. Hamilton and J. S. Mill. Crown
8vo, 290 pp., Is. P. 3|d.
�17
Modern Protestantism: a few words on Essays and Reviews. By
G. J. Holyoake. Published at 6d. Post free l|d.
Thomas Cooper’s Celebrated Eight Letters to the Young Men
of the Working Classes. Post free 3d.
Horatio Prater’s Letters to the American People on Christianity
and the Sabbath. (Published by G. J. Holyoake, Fleet Street.)
P. 2^-d. Paper covers 6d. P. 2d.
By Victor Hugo and Garibaldi. 16 pp.,
stitched, Id. P. |d.
The National Inheritance : an Exhaustive Treatise on the Land
Question. By James Walker. 16 pp., demy 8vo, stitched, Id.
Cloth, new, 8d.
Political Poems.
P. ^-d.
Address to Socialists on the Rational System of Society, and
the measures required for the successful operation of the Universal
Community Society. By Robert Owen. Free 1^-d.
“Notre Dame!” A Freethinker’s address to the Hierarchy of
the Church of Rome. By R. H. Dalton, author of “ Education of
Girls,” etc. (Published at Is.) Post free, IJd.
Vol. 1 of “ Health. ’ A Monthly Magazine, edited by G. Drewry,
M.D. Containing the whole issues for 1878, full of interesting
articles on food, dress, diseases, sanitary matters, &c., &c. (Pub. lished at 2s.) Cloth, new, 6d. P. 4d.
Lord Byron’s “Vision of Judgment.” 24 pp., stitched, in wrapper,
free 2d.
An Essay on the Functions of the Brain. In paper wrapper, Id.
P. |d.
The complete Works of Shakspere, with a Memoir. By
Alexander Chalmers. Handsomely bound, richly gilt covers,
708 pp., Diprose’s diamond edition, Is. 6d. P. 5d. Very suitable
for presentation.
Russian and Turk from a Geographical, Ethnological, and His
torical point of view. By R. G. Latham, M.A., M.D. Royal 8vo
435 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Inquiry into the Theories of History, with special refer
ence, to the principles of the Positive Philosophy. By W. Adam.
Dealing with the philosophy of Comte with great care and critical
ability. This work was favorably noticed by J. S. Mill. Demv
8vo, 441 pp., 3s. P. 7d.
Brief Biographies of German Political Leaders, including
Bismarck, Arnim, Camphausen, Lasker, Jacoby, Sonneman, Gueist,
Virchow, etc., etc., in all nineteen principal men in the country.
Crown 8vo, 264 pp., 2s. P. 4d.
Political Pamphlets by Thomas Paine—“ Decline and Fall of
the English System.of Finance;” “Public Good;” “Letters to
the Citizens of America ; ” “ Agrarian Justice opposed to A gra.rian
Law and Agrarian Monopoly, with a plan for creating a National
Fund ; “ Dissertations on the First Principles of Government ”
The five free for 6d.
�18
Pamphlets by R. D. Owen—“A Lecture on Consistency;”
“ Situations—Lawyers, Clergy, Physicians, Men and Women ; ”
" Darby and Susan: a Tale of Old England; ” “ Wealth and
Misery; “ Is eurology : an Account of some Experiments in
Cerebral Physiology; ” “ Sermon on Free Enquiry,” etc. Id. each.
P. |d. Or the whole freQ for 6d.
Letter to the Abbe Raynal, in correction of his Account of the
Revolution in America. By Thomas Paine, with correspondence
between the writer and George Washington. 54 pp., stitched in
wrapper (published at 6d.), free 3d.
Address delivered by Robert Owen on the Opening of the
Institution for the Formation of Character at New Lanark, on
January 1st, 1816, being the first public announcement of ’the
discovery of the Infant School System. Demy 8vo, 32 pp., stitched
in wrapper, free 2d.
An Enquiry into the Nature of Responsibility, as deduced
from Savage Justice, Civil Justice, and Social Justice ; with some
Remarks upon the Doctrine of Irresponsibility as taught by Jesus
Christ and Robert Owen ; also upon the Responsibility of Man to
God. By T. Simmons Macintosh, author of “ The Electrical
Theory of the Universe.” 124 pp., 6d. P. l|d.
The Life and Writings of Joseph Priestley.
Id.
Paper covers,
Personal Narrative of Travels in Eastern Lands, principally
Turkish, in 1833, in a Series of Letters, 67 in all. By Professor F. W.
Newman. The letters are full of most interesting matter concern
ing Eastern Social and Political Life. Crown 8vo, paper covers
120 pages of close print, 6d. P. lj-d.
1
’
Household Words.—Conducted by Charles Dickens.
Strongly
bound. Each volume, 2s.; published at 5s. 6d.
Vol. 9 contains the whole of the essays on Turkey and Greece,
by G. A. SaXa, under the title “ A Roving Englishman,” written
at the close of the Crimean War.
Vol. 14 contains the story of “ The Wreck of the Golden Mary,”
also the famous papers by G. A. Sala, “ A Journey due North,”
and “A Journey to Russia.”
Pamphlets by G. J. Holyoake.—“ Working-class Representa
tion and its Conditions and Consequences ; ” “ Outlaws of Freethought ; ” “ The Limits of Atheism ; or, Why Should Sceptics be
Outlaws ; ” “ The Social Means of Promoting Temperance,” with
remarks on errors in its advocacy; “ A New Defence of the Ballot; ”
“ Life and Last Days of Robert Owen, of New Lanark ; ” “ The
Suppressed Lecture at Cheltenham; ” “ Public Lessons of the
Hangman.” The lot, post free, 8d.
Indian Infanticide : its Origin, Progress and Suppression.
Con
taining a large amount of information respecting the Social Life of
the Hindus. 250 pp., Is. 6d. P. 4d.
�19
The
Scriptural Religions, Histories and Prophecies
Analysed and Examined. By J. W. Willcock, Q.C. A
searching and critical exposure of the Biblical Narratives and
Myths. Vol. I. (all that has been issued), demy 8vo, 526 pp.,
3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Credibility of the Gospel Narratives of the Birth and
Infancy of Christ, with an Introduction on the Acts of the
Apostles. A critical analysis of the contradictions of the Gosiel
Writers. 91 pp. (published at Is. 6d. by Thomas Scott), 6d.
P. Id.
Biographies of John Wilkes and William Cobbett, with
steel engravings. By the Rev. J. S. Watson, M.A. Good inuex,
410 pp., 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Historical Studies and Recreations. By Shosiiee Chunder
Dutt (J. A. G. Barton), author of “ Bengaliana,” etc. Containing
the World’s History retold, in two parts : the Ancient World and
the Modern World. Also Bengal, an account of the Country from
the earliest times, the Great Wars of India, the Ruins of the Old
World, read as Milestones of Civilisation. 2 vols, 8vo, cloth, new,
uncut. Vol. I. pp. 470; vol. II. pp. 600. (Published at 32s.)
os. 6d.
Phraseological Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis.
By Theodore Preston, M.A.
Illustrating the remarkable
peculiarities and anomalies of matter, style, and phrase in the
Book of Genesis, with references to Rashi, Aben Ezre. Gesenius
etc., etc. Crown 8vo, pp. 290, 2s. P. 4^d.
’
THE GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.—Bayard Taylor’s Diver
sions of the Echo Club—The Book of Clerical Anecdotes—Byron’s
Don Juan—Emerson’s Letters and Social Aims—Godwin’s (William)
Lives of the Necromancers—Holmes's Professor at the Breakfast
Table—Hood’s Whims and Oddities, complete, with all the original
illustrations—Irving’s (Washington) Tales of a Traveller—Irving’s
(Washington) Tales of the Alhambra—Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes
and Occupations of Country Life—Leigh Hunt’s Essays, with
portrait and introduction by Edmund Ollier—Mallory’s Sir Thos.
Mort d’Arthur, the Stories of King Arthur and of the Knights of
tlie Round Table; edited by B. Montgomery Ranking—Pascal’s
Provincial Letters ; a new translation, with historical introduction
and notes by T. M’Orie, D.D., LL.D.—Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works Kocflefoucald s Maxims and Moral Reflections, ■with, notes
and introductory essay by Sainte-Beuve—St. Pierre’s Paul and
Virginia, and the Indian Cottage; edited, with Life, by the Rev.
E. Clarke Lamb s Essays of Elia; both series complete in one
volume. Handsomely bound. Reduced to Is. each. If sent bv
Post 3d. each extra.
J
Essays— Scientific, Political, and Speculative. (Second
series.) By Herbert Spencer. (Published at 12s.) Demv 8vo
362 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 6d. A rare opportunity.
’
’
Matter and Motion. By N. A. Nicholson, M.A., Trinity Colleo'e
. Oxford. 48 pp., demy 8vo, 3d. P. Id.
S >
�The Year Book of Facts for 1880.
Containing the principal ;
discoveries in Geology, Dynamics, Geography, etc., with the Speech
of the President at the British Association Congress of that year,
with Index. 210 pp., 7d. P. 3|d.
The Classification of the Sciences ; to which are added Reasons
for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte. By Herbert
Spencer. 48 pp., demy 8vo, colored wrapper, Is. P. Id.
The Eternal Gospel; or, the Idea of Christian Perfectibility. By
N. W. Mackay, M.A. (Published at 2s. by Thomas Scott.) In
two Parts, 200 pp. in all, 6d. P. 2d.
Practical Remarks on State Vaccination, addressed to the
Smallpox and Vaccination Committee of the Epidemiological
Society. By Edward J. Hughes, M.D., Medical Officer to the
Holywell Union. 32 pp., demy 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Crimea and Transcaucasia; being the narrative of a
journey in the Kouban, in Gouria, Georgia, Armenia, Ossety,
Imeritia, Swannety, and Mingrelia, and in the Tauric Range. By
Commander J. P. Telfer, R.N. With two fine Maps and nume
rous Illustrations ; two vols. in one, splendidly bound in cloth, gilt
edges, royal 8vo, 600 pp. (Published at £1 16s.) A handsome
presentation book, 5s.
An Essay on Classification. By Louis Agassiz. 8vo. Pp. vii.
and 381. Cloth. (Published at 12s.) Reduced to 3s. P. 6d.
Light, and its Influence on Life and Health. By Dr.
Forbes Winslow. 301 pp. Is. P. 4d.
Human Longevity; and the amount of life upon the globe.—By P
Flourens, Professor of Comparative Physiology, Paris. Trans
lated by Charles Martel. Boards, Is. P. 2Jd.
The Meteoric Theory of Saturn’s Bings, considered with
reference to the Solar Motion in Space. With illustrations. Paper
wrapper, crown 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Human Mind. A System of Mental Philosophy. By J. G.
Murphy, LL.D. Cloth, crown 8vo, 350 pp., 2s. P. ad.
The Modern Practice of Physic, exhibiting the symptoms,
causes, prognostics, morbid appearances and treatment of the
diseases of all climates. By R. Thomas, M.D. Eleventh edition,
revised by A. Frampton, Physician London Hospital. In 2 vols.,
royal 8vo, 564 pp. and 756 pp. This work contains a great
number of recipes and prescriptions for all kinds of diseases, each
given in both Latin and English. With a copious index and table
of contents. 6s.
The Finding of the Book. An essay on the origin of the Dogma
of Infallibility. By John Robertson. This is the important
work which provoked the famous heresy’ prosecution. Published
at 2s. Post free Is.
Facts and Figures for Working Men. An analysis of the
Drink Question in relation to commerce, foreign competition,
our food supply, strikes, the death rate, and prosperity of the
country, etc. By Frederick Leary. Id.
�The Irish Problem and how to solve it.
An historical and
critical review of the legislation and events that have led to Irish
difficulties, including suggestions for practical remedies. Cloth,
demy 8vo, 410 pp. This work is only just issued, and brings the
History of the Irish Question up to the present time, and contains
in addition to Compensation for Disturbance Bill, several Acts
of Parliament, including the Coercion Bill of the present year.
2s. P. 9d.
The Rights and Duties of Property. With a plan for paying
off the National Debt, dealing with the Science of Political
Economy, the Land Question, etc., etc. Clotb, gilt lettered, 260
pp. 6d. P. 3d.
Satan: His existence disproved, and the notions of Battles in
Heaven and of Fallen Angels shown to have originated in Astro
nomical Phsenomena. Id. P. ¿d.
Science Lectures for the People. By Professors Huxley,
Tyndall, Duncan, Williamson, Huggins, Roscoe and others.
In all 55 lectures, in 3 vols., gilt cloth, 4s. 6d.
Intervention and Non-Intervention on the Foreign Policy
of Great Britain, from 1790 to 1865. By A. G. Stapleton.
Demy 8vo, 300 pp. 2s. P. 6d.
Reply to Bishop Watson’s attack on the “ Age of
Reason.” By Thomas Paine. Id. P. |d.
Splendid Steel Portraits of Lord Brougham, John Bright and
Richard Cobden. 24 by 18 Is. each; or the three for 2s. 6d.
The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in Contrast with the
Moral Sense of our Age. Published at 6s. 6d. in parts. By the
late Thomas Scott. In 1 vol. complete. 2s. P. 5d.
Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. A Religious and
Philosophical Survey of the Immediate Past. By Etienne
Ohastel, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of
Geneva. Translated by J. Beard. Cloth, crown 8vo, 236 pp.,
Is. P. 3£d.
The History of Christianity. By E. N. Bouzique. Translated
by J. Beard. In three vols., nearly 400 pp. in each, crown 8vo,
cloth. 5s.
EDUCATIONAL.
From List B.
Elementary Chemistry.
P. 3|d.
By Rev. H. Martyn Hart, B.A.
A Compendium of English History.
Is.
From the Earliest Times
to a.d. 1872. With copious quotations on leading events and Con
stitutional History, with Appendices. By Herbert R. Clinton.
358 pp. Published at 7s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 5d.
First Book of English Grammar. By John Hugh Hawley.
Third edition, . Cloth, 3d. P. Id.
�22
Geography Classified.
A systematic manual of Mathematical,
Physical and Political Geography. With Geographical, Etymo
logical and Historical Notes. By Edwin Adams, F.R.G.S. Pp.
357. (Published at 7s. 6d.) Is. 6d. P. 4d.
Latin Grammar. By L. Direy. Pp. 179. Neatly bound. (Pub
lished at 4s.) 6d. P. 2d.
English. Grammar. By L. Direy and A. Foggo. Pp. 136.
(Published at 3s.) 6d. P. 2^-d.
The Life of Cicero. By Conyers Middleton, D.D. Complete
in one volume, with copious index and steel frontispiece. Demy
8vo, 760 pp. 2s. 6d. P. 9£d. Very cheap.
Facts and Figures, Important Events in History, Geography,
Literature, Biography, Ecclesiastical History, etc., etc. Arranged
in classified chronological order. Post free, 6d.
Elements of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical, including the
most recent discoveries and applications of the science to medicine
and pharmacy, to agriculture, and to manufacture. Illustrated
by 230 woodcuts, with copious index. Second edition. By Sir
Robert Kane, M.D., M.R.I.A., President of Queen’s College, Cork.
Cloth, royal 8vo, 1069 pp. Price, 3s. 6d.
Parker’s Compendium of Natural and Experimental
Philosophy Mechanics, Hydrostatics, Acoustics, Astro
nomy, etc., etc. Post 8vo, profusely illustrated, 400 pp. Is. 6d.
P. 3|d.
The Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology.
By the late Professor J. F. W. Johnston and C. A. Cameron,
Prof. Chemistry, R.C.S., etc., etc. Post 8vo., 500 pp., tenth
edition. 2s. P. 4|d.
Elements of Astronomy, for Academies and High Schools. By
Elias Loomis, LL.D. Well illustrated, crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. P. 4d.
Crabbe’s Technical Dictionary of all the Terms used in the Arts
and Sciences. Post 8vo, 600 pp., 2s. P. 5d.
The Child’s Ladder of Knowledge. By G. J. Holyoake.
Illustrated (published at 8d.), post free 4d.
Works by the celebrated Sir Benjamin Brodie.
Physiological Researches. Dealing with the Influence of the
Brain on the Action of the Heart and the Generation of Animal
Heat. Observations and experiments on the modes in which death
is produced by vegetable poisons, &c., &c. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 146 pp.
(Published at 5s.) Is. P. 3d.
The Diseases of the Urinary Organs, with Treatment and
Modes of Cure. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 12s.) 2s
P. 7d.
Pathological and Surgical Observations on the Diseases of
the Joints, Inflammation of the Synovial Membrane, Ulceration of
ditto, Morbid Alteration of Structure, Cancellous Structure of
Bones, &c., &c. Cloth, royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 10s. 6d.)
2s. P. 6d.
�
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
Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Saint Clair, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 74 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list, dated January 1882, on pages at the end numbered [1]-8 and 17-22, i.e. p.9-16 are missing. 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
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1777
N631
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Theism
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 (Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair), 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
Atheism
NSS
Theism
-
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/6d5c0422bcccd53769bf72d3ccd7444a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DhX8XBgq1l3oR9qx3U%7EngPtWjWSAgRr0EURtMyh9RYin2vhHyj5cHIa1ZwMg4FwZnS36HC3m5w190XsTcJUwREJmBKTqegnuVVpRDf5IWPOFvMWLPnRSNWRxlACuPd0dlJ9y9vCvqd%7EYgcTVnC07oNTJrHZYg6TpPFfkUVv5KzyGmcdk9Iygywl-xgyH7oDKF7YSdr9t7eUVuzoGjPknOBZxP-jpH3S0H7Og2vbry8Pwyjjyu%7E7cr0hDIhgJwGfOaSfmZ5KEflPWePxQYd9y2fiYrAE5L5VcCKlfUkMFZirRKwmv6UE3Rl3JCZkHON3tPy8XtddKQngdjANuCnUkbw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5a68a2a8850ef52a42fc40975892d4e9
PDF Text
Text
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION;
OR,
REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S
“ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS
IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”.
[Reprinted from
the
“National Reformer”.]
BY
s. s.
POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR.
LONDON:
fbeethought
publishing company,
63, FLEET STREET,
E.C.
1 8 8 7.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION;
OR,
REMARKS ON THE REV. J. M. WILSON’S
“ATTEMPT TO TREAT SOME RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS
IN A SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT”.
[Reprinted from
the
“National Reformer”.]
BY
s. s.
POPULUS VULT DECIPI, SED ILLUMINETUR.
LONDON:
fbeethought
publishing company,
63, FLEET STREET,
E.C.
1 8 8 7.
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
��N574-
TO THE READER.
Messrs. Macmillajst and Co. having published a volume
of Essays and Addresses by the Rev. James M. Wilson,
this opportunity is taken of reprinting some articles
that appeared in the National Reformer, after the first
appearance of the essays and addresses contained in the
volume referred to.
The second and third articles were written concerning
two sermons that Mr. Wilson preached in March, 1884,
and which are not included in the volume of essays and
addresses. They were published by Macmillan and Co.,
in pamphlet form, shortly after their delivery.
The paper of most interest in Mr. Wilson’s volume is
undoubtedly the “Letter to a Bristol Artisan” (p. 128175), which, though dated in 1885, is now for the first
time published. This letter (which has been recently
criticised with force and ability by Mr. J. M. Robertson
in the columns of the National Reformer} is Mr. Wilson’s
reply to the pamphlet (published by W. H. Morrish, 18,
Narrow Wine St., Bristol), wherein “ A Bristol Artisan ”,
took up the theme of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures to the
Secularists of that city, on the reasons why men do not
believe the Bible. These lectures are contained in the
new volume (p. 74-127), having previously been published
by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The
artisan had not the same facilities for making his views
known, his pamphlet appeared in modest guise, and a
small edition has not yet been sold. If, on our side, we
had a society for promoting Secular knowledge, it might
do well to bring out a second edition of this remarkable
�iv
TO THE READER.
essay, and to ensure that every thinking man and woman
in England should have a chance of mastering its contents.
But at present the want of such machinery is one of the
great difficulties we have to contend against. I may,
however, say that this pamphlet has extorted the approval
of those most opposed to the artisan’s views. Mr. Wilson
says of it: “ your pamphlet has deeply interested me, not
only from its singular directness, and lucidity, and general
moderation of tone, but because it is full of misconceptions,
etc.” Another clergyman says of it that “ it will probably
be widely read and influential both for good and evil”.
And the general opinion seems to be that no more discreet
and inoffensive statement of the higher secular philosophy
has ever been published.
Those who have read Mr. Robertson’s criticisms on Mr.
Wilson’s reply to the artisan will be prepared to hear that
no such complimentary language, can, in its turn, be used
of it. At the same time it seems to me that Mr. Robert
son has not fully realised the enormous advantage gained
for Secularism, by the admissions that the letter contains.
Mr. Robertson’s own mind is clear—his horizon free from
haze and mist; has he not forgotten that such clearness
of vision is rare in times of transition. One of our univer
sities, in its proud motto, offers lux and pocula, light and
ceremonials. But in these days the retention of the pocula
involves too often the darkening of the lux. And not
only do the traditionary status and ecclesiastical endow
ments of the Church of England, that Cambridge offers
to its graduates, tend to a frame of mind that shrinks
from the full blaze of the rays of truth, but other and
nobler ties are at work in the same direction—so noble
and so human that I should be sorry to cast up the charge
of nebulous inconsistency against the man whose light
faileth. Let us, however, thank Mr. Wilson for these
words: “It is absolutely necessary for you to grasp the
conception of religion, as being NOT a system of dogmas
about the being of God and his relation to man, revealed
by some external and supernatural machinery, but as
being an education, an evolution, a growth of the spirit
of man towards something higher, by means of a gradual
revelation.” Let us, I say, ponder well these words.
And let us ask Mr. Wilson to consider if he can put
bounds to this growth, and say, “ Thus far! ” or predict
�V
TO THE READER.
safely that at this time, or at that time, finality will be
reached.
If I were inclined to be critical, I would also ask Mr.
Wilson to reconcile his use of the word religion in the
above extract with the conception of it given in the
sermon he preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral, hereinafter
referred to.
But while anxious to award to Mr. Wilson all the merit
that is due to him, I am entirely at one with Mr. Robert
son in considering that this attempt to treat matters of
faith by the methods of science has been (as all such
attempts must be) a complete failure.
In conclusion I gratefully accept Mr. Charles Bradlaugh’s
permission to dedicate to him, as one of the leaders of
sincere and active freethought—active because sincere—
this attempt to state the issue between Materialism on one
hand, and the indefinite faltering neo-Christianity on the
other, which is clerical rather than agnostic, agnostic
rather than religious.
s. s.
July, 1887.
��UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
I.—Mr. Wilson’s Bristol Lectures.
[From the National Reformer of 16th September, 1883.]
The late Archbishop of Canterbury, who combined the
shrewdness of a Scot with the tact of a courtier, said some
years ago that Atheism should not be regarded as a heresy
to be condemned, but met as an argument, to be seriously
and temperately answered. The attitude thus recommended
has been adopted by several enlightened clergymen, and
will probably commend itself to many more. But if gentle
men in “holy orders” quit the vantage ground of ortho
doxy, and meet Secularists on even terms, they must take
the chances of war. Real argument implies that the side
which has the best of it shall carry conviction to the other;
and if the clergy cannot convert us, they run the risk of
being themselves converted. The game is a perilous one
for the clergy, but none the less are they bound in honor
to play it out.
The lectures before us are the first fruits of Dr. Tait’s
remark. Mr. Wilson, head master of Clifton School, is
one of the most distinguished of that noble band of workers
in the cause of morality that the churches of to-day are
producing. It were presumption for me to speak of the
character and merits of such a man: if anyone wishes to
learn them, let him ask the poor of Bristol. He delivered
these lectures to audiences of the working men of that
city about six months ago, and they have now been repub
lished under the auspices of the Society for Promoting
�8
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Christian Knowledge. The Spectator remarks that the
Society never did a bolder or a wiser thing than this ; and
many who take a broader view of the subjects discussed
than the Spectator does, will probably acquiesce in that
opinion.
Mr. Wilson addressed himself to the question, “ Why
men do not believe the Bible ”, and in the first lecture
considered the intellectual difficulties ; in the second, the
. moral difficulties. By intellectual difficulties, Mr. Wilson
means “ those which are the consequences of a particular
theory as to the necessity of a literal translation and the
verbal accuracy of the Bible”. This particular theory,
viz., that the Bible is verbally or mechanically inspired, is
not, Mr. Wilson asserts, laid down by the Church, nor
found in the Bible, nor was it taught by Jesus Christ or
his apostles. Up to the time that the Roman Empire
became Christian, and the Canon of Scripture was formed,
“ there was no thought of a divinely-guaranteed accuracy”.
Even after the Reformation, when the thirty-nine articles
were promulgated, “ there was no theory of inspiration”.
But as the study of the Bible became more popular, theories
of inspiration were started, especially that of Calvin, who
held “that from Genesis to Revelation the Bible is not
only the Word of God, but the words of God ; and it is this
theory that lands men in endless contradictions ”,
I will leave it to the followers and admirers of Calvin to
prove, as I expect they easily can prove, that the theory
of inspiration, which Mr. Wilson attributes to him, was
not his invention, but was commonly held in the Church
centuries before his time. This does not concern us much.
But before I pass on to what Mr. Wilson would have us
substitute for the Calvinistic theory of inspiration, I would
hint that he took an unfair advantage of us Secularists, in
saying that we have no warrant for putting into the mouths
of Christians a theory of verbal inspiration, when it is
notorious that his assertion that the Church of England
does not teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible, fell like
a thunderbolt on the Christian public. Nine-tenths of the
religious people in these kingdoms firmly believe the Bible
to be inspired. Secularists have to deal with popular
superstition, and not with the esoteric creed of a few
priests. The sixth article of religion is so worded that it
can perfectly cover, if needs be, the Calvinistic theory;
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
9
and if it suits Mr. Wilson and his friends to say now that
“Holy Scripture” is not verbally inspired, he ought not
to blame Colonel Ingersoll for addressing himself to the
current belief. I strongly suspect that if these doubts as
to the authority of the Bible had not reached the great
mass of our countrymen, the doctrine now produced by
Canon Westcott and Mr. Wilson would not have been
much heard of. It is to be regretted that Archbishop
Benson has, in a letter printed in the preface to these
lectures, apparently supported Mr. Wilson’s complaint of
Colonel Ingersoll.
The fact is, that Secularists make little use of the
Calvinistic theory of the Bible. It is to the book itself,
and not to any theory of it, that their apprehensions point.
They regard it as the history, more or less authentic, of a
small nation whose social ostracism is a fitting reward for
moral delinquency, and who have made themselves more
detested than any other race of men. They cannot admit
that the history of such a race, curious and interesting as
it is, ought to be our guide and standard here and now.
It was a rhetorical artifice, and nothing more, to bring
into contrast Colonel Ingersoll and Canon Westcott; clever
and momentarily effective, but attended with no permanent
gain. Mr. Wilson’s subsequent admission (page 31), that
some of his friends urged “ You will unsettle more than
you will help; you will shake the faith of believers, and
not convert the sceptics ”, proves that Colonel Ingersoll
was right and Canon Westcott wrong, in their estimate of
popular theology.
Mr. Wilson would remove from the portal of the temple
the bogey of Calvinism ; unsuspecting worshippers are to
be invited to enter ; but once inside the temple, and belief
in inspiration is the atmosphere they breathe : “ Let men
read the gospels as they would read any other book, with
any theory of inspiration, or with none; with the one aim
of learning the truth about Jesus Christ ”, and if this is
done in a proper spirit, Mr. Wilson promises that they will
soon get the belief in inspiration, though they may not be
able to define it. Is this so? Does an absolute rejection
of the Calvinistic theory, followed by careful, patient,
honest study of the Bible, lead men to be Christians, or to
form such an estimate of the character of Jesus Christ as
enables them to recognise him as God ? Experience
�10
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
meets Mr. Wilson’s promise with, no dubious or uncertain
answer.
Mr. Wilson avoids any definition of that theory which
he would have us substitute for Calvin’s. He says he can
no more define inspiration than he can define “ God”, and
that he can no more prove inspiration than he can listen
to the colors of the rainbow. It is surely irrational and
immoral to believe a theory that can neither be defined or
proved. Some clearly defined theory may commend itself
as possibly credible, even if it cannot be proved, but it
seems romantic, if not impossible, to believe without defi
nition and without demonstration.
And here I would make a protest and an appeal. The
late Archbishop, and clergymen like Mr. Wilson, expect,
and invite us to meet them in discussion. Do they consider
that we do so with halters round our necks ? We may
freely discuss morality, and the non-essentials of religion,
but to deny by advised speaking or printing the truth of
the Christian religion, entails the penalties of that statute
of William and Mary, which Lord Coleridge termed
“ferocious” and “shocking”. Can not Mr. Wilson and
his friends help in getting the statute law and the common
law amended ? And cannot they give an earnest of their
sympathies, by signing the memorial to Mr. Gladstone for
Messrs. Foote and Ramsey’s release that is printed at the
head of page 265 of the Freethinker for 26tli August. Our
unhappy friends have now been thirty long weeks in gaol.
What is left of the “Christian religion ” that the statute
of William and Mary, joint defenders of the faith, so
jealously guarded? The Court of Queen’s Bench has by
mandamus lopped off the devil; Canon Farrar’s sermons
have eliminated hell; the Trinity is threatened when the
Athanasian creed is expunged; and now Mr. Wilson tells
us that inspiration is no part of it. Whatever happens,
let us hope that no blasphemous hand will touch the 36th
Article of religion that treats of the consecration of bishops.
So long as they are maintained in pomp and power,
Christianity has no cause to fear.
The moral difficulty in the way of belief in the Bible
with which Mr. Wilson’s second lecture deals, is thus
described: that as the Bible tolerates, or even approves
of, various forms of immorality, such as slavery, murder,
polygamy, cruelty, and treachery, it is hard to accept of
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
11
the God of the Bible as an object of worship. I don’t
think that Mr. Wilson has fully guaged the depth and
strength of the moral difficulty felt by Secularists and
Freethinkers, but accepting his statement of it, as above
summarised, let us examine his mode of meeting it.
He admits that many of the persons mentioned in the
Bible as objects of God’s favor, are not fair examples of
moral goodness, and that some of their actions are unworthy
of our imitation. To get out of the Bible the moral teaching
that it contains, we must read between the lines, and dis
cover “the working out and the development of the idea
of the kingdom of God ”. From the history of the “training
of a typical nation ” (the Jews) we are to “ trace the growth
of a purer morality, of personal responsibility, of the
spirituality of God, of the thought of a future life”. He
thinks that “ facts point unmistakably to the Jews as the
nation that formed the chief channel for divine influence
in religion”, qualifying this by the proviso that “the
morality of the Old Testament is no pattern for us, except
so far as our own consciences, enlightened by the completed
revelation, approve ”. This, I take it, is a fair summary,
mainly in his own words, of what Mr. Wilson told the
working-men of Bristol.
Close observation of these two lectures will show that
Mr. Wilson avoided in the second the line of argument
adopted in the first. When discussing the intellectual
difficulty, he said the theory of inspiration that Secularists
attributed to the Church was neither taught by it nor
found in the Articles of Religion, but was a man of straw,
set up for the purpose of being knocked down. He might
have said the same of the theory of God’s providence and
moral government.
The words “Kingdom of God”,
“ Morality ”, and “ Providence ” do not occur in any of the
Articles. The word “ moral ” occurs only once, in the
seventh Article, which speaks of “ the commandments
which are called moral ”. Mr. Wilson might then have
spoken of the moral difficulty, in the same form of words
as he used for the intellectual difficulty: “What I say will
doubtless surprise some of you, both Christians and
Secularists, but it is an undeniable fact that the Articles
of Religion do not assert that the Bible contains a moral
standard, or that God governs as well as reigns ”. That
he has not adopted this line of reasoning proves the truth
�12
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
of the remark recently made in these columns : “ Religion
seeks to secure her frail tenure by grasping the skirt of
that holy piorality who was once but her timid and shrinking
handmaid”.1 Mr. Wilson had the same ground for treating
the moral difficulty as a man of straw, as he had in regard
to the intellectual difficulty; but instead of doing so, he
has eagerly enlisted him as a valiant champion on his own
side.
The future of human happiness and morality, Mr. Wilson
would have us believe, depends on the esoteric teaching
derived by learned men from a number of treatises, written
we know not by whom and know not when; in an ancient
language few can read; of which no original exists (save
for some possible speculation of a future Shapira); and
about whose text and interpretation the best authorities
seldom agree. We learn from the first lecture that their
claim to inspiration is shadowy, undefined, and incapable
of proof; and from the second lecture that they contain a
veiled, and not a revealed, record of the will of God as
governor of the world. When these treatises agree about
any moral law, or in their estimate of the moral worth of
any human action, we are by no means to accept this as a
guide or pattern, but we must try to ascertain what indi
cation is to be derived, from the history contained in the
Bible, of the general course of God’s providence in respect
to the Jews; and this indication, when obtained, is to be
subject to the veto of “ conscience ”. Is this a satisfactory
or practicable system of philosophy ?
What is conscience ? We may regard it as a knowledge
of, and fidelity to, the stored-up experience of generations
of men, as to what is best for human happiness on earth.
If Mr. Wilson accepts this definition of conscience, he
virtually accepts the secular philosophy. But whatever
definition he may give of conscience, why is it to have a
veto on the morality of the Old Testament, and not on the
morality of the New Testament ?
Let us apply Mr. Wilson’s system to a case of every day
life. The question arises whether a man may marry the
sister of his deceased wife. From a purely ethical point
of view the advantages preponderate over the objections.
But what does the Bible say ? is at once asked. The Bible
See National Reformer, 8th July, 1883, page 22.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
13
gives an uncertain sound, but its more weighty texts are
supposed to be against such marriages. But Mr. Wilson
says we may not be guided by texts, but by the “ history
of the development of the kingdom of God, as worked out
in the case of the Jews ”. Laymen are puzzled, and refer
the matter to divines. Divines differ—some say the pro
posed marriage accords with that development, some say it
does not. Eventually a clear majority decide one way or
the other, it matters not which. Even then Mr. Wilson is
not satisfied, but would appeal to “Conscience”. Why
not let conscience decide it at first without all this
ceremony ?
It is hardly necessary to observe that the theory of
Biblical morality set up by Mr. Wilson, is, like Canon
Westcott’s theory of inspiration, new to the religious
public. Both have been evolved by the “ struggle for
existence ”. But for the certain and now ra,pid action of
Ereethought, we should not have heard of either. A few
years ago, and anyone who said that Mooses and Abraham
and David were immoral characters deserving censure,
would have been treated as a blasphemer. Mr. Wilson
has discovered that it is right and just to submit the
character and deeds of these old Jews to a tribunal and a
test, that may possibly brand them as foul disgraces to
humanity, and confirm the hatred with which in all ages
the uncircumcised Gentiles have regarded God s chosen
people, which is nearly as strong now as in the days of
Pharoah, and of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Titus. Freethought has scored a considerable success in eliciting such
admissions as Mr. Wilson has made. Wb are almost pre
pared to concede to him the claim he made at last year s
Church Congres, that clergymen are Freethinkers. At all
events, some of them, if not actually Freethinkers, are not
unwilling captives at the chariot wheels of Freethought,
and will swell her approaching triumph.
In these remarks I have treated only of the more im
portant and essential parts of Mr. Wilson’s two lectures.
There is much in them, and especially in the second lecture,
for the adequate notice of which more space is needed than
the columns of a newspaper can afford. The lectures form
an important point in the struggle between Superstition
and Freethought, and ought to be studied by all, on both
sides, who are interested in its issue. May I express my
�14
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
admiration of the learning, liberality, and rare human
sympathy they breathe? In the knowledge and love of
of man, they recall some high exemplars. Even if Mr.
Wilson has not succeeded in the objects with which his
lectures were given, he has secured the warm thanks and
true well-wishing of all Secularists, not those of Bristol
only.1
II.—Religion v. Revelation.
[From the National Reformer, 16th November, 1884 J
The Rev. Mr. Wilson, whose two lectures on “Inspira
tion” were reviewed in these columns last year, has pub
lished two sermons that he preached some months ago.
The first, entitled “Opinion and Service”, was preached
in Westminster Abbey, and reminds us that the question
to be asked of us will be, What have ye done ? and not
What did ye think? The second sermon, entitled “Religion
and Revelation ”, was preached in St. Paul’s Cathedral.
Both sermons—but especially the second one—prove the
extent to which Church teaching has been influenced by
hostile criticism, and what is now thought on these con
troversial points by that section of enlightened Christian
men that Mr. Wilson represents.
In reviewing the Bristol lectures, we indicated the
following concessions that they made to Freethought.
(1) Mr. Wilson rejected the Calvinistic theory of inspira
tion, and condemned it as “landing men in endless con
tradictions”. (2) He professed himself unable to define
or prove the theory of inspiration which he would have
us substitute for Calvin’s. (3) He admitted that the Bible
revealed no immutable standard of morality, but that its
moral teaching must be sought for “ between the lines ”.
And (4) that, when found, it was not supreme, but sub1 Possibly this estimate of the value of the Bristol lectures may to
some persons appear too favorable, but I will leave unaltered the
terms in which I expressed the opinion that I originally formed of
them. Of course, my estimate refers to the lectures only, and does
not apply to the other writings included in Mr. Wilson’s volume
S. S.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
15
ject to the veto of conscience. Not only are these con
cessions still maintained in the sermon before us, but in
other directions a retreat is sounded, and vantage ground
gained for the implacable foe of theology.
Taking that which is known as “religion” in the popular
and vague meaning assigned to it, the preacher divided it
into the idea, power, or spirit, which he termed “revela
tion”, and the expression cultus or form to which he con
fined the word “religion”. He regarded revelation as
ever antagonistic to religion, describing the latter as a
universal human instinct common to all races, savage and
civilised; dark and terrible in its history; stained with
idolatry, cruelty, and lust. On the other hand, he would
have us regard revelation as a divine work, spiritual,
accumulative, and imperishable, ever striving with the low
religious instinct, and illuminating and guiding man.1
Here I must ask if history affords any trace of this
struggle between revelation and religion, or if it exists
only in Mr. Wilson’s imagination? We know of the strife
between the ideas of the divine and the human, between
Spiritualism and Materialism, and that for long ages it
has been one-sided and unequal; we know that the idea
of man and matter is at length superseding that of God
and spirit; that securing the happiness of man is of more
importance than ascertaining the will of God; that human
affairs depend on ourselves, and not on the moral govern
ment of a personal God. This great strife is tending to
the enlightenment and advancement of our race, but it is
not the strife described by Mr. Wilson. Revelation is not
mastering religion as he suggests, but religion and revela
tion combined are about to fade away before morality.
The revelation that is on the winning side is not the
revelation of God’s will, but the revelation of man’s
reason.
All so-called divine revelations rest on the religious
instinct, spring from it, and strengthen it. The two are
inseparable, and history gives no indication of an inter1 One great merit of scientific system is accuracy of definition and
rigid adherence t > a definition once laid down. If we compare the
meaning of the term “religion” given in the passages now referred
to with the conception of it that is inculcated in the passage quoted
in the introduction to this work we shall be able to estimate the
extreme tenuity of Mr. Wilson’s claim to scientific method. S. S.
�16
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
necine strife between them. On the contrary, they have
ever fought side by side against human reason and Freethought. Can Mr. Wilson find any instance of a stake or
rack or pillory having been used on behalf of revelation
against religion, or on behalf of religion against revela
tion ? It is surely vain for him to say that a sentence like
this: “To obey is better than sacrifice” is revelation,1
while this other is religion: “And the Lord spake unto
Moses, saying .... He among the sons of Aaron that
offereth the blood of the peace offering shall have the
right shoulder. For the wave-breast and the heave
shoulder have i taken of the children of Israel, and have
given them unto Aaron the Priest, and unto his sons by
a statute for ever.” By what process of reading between
the lines does he venture to designate Samuel’s words as
revelation, and God’s words as religion? Mr. Wilson says
that “the cry ‘crucify him, crucify him,’ is the climax and
acme of the ceaseless contest between the lower religious
instincts of the human race and the higher divine light
that pours on men”. But supposing that the crucifixion
really occurred, that the record of it is not (as Eobert
Taylor avers) a Gnostic forgery emanating from Egypt,
that old hotbed of superstition and lies, why should we
regard that crucified “blasphemer” as “the unique
revealer of God ” ? Why should we not regard him as a
son of man, himself the slave of religion, using such poor
reasoning faculty as he possessed to expose the fraud and
hypocrisy of a priesthood ? What Jesus Christ revealed
was human, and not divine; and he died, not as a revealer
at the suit of religion, but as a reasoner at the suit of
revelation. For our knowledge of divinity we are indebted
to the Comforter, who never died for us.
Let Mr. Wilson tell us in his own words what he means
by revelation:
“The word ‘revelation’ implies a theory; it is a way of
regarding and grouping facts. The facts are the history of
man, the development, continuous and discontinuous, of the
spiritual insight and forces of mankind. These facts are what
1 The 15th chapter of 1 Samuel, from which Mr. Wilson quote
these words, is one we should have expected him to ignore, lhe
obedience inculcated by Samuel was an awful crime, and Saul’s clear
duty was to have disobeyed the order.
d
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
17
they are, and we may hope by study to arrive at some know
ledge of them. But we need theories to group facts; and the
theory which is expressed by the word revelation is this, that
man is, in his present condition, a partaker in some inchoate
manner of that controlling universal consciousness which we
call God; which illuminates the mind and conscience of man :
that man is, or possesses, a ^>avepwcri9, a manifestation of God.
The control of God is exhibited in its effects, and one of the
effects is the moral education and evolution of man. The
growth, then, and development of this manifestation of the
spirit of God in man, and by man, and to man, is revelation.”
I fear that Mr. Wilson’s attempt to construct a safe
theory of revelation is as unsatisfactory as his attempt to
deal with inspiration. Why should any “way of regarding
and grouping facts ” be styled revelation and not science ?
What facts are there to be grouped ? The history of man
is not a fact, but a theory resting on facts. The “develop
ment of man’s spiritual insight ” is not a fact, but a theory
resting on fictions. What is “spiritual insight”? from
what has it been developed ? what is it tending to ? Does
not the use of the word “spiritual” beg the whole question
of inspiration and revelation ? Mr. Wilson here seems to
fall into the same error that led Mr. Drummond to argue
for the existence of a spiritual world governed by natural
law.
Human history needs no belief in revelation for group
ing the facts it records. The best historians eschew all
reference to a controlling providence. Sir Archibald
Alison wrote twenty volumes to prove that Providence
was always on the side of the Tories; but who reads Sir
Archibald Alison ? Beal history (such as Gibbon’s) cannot
be written if any such theory as Mr. Wilson’s “Revela
tion ” is used to group its facts.
Let us continue our quotation from Mr. Wilson :
“ To those who are deeply impressed with God’s influence on
the hearts of man, to those who grasp this God-theory—this
revelation-theory—it carries conviction. They read and see the
history of man in its light—they see the Spirit striving with
man—the Eternal Consciousness more and more revealed in the
inchoate, time-bound individual. All the world of nature and
history speaks of God. It is a theory which man cannot per
fectly master, nor apply to every detail, nor prove conclusively
to all minds; but in spite of this it convinces such as grasp it,
�18
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Discovery becomes indistinguishable from revelation.
the work of God.”
All is
Passing by those parts of this quotation that are to me
incomprehensible, I would ask if this reference to a “ God
theory ” is not either a palpable truism, or a misstatement
of facts. Those who worshipped the Olympian Zeus, or
Venus of the Myrtle-tree, or Diana of Ephesus; those who
built the great temples of Hindustan; the Mahomedans
who say that there is no God but Allah; were not all these
imbued with the God-idea, and did they know of this
eternal strife between revelation and religion ? If on the
other hand the idea of God to which Mr. Wilson refers
implies a being hostile to religion, and governing mankind
by a slow and partial process of revelation, then his sen
tence simply amounts to this, that those who believe it,
believe it. Does this carry conviction to the great and
constantly increasing mass of mankind who cannot grasp
the God-idea ? They cannot “ see the spirit striving with
man”, but they see man’s reason striving with religion
and superstition. Mr. Wilson elsewhere says that it is
found possible by experience “ to feel all human history
instinct with God”.
Does he realize the fact that
those who have once grasped the profound solace of
Materialistic philosophy see all theological dogma instinct
with man ?
With reference to such men, those “who have abandoned
our dogma and are indifferent to our cultus ”, Mr. Wilson
remarks as follows :
“It is perhaps our fault if they think that this is all that
Christianity has to offer. But they do not and cannot escape
from the Christian revelation, even though they call it by
another name. It is light; and in that light some of them live
and walk; and the cultus, the ritual, the OpytTKeia which they
adopt may not be wholly dissimilar to that ‘ pure ’ cultus or
ritual or 6pt}<TK£M of St. James, which consists in charity and
purity and unworldliness, and is, along with the sacraments,
the only Christian ritual ordained in the Bible.”
Here at least is consolation; whether we believe or
reject the dogma, the work of revelation will go on. Why,
then, should we force and strain our reason to accept a
theory which does not depend on our acceptance of it, but
which must remain true whether we accept it or not ?
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
19
Better to maintain the rectitude and supremacy of our
reason, knowing that we shall not lose one iota of the
benefit of revelation. Is this Mr. Wilson’s advice? It
seems unanswerable.
Mr. Wilson’s own position as regards religion seems
to be delineated in the following sentences :—
“ But for the vast mass of mankind it is of far more import
ance to hand down to them and through them the leading
truths of revelation in any form, than to insist on the inade
quacy of the form. Of course men trained, as men ought to he
trained, to criticise and question everything, may feel that the
cultus and dogma of Christianity in its present form, if put
forward and insisted on as absolute, authoritative, exhaustive
truths, are a concealment of the higher light; and their honestyr
compels them to renounce and even to denounce them. But
when such men come in contact with their less critical brethren,
whose convictions and hopes and faiths must be clear, defined,
emphatic, dogmatic, to whom vaguer and more philosophical
expressions convey no meaning, they will discover that the
language in which revelation is transferable to them is, to a far
larger extent than they anticipated before trial, the current
language of cultus and dogma. They will be powerless.to find
another shell for the kernel. Nevertheless, such men will fear
lessly purify their teaching from the grosser dogmas from which
Christian teaching is by no means wholly free, and will try to
contend, to a certain extent, with the lower religious instinct
in the true spirit of their Master, educating their people to feel
the spirit, and not only see the letter.”
Some of this quotation describes the position of Secu
larists as well as of enlightened Churchmen. But in one
essential point our morality differs from theirs. Holding
as we do that the whole nut, shell and kernel alike, is
poisonous, we do not retain a worthless shell for the sake
of the kernel, but we boldly tell our less “critical
brethren ” to beware of both.
So far, therefore, as Mr. Wilson represents a distinct
school of thought, whose influence in the church is on the
increase, we may from this sermon, preached in our great
national cathedral, claim this further concession to Freethought, that religion is hateful, injurious, and of human
origin, and that it is committed to a long and eventually
losing strife. That is a clear advantage. It matters not
that Mr. Wilson would see a divine revelation in the power
that is to overcome religion. Let him cherish the delusion.
�20
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
—we know that it is man’s reason and not God’s spirit
that has maintained the glorious, and soon to be victorious,
conflict.1
III.—Religion
v.
Revelation.
[From the National Reformer of the 30th November, 1884.]
The theory of a ceaseless strife between the spirit of
God and religion, propounded in the remarkable sermon
preached at St. Paul’s Cathedral and recently reviewed
here, is so novel and startling as to justify a closer examination than was then attempted. It is with all the greater
pleasure that we again refer to it, because Mr. Wilson’s
opinions deserve, in no ordinary measure, our respect and
attention ; for no English churchman has made such efforts
as he has to understand the position of Secularists, or has
shown such a disposition to discuss philosophy with us on
terms of equality.
Freethinkers are in the habit of ascribing to human
reason the gradual illumination of man, and his liberation
from superstition. The claim, therefore, that these benefits
are due to the influence or spirit of a God who hates
superstition as much as any Secularist does, is well cal
culated to arrest our attention.
I have already quoted Mr. Wilson’s definition of the
revelation to which he attributes such vast results ; and I
have attempted to show that before his hypothesis can be
placed before us for acceptance he must state with greater
precision what facts there are for theorising about. Of
ourselves we have no knowledge of such facts, and are
entirely dependent on him for information about them.
He tells us the facts are “the history of man, and the
development of the spiritual insight and forces of man
kind ”, It is surely on the propounder of a novel theory
1 The words “Let him cherish the delusion” have a shade of
bitterness, and I should prefer to say * Let biw , if be can, prove
his new position; till it is proved we must hold that it is’man’s
reason, and not God’s spirit, that has maintained the conflict. ”,
S. S.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
21
that the onus lies of defining the historical facts on which
it rests. History contains many facts, but I can recall
none for the grouping of which this hypothesis is required.
Let us enumerate a few; the siege of Troy and the sacri
fice of Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles; the rape of the
Sabine women and the death of Lucretia; the invention
of printing and the discovery of America; the Oxford
movement and the establishment of the Divorce Court.
These facts lend themselves to scientific grouping in every
direction save one; they may be arranged in support of
theories in morals and politics, arts and science, educa
tion and political economy; they will even support Mr.
Wilson’s theory of religion; but the one thing on which
they have no apparent bearing is the ceaseless strife between
a divine revelation and religion.
As regards the so-called facts of spiritual development
on which Mr. AVilson relies, the sermon before us does not
furnish so clear a statement as is contained in a paper
which he read in 1882, before the Church Congress at
Derby, from which therefore we quote as follows:
“ Besides these facts of history and criticism, there are other
facts that cannot be traced to their ultimate origin ; the result
of the evolution of human nature under the influence, as we
believe, of God’s holy spirit; the facts of conscience and con
sciousness, of hope and aspiration and worship, spiritual facts
which have no verification but themselves. With these lies most
of our concern. They contain the germ of the spiritual life
and progress of every man, the inner life which Christian
teaching fosters and trains, till it is supreme. These facts lie
in a region equally beyond authority and Freethought.
I submit that every phrase here used—evolution, con
science, consciousness, aspiration, and worship—requires
definition. At first sight I should say that none of them
implied a fact; but it is possible I may be mistaken.
Still, without definition, we know not what facts are
implied and whether the facts are objective or spiritual.
Here again the onus of definition and proof lies on the
propounder. It is vain to tell men who profess to see no
phsenomena that prove the existence of a God that from
spiritual facts implied in such vague phrases as I have
quoted, and which “ have no verification but themselves ”,
they must admit not only the existence of a God but that
he has a spirit also.
�22
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
Having thus attempted to show that Mr. Wilson's
theory of revelation must remain in the hypothetical stage
until it is duly equipped with scientific definition and
demonstration, we will turn to his a posteriori sketch of
the history of revelation. The first instance he gives of
its existence is when it ‘ ‘ spoke in Moses and made the two
great commandments, love to God and man, stand out
above all else”. I am unaware of this event. Moses is
said to have received ten commandments, one of which
may be read as prescribing love to God (as if love
was ever a creature of command), but they contain
no trace of love to man. The precedence given by
Moses to an enforced and unnatural love of God.
and his silence about human love, far from illumi
nating our race, has caused much of the evil that Mi*.
Wilson attributes to religion. I have already referred to
the second instance of revelation mentioned in the sermon :
“when it spoke in Samuel and taught the nations” that
command which King Saul was dethroned for disobeying.
I am confident that an impartial consideration of the
chapter referred to will lead to the conclusion that Samuel’s
speech was the reverse of illumination. The third instance
is when “ it spoke in David and in the prophets again and
again in words too familiar to need quotation ” : I know
not what passages Mr. Wilson refers to. There are many
verses in David and the prophets that inculcate religion in
its worst form; 1 can recall none that have helped to
suppress it. Then, Mr. Wilson says, from the time of
Ezra, for four centuries “ the natural growth of thought
and revelation was strangled by the grasp of religion”.
Here surely is a new idea introduced into the theory by
the use of the words “natural” and “thought”. Is the
spirit of God a natural force; and has it, like man, the power
of thinking ? But passing this difficulty, methinks that in
these four centuries man’s reason achieved some deeds of
renown. Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius taught; the
Spartans fought at Thermopylae; Sophocles wrote the
“Antigone”; Euclid, the “Elements”; and Lucretius,
the “ Book of Nature ” ; and human art will never surpass
the unknown sculptors of the Venus and the Apollo. We
got on so well in those four centuries when revelation
was hushed that one is tempted to ask if its revival has
bettered us. Let the eighteen centuries of Christianity
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
23
and the twelve centuries of Mahomedanism answer the
query.
After this pause a fresh impetus was given to revelation
by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. “ Obedience to
the will of God, purity, gentleness, sympathy with all, with
the sinful and the suffering, these and such as these were
the lessons taught by his life.” But it has been asserted
that none of the lofty sayings attributed to Jesus in the
three synoptic gospels were original: they are all said to
have occurred in some earlier writing; and even if we
give him the credit of selecting the best sentiments of those
who went before him, we must not forget that it was he
who said : “ I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (Matt,
x., 44), and that this prediction has been fulfilled. Not
even to his own Church has he brought peace, still less to
the world. “He abolished ritual” ; so did Buddha. He
‘‘broke down barriers of race and caste” ; if so, why do
they still exist? “He introduced no new dogma”; but
the Comforter, that Spirit of God whom he sent—the same,
I presume, who works for our illumination through revela
tion—has introduced much dogma. Of this final effort of
revelation and its success Mr. Wilson says truly: “The
religious instinct is strong; it is deep in human nature,
and at times it would seem as if it had smothered the
revelation of Christ”.
Mr. Wilson has declined to define God. A God who has
a spirit engaged in a ceaseless strife against religion, and
which has been so near failure, suggests paradoxical ideas
that cannot be clothed in definite terms. But though he
does not define, he believes; and on this belief or con
sciousness he founds the theology that he preaches. Many
learned divines hold that a theology resting on conscious
ness is insufficient, and that it requires the support of the
understanding as well. Whether consciousness is of itself
an adequate basis for theology is a question for the theo
logian, and does not concern us. No consciousness or
belief, either in his own mind or the mind of others, can
Influence the earnest student of secular philosophy. To
him such a theory as this, that rests both in its d priori
aspect of hypothesis and in its a posteriori aspect of history,
on unverifiable faets and sentimental consciousness, must
fail to commend itself, even if without it the history of
man were inexplicable.
�24
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
But it is not so : we do not find in our history any
entanglement that is insoluble save by the theory of a
divine spirit; we can group all man’s varied story, by man
himself, his passions and desires, his conscience and reason.
Surely that theory is better which rests on facts that can
be verified, which explains our history, which solves past
difficulty and future doubt—better than one which sets up
an agency whose very existence is an emotion, and whose
interference in mundane affairs is a mystery, for the solu
tion of which we must eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In these two articles I have tried to look at Mr. Wilson’s
theory from the point of view of a Secularist, and from the
point of view of a Christian. To a Materialist it must
appear illusory. But there are many Christians to whom
it will be welcome as a resting-place, or half-way house.
Those who recognise the hatefulness of religion, the hol
lowness of dogma, the impossibility of miracles, the con
tradiction of inspiration, the supremacy of morals, the
one-ness of human nature, the eternity of matter, and the
persistence of force; who cannot as yet relinquish the idea
of a personal God who takes some interest, however partial
and indirect, in our affairs, and who stands towards us in
some relation that implies mutual obligation—such men
may gladly accept the philosophy of this sermon. I should
be inclined, however, to predict that they will find it is but
a temporary refuge, and that the only secure citadel rests
on the everlasting rocks.
IV.—Authority
v.
Consent.
[From, the National Reformer of 14th December, 1884.]
The honest and persistent expression of secular opinion is
at length producing some effect on the public mind. We
address ourselves to all shades of religious thought. We
meet the unprincipled assertions of interested priests and
their too credulous flocks with satire and disapproval’;
those who show an inclination to argue we invite freely to
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
25
discussion ; and the thoughtful men who see the instability
of the popular conception of religion and who desire to
understand the secular position are met half way, and are
sure of our best help to enable them to grasp those truths
which are our great consolation. As- befits the guardians
and expositors of truth, we strive to keep our walk and
conversation unspotted and free from reproach, so as to
show our fellows that morality is not dependent on belief.
We make all due allowance for the hereditary taint of
bigotry and intolerance, feeling that religion is an instinct
of primitive and uncivilised man, and that its errors arise
from no divine intervention, but from the ignorance and
weakness of our race. Though assured of the ultimate
triumph of truth, we accept with patience and forbearance,
while the contest lasts, the rude buffets, the social and
political disability which the laws of this country allot to
unbelievers, knowing that deep down in the heart of
England lies a feeling of justice, which must eventually
ensure for earnest men and women a fair hearing and no
disfavor. This is all we require; and when we obtain it
we shall gladly leave our own opinions and those of our
opponents to stand or fall by the test of truth.
I have been led to make these remarks on the present
position of Secularists by some statements in a paper on
the limits of Freethought and Authority read by the Rev.
J. M. Wilson at the Church Congress of 1882; because I
think that wide as is that gentleman’s charity, and broad
as are his views, he has failed to perceive that the weight
of authority is on our side, and not on that of his Church.
With much of Mr. Wilson’s paper we may agree. He
has accurately defined Freethought, and appreciates its
value ; he recognises its natural limits, and strongly depre
cates any artificial limits ; he properly urges that between
it and authority there is not a relation of mutual exclusion,
but of mutual inter-dependence ; but when he speaks of
the consent of the past as an authority, and claims for it
in religion and morals the weight of authority, we are
bound to express our dissent.
I shall first quote the sentences where expression is given
to those opinions that I differ from, and having done so I
will state my views as to the real meaning of the words
“Authority” and “Consent”.
After stating that no artificial limit can be imposed on
�26
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
the mind of man, and that even the creeds and tests of a
Church must from time to time be interpreted and revised
so as to bring them into accordance with progressive know
ledge, he proceeds :
“Nor, again, is there any limit to authority. Heredity,
education, the weight given instinctively to established beliefs’
the vast momentum of long-standing habits and institutions,
give to the past an influence on the present, which secures con
tinuity amidst change, and makes progress steady. In other
words, there exists a natural authority, subtle, groundless, far
stronger than any artificial authority, and resented by none.
NV e are held by the past, not to our harm, but our good:
nursed by it, trained by it, for growth and for the right use of
freedom.”
Further on, speaking of the weight of authority in dif
ferent branches of knowledge, he uses these words :
“We shall see that the weight to be assigned to a great
consensus of opinion in the past depends on the subject. In
objective fact it is nil............. In criticism the weight is very
small............. In theology it is far higher.................. In ethics it is
highest of all, because the axioms of ethics—honesty, justice,
patriotism, filial obedience, monogamy, purity—rest on such
an enormous mass of observed facts and experience in human
nature. In these subjects it is so high that we are right in
treating Free Thought, or rather its consequence, free action,
as a crime.”
It seems to me that Mr. Wilson has here confused the
two methods by which a man unable or unwilling to
investigate a subject for himself may arrive at an opinion
thereon without investigation. These methods are reliance
on authority, and reliance on consent. They are of very
different value, but are here treated as identical. We
may form an opinion on the authority of others, if we are
satisfied of the observance of three conditions: (1) That
their sagacity and intelligence is adequate ; (2) that they
have maturely studied the subject under consideration ;
and (3) that they are free from bias, interest, or compul
sion. Given these conditions, and we bow to trustworthy
authority; if they are wanting, we feel hesitation and
distrust. No one would trust the advice or opinion of a
professional man whose intellect, or acquirements, or
integrity was doubtful.
But this highest form of authority is ignored by Mr.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
27
Wilson. When he speaks of authority, he refers to such
influences as these,—heredity, education, long-standing
habits, consensus of past opinion, experience of human
nature. This is not authority but consent. Idle, in
different, or superficial men may use it as a guide, but no
earnest inquirer after truth can accept of it as a limit to,
or substitute for, Freethought. If the “consensus of the
past ” had continued to influence us, slavery would still
have been legal, and scores of wretches would have been
hanged every Monday morning at some modern substitute
for Tyburn. Fortunately, in some respects, we are a
practical people.
To secure the higher form of authority I have described,
absolute freedom of thought is indispensable; and no
thought is free that is bound by the weight of past con
sensus. Knowledge and experience are requisite, but they
must be used as guides and not accepted as limits. Other
wise the thought is fettered, and the opinion valueless as
authority.
In estimating the value of the opinion of another as
authority, the third condition—that of freedom from bias,
self-interest, and compulsion—is of such great importance
that there is apnma facie reason for preferring the opinion
of a Freethinker (I use the word in its common acceptation).
Given equal intelligence and study, the opinion of a man
who incurs obloquy by professing it, is more likely to be
authoritative than that of a man who conforms to Mrs.
Grundy and the “usages of society ”,
The higher form of authority is wanting in regard to
religion. Most dogmas are beyond human intellect, and
no man ever existed whose opinion is authority for be
lieving such a doctrine as the trinity. Nor is the study
that Churchmen bring to bear on religious matters such
as to command our confidence. It has no scientific value,
and is bound by foregone conclusions. I shall wait till
the third condition is seriously claimed for apologists
before I dispute it, merely remarking that martyrdoms do
not consecrate with the halo of authority the opinions for
which men and women have died deaths of agony.
Though every church has its martyr roll, it has also its
black list of those who have suffered for free or for
fettered thought, at its suit, and because they differed
from it. Our fellow men have been so ready to die for all
�28
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
sorts of irrational emotions that it is easier to inquire for
oneself than to decide which of the martyrs is worthy to
be followed as a guide.
I admit, therefore, all the influence claimed for Consent
in the first of the two extracts quoted above. The influence
exists, and has some good and some bad effects : we think
the bad effects preponderate, and we object to its being
elevated into the position of Authority.
Turning to the second extract above quoted, I shall very
briefly state three objections of a more formidable nature
than any hitherto made. Mr. Wilson seems desirous to
impose on Freethought, in regard to morals, far more
stringent bonds than he would impose in regard to religion;
a course that appears to me so dangerous that I shall be
very glad to learn that I have mistaken the drift of his
opinion. My objections are: (1) The six “virtues”
named by Mr. Wilson are not axioms of ethics nor axioms
at all; an axiom must contain a statement of fact or opinion.
(2) Not one of the virtues named implies an idea that can
be transformed into axiomatic shape, resting on past con
sent and adapted for future guidance. Let Mr. Wilson
try, as regards “Patriotism”, to construct an axiom for
the guidance of an Irish Nationalist, or, as regards
“Monogamy”, to construct one for a Turkish Pasha: he
will find that the light thrown by the past on the path of
the future is dim, indirect, and apt to mislead; and that
the “ authority ” of one man is more valuable than the
consent of millions. (3) So soon as Freethought condemns
an ethical rule that rests on past consent, then the crime is
not (as Mr. Wilson asserts) to translate the thought into
action, but to stifle the free thought by pretending that
consent is an authority that supersedes it.
In a word, I agree with Mr. Wilson in identifying
Authority and Freethought. We differ in this, that he
regards Consent as identical with Authority, and therefore
identical with Freethought, while I regard Consent as
opposed to and inconsistent with Authority and Freethought.
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
29
V.—On Free Discussion.
[From the National Reformer of December 28th, 1884.]
The following extract from the Edinburgh Review of 1850
(vol. xci., page 525) will be read with interest. The work
reviewed is entitled “Influence of Authority in Matters of
Opinion”, and was published in 1849 by Mr. George
Cornewell Lewis, afterwards Sir G. C. Lewis, Bart., who
was a Cabinet Minister from 1855 till his death in 1863.
A second edition appeared in 1875, and was reviewed by
Mr. Gladstone in the opening article of the first volume of
the A^he^ew/A Century. A reply from the pen of Sir James
Stephen appears at page 270 ; and Mr. Gladstone s re
joinder at page 902 of the same volume. The opinions on
authority and consent which I recently expressed in these
columns were to a great measure based on Sir G. C. Lewis s
book.
Times have changed since 1850, and it can no longer be
said with truth that “public opinion exercises a formidable
repression of infidelity ”, or that “ the avowedly infidel
books that appear are few”. No dogma of religion.is
now so sacred, no pretention so vital, as to preclude dis
cussion from any point of view, however radical.
Mr. Gladstone has thus described Sir G. C. Lewis’ posi
tion : “As a Theist he did not recognise the ark of the
covenant, but he recognised the presence within it as true,
though undefinable ”. {Nineteenth Century, vol. i., p. 921.)
“ There is one circumstance which, in England, impairs
authority in matters of religion, to which Mr. Lewis has not
adverted. It is the state of English law and English opinion
on infidelity.
“ Christianity, we are told, is parcel of the law of England ;
therefore to ‘write against Christianity in general’, to use
the words of Holt, or ‘to impugn the Christian religion
generally’, in those of Lord Kenyon, or ‘ to impeach the esta
blished faith, or to endeavor to unsettle the belief of others,
in those of Justice Bayley, is a misdemeanor at common law,
and subjects the offender, at the discretion of the court, to fine,
imprisonment, and infamous corporal punishment. The statute
law is rather vague. By the 9th and 10th Will. III., cap. 32,
whoever, having been educated a Christian, shall bj writing,
printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the
�30
UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, or assert that there
are more Gods than one, or deny the Christian religion to
be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ment to be of divine authority, shall for the first offence,
be incapable of holding any office or place of trust, civil
or military, and for the second, be imprisoned for three
years, and be incapable of suing in any court of law or equity,
or of accepting any gift or legacy. The punishment for deny
ing the doctrine of the Trinity was repealed in our own times ;
but the remainder of the statute is in full force at this day. It
is true that, in these times, neither the common law nor the
statute is likely to be enforced against a sober, temperate dis
putant. The publisher of the translation of Strauss has not
been punished. But his safety is precarious. If anyone were
so ill-advised as to prosecute him, he must be convicted of libel,
unless the jury should think fit to save him at the expense of
perjury; and we doubt whether the court would venture to
inflict on him a mere nominal sentence.
“ But the repression of infidelity by law is far less formidable
than that which is exercised by public opinion. The author of
a work professedly and deliberately denying the truth of Chris
tianity would become a Pariah in the English world. If he
were in a profession, he would find his practice fall off; if he
turned towards the public service, its avenues would be barred.
In society he would find himself shunned or scorned —even his
children would feel the taint of their descent. To be suspected
of holding infidel opinions, though without any attempt at
their propagation, even without avowing them, is a great mis
fortune. It is an imputation which every prudent man care
fully avoids. Under such circumstances, what reliance can
an Englishman place on the authority of the writers who pro
fess to have examined into the matter, and to have ascertained
the truth? Can he say, ‘Their premises and conclusions are
before the public. If there were any flaw in them, it would
be detected and exposed ’ ? The errors committed or supposed
to be committed by writers on the evidences of Christianity
may be detected, but there is little chance of their being ex
posed. It may, perhaps be safe sometimes to impugn a false
premise, or an unwarranted inference, but never to deny a con
clusion. It is dangerous, indeed, to assert on religious matters
any views with which the public is not familiar. It is to
this immunity from criticism that we owe the rash assumption
of premises, and the unwarranted inferences, with which many
theological writings abound. Facts and arguments are passed
from author to author, which in Secular matters would be dissi
pated in the blaze of free discussion. Theological literature, at
least the portion of it which relates to the doctrines which ‘ are
parcel of the common law ’ has been a protected literature ;
�UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
31
and much of its offspring has the ricketty distorted form which
belongs to the unhappy bantlings that have been swaddled by
protection.
“ To this state of things we owe the undue importance given
to the few avowedly infidel books which actually appear. They
are like the political libels which creep out in a despotism.
Their authors are supposed to be at least sincere, since they
peril reputation and fortune. 'What could have given popu
larity to ‘ The Nemesis of Faith ’ but the persecution of its
author ? To this also we owe the insidious form in which in
fidelity is usually insinuated—intermixed with professions of
orthodoxy, and conveyed by a hint or a sneer. If Gibbon could
have ventured, in simple and express terms, to assert his dis
belief in Christianity, all his persiflage would have been omitted ;
and the reader, especially the young reader, would have known
that his anti-Christian opinions were the attacks of an enemy—
not the candid admissions of a friend. To this also we owe
much of the scepticism which exists among educated English
men : usiug the word scepticism in its derivative sense—to
express not incredulity, but, doubt. They have not the means
of making a real independent examination of the evidences of
their faith. A single branch of that vast inquiry, if not aided by
taking on trust the results handed down by previous inquirers,
would occupy all the leisure which can be spared from a business
or a profession. All that they think they have time for is to
read a few popular treatises. But they know that these treatises
have not been subjected to the ordeal of unfettered criticism.
As little can they infer the truth of the established doctrine
from the apparent acquiesence of those around them. They
know that they may be surrounded by unbelieving conformists.
And thus they pass their lives in scepticism—in a state of in
decision— suspecting that what they have been taught may
contain a mixture of truth and error which they are unable to
decompose. If a balance could be struck between the infidelity
that is prevented, and the infidelity that is occasioned, by the
absence of free discussion, we have no doubt that the latter
would greatly predominate.”
��iillj
ihww
�
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
Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: v, 7-31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reply to Essays and addresses of Rev. James M. Wilson (Macmillan, 1894). First published in the National Reformer. 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
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N574
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Science
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
S.S.
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 (Unscientific religion, or: remarks on the Rev. J.M. Wilson's "Attempt to treat some religious questions in a scientific spirit"), 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
James M. Wilson
NSS
Religion and science
-
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/44f373be54e22e4c23bbf7c8a862e19e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BjpEoMG6kPItsV4qi4qKMkjA-INHy0Q8xnDaAb7GiiDwJ7xwmMR03Kq974aJmz09CSjFZZUy1fh7Pn00HawdZ31em7TFDqs6Pzmx%7E03wtsUZq-nR0qMFUdilC47DAQ9mp4eVSAI7y9JwuUjz346o5ElIr6Syf2Y%7EBuqt5-4IsQQh3BUiZUOKHvtnUS4wXrF5coT3-GLMd-7orp%7EHbfZlhISfQQ0Rv8rDFJEy4a946T31w%7EAGrEgUsFniauXjw6uAOE7zT-ygYaA7RIG0RfnDugOjx6ECPMTrF08NTv-2RmyVAdBegwZEDTpfyTUJeqJ8iHXAJMk4qrEI5pUE8jl07A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b3f05758ce157bd3ed88956be5a6ecd
PDF Text
Text
iTftg Atheistic ffllaffarm*
VI.
‘
z 4’- ■
NATURE
AND
THE GODS.
ARTHUR B. MOSS.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
-------------
Under this title it is proposed to issue a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which shall consist of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethoug’ht 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 will consist of sixteen pages, and will be
published at one penny. Each writer is responsible only
for his or her own views.
I. “ What is the use of Prayer ?” By Annie Besant.
II. “ Mind considered as a Bodily Function.”
Alice Bradlaugh.
III. “ The Gospel of Evolution.”
ling, D.Sc.
IV. “Englxnd’s Balance-Sheet.”
laugh.
V. “The Story
of the
Soup, n.”
By
By Edward Ave-
By Charles Brad
By Annie Besant.
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
Ladies and Gentdeaien,—No word has played a more
important part in the discussion of scientific and philo
sophical questions than the word Nature. Everyone
thinks he knows the mbaning of it. Yet how few have
used it to express the same idea; indeed it has been
•employed to convey such a variety of impressions that
John Stuart Mill asserts that it has been the “fruitful
source” of the propagation of “false taste, false philo
sophy, false morality, and even bad law.” Now, I propose
in this lecture that we start with some clear ideas concern
ing the meaning of such words, upon the right understand
ing of which the whole force of my arguments depends.
What, then, is meant by the word Nature ? When used
by a materialist it has two important meanings. In its
large and philosophical sense it means, as Mr. Mill says:
‘ ‘ The sum of all ph.8enom.ena, together with the causes
which produce them, including not only all that happens,
but all that is capable of happening—the unused capabili
ties of matter being as much a part of the idea of Nature
as those which take effect.” But the wor^. Nature is often
used, and rightly used, to distinguish the “natural ” from
the “artificial” object—that is, to indicate the difference
between a thing produced spontaneously by Nature, from
a thing wrought by the skill and labor of man.
But it must not be supposed that the artificial object
forms no part of Nature. All art belongs to Nature. Art
simply means the adaptation, the moulding into certain
forms of the things of Nature, and therefore the artistic
productions of man are included in the comprehensive
’sense of the term Nature which I just now used.
�84
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Now in Nature there is a permanent and a changeableelement, but man only takes cognisance of the changeable
or pheenomenal element; of the substratum underlying phe
nomena he knows and can know nothing whatever ; that is,
man does not know what matter and force are in them
selves in the abstract, he only knows them in the concrete,
as they affect him through the medium of his senses.
Now I allege that nearly all the mistakes of theology
have arisen from the ignorance of man in regard to Nature
and her mode of operation. Let us consider for a moment
a few facts in reference to man. Of course I don’t want to
take you back to his origin. But suppose we go back no
further than a few thousand years, we shall find that man
lived in holes in the earth; that he moved about in fear
and trembling; that not only did he fight against bis
fellow creatures, but that he went in constant fear of animals who sought him as their prey. Under these eiroirmstances he looked to Nature for assistance. He felt how
itnspeakab'ly helpless he was, and he cried aloud for help.
(Sometimes he imagined that he received what in his,
agony he had yearned for. Then it was that he thought
that Nature was most kind. Perhaps he wanted food to
eat and had tried in vain to procure it. But presently a
poor beast comes across his path, and he slays it and satis
fies his hunger. Or perhaps he himself is in danger. A
ferocious animal is in pursuit of him and he sees no means
of escape, but presently comes in view a narrow stream of
water which he can swim across, but which his pursuer
cannot. When he is again secure he utters a deep sigh of
relief. In time he makes rapid strides of progress. He
learns to keep himself warm while the animals about him
are perishing with cold; he learns to make weapons where
with to destroy l^s enemies; but his greatest triumph of
all is when he has learned howto communicate his thoughts
to his fellows. Up to now it would be pretty safe to say
that, man was destitute of all ideas concerning the existence of god or gods. But he advances one stage further,
and his thoughts begin to take something like definite
shape. He forms for himself a theoiy as to the cause of
the events happening about him. And now the reign of
the gods begins. Man is still a naked savage; as Voltaire
truly says : ‘ ‘ Man had only his bare skin, which continu
ally exposed to the sun, rain and hail, became chapped,
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
85
tanned, and spotted. The male in our continent was dis
figured by spare hairs on his body, which rendered him
frightful without covering him. His face was hidden by
these hairs. His skin became a rough soil which bore a
.forest of stalks, the roots of which tended upwards and the
branches of which grew downwards. It was in this state
that this animal ventured to paint god, when in course of
time he learnt the art of description ” (“ Philosophical Dic
tionary,” vol. ii., page 182).
Naturally enough man’s first objects of worship were
fetishes—gods of wood, stone, trees, fire, water. By-andbye, however, he came to worship living beings; in fact,
-any animal that he thought was superior in any way to.
himself was converted into an object of worship. But
none of these gods were of any assistance to him in pro
moting his advancement in the world. And neither did
he receive any assistance from the spontaneous action of
Nature. In fact he advanced in the road of civilisation
■only in proportion as he offered ceaseless war against the
hurtful forces of nature, using one force to counteract the
■destructive character of another. Think what the earth
must have been without a solitary house upon it, without
a man who yet knew how to till the soilI Must it not have
been a howling wilderness fit only for savage beasts and
brutal barbarians? In course of time, however, man
made great' strides. He began to live in communities,
which. afterwards grew into nations. He betook himself
also to the art of agriculture, and supplied himself and his
fellows with good, nutritious food. And with this growth
of man the gods underwent a similar transition. Now
instead of bowing down before fetishes, man transferred
his worship to gods and goddesses who were supposed to
dwell somewhere in the sky. And these gods were of a
•very peculiar kind. Each of them had a separate depart
ment to himself and performed only a certain class of
actions. One made the sun to shine and the trees to grow;
one had a kind of dynamite factory to himself, and manu
factured lightning and thunder; another was a god of
love ; another secretary for war; another perpetual presi
dent of the Celestial Peace Society. Some had several
heads; some had only one eye or one arm; some had
wings, while others appeared like giants, and hurled
.thunderbolts at the heads of unoffending people. But
�86
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
these gods were of no more service to man than those that
preceded them. If man advanced it was by his own effort,
by virtue of using his intelligence, by strife, warfare, and
by suffering.
Neither Nature nor the gods taught man to be truth
ful, honest, just, nor even to be clean. No god came to
tell him that he must not lie, nor steal, nor murder. All
virtues are acquired, all are the result of education. And
it was only after coming together and being criticised by
one another; men being criticised by women who no
doubt taught them that when they came a-wooing they
would have a very slight chance if they were not clean and
respectable; living in societies and being governed by
the wisest among their fellows, who were able to judge as
to what kind of actions produced the most beneficial
results, that laws against theft, adultery, and murder, and
other evil actions, were established. From Polytheism, or
belief in many gods, the next great step was to Mono
theism, or belief in one god. This was an important
transition, and meant the clearing from the heavens of
many fictitious deities. But though the monotheist
believed only in one god, that did not prevent others from
believing in an entirely different deity. The ancient Jew
worshipped Jahveh, but that did not prevent the Baalites
from having a god of their own, to whom they could
appeal in the hour of need. And just let me here observe
that the early monotheist always worshipped an anthropo
morphic or man-like deity. And he worshipped such a
god because man was the highest being of whom he had
any conception. His god was always the counterpart of
himself and reflected all the characteristics of his own
nature. Was he brutal and licentious? So was his god.
Was he in’favor of aggressive wars? Sowas his god.
Was he a petty tyrant, in favor of slavery? So was his
god. Was he a polygamist? Sowas his god. Was he
ignorant of the facts of life ? So was his god. Was he
revengeful and relentless ? So was his god.
And in whatever book we find a deity described as a
malevolent or fiendish wretch depend upon it, by what
ever name that book may be known, and by whomsoever
it may be reverenced, it was written by one who possessed
in his own person precisely the same characteristics as»
those he depicted in the character of his deity.
�NATUIIE AND TlTE GODS.
Th e Jewish, god, Jahveh, it must be understood, was not
a spiritual being, although it is sometimes pretended that
he was. No. He was a purely material being. True he
lived somewhere up above, but he made very frequent
visits to the earth. Once he walked in the garden of Eden
“in the cool of day,” or “his voice” did for him (Gen.
iii., 8). Once he stood upon a mountain, whither Moses,
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu had gone to hold a consultation
with him (Ex. xxiv., 10). Once he talked with Moses
“face to face” (Ex. xxxiii., 11).
And not only was Jahveh a material being, but on the
whole he was not a very formidable deity. In point of
truth he was a very little fellow. And by way of diversion
he was sometimes drawn about in a small box, or ark,
two feet long and three feet wide (Sam. vi., 6, 7). As
evidence that even among professional Christians to-day
Jahveh is not looked upon as a very stalwart fellow, Mr.
Edward Gibson, in the House of Commons, a short time
ago said that if Mr. Bradlaugh were admitted into that
assembly the effect of it would be that god would be
“thrown out of the window.”
And if you want to find a man with “small ideas” on
general matters it is only necessary to know the kind of
god he worships to be able to determine the intellectual
width and depth of such a man’s mind.
Why is this ? Because all ideas of god were born in
the fertile imaginations of men, and a man’s idea of god
is invariably the exact measurement of himself, morally
and intellectually. It may be urged by some Theists that
man is indebted to Jahveh for his existence, and that he
owes his moral and intellectual advancement to the fact
that this deity, through the medium of Moses and the
other inspired writers, laid down certain commandments
for his guidance in life. When it is remembered, however,
that if man is indebted in any way to Jahveh for his ex
istence, he owes him only the exact equivalent of the
benefits he has received, I think it will be seen that on the
whole man’s indebtedness to this deity is very small indeed.
Was Adam indebted to Jahveh for the imperfect nature
which compelled him to commit the so-called sin which
imperilled the future destiny of human race ? Were all
the “miserable sinners”—the descendants of the first
pair—indebted to Jahveh for their “corrupt” natures?
�88
THE ATHEISTIC PEATFORM.
If yes, what kind of god was man indebted to ? To a god
who once drowned the whole of mankind except one family ?
To a god who said that he was a jealous being who “ visir ted the sins of the father upon the children unto a third
and fourth generation (Ex. xx., 5) ? To a god who sanc
tioned slavery (Lev. xxv., 44, 45) and injustice of all
kinds ? To a god who said “ thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live” (Ex. xxii., 18), and gave instructions for men to
kill the blasphemers among their fellows (Lev. xxiv., 16) ?
To a god who told Moses to go against the Midianites and
slay every man among them, preserving only the virgins
among the women to satisfy the lustful natures of a brutal
horde of soldiers (Numbers xxxi., 7—18) ? To a god to
whom, as Shelley says, the only acceptable offerings were
the steam of slaughter, the dissonance of groans, and
the flames of a desolate land” (Dialogue between
“ Eusebes and Theosophus,” prose writings, page 300) ? I
deny that man has ever been in any way indebted to such
a god, and I say moreover that such a deity never had any
leal existence, except in the base imaginations of ignorant
and brutal men. But the next stage was from the
material to the spiritual god. Many ages must have
elapsed before this more elevating though equally absurd
belief_ became to be accepted, ^ven by a small minority of
mankind. But the time eventually did come—a time
which happily is now rapidly passing away—when intel
lectual men believed that the proposition of the existence
of god could be demonstrated to all rational minds. Some
said that god’s existence was self-evident to every intelli
gent mind; others that Nature and men could not have
come by “chance”; that they must have had a cause;
some said that the harmony existing’ in the universe proved
god’s existence; others that everybody except fools “felt
in their hearts ” that there was a god. But these imagin
ary proofs did not always convince. At last there came
forth philosophers who said that there was a mode of
reasoning, the adoption of which “leads irresistibly up to
the belief in god,” and that that mode was called the
mode a priori. Another school said that the a priori, or
reasoning from cause to effect, was an altogether fallacious
method, and that the only satisfactory mode of establish
ing god’s existence was the d posteriori, or reasoning from'
effect to cause.
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
89
Another school said that taken singly neither of these
modes of reasoning established the existence of deity, but
that both taken together “formed a perfect chain” of
reasoning that was quite conclusive on the point. Neither
of these schools, however, showed how two bad arguments
could possibly make one good one. But let me iust briefly
examine these arguments put forward so confidently by
leading Theists. The first method—d priori—invariably
takes the form of an attempt to establish what is called a
Great hirst Cause.”.
When it is said, that there must be a “first cause” to
account for the existence of Nature, such language, to say
the least, shows a total misapprehension of the meaning of
e word cause,” as used by scientific men, “ First
cause, as applied to Nature as a whole, remembering the
definition I have given, is an absurdity. Cause and effect
apply only to phenomena. Each effect is a cause of some
subsequent effect, and each cause is an effect of some
antecedent cause. The phaenomena of the universe form a
complete chain of causes and effects, and in an infinite
. regression there can be no first cause. Let me explain
what I mean more fully. For instance, here is a chainsuppose it is to form a perfect circle, every link in which
is perfect; now if you were to go round and round this
cham from now to doomsday you would never come to the
first lmk It is the same m Nature. You can go back,
and back, and back through successive causes and effects
but you will never come to a “first cause ” ; you will not
be able to say “here is the end of Nature, and here the
beginning of something else.” There is no brick wall to
mark the boundary line of Nature. You cannot “look
through Nature up to Nature’s God,”—the poet Pope not
withstanding—for Nature seems endless, and you can
neither penetrate her heights nor fathom her depths. And
1 have one other word to say in reference to this d priori
method, before finally disposing of it. It is this, that it is
an altogether unscientific method. Man knows nothing
whatever of cause except in the sense that in the imme
diate antecedent of an effect. Man’s experience is of effects •
these he takes cognisance of; of these he has some know
ledge but of cause, except as a means to an end, he has none.
But this brings me to the second mode of reasoning in
proof of God s existence, the d posteriori, and this has one
�90
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
advantage in its favor, and that is, that it is a scientific
method. It reasons from known effects up to the supposed
causes of them. Now this generally assumes the form,
no matter under what guise, of the famous 1 ‘ design argu
ment.” Dr. Paley stated it many years ago, and it has not
been much improved since his day. It is generally stated
m this way: “The world exhibits marks of design; that
design must have had a designer; that designer must be
a person ; that person is God.” A number of illustrations
are then brought forward to support this contention. For
instance, it is argued that when a man observes a watch
or a telescope, or any article that has been made to answer
a certain purpose, and the mechanism of which is sc>
adjusted as to effect the desired object, it is said that from
the marks of design or contrivance observed .in the
mechanism, he infers that these articles are the products
of some human designer. And so it is said that when we
look around the world and see how beautifully things are
designed, the eye to see, the ear to hear; how admirably
things are adapted the one to the other, are we not justi
fied by similar reasoning in concluding that these are the
productions of an almighty and infinite designer ? Briefly
stated that is the argument. Now' let me examine it.
And in the first place it will be observed that it is assumed
that- there is a great resemblance between the works of
Nature and the artistic works of man. But is this really a
fact? Man simply moulds natural objects into certain
forms; they are then called artificial objects. We know
that man designs watches and telescopes; it is a fact
within our experience. But there is not the slightest
similarity between the process of manufacture and the
natural process of growth; so that when we see various
objects of Nature, we do not conclude, however har
moniously the parts may work together, that they were
designed. We know a manufactured article from a natural
object, we could not mistake the one for the other. But
let us suppose that we did not know' that men made
watches; it is very probable that we should then think
that a watch was not made at all, but that it was a natural
object. Take an illustration. Suppose that I were to lay
a watch upon the earth somew'here in South Africa:
suppose that in a short time a savage wandering near the
spot where the watch was deposited should observe it,
�.NATURE AND THE GODS.
should take it into his hand and handle it—I am assuming’
that the savage had never seen a watch before, and was .
not aware that men designed and constructed watches— fl
think you that he would for a moment notice that it
exhibited marks of design? No, I think he would be morelikely to come to the opinion that it was alive. The design <■
argument therefore is purely an argument drawn from
experience. But what experience has man of god?
Speaking for myself I can say that I have absolutely no-1. '■'u
experience of him at all, and I am not acquainted with
anybody who has. Man does not know god as a designer
or constructor; he neither knows of his capabilities, nor
his existence; and he therefore cannot reasonably say that
god is the designer of anything.
The human eye is very often adduced by the Theist as
an illustration of design. Now nobody can deny that the
eye is a delicate, complicated, and beautiful structure ; no- '
body could fail to see and acknowledge with feelings of
admiration the wonderful adjustment and harmonious uj
working of its various parts; and all would readily ac
knowledge how admirably it is fitted to perform its func
tions. But yet to acknowledge all this is not to admit
that the eye is designed. To point to the combinations
and conditions which produce this result, without showing
that these conditions were designed, is to beg the whole
question. And it must be distinctly understood that the
onus probandi, as the lawyers say, lies with the affirmer of
the design argument and not with him who does not see
evidence in it sufficient to command belief. To show that
a thing is capable of effecting a certain result does not
prove that it was designed for that purpose.
For example. I hold this glass in my hand; I now re
lease my hold from it and it instantly falls to the ground ;
that does not surely prove either that I was designed to
hold up that glass, or that the glass was designed to fall ; | ]
on withdrawing my grasp from it. At most it only proves
that I am capable of holding it, and that when I release it,
it is impelled by the law of gravitation to fall towards the
earth.
But there is another view of this question I wish to pre
sent to you. From this argument it is not quite clear that
there is only one supreme god of the universe. Admit
tedly this is an argument based upon experience. What
�92
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
does experience teach us in respect to a person ? Simply
this. That a person must have an organisation, and a
person with an organisation must he a limited being. Has
god an organisation ? If he has not, he cannot be intelli
gent, cannot perceive, recollect, judge; and if he has,
then an organisation implies contrivance, and contrivance
implies a contriver, and this again instead of leading up to
one god, leads to an innumerable tribe of deities each
mightier and more complicated than the other.
If the Theist retorts that a person need not have an
■organisation, the Atheist at once replies that neither need
the designer of Nature be a person.
But these are not the only objections to be used against
the design argument. The d priori theologians have some
very potent arguments to advance. Mr. William Gillespie
has discovered twenty-four defects of d posteriori arguments,
and I think he has conclusively shown that all the attri
butes claimed for deity are impeached by this method.
In my humble opinion the design argument has grown
•out of the arrogance and conceit of man, who imagines
that the earth and all the things existing upon it were
•created especially for his benefit.
Suppose that I admit that there is design in Nature, the
Theist has then to account for some awkward and many
horrible designs. How will he get over the fact that
Nature is one vast battle-field on which all fife is engaged
in warfare ? What goodness will he see in the design
that gives the strong and cunning the advantage over the
weak and simple ? What beneficence will he detect in the
fact that all animals ‘‘prey” upon one another? and that
man is not exempt from the struggle ? Famine destroys
thousands ; earthquakes desolate a land; and what tongue
-can tell the anguish and pain endured by the very poor in
all great countries of the earth? Think of the “ills to
which flesh is heir.” Think of the diseases from which
so many thousands suffer. Think how many endure agony
from cancer or tumor, how many have within their bodies
parasites which locate themselves in the fiver, the muscles,
and the intestines, causing great agony and sometimes
death. Think how many are born blind and how many
become sightless on account of disease. Think of the deaf
and the dumb, and of the poor idiots who pass a dreary
mid useless existence in asylums. Then think of the acci-
�NATURE ANU THE GODS.
dents to which all men are liable. Think of the many
who are killed or injured on railways every year. Think of men and boys who injure or destroy their limbs in
machinery during the performance of their daily work.
Think of the thousands who find a premature and watery
grave. In one of our London workhouses I saw recently
a young man who had met with a dreadful accident; who
had had his hand frightfully lacerated by a circular saw,
which will prevent him from ever working again. Think
of his suffering. Think of the misery his wife and chil
dren will have to bear on account of it. It almost makes
one shed bitter tears to think of it; and yet we are to be
told, we who are striving to alleviate suffering and mit,igate the evils which afflict our fellow creatures, we are to
be told that an infinitely wise and good god designs these
things.
Oh the blasphemy of it! Surely an infinite fiend could
not do worse; and if I thought that Nature were intelli
gent, that Nature knew of the suffering she inflicted on all
kinds of living beings and had the power to prevent it, but
would not, I would curse Nature even though the curse in
volved for me a sudden and painful death. But Nature
heareth not man’s protests or appeals—she is blind to his
sufferings and deaf to his prayers.
Oh, but it’s said: “ See what harmony there is in the
Universe : ” per se there is neither harmony nor chaos in
Nature; we call that harmony which pleasantly affects us,
and that chaos which does the reverse. Some Theist may
say: “ Suppose that I grant that I cannot prove that god
exists, what then ? You cannot prove your own existence,
and yet you believe that you exist.” I am well aware that
I cannot prove my own existence; I don’t want to prove
it; it’s a fact, and it stands for itself—to me it is not a
matter of belief, it is a matter of certainty. I know that
I exist. Cannot god make the evidence of his existence as
clear as my own is to me ? If he cannot, what becomes of
his power ? and if he will not, what of his goodness ?
And it must be remembered that there are thousands of
intelligent Atheists in the world to-day. Now, either god
does not wish man to believe in him, or if he does he lacks the power to produce conviction. 0 Theist—you who
profess to be conversant with the ways of the almighty—
explain to me, now, how it is that in proportion as men
�•94
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
•cultivate their minds and reason on theological questions
that the tendency is for them to disbelieve even in the
ethereal deity of modern Theism. And it will not do in
the nineteenth century to put Jesus forward as a god. He
was no god. He possessed many good qualities, no doubt,
as a man—but not one attribute which is claimed for god.
He was neither all-wise, nor all-good, nor all-powerful, and
he was only a finite being. And how can it be pretended
by sensible persons that a finite man living on the earth,
born of a woman, and dying like any other ordinary being,
could possibly be the infinite god of the Universe ? Is it
not absurd ? I cannot believe it, and anybody with brains
that devotes a moment’s thought to the matter, must ac
knowledge either that it is incomprehensible, or that it is
monstrously absurd.
In this country we are not asked to believe in any of the
“foreign gods”—the gods of ancient Greece or Home—
the gods of China, India, or Egypt, etc.—and we need not
now discuss as to how far these deities have influenced
human conduct for good or for ill. England, as a civilised
country, is not very old. And civilisation has always
meant a banishment of the gods. While men considered
how to please the gods, they neglected in a great measure
the work of the world. As Plato said : “ The gods only
help those who help themselves.” Well they are just the
persons who do not want help ; and I shall never worship
any god who leaves the helpless and the unfortunate to
perish.
If god only “helps those who help themselves,” he
might as well leave the helping alone, because even as
we find the world to-day, the whole of life seems to be
based on the principle that, “ unto him that hath shall be
given, and he shall have in abundance, and from him that
hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth
to have.” The man who has a strong constitution may
struggle successfully in the world; the man with great
affluence may win an easy victory over his fellows; the
man who has plenty of “influential friends” has good
prospects ; but the poor, the weakly, the ignorant, what
hope have they—they have to suffer and toil, and toil and
suffer from the cradle to the tomb.
How is it, then, you may ask, if man has received no
assistance from without, either from Nature or the gods,
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
95
that he has achieved such splendid results in the world ?
The answer is simple enough. The great struggle for life
—the desire to get food, clothing, habitation, comfort—
these have been the motives which have urged men on.
The desire to get food caused men to till the soil, and, as
the demand increased, the methods of cultivation improved;
with improved taste came improved raiment and dwellings
for the rich; plain dress and decent habitation for the
poor. Men having given up the worship of Nature, began
to study her; they found that by diligent investigation,
and the application of their augmented knowledge, they
were able to beautify the world, and render their lives
happy. Then we began to have great scientific discoveries.
Navigation, steam-power, telegraphy, electricity; by a
knowledge of the use of these powers man has been able
to conquer the destructive character of many natural
forces, and to transfer a world of misery into a home
of comparative comfort. And I say that the world is
indebted far more to those who built houses, made
clothes, navigated ships, made machinery, wrote books,
than to all the gods and their clerical representatives the
world has ever known. Belief in god never helped a man
to supersede the sailing vessel by the steamship, the old
coach by the railroad, the scythe by the reaping machine,
nor the fastest locomotion by the telegraph wires. Man’s
necessities ahured him on to all these achievements. One
Stephenson is worth a thousand priests—one Edison of
more value to the world than all the gods ever pictured by
the imagination. And we must not forget the men who freed
the human intellect from the fetter's of a degrading supersti
tion. We must n ot forget what the world owes to our Brunos,
our Spinozas, our Voltaires, our Paines, .our Priestleys; for
these, by teaching men to rely on their reason, have opened
out channels of thought that were previously closed, and
mines of intellectual and material wealth that have since
yielded great results. And so it must now be said that
man is master of Nature, and he finds that she is just as
good as a servant as she was bad as a master.
But the earth is not yet a Paradise. Theology is not yet
entirely banished; the debris of the decayed beliefs still
cumber our path and impede our progress. There is
even now much that remains to be done. Plenty of labor
to be performed. Ignorance, poverty, and crime and
�96
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
misery still exist and exert their evil influence in the
world. The philanthropist and the reformer have still
their work to do. The ignorant have yet to he instructed,
the hungry have yet to bo fed, the homeless have yet to be
provided for. And I have come to the opinion after years
of experience, that ignorance is the. real cause of all the
misery and suffering in the world: that that man is truly
wise who sees that it is against his own interest to do a
paltry act, to perform an evil deed. All actions carry with
them their consequences, and you can no more escape the
effects of your evil deeds than you ('an evade the law of
gravitation, or elude the grim monster Death when the
dread hour arrives.
No. If you would be happy you must act virtuously—
act as you would desire all others to do to promote your
happiness. Say to yourselves : if every one were to act
as I am doing, would the world he benefited ? and if you
come to the opinion that th<* world would not be improved
by such conduct, depend upon it your actions are not good.
Remember that once you perform a deed in Nature it is
irrevocable ; and if it is bad repentance is worse than use
less. All actions either have an evil or a good result.
Every deed leaves its indelible impress on the book of
Nature, from which no leaves can be torn and nothing can
be expunged. And remember, too, that the man who
makes his fellow-creatures happy cannot displease a god
who is good; and a god who is not good is neither deserv
ing of admiration nor service.
An infinite and all-powerful god cannot need the assist
ance of man ; but man needs the assistance of his brothers
and sisters to diffuse the glorious light of knowledge
through the world; needs assistance to alleviate suffering,
to remove injustice, and secure the possibility of freedom
and happiness for all. Therefore I urge you td abate not
your enthusiasm, but work bravely on: and when the
evening of your life approaches, with wife by your side
and your children playing joyously about you, with many
friends to cheer and thank you—then will you know that
vour life’s labor has not been in vain.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, at 63, Fleet
Street, London, E.C.—1881.
�
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
Nature and the gods
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [83]-96 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 6
Notes: 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
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N503
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Nature and the gods), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Gods
Nature
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37ab40553814e38a03936b8ebca8d874.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=H5p8sjaXuYuBGNcjN97UHoMesMPcgbHJkHWX3eLnWv0Ab2JSJ7RTkEoONLhOSzAakO0i8H%7EAlWOKvY4%7EsIvgeF7yAYuPbIwbUchlim7U-9AdJttyZ7R1AdP8Mrl%7ES2v1KgKYq2x7gFzUj42Phr0W%7Ess3o2iXeNG43QqXyJK91SVqt-Q4gJNMLSQhL%7EZBvq1CHe8OgEFocQt5qISqmZhImqait4j0eqz5b54H4B0wjTVd7o4s8wbayLVZ2zTS1hLS34SWdLWNNGLpknW2RNXE57zR3eHjf0ffvXSh1jk9tuB9gkJMFScFPK57VLc2%7E5obvRRh0aUMmcQMjs1gawX6xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e5a1454a8e1fe1f676e5064718ff2e5b
PDF Text
Text
& *■s ' '
NATIONAL SECULAR society
PLAIN REASONS'
WHY PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY
SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
THE SUBSTANCE OF A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE WOOD GREEN
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATING SOCIETY.
BY
W.
AI.WVLJLi.
“ Thus, then, judge-made hut hy judges doubted of, like some monstrous fossil
concerning which the geologists do wrangle, stands or sprawls our law of blas
phemy. How much longer shall it so stand or sprawl?”
LONDON
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY.,
63,
FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1884.
PRICE TWOPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�Plain Reasons why Prosecution for Blas
phemy should be abolished.
I.—The Obsourity of the Blasphemy Laws.
Writing on this subject in the Fortnightly Review,
Mr. John Macdonell says :—
“ The law has not been uniformly laid down; it has been
changed, not once only, but often, not by one judge, but by
several; it has been made the voice of the morality, and also
of the passions and prejudices, of the hour; and the history of
this law lies in the nature of these fluctuations.”
The truth of this statement may be made sufficiently
clear, by a consideration of the alternative definitions
of the offence given by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
in his “ Digest of the Criminal Law ; ” of the conflict
ing statements of Judge North in the two trials of
Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp ; of the still more striking
disagreement between these and the law as laid down
by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in his charge to the
jury in the case of Regina v. Charles Bradlaugh ; of
the opinions advanced by various eminent authorities
(Dr. Blake Odgers in his “ Law of Slander and Libel,”
his article in the Modern Review, and his paper read
before the Social Science Congress ; Emeritus Profes
sor Hunter; the able author of the article on Blasphemy
�4
in the Westminster Review for July, 1883 ; the writeij
in the Fortnightly, quoted above, etc., etc.) ; and of the
utter impossibility of reconciling the judgments de
livered in the various trials which have taken place
during this century, and which constitute the founda
tion of the Common Law of England as regards Blas
phemy at the present time. The framing of an exact
legal definition of Blasphemy has become, in fact, a
problem of a most difficult kind, if indeed it be not an
utterly hopeless task. Sir James Stephen’s opinion,
that the Blasphemy inheres in the matter, and not
merely in the manner of the libel, is at striking vari
ance with several authorities almost as eminent. The
prevailing voice in the preseht decade, declares the
penal part of the offence to lie in the manner. Loud
profession is made of indisposition to punish honest
expression of opinion, however opposed to religious
dogma, so long as ridicule is not used ; but John Stuart
Mill, the foremost logician of the age, says : “ The
line between argument and reviling is too difficult for
even legal acuteness to draw.” It is strongly urged in
some quarters, notably by Dr. Odgers, that “ our re
ligious emotions” demand protection from the law.
But why religious opinion more than other opinion
needs protection is difficult to see. It would seem that
Dean Cockburn may grossly insult Mary Somerville by
name from the pulpit of York Minster, on account of
her teachings in physical science, and that the clergy
may roundly abuse Darwin from their coward’s castle ;
but dogmatic theology must have police protection.
Another view of the case upholds the existing con
dition of the law, because of blasphemous libels incit
�5
ing to breaches of the peace ; but surely disturbers of
the peace can be summarily dealt with without our
hearing of blasphemy ! It is a mere matter of opinion,
at the present time, whether Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp
were sent to prison because of the opinions they held
honestly upon religious matters, because they ridiculed
religious opinion, because their publication was vulgar
to cultured tastes, because their newspaper had irritated
the spleen of Sir Henry Tyler, or because they fell the
victims of a blow aimed at the junior member for
Northampton. It looks to me a gross outrage to im
prison peaceable citizens ostensibly under a law which
exists in a state of such inexplicable confusion.
II.—The Danger of their Vindictive Appli
cation.
The recent prosecutions were not called for by any
religious organisation. They were notoriously insti
gated by known political and bitter enemies.1 They
took place in the very hot-bed of corruption. Lying
misrepresentations and suggestions of lascivious inde
cency were put forth by a counsel known to be an
unscrupulous personal hater of the accused most
This statement has since been well corroborated by the editor of
St. Stephen's ■Review (the new first-class Conservative publication),
who expressly admits that the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh for
blasphemy was commenced because certain Conservative members
believed “that Mr. Bradlaugh could, by a conviction for blasphemy,
be disqualified from sitting as a member, and so completely got rid
of,” and, the editor adds, “ proceedings were taken accordingly.”
�6
sought to be injured by the prosecutions. The judge,
known to have strong feelings of his own towards
persons such as the accused, acted more the part of
prosecuting counsel than that of an impartial person
presiding over a trial at law; made it extremely diffi
cult for one of the accused to speak in his own defence
with the freedom and latitude usually allowed in such
cases ; roughly refused bail when the first jury re
fused to convict, although all the defendants had been
given bail on commitment; and, having made a
change in his laying down of the law, and the second
jury having convicted, he passed a sentence which has
been almost universally condemned as grossly exces
sive. It is impossible to say whether his almost im
mediate removal from the trial of criminal cases
was owing to an opinion on the part of the Govern
ment of his unfitness. As in older time personal
spleen could be easily sated by trumped-up charges of
witchcraft, so in this last quarter of the nineteenth
century the country has witnessed an iniquitous and
hypocritical prosecution, under laws thought to be
obsolete, result in the imprisonment for excessive
terms of three law-abiding citizens.
Blasphemy is just one of those indistinct offences
which are peculiarly liable to the danger of being used
by unscrupulous people to wreak vengeance upon a
foe not otherwise to be reached—“a weapon,” says
Emeritus Professor Hunter, “always ready to the hand
of mischievous fools or designing knaves.”
The transparently hypocritical character of the pro
secution of Foote has excited the almost universal
reprobation of persons whose piety is undoubted, and
�7
whojremember the rebuke which Jesus Christ gave to
his followers when they wished fire to be called down
from heaven upon his enemies.
III.—Their Unequal Application
In the first 'trial of Messrs. Foote, Ramsey and Kemp,
Mr. Justice North said: “Now, if by writing or
verbally, anyone denies the existence of the deity, or
denies the providence of God, if he puts forward any
abuse, or contumely, or reproach, with respect to the
Almighty, or holds up the persons of the trinity,
whether it is our Savior Christ or anyone else, to con
tempt or derision; or ridicules the persons of the
trinity, or God Almighty, or the Christian religion, or
the Holy Scriptures in any way—that is what the law
considers to be blasphemy.” After the jury had re
fused to convict under the law as thus laid down, Mr.
Justice North gave a new law, and said : " What you
have to consider is, is there any contumelious reproach,
or profane scoffing against the Holy Scriptures, or
anything exposing the Holy Scriptures to ridicule,
-contempt, or derision ? ” Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp
were immured in gaol under one of these interpre
tations of the law. Then why is not the publication
of the works of Byron, Shelley, Swinburne, Froude,
Matthew Arnold, Huxley, John Morley, Bishop Colenso, Herbert Spencer, and a galaxy of other stars
made the subject of prosecution ? There can only be
one logical answer to this question : If the recent pro
secutions were just these others ought to follow. For
�8
if these writers have not “ exposed the Holy Scriptures
to ridicule, contempt, and derision,” words have no
meaning. Mr. Justice North did not say to the jury :
“ What you have to consider is, Is there any vulgarity
in the defendants’ journal, any pandering to the tastes
of vulgar people ? ” If he had said this the miscarriage
of law would have been too patent. Yet the charge
most commonly heard against these men from people
who profess to tolerate free discussion is that their
caricatures were indecent and vulgar. It is usually
explained that by the word “ indecent ” is not meant
anything obscene, but only something vulgar. It is
perhaps an awkward alternative to have to choose be
tween saying that Foote is imprisoned for vulgarity,
and so admitting that the actual charge against him
was a false and hypocritical one ; and admitting that
he is imprisoned for an offence of which all our best
and most popular writers are guilty. If the feeling of
poor people that one law exists for them and another
for the rich ever had justification, it has it in the fact
that a publication purchased by them to the number
of tens of thousands, a publication uttering only in
plainer words what the best literature of the day con3
tains, a publication not immoral or inciting to
breaches of the peace, has been prosecuted, and its
conductors degraded to the punishment of common
felons. So
“ Great men may jest with saints ; ’tis wit in them,
But in the less, foul profanation.”
�9.
IV. —The Charge of Blasphemy is
Anachronism.
Blasphemy is a survival, and is hardly heard of in
police courts once in a generation. Much more fre
quently magistrates have to hear cases where witchery
is alleged. Mr. Justice North attributed Mr. Foote’s
perversity to the direct inspiration of “ the devil,” and
an old woman, a few days ago, pricked another on the
ear with a needle to remove the charm of her witch
craft. These are survivals, and they are interesting as
pictures of past times, in which, as Lord Chief Justice
Coleridge remarked, “ happily we do not live.” But
when these things are made use of to obtain the unjust
imprisonment of honest men, when they are made use
of to wreak vengeance for the telling of unpalatable
truths, their interest is of a different character. A sur
vival and an anachronism, however, blasphemy is.
It comes down to these times from the age when a
magnificent woman was torn alive on a Christian altar
in Alexandria, through centuries whose deeds have
blackened Christian history, and ought to make the
modern emulators of the old defenders of the faith
slink silently into the shade.
V.—It is a Priest-made Offence.
Soon after Christianity was adopted as the religion
of the Roman Empire, the laws were so adjusted as to
favor priestly aggrandisement and the protection of
priests from civil and criminal responsibility. The
�I
degree of insolence reached by the priesthood is so
well known that’it need not be described. Occasional
outbursts of it [in our times show the height to which
it once reached. Even Dr. Vaughan, the Dean of
Llandaff and Master of the Temple, had the courage to
move for the dismissal of the Professor of Chemistry
at the University College of South Wales because of
his supposed ympathy with Secularism. This priestly
arrogance, which^devised the writ de fieretico Gomburendo, invented the offence of blasphemy. Without
priests we should have had no blasphemy. This is at
least prima facie cause for suspecting the justice of
prosecutions for^the so-called offence. Most of what
the Church has devised in the past is being gradually
got rid of, and although its riches are held for the
moment, recentjstatistics show that only about twelve
per cent, of the whole population sufficiently respects
the priesthood as to be regular attendants on their
ministrations.
VI. — To Apply the Obsolete Laws of Blas
phemy is Insulting to the Intelligence
of the Age.
What would be thought of a judge who, sitting in
a High Court of Justice, should to-day reiterate as his
own opinion the words of that upright judge, Sir
Matthew Hale, who said : “ That there were such
creatures as witches he made no doubt at all, for the
Scriptures had affirmed so much.” He could not be
�11
tolerated. Yet such an anachronism, and so plain a
remnant of ecclesiastical arrogance as Blasphemy, is
allowed to be so used as to enable a subject of personal
pique to obtain the imprisonment of three law-abiding
citizens ! At a time when the intellect of the country
is agnostic, it is possible to imprison a man of Mr.
Foote’s ability upon a charge which has no meaning,
or which, at least, is interpreted by seven legal authori
ties in seven different ways. Whether Foote be im
prisoned for daring to deny priest-made dogma ; or for
ridiculing religious beliefs held by few rational people;
or only because a judge could be found to apply an
obsolete law in a prosecution started by a Sir Henry
Tyler ; his imprisonment is an insult to modern intel
ligence. No punishment would be meted out to one
who should ridicule the myth of Leda and Jupiter
(which needs no ridicule) ; yet if the immaculate con
ception and the hypostatic union be ridiculed, some
body’s feelings are to be understood as hurt, and the
author must be sent to jail. How, pray, are these dog
mas to be met, if not with laughter ? When the
Jewish and Christian literature have taken their proper
place in popular estimation, their stories will be no
more ridiculed than the story of Leda or the story of
Perseus.
VII.—Liberty is made a Sham.
While the spirit of the age is against these prosecu
tions ; while the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, in his place in the House of Commons,
�12
deprecates them; while the Lord Chief Justice of
England disapproves them; while Sir James Fitzjames
Stephen expresses himself adversely to them ; it ap
pears to be possible to an enemy to sate his spite by
initiating such a prosecution, for a judge to order a
second trial immediately upon the failure of a first,
and for three fellow-citizens to be shut up in prison as
common offenders for exercising freedom of speech.
It seems to be necessary to obtain some express legis
lation, while the present Common Law regarding
blasphemy exists, to prevent people being sent to gaol
for an offence, the exact nature of which no one is
able to satisfactorily define. We have been accus
tomed to boast of our national freedom, of the freedom
of our press, of the freedom of our platforms, of the
freedom of our opinion. It is true we have been
warned of the existence of these blasphemy laws, but
the warning was unheeded—no one believed it pos
sible that another prosecution could take place. In a
moment of unwatchfulness, however, bigotry and hy
pocrisy stole a march, and three men were insulted
from the bench and handed over to the jailer under
the obsolete law.
VIII.—Such Prosecutions fail of their object.
u
Richard Carlile spent nine years in prison, his wife,
'daughter, and shopman likewise were put into gaol for
a publication which is now sold freely without per
secution. Shelley’s “ Queen Mab ” was prosecuted,
and found to be a blasphemous libel, yet the people
�13
who are understood to favor the perpetuation of bias
phemy as an offence, buy freely and read that splendid
composition. The works of Thomas Paine have been
prosecuted more than once, but they are sold with
impunity by every bookseller. Moreover,
IX.—The Real Blasphemers are not interfered
with.
These are such as he whom I heard a few weeks ago
in a Wood Green pulpit, during a prayer, complimenting
the Almighty upon his good intentions, and sympa
thising with him on account of the difficulties which
unbelieving men throw in his way. Lord Brougham
declared that blasphemy is an offence that can be com
mitted only by a believer in the existence of the deity
blasphemed. The real blasphemers are those who
pretend to the same intimacy with their deity as with
the man who lives in the next house; those who
credit their god with ordering or approving the atroci
ties committed by the ancient Jews ; and those who,
believing that a personal god exists, who is the author
and controller of all things, think unworthy thoughts
of his character. They are real blasphemers who
blaspheme their god by degrading thoughts, and
blaspheme man by acts of injustice, of tyranny, of
hypocrisy.
�14
X.—Magna est Veritas.
It is not truth which needs the police. It is a super
stition owning great wealth, and which writhes beneath
a criticism destined to deprive it of the unjust pos
session of its riches, which requires the aid of a silly
law to silence its foes. A faith which cannot with
stand the most severe criticism, which is open to ridi
cule and yet cannot bear it, is a faith unworthy of pro
tection by English law. No more hollow and worth
less plea was ever put forward than the plea for the
shielding of religious feeling by the magistrate. Scien
tific men do not stoop to ask such protection from the
police against satirical journalists. Martin Tupper
does not descend to crave the protection of the law
against the ridicule which his proverbial philosophy
has had to encounter. Ridicule is a potent weapon
against all kinds of shams, and all kinds of eccentrici
ties, but it cannot pierce the armor of truth, nor harm
one hair of the just. Truth is mighty, and will
prevail
�-eccj hr/' ■
vIKp a j'
.
-ifch
-
-dej ?.--'v. ■:'.
.?*x£3, i ■•?■..... ■•
-’ML’ _•• .
hfc
■
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
Plain reasons why prosecution for blasphemy should be abolished : the substance of a speech delivered in the Wood Green Parliamentary Debating Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawer, W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 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
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N481
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Plain reasons why prosecution for blasphemy should be abolished : the substance of a speech delivered in the Wood Green Parliamentary Debating Society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9e96a1eb03583237ff5af1c226679d3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MSj9VkHFrBzKX7QMXaVJOuCjxI7HB0SMrWcJPronW164qQxoi59FfRl83RcQsQM6JwMvyhuUZzM1l2Q7PL5%7EesRNiDWwjOPLgwHTINOz8Rf6%7Ek3RCmzFSDGGKRFhMm5hwEg8icFPbRWZ2Tx6HzQRhMq-v6dZd1GzObcLNx5Eb5in-jA7HNfGcblEJCLgMMwsPtAIojVn%7EUnmJzVilQyJTE48%7E-jc6NLyxI6uPePFwNmdcD1JA-XryIJ-I3FRaF1Bez7WyKvKoeqXOu-4zGNo72v54qyNWMLFtPVdpj1Vfo-gexaD6V8CFPKhBHGyTbB7VdNemrb85KHjSG58ZUUELQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
03d8b39f5765b7d253961a5fd8df73e1
PDF Text
Text
B'xrs’V
N^O
NATIONALSECULAR SOCIETY
THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE:
A REGISTER OF EVENTS
Which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880.
BY
W.
MAWER.
“ No, not an oath........... ..
Swear priests, and cowards, and men cautelous,rt--Ul‘I
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive metal of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath.”—Julius Cxsar, Act II., Scene 1.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1883.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BBSANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE.
——♦—
1 8 8 0.
April 2nd.—After twelve years’ fight and three repulses, Mr.
Charles Bradlaugh is elected member of Parliament for North
ampton. The polling was as follows:—
Labouchere (L.)
4,158
Bradlaugh (JR.)
3,827
Phipps (C.) ................................................ 3,152
Merewether (C.)
2,826
The Weekly Dispatch said: Mr. Bradlaugh’s achievement of the
position he has been aiming at so long and so zealously is a
notable sign of the times. Whatever his critics may think of
him, he will enter Parliament as the representative of a vastly
larger constituency than the whole electorate or the whole popu
lation of Northampton.
The Birmingham Daily Mail: Mr. Bradlaugh holds extreme
views on some subjects, but he will none the less be a useful
man in Parliament, his unflinching courage in the exposure of
abuses being unquestionable.
The Standard: Mr. Bradlaugh, now that he has got to the
House of Commons, is not likely to efface himself in speechless
obscurity.
The Southampton Times: The most signal and portentous
triumph is that which has been achieved by Mr. Bradlaugh. His
election shows what the unity of the Liberal party must have
been.
The Christian World: His contributions to the discussions of
the House may not be without value.
During the election Mr. Samuel Morley telegraphed to Mr.
Labouchere as follows: I strongly urge necessity of united effort
in all sections of Liberal party, and the sinking of minor and
personal questions, with many of which I deeply sympathise, in
�4
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
order to prevent the return, in so pronounced a constituency as
Northampton, of even one Conservative.
April 15th.—Mr. S. Morley, speaking at Bristol, said, respecting
his telegram to Northampton: He made no reference to candi
dates, nor did the friend who wrote the telegram go into detail,
but he advised union. Those who had known him all his life
would believe that he viewed with the intensest repugnance
the supposed opinions, both social and religious, of one of the
candidates. Afterwards, writing to the Record, Mr. Morley said
he deeply regretted his telegram.
The Weekly Dispatch, commenting on Mr. Morley’s conduct,
said: Let the bigots who have taken him to task for his temporary
aberration from the path of pharisaism make what they can of
his pitiful excuse. Other people can only regret that a man so
useful in many ways, both as a politician and a philanthropist,
should show himself so narrow-minded.
The Edinburgh Evening News: In their disappointment, the
defeated party have eagerly caught at the election of Mr. Brad
laugh as supplying the most pungent taunt that can be thrown
at their victorious opponents.
The Sheffield Telegraph: Bradlaugh is an M.P................. the
bellowing blasphemer of Northampton.
Mr. Bradlaugh announces that he considers he is legally en
titled to avail himself of the Freethinkers’ affirmation, and that
there is some reason to hope that other members will join him
in that course.
April 17th.—Sheffield Independent's “ London Correspondent ”
says : Tenets which constitute the religious faith of Mr. Brad
laugh are understood to constitute an insuperable difficulty in
the way of his being sworn a member of “the faithful Commons.”
April 29th.—Parliament opens.
May 3rd.—At the table of the House Mr. Bradlaugh handed
in a written paper to the Clerk of the House; on this were
written the words: “To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
House of Commons. I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg
respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as a person for the
time beingbylawpermittedtomake a solemn affirmation ordeclaration, instead of taking an oath. Charles Bradlaugh.” Asked if he
desired to state anything to the House, Mr. Bradlaugh said : I
have to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the
right to affirm to every person for the time being permitted by
law to make affirmation. I am such a person ; and under the
Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment
Act, 1870, I have repeatedly, for nine years past, affirmed in the
highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready to make
the declaration or affirmation of allegiance.
At the request of the Speaker Mr. Bradlaugh then withdrew,
in order that the House might consider the claim, and Lord F.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
5
Cavendish, urging that it would be manifestly inconvenient that
when any hon. member had applied to take his seat in the House,
any unnecessary delay should intervene, moved the appointment
•of a committee of inquiry which should lay before the House the
material on which the House itself should found its decision.
Sir Stafford Northcote seconded. Several other members spoke,
and Mr. Beresford Hope said that the grievance of one man was
very little compared with a great principle ; at present the House
of Commons was only a half-hatched chicken. The committee
was then agreed to.
May 11th.—Appointment of committee carried by 171 votes
against 74, after a two hours’ debate.
May 20th.—The committee report: “ that in the opinion of the
committee, persons entitled under the provisions of ‘the Evi
dence Amendment Act, 1869,’ and ‘ the Evidence Amendment
Act, 1870,’ to make a solemn declaration instead of an oath in
courts of justice, can not be admitted to make an affirmation or
declaration instead of an oath in the House of Commons, in persuance of the Acts 29 and 30 Viet., c. 19, and 31 and 32 Viet.,
•c. 72.”
The draft report, proposed by the Attorney-General, was to
the effect that “ persons so admitted,” etc , may be admitted, etc.
This was lost by the casting vote of the chairman (Mr. Walpole),
the other members of the committee voting as follows. Ayes:
Mr. Whitbread, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Massey, Mr. Sergeant
Simon, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Attorney- General, Mr. SolicitorGeneral, Mr. Watkin Williams. Noes : Sir John Holker, Lord
Henry Lennox, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton,
Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Henry Chaplin.
Mr. Bradlaugh makes a public statement of his position with
regard to the oath. He considered he had a legal right to choose
between the alternatives of making an affirmation or taking the
oath, and he felt it clearly his moral duty, in that case, to make
an affirmation. The oath included words which, to him, were
meaningless, and it would have been an act of hypocrisy to
voluntarily take this form if any other had been open to him.
He should, taking the oath, regard himself as bound not by the
letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would
have conveyed, had he been allowed to make it, and as soon as
he might be able he should take steps to put an end to the pre
sent doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice on
oaths and affirmations.
May 21st.—Amid a tumult of cries from the Conservative
benches Mr. Bradlaugh goes to the table for the purpose of being
sworn. Sir H. D. Wolff objecting, the Speaker requested Mr.
Bradlaugh to withdraw. He (the Speaker) was bound to say he
knew of no instance in which a member who had offered to take
the oath in the usual form was not allowed by the House to do
�6
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
so. Sir H. D. Wolff then moved that Mr. Bradlaugh should not
be allowed to take the oath, alleging against Mr. Bradlaugh his
repute as an Atheist, and his authorship of “ The Impeachment
of the House of Brunswick.” Mr. Aiderman Fowler seconded
the motion, stating that he held in his hand a petition praying
the House not to alter the law and the custom of the realm for
the purpose of admitting an Atheist to Parliament. Mr. Glad
stone, in the course of replying, said : “ it was not in consequence
of any regulation enforced by the authority of this House—of a
single branch of the legislature, however complete that authority
may be over the members of this House, that the hon. member
for Northampton presents himself to take the oath at the table.
He presents himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to
take the oath in order that he may fulfil the duty with which, as
we are given to understand, in a regular and formal manner his
constituents have entrusted him. That statutory obligation im
plied a statutory right.” He moved that it be referred to a
select committee to consider and report for the information of
the House whether the House has any right to prevent a dulyelected member, who is willing to take the oath, from doing so.
A long debate ensued, characterised by the fierceness with
which Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to Parliament was opposed.
Mr. John Bright, however, asked if the House were entitled
thus to obstruct what he called the right of a member to take his
seat on account of his religious belief, because it happened that
his belief or no belief had been openly professed, what reason
was there that any member of the House should not be ques
tioned as to his beliefs, and if the answer were not satisfactory
that the House should not be at liberty to object to his taking his
seat ? After two or three adjournments of the debate the Pre
mier’s amendment was virtually withdrawn, and a motion by the
Attorney-General was carried to the effect that a committee
should be appointed to report whether it was competent to the
House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by resolution, from taking the
oath.
May 28th.—Committee nominated—twenty-three members.
Mr. Labouchere gives notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the law of Parliamentary Oaths, to provide that any
member may, if he desire, make a solemn affirmation in lieu of
taking the oath.
June 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives evidence before Select Com
mittee, in the course of which he said: “ I have never at any
time refused to take the oath of allegiance provided by statute
to be taken by members; all I did was, believing as I then did
that I had the right to affirm, to claim to affirm, and I was then
absolutely silent as to the oath ; that I did not refuse to take it,
nor have I then or since expressed any mental reservation, or
stated that the appointed oath of allegiance would not be binding
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
7
upon me; that, on the contrary, I say, and have said, that the
essential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete
degree binding upon my honor and conscience, and that the
repeating of words of asseveration does not in the slightest degree
weaken the binding effect of the oath of allegiance upon me.”
[It had been persistently represented that Mr. Bradlaugh had
refused to take the oath.] “ Any form that I went through, any
oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my conscience
in the fullest degree.”
June 16th.—The committee report that the compliance by Mr.
Bradlaugh with the form used when an oath is taken would
not be the taking of the oath within the true meaning of the
statutes ; that if a member make and subscribe the affirmation
in place of taking the oath it is possible by means of an action
in the High Court of Justice, to test his legal right to do so ;
and that the committee recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh
again seek to make and subscribe the affirmation he be not
prevented from so doing. (Majority in favor of his being
allowed to affirm—four.)
June 21st.—Mr. Labouchere moved in the House of Commons
that Mr. Bradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation instead
of taking the oath, seconded by Mr. M’Laren. Sir H.
Giffard moved a resolution seeking to debar Mr. Bradlaugh
from both oath and affirmation. Aiderman Fowler seconded,
a man who did not believe in a God was not likely to be a man
of high moral character. The majority of the people were
opposed to an Atheist being admitted to Parliament. Many
other members spoke. General Burnaby said the making of
the affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh would pollute the oath. Mr.
Palmer said Mr. Bradlaugh had a legal right with which the
House had no power to interfere. The Attorney-General said
he had come to the conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh could not
take the oath, chiefly on the consideration that he was a person
entitled to affirm. Mr. John Bright said it was certainly open
to any member to propose to take either oath or affirmation;
probably if Mr. Bradlaugh had had any suspicion that the
affirmation would have been refused him, he would have taken
the oath as other members take it—very much, he was afraid,
as a matter of form. Debate adjourned.
June 22nd.—Mr. Gladstone said that the House, by agreeing
to the amendment, would probably be entering on the commence
ment of a long, embarrassing, and a difficult controversy, not
perhaps so much within as beyond the limits of the House,
perhaps with the result of ultimate defeat of the House. The
more he looked at the case the stronger appeared the arguments
which went to prove that in the essence of the law and the
constitution the House had no jurisdiction. In interfering
between a member and what he considered his statutory duty,
�8
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
the House might find itself in conflict with either the courts of
law or the constituency of Northampton. No doubt an action
could not be brought against the House, but he was not so
clear that an action could not be brought against the servants
of the House. He was still less willing to face a conflict with
the constituency. The House had commonly been successful
in its controversies with the Crown or House of Lords, but
very different was the issue of its one lamentable conflict with
a constituency.—Sir Henry Tyler, with execrable taste, dragged
in the name of a lady with whom Mr. Bradlaugh is associated
in business. At last, by a majority of 45—the numbers voting
being 275 and 230—another triumph against liberty was scored.
The Christian World regretted that some Nonconformists helped
to swell the Tory majority.
The Jewish World held it as a reproach to Judaism, that mem
bers of their community should have gone over to the party
which once strove to detain them in bondage.
In 1851, Mr. Newdegate protested againBt the idea “that they
should have sitting in the House, an individual who regarded
our redeemer as an impostor,” and yet Baron de Worms voted
with Mr. Newdegate for the exclusion of a man with whose tenets
he disagreed.
The Whitehall Review headed an article “ God v. Bradlaugh,”
and said the majority had “ protected God from insult.”
June 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh again claimed at the table of the
House of Commons to take the oath, and the Speaker having in
formed him of the resolution passed the previous evening, re
quested his withdrawal. Mr. Bradlaugh thereupon asked to be
heard, and after some debate the demand was complied with.
Mr. Bradlaugh spoke from the bar of the House, asking no
favor, but claiming his right, and warning hon. members against
a conflict with public opinion.
Mr. Labouchere moved, and Mr. Macdonald seconded, the re
scindment of the resolution of the 22nd, which was lost on
division.
Mr. Bradlaugh was then recalled and requested to withdraw
from the House. Standing by the table, he said : “I respectfully
refuse to obey the order of the House, because the order is
against the law.” The raging of the bigots and Tories recom
menced. Mr. Gladstone declined to help them out of the pit
into which they had leapt: “ Those who were responsible for the
decision might carry it out as they chose.” After a sharp discus
sion Mr. Bradlaugh was, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote,
“ committed to the Clock Tower.” In the division the numbers
were 274 for and 7 against, the Radicals having left the House.
June 24th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr.
Bradlaugh is released from custody, “ not upon apology, or re
paration, or promise not to repeat his offence, but with the full
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
9
knowledge and clear recollection of his announcement that the
offence would be repeated toties quoties till his object was
effected.”
June 25th.—Mr. Labouchere gives notice of motion to rescind
the resolution of the 22nd, and Government agreed to give an
early day for the discussion of the same.
June 28th.—Baron de Ferrieres announced his intention to
move that the seat for Northampton be declared vacant, and that
a Bill be brought in providing for the substitution of an affirmation for the oath at the option of members. Mr. Wyndham
(Conservative) asked Mr. Gladstone whether the Government
would bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal right
of members to make a solemn affirmation. Mr. Gladstone said
the Government did not propose to do so, and gave notice for
Thursday (1st July) to move as a standing order that members
elect be allowed, subject to any liability by statute, to affirm at
their choice. Mr. Labouchere then said he would not proceed
with his motion. On another motion, however, by the same
member, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the amendment
of the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations, which was read a
first time.
July 1st.—After a futile attempt made by Mr. Gorst to show
that Mr. Gladstone’s resolution was a disorderly one, the Pre
mier, in moving it said, in the course of an extremely fair speech,
that the allegation of members that Mr. Bradlaugh had thrust
his opinions upon the House was untrue. His (Mr. Bradlaugh’s)
reference to the Acts under which he claimed to affirm had only
been named in answer to a question from the clerk of the House.
Sir Erskine May, in his evidence before the recent committee,
stated that Mr. Bradlaugh simply claimed to affirm.
Sir Stafford Northcote admitted that when Mr. Bradlaugh was
called upon to affirm he was not disrespectful, but firm. He
opposed the resolution as humiliating to the House. Several
members protested against any course for facilitating the admis
sion of Mr. Bradlaugh. General Burnaby stated that in order to
obtain “ authoritative ” opinions on the matter he had obtained
letters or telegrams from the Moravian body, the Bishop of
London, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ossory, the Bishop
of Ratho, the Archbishop ot Dublin, the Bishop of Galway, and
the Bishop of Argyle and the Isles, and the Secretary of the Pope
of Rome, all of whom expressed themselves in the strongest
terms against the admission of an Atheist into Parliament. Mr.
Spurgeon, who was unfortunately from home, had expressed his
opinion strongly adverse to it, and the Chief Rabbi—(loud
laughter)—although refusing to interfere with political questions,
felt very deeply on the subject. (Laughter, and cries of “the
Sultan,” and “Shah.”)
�10
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
When the House divided the numbers were 303 for, and 249
against.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh takes the affirmation of allegiance,
and his seat.
During the struggle several hundreds of indignation meetings
were held in London and the provinces, and petitions, letters,
telegrams, etc., in immense numbers, poured in upon the Govern
ment and the House, in favor of Mr. Bradlaugh’s rights.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives his first vote, and was there
upon served with a writ to recover against him a penalty of £500
for having voted and sat without having made and subscribed
the oath, the plaintiff being one Henry Lewis Clarke, who, as
subsequently appeared, was merely the tool of the actual common
informer, Charles Newdigate Newdegate, M.P. This writ was
ready so quickly that, if not issued actually before Mr. Bradlaugh
had taken his seat, it must have been prepared beforehand.
July 8th.—Mr. Norwood asks the first Lord of the Treasury
whether, considering the Government declined to introduce a
bill to amend the Oaths Act, it would instruct the law officers of
the Crown to defend the junior member for Northampton against
the suit of the common informer. Mr. Callan asked whether the
Government would remit the penalty. Mr. Gladstone said no
application had been received for remission of the penalties, and
that his reply to Mr. Norwood must be in the negative.
July 14th.—Read first time in the House of Commons, a bill
“ to incapacitate from sitting in Parliament any person who has
by deliberate public speaking, or by published writing, systemati
cally avowed his disbelief in the existence of a supreme being.”
It was prepared and introduced by Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr.
Aiderman Fowler and Mr. Hicks. Owing to an informality the
Bill could not come on for second reading.
The Rev. Canon Abney, of Derby, speaks of Mr. Bradlaugh as
“the apostle of filth, impurity, and blasphemy.”
July 16th.—Parliament indemnifies Lord Byron against an
action, he having sat and voted without being sworn.
July 20th.—Sir Eardley Wilmot gives notice of moving that it
is repugnant to the constitution for an Atheist to become a
member of “ this Honorable House.” He afterwards postponed
his motion.
At a meeting of the Dumfries Town Council, a member said :
“If the law courts should decide that it was legal for an Atheist
to sit in the House of Commons, he should feel it is duty to give
notice of petition to Parliament to have the law altered; he
would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go into a hundred acre field
beside cattle, let alone the House of Commons.”
The Rev. Chas. Voysey writes, that he feels disgraced by the
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
11
people of Northampton electing Mr. Bradlaugh, and declares
that “ most of the speeches in the Bradlaugh case in favor of his
exclusion, strike me as singularly good, wholesome and credit
able.” He repeats the myth of Mr. Bradlaugh forcing his objec
tions to the oath upon the House.
July 21st.—Sir John Hay, M.P., speaking about Mr. Bradlaugh
at New Galloway, made a most infamous, cowardly, and uncalled
for attack on Mrs. Besant. The Scotsman refused to print the
remarks, as “the language was so coarse that it could hardly
have dropped from a Yahoo.”
Aug. 1st.—The Nineteenth Century prints “An Englishman’s
Protest,” written by Cardinal Manning, personally directed
against Mr. Bradlaugh.
Aug. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives notice that early next session
he will call attention to perpetual pensions.
Sept. 7th.—Parliament prorogued. Hansard credits Mr. Brad
laugh with about twenty speeches during the Session. (Mr.
Newdegate told the Licensed Victuallers that Mr. Bradlaugh
“had made one speech, and proved himself a second or thirdrate speaker,”)
1881.
Jan. 6th.—Parliament reopens. Mr. Bradlaugh renews his
notice as to perpetual pensions. Great interest in the question
throughout the kingdom,
Jan. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech in the House of
Commons against Coercion in Ireland.
Jan. 31st.—Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House, described
Northampton as an “ oasis in the Midland Counties.”
Feb. 4th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech against the second
reading of the Coercion Bill, and concluded by moving that it
be read that day six months.
Feb. 15th.—Date of motion for inquiry into perpetual pen
sions fixed for March 15th. (When the day arrived Mr. Brad
laugh, on an appeal from Mr. Gladstone, allowed the motion to
be postponed, in order to allow supply to be taken. 848 petitions
had been presented to the House, with 251,332 signatures in
favor of the motion.)
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Dawson, M.P. for Carlow, said that Irish
members were much indebted to Mr. Bradlaugh for what he had
done on the Coercion Bill.
Feb. 25th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made final speech against third
reading of the Coercion Bill.
March 7th.—The case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh heard by Mr.
Justice Mathew.
�12
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
March 10th.—Mr. Bradlaugh brought before the House the
case of the imprisoned Maoris.
March 11th.—Judgment in the case given, which was for the
plaintiff, that he was entitled to recover the penalty, subject to
appeal. Mr. Bradlaugh gave notice of appeal.
Mr. Gorst gave notice to move that Mr. Speaker issue his
warrant for new writ for the borough of Nottingham [!].
March 14th.—Upon Mr. Bradlaugh rising to present petitions
against perpetual pensions, signed by over 7,000 persons, Mr.
Gorst rose to order, on the ground that the seat for Northamp
ton was vacant. After discnssion the Speaker called upon Mr.
Bradlaugh to proceed with the presentation of his petitions.
March 15th.—At request of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bradlaugh
postponed his motion for enquiry into perpetual pensions.
March 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh moved the Court of Appeal to
expedite the hearing of his appeal, and also to expedite the trial
of the issues in fact. The Court gave the appeal priority over
other cases.
March 28th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made his last speech in the House
against flogging in the Army.
March 30th.—Appeal heard.
March 31st.—Judgment given against the defendant. Plain
tiff not yet entitled to execution, but seat vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh
undertaking not to appeal so far as the affirmation was con
cerned.
Mr. Bradlaugh again seeks the suffrages of the electors of
Northampton.
April 6 th.—The Tories serve notice on the Mayor not to accept
Mr. Bradlaugh’s nomination, which the Mayor disregarded. Mr.
Edward Corbett nominates by Tories.
April 9th.—Mr. Bradlaugh re-elected by 3,437 votes to Corbett
3,305.
April 26th.—Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Burt, came to the table of the House, and, “ the book ”
having been handed to him, was about to take the oath when
Sir Stafford Northcote interposing, he was requested to with
draw, in order that the House might consider the new conditions
under which the oath was proposed to be taken. Mr. Bradlaugh
withdrew to the bar of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote
moved that he be not allowed to go through the form of taking
the oath. Mr. Davey moved and Mr. Labouchere seconded an
amendment to the effect that where a person who had been duly
elected presented himself at the table to take the oath he ought
not to be prevented from doing so by anything extraneous to the
transaction. Other members spoke, and Mr. Bright regretted
“ the almost violent temper with which some hon. gentlemen
came to the consideration of the question.”
Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking at the bar, claimed that his return
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
13
was untainted, that it had not been brought about by the Liberal
party, but by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in
mine and factory. He begged the House not to plunge into a
struggle with him, which he would shun. Strife was easy to
begin, but none knew where it would end. There was no legal
disqualification upon him, and they had no right to impose a
disqualification which was less than legal.
Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy and fine speech in favor of
Mr. Bradlaugh, the text of which was Mr. Bradlaugh’s own
words given above as to imposition of a new disqualification ; on
a division, however, the bigots again had it.
Mr. Bradlaugh again stepped to the table, and demanded the
administration of the oath, refusing to obey the Speaker’s order
to withdraw. Sir Stafford Northcote asked the Prime Minister
whether he proposed to offer the House any counsel. Mr. Glad,
stone said he should leave it to the majority to carry out the
effects of their vote. Eventually the Speaker called upon the
Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh, who during the
debate had been standing at the table. Mr. Bradlaugh with
drawing with the Sergeant three times to the bar, as often re
turned to the table. After further passages at arms between Mr.
Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote, the House adjourned.
April 27th.—Mr. Bradlaugh again found at the table of the
House claiming to be allowed to take the oath. At the bidding
of the Speaker the Sergeant-at-Arms again caused Mr. Brad
laugh to withdraw to the bar, where he remained during the dis
cussion which followed.
_ Mr. Labouchere asked the Prime Minister whether he would
give him reasonable facilities to introduce his Affirmation Bill, if
so Mr. Bradlaugh would not interfere with the resolution passed
last night.
Mr. Gladstone said the giving facility for that purpose, meant
the postponement of very serious and very urgent business, and
he had no assurance as to the disposition of the House. He
could not see his way to consent if it was to be an opposed
Bill. After further discussion, however, Mr. Gladstone said it
might be possible to test the feeling of the House by one or more
morning sittings.
April 29th.—Mr. Gladstone announces the intention of the
Government of bringing in a bill amending the Parliamentary
Oaths Act.
May 2nd.—The Attorney-General moved that the House re
solve itself into committee with a view of his asking leave to in
troduce the Bill. Debate on motion adjourned to the 5th with
the view of fixing the time on the 6th, when the discussion should
be resumed.
Mr. Maclver gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether he
was prepared to reconsider his decision of last session, and will
�14
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
introduce “ a short measure ” for the partial disfranchisement of
Northampton. (The question was never put.)
May 6th.—Further obstruction of the Bigots.
May 10th.—After 1.15 a.m. the Government proposed a morn
ing sitting for that day (Tuesday), to discuss the introduction of
their Bill. Further obstruction, wrath, and bitterness, and the
Government abandoned the intention to hold a morning sitting.
At the afternoon sitting a resolution was arrived at, which
authorised the Sergeant-at-Arms to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from
entering the House.
Lord Selborne (Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter relative
to Mr. Bradlaugh and the oath, says equal justice is due to
Christian and infidel; he saw no possibility of refusing to afford
by legislation to all who scruple to take the oath, the same option
in Parliament as they have in courts of law, to make an affirma
tion.
May 25th.—Mr. Newdegate formally blocked the Bill, of which
Mr. Labouchere gave notice, for indemnifying Mr. Bradlaugh
against penalties for having sat and voted on affirmation.
June 19th and 20th.—The common informer’s action tried at
Nisi prizes before Mr. Justice Grove. Verdict against Mr. Brad
laugh for penalty and costs.—Rule nisi for new trial afterwards,
granted by Justices Grove and Lindley; this rule was made
absolute by Justices Denman and Hawkins, but was set aside by
Lords Justices Brett, Cotton and Holker.
Mr. Bradlaugh appeals to the country. The country answers.
Aug. 3rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh, acting on his right to enter the
House of Commons, is seized at the door of the House by four
teen men, police and ushers (Inspector Denning said ten), and
roughly hustled out into Palace Yard, Mr. Bradlaugh protesting
against such treatment as illegal. “ In the passage leading out
to the yard Mr. Bradlaugh’s coat was torn down on the right
side ; his waistcoat was also pulled open, and otherwise his toilet
was much disarranged. The members flocked down the stairs
on the heels of the struggling party, but no pause was made
until Mr. Bradlaugh was placed outside the precincts and in
Palace Yard.”—Times. Aiderman Fowler was heard to call,
“ Kick him out.” This he afterwards denied, but there is evidence
that he did so. (Mr. Bradlaugh suffered the rupture of the
small muscles of both his arms, and erysipelas ensued).
Many thousands of people went up to the House with petitions,
urging the House to do justice to Northampton and Mr. Brad
laugh.
In the House Mr. Labouchere moved a resolution condemn
ing, as an interference with the privilege of members, the action
of the authorities in expelling Mr. Bradlaugh from the lobby.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
15
This was rejected by 191 votes against 7, and a motion of Sir
Henry Holland, declaring the approval of the House of the
course taken by the Speaker, was agreed to without controversy.
At a crowded meeting at the Hall of Science the same evening
Mr. Bradlaugh stated that he had told Inspector Denning in
Palace Yard that he could come back with force enough to gain
admittance, but that he had no right to risk the lives and liberties
of his supporters.
Aug. 4th.—The Times declares, in an article favorable on the
whole to Mr. Bradlaugh’s claims, that the House of Commons
was yesterday the real sufferer in dignity, authority, and repute.
It says : “ the question contains within itself the baleful germ of
a grave constitutional contest between the House of Commons
and any constituency in the land ; ” and “ such a conflict can but
have one conclusion, as all history shows.”
The Daily News, in a similar article, concludes thus : “ Sooner
or later it will be generally acknowledged that Mr. Bradlaugh’s
exclusion was one of the most high-handed acts of which any
legislative body has ever been guilty.”
The following unique paragraph from The Rock is worth pre
serving in its original form : “The question now is whether the
Christian people of this realm will quietly allow clamorous
groups of infidels, Radicals, and seditionists, by organised
clamor, bluster, and menace, to overawe the legislature, and by
exhibitions of violence—not at all unlikely, if permitted ta
develop into outrage and riot—to cause an organic and vital
change to be made in our Constitution and laws, in order that
brazen-faced Atheism might display itself within the walls of the
British Parliament.”
Mr. E. D. Girdlestone writes: “If the present Cabinet does
not secure your admission to the House in some way or other, I
can only wish they may soon be turned out of office. I don’t
know what more I can do than say, ‘ Go on ! and go in ! ’ ”
Aug. 5th.—Mr. Bradlaugh’s application at Westminster Police
Court for summons against Inspector, for having assaulted him
at the House of Commons on the 3rd inst., refused.
Mr. Bradlaugh confined to the House with severe erysipelas in
both arms, resulting from the injuries inflicted. Attended by
Drs. Ramskill and Palfrey. The latter, on August 12th, ordered
his immediate removal from town, to prevent yet more dangerous
complications.
Aug. 13th.—Mr. Bradlaugh went to Worthing to recruit his
health. Outside the station there, weary and exhausted, both arms
in a sling, he was rudely stared at by a clergyman, who, having
satisfied himself as to Mr. Bradlaugh’s identity, walked away
saying loudly: “ There’s Bradlaugh ; I hope they’ll make it warm
for him yet.”
�16
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
The Northern Star (a Tory paper) suggested that Mr. Brad
laugh was malingering—“simply carrying on the showman
business.”
Aug. 24th.—Sir Henry Tyler, in the House of Commons,
attempts to discredit the South Kensington department for
allowing science and art classes at the Hall of Science. Mr.
Mundella gives those classes great credit.
Aug. 27th.—Parliament prorogued.
Further appeal to England.
1882.
Jan. 9th.—The Earl of Derby, in a speech at the Liverpool
Reform Club, says: “For my part I utterly disbelieve in the
value of political oaths. ... I should hope that if Mr. Brad
laugh again offers to take the oath, as he did last year, there will
be no further attempt to prevent him.”
Feb. 7th.—Reopening of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh again
attended at the table to take the oath, and Sir Erskine May, the
clerk of the House, was about to administer the same when Sir
Stafford Northcote, interposing, moved that Mr. Bradlaugh be
not allowed to go through the form. Sir W. Harcourt, in moving
the previous question, said the Government held the view that
the House had no right to interpose between a duly-elected
member and the oath.
Mr. Bradlaugh, addressing the House from the bar for the third
time, begged the House to deal with him with some semblance and
show of legality and fairness. He concluded: “I want to obey
the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further,
if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon.
members had said that an Affirmation Bill would be a Brad
laugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. Let
the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place
previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when
the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I
have no fear. If I am not fit for my constituents they shall
dismiss me, but you never shall. The grave alone shall make
me yield.”
When a division was taken there were for the previous ques
tion 228, against 286. Mr. Samuel Morley voted with the
majority against the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote’s
motion was then agreed to without a division.
Feb. 8th.—Mr. Labouchere, in committee of the whole House,
proposed for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Par
liamentary Oaths and Affirmations. The Bill was afterwards
formally blocked by Mr. Molloy.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
17
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Labouchere asked the Attorney-General
whether the resolution of Feb. 7th had not vacated the seat.
Sir Henry James answered that it had not.
Feb. 18th.—Mr. Gladstone writes Mr. Bradlaugh that the
Government have no measure to propose with respect to his
seat.
Feb. 21st.—Mr. Bradlaugh of himself takes and subscribes the
oath, and takes his seat.
Feb. 22nd.—Mr Bradlaugh expelled the House of Commons.
Mar. 2nd.—Re-elected for Northampton. For Bradlaugh,
3,796 ; for Corbett, 3,688.
Mar. 6th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the
House reaffirms its motion of the 7th Feb., Mr. Gladstone sup
porting an amendment moved by Mr. Marjoribanks, by which the
House would have declared the desirability of legislation, for the
purpose of giving members an option between oath and affirma
tion.
Mar. 7th.—Lord Redesdale introduces in the House of Lords
a Bill, requiring every peer and every member of the House of
Commons before taking the oath or making the affirmation, to
declare and affirm his belief in Almighty God. The Bill, intro
duced “from a sense of what was due to Almighty God,” was
afterwards withdrawn “ in deference to Lord Salisbury.”
To this date, 317 petitions with 62,168 signatures had been
presented against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat;
while in favor of the same 1,051, with 250,833 signatures, had
been presented.
Mr. Labouchere’s Affirmation Bill blocked by Earl Percy.
18 8 3
Jan. 11th.—Mr. Justice Field gave judgment that the privileges
of the House of Commons prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from
obtaining any redress for the assault upon him on August 3rd,
1881.
Feb. 15th.—Great demonstration in Trafalgar Square; from
eighty to one hundred thousand people present. (Evening Stan
dard says 30,000; Daily News, 50,000 an hour before the meeting.)
Mr. Adams, chairman; Rev. W. Sharman, Jos. Arch, and Mr.
Bradlaugh, speakers.
Opening of Parliament. (Mr. Gladstone at Cannes.) Govern
ment give notice for to-morrow for leave to introduce bill to
amend the Oaths Act, 1866. Sir R. Cross gives notice of opposi
tion on second reading of same. Mr. Bradlaugh consents, with
the approval of his constituents, expressed on the 13th inst., to
await the fate of the measure.
�18
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
Feb. 16th.—Sharp succession of frantic speeches in the House
of Commons by Mr. Newdegate, Aiderman Fowler, Mr. Warton,
Mr. Henry Chaplin, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beresford
Hope, Lord H. Lennox, Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. A. Balfour, Mr.
Ashmead Bartlett, and Mr. A. O’Connor. Divisions : from two
to three to one for Government. The Marquis of Hartington
consents to adjourn the motion for Bill until Monday at twelve.
Feb. 18th.—The Observer says that when Conservatives ask
Liberals whether they really mean to alter the law for the purpose
of admitting Mr. Bradlaugh, it is fair for Liberals in turn to ask
Conservatives whether they really mean to maintain an admitted
abuse and injustice for the mere purpose of excluding Mr. Brad
laugh.
Feb. 19 th.—First reading of Bill carried on division by 184
votes to 53 ; second reading formally fixed for that night week.
Feb. 20 th.—Daily News says Bill will be carried by large
majorities, and will be regarded by the House and the country
as the appropriate settlement of an unfortunate controversy.
The Times says the leaders of the opposition will not
succeed in finally preventing the Bill from becoming law.
Its real concern is that Mr. Bradlaugh has been substantially in
the right; that he has been unjustly excluded from taking the
seat which belongs to him.
The .k orm'm? Advertiser thinks the Government may yet find it
difficult to persuade the House to adopt the Bill.
The Morning Post justifies the irregular opposition to the first
reading of the Bill, and thinks notice of the measure should have
been given in the Queen’s Speech. No measure had created
more excitement or raised more indignation in the country, which
desired to see it rejected by a decisive majority.
March 5th.—Appeal case Bradlaugh v. Clarke part heard before
the House of Lords.
March 6th.—Case concluded ; judgment deferred.
March 9th.—Action for maintenance—Bradlaugh v. Newdegate
—tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury. Henry Lewis
Clarke, the common informer, swore that he had not the means
to pay the costs, and would not have brought the action if he
bad not been indemnified by Mr. Newdegate. Case adjourned
for argument of legal points.
March 17th. — Maintenance action argued; four counsel
appearing for Mr. Newdegate. Lord Coleridge reserved judg
ment.
March 20th.—The Solicitors to the Treasury compelled Mr.
Bradlaugh to pay the costs of the House of Commons in the
action against the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.
��PRICE
SIXPENCE.
The True Story
OF
My Parliamentary Struggle.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
Containing the whole of Mr. Bradlaugh’s evidence before the Select
Committee; his letter to the Times, May 20th, 1880; and his three
Speeches at the bar of the House of Commons.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 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
The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawer, W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Concerns Bradlaugh's election to Parliament as MP for Northampton. 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
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N480
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Atheism
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS