3 10 53 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/14a0f7b4f20932b2b4e6584db3d9991a.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=TeOcmsaqlMeHCVWVk1jPTraSuarAhC0noFOxuILZs4ooqR%7EtDTNZLoh6x4aNHF74lrobZSN8dB40xVc8QZfDoJ7wqpMu4yKLq4HD0tjmPpfdDdQxdZHC7nP7yQ0bpbQOLQ5ZQ73Ec4zl%7ErKzVPfARS09XBWglIxMJf9OVAG6dfbKcsAEtSdS9SOOTs9gIBc88nnlt3vhLaE9MKkvHvF9e1W7k2wWSvD7bZZSvXqtZupdVwhlT%7E0XaRXajx7QcwChAsirtQhgZ-ruGwr1L-ydypXZvcwjhDZZuDLfQvKHthzWoHNip7TK%7EEk%7EpuUhnCiC1p9sF8fOf2oEvCRvOSF7yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9edfc26c5efedbeae9ec083b9a5cc5f1 PDF Text Text BY G, W, FIRST PRICE A FOOTE, SERIES. SHILLING. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. ��BIBLE ROMANCES—1. THE CREATION STORY. By G. W. FOOTE. The Book of Genesis is generally thought, as Professor Huxley says, to contain the beginning and the end of sound science. The mythology of the Jews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, and of the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. The masses of the people in every Christian country are taught in their childhood, that God created the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna, in five days ; that he created man, “the bright consummate flower” of his work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. Yet every student knows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejects it as absurd ; and even the clergy them­ selves mostly disbelieve it. Why, then, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deem true, instead of what they know to be false ? The answer is very simple. Because they feel that the doctrine of the Fall is bound up with the Genesaic account of Creation, and that if the latter be discredited the former will not long be retained. The doctrine of the Fall being the foundation of the scheme of Atonement, the clergy will never admit the Creation Story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by external pressure. At any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity, since by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. What the recog­ nised teachers of religion will not do, however, should not be left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. Men of science, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are gradually but surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning the priesthoods of mystery and superstition. Yet their influence on the masses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show the contradiction between their dis­ coveries and what is preached from the pulpit. Perhaps they are right. But it is also right that others should appeal to the people m the name not only of science, but also of scholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity of much that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable and infallible Word of God. • Creation Story, with which the Book of Genesis opens, is incoherent, discrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. It is also discordant with the plainest truths of Science. Let us examine it, after casting aside all prejudice and predilection. If the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, �2 ' The Creation Story. man, was created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand years ago, chaos reigned throughout nature. This, however, is clearly untrue. Our earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions of years. Geology proves also that millions of years have elapsed since organic existence first appeared on the earth’s surface, and this world became the theatre of life and death. Darwin speaks of the known history of the world as “of a length quite incomprehensible by us,” yet even that he affirms “ will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time ” com­ pared with the vast periods which Biology will demand.. The instructed members of the Church have long recognised these statements as substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them with Scripture by assuming that the word which in the History of Creation is rendered day really means a period, that is an elastic space of time which may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. But there are two fatal objections to this assumption. In the first place, the same’word is rendered day in the fourth commandment, and if it means period in Genesis, it means period in Exodus. In that case we are commanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each period must cover a geological epoch. How pleasant for those who happen to be born in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of the six! The lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play ! In the second place, the account of each day’s creation concludes with the refrain, “ and the evening and the morning were the first (or other) day.” Now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminous gradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like night and day; depend on the earth’s revolving on its axis, and presenting different por­ tions of its surface to the sun. Evening and morning clearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of Genesis, whoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other inter­ pretation of his words. It is sometimes argued, as for instance by Dr. M’Caul, that these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the evening and the morning not being dependent on their present causes. But this supposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, expressly “ to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.” The fifth and Bixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length, and thus the chronological difficulties remain. All animal life was brought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the Bible still allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for the world’s fauna. Geology and Biology allow millions of years. Here then Science and the Bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction. The fact that the writer of Genesis represents light as existing three days before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has �The Creation Story. 3 frequently been noticed. One learned commentator supposed that God had infused a certain “ luminosity ” through the air, which was not exactly the same as the light of the sun. But light is not a thing; it is a phenomenon caused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. Such explanations are but fanciful refuges of superstition. “ God said let there be light and there was light,” is not the language of science and history, but the language of poetry. As such it is sublime. We find a similar expression in the Vedas of the Hindoos: “He thought, I will create worlds, and they were there ! ” Both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientific statement. The physical astro­ nomer knows how worlds are formed, as well as how their move­ ments are determined; he knows also the causes of light; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accounts given in the Creation Stories of the Hebrews and the Hindoos. Science knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of six creative days; and it is quite certain that the order of Creation given in Genesis differs widely from the revelations of Geology. For instance (and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish and fowl are said to have been created on the same day. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that day means period. The conclusion still is that fish and fowl were created together. Starting from this conclusion, what should we expect to find in our geological researches? Why, the fossil remains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. But we find nothing of the kind. Marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during which all our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found until a later period. Now the carbo­ niferous period alone, according to Sir William Thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fish and fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated by incon­ ceivable spaces of time. Here again the Bible and Science fatally . disagree, Even if we admit that the fifth day of creation -was a period, the chronology of the Bible is still fatally at variance with fact. With respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise and unmistakable. It gives us the age of Adam at his death, and the ages of the other antediluvian patriarchs. From the Flood the genealogies are carefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after which there is not much room for dispute. From the creation of Adam.to the birth of Christ, the Bible allows about four thousand years. The antiquity of the human race, ' therefore, according to Scripture, is less than six thousand years. Science, however, proves that this is but a fragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth. There was a civilisation in Egypt thousands of years before the alleged creation of Adam. The Cushite civilisation was even more ancient. Archaeology shows us traces of man’s presence, in a �4 The Creation Story. ruder state, long before that. The researches of Mr. Pengelly in Kent’s Cavern proved that cave-men lived there more than two hundred thousand years ago ; while geological investigations in the Valley of the Somme have established the fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period. Professor Draper writes: “So far as investigations have gone, they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote from us by many hundreds of thousands of years. It must be borne in mind that these investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limited geographical space. No researches have yet been made in those regions which might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man. We are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of years, and human existence antedates that." The chronology of the Bible is thus altogether obsolete. The idea of a seven-days’ creation was not confined to the Jews: it was shared by the Persians and Etruscans. The division of the year into months and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. The ancient Egyptians observed a tendays’ week, but the seven-days’ week was well known to them. The naming of the days of the week after the seven Planets was noted by Dion Cassius as originally an Egyptian custom, which spread from Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Brahmins of India also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. This division of time was purely astronomical. The Jews kept the Feast of the New Moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar and solar phenomena. We may be sure that the myth of a seven-days’ creation followed and did not precede the regular observance of that period. There is one feature of the Hebrew story of creation which shows how anthropomorphic they were. The Persians represent Ormuzd as keeping high festival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all things in six. But the Hebrews represent Jehovah as resting on the seventh day, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhausted his energies. Fancy Omnipotence requiring rest to recruit its strength! The Bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grossly anthropomorphic. It exhibits God as conversing with men, sharing their repasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. It represents him as visible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving Moses a back view of his person. Yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon us as divine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned! Let us now examine the Creation Story internally. In the first place, we find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second, at which point the other commences. These two / �The Creation Story 5 records belong to different periods of Jewish history. The older one is the Elohistic, so called because the creator is designated by the plural term Elohim, which in our version is translated God. The more modern one is the Jehovistic, in which Elohim is combined with the singular term Jehovah, translated in our version the Lord God. The Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts both relate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ. The former makes God create man in his own image ; the latter does not even allude to this important circum­ stance. The former represents man as created male and female at the outset; the latter represents the male as created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. In the former God enjoins the primal pair to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth; ” in the latter there is no such injunction, but on the contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed upon the woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to have borne any offspring until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Lastly, the Elohistic record makes no mention of this Paradise, in which, according to the Jehovistic record, the drama of the Fall was enacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdue and populate the world. Such discrepancies are enough to stagger the blindest credulity. We now proceed to examine the Jehovistic account of Creation in detail. We read that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, the Hebrew word for which is adamah. The word Adam means “ be red,” and adamah may be referred to the red soil of Palestine. Kalisch also observes that man may have been originally called Adam on account of the red color of his skin. The Chinese represent man as kneaded of yellow earth, and the red Indians of red clay. The belief that man was formed of earth was not confined to the Jews, but has been almost uni­ versal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies after death return to the earth and resolve into the elements. The Lord God placed this forlorn first man in the Garden of Eden, with the command to till it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” How Adam trespassed and fell, and brought a curse upon him­ self and all his innocent posterity, we shall consider in another pamphlet. The story of the Fall is infinitely curious and diverting, and must be treated separately. Adam’s first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very marvellous. All the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the air were brought before him to be named, and “ whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” This first Zoological Dictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call every animal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as - ourselves. The �6 The Creation Story. fishes and insects were not included in this primitive nomencla­ ture, so the loss of the Dictionary does not concern them. . The Lord made the animals pass before Adam seemingly with the expectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. Nothing, however, struck his fancy. If he had fallen in love with a female gorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in the world’s history ! A ftftr this wonderful exploit u the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,” who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good sound natural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. While in this state one of his ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, and which he discovered when he awoke. This curious surgical operation involves a dilemma. If Adam was upright after it, he must have been lopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsided after. In either case the poor man was very scurvily treated. It has been maintained that God provided Adam with another rib in place of the one extracted. But this is a mere conjecture. Besides if the Lord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, without cutting poor Adam open and making a pre mortem examination of his inside. The divine operator’s purpose wa,s a good one, whatever we may think of his means. He had discovered, what Omniscience would have foreknown, that it was not good for man to be alone,, and had resolved to make him a help-meet. Adam’s “ spare-rib was the raw material of which his wife was manufactured. The Greenlanders believed that the first woman was fashioned out of the man’s thumb. The woman was brought to Adam, who said _ “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” Not a word did he say about “ soul of my soul.” Perhaps he suspected •she had none, and with some truth, if we go no further than our English version. When the Lord God made man, he ‘‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul, but apparently no such operation was performed on Eve. Indeed it is very difficult to prove from the Bible that woman has a soul at all. Women should reflect on this. They should also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not included in the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weight afterwards. Let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapels in which this story is taught would soon be emptied. The majority of those who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of those who don’t, go there for the sake of those who do. _ When Adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. “Therefore,” said he, “shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” In his desire to give the institution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this story perpetrated. a gross anachronism. Adam had no parents, nor any experience of �The Creation Story. 7 marriage. Unless, therefore, we credit him with superhuman prescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way. Eve’s name, no less than Adam’s, betrays the mythological character of the story. It means the “ mother of all,” and was evidently applied to her by the Jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationship to the human race. While God was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make two human couples, instead of one ? The arrange­ ment he adopted involved the propagation of the human species through incest. Adam and Eve’s sons must have had children by their sisters. If two couples had been created, their families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then have sprung from the incestuous intercourse of the very first genera­ tion. Surely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime against which civilised consciences revolt with unspeak­ able disgust. Adam and Eve were placed by God in the Garden of Eden. “ Eden,” says Kalisch, “ comprised that tract of land where the Euphrates and Tigris separate ; from that spot the ‘ garden in Eden’ cannot be distant. Let it suffice that we know its general position.” Its exact position can never be ascertained. What a pity it is that Noah did not occupy some of his leisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark, in writing a typography of the antediluvian world! The Greeks placed Paradise in the Islands of the Blessed, beyond the Pillars of Hercules in the western main. The Swede, Rudbeck, asserts that Paradise was in Scandinavia ; some Russian writers supposed it to have been in Siberia; and the German writers, Hasse and Schulz, on the coast of Prussia. Eastern traditions place it in Ceylon, and regard the mountain of Rahoun as the spot where Adam was buried. Some old Christian writers hazarded the theory that Paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the other side of the ocean, which they conceived to encircle it, and that Noah was conveyed to our planet by the deluge. Kalisch gives a long list of ancient and modern authorities on the sub­ ject, who differ widely from each other as to the actual position of Eden, their only point of agreement being that it was some­ where. The Creation Story of the Bible cannot be considered as any­ thing but a Hebrew myth. Scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposing that Moses wrote it. Doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, it is very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literary form beyond the Babylonish captivity. Men of science without exception disbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but also with regard to the human race. In his famous article on “The Method and Results of Ethnology,” Professor Huxley made this declaration :— “ There are those who represent the most numerous, respectable, �8 The Creation Story. and would-be orthodox of the public, and who may be called ‘ Adamites,’ pure and simple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago; that Eve was modelled from one of his ribs; and that the pro­ geny of these two having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become converted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe it. Z do not; and I am not acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who does.” The clergy, then, who go on teaching this old Creation Story as true, are either unduly instructed or dis­ honest, ignorant or fraudulent, blind guides or base deceivers. It is not for us to determine to which class any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, as assuredly it will, decide that for himself. But ignorant or dishonest, we affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the Creation Story as a record of actual facts, or as anything but a Hebrew myth. The origin of the human race is far different from that recorded in Genesis. Man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life. The rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior to the present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior to the lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. Their physical and mental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; and the general opinion of biologists is that they were descended from the Old World branch of the great Simian family. There is, indeed, no absolute proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, as the fossil links between primitive man and his Simian pro­ genitor, if they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continent over which roll the waters of the South Pacific Ocean. But as the line of natural development can be carried back so far without break, there is no reason why it should not be carried farther. The evolution theory is now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of them suppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. At any rate, the Bible account of Creation is thoroughly exploded, and when that is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of the only theory of man’s origin which is consistent with the facts of his history, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—2. NOAH’S By G. W. FLOOD. FOOTE. The Bible story of the Deluge is at once the biggest and the most ridiculous in the whole volume. Any person who reads it with the eyes of Common sense, and some slight knowledge f science, must admit that it is altogether incredible and absurd, and that the book which contains it cannot be the Word of God. About 1,656 years after God created Adam, and placed him in the garden of Eden, the world had become populous and extremely wicked ; indeed, every thought and imagination of man’s heart was evil continually. What was the cause of all this wickedness we are not informed ; but we are told that the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of men because they were fair, and we are led to suppose that these matches produced giants and other incurably wicked offspring. No physiological reason is assigned for this strange result, nor perhaps was there any present to the mind of the writer, who probably had witnessed unhappy mariages in his own family, and was anxious to warn his readers, however vaguely, against allowing their daughters to be inveigled into matrimonial bonds with pious sniffling fellows, who professed themselves peculiarly the children of their Father in heaven. However, the narrative is clear as to the fact itself: men had all gone irrecoverably astray, and God had repented that he ever made them. In such a case an earthly human father would naturally have attempted to improve his family ; but the Almighty Father either was too indifferent to do so, or was too well aware of the impossibility of reforming his own wretched offspring ; and therefore he deter­ mined to drown them all at one fell swoop, just as cat-loving old ladies dispose of too numerous and embarrassing feline pro­ geny. Bethinking him, however, God resolved to save alive one family to perpetuate the race; he was willing to give his creatures another chance, and theD, if they persisted in going the wrong way, it would still be easy to drown the lot of them again, and that without any reservation. He had also resolved at first to destroy every living thing from off the face of the earth ; but he afterwards decided to spare from destruction two of every species of unclean beasts, male and female, and fourteen, male and female, of all clean beasts and of all fowls of the air and of every creeping thing. Noah, his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives (eight persons in all), were the only human beings to be preserved from the terrible fate of drowning �10 Noah's Flood. Noah was commanded by God to build an ark for the reception of the precious living freight, the dimensions of which were to be, in English measure, 550 feet long, 93 feet wide, and 55 feet deep. Into this floating box they all got; the flood then came and covered the earth, and all besides were drowned. Now this is a very strange, a very startling story; it seems more like a chapter from the “ Arabian Nights ” or the “ Advenventures of Baron Munchausen” than from the sacred Scriptures of any Religion. Carnal reason prompts us to ask many ques­ tions about it. 1. How did Noah contrive to bring these beasts, birds, and insects all together in one spot ? The task seems superhuman. Some species could be found only in very remote places—the kangaroo only in Australia, the sloth only in South America, the polar bear only in the Arctic regions. How could Noah, in those days of difficult locomotion, have journeyed in search of these across broad rivers, and over continents and oceans? Did he bring them singly to his dwelling-place in Asia, or did he travel hither and thither with his menagerie, and finish the collection before returning home ? There are, according to Huvh Miller, 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 < f reptiles, and 550.000 of insects ; how could one man, or a hundred men, have collected specimens of these in those days, and in such a brief space of time ? The beasts clean and unclean, male and female, might be got together by means of terrible exertion, but surely to assemble the birds and reptiles and insects must trans­ cend human capacity. Some of the last class would of course not require much seeking ; they visit us whether we desire their company or not; and the difficulty would not be how to get them into the ark, but how on earth to keep them out. Others, however, would give infinite trouble. Fancy Noah occupied in a wild-goose chase, or selecting specimens from a wasps’ or hornets’ nest, or giving assiduous chase to a viligant and elusive blue­ bottle fly! But suppose Noah to have succeeded in his arduous enterprise, the question still remains, how did he keep his wonderful zoological collection alive ? Some of them could live only in certain latitudes; the inhabitants of cold climates would melt away amidst the torrid heat of Central Asia. Then, again, there are some insects that live only a few hours, and some that live a fewdajs at the utmost; what means were adopted for preserving these ? Some animals, too, do not pair, but run in herds ; many species of fish swim in shoals ; sometimes males and sometimes females predominate, as in the case of deer, where one male heads and appropriates a whole herd of females, or in the case of bees, where many males are devoted to the queen of the hive. These could not have gone in pairs, or lived in pairs; their instincts pointed to another method of grouping. How did �Noah’s Flood. 11 Noah provide for their due preservation ? When these questions are answered others speedily arise ; in fact, there is no end to the difficulties of this marvellous story. . 2 Whence and how did Noah procure the food for his huge menagerie? That he was obliged to do so, that the animals were not miraculously preserved without food, we are certain ; for he was expressly commanded by God to gather food for himself an for them. “ Take thou unto thee,” it was said to him, “ of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee ; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.” What provision was made for the carnivorous animals, for lions, tigers, vultures, kites, and hawks? Some of these would require not simply meat, but fresh meat, which could not be provided for them unless super­ fluous animals were taken into the ark to be killed, or Noah had learned the art of potting flesh. Otters would require fish chameleons flies, woodpeckers grubs, night-hawks moths, and humming-birds the honey of flowers. What vast quantities oi water also would be consumed ! In fact, the task of collecting food to last all the inmates of the a>k, including the eight human beings, for more than a year, must have been greater even than that of bringing them together in the first place from every zone. The labors of Hercules were mere trifles compared with those of Noah. Poor old patriarch! He amply earned his salvation. Had he been possessed of one tithe of Jacob’s cunning and business sagacity, he would have struck a better bargain with God, and have got into the ark on somewhat easier terms. Few men would have undertaken so much to gain so little. _ 3. How were all the animals, with their food, got into the ark f The dimensions as given in the Bible would be insufficient to accommodate a tithe of them ; the ark could not have contained them all, if they were picked together like herrings or sardines. Even if they were so packed, space would still be required for their food ; and for what a vast quantity ! An animal even with man’s moderate appetite would consume in the course of twelve months solid matter to the extent of four or five times its own weight, and some animals are of course far more voracious. This difficulty as to stowing the animals and their food into the ark is quite insuperable ; it is not to be obviated by any employ­ ment of miraculous intervention. Not even omnipotence can make a clock strike less than one, and God himself must fail to make two things occupy the same space at the same time.. 4. How were the inmates of this floating menagerie, sup­ posing them got in, supplied with fresh air? According to the Bible narrative the ark was furnished with but one window of a cubit square, and one door which was shut by God himself, and it may be presumed, quite securely fastened. Talk about the Black-hole of Calcutta, why it was nothing to this! What a scramble there must of been for that solitary window and a �12 Noah’s Flood mouthful of fresh air! Lions, tigers, jackals, hysenas, boa-con­ strictors, kangaroos, eagles, owls, bees, wasps, bluebottles, with Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives, all in one fierce melee. But the contention for the precious vital air must, how­ ever violent, have soon subsided: fifteen minutes would have settled them all. Yet curiously enough the choking animals suffered no appreciable injury ; by some occult means they were all preserved from harm; which furnishes another illustration of the mysterious ways of God. What powerful perfumes, too, must have arisen from all those animals! So powerful indeed, that even the rancid flavor of foxes and skunks must have been undistinguishable from the blended scents of all their fellow passengers. Those who have visited Wombwell’s menagerie, or stood in the monkey-house of the Zoological Gardens, doubtless retain a lively recollection of olfactory disgust, even although in those places the most scrupulous cleanliness is observed ; but their experience of such smells would have been totally eclipsed if they could but for a moment have stood within Noah’s ark amidst all its heterogeneous denizens. However the patriarch and his sons managed to cleanse this worse than Augean stable passes all understanding. And then what trampings they must have had up and down those flights of stairs communicating with the three storeys of the ark, in order to cast all the filth out of that one window. No wonder their children afterwards began to build a tower of Babel to reach unto heaven; it was quite natural that they should desire plenty of steps to mount, so as to gratify fully the itch of climbing they had inherited from their parents. 5. Where did all the water come from ? According to the Bible story the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, and covered all the high hills and mountains under the whole heaven. Now mount Ararat itself, on which the ark eventually rested, is seventeen thousand feet high, and the utmost peaks of Himalaya are nearly twice as high as that; and to cover the whole earth with water to such a tremendous height would require an immense quantity of water; in fact, about eight times as much as is contained in all the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans of our globe. Whence did all this water come ? The Scripture explanation is sadly insufficient; the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The writer evidently thought that there were great fountains at the bottom of the sea, capable of supplying water in unlimited quantities from some central reservoir; but science knows nothing whatever about them; nay, science tells us that the internal reservoir, if there be one, must contain not water, but liquid fire. If this great reservior poured its contents into the sea, the result would be similar to that frightful catastrophe �Noah's Flood 13 imagined by the Yankee who wished to see Niagara Falls pour into Mount Vesuvius. , The supply from that quarter thus failing, we are forced oacK upon the rain which descended from the windows of heaven, wherever they may be. It rained forty days and forty nights. Forty days and forty nights ! Why forty million days and. nights of rain would not have sufficed. The writer was evidently in tota ignorance of the laws of hydrology. The rain which falls from the clouds originally comes from the waters of the earth, being absorbed into the atmosphere by the process of evaporation. The utmost quantity of water that can thus be held in suspense throughout the entire atmosphere is very small; in fact, if pre­ cipitated, it would only cover the ground to the depth of abou five inches. After the first precipitation of rain, the process oi evaporation would have to be repeated ; that is, for every addi­ tional descent of rain a proportionate quantity of water would have to be extracted from the rivers, lakes, and seas below. surely every sane man must perceive that this pretty juggle could not add one single drop to the previously existing amount or water, any more than a man could make himself rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. . The fab e man who is reported to have occupied himself with dipping up water from one side of a boat and emptying it over on the other, hoping thereby to bale the ocean dry, must have been the real author of this story of Noah and his wonderful ark. Some Christian writers, such as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Barry, and Hugh Miller, have contended that the author of the book of Genesis is describing not a universal but a partial deluge ; not a flood which submerged the whole earth, but one that merely covered some particular part of the great Central Asian plains. But surely, apart from any consideration pertaining to the very emphatic language of the text, rational men must perceive that the difficulty is not obviated by this explanation, but rather increased. How could the waters ascend in one place to the height of seven­ teen thousand feet (the height of Mount Ararat) without over­ flowing the adjacent districts, and, indeed, the whole earth, in conformity to the law of gravitation ? Delitzch is bold enough to assert that the flood of water was ejected with such force from the fountains beneath that it assumed quite naturally a conical shape. But then, even supposing that this explication were anything but sheer silliness, which it is not, how would the learned commentator 'account for the water retaining its conical shape for months after the force of upheaval had expended itself ? These explanations are entirely fanciful and groundless. The language of the narrative is sufficiently explicit. “ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth “ all in whose nostrils was the breath of life;” “and every living substance was de­ stroyed which was upon the face of the groundand Noah only �14 Noah’s Flood. remained alive and they that were with him in the ark.” Such are the precise unmistakeable words of Scripture, which no sophistry can explain away. But even if the contention for a partial deluge could be made good, the fundamental difficulties would still remain. As Colenso observes, the flood, “ whether it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in­ credible and impossible.” Geology absolutely contradicts the possibility of any such catas­ trophe as the deluge within the historic period. According to Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of AL tn a during the last twelve thousand years ; and the volcanic cones of Auvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains of extinct animals, and present an outline as perfect as that of AEtna, are deemed older still. Kalisch forcibly pre­ sents this aspect of the question : “ Geology teaches the impos­ sibility of a universal'deluge since the last six thousand years, but does not exclude a pattial destruction of the earth’s surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the other hand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge, and absolutely excludes a partial flood.” 6. What became of all the fish? In such a deluge the rivers and seas must have mingled their waters, and this in conjunction with the terrific outpour from the windows of heaven, must have made the water brackish, too salt for fresh-water fish, and too fresh for salt-water fish ; and consequently the aquatic animals must all have perished, unless, indeed, they were miraculously preserved—a contingency which anyone is free to conjecture, but no one is at liberty to assert, seeing that the inspired writer never even hints such a possibility. Now there is no evidence whatever that Noah took any ffh with him into the ark ; under natural circumstances they must have perished outside; yet the seas and rivers still teem with life. When did the new creation of fish take place ? 7. What became of all the vegetation ? Every particle of it must have rotted during such a long submergence. But even if mysteriously preserved from natural decay, it must still have been compressed into a mere pulp by the terrific weight of the super-incumbent water. Colenso estimates that the pressure of a column of water 17.000 feet high would be 474 tons upon each square foot of surface—a pressure which nothing could have resisted. Yet, wonderful to relate, just prior to the resting of the ark on Mount Ararat, the dove sent out therefrom, returned with an olive leaf in her mouth just pluckt off. A fitting climax to this wonderful story. Finally the story relates how the ark rested on the top of Mount Ararat, whence its inmates descended to the plains below, which were then quite dry. Mount Ararat towers aloft three thousand feet above the region of eternal snow. How the poor �Noah's Flood. 15 animals, aye, even the polar bear, must have shivered! And what a curious sight it must have been to witness their descent from such, a height. Often have I speculated on the probable way in which the elephant got down, and after much careful thought I have concluded thus : either he had waxed so fat with being fed so long on miraculous food that he rolled pleasantly down like a ball, with no other injury than a few scratches ; or he had become so very, very thin with living simply on expecta­ tions, in default of more substantial fare, that he gently floated down by virtue of levity, like a descending feather. And then what journeys some of the poor animals would have to make ; the kangaroo back to Australia, the sloth to South America, the polar bear to the extreme north. How they lived on the road to their ultimate destinations the Lord only knows. There was no food for them; the deluge had destroyed all vegetation for the herbivorous animals, all flesh for the carniverous. Not even a nibble was left for the sheep. As for poor Noah, the first thing recorded of him after his watery expedition is that he drank heavily of wine and got into a state of beastly inebriation. And who can wonder that he did so ? The poor old man had floated about on oceans of water for more than a year, and probably he was heartily sick of his watery prospect. The astonishing thing is that he did not get water on the brain. It was quite natural that he should swill deep potations of some stronger fluid on the first available opportunity. Surely he had water enough during that twelve months to last a lifetime ; enough to justify his never touching the wretched fluid again. While Noah was dead drunk, his second son, Ham, saw “the nakedness of his father,” and reported the fact to his two brethren, who took a garment and, walking backwards, so that they might not see, covered the patriarch’s nudity. On recover­ ing from his drunken stupor, Noah discovered “ what his younger son had done unto him,” and proceeded at once to vigorous cursing. Ham was the offender, if there was any offence at all, which is not very clear; but punishment in the Bible is generally vicarious, and we read that the irate patriarch cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, for his father’s misdemeanor. Flagiti­ ously unjust as it is, this proceeding thoroughly accords with Jehovah’s treatment of Adam’s posterity after he and Eve had committed their first sin by eating of the forbidden fruit. Before Noah got drunk he had received from God the assur­ ance that the world should never more be destroyed by a flood, As a perpetual sign cf this covenant the rainbow was set in the heavens. But the rainbow must have been a common sight for centuries before. This phenomenon of refraction is the result of natural causes, which operated before the Flood, as well as after. The earth yielded its fruits for human sustenance, and �16 Noah's Flood. therefore rain must have fallen. If rain fell before the Deluge, as we are bound to conclude, the rainbow must have been then as now. The usual practice of commentators is to explain this portion of the narrative by assuming that the rainbow was visible before the covenant with Noah, but only after the covenant had a special significance. But, as Colenso observes, the writer of the story supposes the rainbow was then first set in the clouds, and is evidently accounting for the origin of this beautiful phenomenon, which might well appear supernatural to his unin­ structed imagination. Besides the manifold absurdities of this story there are other aspects of it even more startling. What a picture it presents of fiendish cruelty and atrocious vindictiveness ! What an appalling exhibition of divine malignity ! God, the omnipotent and omni­ scient ruler of the universe, is represented as harboring and executing the most diabolical intentions. He ruthlessly exter­ minates all his children except a favored few, and includes in his vengeance the lower animals also, although they were innocent of offence against his laws. Every creature in whose nostrils was the breath of life, with the exception of those preserved in the ark, was drowned, and the earth was turned into a vast slaughter-house. How imagination pictures the terrible scene as the waters rise higher and higher, and the ravening waves speed after their prey ! Here some wretched being, baffled and hopeless, drops supinely into the raging flood ; there a stronger and stouter heart struggles to the last. Here selfish ones battling for their own preservation; there husbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and maidens, affording mutual aid, or at last, in utter despair, locked in a final embrace and meeting death together. And when the waters subside, what a sickening scene presents itself! Those plains, once decked with verdure, and lovely in the sun and breeze, are covered with the bones of a slaughtered world. How can the Christian dare to justify such awful cruelty ? The God of the Pentateuch is not a bene­ ficent universal father, but an almighty fiend. This story of Noah’s Flood is believed still because people never examine what is taught them as the word of God. Every one who analyses the story must pronounce it the most extra­ ordinary amalgam of immorality and absurdity ever palmed off on a credulous world. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Progressive Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—3. EVE AND THE APPLE. By G. W. FOOTE. Christianity is based upon the story of the Fall. In Adam all sinned, as in Christ all must be saved. Saint Paul gives to this doctrine the high sanction of his name, and we may disregard the puny whipsters of theology, who, without any claim to in­ spiration, endeavor to explain the Genesaic narrative as an alle­ gory rather than a history. If Adam did not really fall he could not have been cursed for falling, and his posterity could not have become partakers either in a sin which was never committed or in a malediction which was never pronounced. Nor can Original Sin be a true dogma if our first parents did not trans­ mit, the germs of iniquity to their children.. If Adam did not fall there was bo need for Christ to save us ; if he did not set God and man at variance there was no need for an atonement; and so the Christian scheme of salvation would be a fiasco from beginning to end. This will never do. No Garden of Eden, no Gethsemane! No Fall, no Redemption! No Adam, no Christ! . Mother Eve’s curiosity was the motive of the first trans­ gression of God’s commandments in the history of the world, and the whole human race was brought under the risk of eternal perdition because of her partiality to fruit. Millions of souls now writhe in hell because, six thousand years ago, she took a bite of an apple. What a tender and beautiful story! God made her to be Adam’s helpmeet. She helped him to a slice of apple, and that soon helped them both outside Eden. The sour stuff disagreed with him as it did with her. It has disagreed with all their posterity. In fact it was endowed with the mar­ vellous power of transmitting spiritual stomach-ache through any number of generations. How do we know that it was an apple and not some other fruit? Why, on the best authority extant after the Holy Scrip­ tures themselves, namely, our auxiliary Bible, Paradise Lost; in the tenth book whereof Satan makes the folio-wing boast to his infernal peers after his exploit in Eden:— “ Him by fraud I have seduced From his Creator, and, the more to increase Your wonder, with an apple.” �2 Eve and the Apple. 'x'i Yet another authority is the profane author of “ Doh Juan,” ■who, in the first stanza of the tenth canto, says of’Newton: “ And this is the sole mortal who could grapple, Since Adam, with a fall, or with an apple. ” Mil ton, being very pious, was probably in the counsel of God. Ib>w else could he have given us an authentic version of the long colJnquies that were carried on in heaven ? Byron, being very profane, was probably in the counsel of Satan. And thus we have the most unimpeachable testimony of two opposite sources to the fact that it was an apple, and not a rarer fruit, which overcame the virtue of our first parents, and played the devil with their big family of children. This apple grew on the Tree of Knowledge, which God planted in the midst of the Garden of Eden, sternly enjoining Adam and Eve not to eat of its fruit under pain of death. Now the poor woman knew nothing of death and could not understand what i dreadful punishment it was ; and there was the fruit dangling before her eyes every hour of the day. Is it any wonder that <he brooded incessantly on the one thing forbidden, that her /-Oman’s curiosity was irresistably piqued by it, and that at last her longing grew so intense that she exclaimed, “Dear me! I can’t refrain any longer. Let the consequences be what they will, I must have a bite.” God made the woman ; he knew her weakness; and he must have known that the plan he devised to test her obedience was the most certain trap that could be in­ vented. Jehovah played with poor Eve just as a cat plays with a mouse. She had free-will, say the theologians. Yes, and so has the mouse a free run. But the cat knows she can catch it again, and finish it off when she is tired of playing. Not only did God allow Eve’s curiosity to urge her on to sin, he also permitted the serpent, “more subtil than any beast of lhe field,” to supplement its action. This wily creature is popularly supposed to have been animated on the occasion by the Devil himself; although, as we shall explain in another Romance en­ titled “ The Bible Devil,” the book of Genesis makes not even Ahe remotest allusion to such a personage. If, however, the iempter was the Devil, what chance had the poor woman against Bus seductive wiles ? And even if he was only a serpent, he was very “ subtil ” as we are told, and able to talk like a book, and we know that these creatures have fatal powers of fascination. Surely Mother Eve was heavily handicapped. God might have given her fair play, and left her to fight the battle without fur­ nishing auxiliaries to the strong side. The serpent, we have said, could converse in human speech. His conversation and his conduct will be dealt with in the Romance yust referred to. Suffice it here to say that he plainly told the woman that God was a liar. “He,” said the tempter, “has said ye shall surely die if ye touch the fruit of this tree. Don’t �Eve and the Apple. 8 believe it. I tell you, ye shall not surely die.” What could poor Eve think ? In addition to her native curiosity here was another incentive to disobedience. Which of these two spoke the truth? There was only one way of deciding. She stretched forth her hand, plucked an apple, and began to eat. And immediately, says Milton, “ Earth felt the wound, and nature from her seat, Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe That all was lost.” What a rumpus about a trifle ! It reminds us of the story of a Jew who had a sneaking inclination for a certain meat prohibited by his creed. One day the temptation to partake was too strong; he slipped into a place of refreshment and ordered some sausages. The weather happened to be tempestuous, and just as he raised his knife and fork to attack the savory morsel, a violent clap of thunder nearly frightened him out of his senses. Gathering courage, he essayed a second time, but another thunderclap warned him to desist. A third attempt was foiled in the same way. Whereupon he threw down his knife and fork and made for the door, exclaiming “What a dreadful fuss about a little ' Eve’s transgression, accordingto the learned Lightfoot, occurred “about high noone, the time of eating.” The same authority informs us that she and Adam “did lie comfortlesse, till towards the cool of the day, or three o'clock afternoon." However that may be, it is most certain that the first woman speedily got the better of the first man. She told him the apple was nice and he took a bite also. Perhaps he had resolved to share her fortunes good or bad, and objected to be left alone with his menagerie. Lightfoot describes the wife as “ the weaker vessell,” but a lady friend of ours says that the Devil stormed the citadel first, knowing well that such a poor outpost as Adam could easily be carried afterwards. Haying eaten of the fruit, and thus learned to distinguish between good and evil, Adam and Eve Quickly discovered that they were naked. So they “ sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” We are not told who gave them lessons in sewing. Perhaps they acquired the art through intuition. But the necessary implements could not have been gained in that way. Dr. Thomas Burnet, whose mind was greatly exercised by the astounding wonders of the Bible, very pertinently asked “ Whence had they a needle, whence a thread, on the first day of their creation? ” He, however, could give no answer to the question, nor can we, except we suppose that some of the female angels had attended a “ garden party” in Eden and carelessly left their needles and thread behind them. Any reader who is dissatisfied with this explanation must inquire of the nearest parson, who, as he belongs to a class supposed to know almost everything, and �4 Eve and the Apple. believed to have access to the oracles of God, will doubtless be able to reveal the whole gospel truth on the subject. A little later, God himself, who is everywhere at once, came down from everywhere to the Garden of Eden, for the purpose of taking a “ walk in the cool of the day,” He had perhaps just visited the infernal regions to see that everything was ready for the reception of the miserable creatures he meant to damn, or to assure himself that the Devil was really not at home; and was anxious to cool himself before returning to his celestial abode, as well as to purify himself from the sulphurous taint which might else have sent a shudder through all the seraphic hosts. Apparently he was holding a soliloquy, for Adam and Eve “ heard his voice.” Colenso, however, renders this portion of the Romance differently from our authorised version—‘-And they heard the sound of Jehovah-Elohim walking in the garden in the breeze of the day.” Delitzsch thinks they heard the sound of his footsteps, for God used to visit them in the form of a man! Could the force of folly farther go ? Any devout Theist, who candidly thought over this petty fiction, would find its gross anthropomorphism inexpressibly shocking. Knowing that God was everywhere, Adam and Eve nevertheless “ hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.” But they were soon dragged forth to the light. Adam, who seems to have been a silly fellow, explained that he had hidden himself because he was naked, as though the Lord had not seen him in that state before. “ Naked!” said the Lord, “Who told thee that thou wast naked. Hast thou eaten of that tree, eh?” “ O, Lord, yes,” replied Adam; “just a little bit; but it wasn’t my fault, she made me do it, O Lord! O Lord ! ” Whereupon God, who although he knows everything, even before it happens, was singularly ill-informed on this occa­ sion, turned fiercely upon the woman, asking her what she had done. “ Oh, if you please,” whimpered poor Eve, “ it was I who took the first bite; but the serpent beguiled me, and the fault you see is not mine but his. Oh dear I oh dear ! ” Then the Lord utterly lost his temper. He cursed the serpent, cursed the woman, cursed the man, and even cursed the ground beneath their feet. Everything about at the time came in for a share of the malison. In fact, it was what the Yankees would call a good, all-round, level swear. * The purse of the serpent is a subject we must reserve for our pamphlet on “The Bible Devil,” The curse of the woman was that she should bring forth children in pain and sorrow, and that the man should rule over her. With her present physiological condition, woman must always have suffered during conception as she now does ; and therefore Delitzsch infers that her structure must have undergone a change, although he cannot say in what respect. He dwells also on the “ subjection ” of woman, which “ the religion of Revelation ” has made by degrees more endur- �Eve and the Apple, 5 able; probably forgetting that the Teutonic women of ancient timfis were regarded with veneration, long before Christianity originated. Besides, the subordination of the female is not peculiar to the human race, but is the general law throughout the animal world. Adam’s curse was less severe. He was doomed to till the ground, and to earn his bread by the sweat of his face. Most of us would rather take part in the great strenuous battle of life, than loll about under the trees in the Garden of Eden, chewing the cud like contemplative cows. What men have had to com­ plain of in all ages is, not that they have to earn their living by labour, but that when the sweat of their faces has been plenteously poured forth the “bread” has too often not accrued to them as the reward of their industry. Orthodox Christianity avers that all the posterity of Adam and Eve necessarily participate in their curse, and the doctrine of Original Sin is taught from all its pulpits. Only by baptism can the stains of our native guilt be effaced; and thus the unbaptized, even infants, perish everlastingly, and hell, to use the words of a Protestant divine, holds many a babe not a span long. A great Catholic divine says—Hold thou most firmly, nor do thou in any respect doubt, that infants, whether in their mothers’ wombs they begin to live and then die, or when, after their mothers have given birth to them, they pass from this life without the sacrament of holy baptism, will be punished with the everlasting punishment of eternal fire.” Horror of horrors ! These men call sceptics blasphemers, but they are the real blasphemers when they attribute to their God such supreme injustice and cruelty. What should we think of a legislator who proposed that the descendants of all thieves should b.e imprisoned, and the des­ cendants of all murderers hung ? We should think that he was bad or mad. Yet this is precisely analogous to the conduct ascribed to God, who should be infinitely wiser than the wisest man and infinitely better than the best. The crime of our first parents was indeed pregnant with the direst consequences. It not only induced the seeds of original sin, but it also brought death into the world. Milton sings— “ Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world." And Saint Paul (Romans v., 12) writes “ As by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin.” Now this theory implies that before the Fall the inhabited por­ tion of the world was the scene of perfect peace. Birds lived on seeds and eschewed worms, and the fierce carniverous animals’ grazed like oxen. The lion laid down with the lamb. “ Waal,’ said the Yankee, “ I don’t doubt that, but I rayther guess the lamb was inside." The fact is that most of the carnivorous �6 Eve and the Apple. animals could not live on a vegetable di*et; aad therefore they must either have subsisted on flesh before the Fail, which of course involves death, or their natures must have undergone a radical change. The first supposition contradicts scripture, and the second contradicts science. Geology shows us that in the very earliest times living creatures died from the same causes which kill them now. Many were overwhelmed by floods and volcanoes, or engulphed by earth­ quakes; many died of old age or disease, for their bones are found distorted or carious, and their limbs twisted with pain ; while the greater number were devoured, according to the general law of the struggle for existence. Death ruled universally before the human race made its appearance on the earth, and has absolutely nothing to do with Eve and her apple. Adam and Eve were warned by God that in the day they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they should surely die. The serpent declared this to be rank nonsense, and the event proved his veracity. What age Eve attained to the Holy Bible saith not, for it never considers women of sufficient importance to have their longevities chronicled. But Adam lived to the remarkably good old age of nine hundred and thirty years. Like our Charles the Second he took “ an unconscionable time a-dying.” One of his descendants, the famous Methusaleh, lived thirty-nine years longer; while the more famous Melchizedek is not even dead vet, if any credence is to be placed in the words of holy Saint Paul. But all these are mere lambs, infants, or chicken, in compari­ son with the primeval patriarchs of India. - Buckle tells us that, according to the Hindoos, common men in ancient times lived to the age of 80,000 years, some dying a little sooner and some a little later. Two of their kings, Yudhishther and Alarka, reigDed respectively 27,000 and 66,000 years. Both these were cut off in their prime ; for some of the early poets lived to be about half a million ; while one king, the most virtuous as well as the most remarkable of all, was two million years old when he began to reign, and alter reigning 6,300,000 years, he resigned his empire and lingered on for 100,000 years more. Adam is not in the hunt with that tough old fellow. On the principle that it is as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb, faithful Christians should swallow him as well as Adam. When the throat of their credulity is once distended they may as well take in everything that comes. W hat followed the Curse clearly shows that man was not origi­ nally created immortal. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden expressly in order that they might not become so. God “drove them forth” lest they should “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” Many orthodox writers, who have to maintain the doctrine of our natural im­ mortality, preserve a discreet silence on this text. Our great Milton, who has so largely determined the Protestant theology �Eve and the Apple. 7 of England, goes right in the face of Scripture when he makes God say of man, “ I at first with two fair gifts Created him endowed, with happiness And immortality. ” The fact is, the Book of Genesis never once alludes to any such thing, nor does it represent man as endowed with any other soul than that “ breath of life ” given to all animals. It is also certain that the ancient Jews were entirely ignorant of the doctrine of a life beyond the grave. The highest promise that Moses is said to have made in the Decalogue was that their “days should be long in the land.” The Jews were a business people, and they wanted all promises fulfilled on this side of death. Nor is there any real Fall implied in this story. God himself says that “ the man,” having eaten of the forbidden fruit, “ is become as one of us.” That could scarcely be a fall which brought him nearer to God. Bishop South, indeed, in a very eloquent passage of his sermon on “Man Created in God’s Image,” celebrates the inconceivable perfection of the first man, and concludes by saying that “ An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise.” But a candid perusal of Genesis obliges us to dissent from this view. Adam and Eve were a very childish pair. Whatever intellect they possessed they carefully concealed. Not a scintillation of it has reached us. Shakespeare and Newton are an infinite im­ provement on Adam and Eve. One of the Gnostic sects, who played such havoc with the early Christian Church, utterly re­ jected the idea of a Fall. “ The Ophites,” says Didron, “ con­ sidered the God of the Jews not only to be a most wicked but an unintelligent being............ According to their account, Jaldabaoth, the wicked demi-god adored by the Jews under the name of Jehovah, was jealous of man, and wished to prevent the progress of knowledge; but the serpent, the agent of superior wisdom, came to teach man what course he ought to pursue, and by what means he might regain the knowledge of good and evil. The Ophites consequently adored the serpent and cursed the true God Jehovah.” ’ Before expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, the Lord took pity on their nakedness, and apparently seeing that their skill in needle-work did not go beyond aprons, he “ made coats of skins, and clothed them.’’ Jehovah was thus the first tailor, and the prototype of that imperishable class of workmen, of whom it was said that it takes nine of them to make a man. He was also the first butcher and the first tanner, for he must have slain the animals and dressed their skins. Lest they should return he “ placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every �8 Eve and the Apple. way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” As this guard seems never to have been relieved, profane wits have speculated whether the Flood drowned them, and quenched the flaming sword with a great hiss. Ezekiel describes the Cherubims with characteristic magnificence. These creatures with wings and wheels were “full of eyes round about.” And “ everyone had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” What monsters! No wonder they effectually frightened poor Adam and Eve from attempting a re-entrance into the Garden. Perhaps the reader would like to know what became of the Tree of Knowledge. One legend of the Middle Ages relates that Eve along with the forbidden fruit broke off a branch which she carried with her from Paradise. Planted outside by her hand, it grew to a great tree, under which Abel was killed; at a later time it was used in building the most holy place of Solomon’s temple; and finally it yielded the beams out of which the cross was made ! Another legend says that, after the Fall, God rooted out the Tree of Knowledge, and flung it over the wall of Paradise. A thousand years after it was found by Abraham, none the worse for its long absence from the soil. He planted it in his garden, and while doing so he was informed by a voice from heaven that this was the tree on whose wood the Redeemer should be crucified. Space does not allow us to dwell at length on the Paradise Myths of other ancient peoples, which singularly resembled that of the Jews. Formerly it was alleged that these were all cor­ ruptions of the Genesaic story. But it is now known that most of them date long anterior to the very existence of the Jewish people. As Kalisch says, “they belonged to the common traditionary lore of the Asiatic nations.” The Bible story of Paradise is derived almost entirely from the Persian myth. It was after contact with the reformed religion of Zoroaster, during their captivity, that the remnant of the Jews who returned to Palestine collated their ancient literature, and revised it in ac­ cordance with their new ideas. The story of Eve and her Apple is, as every scholar knows, an oriental myth slightly altered by the Jewish scribes to suit the national taste, and has absolutely no claims on our credence. And if this be so, the doctrine of the Fall collapses, and down comes the whole Christian structure which ie erected upon it. [PRICE ONE PENNY.] LaiijnoN : Frbkthought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, E.O, �BIBLE ROMANCES,—4, THE BIBLE DEVIL. By G. W. FOOTE, The Christian Godhead is usually spoken and written of as & Trinity, whereas it is in fact a Quarternion, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and God the DeviL The Roman Catholics add yet another, Goddess the Virgin Mary. God the Devil, whom this Romance treats of so far as his history is contained in the Bible, is popularly supposed to be inferior to the other persons of the Godhead. In reality, however, he is vastly their superior both in wisdom and in power. For, whereas they made the world, he has appropriated it almost entirely to himself; and, whereas they who created all its inhabitants, have only been able to lay down a very narrow-gauge railway to the Kingdom of Heaven, he has contrived to lay down an exceedingly broad-gauge railway to the Kingdom of Hell. Few passengers travel by their route, and its terminus on this side is miserably small; but his route is almost universally patronised, its terminus is magnificent, and there is an extraordinary rush for tickets. According to the Christian scheme, the Devil tempted Adam and Eve from their allegiance to God in the form of a serpent. He played the devil with Eve, she played the devil with Adam,' and together they have played the devil with the whole human race ever since. But let any unbiassed person read the Genesaic story of the Fall, and he will certainly discover no reference to the Devil. A serpent is spoken of as “more subtle than any beast of the field;” it. is throughout represented simply as a serpent; and nowhere is there the faintest indication of its possessing any supernatural endowments. The Story of the Fall contains clear relics of that Tree and Serpent worship which in ancient times prevailed so extensively over the East. The serpent was formerly regarded as the symbol of a beneficent God. In Hindustan, says Maurice, “the veneration of the serpent is evident in every page of their mythologic history, in which every fabulous personage of note is represented as grasping or as environed with a serpent.” According to Layard, the word which signifies “ life ” in the greater part of the Semitic languages signifies also “a serpent.” And Jacob Bryant says that the word “Ab,” which in Hebrew means Father, has also the same meaning as the Egyptian “Ob,” or “Aub,” and signifies “ a serpent,” thus etymologically uniting the two ideas. The Tree and the Serpent were frequently associated, although they were sometimes worshipped apart. The Aryan races of the �26 The Bible Devil. Western world mostly worshipped the Tree alone. The Scan­ dinavians had their great ash “ Yggdrasill,” whose triple root reaches to the depths of the universe, while its majestic stem overtops the heavens and its branches fill the world. The Grecian oracles were delivered from the oak of Dodona, and the priests set forth their decrees on its leaves. Nutpi or Neith, the goddess of divine life, was by the Egyptians represented as seated among the branches of the Tree of Life, in the paradise of Osiris. The “ Hom,” the sacred tree of the Persians, is spoken of in the Zendavesta as the “ Word of Life,” and, when consecrated, was partaken of as a sacrament. An oak was the sacred tree of the ancient Druids of Britain. We inherit their custom of gathering the sacred mistletoe at Yule-tide, while in our Christmas Tree we have a remnant of the old Norse tree­ worship. During the Middle Ages the worship of trees was for­ bidden in France by the ecclesiastical councils, and in England by the laws of Canute. A learned antiquary remarks that “ the English maypole decked with colored rags and tinsel, and the merry morice-dancers (the gaily decorated May sweeps) with the mysterious and now almost defunct personage, Jack-in-thegreen, are all but worn-out remnants of the adoration of gods in trees that once were sacred in England.” Now the serpent and the tree were originally both symbolic of the generative powers of nature, and they were interchange­ able. Sometimes one was employed, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. But in that great religious reformation which took place in the faiths of the ancient world about 600 years before the time of Christ, the serpent was degraded, and made to stand as a symbol of Ahriman, the god of evil, who, in the Persic religion, waged incessant war against Ormuzd, the god of bene­ ficence. The Persian myth of the Fall is thus rendered from the Zendavesta by Kalisch:— “The first couple, the parents of the human race, Meshia and Meshiane, lived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised them by Ormuzd, the creator of every good gift, if they persevered in their virtue. But an evil demon (Dev) was sent to them by Ahriman, the representative of every­ thing noxious and sinful. He appeared unexpectedly in the form of a serpent, and gave them the fruit of a wonderful tree, Hom, which imparted immortality and had the power of restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations entered their hearts ; all their moral excellence was destroyed. Ahriman himself appeared under the form of the same reptile, and completed the work of seduction. They acknowledged him instead of Ormuzd as the creator of everything good ; and the consequence was they for­ feited for ever the eternal happiness for which they were destined.” Every reader will at once perceive how similar this is to the Hebrew story of the Fall. The similarity is intelligible when we remember that all the literature of the ancient Jews was put �The Bible Devil. 27 into its present form by the learned scribes who returned with the remnant of the people from the Babylonish captivity, and who were full of the ideas that obtained in the Persian religion as reformed by the traditional Zoroaster. As we have said, the Hebrew story of the Fall contains clear relics of Tree and Serpent worship. There is also abundant proof that during the long ages in which the Jews oscillated between polytheism and monotheism this worship largely pre­ vailed. Even up to the reign of Hezekiah, as we find in the Second. Book of Kings, the serpent was worshipped in groves, to the great anger of the king, who cast out the idolatry from among his people. Having explained the subject thus, let us now assume with orthodox Christians that the serpent in Eden was animated by the Devil, or was indeed the Devil himself incarnate. We have already observed that the Devil excels his three rivals in wisdom and in power. While they were toiling so strenuously to create the world and all that therein is, he Quietly stood or sat by as a spectator. “All right,” he might have murmured, “ work away as hard, as you please. You ve more strength than sense. My turn will soon come. When the job is finished we shall see to whom all this belongs.” When the work was completed and they had pronounced all things good, in stepped the Devil, and in the twinkling of an eye rendered im­ perfect all that they had so labored to create perfect; turning everything topsy-turvey, seducing the first pair of human beings, sowing the seeds of original sin, and at one stroke securing the wholesale damnation of our race. What were they about, to let him do all this with such consummate ease ? Surely they must have slept like logs, and thus left the whole game in his hands. He made himself the “prince of this world,” although they created it; and if those may laugh who win, he was entitled to roar out his mirth to the shaking of the spheres. Besides being the prince of this world and of the powers of darkness, the Devil is described as the father of lies. This, however, is a gross libel on his character. Throughout the contest with his rivals he played with perfect fairness. And from Genesis to Revelation there can be adduced no single instance in which he departs from the strict line of truth. On one occasion when Jehovah desired a lying spirit to go forth and prophesy falsely to his people, he found one ready to his hand in heaven and had no need to trouble Satan for a messenger. The Lord God had told Adam, “ Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” “Nay,” said the Devil, when he began business “ye shall not surely die ; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Every word of his speech was true. Instead of dying “ in the day” that he ate of the fruit. Adam lived to the fine old age of nine hundred and thirty years. �28 The Bible Devil. And after the “fall” the Lord God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” The Devil’s truth­ fulness is thus amply vindicated. Satan’s visit to Eve was paid in the form of a serpent. She manifested no astonishment at being accosted by such a creature, fbe ^h°le, menagerie of Eden spoke in the human 6’ and Bala.am ® ass was only what the biologists would most of°X °lrsyrsion *? th/ primitive type. Jofeptae and most of the Fathers, conceived of the serpent as having had SnaU\a\uma? voice and legs; so that if he could not have walked about with Eve arm in arm, he might at least have accompanied her in a dance. Milton, however, discredits the legs and represents the serpent thus:— ° “Not with indented wave. Prone on the ground, as since, but on his rear, Circular base of rising folds, that towered Fold above fold, a surging maze, his head’ Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes 5 With burnish’d neck of verdant gold,’erect Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass Floated redundant.” Very splendid 1 But the doctors differ, and who shall decide ? .What foliowed the eating of the forbidden fruit we have dealt with in Eve and the Apple.” We shall therefore at once come to the curse pronounced upon the serpent. “ And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” J ’ The final portion of this curse is flagrantly mythological. Among the Hindoos, Krishna also, as the incarnation of Vishnu is represented now as treading on the bruised head of a con­ quered serpent, and now as entwined by it, and stung in the heel. In Egyptian pictures and sculptures, likewise, the serpent is seen pierced through the head by the spear of the goddess Isis. The enmity ” between mankind and the serpent is, how­ ever not universal. Amongst the Zulus the snake is held in great veneration, as their dead ancestors are supposed to reappear in that form ; and in ancient times, as we have already observed serpents were actually worshipped. * ’ The middle portion of the curse has not yet been fulfilled. The serpent lives on more nutritious food than dust. Tn the Zoological Gardens the inmates of the serpent-house enjoy a more solid diet The fact is, we have here an oriental Sr?tlOv uKS1SCh p0Ults out that “the great scantiness of h the s®rPent can subsist, gave rise to the belief, entertained by many Eastern nations, that they eat dust.” This �The Bible Devil. 29 belief is referred to in Micah vii., 17; Isaiah lxv., 25, and else­ where in the Bible. Among the Indians the serpent is believed to live on wind. That the serpent “goes” upon its “belly” is, of course, a fact. Before the curse it must have moved about in some other way. Milton’s poetical solution of the difficulty we have already given. During the Middle Ages those seraphic doctors of theology, who gravely argued how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, speculated also on the serpent’s method of locomotion before the “fall.” Some thought the animal had legs, some that it undulated gracefully on its back, and others that it hopped about on its tail. The ever-bold Delitzsch decides that “its mode of motion and its form were changed,” but closes the controversy by adding, “ of the original condition of the serpent it is, certainly, impossible to frame to ourselves a conjecture.” All this is mere moonshine. Geology, as Colenso remarks, shows us that the serpent was the same kind of creature as it is now, in the ages long before man existed on the earth. Why the serpent was cursed at all is a question which no Christian can answer. The poor animal was seized, mastered, occupied, and employed by the Devil, and was therefore abso­ lutely irresponsible for what occurred. It had committed no offence, and consequently the curse upon it, according to Christian doctrine, was a most brutal and wanton outrage. Having done such a splendid stroke of business in Eden, the Devil retired, quite satisfied that the direction he had given to the affairs of this world was so strong and certain as to obviate the necessity of his personal supervision. Fifteen centuries later the human race had grown so corrupt that God (that is, the three persons in one) resolved to drown them all; preserving, however, eight live specimens to repeople the world. How the Devil must have laughed again! He knew that Noah and his family possessed the seeds of original sin, which they would as­ suredly transmit to their children, and thus prolong the corruption through all time. Short-sighted as ever, Jehovah refrained from completing the devastation, after which he might have started afresh. So sure was the Devil's grip on God’s creation that, a few centuries after the Flood, there were not found ten righteous men in the whole city of Sodom, and no doubt other cities were almost as bad. According to the Bible, the Devil’s long spell of rest was broken in the reign of • King David, the man after God’s own heart, but a very great scoundrel nevertheless. The Second Book of Samuel (xxiv., 1) tells us that “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” Now the First Book of Chronicles (xxi., 1) in relating the same incident says, “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” Who shall reconcile this discrepancy? �30 The Bible Devil. Was it God, was it Satan, or was it both ? Imagine David with the celestial and infernal powers whispering the same counsel into either ear! A Scotch minister once told us that this diffi­ culty was only apparent. The Devil, says he, exercises only a delegated power, and acts only by the express or tacit permis­ sion of Godso that it matters not which is said to have provoked David. Yes, but what of the consequences ? Because the king, despite all protests, took a census of his people the Lord sent a destroying angel, who slew by pestilence seventy thousand of them. Where, in the whole history of religion, shall we find a viler sample of divine injustice ? +hPT^eS’ if theDeVi.1 actrs in a11 ,cases onlY by God’s permission, the latter is responsible for all the former’s wrcng-doino-. The principal, and not the agent, must bear the guilt. And this suggests a curious problem. Readers of “Robinson Crusoe” inll remember that when Man Friday was undergoing a course of theological instruction, he puzzled his master by asking why God did not convert the Devil. To his unsophisticated mind it was plain that the conversion of the Devil would annihilate sin ^°b“ison Crusoe changed the subject to avoid looking foolish but Man Friday s question remains in full force. Why does not God convert the Devil? The great Thomas Aquinas is re­ ported to have prayed for the Devil's conversion through a whole long night. Robert Burns concludes his “Address to the De’il ” with a wish that he ‘ wad tak a thought an’ men ’ ” And bterne, m one of his wonderful strokes of pathos, makes Corporal Irim say of the Devil, “He is damned already, your honor •” whereupon, “I am sorry for it,” quoth Uncle Toby. Why oh why, we repeat, does not God convert the Devil, and thus put a stop for ever to the damnation of mankind? Why do not the clergy pray without ceasing for that one object? Because they dare not. The Devil is their best friend. Abolish him, and disestablish hell, and their occupation would be gone. They must stick to their dear Devil, as their most precious possession, their stock-in-trade, their talisman of power, without whom they were worse than nothing. J The Devil’s adventures in the Book of Job are very amusing. One day there was a drawing-room or Zevee held in heaven. The sons of God attended, and Satan came also among them. He seems to have so closely resembled the rest of the company that only God detected the difference. This is not surprising, for the world has seen some very godly sons of God, so very much like tne Oevil, that if he met one of them in a dark lane by night, he might almost suspect it to be his own ghost. God, who knows everything, as usual asked a number of questions. Where had Satan been, and. what had he been doing ? Satan replied, hke a gentleman of independent means, that he had been going t0 andiro in the earth’ and walkinS up and down in it. “ Well ” t “Jiav(l you. observed my servant Job ? What’a good man! perfect and upright. I’m proud of him.” Oh yes, �The Bible Devil. 31 Satan had observed him. He keeps a sharp eye on all men. As -old Bishop Latimer said, whatever parson is out of his parish the Devil is always in his. “Doth Job fear God for nought?” said Satan. “He is wealthy, prosperous, happy, and respected ; you fence him about from evil; but just let trouble come upon him, and he will curse you to your face.” This was a new view of the subject; the Lord had never seen it in this light before. So he determined to make an experiment. With God’s sanction Satan went forth to afflict Job. He despoiled his substance, slaugh­ tered his children, covered him with sore boils from head to foot, and then set on his wife to “nag” him. But Job triumphed; he did not curse God, and thus Satan was foiled. Subsequently Job became richer than ever and more renowned, while a fresh family grew up around his knees. “ So,” say the Christians, “ alls well that ends well!” Not so, however; for there remains uneffaced the murder of Job’s children, who were hurriedly despatched out of the world in the very midst of their festivity. When the celestial and infernal powers play at conundrums, it is a great pity that they do not solve them up above or down below, and leave the poor denizens of this world free from the havoc of their contention. , In the New Testament, as in the Old, the Devil appears early ■on the scene. After his baptism in Jordan, Jesus was “led up of the spirit in the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.” When he had fasted forty days and nights he “was afterward an hungered.” Doctor Tanner overlooked this. The hunger of Jesus only began on the forty-first day. The Devil requests Jesus to change the stones into bread, but he declines to do so. Then he sets him “ on a pinnacle of the temple ” in Jerusalem, and desires him to throw himself down. Jesus must have been exceedingly sharp set in that position. Meanwhile, where was the Devil posted ? He could scarcely have craned his neck up so as to hold a confabulation with Jesus from the streets, and we must therefore suppose that he was sharp set on another pinnacle. A pretty sight they must have been for the Jews down below! That temptation failing, the Devil takes Jesus “up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” This is remarkably like seeing round a corner, for however high we go we cannot possibly see the whole surface of a globe at once. “ All these things,” says Satan, “ will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” What a generous Devil! They already belonged to Jesus, for doth not Scripture say “ the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof ”?—a text which should now read “ the earth is the land­ lords’ and the emptiness thereof.” This temptation also fails, and the Devil retires in disgust. What a pretty farce! Our burlesques and pantomimes are nothing to it. Satan knew Jesus, and Jesus knew Satan. Jesus knew that Satan would tempt him, and Satan knew that Jesus knew it. Jesus knew that Satan could not succeed, and Satan �32 The Bible Devil. knew that also. Yet they kept the farce up night and day for no one knows how long; and our great Milton in his “Paradise Regained ” represents this precious pair arguing all day long Satan retiring after sunset, and Jesus lying down hungry cold and wet, and rising in the morning with damp clothes to renew the discussion. Soon after Jesus went into the country of the Gergesenes where he met two fierce men possessed with devils which he determined to exorcise. The devils (for the Devil had grown numerous by then), not liking to be turned adrift on the world without home or shelter, besought Jesus to let them enter the bodies of a herd of swine feeding by. This he graciously permitted. The devils left the men and entered the swine whereupon the poor pigs, experiencing a novel sensation, never having had devils inside them before, “ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” Whether the devils were drowned with the pigs this veracious history saith not. But the pigs themselves were not paid for. Jesus wrought the mn-ade at other people’s expense. And the inhabitants of tnat part took precisely this view of the case. For “ the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they be­ sought him that he would depart out of their coasts.” No doubt they reflected that if he remained working miracles of that kind districtGnd °f a WGek nOt a ShlgIe Pig W°Uld b6 left aUve in th® Entering in Genesis, the Devil appropriately makes his exit in Revelation. The twelfth chapter of that holy nightmare describes mm as “a great'red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns and seven crowns upon his heads; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth ” What a tail! The writer’s ideas of size were very chaotic Bringing a third part of the stars of heaven to this earth is much like trying to lodge a few thousand cannon-balls on the surface ot a bullet. Finally the Devil is to be “bound for a thousand years” in nefl Let us hope the chain will be strong; for if it should break, the pit has no bottom, and the Devil would go right through, coming out on the other side to renew his old tricks buch is the Romance of the Bible Devil. Was ever a more ludicrous story palmed off on a credulous world? The very clergy are growing ashamed of it. But there it is, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the “ sacred ” narrative, so that no skill can remove it without destroying the whole fabric. The Devil has been the Church’s best friend, but he is doomed, and as their fraternal bond cannot be broken, he will drag it down to irretrievable perdition. PKICE ONE PENNY. Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �BIBLE ROMANCES —V. THE TEN PLAGUES. By G. W. FOOTE. If a man who had never read the Bible before wished to amuse himself during a spare hour among its pages, we should recom­ mend him to try the first fourteen chapters of Exodus. A more entertaining narrative was never penned. Even the fascinating Arabian Nights affords nothing better, provided we read it with the eyes of common sense, and without that prejudice which so oftens blinds us to the absurdities of “ God’s Word.” At the end of the fourteenth chapter aforesaid, let the book be closed, and then let the reader ask himself whether he ever met with a more comical story. Two hundred and fifteen years after the arrival of Israel in Egypt, God's chosen people had fallen into slavery. Yet they were exceedingly prolific, so that “ the land was filled with them.” Afraid of their growing numbers, Pharaoh ‘‘spake to the Hebrew midwives ” and told them to kill all their male children at birth and leave only the daughters alive. This injunction the midwives very properly disobeyed. Had they obeyed Pharaoh, the Jewish race would have been extinguished, and Judaism and Christianity never heard of. But the comical fact as to these midwives is that there were only two of them, Shipprah and Puah. What a busy pair they must have been! What patterns of ubiquitous industry! When the Jews quitted Egypt they mustered six hundred thousand men, besides women and children. Now, supposing all these were collected together in one city, its size would equal that of London. How could two midwives possibly attend to all the confinements among such a population ? And how much more difficult would their task be if the population were scattered over a wide area, as was undoubtedly the case with the Jews! Words fails us to praise the miraculous activity of these two ladies. Like the peace of God, it passes all understanding. One of the male children born under the iron rule of Pharaoh was Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed. The incidents of his eventful life will be fully recorded in our series of “ Bible Heroes.” Suffice it here to say that he was adopted and brought up by Pharaoh’s daughter; that he became skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians; that he privily slew an Egyptian who had maltreated a Hebrew, and was obliged therefore to flee to the land of Midian, where he married Zipporah, a daughter of Jethro the priest. At this time Moses was getting on to his eightieth year. Nowadays a man of that age sees only the grave before him, and has pretty nearly closed his account with the world. But in those days it was different. At the age of �34 The Ten Plagues. eighty Moses was just beginning his career. He was indeed a very astonishing old boy. One day Moses was keeping his father-in-law’s flock near Mount Horeb, when lo 1 a strange vision greeted his eyes. The “ angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush,” which burned without consuming. By “angel” we are to understand a vision or appearance only, for the being within the bush was God Almighty himself; and throughout the rest of the narrative the word “angel” gives place to Lord or God. Moses approached this wonderful sight; but the Lord called out to him, “Draw not nigh hither : put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Thereupon Moses hid his face “forhe was afraid to look upon God.” Could anything be more ludicrous ! Fancy God, the infinite spirit of the universe, secreting himself in a bush and setting it on fire, just to make a little display for the benefit of Moses 1 Our wonder, however, is presently lessened; for this God turns out to be only Jehovah “The Lord God of the Hebrews,” a mere local deity, who cared only for for his own people, and was quite ready to slaughter any number of the inhabitants of adjacent countries, besides being bitterly jealous of their gods. He had heard the cries of his people and had determined to rescue them from bondage. Fie had also resolved to give Pharoah and the Egyptians a taste of his quality, so that they might be forced to admit his superiority to their gods. “ I will let them know,” said he to Moses, “ who I am, and you shall be my agent. We’ll confound their impudence before we’ve done with them. But don’t let us be in a hurry, for the little drama I have devised requires a good deal of time. You go to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to let my people go. But don’t suppose that he will consent. That wouldn’t suit my plans at all. I have decided to set you two playing at the little game of “pull Moses, pull Pharaoh,” and 1 shall harden his heart against your demands so that there may be a fierce tussel. But don’t be afraid. I am on your side, and just at the end of the game I’ll join in and pull Pharaoh clean over. And mind you tell him all along that my power, not yours, works all the wonders I mean you to perform, for you are only my instrument, and I want all the glory myself. Play fair, Moses, play fair! ” Moses was not unwilling to engage in this enterprise, but like a prudent Jew he required certain assurances of success. Fie therefore first raised an objection as to his own insignificance— “Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh? ” To which God replied, “ Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee : When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Moses, however, required a much less remote token than this; so he again objected that nobody would believe him. There­ upon the Lord bade him cast his rod on the ground, and lo! it became a serpent. Moses very naturally fled before it, till the �The, Ten Plagues. 35 Lord told him not to run away but to take it by the tail. He did so, and it became again a rod in his hand. Then the Lord bade him put his hand in his bosom, and on taking it out he found it was “leprous as snow.” Again he put it in his bosom, and when he plucked it out once more it was sound ‘and well. “There,” said the Lord, “those signs will do in Egypt. When you show them nobody will doubt you.” Moses still objected that he was very slow of speech, and frankly desired the Lord to send some one else. The Lord grew angry at this per­ sistent reluctance; yet he restrained himself, and informed Moses that his brother Aaron, who was a good speaker, should accompany him. The prudent prophet seems to have been at length satisfied. At any rate he made no further objection, but after a little conversation with the Lord, who was very talkative, he set forth on his journey to Egypt. Singular to relate, the Lord met Moses at an inn on the road, and sought to kill him. What a strange God, to be sure 1 Why -did he want to kill his own messenger ? And why, if he wanted to kill him, did he not succeed in doing it? Truly the ways of God are past finding out. The only reason discoverable for this queer conduct is that Moses’ boy was uncircumcised. Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone and performed the rite of circum­ cision herself, casting the amputated morsel at the feet of the boy’s father, with the remark that he was “a bloody husband.” The Lord’s anger was therby appeased, and the text naively says that he then let Moses go. Prompted by the Lord, Aaron went out into the wilderness to meet Moses, and they soon appeared together before “all the elders of the children of Israel,” who readily believed in their mission when they heard Aaron’s account of the Lord’s conversation with Moses, and saw the wonderful signs. Afterwards the two brothers visited Pharaoh, but God had hardened his heart; so he ■denied all knowledge of the Lord, and refused to let Israel go. On the contrary, he commanded the taskmasters to be even more rigorous with them, and, instead of giving them straw to make bricks, as theretofore, to make them gather straw for themselves. And when they complained, Pharaoh replied that they were an idle lot, and only wanted to go out and sacrifice to the Lord in order to avoid work. Whereupon they remonstrated with Moses for his interference, and he, in turn, remonstrated with God in very plain and disrespectful language. “Nonsense!” said the Lord, “now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh.” Again Pharaoh was visited by the two brothers, who this time ■commenced to work the oracle. Aaron cast down his rod, and it became a serpent. But the magicians of Egypt, who were present by the invitation of the king, were in nowise astonished. “ Oh,” said they, “is that all you can do? ” Then every man of them threw dowh his rod, and it also became a serpent. That was indeed an age of miracles ! The magicians of Egypt wrought this wonder without any help from the Lord, and solely “with �36 The Ten Plagues. their enchantments.” Here then was a pretty fix! So far neither side had any advantage. But, presently, Aaron’s serpent—which thus proved itself a truly Jewish one—created a diversion by swallowing all the others up. We must suppose that it after­ wards disgorged them, or else that Aaron’s rod was exceedingly stout when he got it back. Pharaoh’s heart remained obdurate, notwithstanding this sign, and he still refused to let the people go. And then the plagues commenced. The first was a plague of blood. Aaron stretched forth his rod, and all the waters of Egypt, the streams, the rivers, the ponds, and the pools became blood. Even the water in vessels of stone and wood was ensanguined. The fish all died, and the river stank: and “there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” This was a good start, but the magicians of Egypt beat it hollow ; for after Aaron had turned all the water of Egypt into blood, they turned all the rest into blood. No wonder that Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened! He quietly walked into his house and let the subject drop. Seven days later Moses went again to Pharaoh and said, “Thus saith the Lord, let my people go.” And Pharaoh said, “I won’t.” “Won’t you?” replied Moses, “we shall see.” Forthwith Aaron brandished his rod over the streams, rivers, and ponds, and brought on the second plague in the shape of frogs, which swarmed all over the land. They entered the houses, penetrated to the bed-rooms, mounted the beds, slipped into the kneading-troughs, and even got into the ovens, although one would expect frogs to give such hot places a very wide berth. What a squelching of frogs there must have been ! The Egyptians could not have stood absolutely still, and the land was covered with them. Again the magicians, “with their enchantments,” followed suit, and brought up frogs too. Yet, as the land was already covered with frogs, it is difficult to see how the new comers found room, unless they got on the backs of the others, and went hopping about in couples. Pharaoh now relented. He called for Moses, and said, “Intreat your Lord to take away these nasty frogs, and I will let the people go.” “That will I.” said Moses, “ and you shall know that there is none like unto the Lord our Gocl.” The next day the frogs died out of the houses, villages, and fields, and were gathered into heaps, so that, again “the land stank.” But when Pharaoh saw that there "was respite he hardened his heart again, “ as the Lord had said.” The third act of this tragi-comedy was decisive in one sense, for in it the magicians of Egypt were obliged to retire from the competition. Aaron stretched forth his rod again and smote the dust of the earth, all of which instantly became lice, in man and in beast. Before this dirty miracle the magicians of Egypt shrank dismayed. They made a feeble and altogether unsuccess­ ful attempt to imitate Aaron’s performance, and then drew back, declining to continue the contest. Tho lice settled them. �The Ten Plagues. 37 “This,” said they, “is the finger of God.” When they saw the lice they knew that the Lord was shaking himself and meant business. But Pharaoh still refused to knuckle under. Even ao-ainst the force of this supreme wonder his heart was steeled. °So the fourth plague came. A grievous swarm of flies descended on Egypt, so that “the land was corrupted” by reason of them. But not a single fly crosses over into “the land of Goshen” where the Jews dwelt. Thereupon Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and told them he was willing to let their people go and sacrifice to the Lord for three days, but not outside Egypt. Moses reiterated his demand for a three days’ journey into the wilderness. Whereto Pharaoh replied that they might go, but “not too far.” Moses then undertook to banish the flies. And he was as good as his word; for he made such a clean sweep of them that “not one remained.” This precious narrative always runs to extremes. Egypt without a fly in it would be in a very abnormal condition. At ordinary times the land is infested with flies; and large numbers of the people suffer from diseased eyes, in consequence of these insects incessantly fastening on the sores caused by the irritating sand which fills the air. It was absurd for this Hebrew story-teller to scotch the last fly; he should have left sufficient to maintain the character of the country. Again Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and when the flies were banished he refused to “ let the people go.” So the fifth plague came. A “very grievous murrain,” which spared the cattle of Israel, broke out on the cattle of Egypt, and with such virulence that they all died. Pharaoh found on inquiry that there was “ not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead,” yet for all that his heart was hardened and he would not let the people go. So the sixth plague came. Aaron took “ handfuls of ashes of the furnace,” which Moses sprinkled towards heaven, and “it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast.” Even the magicians were afflicted. Now the reader will bear in mind that all the cattle of Egypt were killed by the fifth plague. What beasts, then, were these tortured with boils ? Were they dead carcasses, or were they live cattle miraculously created in the interim ? From the serpent of Eden to Jonali’s whale, the animals of the Bible are a queer lot. Pharaoh’s heart remaining still hardened, God commanded Moses to make a special appeal to him, and to get up early in the morning for that purpose. So Moses stood before Pharaoh and said “ thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve me. If you refuse I shall plague you and your people worse than ever, and so teach you that there is none like me in all the earth. You had better cave in at once.” But Pharaoh would not harken. He tacitly declared that the Lord God of the Hebrews might go to Jericho. So the seventh plague come. A fierce, hail, accompanied by fire that ran along the ground, smote all that was in the field, both man and beast. It smote also every herb of the field and �38 Tice Ten Plagues. brake every tree of the field. Only those were saved who “feared the Lord” and stayed indoors _ with their servants and cattle. J ortunately the wheat and the rice were spared, as they were not grownup; or there would have been a famine in Egypt com­ pared with which the seven years of scarcity in Joseph’s time had sunk into insignificance. Pharaoh now relented and re­ pented. “I have sinned this time,” he said, “the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” And Moses, seeing that the king had recognised Jehovah as the true cock of the theological walk, procured a cessation of the thunder and the hail. But lo 1 when Pharaoh perceived this, he hardened his heart again, and “ sinned yet more.” So the eighth plague came. After a day and night of east wind, a prodigious swarm of locusts went up over the land of Egypt’ covering the face of the whole earth, and darkening the ground’ they “did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had spared.” But we were told that the hail smote every herb, and brake every tree. What then was left for the locusts to eat ? The writer of. this narrative had a very short memory, or else a stupendous power of belief. Agaiii 1 haraoh confessed that he had sinned. The locusts were cleared away, and so effectually that “not one remained.” But “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” for the eighth time, and he refused to let the people go. Whereupon Moses brought darkness over the land of Egypt, a thick darkness that might be felt. I his thick darkness lasted in Egypt for three days, during which time the people “ saw not one another, neither rose any from his place.” We presume, therefore, that they all starved for that time. Poor devils 1 What had they i ?e • b.e treated thus ? All the children of Israel, however, had light in their dwellings. Why then did they not avail them­ selves of such a fine opportunity to escape ? It was a splendid chance, yet they let jt slip. Perhaps Moses did not give the word, and they were like a flock of sheep without him. Perhaps they wished to stay and see the rest of the fun. For more was coining, although it was anything but fun to the poor Egyptians. Io them indeed it was an awful tragedy such as we lack words to describe. Moses commanded the Jews to take a male lamb for each household, to kill it, and to daub its blood over the two side­ posts and on the upper door-posts of their houses. The flesh they were to eat in the night, roasted with bitter herbs, and nnleavened bread, as the inauguration of the passover. The Lord meant to pass through the land in the dark, and slay all the first­ born m Egypt; and lest he should make some mistake he required the Jews’ houses to be marked with blood so that he might distinguish them. We should expect God to dispense with such “aids to memory.” What followed must be told in the language of Scripture: “At midnight the Lord smote all the ist born m the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh �The Ten Plagues. 39 that sat on the throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.” The reader’s imagination will picture the horror of the scene. That “great cry in Egypt ” arose from a people who were the first victims of God’s hatred of all who stood in the way of his chosen “ set of leprous slaves.” And in this case the tragedy was the more awful, and the more inexcusably atrocious, because God deliberately planned it. He could easily have softened Pharaoh’s heart, but he chose to harden it. He could have brought his people owft of Egypt in peace, but he preferred that they should start amidst wailings of agony, and leave behind them a track of blood. Yet in the tragedy there is a touch of comedy. Those beasts that were first killed by the murrian and afterwards plagued by the boil, at last lose their firstborn by the tenth plague. Besides, there is a touch of the ludicrous in the statement that every house had one dead. All the firstborn of such a large population could not have been present at that time. Some might have left Egypt for purposes of trade, and others would certainly have been cut off before by death. It is an interesting question, too, what the Lord did when the firstborn happened to be twins. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were now anxious to get rid of the Jews. So God’s people departed in haste. They took good care, however, not to go empty-handed. They “borrowed” of the Egyptians, without the remotest intention of ever paying them back, jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment. In fact they “ spoiled the Egyptians.” In recent times the modern Egyptians have wiped off that old score by spoiling a few Jewisli money­ lenders. God led his people past instead of through the land of the Philistines, lest they should be frightened by war, and wish to return to Egypt. He does not seem to have known their character, considering the delight with which they subsequently warred against their enemies, and the joy they took in wholesale massacre. Moses carried off the bones of Joseph, which must have been rather stale by that time. And God went before the huge host of six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children, and a mixed multitude of followers; by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, until at length they found themselves encamped before the Red Sea. In the meanwhile God had again hardened Pharaoh’s heart, for the express purpose of killing some more Egyptians and getting more honor to himself. The Israelites soon heard that Pharaoh was pursuing them with an army, and they remembered his dreadful war chariots. They found themselves between the devil and the deep sea. Whereupon they murmured against �Moses for bringing them out into the wilderness to die. But he disregarding them, stretched forth his miraculous rod over the sea, and lo! the waters parted, forming a wall on either side of a safe passage, through which the Jews travelled with dry feet Pharaoh and his host, however, attempting the same feat, were overwhelmed by the down-rushing sea-ramparts, and all drowned. There remained, says Exodus, not so much as one of them. AVe have heard a different account of this affair. A ne°TO preacher once explained that the Red Sea just at that time, was a little bit fiozen over, and the Jews carrying only what they had borrowed “frum the Gyptians,” crossed the ice safely but " hen 1 haraoh came with his thundering war-chariot-s, the ice broke, and “ dey all was drown’d.” But a nigger in the audience objected that the Red Sea is “in de quator,” and is never frozen over. “War did you larn dat?” asked the preacher. “In de jogiafy, was the reply. “Ah,” was the ready retort, “dat's war you made de mistake; dis was a very long time ago, and dere was no jografy and no quator den.” That nigger preacher’s explanation seems quite as good as the one given bv “Moses.” J We leave the Jews with their Lord God on the safe side of the Red Sea, where Moses heads the men in singing a joyful song of praise, and Miriam the prophetess heads the women with timbrel and with dance. Jehovah has ended his plaguing of the Egyp­ tians, after more than decimating them. He has covered his name with terrible splendor, and proved “that there is none like him to a world which is very happy to be assured of the fact. 1 wo such monsters would make earth a hell. Reader! did you ever meet with a more extraordinary story than this of the Ten Plagues; and can you regard the book which contains i as Go d s Wor ? PRICE ONE PENNY. London : Fbeethovght Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—VI. JONAH AND THE WHALE. By G. W. FOOTE. We have often wondered whether Shakespeare had the story *t)f Jonah in his mind when he wrote that brief dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius, which immediately precedes the famous closet-scene in the Master’s greatest play— Hamlet.—Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel ? Polonius.—By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet.—Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius.—It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet.—Or like a whale p Polonius.—Very like a whale. Having, however, no means whereby to decide this question, we must content ourselves with broaching it, and leave the reader to form his own conclusion. Yet we cannot refrain from expressing our opinion that the story of the strange adventures of the prophet Jonah is “ very like a whale.” In another of Shakespeare’s plays, namely “ The Tempest,” We find a phrase which exactly applies to the romance of Jonah. When Trinculo discovers Caliban lying on the ground, he proceeds to investigate the monster. “ What,” quoth he, ■“ have we here ? a man or a fish ? dead or alive ? A fish: he smells like a fish ; a very ancient and fish-like smell.” Now this is a most admirable description of the Book of Jonah. It has “ a very ancient and fish-like smell.” In fact, it is about the fishiest of all the fishy stories ever told. Sailors’ “ yarns ” have become proverbial for their audacious and delicious disregard of truth, and the Book of Jonah is “ briny ” from beginning to end. It contains only forty-eight verses, but its brevity is no defect. On the contrary, that is one of its greatest charms. The mind takes in the whole story at once, and enjoys it undiluted; as it were a goblet of the fine generous wine of romance. Varying the expression, the Book of Jonah may be called the perfect cameo of Bible fiction. When the Book of Jonah was written no one precisely knows, nor is it discoverable'who wrote it. According to Matthew Arnold some unknown man of genius gave to Chris­ tendom the fourth gospel, and with sublime self-abnegation allowed his name to perish. A similar remark must be made concerning the unknown author who gave to the world this racy story of Jonah and the whale. We heartily wish his name had been preserved for remembrance and praise. Our marginal Bibles date the Book of Jonah b.c. cvr. 862. Other authorities give the more recent date of b.c. 830 as that of th® events recorded in it. This chronology will suggest an important reflection later on. �42 Jonah and the Whale. The wonderful story of .Jonah and the whale begins in this wise :—“ Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.” Who Amittai was, and whether man or woman, is a problem still unsolved; but it is reasonable to suppose the name was that of Jonah’s father, as the ancient Jews paid no super­ fluous attentions to women, and generally traced descent from the paternal stem alone. Amittai belonged to a place called G-athhepher, “ the village of the Cow’s tail,” or, as otherwise interpreted, “ the Heifer’s trough.” Jonah’s tomb is said to have been long shown on a rocky hill near the town ; but whether the old gentleman was ever buried there no man can say. The word Jonah is said to mean a dove, and is by some derived from an Arabic root, signifying to be weak or gentle. Another interpretation, by G-esenius, is a feeble, gentle bird. This refractory prophet was singularly ill-named. If his cog­ nomen was bestowed on him by his parents, they must have been greatly deceived as to his character. The proverb says it is. a wise son that knows his own father ; and with the history of Jonah before us, we may add that it is a wise fathei' who rightly knows his own son. The solicitude of “ the Lord G-od of the Hebrews ” for the welfare of the Ninevites is to the sceptical mind an extra­ ordinary phenomenon. It is one of the very few cases in which he shows the slightest concern for any other people than the Jews. His ordinary practice was to slaughter them whole­ sale by pestilence or the sword; and it is therefore very refreshing to meet with such an instance of his merciful care. For once he remembers that the rest of Adam’s posterity are his children, and possess a claim on his attention. Jonah, however, did not share this benign sentiment; and disrelishing the missionary enterprise assigned him, he “rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.” Jehovah does not seem to have been omnipresent then; that attribute attaches to him only since the beginning of the Christian era, when he assumed universal sway. Long before the time of Jonah, another man, the first ever born in this world, namely Cain, also “ went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod; ” probably so called because the Lord was not quite awake in that locality. No one knows were Nod was situated, nor can the most learned archieologists denote the actual position of Tarshish. These two places would be well worth study. A careful examination of them would to some extent reveal what went on in those parts of the world to which G-od’s presence did not extend; and we should be able to compare their geological and other records with those of the rest of the world. No doubt some striking differences would be perceptible. Jonah determined to voyage by the Joppa and Tarshish line. So he went to the former port and embarked in one of the Company’s ships, after paying his fare like a man. �Jonah and the Whale. 43 Staving a perfectly untroubled conscience, and no apprehen sion of his coming troubles, Jonah no doubt felt highly elated at having done the Lord so neatly. Perhaps it was this elation of spirits which safe-guarded him from sea-sickness. At any rate he went “ down into the sides of the ship,” and there slept the sleep of the just. So profound was his slumber, that it was quite unbroken by the horrible tempest which ensued. The Lord had his eye on Jonah, for the prophet had not yet reached the safe refuge of Tarshish; and he “ sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was likely to be broken.” The mariners “ cast forth the wares that were in the ship ” to lighten her, and toiled hard to keep afloat; but their efforts were apparently fruitless, and nothing lay before them but the certain prospect of a watery grave. The reader will be able to imagine the tumult of the scene; the dash of ravening waves, the fierce howling of the wind, the creaking of masts and the straining of cordage, the rolling and pitching of the good ship and the shifting of her cargo, the captain’s hoarse shouts of command and the sailors’ loud replies, alternated with frenzied appeals to their gods for help. Yet amidst all the uproar Jonah still slept, as though the vessel were gaily skim­ ming the waters before a pleasant breeze. Let us pause here to interpose a question. Did the “ great wind sent out into the sea ” by the Lord confine its attentions to the immediate vicinity of Jonah’s ship, or did it cause a general tempest and perhaps send some other vessels to Davy Jones’s locker ? As no restrictions are mentioned, we pre­ sume that the tempest was general, and that the Lord’s wind, like the Lord’s rain referred to by Jesus, fell alike upon th© just and the unjust. This circumstance very naturally heightens our previous conception of his righteousness. That the Lord, or some other supernatural power, caused the tempest, the mariners of Jonah’s ship and their captain never once doubted. Living as they did, and as we do not, under a miraculous dispensation, they attributed every unusual, and especially every unpleasant, occurrence to the agency of a god. The idea of predicting storms, with which the civilised world is now familiar, they would doubtless have regarded as blasphemous and absurd. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that every man on board (except Jonah, who was fast asleep) “ called unto his god.” Ignorant of what god was afflicting them, they appealed impartially all round, in the hope of hitting the right one. But the circle of their deities did not include the one which sent the wind ; so the tempest continued to prevail, despite their prayers. In this extremity a happy thought occurred to the “ ship­ master.” It struck him that the strange passengei’ down below might know something about the tempest, and that his god might have caused it. Forthwith there dawned within him a recollection of words which Jonah had uttered on em­ barking. Had he not told them “that he fled from the �44 Joliah and the Whale. presence of the Lord?” “Dear me,” the captain probablysaid to himself, “ what a fool I was not to think of this before. That chap down below is the occasion of all these troubles ; I’ll go and hunt him up, confound him ! ” Thereupon he doubtless slapped his thigh, as is the wont of sailors when they solve a difficulty or hit on a brilliant idea; after which he descended “ into the sides of the ship,” whither Jonah had gone. There he found the prophet slumbering as peacefully as a weanling child, with a smile of satisfaction playing over his Hebrew features. We can imagine the captain’s profound disgust in presence of this scene. He and his men had been toiling and praying, and alas ! pitching the cargo overboad, in order to save their skins ; and all the while the occasion of their trouble had been lying fast asleep ! Preserving an out­ ward decorum, however, he accosted Jonah in very mild terms. “ What meanest thou, 0 sleeper ? ” said he, “ Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.” What exquisite simplicity! It reminds us of the childlike and bland Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, when he opposed Mr. Bradlaugh’s entry to the House of Commons. That honorable champion of the Almighty objected to Mr. Bradlaugh on the ground that he acknowledged no God, and was thus vastly different from the other members of the House, all of whom “ believed in some kind of deity or other.” You must have a god to be a legislator it seems, even if that god is, as the Americans say, only a little tin Jesus. So the captain of this tempest-tost ship desired Jonah to call upon his god. He made no inquiry into the character of the god, any more than did Sir Henry Drummond Wolff on a later occasion. It was enough to know that Jonah had “ some kind of deity or other.” Any god would do. Now comes the most remarkable episode in this wonderful story. The captain and the crew were aware that Jonah had “ fled from the presence of the Lord,” because “ he had told them; ” they had, therefore, every reason to believe that Jonah’s god had caused the tempest. Yet, curiously enough, instead of at once proceeding on this belief, “ they said, every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.” This wholly superfluous procedure may, perhaps, be attributed to their ex­ ceptional love of justice. They wished to make assurance doubly sure before they “ went for ” Jonah. And with sweet simplicity they had recourse to the casting of lots, in which their wills would be inoperative, and the whole responsibility of deciding be thrown on the gods, who alone possessed the requisite information. The lot of course fell upon Jonah. Any other result would have spoilt the story. “ Then,” continues our narrative, “ said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us ? What is thine occupation ? and whenco comes t thou ? what is thy country ? and of what people art thou ? �Jonah and the Whale. 45 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew, and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this ? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us ? for the sea wrought and was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you : for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.” We are almost dumb with astonishment before this act of self-sacrifice on the part of Jonah, for which his previous history left us quite unprepared. Who would have thought him capable of such disinterested conduct ? His unselfish­ ness was assuredly heroic, and may even be called sublime. No doubt the captain and crew of the ship were as much astonished as we are, and their opinion of Jonah went up several hundred per cent. They resolved to make a last supreme effort before turning him into fish-bait. But all their gallant endeavors were discovered to be futile and a mere waste of time. So the men, more in sorrow than in anger, finally took Jonah up and threw him overboard. They had done their best for him, and now, finding that they could do no more except at too great a risk, they sadly left him to do the rest for himself. Immediately, we are told, “ the sea ceased from her raging.” Jonah was oil upon the troubled waters. What an invaluable recipe does this furnish us against the dangers of the deep sea ! The surest method of allaying a storm is to throw a prophet overboard. Every ship should carry a missionary in case of need. It would, indeed, be well if the law made this com­ pulsory. The cost of maintaining the missionary would be more than covered by the saving effected in insurance. Here is a splendid field for Christian self-sacrifice ! Hundreds of gentlemen who are now engaged in very doubtful labor among the heathen, might engage in this new enterprise with the absolute certainty of a beneficent result; for poor ungodly mariners would thus be spared a hasty dispatch from this world without time to repent and obtain forgiveness, and be allowed ample leisure to secure salvation. When the men saw that “ the sea ceased from her raging ” on Jonah’s being cast into her depths, “ they‘feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows.” To the sceptical mind it would seem that they had much more reason to “ fear ” the Lord during the continuance of the tempest than after it had subsided. It also seems strange that they should have the means wherewith to offer a sacrifice. Perhaps they bad a billy-goat on board, and made him do duty, in default of anything better. Or failing even a billy-goat, as the Lord God of the Hebrews could only be propitiated by the shedding of blood, they perhaps caught and immolated a stray rat. Th© nature of their “ vows ” is not '' J �4t> Jonah and the Whale. recorded, but it is not unreasonable to assume that they swore never again to take on board a passenger fleeing “ from the presence of the Lord.” Meanwhile, what had become of poor Jonah ? Most men would be effectually settled if thrown overboard in a storm But there are some people who were not born to be drowned' and Jonah yas one of them. He was destined to another fate’ The Lord, it appears, “ had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah, ’and the feat was of course duly performed. Our narrative does not describe the character of this “ great fish ” but light is cast on the subject by another passage of Scrip­ ture. In the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, and the fortieth verse, Jesus is represented as saying, “ For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth ” Lhe great fish was then a whale. Jesus said so, and there can be no higher authority. Sharks and such ravenous fish have an unpleasant habit of “ chawing ” their victims pretty con­ siderably before swallowing them ; so, on the whole, we prefer to believe that it was a whale. Yet the Levant is a curious place for a whale to be lurking in. The creature must have been miraculously led there to go through its appointed per­ formance. It must also have been “prepared,” to use the language of the Bible, in a very remarkable way, for the gullet of a whale is not large enough to allow of the passage of an object exceeding the size of i.n ordinary herring. Swallowing Jonah must have been a tough job after the utmost prepara­ tion-. With a frightfully distended throat, however, the whale did its best, and by dint of hard striving at last got him down. Jonah could never afterwards say to that hospitable fish, “ I was a stranger and ye took me not in.” Having properly taken Jonah in out of the wet, the poor whale doubtless surmised that its troubles had ended. But alas they had only just begun! Swallowing a prophet is one digesting him is another. For three days and nights the whale struggled desperately to digest Jonah, and for three days and nights Jonah obstinately refused to lie digested filler m the entire course of its life had it experienced such a difficulty. During the whole of that period, too, Jonah carried on a kind of prayer meeting, and the strange rumbling in its belly must have greatly added to the poor animal’s dis­ comfort. At last it grew heartily sick of Jonah, and vomited him up on dry land. We have no doubt that it swam away into deep waters, a sadder but a wiser whale; and that ever afterwards, instead of bolting its food, it narrowly scrutinised every morsel before swallowing it, to make sure it wasn’t another prophet. According to its experience, prophets were uecidedly the most unprofitable articles of consumption. We are of course aware that the narrative states that “ the Lora spake unto the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry land. But this we conceive to be a mere pleasantry on the part o the unknown author. The idea of the Lord whispering into a �Jonah and the Whale. 47 whale’s ear is ineffably ludicrous: besides the whale had a very natural inclination to rid itself of Jonah, and needed no divine prompting. Jonah’s prayer “unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly ” is very amusing. There is not a sentence in it which bears any reference to the prophet’s circumstances. It is a kind of Psalm, after the manner of those ascribed to David. Our belief is that the author found it floating about, and thinking it would do for Jonah, inserted it in his narra­ tive, without even taking the trouble to furbish it into decent keeping with the situation. The word of the Lord came unto Jonah a second time, and presuming no more to disobey, he went to Nineveh. It is to be supposed, however, that he first well-lined his poor stomach, for both he and the whale had fasted three days and nights, and must have been sadly in want of victuals. Nineveh, according to our author, was a stupendous city of “ three days’journey.” This means its diameter and not its circumference, for we are told that Jonah “ entered into the city a day’s journey.” If we allow twenty miles as a moderate day’s walk, Nineveh was sixty miles through from wall to wall, or about twenty times as large as London ; and if densely populated like our metropolis, it must have contained more than eighty million inhabitants. This is too great a stretch even for a sailor’s yarn. Our author did not take pains to clear his narrative of discrepancy. In his last verse he informs us that the city contained “more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left.” If this number is correct Nineveh was a large place, but its dimensions were very much less than those stated in the Book of Jonah. Jonah obeyed the Lord this time and began to preach. “ Yet forty days,” cried he, “ and Ninevah shall be over­ thrown.” How the prophet made himself understood is an open question. Either the Lord taught him their language, or he miraculously eUabled them to understand Hebrew. Further, they worshipped Baal, and Jonah preached to them in the name of his foreign God. According to ancient, and to a large extent modern custom, we should expect them in such a case to kill the presumptuous prophet, or at least to shut him up as a madman. Yet they did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, “ the people of Ninevah believed God.” Even the king was converted. He covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. He also decreed that neither man nor beast in the city should eat or drink anything ; but, said he, “ let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way.” What an enormous consumption of sackcloth there must have been ! The merchants who sold it did a surprising business, and no doubt quotations went up immensely. We wonder, indeed, how they managed to supply such a sudden and universal demand. And what a sight was presented.by the whole popu- �48 Jonah and the Whale. lation of the city 1 Men, women, and children, high and low, rich and poor, were all arrayed in the same dingy garments. Even the horses, cows, pigs and sheep, were similarly attired. What a queer figure they must have ent 1 And what an aston­ ishing chorus of prayer ascended to heaven 1 According to the text, the beasts had to “ cry mightily ” as well as the men. Since the confusion of tongues at Babel, neither history nor tradition records such a frightful hubbub. Their supplications prevailed. God “ saw their works, that they had turned from their evil way ; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Immutable God changes his mind, infallible God repents 1 God spared Nineveh, but only for a brief while, for it was destroyed a few years later by Arbaces the Mede. The merci­ ful respite was thus not of long continuance. Yet it “ dis­ pleased Jonah exceedingly.” He had been suspicious from the first, and he only fulfilled God’s mission under constraint. And now his worst suspicions were confirmed. After he had told the Ninevites that their city would be overthrown in forty days, God had relented, and utterly ruined Jonah’s reputation as a prophet. So he made himself a booth outside the city, and sat in its shadow, to watch what would happen, with a deep feeling, which he plainly expressed to the Almighty, that now his reputation was gone he might as well die. The Lord considerately “ prepared a gourd,” which grew up over Jonah’s head to protect him from the heat; at which the sulky prophet was ” exceedingly glad,” although it would naturally be thought that the booth would afford ample protection. He, however, soon found himself sold; for the Lord prepared a worm to destroy the gourd, and when the sun arose he sent “ a vehement east wind” which beat upon poor Jonah’s head, and made him so faint that he once more asked God to despatch him out of his misery. Whereupon the Lord said coaxingly, “ Loest thou well to be angry?” And Jonah pet­ tishly answered, “ Yes, I do.” Then the Lord, with a wonder­ ful access of pathos, altogether foreign to his general character, twitted Jonah with having pity for the gourd and none for the inhabitants of “ that great city.” With this the story concludes. We are unable to say whether the poor prophet, so wretchedly sold, ever recovered from his spleen, or whether it shortened his days and brought him to an un­ timely grave. The Book of Jonah is as true as Gospel, for Jesus* endorsed it. The Bible contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So without expressing any sceptical senti­ ments, we will end by repeating Byron’s words, “ Truth is strange—stranger than fiction.” PRICE ONE PENNY. London : Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—VII. THE WANDERING JEWS. By G. W. FOOTE. The Middle Ages had a legend of the Wandering Jew. This person was supposed to have been doomed, for the crime of mocking Jesus at the crucifixion, to wander over the earth until his second coming. No one believes this now. The true Wandering Jews were those slaves whom Jehovah rescued from Egyptian bondage, with a promise that he would lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey, but whom he compelled to roam the deserts instead for forty years, until all of them except two had perished. Of all the multitude who escaped from Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb entered the promised land. Even Moses had to die in sight of it. These poor Wandering Jews demand our pity. They were guilty of many crimes against humanity, but they scarcely de­ served such treatment as they received. Their God was worse than they. He was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, re­ vengeful, and dishonest. Few of his promises to them were performed. They worshipped a bankrupt deity. The land of promise was a Tantalus cup ever held to their lips, and ever mocking them when they essayed to drink. God was their greatest enemy instead of their best friend. Their tortuous path across the wilderness was marked by a track of bleaching bones. All the evils which imagination can conceive fell on their de­ voted heads. Bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, cursed with famine and drought, swallowed by earthquake, slain by war, and robbed by priests, they found Jehovah a harder despot than Pharaoh. Death was to them a happy release, and only the grave a shelter from the savagery of God. Commentators explain that the Jews who left Egypt were unfit for the promised land. If so, they were unfit to be the chosen people of God. Why were they not allowed to remain in Egypt until they grew better, or why was not some other nation selected to inherit Canaan ? At the end of our romance of “The Ten Plagues” we left the Jews on th© safe side of the Red Sea. We must now ask a few questions which we had no space for then. How, in a period of two hundred and fifteen years, did the seventy males of Jacob’s house multiply into a nation of over two millions? Experience does not warrant belief in such a rapid increase. The Jewish chroniclers were fond of drawing the long bow. In the book of Judges, for instance, we are told that the Gileadites, under Jephthah, slew 42,000 Ephriamites; and that the Benjamites slew 40,000 Israelites, after which the Israelites killed 43,100 Benjamites, all of these being “men of valor” that “drew the sword.” The book of Samuel says that �50 The Wandering Jews. the Philistines had 80,000 war chariots, and that they slew 30,000 footmen of Israel. The second book of Chronicles says that Pekah, king of Israel, slew of Judah in one day 120,000 “ sons of valor,” and carried away 200,000 captives ; that Abijah’s force consisted of 400,000, and Jeroboam’s of 800,000, 500,000 of whom were killed! At the battle of Waterloo the total number of men killed on our side was 4,172. The statistics of slaughter in the Bible were clearly developed from the inner consciousness of the Jewish scribes • and no doubt the same holds good with respect to the statistics of the flight from Egypt. This view is corroborated by a singular statement in the third chapter of Numbers. We are there informed that when the census was taken “All the first-born males, from a month old and upwards of those that were numbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and thirteen.” Now as there were about 900,000 males altogether, it follows that every Jewish mother must have had on an average for ty-two sons, to say nothing of daughters ! Such extraordinary fecundity is unknown to the rest of the world, except in the region of romance. The Jews bragged a great deal about Jehovah, and they appear to have obtained some compensation by bragging a great deal about themselves. How did the Jews manage to quit Egypt in one night ? There were 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children, not to mention “the mixed multitude that went up also with them.” The entire population must have numbered more than two millions, and some commentators estimate it at nearly three. They had to come in from all parts of Goshen to Barneses, bringing with them the sick and infirm, the very old and the very young. Among such a large population there could not have been less than two hundred births a day. Many of the Jewish women, therefore, must have been just confined. How could they and their new-born children have started off in such a summary manner ? Many more women must have been at the point of confinement. How could these have been hurried off at all? Yet we are told that not a single person was left behind! How were the flocks and herds driven out in such haste ? There were about two million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen. The sheep alone would have required grazing land as extensive as the whole county of Bedford, besides what would have been needed for the oxen. Is it credible that all these animals were collected together from such a wide area, and driven out of Egypt in one night ? Yet we are told that not a single hoof was left behind I How did the huge multitude of people march? If they travelled fifty men abreast, as is supposed to have been the practice in the Hebrew armies, the able-bodied warriors alone would have filled up the road for about seven miles, and the whole multitude would have formed a dense column twenty-two �The Wandering Jews, 51 miles long. The front rank would have been two days’ journey in advance of the rear. How did the sheep and cattle march ? How was it possible for them to keep pace with their human fellow travellers ? They would naturally not march in a compact array, and the vast drove must therefore have spread widely and lengthened out for miles. What did the drove live upon during the journey from Raineses to Succoth, and from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea? Such grass as there was, even jf the sheep and cattle went before the men, women, and children, could not have been of much avail; for what was not eaten by the front ranks must have been trodden under foot at once, and rendered useless to those that followed. After they “ encamped by the Red Sea,” on the third day, there was no vegetation at all. The journey was over a desert, the surface of which was composed of hard gravel intermixed with pebbles. After cross­ ing the Red Sea,their road lay over a desert region, covered with sand, gravel, and stone, for about nine miles; after which they entered a boundless desert plain, called El Ati, white and painfully glaring to the eye, and beyond this the ground was broken by sand-hills. How were the two million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen provisioned during this journey ? What did the Jews themselves live on? The desert afforded them no sustenance until God miraculously sent manna. They must, therefore, have taken a month’s provisions for every man, woman, and child. How could they possibly have provided themselves with so much food on so short a notice ? And how could they have earned it, seeing that they were already burdened with kneading-troughs and other necessaries for domestic use, besides the treasures they “borrowed” of the Egyptians? How did they provide themselves with tents ? Allowing ten persons for each tent, they must have required two hundred thousand. Were these carefully got ready in expectation ? In the land of Goshen they lived in houses with “lintels” and “side-posts.” And how were the tents carried? The Jews themselves were already well loaded. Of course the oxen remain; but, as Colenso observes, they were not trained to carry goods on their backs, and were sure to prove refractory under such a burden. Whence did the Jews obtain their arms? According to Exodus (xiii., 18) “the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.” The Hebrew word which is rendered “harnessed” appears to mean “armed” or “in battle array” in all the other passages where it occurs, and is so translated. Som e commentators, scenting a difficulty in this rendering, urge that the true meaning is “by five in a rank.” But if 600,000 men marched out of Egypt “ five in a rank,” they must have formed a column sixty-eight miles long, and it would have taken several days to start them all off, whereas they went out altogether “ that self-same day.” Besides, the Jews had arms in the desert, and how could they have possessed them there unless they �52 The Wandering Jews. obtained them in Egypt? If they went out of Egypt “ armed ” why did they cry out “sore afraid” when Pharaoh pursued them ? According to Herodotus, the Egyptian army, which formed a distinct caste, never exceeded 160,000 men. Why were the Jews so appalled by less than a third of their own number? Must we suppose, with Kalisch, that their bondage in Egypt had crushed all valor and manhood out of their breasts? Josephus gives a different explanation. He says that the day after Pharaoh’s host was drowned in the Red Sea, “Moses gathered together the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews by the current of the sea and the force of the wind assisting it. And he conjectured that this also happened by Divine Providence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons.” But, as Colenso observes, though body­ armor might have been obtained in this way, swords,spears and shields could not in any number. The Bible, too, says nothing about such an occurrence. We must therefore assume that 600,000 well-armed Jews were such utter cowards that they could not strike a blow for their wives and children and their own liberty against the smaller army of Pharaoh, but could only whimper and sigh after their old bondage. Yet a month later they fought bravely with the Amalekites, and ever afterwards they were as eager for battle as any Irishman at Donnybrook fair. How can this difference be accounted for? Could a nation of hereditary cowards become stubborn warriors in the short space of a month ? Let us now follow the Wandering Jews through the Desert which they should have crossed in a week or two, but which they travelled up and down for forty years. People who want to make an expeditious journey had better do without a divine guide. Coming to Marah, they found only bitter water to drink, at which they began to murmur. But the Lord showed Moses a certain tree, which when cast into the water made it sweet. It must have been a wonderful tree to sweeten water for two millions of people. Bitter water, also, quenches thirst more readily than sweet, and it stimulates the appetite, which would be highly desirable under a fierce relaxing sun. A ^nth after they left Egypt they came to the wilderness of bin. There they began to murmur again. Finding themselves without food, they remembered “the flesh pots” of Egypt, and reproached Moses with having brought them into the desert to die of hunger. Both Moses and the Lord seem to have thought it unreasonable on their part to ask for something to eat. Oliver I wist was stared at when he asked for more, but the Jews surprised God by asking for something to begin with. Yet reflecting, perhaps, that they were after all unable to live without food, the Lord rained down manna from heaven. After the dew evaporated in the morning, they found this heavenly diet lying on the ground. It was “ like a coriander seed, white; and the �The Wandering Jews. S3 taste of it was like wafers made with honey.” No doubt the angola subsist on it in paradise. Moses preserved a pot of it for tihe instruction of future generations. The pot has, however, not been discovered up to the present day. Some future explorers may light upon it “in the fulness of time,” and so help to prove the historical character of the Pentateuch. The manna, as might be expected, had some peculiarities. No matter how much or how little he gathered, every man found on measuring that he had exactly an omer of it. Although it fell regularly every week day, none fell on Sunday. A double quantity had, therefore, to be gathered on Saturday. It melted in the sun, but could nevertheless be baked and seethed. Any of it left overnight stank in the morning and bred worms. For forty years “the children of Israel did eat manna.” But more than once their gorge rose against it. Manna for breakfast, manna for lunch, manna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper, was a little more than they could stand. The mono­ tony of their diet became intolerable. Accordingly, we read in the twenth-first chapter of Numbers, that they complained of it and asked for a slight change in the bill of fare. “ There is no bread,” said they, “neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light food.” This small request so incensed the Lord that he sent a lot of fiery serpents among them, which bit them so that “much people of Israel died.” Like Oliver Twist, the Jews quickly repented their presumption.. They humbled themselves before Moses, and he interceded with God for them. The prophet then made a brass serpent and set it on a pole, and on looking at it all who had been bitten recovered. On another occasion, as we read in the eleventh of Numbers, they were guilty of a similar offence. This time it was the more surprising, as God had just burnt a lot of them up with raging fire for “ complaining.” They remembered “the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely ; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” “Now,” said they, ‘ ‘ there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes. Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The Egyptian bill of fare was certainly enough to make their mouths water, and it proves that if Pharaoh made them work hard he did not starve them, as Jehovah very nearly succeeded in doing. They were so. affected by their recollection of the luscious victuals they enjoyed in Egypt, that they actually cried with sorrow at their loss. Moses heard them weeping, “ every man in the door of his tent.” This put the Lord in a very bad temper; and Moses, who seems to have been much less irascible than Jehovah, “also was dis­ pleased.” God determined to give them a surfeit. “ Ye shall,” said he, “ not eat flesh one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days nor twenty days ; but even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and be loathsome unto you.” Thereupon the Lord sent a wind which brought quails from the sea. They were so plentiful that they fell in heaps two cubits high for about twenty miles around the camp. That worthy commentator, �54 The Wandering Jews. the Rev. Alexander Cruden, says that the miracle of this occur­ rence consisted, not in the great number of quails, but in their being “brought so seasonably” to the Jewish camp. The quantity did not trouble his credulous mind. “ Some authors,” says he, “affirm that in those eastern and southern countries quails are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for a month altogether; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea, that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that they sink them with their weight.” The good man’s easy reliance on “some authors, ’ and his ready acceptance of such fables, show what credulity is engendered by belief in the Bible. The Jews gathered quails for two days and a night, and ioyfully carried them home. But “while the flesh was yet between their teeth,” the Lord smote them with a very great plague so that multitudes of them died. Poor devils 1 They were always in ' hot water. J How the sheep and cattle were provisioned the Bible does not inform us. There was scarcely a nibble of grass to be had in the desert, and as they could not very well have lived on sand and pebbles, they must have been supported miraculously. Perhaps the authors of the Pentateuch forgot all about this. Not only were the Jews, like their flocks and herds, miracu­ lously supported; they were also miraculously found in clothes. For forty years their garments and shoes did not wear out. How was this miracle wrought? When matter rubs against matter, particles are lost by abrasion. Did the Lord stop this process’ or did he collect all the particles that were worn off during the day, and replace them by night on the soles of shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons ? If the clothes never wore out, it is fair to suppose that they remained abso­ lutely unchanged. Imagine a toddling urchin, two years old at the exodus from Egypt, wearing the same rig when he grew up to manhood! Justin, however, says that the clothes grew with their growth. Some Jewish rabbis hold that angels acted as tailors in the wilderness, and so the garments were all kept straight . But Augustine, Chrysostom, and other Fathers abide by the literal interpretation that, through the blessing of God, the clothes and shoes never wore out, so that those who grew to manhood were able to hand them over, as good as new, to the rising generation. According to this theory, everybody must have had a poor fit, unless there was a transference of garments every twelve months or so. The history of the Wandering Jews is full of miracles and wonders. It says that all the congregation of Israel, numbering over two millions, assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. As the whole width of the Tabernacle was eighteen feet, only nine men could have stood in front of it; and therefore the warriors of Israel alone, to. say nothing of the rest of the population, if we allow eighteen inches between each rank of nine men, would �The Wandering Jews. 55 have formed a column nearly twenty miles long! We find also that Moses, and Joshua after him, address not only the whole congregation of Israel, including men, women, and children, but the mixed multitude ” of strangers as well. Their voices were distinctly heard by a crowded mass of people as large as the entire population of London. They must have had stentorian lungs, or the people must have had a wonderful sense of When the Jews were encamped, according to Scott’s estimate, they lived in a sort of “ moveable city, twelve miles square,” nearly as large as London. The people had to go outside this vast camp every day to bring in a supply of water and fuel, after cut­ ting the latter down where they could find it I All their rubbish had to be carried out in like manner, for Jehovah used sometimes to take a walk among them, and he was highly displeased at seeing dirt. Every man, woman, and child, including the old, the sick, and the infirm, had to go outside the camp to attend to the necessities of nature ! All the refuse of their multitudinous sacrifices had to be lugged out of the camp by the three priests, Aaron, Eleazer, and Ithamar. Colenso reckons that the sacrifices alone, allowing less than three minutes for each, would have occupied them incessantly during the whole twenty-four hours of every day. The pigeons brought to them daily as sin offer­ ings must have numbered about 264, and as these had to be con­ sumed by the three priests, each of them had to eat 88 pigeons a day, besides heaps of roast beef and other victuals! Soon after the first fall of manna, the Jews murmured again because they had no water. Whereupon Moses smote a rock with his magical rod, and water gushed from it. The precious fluid came just in time to refresh them for their fight with the Amalekites. These people were very obstinate foes, and it required a miracle to defeat them. Moses ascended a hill and held up his hand. WTile he did so the Israelites prevailed, but when he let down his hand the Amalekites prevailed. To ensure victory, Aaron and Hur stood on either side of him, and held up his hands until the sun set. By this means Joshua discomfited the Amalekites with great slaughter. Moses built an altar to celebrate the event, and God swore that he would “have war with Amelek from generation to generation.” .As Jehovah’s vengeance was so lasting, it is no wonder that his worshippers carried on their wars ever afterwards on the most hellish prin­ ciples. In the thirty-first chapter of Numbers we read that .12,000 Israelites warred against Midian. The brag of the chronicler is evident in this number or in those which follow. This little army polished off all the kings of Midian, burnt all their cities and castles, slew 48,000 men, and carried off 100,000 captives, besides 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, and 61,000 asses. What prodigious spoil there was in those days! Of the captives Moses ordered 48,000 women and 20,000 boys to be massacred in cold blood; while the remaining 32,000 “women that had not known �56 The Wandering Jews. man by lying with him ” were reserved for another fate. The Lord’s share of these was thirty-two ! They were of course handed over to the priests as his representatives. Parsons, whorail against the immorality of scepticism, say that this is all true. . These Midianites were a tough lot; for although they were all. hilled on this occasion, and their cities and castles burnt, we find them a powerful nation again in the sixth of Judges, and able to prevail against the Jews for seven years. Another people badly punished by the Jews were the inhabitants of Bashan. All their cities were destroyed to the number of sixty. Their king, Og, was a gigantic fellow, and slept on an iron bed twelve feet long. The cities of Heshbon were destroyed in the same way. All the men, women, and children, were slaughtered. Not one was spared. We shall hereafter follow the Jews under Joshua. For the present we must content ourselves with a last reference to their wanderings. under Moses. While they were encamped round Mount Sinai, their leader received an invitation to go up and visit God who had been staying there for six days. They had much to talk about, and the interview lasted forty days and forty nights. At the end of it Moses descended, carrying with him the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. In his absence the Wandering Jews had given him up as lost, and had induced Aaron to make them a god, in the shape of a golden calf, to go before them. This image they were worshipping as Moses approached the camp, and his anger waxed so hot that he threw down the tables and broke all the Ten Com­ mandments at once. He then burnt the calf in fire and ground it to powder, mixed it with water and made them drink it. He also sent the Levites among them, who put three thousand men to the edge of the sword. God wanted to destroy them alto­ gether, but Moses held him back. “Let me alone,” said the Lord. “No, no,” said Moses, “just think what the Egyptians, will say ; they’ll laugh at you after all as a poor sort of a god ; and remember, too, that you are bound by an oath to multiply your people and to let them inherit the land of promise.” So the Lord cooled down, and wrote out the Decalogue again on two fresh tables of stone. This Decalogue is supposed to be the foundation of morality. But long before the time of Moses moral laws were known and observed in Egypt, in India, and among all the peoples that ever lived. Moral laws are the per­ manent conditions of social health, and the fundamental ones must be observed wherever any form of society exists. Their ground and guarantee are to be found in human nature, and do not depend on a fabulous episode in the history of the WanderingJews. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—VIII. THE TOWER OF BABEL. By G. W. FOOTE. The Bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach us science but to instruct us in religion and morality ; and therefore we must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened in the external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences of mankind. Astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came into existence, and by what laws their, motions are governed; Geology will acquaint us with the way in which the earth’s crust was formed, and with the length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; and. Biology will tell us all about the origin and development of living things. God has given us reason, by exercising which we may gather knowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustrate the present, and predict the future ; and as reason is sufficient for all this there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. But as reason is insufficient to teach the will of God and the laws of morality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the Bible contains it. . . This plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained, lhe Bible is not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. It makes frequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly every instance it contradicts scientific truth, as we have amply proved in previous numbers of this series. . The eleventh chapter of Genesis gives an explanation of the diversity of languages on the earth. It does this in the truest spirit of romance. Philologists like Max Muller and Whitney must regard the story of the Tower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. A great many paisons may still believe it, but they are not expected to know much. One fact alone is enough to put the philology of Genesis out of court. The native languages of America are all closely related to each other, but they have no affinity with any language of the Old World. It is therefore clear that they could not have been imported into the New World by emigrants from the plains of Central Asia. The Genesaic theory is thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequently invalid. Let us come to the Bible story. Some time after the Flood, and before the birth of Abraham, “the whole earth was of one language and one speech 5” or, as Colenso translates the original. “ one of lip, and one of language.” . This primitive tongue must have been Hebrew. God spoke it in Eden when he conversed with our first parents, and probably it is spoken in heaven to this day. For all we know it may be spoken in hell too. It probably is, for the Devil and his angels lived in heaven before they were turned into hell, and we may conclude that they took their native �58 The Tower of Babel. language with. them. It was spoken by Adam when he named his wife in Paradise ; by Eve, after the expulsion when she gave names to her sons, Cain and Seth; by Lamech, shortly before the Flood, when he explained the name of Noah; and indeed, as Colenso observes, “it is obvious that the names of the whole series of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and from Noah onwards, are in almost every instance pure Hebrew names.” Delitzsch, however, thinks it comparatively more probable that the Syriac or Nabatsean tongue, preserved after the dispersion at Babylon, was the one originally spoken. Yet he dismisses the possibility of demonstrating it. He supposes that the names of Adam and the other patriarchs have been altered, but not so as to lose any of their original meaning; in other words, that they have been, by God’s grace, translated with perfect accuracy from the primeval speech. But Colenso very justly remarks that the original documents do not allude to a process of translation, and that we have no right to assume it. He also adds that “if the authority of Scripture is sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, it must also prove that this language was Hebrew.” Yet the Bible is wrong, for Hebrew could not have been the primitive speech. It is only a Semitic dialect, a branch of the Semitic stem. Sanscrit is another stem, equally ancient; and according to Max Muller and Bunsen, both are modifications of an earlier and simpler language. Neither has the least affinity with Chinese, which again, like them, differs radically from the native dialects of America. As Hosea Biglow sings, “ John P. Robinson, he Says they didn’t know everything down in Judee.” And most certainly they did not know the true origin and development of the various languages spoken by the nations of the earth. The people who dwelt on the earth after the Deluge, and all spoke one language, journeyed from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. Shinar is another name for Babylon. After dwelling there no one knows exactly how long, “they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.” The writer of this story was very fond of short cuts. It took men a long time to learn the art of making bricks ; and the idea of their suddenly saying to each other “ let us make brick,” and at once proceeding to do so, is a wild ab­ surdity. Having made a lot of bricks, they naturally wished to do some­ thing with them. So “ they said, Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven ; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” How could making a name, for the information of nobody but themselves, prevent their dispersion ? And how could they resolve to build a “city,” when they had never seen one, and had no knowledge of what it was like ? Cities are not built �The Tower of Babel. 5J n this manner. ‘‘Rome wasn’t built in a day” is a proverbwhich applies to all other places as well. London, Pans and Rome, are the growth of centuries, and the same must have been true of ancient capitals. . . The reason assigned by Scripture for the work of these primi tive builders is plainly inadequate. A more probable reason is that they mistrusted God’s promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood, and therefore determined to build a high tower, so that, if another deluge came, they might ascend above the waters, or, if need be, step clean into heaven itself. 1 hen­ lack of faith is not surprising. We find the same characteristic on the part of believers in our own day. They believe m God s promises only so far as it suits their interest and convenience. Scripture says, “Whoso giveth unto the poor lendeth unto the Lord.” Yet there are thousands of rich Christians who seem to mistrust the security. . How high did these primitive builders think heaven was . According to Colenso, they said, “Come, let us build for us a city, and a tower with its head in heaven." Did they really they would ever succeed in building so high. Perhaps tey did, for their Natural Philosophy was extremely doubtless imagined the blue vault of heaven as a solid thing, in which were stuck the sun, moon, and stars, and no higher than the sailing clouds. , . Their simple ignorance is intelligible, but how can we explain the ignorance of God ? Their project alarmed him Ide actually “came down to see the city and the tower which the children ot men builded.” Heaven was too distant for him to see from with accuracy, and telescopes were not then invented. A close in­ spection led him to believe that his ambitious children would succeed in their enterprise. They thought they might bund intoheaven, and he thought so too. What was to be done ? if they once got into heaven, it might be very difficult to turn them out again. It took several days’ hard fighting to expel Satan and the rebellious angels on a previous occasion, and these new comers might be still more obstinate. In this dangerous extremity, “the Lord said [unto whom is unknown], Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this they begin to do . and now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another s speech. Why did the Lord resolve to take all this trouble ? Had he forgotten the law of gravitation and the principles of architec­ ture ? Was he, who made the heaven and the earth, ignorant of the distance between them ? He had only to let the people go on building, and they would eventually confound themselves ; for, after reaching a certain height, the tower would tumble about their ears. Gravitation would defeat the cohesion of mortal’. Why did not God leave them alone ? Why did he take so much unnecessary trouble ? The answer is that this “ Lord was only “ Jehovah ” of the Jews, a tribal god, who naturally knew no �<30 The Tower of Babel. more about the facts and laws of science than his worshippers who made him. The Lord carried out his resolution. He “confounded their language,” so that no man could understand his neighbors. Probably this judgment was executed in the night; and when they awoke in the morning, instead of using the old familiar tongue, one man spoke Chinese, another Sanscrit, another Coptic, another American, another Dutch, another Double Dutch, and so on to the end of the chapter. According to the Bible, this is the true philology. No language on the earth is more than four thousand years old, and every one was miraculously originated at Babel. Is there a single philo­ logist living who believes this? We do not know one. The result of this confusion of tongues was that the people “left off to built the city,” and were “scattered abroad on the face of all the earth.” But why did they disperse ? Their common weakness should have kept them together. Society is founded upon our wants. Our necessity, and not our self-sufficience, causes association and mutual helpfulness. Had these people kept company for a short time, they would have understood each other again. A few common words would have come into general use, and the building of the tower might have been resumed. How was their language “confounded”? Did God destroy their verbal memory ? Did he paralyse a part of their brain, so that, although they remembered the words, they could not speak them? Did he affect the organs of articulation, so that the sounds of the primeval language could not be reproduced ? Will some theologian kindly explain this mystery ? Language is not a gift, but a growth. Different tribes and nations have had different experiences, different wants, and different surround­ ings, and the result is a difference in their languages, as well as in their religious ideas, political organisations, and social customs. Before we leave this portion of the subject, we beg to introduce Milton again. In the last Book of “Paradise Lost” he adds from his fertile imagination to the Bible story, and supplies a few deficiencies about which the mind is naturally curious. He makes the Archangel Michael tell poor Adam and Eve, as part ■of his panoramic description of future times, that a mighty hunter shall arise, claiming dominion over his fellows, and gather under him a band of adherents. This is clearly Nimrod. Milton separates him and his subjects from the rest of mankind, and represents them as the people who settled on “ the plain in the land of Shinar.” According to our great poet, therefore, the confusion of tongues applied only to them, and the other inhabitants of the earth retained the primeval language in all its original purity. This detachment, says Michael— Marching from Eden towards the west, shall find The plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge, �T/ie Toiler 0/ HabeZ. 81 BA A underground, the mouth of Hell: Of brick and of that stuff they cast to build A chyTAd a tower, whose top may reach to Heaven; And get themselves a name, lest, far dispersed In foreign lands, their memory be lost, Regardless whether good or evil tame. But God, who oft descends to visit men Unseen and through their habitations walks S mark their doings, them beholding soon, Comes down to see their city, ere the tower Obstruct Heav’n-tow’rs, and in derision sets Upon their tongue a various spirit to rase Quite out their native language and instead To sow a jangling noise of words unknown. Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud Among the builders; each to other calls Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage,. As mock’d they storm: great laughter was m heaven, And looking down, to see the huBbub strang And hear the din; thus was the building left Ridiculous, and the work Confusion named. W?ce was “ called Babel.” The Hebrew root is not however, that from which the word “Babel is deriveu. Rawlinson, suppose it be a compound of El , nase “ Bab-El” means the “ Gate of God. It is evident that the story of the Tower of by the Jehovist author of this part of Genesers of ■of the famous unfinished Temple of Belus 9^ KRh._ .antiquity. Birs Nimroud is thus described by Kahsch. “The hugh heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basa t, are irregularly mixed, covers a ^ac® off to ioO^eHn chief mound is nearly 800 feet high, and from 200 to 400 feet m width commanding an extensive view over a country of utter •desolatior^^he Jwer consisted of -ven ^tin" platforms, built of kiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty teetmgn, gradually diminishing in diameter. The upper pa ?ork hi a vitreflef appearance ; for it is ^PP»sed « the Babylonians in order to render their edifices more durable, sud Stted them to toe heat of the furnace ; and large fragments 0 �62 The Tower of Babel. such vitiefied and calcined materials are also intermixed with therubbish at the base. This circumstance may have given rise to or at least countenanced, the legend of the destruction of the Tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among the Arabians The terraces were devoted to the planets, and werediffeiently colored m accordance with the notions of Sabsean astrology—the lowest, Saturn’s, Hack; the second, Jupiter’s • the third Mars’s, red ; the fourth, the Sun’s, wZZow • the thehMoon^sSS’ w?wZe{/rthe si^th’ Mercui'.y,s) blue; the seventh, it % 11 nF" T. Mero„da9h-afan-akhi is stated to have begun tv n’C’-k j K pfinished five centuries afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar who left a part of its history on two cylinders which have lately been excavated on the spot, and thus decip­ hered by Rawlinson ‘The building, named the Planisphere which was the wonder of Babylon, I have made and flashed Ki? ’ nhedwith laPis lazuli- I have exalted its head. Behold now the building, named ‘‘The Stages of the Seven Spheres, which was the wonder of Borsippa, had been built bv k h1ad comPleted forty-two cubits of height"• ririled dl ThOt fSnif1 tl}e ,h,;ad- From the lapse of time it beclme ruined. They had not taken care of the exit of the waters • so the ram and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. The casing of burnt brick lay scattered in heaps. Then Merodach my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation-platform. But, m a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I under­ took the building of the raw-brick terrace and the burnt-brick casing of the Temple. I strengthened its foundation, and I placed a titular record on the part which I had rebuilt. I set my hand to build it up, and to exalt its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure. As it had been in former days, thus I exalted its head.’ ” • Pr®fe®sor Kawfinson assigns b.c. 2300 as the date of the build­ ing of the Temple. But as Colenso remarks, his reasoning is very loose. His date however, is antecedent to the supposed fame of the building of Babel, and according to his own chrono­ logy the latter may have been a tradition of the former. Add to this that the rums of Sirs Nimroud are extant, while there is no vestige of the rums of Babel. According to Kalisch’s chronologyBits Nvmroud was built long after the supposed time of Moses ’ and it wrote the Pentateuch our position cannot be mainpaiHed- But he did not write the Pentateuch or any portion of it Ihe writer of the Jehovist portion of Genesis, which con­ tains the story of the Power of Babel, certainly did not flourish before the time of Solomon, about b.c. 1015—975. Here then is an interval of a century. That is a short period for the’' growth of a legend. Yet, as Colenso observes, “as the tower was apparently an observatory, and the fact of its being dedicated o the seven ancient planets shows that astronomical observations had made considerable progress among the Chaldeans at the lme when it was built, the traditions connected with it may have �The Tow&r of Babel. 63 ■embodied stories of a much earlier date, to which the new buildinThrTemSpleCUo7ejupiter Belus with its tower was partially destroyed by Xerxes b.c. 490 ; upon which says Kalisch, the fraudulent priests appropriated to themselves the lands an enormous revenues attached to it, and seem, from this reason to have been averse to its restoration.” A part of the edifice still ■existed more than five centuries later, and was mentioned by Pliny But the other part was, in the tune of Alexander the Great a vast heap of ruins. He determined to rebuild it, but desisted from the enterprise, when he found that ten thousand workmen could not remove the rubbish m two months. Ben­ iamin of Tudela described it in the twelfth century, after which, for more than six hundred years, it remained unnoticed and unknown. The ruins were rediscovered by Niebuhr m 17o6, subsequent explorers more accurately described them; and they were thoroughly examined, and their monumental record deciphered, about thirty years ago. _ a « Knlisch observes The myth attaching to it is not unique. As Kalisch observes, “most of the ancient nations possessed myths concerning im­ pious giants, who attempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or to expel them from it And even the orthodox Delitzsch allows that “ the Mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well as of a Flood. Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, built the great pyramid o Cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods angry at his audacity, threw fire upon the building, and broke it down whereupon every separate family received a language of its own To lessen the force of this, Delitzsch says that the Mexican legend has been much colored by its narrators, chiefly Dominicans and Jesuits ; but he is obliged to admit that there is great significance in the fact that the Mexican terrace-pyramid closely resembles the construction of the Temple of Belus. No argument can vitiate the conclusion that as similar myths to that of Genesis abounded m ancient times, it is highly illogical to attach particular important? to any one of them. If one is historic, all are historic. justified in holding that the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel is only a modification of the older story of the Temple of Belus. We will conclude this Romance by mentioning a few facts, not speculations, which are exceedingly curious, and which present grave difficulty to the orthodox believer. . . According to the Bible, in Abraham s time, not four centuries after the Deluge, the descendants of Noah’s three sons had mul­ tiplied into the four great kingdoms of Shmar (Babylon), Egypt, and Gerar, besides a multitude of smaller nations Does any instructed man believe in the possibility of such multiplica­ tion? It is altogether incredible. . . ... Some of these nations had reached a high degree of civilisa­ tion. Indeed, the temples, tombs, pyramids, manners, customs, .and arts of Egypt betoken & full-grown nation. The sculptures •of the Fourth Dynasty, the earliest extant, and which must be �64 The Tower of Babel. assigned to the date of about 3500 B.c., are almost as perfect as those of her Augustan age, two thousand years later. Professor Rawlinson seeks to obviate this difficulty by appealing to the version of the Seventy instead of to the Hebrew text by which he obtains the remote antiquity of 3159 b.c., instead of 2348, for the Deluge. But this chronology does not reach within four hundred years of the civilisation denoted by the sculptures referred to! And there must have been milleniums of silent progress in Egypt before that period. On the ancient monuments of Egypt the negro head, face, hair, iorm, and color, are the same as we observe in our own day. Consequently, the orthodox believer must hold that in a few generations, the human family branched out into strongly marked varieties. History discountenances this assumption, and Biology plainly disproves it. Archdeacon Pratt supposes that ohem, Ham, and Japheth “had in them elements differing as widely as the Asiatic, the African, and the European, differ from each other. ’ He forgets that they were brothers, sons of the same father and presumably of the same mother. Such extra­ ordinary evolution throws Darwinism into the shade. Noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abraham, bhem lived a hundred and ten years after the birth of Isaac, and au yearsTafter th*3 birth of Jacob. How was it that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob knew either of them. They were the most interesting and important men alive at the time. They had seen the world before the Flood. One of them had seen people who knew Adam. They had lived through the confusion of tongues at Babel, and were well acquainted with the whole history of the world. Yet they are never once mentioned in Scripture during all the centuries they survived their exit from the ark Why is this ? Noah before his death was the most venerable man existing. He was five hundred years older than any other man. He must have been an object of universal regard. Yet we have no record of the second half of his career • no account is given of his burial ; no monument was erected to bis memory. Who will explain this astounding neglect? The Bible is a strange book, and they are strange people who believe it. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—IX. BALAAM’S ASS. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦-------- Thf ass has figured extensively in romance. His long ears and peculiar bray are explained by a story which goes back to the Flood On that occasion, it is said, the male donkey was inad­ vertently left outside the ark, but being a good swimmer he nevertheless managed to preserve his life. After .many despera e efforts he at last succeeded in calling out the Pat™rch s name, as nearlv as the vocal organs of a jackass would allow. No-ah, No-ah” cried the forlorn beast. Noah’s attention was at last aroused and on looking out of window to see who was calling, he -perceived the poor jackass almost spent and faintly battling with the waves. Quickly opening the window, he caught Neddy by the two ears and hauled him in. This he did with such vigor that Neddy's aural appendages were considerably elongated , and ever since7donkeys have had long ears and 1brayed ‘‘No ah No-ah” at the approach of wet weather. Jor the sake oi Christians who are not well acquainted with Gods Word, we add that, this storv is not in the Bible. Classical scholars and students of modern literature know . ow the ass has been treated by poets and romancers. The stolid animal has generally been made the subject of comedy.. Drunken and impotent Silenus, in the Pagan mythology, joins m the pro­ cessions of Bacchus on a sober ass, and the patient animal staggers beneath the heavy burden of a fat-paunched tipsy god.. Apulius and Lucian transform the hero of their common story into an ass, and in that shape he encounters the most surprising experiences. Voltaire makes an ass play a wonderful part m his Pucelle. And in all these cases it is worth noticing how the profane wits remember the ass's relation to Priapian mysteries, from his fabled interruption of the garden-god’s attempt on the nymph Lotts downwards, and assign to him marvellous amatory adventures. Erasmus, in his “Praise of Folly,” does not forget the ass, with whom he compares the majority of.men for stupidity, obstinacy,, and lubricity: noris the noble animal forgotten by Rabelais,, who cracks many a joke and points many a witticism at his expense.wn humorist) Charles Lamb, confesses however to a deep tenderness for Neddy, and dwells with delight on the pro­ tection which his thick hide affords against the cruel usuage of man. He has, says Lamb, “a tegument impervious to ordinary stripe®. The malice of a child or a weak hand can make feeble impressions on him. His back offers no mark to a puny foeman. To a common whip or switch his hide presents an absolute insen- �66 Balaam’s Ass. sibility. lou might as well pretend to scourge a schoolboy with a tough pair of leather breeches on.” Lamb also quotes the following passage from a tract printed in 1595, entitled “The Noblenesse of theAsse ; a Work Rare, Learned, and Excellent.” : “He refuseth no burden; he goes whither he is sent, without any contiadiction. He lifts not his foote against any one • he bytes not; he is no fugitive, nor malicious affected. He doth all things in good sort, and to his liking that hath cause te employ him. If strokes be given him, he cares not for them.” True the ass is not much given to kicking or biting, but he has an awk­ ward knack of quietly lying down when he is indisposed to work and of rolling over with equal quietude if a rider happens to be on his back. But the old author is so enchanted with the 44 asse ” that he does not stay to notice this scurvy trick. He even goes on to express his liking for the ass’s bray, calling Neddy “a rare musitian, and saying that “to heare the musicke of five or six voices chaunged to so many of asses is amongst them to heare a song of world without end.” umueriv? “Sentimental Journey,” has a chapter entitled 1 he Dead Ass, wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of pathos. And lastly, Coleridge has some very pious musings on an ass, wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of religion. how, dear reader, you begin to see the drift of this long exordium, although my purpose was indeed twofold. First I wished, after the example of my betters in literature, to give you a slight glimpse of the immense extent of my learning. Secondly 1 wished to lead you through the various stages of literary treat­ ment of the ass, from the comic to the pathetic, and finally to the religious, m order that you might approach in a proper frame of mind the consideration of Balaam’s ass, who is the most remarkable of all the four-legged asses mentioned in the Bible 1 here were others Asses were being sought by Saul, the son oi Kish when he found a kingdom of subjects instead. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass, and also apparently on a colt, having probably one leg over each. With the jawbone of an ass bam son slew a thousand Philistines ; and if the rest of the animal accorded with that particular bone, he must have been a ough ass indeed. But all these are of little interest or importance beside the- wonderful ass of the prophet Balaam, whose history is contained, with that of his master, in the twentysecond, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters of the Book of Numbers. Soon after the Wandering Jews in the desert were plagued by “fiery serpents” for asking Moses to give them a slight change in their monotonous bill of fare, they warred against the Amorites and pretty nearly exterminated them. Whereupon Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, grew “ sore afraid.” He called together the “ elders of Midian” with those of Moab, and said that in his opinion the Jews would lick them all up as the ox lick ed up the grass of the field. �Balaam’s Ass. 67 Against such a ferocious gang as the Jews, with a bloody God of Battles to help them, human valor promised little success; so Balak resolved to solicit supernatural aid. Accordingly he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, a renowned and potent soothsayer, desiring him to come and curse the people of Israel. The king had implicit confidence in Balaam. “Whom thou blessest,” said he, “is blessed, and whom thou cursest is cursed.” This great prophet must have wrought prodigious wonders in his time to gain so magnificent a reputation; and if the king’s panegyric on him was true, he must have been a dangerous person to those who annoyed him and made him swear. The “elders of Moab and the elders of Midian,” who were Balak’s messengers, went to Pethor, where Balaam resided. As the reader might expect, they did not go empty handed, but took with them “the rewards of divination.” What these were we are not told. No doubt they were very handsome. The pro­ phetical business requires large profits to compensate for the absence of quick returns; 'and in any case it is not to .be sup­ posed that a man who can do what no one else can, will begin work without a heavy retaining fee. We conclude that Balaam, like nearly every prophet mentioned in history, had a good eye for the main chance, and did not trust very much in the bounty of the gods. He was never hard up for bread and cheese while other people were hard up for divine assistance, and as that was an ignorant and credulous age, we presume that his larder was well-stocked. He must, indeed, have had a fine time, for he was the biggest pot in his own line of business in all that district. Balaam kuew his business well. It would never do for a prophet, a soothsayer, a wizard, or a diviner, to give prompt answers to his applicants, or even to make his answers plain when he does give them. That would render the profession cheap and rob it of mystery. So Balaam, therefore, said to the messengers, “Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me.” Now this reference to the Lord is very surprising. The Moabites worshipped Baal, and no doubt they had the utmost contempt for Jehovah. Yet Balaam, who was a prophet of their religion, tells them that he will consult the god of Israel on the subject of their visit! This is one of the self-contradictions with which the Bible abounds. The next incident of the story is no less remarkable. God, the infinite spirit of the universe, paid Balaam a visit; and although he knows everything, past, present, and to come, he asked the prophet “What men are these with thee?” Balaam gave a straightforward reply, for he doubtless knew that prevarication and subterfuge were useless with God. Said he, “Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab, has sent unto me, saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the tarth : come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able io overcome them and drive them out.” The precisiog. of �68 Balaam s Ass. Balaam’s language is admirable, and so it its accuracy. He neither desired to keep the Lord in suspense, nor to leave him in ignorance of necessary details. God’s answer was equally brief and perspicuous : “ Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people : for they are blessed.” This interview between God and Balaam, like the following ones, occurred in the night. The Lord seems to have been always afraid of daylight, or else to have had a peculiar fondness for the dark. Perhaps he thought that during the night there was less chance of the conversation being interrupted, and it is well known that the Lord loves privacy and does not like conversing with more than one at a time. He agrees with us that “two’s company and three’s none.” In the morning Balaam got out of bed and told Balak’s messengers to return and say that the Lord would not let him come ; and they at once set out for the capital. Balak, however, was not to be so easily put off. He seems to have regarded the prophet’s talk about the Lord’s prohibition as “all my eye.” “Perhaps,” said he to himself, “my messengers were small fry in the sight of Balaam, and he is therefore dis­ pleased. My presents also may have been too small. I should have recollected that Balaam has a very exalted opinion of him­ self, and is renowned for his avarice. What a stupid I was to be sure. However, I’ll try again. This time 1’11 send a deputa­ tion of big guns, and promise him great wealth and high position in the state. He can’t refuse such a tempting offer.” Straight­ way he “ sent yet again princes, more and more honorable ” than those who went before, and commanded them to urge Balaam to let nothing hinder him from coming. Balaam slightly resented this treatment. He told the messengers that if Balak would give him his house full of silver and gold, he could not go beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less. Yet he apparently deemed it politic to make another trial. He was, of course, quite aware that God is unchangeable, but some­ how he thought the Lord might alter his mind. So he bade the messengers to tarry there that night while he consulted God afresh. Balaam’s expectation was realised. The Lord did change his mind. ‘ ‘ He came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.” So the prophet rose up in the morning, saddled and mounted his wonderful ass, and went off with the princes of Moab. Poor Balaam, however, did not reflect that as the Lord had changed his mind once he might change it twice, and the omission very nearly cost him his life. He was unfortunately ignorant of what happened to Moses on a similar occasion. After the Lord had dispatched the Jewish prophet to Egypt to rescue his people from bondage, he met him at an inn, where perhaps they botjj put up for the night, and sought to kill him. The same �@9 Balaam’s Ass. thing happened now^ No sooner^ £eU™’y Ms Xi - “ veer God andi dreadMly hard, to please. If you don’t obey ^^nd^^Xd chance of beinf murdered ^The only safe^ourse is to get out of his way and odf° toS” stood^n sTVy drawn sword in his hand, ready to P -g^ nejther crime was having done exac y w ,p, however, had Balaam nor his two servants saw he had a better eyesight. Being only ass’a^dli^g\Sok of this greater aptitude for seeing angels A wav ^to a field, formidable stranger, Neddy bolted fX±ior XptTeer per­ Balaam, who saw no reason for such behaviOT except^s^^^p^o verseness, began to whack bis ass s forcible argument and the right road, Neddy s-cumhedto to«tly, in the logged on again, lhe angel oi w.e . , J? His intention meantime, made himself invisible even J fata] stroke in was ultimately to kill Balaam, bu X. , foresaw. Going order to make the most of the come y vineyards, a wall a little in front he “stood in a path »f ight of being on this side, and » A'^bolt in the field, the angel again, and being unable -Ralaam’s foot a good he lurched against the wall and §ave+ ®a aa“ine out of the scrunching. Still the prophet suspected noth S poor common, for that was an ordinary trick of refractory a • J Neddv therefore, got another thrashing, lhen tne angei KeZfarther, and “ stood in a. narrowr plane, where there was no way to turn either to the rig 0 proceed and Neddy estimated the certain penalty of r®ffu®in§ ^aring them the probable penalty of going forward After c0“Pa idgdown. he decided to stop where he was, amXthiacy, Balaam’s anger was once more. kindled y P and he whacked the ass again with his stall. Then the Lord intervened, and brought about the most^ S„dXo“,"fa“Zead-• ZKtX SZAe, “thatthou hast S^XtdtoXthat^o^ had held many a conversation before. ln the “ ±^d XgXZf EdenXeXs not at , serpent surprised, * BalaamTs ass was a cc nkn ” Knf flip sftx is immaterial, and. as we ’ “ she, but tne sex is im , commenced with the masculine gender we will continue witn �70 Balaam's Ass. but went on with the colloquy as though talking serpents were common things If a dumb animal were nowadays to address tmrT/|WltK +HOuW d°? ” he.would certainly be very much startled , but when the same thing occured in the old Bible you8?”^6 maU °nCe replied’ “ Very well, thank you, how are Balaam promptly answered the ass’s question. “Because” said he, ‘‘thou hast mocked me : I would there were a sword in hand for now would I kill thee.” Then the ass rejoined Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day ? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee ?” This was a poser Balaam scratched his head and reflected but at last he was obliged to say “Nay.” ’ Neddy had so far the best of the argument. But Balaam had the practical argument of the stick left, and no doubt he was about to convince the donkey with it. All arguments practical or otherwise would however have left the dispute exactly where it stood A eddy saw the angel, and that was enough for him Balaam did not see the angel, but only Neddy’s obstinate stupidity In short, they reasoned from different premises and could not therefore arrive at the same conclusion.P They might have argued till doomsday had not the Lord again intervened th! T A°P/nfd Balaams eyes>” 80 that he also “ saw the angel of idle Lord standing m the way, and his sword drawn in his hand ” Then Balaam “bowed his head, and fell flat on his face ” and there he and Neddy lay side by side, two asses together. ’ Now, dear reader, you will observe that the ass, being indeed dSiTotTJt?6 uand that Balaam’ awLeman, did not see the angel until his wits were disordered by the wonder renirk thatS“ in°afl D?rt tWS beaT out S'reat Bacon’s remark that m all superstititon, wise men follow fools ” 9 And may we not say, that if asses did not see angels first, wise men would never see them after ? ’ on^his fTc?el«°w?e said *0 Balaam, while he remained flat timni ? h h m heref°re hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: and the ass saw me, and turned from me t?soSei hid TS:+bnleSS Sie had turned from me> ^ely now • +i lam thee’ and saved her alive.” The moral of this is that asses stand the best chance of salvation, and that wise men run a frightful risk of damnation until they lose their tin^^T recognised the awfd mess he Was in, and being, b thig ne as limp as a wet rag, he made the most abject apology. “ T wayagTnstme" &Th’ “ t” 1 UOt tbat thou ^des/in th J how the Tuhlf reasoning shows still more clearly notT sinned°nt had ^ken leave of his senses. He had lor wTit hVf’ strictly obeying God’s commands; When the T r d lUt that,the angei remained so long invisible, then the Loid opened his eyes,” and made his vision like unto �Balaam s Ass. 71 th® vision of an ass, he saw the angel plainly enough ; and how could he possibly have done so before ? “I’ll go back,” added Balaam, thinking that if he sinned so greatly in going forward, he had better return home. But the angel of the Lord, who had intended to kill him for advancing, now told him to “go with the men.” And Balaam went with them, keeping his weather eye open during the rest of the journey. ,-,17 Balak was heartily glad to see Balaam. The prophet had been a long time coming, but better late than never. The next day they went “up into the high places of Baal,” from which they could see “the utmost part of the people ” of Israel. “There they are,” said Balak, “confound them! leprous slaves out of Egypt, bent on stealing other people’s lands, and sticking to all they can lay hands on ; bloodthirsty vagabonds, who fight people with whom they have no quarrel, and kill men, women, and children when they are victorious. h\ow, Balaam, do your duty. Curse them, and lay it on thick.” • Seven altars were built, and seven oxen and seven rams sacri­ ficed on them. But all this good meat was wasted, for when Balaam “went to an high place,” God met him, according to agreement, and told him what to say. And lo ! when the prophet returned to the king, he blessed the Jews instead of cursing them. “Hullo, Ballam, what’s this?” cried the king. “ I asked you to curse my enemies and you’ve gone and blessed them. What d’ye mean?” “True,” answered Balaam, “ but I told you that I could only speak what the Lord put into my mouth.” Balak appears to have been just as sceptical as Pharaoh about the God of the Jews. He attributed his disappointment to a freak of the prophet, and not being easily baffled he resolved to try again. So he took Balaam up another high place, and built seven fresh altars, and sacrificed on them seven more bullocks and rams; after which he repeated his invitation. Again Balaam went farther to consult the Lord, whom he found waiting for him; and received his instructions. And lo ! when he returned to Balak he again blessed the Jews instead of cursing them. Balak resolved to try again. He took Balaam to another high place, built seven more altars, and sacrificed seven more bullocks and seven more rams. But again the prophet blessed Israel, and a third time the king was sold. Then he gave it up, and Balaam and his ass went home. What became of the ass is unknown. Perhaps he went into the prophetical business himself, and eventually retired on a very handsome fortune. Perhaps he went about as a preacher of the gospel as it was then understood; in which case, judging from the rule of success in later ages, we have no doubt that he attracted large audiences and delighted all who were fortunate enough to sit under him. And when he died all the two-legged asses in Moab probably wept and refused to be comforted. Balaam’s end was tragic. The thirteenth chapter of Joshua �72 Balaam’s Ass. informs us that he was eventually slain by the very people he had thrice blessed. After an account of one of the bloody wars of Jehovah’s bandits we read that “ Balaam also the son of Beor, the sooth-sayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them.” The angel of the Lord spared him, but God’s butchers cut his throat at last. On the whole he might as well have cursed the Jews up and down to Balak’s satisfaction, and taken the handsome rewards which were offered him on such easy terms. Here endeth the story of Balaam’s Ass. I hope my reader still believes it, for if not, he will be reprobate while he lives and damned when he dies. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—X. GOD’S THIEVES IN CANAAN. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- 4---------- Some years ago the righteous indignation of England was roused by the daily record of atrocities perpetrated in Bulgaria by the Turkish bashi-bazouks. Men were wantonly massacred, preg­ nant women ripped up, and maidens outraged by brutal lust. Our greatest statesman uttered a clarion-cry which pealed through the whole nation, and the friends of the Turk m high places shrank abashed and dismayed before the stern response of the people. Many clergymen attended public meetings, and denounced not only the Turks, but also their Mohammedanism. They alleged that the Koran sanctioned, even if it did not com­ mand the horrors which had been wrought in Eastern Europe, and they declared that there was no hope for a country which derived its maxims of state from such an accursed book, lhose denunciations did honor to their hearts, but very little to their heads For every brutual injunction in the Koran, twenty might be found in the Bible. Before the clergy cry out against the Scriptures of Islam, they should purge their own of those horrid features which are an insult to man and a blasphemy against God Mohammed gave savage counsels to his followers with respect to waging war, but these sink into insignificance beside the counsels given to the Jews by Moses in the name of God. Bible romances are generally comic, but this one is infinitely tragic. The whole range of history affords no worse instances of cold-blooded cruelty than those which God’s theives, the Jews, perpetrated in Canaan, when they took forcible possession of cities they had not built and fields they had never ploughed. “How that red rain will make the harvest grow! exclaims Byron of the blood shed at Waterloo; and surely the first harvests reaped by the Jews in Canaan must have been luxuriantly rich, for the ground had been drenched with the blood of the slain. Before Moses died, according to the Bible, he delivered an elaborate code of laws to his people in the name of God. lhe portions referring to war are contained in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy. Here they stand in all their naked hideous- ae*‘SWhen thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the Pe<T^ that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war againt thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the �74 God’s Thieves in Canaan. Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword : But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto ail the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them.” Such were the fiendish commands of Jehovah, the bloody maxims of inspired war. Let us see how the Jews carried them out. Duiing the lifetime of Moses they made a good beginning! for in their war against Midian they slew 48,000 men, 48,000 women, and 20,000 boys, and took as spoil 32,000 virgins. But they did much better under Joshua. After God had dispatched Moses and secretly buried him, so that nobody should ever discover his sepulchre, Joshua was appointed leader in his stead. He was “full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him.” Then, as now, ' religious superiors transmitted holiness to their inferiors through the skull. God accepted the nomination of Moses and instructed Joshua in his duties. He told him to be above all “ strong and very courageous,” and to fight the enemy according to the law of Moses. Joshua was not the man to neglect such advice. Joshua was soon ordered to cross the river Jordan and begin the holy war. But before doing so, he dispatched two spies to reconnoitre Jericho, the first place to be attacked. They reached the city by night, and of course required lodgings. Instinct led them to the house of Rahab, the harlot. She proved a very good friend; for when messengers came from the king in the morning to inquire about them, she said that they had gone, and advised the messengers to go after them, which they did. Meanwhile she hid the spies under some flax on the roof of her house, and at night “ let them down by a cord through the window, for she dwelt on the town wall.” Before they left, however, she made a covenant with them. Like many other ladies of easy virtue, or no virtue at all, Rahab was piously inclined. She had conceived a great respect for Jehovah, and was assured that his people would overcome all their enemies. But she had also a great re­ spect for her own skin ; so she made the two spies promise on behalf of the Jews that when they took Jericho they would spare her and all her relatives ; and they were to recognise her house by the “line of scarlet thread in the window.” They got back safe to Joshua and told him it was all right; the people were in a dreadful funk, and all the land would soon be theirs? Joshua got up early the next morning and told the Jews that w the Lord was going to do wonders. They wanted to get “ on �God’s Thieves in Canaan. 75 the other side of Jordan,” and the Lord meant to ferry them across in his own style. Twelve men were selected one from each tribe to follow the priests who bore the ark m front, and all the Jewish host came after them. As it was harvest time, the river had overflowed its banks. When the priests’ feet “ were dipped in the brim of the water,” the river parted in twain ; on one side the waters “ stood and rose up upon an heap, while on the other side they “failed and were cut off.” As no miracle was worked further up the river to stop the supplies the “ heap must have been a pretty big one before the play ended. A clear passage having been made, the Jews all crossed on dry ground. Thev seem to have done this in less than a day, but three millions of people could not march past one spot in less than a week. Perhaps the Lord gave them a shove behind. The twelve selected Jews, one from each tribe, took twelve big stones out of the bed of the river, which were “pitched in Gilgal” as a “memorial unto the children of Israel for ever. For ever is a long time and is not yet ended. Those stones should be there now. Why don’t the clergy try to discover them? If brought to London and set up on the Thames embank­ ment they would throw Cleopatra’s needle into the shade. When God had ferried the Jews across, and picked out the twelve big stones as aids to memory, the “heap” of water tumbled down and overflowed the banks of the river Joshua and his people then encamped near Jericho, in readiness for greater wonders to come. , . Three days afterwards the manna ceased. Jehovah s fighting cocks wanted a more invigorating diet. This time they did not ask for a change, but the Lord vouchsafed it spontaneously. All the males, too, were circumcised by God’s orders. This Jewish rite had been neglected during the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, but it was now resumed. From the text it seems that Joshua circumcised all the males himself. As they numbered about a million and a half, it must have been a long iob. Allowing a minute for each amputation, it would in the natural course of things have taken him about three years to do them all; but being divinely aided, he finished his task m a single day. Samson’s jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua’s knife. Soon after Joshua, being near Jericho, like Balaam’s ass saw an angel with a drawn sword in his hand. When he had made obeisance, by falling flat and taking off his shoes, he received from this heavenly messenger precise instructions as to the capture of the doomed city.. The Lord’s, way of storming fortresses is unique in military literature. Said he to Joshua— “ Ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and -the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass that when they make a long blast with the ram s horn, and �76 God's Thieves in Canaan. when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.” Did ever another general receive such extraordinary in­ structions from his commander-in-chief ? God’s soldiers need no cannon, or battering rams, or bomb-shells; all they require is a few rams’ horns and good lungs for shouting. God’s orders were obeyed. Six days in succession did the Jews march round the walls of Jericho, no doubt to the great bewilderment of its inhabitants, who probably wondered why they didn’t come on, and felt that there was something uncanny in this roundabout siege. On the seventh day they went round the city seven times. How tired they must have been! Jericho, being a capital city, could not have been less than several miles in circumference. The priests blew with the trumpets, the people shouted with a great shout, and the walls of Jericho fell flat— as flat as the simpletons who believe it. A scene of horror ensued. The Jews “ utterly destroyed all there was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” Only Rahab and her relatives were spared. The silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, were put into the Lord's treasury-—that is, handed over to the priests; and then the city was burnt with fire. God commanded this, and his chosen people executed it. Could Jericho have been treated worse if the Devil himself had planned the fight, and the vilest fiends from hell had conducted it? Rahab the harlot, being saved with all her relatives, who were perhaps as bad as she, dwelt with the Jews ever afterwards. Whether she continued in her old profession we are unable to say. But it is certain that the Jews soon after grew very corrupt, and the Lord’s anger was kindled against them. The first result of God’s displeasure was that the Jews became demoralised as warriors. Three thousand of them, who went up against Ai, were routed, and thirty-six of them were slain. This seems a very small number, but, as we have already observed, the Jewish chroniclers were much given to bragging. Their losses were always very small, and the enemy’s very great. After this rebuff the Jews funked; their hearts ‘ ‘ melted and became as water.” Joshua rent his clothes, fell upon his face before the ark, and remained there until the evening. The elders of Israel did likewise, and they all put dust on their heads. To conclude the performance Joshua expostulated with God, asked him whether he had brought his people over Jordan only to betray them to their enemies, and expressed a hearty wish that they had never crossed the river at all. The Lord told Joshua to get up, as it was no use lying there. Israel had sinned, and God had determined not to help them until they had purged themselves. Some one, in fact, had stolen a portion of the spoil of Jericho, all of which belonged to the �God’s Thieves in Canaan. 77 Lord that is to the priests, who evidently helped to concoct this nrettv story Joshua forthwith proceeded to hunt the sinner out. C meS was very singular. He resolvedto £ — twelve tribes until the culprit was found, I he tribe ot juuan was examined first, and luckily in the very first family Acha was taken,” although we are not told how he was spotted Achan confessed that he had appropriated of the spoil a_ •Rabvlonish o-arment, and two hundred shekels of ®-iver> .ana a weta ” f grid of fifty shekels weight,” which he had hidden under his tent His doom was swift and terrible ; he was stoned t"^ his body burnt with fire We>maythin^: Mspunish went severe but we cannot deny his guilt, tie, ^°wevei, “oTthe only sufferer. Jehovah was not small quantity of blood. Achan s sons and daug™8 we stoned with him, and then^bodies «ne A^eaFheap’of’stones was raised over their cinders, “jehorah “ the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger. Jehovah acted iustlike the savage old chieftain of a savage tribe As irascible tempers do not improve with age X 9till asnennerv as ever. Yet we are asked to lov , > , wSshipP ®s brutal being, as the ideal of all that >s merciful, jUtaed?aWy after Joshua sent thirty thousand menmgainst Ai, which they took with great ease. All its mhabitan , oldest ma? to the youngest babe were '“^red. Tim city itself was burnt into a desolate heap. The King reserved to furnish the Jews with a little extra sport, by w^y dessert to the bloody feast. He was hanged oni a^ntil eve tide when his carcass was taken down and buried under a n ;al If stoles.” Joshua -‘then built a tapmto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal,” who appears to have been mightily we pleased with the whole business. _ i a o-athered all Joshua’s next exploit was indeed miraculous He gathered the Jews together, men, womeni, children, and even the,trang, and read to them all the laws of Moses, wl^XXtliroat must word. It must have been a long job, and Joshua s ttooa have been rather dry at the end. But the greatest^o^er is he made himself heard to three millions of people at1 1 other orator ever addressed so big an audience E1^er“e^e in were very sharp, or his voice was terribly loud. The people The front rank must have been nearly stunned with the sound. Joshua could outroar Bottom the weaver by two or^iee^e’d The people of Gibeon, by of irSSeng^± couX themselves off on Joshua as strangers from a. distantcou t y, contrived to obtain a league whereby their livee When their craft was detected they were sentenced to become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Jews; m other words, ^AdonLztdec, king of Jerusalem ; Hoham, king of Hebron ; �78 God’s Thieves in Canaan. Piram king of Jarmuth; Japhia, king of Lachish; and Debim king of Eglon ; banded themselves together to punish Gibeon for making peace with the Jews. Joshua went with all his army to their relief. He fell upon the armies of the five kino-s dis­ comfited them with great slaughter, and chased them along the way to Beth-horon. As they fled the Lord joined in the hunt. He cast down great st.ones from heaven upon them ” and killed a huge number even “more than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.” When we read that Pan fought witfi the Greeks against the Persians at Marathon, we must regard it as a fable ; but when we read that Jehovah fought with the Jews against the five kino-s at Gibeon we must regard it as historical truth, and if we doubt it we shall be eternally damned. Not only did the Lord join in the war-hunt, but Joshua wrought the greatest miracle on record by causing a stationary body to stand still. He stopped the sun from “ going down ” and lengthened out the day for about twelve hours, in order that the Jews might see to pursue and kill the flying foe “ The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.” What Joshua really stopped if he stopped anything, was the earth, for its revolution, and not the motion of the sun, causes the phenomena of day and nio-ht Science tells , us that the arrest of the earth’s motion would generate a frightful quantity of heat, enough to cause a general conflagration. Yet nothing of the kind happened. How is it too, that no other ancient people has preserved any record of this marvellous occurrence ? The Egyptians, for instance, carefully noted-eclipses and such events, but they jotted down no memor­ andum of Joshuas supreme miracle. Why is this? How can Christians explain it ? When Jupiter personated Amphytrion, and visited his bride Alcmena the amorous god lengthened out the night in order toprolong his enjoyment. Why may we not believe this ? Is it not as credible, and quite as moral, as the Bible story of Jehovah s lengthening out the day to prolong a massacre ? Were the Greeks any bigger liars than the Jews ? It has been suggested that Joshua was so elated with the victory that he drank more than was good for him, and got in at k j Str,e that in the evening’lie saw two moons instead of one Nobody liked to contradict him, but the elders of Israel to’ harmonise their leader’s vision, declared that it comprised’the sun and the moon, instead of two moons, which were clearly absurd. The court poet improved on this explanation, and com­ posed the neat little poem which is partially preserved by the Jewish chronicler, who asks “ Is not this written in the book of Jas ier. The waggish laureate Jasher is supposed by some profane speculators to have got up the whole miracle himself. The five kings fled with their armies and “hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah.” Joshua ordered the mouth to be closed �God’s Thieves in Canaan. - ' 79 ■with big stones until the pursuit was ended. At last they were brought out and treated with great ignominy. Their necks were made footstools of by the captains of Israel, and they were afterwards hung on trees until the evening, when their carcasses were flung into the cave. After this highly civilised treatment of their captives, the Jews took all the capital cities of these five kings and slew all the inhabitants. Then they desolated the hills and vales. Joshua “ left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.” Hazor and many other places were also treated in the same way, “ there was not any left to breathe.” Jehovah was not, however, able to execute his intentions com­ pletely. The children of Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem; nor could the children of Manasseh entirely drive out the Canaanites from their cities. After Joshua’s death, as we read in the book of Judges, “ the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain ; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Iron chariots were too strong for the Almighty! Yet he managed to take off the wheels of Pharaoh’s chariots at the Red Sea. Why could he not do the same on this occasion ? Were the linch-pins too tight or the wheels too heavy? Joshua died at the ripe old age of a hundred and ten. What­ ever else he may have been, he was certainly one of the gamest fighting cocks that ever lived. Jehovah never found a better instrument for his bloody purposes. They buried him at Timnath-serah. Joseph’s old bones, which Moses brought out of Egypt, were buried at Shechem. Had they been kept much longer some Hebrew “old-clo’ man” might have carried them off and made an honest penny by them. After Joshua’s death, the tribe of Judah fought against Adonibezek. When they caught him they cut off his thumbs and his big toes. He acknowledged the justice of his punishment, and admitted that God had served him just as he had himself served seventy kings, whose great toes he had cut off, and made them eat under his table. Kings must have been very plentiful in those days. During Joshua’s lifetime the Jews served God, and they kept pretty straight during the lifetime of the elders who had known him. But directly these died they went astray; “they forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ashtaroth.” God punished them by letting their enemies oppress them. “Nevertheless,” says the story, “the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them; and they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so. .... And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in �80 God's Thieves in Canaan. following other Gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” God’s selection of the Jews as his favorite people does not seem to reflect much credit on his sagacity. All who came out of Egypt, except two persons, turned out so badly that they were pronounced unfit to enter the promised land, and doomed to die in the wilderness. The new generation who entered Canaan,, after being circumcised to make them holy; after seeing the miracles of Jordan and the valley of Ajalon; after having gained a home by God’s assistance in a land flowing with milk and honey; this very generation proved worse than their fathers. The original inhabitants of Canaan, whom they dispossessed, could hardy have surpassed them in sin and iniquity; and therefore the ruthless slaughter of their conquest was as un­ reasonable as it was inhuman. So much for “ God’s Thieves in Canaan.” PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street,'; London, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—11. CAIN AND ABEL. By G. W. FOOTE. God completed the immense labors described in the first chapter of Genesis by creating man “in his own image,” after which he serenely contemplated “ everything that he had made, and, behold it was very good.” Yet the first woman deceived her husband the first man was duped, and their first son was a mur­ derer. God could not have looked very far, ahead when he pro­ nounced everything “very good.” It is clear that the original nair of human beings were very badly made. As the Lord was obliged to take a rest on the seventh day, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was pretty tired on the sixth, and scamped the work All the sin and suffering in this world is the conse­ quence of man having been the fag-end of creation. If the Lord had rested on the sixth day and created man on the seventh, how different things might have been ! The Devil would probably have done no business in this world, and the population of hell would be no more now than it was six thousand years ago. After leaving the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, having no fear of Malthus in their hearts, began to “ multiply and replenish the earth ” When their first child was born, Eve said, “ 1 have gotten a’man from the Lord,” poor Adam’s share in the youngster’s advent being quietly ignored. She christened him Cain a name which comes from a Hebrew root signifying to acquire. Cain was regarded as an acquisition, and his mother was very proud of him. The time came when she wished he had never been born. . , Some time after, but how long is unknown, Eve gave birth to a second son, called Abel. Josephus explains this name as meaning grief, but Hebrew scholars at present explain it as mean­ ing nothingness, vanity, frailty. The etymology of Abel’s name shows conclusively that the story is a myth. Why should Eve give her second boy so sinister a name ? How could she have so clearly anticipated his sad fate? Cain’s name has, too, another significance besides that of “acquisition,” for, as Kalisch points out it also belongs to the Hebrew verb to strike, and “ signifies either the man of violence and the sire of murderers, or the ancestor of the inventors of iron instruments and of weapons of destruction.” . Cain and Abel had to get their own living. Being born after the Fall they were of course debarred from the felicities of Eden, and were compelled to earn their bread by the sweat of their �82 Cain and Abel. brows, in accordance with God’s wide-reaching curse. Both, so to speak, were forced to deal in provisions. Abel went in for meat, and Cain for vegetables. This was an admirable division of labor, and they ought to have got on very well together; one finding beef and mutton for dinner, and the other potatoes and greens. They might even have paid each other handsome compli­ ments across the table. Abel might have said, “ My dear Cain, these vegetables are first-rate,” and Cain might have replied, “ My dear Abel, I never tasted a better cut.” Delitzsch, whose criticisms are huge jokes, frowns on this picture of fraternal peace. He opines that Cain and Abel were vegetarians, and never enjoyed a beef-steak or a mutton- chop. Abel kept only small domestic cattle, such as sheep and goats, whose woolly skin might be used to cover “their sinful naked­ ness.” The utmost Dtlitzsch allows is that they perhaps drank milk, which, although animal nutriment, is not obtained through the destruction of animal life. But, as Colenso observes, animals were slain for sacrifices, and they may have been killed also for eating. Besides, even a vegetable diet involves infinite destruction of minute animal life. On the whole we prefer to disregard Delitzsch in this matter, and to stand by our pleasant picture of the two first brothers at dinner. Their admirable arrangement, however, brought mischief in the end. It was right enough so far as they were concerned, but it worked badly in relation to God. They liked a mixed diet, but the Lord was purely carnivorous and liked all meat. He devoured Abel’s provisions with great relish, but turned up his nose at Cain’s vegetables. The mealiest potatoes, the tenderest green peas, had no charm for him ; and even the leeks, the garlic, the onions, and the cucumbers, which were afterwards so beloved by his Jewish favorites, were quite unattractive. In the language of Scripture, “ Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering : But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect.” Elsewhere in the Bible we read “ God is no respecter of persons,” but Scripture is full of contradictions, and such things present no difficulty to the spirit of faith, which, like hope, “ believeth all things.” Why was Cain’s offering slighted? The Bible does not tell us, but many reasons have been advanced by commentators. The Talmud supposes that Cain did not offer his best produce, but only the inferior kinds, thus giving God what he did not require himself, and treating the holy rite of sacrifice as a means of working off his refuse vegetables. Kalisch waives this theory, and thinks it probable that Cain’s sin was primarily not against God, but against man. “ The supposition,” he says, “ is obvious that envy and jealousy had long filled the heart of Cain, when �Cain and Abel. 83 contrasted his laborious and toilsome life with the pleasant hi, brother Abel. With incjant exerton, tormented by anxiety, and helplessly dependent on the of the skies he forced a scanty subsistence out ot the woin Bp heart He beheld the happiness of his brother with the feelings an enemy. The joy at the «uooeM ot his own labor, was embittered by the aspect of Ms brother’s greater could God look with delight upon an offering which the offerer himself did not regard with unalloyed satisfaction ? How cou he eoeonrege by bis applause a man whose heart was poisoned by the mean and miserable passion of envy f But all this is gratuitous and far-fetched. Cam yas not afflicted with so laborious an occupation. Adam supported hi self and Eve and all Cain had to do was to provide himself, and perhaps Abe’l with vegetables. Nor could Abels occupation have been light, for flocks and herds require a good deal of attendance and in those early days they needed vigilant protecSoeagX’t“be ravage, of irild beasts. . Abel’s ta.k.mote have been quite as heavy as Cain’s. Our opinion is that the Lord showed his usual caprice, hating whom he would and lovmg whom he would. Jehovah acted like the savage hero ot M . browning’s ‘ Caliban on Setebos,” who sprawls on the shore watching8a line of crabs make for the sea and squashes the twentieth for mere variety and sport. If Jehovah is ^es to explain his loves and hates, he answers with Shylock, it is my whim.” It was his whim to love Jacob and hate Esau, and it was no doubt his whim to accept Abel’s offering and reject ^Mythologically the acceptance of Abel’s offering and the rejec­ tion of Cat’s are easily intelligible. The principle of samfice was deeply imbedded in Judaism. Without shedding ofblood there could be no remission of sin. Under the Levitical law the duties of the priesthood chiefly consisted in offerings of the people. It is. therefore, not difficult to unde stand how the Jewish scribes who wrote or revised the Penta­ teuch after the Babylonish captivity should give thl? the narrative of Genesis; nor is it hard to conceive that for centuries before that date the popular tradition had already, under priestly direction, taken such a color, so as t g oldest and deepest sanction t > the doctrine of animal sacrifice. It must also be noticed that Abel, who found favor with God, was “a keeper of sheep,” while Cain, whose offering was con- �84 Cain and Abel. temned, was “ a tiller of the ground.” This accords with the strongest traditional instincts of the Jews. The Persian religion decidedly favors agriculture, which it regards as a kind of divine service. Brahminism and Buddhism countenance it still more decidedly, and even go to the length of absolutely prohibiting the slaughter of animals. The Jews, on the other hand, esteemed the pastoral life as the noblest, and the Hebrew historian very naturally represented it as protected and consecrated by the blessing of Jehovah, while agriculture was declared to have been imposed on man as a punishment. The nomadic origin of the Jews accounts for their antipathy to that pursuit, which sur­ vived and manifested itself long after they settled in Palestine, devoted themselves to the cultivation of the soil, and enacted agrarian laws. They always esteemed agriculturalists as inferior to shepherds ; men of superior attainments in their histories and legends rose from pastoral life ; and kings kept their flocks. David, the man after God’s own heart, and the national hero of the Jews, was a shepherd, and the Lord came to him while he was keeping his father’s sheep. Moses was keeping his fatherin-law’s sheep when God appeared to him in the burning bush at Mount Horeb ; Jacob kept his uncle Laban’s sheep when he fled from Esau ; and Abraham, the father of the faithful, was rich in flocks and herds. To recur to our story. Abel probably enjoyed the conspicuous mark of divine favors conferred on him. Cain, however, ex­ perienced very different feelings. He “ was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” Whereupon the Lord somewhat facetiously asked him what was the matter. “ Why,” said he, “ art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” This was all very well, but as a matter of fact Cain’s offering had already been rejected, and according to the Bible he had done nothing to deserve such harsh treatment. The Lord’s final words on this occasion read thus in our English Bible : “ And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt, rule over him.” These words are construed as applying to Cain s mastery over Abel, as the elder brother; but they seem, quite unmeaning in that connexion ; for Abel left no offspring, and the prophecy, if such it were, was never fulfilled. Kalisch throws light on this obscure passage. The Lord, he says, was referring not to Abel but to Cain’s secret sin, and the passage should read “And to thee is its desire, but thou shalt rule over it.” Cain then “talked with Abel his brother.” Geseniussupposes that he communicated to him the words of God, and; treats this as the first step towards a reconciliation. However that maybe, we hear nothing more of it, for the very next words relate the murder of the younger brother by the elder. “ And it came to �Cain and Abel. 85 pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose np against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Kalisch This abrupt narrative certainly requires explanatio . seems to think that Cain went about his work after the inter view with God, in a better frame of mind; but whilehe.toiled hard “in the field” he became incensed at the sight ofAbel loafins under a fine umbrageous tree and calmly watching h flock Forgetting the divine admonitions, and listening on y the voice of passion, he madly killed his only brother, and made himself the first murderer. The Talmud gives several legends about the hatred between the two brothers. <One imP"tes ^he ference to Cain’s avarice, another to his ambition, another to his taXtonlne.., and another to hi. envy and jedony ££ -n1int of Ab. l’s wife. The last of all seems the truest, namely, S” they differed - in their view, regarding Provide..., th. moral government of the world, and the efficacy of virtuous deeds for happiness.” This idea informs Byron s tragedy on the subject In “ Cain ” the younger brother’s offering is burnt up with supernatural fire, while the elder’s altar remains unkindled, whereupon Cain inveigh, again,! God’, partiality the bloodv sacrifice which finds greater favor than his own peaeefnl tribute of fruit and flower,. He * scatter the relic, of Abel’s offering from the altar, thwarted bv his brother who resists the sacrilege. Abel is teiiea in the struggle, and Cain, who had no intention of killing him, flnds himself an actual murderer before his brother s corpse.. We are bound to conclude that the first quarrel in the world, like nine-tenths of those that have occurred since, was abouJ-re­ ligion. Cain thought God should be worshipped in one way Abel thought he should be worshipped in another; and they settled the question, after the manner of religious diputants m all ag bv the stronger knocking the weaker on the head. In religion there is no certitude on this side of the grave; if we are> ever destined to know the truth on that subject we must, die to find it out We may therefore argue fruitlessly until the day or judgment. The only effectual way of settling a religious pro­ blem is to settle your opponents. , , , After the murder the Lord paid Cam another visit, and asked him where Abel was. Cain replied that he was not his brother s keeper and didn’t know. He does not appear to have thought Goda particularly well-informed person. Then the Lord s that Abel’s blood cried unto him from the gr<>und; now,” he continued, “ art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother s blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this �86 Cain and Abel. day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every one that fiodeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark on Cain, leBtany finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.” Now let us examine this story. Why was Cain so solicitous about his safety ? Why did he fear that everybody would try to kill him ? He had slain his brother, and his father and mother were the only people in the world besides himself and per­ haps his sisters. Kalisch suggests that he apprehended the future vengeance of mankind when the world grew more populous. But how, in that case, could a distinctive mark be any pro­ tection ? It would publish his identity to all beholders. Be­ sides, one would suppose that Cain, the first man ever born into the world, would always be well known without carrying about a brand like a special wine or a patent edible. And what was the maik ? Kalisch thinks it was only a villainous expression. Others think it was the Mongolian type impressed upon the features of Cain, who became the founder of that great division of the human race. A negro preacher started a different theory. When the Lord called out in a loud voice, “ Cain, where is thy brother Abel,” Cain, who was a black man, like Adam, turned pale with fear, and never regained his original color. All his children were pale too; and that, said the preacher, ‘‘accounts for de white trash you see ebery war in dese days ” How did Cain manage to go “ out from the presence of the Lord,” who is everywhere ? Satan does the same thing in the Book of Job, and Jonah tries to do it later on. Jehovah was clearly a local as well as a visible God, and not the infinite spirit of the universe. Where was the land of Nod situated ? East of Eden, says the Bible. But nobody knows where Eden was. As we pointed out in “The Creation Story,” scores of different positions have been assigned to it. The only yoint of agreement among the commentators is that it was somewhere. All that can safely be affirmed, then, is that Nod was east of Somewhere. The name itself is very appropriate. No douot the Lord was not quite awake in that locality, and hence we may explain how Cain managed to go “ out from his presence.” In this strange land of Nod, Cain “ knew his wife.” Who was she ? Probably his own sister, but the Bible does not tell us anything about her. Their first son was called Enoch. Cain then “ builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” But this is directly opposed to the curse, “ a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” �Cain and Abel. 87 Delitzsch notices this, and, as usual, seeks to explain it away. Cain he says, “ in this way set himself against the divine curse, in order to feel it inwardly so much the more, as outwardly he seems to have overcome it.” To which we reply—first, that there is no evidence that Cain felt the curse “ more inwardly after he built the city ; and, secondly, the idea of a man success­ fully setting himself against an omnipotent curse is a trifle too absurd for credence or criticism. Now Adam and Eve, when Cain fled after the murder of Abel, were left childless, or at least without a Bon. But it was neces­ sary that they should have another, in order that God’s chosen people the Jews, might, be derived from a purer stock than Cain’s.’ Accordingly we read that Adam, in his hundred and thirtieth year, “ begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.” Why was not Cain begotten in the same way? Had he been so, the cradle of the world might not have been defiled with the blood of fratricide. Seth being the image ” of Adam, and Adam “ the image ” of God, Seth and the Almighty were of course very much alike. He was pious, and from him were descended the pious patriarchs, including Noah, from whom was descended Abraham the founder of the Jewish race. God’s chosen people came of a good stock, although they turned out such a bad lot. From Seth to Noah there are ten Patriarchs before the flood. This is clearly mythological. The Hindus believed in ten great saints, the offspring of Manu, and in ten different personifica­ tions ’of Vishnu. The Egyptians had ten mighty heroes, the Chaldeans ten kings before the Flood, the Assyrians ten kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as many from Japhet to Aram; and Plato enumerates ten sons of Neptune, as the rulers of his imaginary Island of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge. Cain’s descendants were of course drowned by the Flood, but they did a great deal more for the world than the descendants of pious Seth, who seems to have done little else than trust in God. The Cainites laid the basis of civilisation. One of them Jabal, founded cattle-keeping; his brother, Jubal, invented musical instruments; and their half-brother Tubal-cain first practised smithery. Seth’s descendants had nothing but piety. Even their morals were no better than those of the Cainites ; for at the Flood only eight of them were found worthy of preserva­ tion, and they were a poor lot. Noah got beastly drunk after the waters subsided, and one of his three sons brought a curse on all his offspring. What then must we think of the rest? Tuch excellently explains the mythological significance of the story of Cain and Abel and Seth. “There lies,” he says, “in this myth the perfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East ancient nations lived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation extended, but at the same time the assertion, �88 Cain and Abel. that these could not prejudice the renown of the WesternAsiatics, since the prerogatives, which their descent from the first-born would secure to them, were done away through God’s Curse, which lighted on their ancestor Cain. Thus the East is cut off from the following history, and the thread fastened on, which carries us on in Genesis, right across through the nations to the only chosen people of Israel.” The entire history of the world before the Flood is dismissed in five chapters, and that from the Flood to Abraham in two more. After that the mighty antique civilisations are never noticed except so far as they affect the history of the Jews. The ages of the Patriarchs also dwindle down from nine centuries in the beginning to almost the normal longevity in the semi-historical period. Could anything more conclusively prove the mythical character of the narrative ? One of the Patriarchs descended from Seth, namely Enoch, which singularly enough is also the name of Cain’s eldest son, never died. We read that “ he was not, for God took him.” It is about time that the Lord took the whole lot out of his Word, and gave us a little ancient Azstory instead. We want a revised Bible in the fullest sense of the word. The old book needs to be completely rewritten. How thankful we should all be if the Lord inspired another “Moses” to rectify the errors and supplement the deficiencies of the first, and to give us scien­ tific truth instead of fanciful myths about the early history of our race ! But the Lord never inspires anybody to do a useful piece of work, and our Darwins will therefore have to go on with their slow and laborious task of making out a history of mankind from the multitudinous and scattered traces that still survive the decay of time. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Progressive Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.G. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—12. L 0 T’S WIFE. By G. W. FOOTE. Lot and his family were a queer lot. Their history is one of the strangest in the whole Bible. They dwelt amongst a people whose debauchery has become a byword, and in a city which has given a name to the vilest of unnatural crimes. Lot, his wife, and their two unmarried daughters, were the only persons preserved from the terrible fate which Jehovah, in one of his periodic fits of anger, inflicted upon the famous Cities of the Plain. They witnessed a signal instance of his ancient method of dealing with his disobedient children. In the New Testa­ ment, God promises the wicked and the unbelievers everlasting fire after they are dead ; in the Old Testament, he drowns them or burns them up in this world. Lot and his family saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven and they, four persons in all, just half the number that survived the Flood a few centuries before, were the only ones that escaped. God specially spared them. Yet Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back as she fled from the doomed city, and the old man himself soon after got drunk and committed incest with his daughters. From this crime sprang Moab and Ammon, the founders of two nations who became for many centuries the most implacable enemies of God’s chosen people. Why did the Lord spare these four persons? Why did he not profit by the lesson of the Flood? The eight persons rescued from drowning in that great catastrophe were infected with original sin, and the consequence was that the world peopled from their stock was a great deal worse than the ante­ diluvian world. It would clearly have been better to destroy all and start absolutely afresh. The eight rescued persons were apparently just as bad as those who were drowned. So with the four persons spared at the destruction of Sodom. The people of that city could hardly have been much worse than Lot and his children. The Lord appears to have been as stupid in his mercy as he was brutal in his wrath. Lot was Abraham's nephew, and evidently came of a bad stock. The uncle’s evil career will be sketched in our series of “Bible Heroes.” For the present we content ourselves with the remark that no good could reasonably be expected from such a family. Lot’s father was Haran, a son of Terah, and brother to Abraham. He “ died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.” A city was called by his name in the land �90 Lot's Wife. of Canaan, and Terah and the family dwelt there after they left Ur, until the patriarch died and Abraham was called out from his kindred to found a new house. The “father of the faithful ” took his orphaned nephew with him. Lot accompanied his uncle on the journey to Egypt, where Abraham passed his ■wife off as his sister, and showed his natural bent by lying right and left. Soon afterwards we learn that Abraham and Lot had grown very rich, the former “in cattle, in silver, and in gold,” and the ■latter in “ flocks, and herds, and tents.” Indeed “ their sub­ stance was so great that they could not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle, and the herd­ men of Lot’s cattle.” Whereupon Abraham said, “ Don’t let us quarrel within the family, but let us part. You can go where you like. If you go to the right I’ll go to the left, and if you go to the left I ll go to the right.” It was necessary to separate Lot from the fortunes of Abraham, in order that God’s dealings with the latter might be uninterrupted and his family kept distinct; and so the Hebrew chronicler very naturally separates them here, in a manner which reflects great credit on Abraham, and exhibits him in a most amiable light. Cunning Lot took full advantage of the offer. He “lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, even as the garden of the Lord.” So they parted, and Lot “pitched his tent towards Sodom,” whose inhabitants, says our naive story, “were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Commentators explain that Lot’s approach to such a detestable sink of iniquity indicated the native corruption of his heart, or at least a sad lack of horror at the sins which made the place stink in the nostrils of God. In the next chapter we find Lot living in Sodom, although we are not told when he moved there. Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal “king of nations,” made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the “king of Bela, which is Zoar.” A great battle was fought in the vale of Siddira, which is alleged to be now covered by the Dead Sea. The four kings were victorious over the five. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and the victors spoiled their cities, taking with them many captives, among whom was “Lot, Abram’s brother’s son.” How Abraham went out with a handful of men, defeated the triumphant forces of the allied kings, and rescued his nephew, is a pretty little story which we reserve for our fife of that patriarch. All the other captives were rescued also, and Lot, returning with his friends, continued to dwell in Sodom as before. We hear no more of him for a considerable time. During the interval Abraham has a child by Hagar. Ishmael, with the rest of the patriarch’s household, is circumcised. And finally the Lord visits Abraham again to tell him that, notwithstanding their �Lot’s Wife- 91 advanced ages, he and Sarah shall yet have a son. What hapnaned during the interview properly belongs to the hie of Abraham, but we shall here consider so much of it as relates to ^The^Lord °compiained that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “very grievous,” and said that the great cry of it had Reached him in heaven. Being much concerned about the r “ o-oino-s on,” he had resolved to drop down and see for h™self if they°were really as bad as he suspected. “ If not, said he, «I will know.” In the Old Testament, God, who knows every­ thing', is always seeking information. Abraham surmised that the Lord meant to play the devd with the Sodomites, and he was anxious about Lot who dwelt with them. So he began a parley. “Now, my Lord, said Abraham “vou surely don’t mean to destroy indiscriminately; you, the judge of all the earth, must act on the square. Suppose there are fifty righteous men in Sodom, won’t you, just for their sake snare the place?” Knowing that there were nothing like fifty righteous men in Sodom, the Lord promptly acceded to Abraham s reouest • so promptly indeed that Abraham smelt a rat, and SeSkel to drive a^loser bargain So he asked the Lord to knock off five. “Very well,” was the reply, “ if I find fortyfive righteous men I’ll spare the city.” Abraham was still suspicious. He knew that Jehovah loved a bit of destruction and was not easily moved when he had once made up hiss mind, to indulge himself. So he returned to the charge. I beg pardon,” said he, “for troubling you so but dojou mmd knocking off another ten, and rnakir-,; thirty of it? Not at all,” answered the Lord, “ we’ll say thirty. Abraham felt there was something wrong. This amiable readiness o o' thoroughly perplexed him. If the Lord had hagg e ov thirty, he would have known that there was about that number of righteous men in the place; but in the actual condition of affairs, he felt that he had considerably overshot the mark. The game was very dangerous, but he decided to renew it My Lord,” he began, “I’m a dreadful bore, but Im not quite satis­ fied with our contract and should like to re-open it. I don t wish to be importunate, but you will knock off another ten . “With all my heart,” replied the Lord, “well say twenty. Still dissatisfied, Abraham resolved on a final effort. “My good Lord,” said he, “ this is really the last time of asking. I promise to bother you no more. Will you knock off another ten. “All right,” was the reply, “anything to oblige. Well say ten altogether. If there are so many righteous men in Sodom 1 u spare it. Good afternoon, Abraham, good afternoon. An the Lord was off. ' Abraham ruefully watched the retreating figure, perfectly assured that the Lord had got the best of thebargain, and that he himself had been duped, worsted, and befooled. „ , , , , . God did not go to Sodom himself, but sent two angels to- �92 Lot's Wife. inspect it. They reached its gate in the evening, and found Lot sitting there. In eastern towns the places before the gate are the appointed localities for meetings ; and in ancient times they were used for still more extensive purposes. There the judge pronounced his decisions, and even kings held there occasionally their courts of justice; there buying and selling went on; the people assembled there to see each other and hear the news; and almost all public affairs were transacted there, from religious worship to the smallest details of civil life. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lot should be sitting in the gate when the two strangers arrived at the city. Some commentators have even conjectured that he went out to meet them; but others object that this is contradictory to the narrative, which does not exhibit Lot as recognising the angels, and that it implies “too ideal a notion of his virtue.” Some have supposed that Lot had attained to the dignity of a judge, and that he was sitting to act in that capacity on this occasion; but later circumstances refute this supposition; for, in the quarrel which ensued, the people of Sodom reproached him as “ a stranger ” who set himself up as a judge of their conduct. Lot advanced to the strangers, greeted them with a profound bow, addressed them as “my lords,” and asked them to stay over night at his house, where he would wash their feet, give them something to eat, and find them a bed. They declined his frank hospitality, and said they meant to pass the night in the streets. Kalisch observes, as though he knew all about their motives, that “it was their intention to try his character, and to give him an opportunely of showing whether his generosity was merely a momentary emotion, or had become a settled feature in his character.” He also dismisses the idea that they wished to remain in the streets or to study “ the moral state of the Sodomites,” as they required no such knowledge, for “they were not only the angels of God, but God himself acted in them.” But Kalisch should bear in mind that God told Abraham he was going on purpose to “ see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it and that, as the angels could not know more than God, it was after all necessary that they should make inquiries. Lot, however, “ pressed upon them greatly,” and at last they entered his house. Hethen “made them a. feastf which seems to have consisted of nothing but unleavened bread. Perhaps the angels, who had dined heavily with Abraham on veal, butter, and milk, were afraid of bad dreams, and only wanted a light supper before going to roost. They were, not however, destined to enjoy a good night’s sleep. Before they “lay down,” the men of Sodom “compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” �Lot's Wife. 93 *"£rty lonM two strangers ? The°story Y^ neighbors F0T XTto the nineteenth chapter of Judges, where the men we must go to the nine r men q£ Sodom clamor for of Gibeah clamor for the Le offers them instead his own XtXYneTto X The man’s right of possession gave it all its importance worth he rebuked Lot went out and shut t wickedly,” and immediately his neighbors for desiring y thought perfectly made them an offer which he seems to n daughters ^KbX^Xn^^.^ 8tbem- of my roof." Th? laws of hosptohty area^ * WeSmOmOTentcnred law Instead of strenuously opposing the committal of one crime, heproposes ^ther ^ hemous & The Sodomites scorned his otter. ±ney v massssgs called hi strangers, and on+nallv nressed so sore upon him that with the actually pressea s r they “ came near to break tk<? ,00J’’. wer. They “ put forth thXhSXa^dpunedL^ te ho°iw 4S?bKneSJ both' small and^eat^so that they wearied themselves to find the.door it £aligch XUSep^l"iX by ititut&g “blind eon- fUTre’Xls““tod to act promptly. Ttey- informed Lot +n his “sons-in-law, which married his daughters, Lot spoke to ms sons m m , Early in the morning ltagered- They laid h01d t �94 Lot's Wife. of his hand, his wife’s, and his two unmarried daughters’, led' them outside the city, and said, “ Escape now for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape tothe mountains lest thou be consumed.” Lot did not relish this prospect of a hard climb. He therefore asked the angels to let him flee unto the city of Zoar, because it was near and “a littleone.” That is what the servant girl said to her mistress when she confessed to an illegitimate child, “ please’m, it’s only a very little one.” She thought that a small illegitimate baby wasn’t as bad as a big illegitimate baby, and Lot thought that a little wicked city wasn’t as bad as a big wicked city. Lot’s request was granted, and he was told to look sharp. He­ inade good speed, and reached Zoar when “the sun was risen.” “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven ; and he over­ threw those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.” It is a mistake to suppose that brimstone and fire are characteristic of hell, for the Lord evidently keeps a large stock of those commoditiesin heaven. Nor must it be supposed that Lot was spared be­ cause he was righteous. He was spared because the Lord “ was merciful unto him.” His virtues, Kalisch remarks, were not sufficient for his salvation, which he owed to “the piety of Abraham.” Abraham may have had “piety” enough to save a Lot, but he had scarcely “ virtue ” enough to save a mouse. Kalisch says that “ about the situation of Zoar there remains­ littie doubt.” He identifies it with “the considerable ruins found in Wady Kerek, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea.” But he has no such assurance as to the situation of Sodom. Hedeprecates De Saulcy’s assumption, that Sodom is traceable in the heap of stones found near the Salt Mountain, Udsum; and adds—“We may hope rather than expect, that authentic ruins of the four destroyed towns will ever be discovered. Biblical historians and prophets already speak of them as localities utterly and tracelessly swept away; and the remark of Josephus, that ‘ shadows ’ of them still existed in his time, is vague and doubtful.” In the South of Palestine there is an extraordinary lake of mysterious origin. It is about thirty-nine miles long, and from eight to twelve miles broad. It is fed by the river Jordan, and drained by the evaporation due to a fierce and terrible sun. Its water is clear and inodorous, but nauseous like a solution of alum; it causes painful itching and even ulceration on the lips, and if brought near a wound, or any diseased part, produces a most excruciating sensation. It contains hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, and one-fourth of its weight is salt. No fishes live in it; and according to tradition, which however is not true, birds that happen to fly over its surface die. Near it is said to grow the Apple of Sodom, beautiful in appearance, but containing only ashes. This lake is appropriately called the Dead Sea. �Lot’s Wife. 95 The natives say that at low water they glimpse fragments of 'buildings and pillars rising out of the bottom of the lake. But -this is only a fancy. Yet beneath the waters of the Dead Sea are thought to lie the Cities of the Plain. The northern part of the lake is very deep, the southern part very shallow. The bottom consists of two separate plains, one elevated, the other depressed. The latter is by some held to be the original bottom of the lake, and the former to have been caused by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But this also is only a fancy. The bitumen, which is found in such large quantities in and near the lake, is a symptom and remnant of the volcanic nature of the region. . Several lines of earthquake are traced from it in a north-eastern direction; and it is conjectured that the three lakes, Merom, Tiberias, and Asphaltites, together with the river Jordan, are the remaining traces of the huge gulf once filled by the Dead Sea before the land was lifted by a geological catastrophe. Volcanic action has caused all the remarkable phsenomena of the district, which was of immemorial antiquity thousands of years ago; and the story of the Cities of the Plain is only one of the legends which ancient peoples associated with every striking aspect of nature. Let us recur to Lot. His sons, his married daughters, and their husbands, perished in the deluge of brimstome and fire. He and his two unmarried daughters fled to Zoar as fast as their legs could carry them. But his wife was less fortunate. She ran behind Lot, and with the natural curiosity of her sex she looked back on the doomed city. For this violation of the angels’ orders she was turned into “a pillar of salt.” Some -commentators try to blink this unpleasant fact by artful transla­ tions ; such as “ she fell into a salt-brook,” or “ she was covered with a salt crust,” or she was “ like a pillar of salt.” Josephus pretended to have seen this old woman of salt, but others have been less lucky, although many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as for a sacred relic. But let us not despair Lot’s wife may yet be discovered and exhibited in the British Museum. What became of Lot and his daughters? Fearing to dwell in Zoar, they left it and “ dwelt in a cave.” The damsels, who had heard their father offer them to the promiscuous embrace of a lustful crowd, could not be expected to be very scrupulous in their conduct. They were alone, without husbands to make them mothers, and to be childless was a calamity and a reproach; so they put their heads together and devised a nasty scheme. Two nights successively they made their father blind drunk, and got him to commit incest with them. This is very beastly and very absurd. Lot was old; he was so drunk that he knew nothing of what happened; yet he got two virgins with child 1 The porter in “ Macbeth ” would have laughed at such a ridiculous .story. These improper females were by no means ashamed of their �96 Lot’s Wife. action ; on the contrary, they boasted of their bastards; and the historian does not utter a word in condemnation of their crime. Lot was the father of his own grandchildren; his daughters were the mothers of their own brothers ; and his other children were destroyed by heavenly brimstone and fire.- Were they not, as we said at the outset, a queer lot? But the queerest lot was Lot’s wife. Whatever may be said of the rest of the family, no one can say that she was not worth her salt, for the Lord thought she was worth enough to make a pillar. Let us hope that the old lady will some day be discovered, and that her pillar of salt may yet, to the confusion of sceptics, stand as a veritable pillar in the house of God, and there defy the attacks of all the infidel Samsons, world without end. Amen. PRICE ONE PENNY. Freethought Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �national secular society BIBLE ROMANCES. BY G. W. FOOTE. [SECOND SERIES.'] Price Ninepence. ----------- -♦>------------ LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1885. �mmi �BIBLE ROMANCES—XIII. DANIEL AND THE LIONS. By G. W. FOOTE. Daniel is a very important character in the Bible. He plays the chief part among the Jews during the Babylonish captivity. His history perhaps is not very instructive, but it is certainly enter­ taining. As for “ The Book of Daniel,” it has beer the cause of much waste of learning and good paper. Nearly all the prophe­ tical rubbish ever written has been based upon it. It evidently inspired the book of “ Revelation,” and is thus responsible for most of the works on that puzzling subject which “either finds a man cracked or leaves him so.” Daniel was one of the children brought away from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. The mighty king meant to have these Jew boys well fed and well taught, so that at the end of three years they might “ stand before him. Daniel received the new name of Belteshazzar, but as that is a huge mouthful we shall drop it, and call him by his original name. Three other lads of the same tribe of Judah were his companions. They are better known by their Chaldean names—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. As they grew up all four proved un­ common men. Daniel could not be eaten by lions, and the others were incombustible. Nebuchadnezzar ordered them meat and wine, but they would not “ defile ” themselves with these, as they were vegetarians and teetotallers. By special favor of the prince of the eunuchs, they were allowed to live on pulse and water, which made them fat and fair. Daniel, however, appears to have relinquished his dietary principles in after years, for we find him saying that when he “ mourned three full weeks ” in the reign of Cyrus, he “ ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth.” Pro­ bably his stomach and his mind were carnal together, and he only recurred to vegetarianism in his fits of piety. The four children became skilful and learned and wise. Daniel in particular “had understanding in all visions and dreams.” That is, he told people what was in their heads better than they knew it themselves, and explained the meaning of all the curious ideas that haunted their skulls at night. No doubt he could pre­ dict what would happen if a man dreamt about a dog, an old lady about a cat, or a young one about a mouse. Probably he �98 Daniel and the Lions. edited an astrologer’s almanack, or a “ Book of Fate,” a copy of which may yet be brought to light. Daniel was the most know­ ing Jew, but his three friends also were excellent, and the king “ found them ten times better than all the magicians and astro­ logers that were in all his realm.” We shall presently give a specimen of Daniel’s skill in that line, but before doing so, we mean to go to the “apocryphal ” “ History of Susanna,” which Protestantism has wrested from the beginning of the “ Book of Daniel.” In the course of this Romance we shall refer to two other “apocryphal” books— “ Bel and the Dragon ” and the “ Song of the Three Holy Chil­ dren,” which are quite as good history Daniel, and much better fun. In the “ History of Susanna ” Daniel is described as “ a young youth,” but he turns out an “ old file.” What “ a young youth” exactly means we are unable to say. It cannot mean a person “ born young,” for Daniel seems to have come into the world with his wisdom teeth already cut. Yet it must mean something. We shall strenuously and earnestly pray for enlightenment on this point, so that in our next edition we may be able to give the precise character of “a young youth.” We may also be able to state how the young may become youths, and how youths may become young. Daniel the “young youth,” to use Shakespeare’s words, “ came to judgment.” Two elders lusted after Susanna, the wife of Joacim, “ a very fair woman and one that feared the Lord.” They secreted themselves in the garden, rushed out upon her when she was alone in her bath, and threatened that if she did not yield to their desires they would declare that they had detected her in an intrigue with a young man. But her virtue was impregnable to their seductions. That scamp, Lord Byron, says of sweet Donna Julia : Wedded she was some years, and to a man Of fifty, and such husbands are in plenty ; And yet, I think, instead of such a one ’Twere better to have two of five-and-twenty. How shocking ! But there is perhaps some truth in the French wit’s remark that Susanna’s virtue might have run more risk from one young man than two old ones. These disreputable elders were as bad as their word. They lied about poor Susanna, and being pious they were of course believed. She was condemned to death. But just at the critical moment young Daniel intervened. Taking the elders separately, he asked each under what tree he saw the paramours “ companying together.” One said a mastick tree, and the other an holm. This discrepancy convinced everybody of their falsehood, and they were put to death instead of poor Susanna. “ From �Daniel and the Lions. 99 that clay forth,” says the story, “ Daniel was had in great repu­ tation in the sight of the people.” If so, he earned it very cheaply. The two elders must have been fools as great as they were rogues if they could not rebut his little argument. There was really nothing in it. They might have answered that a difference on such a minor point did not vitiate their testimony as to the main facts. The Jews were thankful for very small mercies in the shape of wisdom, and anybody with half a head could get a big reputation in those days. Nebuchadnezzar “ dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” Perhaps the poor monarch was overburdened with the cares of empire. Perhaps he drank bad wine or ate pork for supper. This happened “ in the second year of his reign.” But there is clearly a mistake in the date; for Daniel and his friends had been fed and taught by his orders for three years before he “ communed with them,” and these bad dreams plagued him after that. This, however, is a mere nicety of criticism. No pious mind will stumble over such a trifling difficulty. Nebuchadnezzar called in all the magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers, and bade them explain his dream. They answered, “Tell us the dream, and we will interpret it.” “Nay,” he rejoined, “ I can’t do that, the thing is gone from me ; you must interpret the dream, and find it out too. If you succeed I’ll reward you handsomely, but if you fail I’ll just cut you into mince-meat. The trembling wizards protested that this was absurd, and that no king had ever asked the like before. “So much the worse for you,” roared Nebuchadnezzar; “ what use are you if you can’t do this ? Don’t I clothe you, house you, and feed you on the fat of the land? You know I do; and I tell you plainly I want something for my money. If you can read the future, you can also read the past. So just tell me my dream straight, or I’ll hang you all as a set of liars and thieves.” Here was a pretty pass I Those “ wise men ” were flummuxed. Whichever way they turned the prospect was black with des­ pair. Wise men ! They were great simpletons. As the king had forgotten his dream, why did they not invent one, and unanimously swear that was it? Our modern wizards would have obliged him, and saved their own bacon, in less than five minutes. Nebuchadnezzar grew furious and ordered all the “ wise men ” to be slain. Daniel and his friends were among the crew. But before the royal decree could be executed the four young Jews put their heads together, and the “ young youth” went to the king and told him his dream and its interpretation. The Lord God of Israel helped him at the pinch, and revealed to him what all the gods of Babylon could not or would not reveal to the other mystery-men. Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and �100 Daniel and the Lions. worshipped Daniel; told him that his God was a God of gods, yards taller than all the rest; gave him many great gifts, and made him “ ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men.” “Good!” thought Daniel, “ this business pays.” Neither were his three friends neglected; they were “set over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was about a great image, and soon afterwards he tried to realise it. He made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits broad, and set it up in the plain of Dura. But this colossus could not have been solid gold. We have no doubt it was a gilded affair, like the statue of Prince Albert in Kensington Gardens, which we owe to the wifely affection and exquisite taste of our noble queen; all glitter and dazzle outside and worthless within, after the fashion of most monarchs in this priest-ridden and king-deluded world. Having set up his big toy, Nebuchadnezzar gave a monster concert, and invited all the nobs and swells. All the various peoples of Babylon—natives, immigrants and captives—flocked out to see the show; and at the herald’s proclamation, every­ body fell down and “ worshipped the golden image.” Nebuchadnezzar was delighted. He was not only a great king but he had actually made a god. Yet his pleasure was soon damped by “ certain Chaldeans ” who came and informed him that three scurvy Jews—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego— would neither serve his gods nor worship his image. Full of rage and fury, he had the trio brought before him, and told them that if they would not serve “ his gods ” and worship “ his image” he would roast them alive. “ And,” said he, “I should just like to see the God that will deliver you out of my hands.” They replied that they had a God of their own, a iirst-class Jewish God, warranted sound in every respect, and they meant to stick to him. “ Very well,” said he, “ then into the oven you go.” What silliness! Only a short time before the king praised Daniel’s God as the mightiest and the best, and now he con­ demns three Jews for worshipping him! Either Nebuchad­ nezzar or the scribe who wrote this romance must have had a very short memory. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were bound in full dress, and flung into a “ burning fiery furnace ” made seven times hotter than usual. According to the “ Song of the Three Children,” rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood were used as fuel; and the flames streamed forth forty-nine cubits so that lots of the Chaldeans were burnt. Our “Book of Daniel” says that “ the flame slew those men who took up ” the three Jews. But to the intended victims it was rare fun. They were incombustible and fireproof. Flames had no terror for them. Even in Hell �Daniel and the Lions. 101 they would just have gone up and warmed their hands at the fireplace. The Apocryphal book states that the angel of the Lord came •down to keep them company, and blew the flames away with “ a moist whistling wind ; ” and they all four sang a song of praise to God forty-one verses in length. Nebuchadnezzar was astonished. He had cast in three men bound, and lo! four walked about loose, the last being “ like the son of God.” He shouted to them to come forth, and it was found that not a hair of their heads nor a thread of their clothes was singed. Then Nebuchadnezzar said “ blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego ; there’s no God like him; and if any persons speak amiss against him I’ll cut them in pieces and make their houses a dunghill.” It will thus be seen that belief in the Jew ■God did not tame the king’s ferocity nor make him tolerant. Belief in the Jew God never had that effect on anybody, and never will. Nebuchadnezzar the king, whose wits appear to have been disposed to wool-gathering, dreamed again. He assembled once more the magicians, the astrologers and the soothsayers; but although this time he told them his dream, they could not interpret it. Why did he not send straight for Daniel ? Because the man who wrote this story was a Jew, and his object was to show how the Lord’s prophet could succeed after all the “wise men ” of Babylon had failed. “But at the last,” of course, “Daniel came in,” and he ex­ plained the king’s dream. The idea that a dream was not prophetic never crossed their minds. God’s servants, like their superstitious neighbors, never doubted that the future lay folded up in night-visions. The only thing doubtful was how to interpret them. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was that he should be driven from men and dwell with the beasts of the field, eating grass with them, until he recognised and humbled him­ self before the most High. And all this came to pass. At the end of twelve months, as the king gloried in his greatness, a voice from heaven announced that his kingdom had departed from him ; and the same hour “he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.” Now we take it that poor Nebuchadnezzar simply went mad, and wandered about like other oriental lunatics, playing all sorts of pranks. This view is borne out by his own statement soon after—“ Mine understanding returned unto me.” He was crazed like our George III.; and the Jews, when they returned from captivity in Babylon, made out that their God turned him loose as a punishment for his pride. �102 Daniel and the Lions. Nebuchadnezzar recovered and died in the purple. He was succeeded by Belshazzar, who also brought misery on himself by insulting the Jew God. One night, at a great feast which he gave to a thousand of his lords, he ordered out the golden and silver vessels that his father had taken from the temple in Jeru­ salem. This awful sacrilege was swiftly punished. A super­ natural hand wrote on the wall of the banquet chamber the mystic words—Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Dreadfully alarmed, the king called for the “wise men” to explain the writing, but they could not understand it. Of course not; else what was the use of the great Jewish wizard ? Daniel solved the riddle. His explanation was not flattering to Belshazzar. It was that he had been weighed and found wanting, and that God had given his kingdom to the Medes and Persians. And “in that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom.” What a wonderful prophecy!' But it appears very simple when we know that it came after the event. The “Book of Daniel ” was concocted by Jewish scribes at a much later period, in order to glorify themselves at the expense of their old captors, and to exalt the majesty of theirown God. Change of empire did not affect Daniel. He might have sung “For kings may come and kings may go But I go on for ever.” Darius set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes, and over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first. This pre­ ference rankled in their hearts, and they resolved to “burke ’’him by some means. Accordingly they devised a nice little scheme to ruin him. But they reckoned without their host, or rather with­ out the Lord of hosts. They got the king to sign a decree, “ according to the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not,” that whoevershould ask a petition of any god or man, save of the king, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions. Then they went and caught Daniel on his marrow-bones supplicating his god, and reported it to the king, at the same time demandingthat he should be lawfully punished. Darius was sore dis­ pleased ; he was fond of Daniel; and he labored to save him until sunset. But his efforts were all in vain. Like Shylock, the statesman of Babylon “stood for law” and would have it~ So .Daniel was cast into the den of lions. Poor Daniel I But wait awhile. Heroes don’t die in that fashion. While Daniel and the lions are settling matters, let us statethat the apocryphal “ History of Bel and the Dragon” gives a different account of the enmity of these Chaldeans. Daniel, it appears, had played the devil with their god Bel and his priests. Bel the idol had “spent upon him every day twelve great' �Daniel and the Lions. 103 measures of fine flour, and forty sheep, and six vessels of wine.’' The king (who is Cyrus here) one day asked Daniel why he did not worship Bel, who was a living god, for see. said the king, “ how much he eateth and drinketh every day.” Daniel answered that the provisions were really consumed by the seventy priests and their families. Then the king determined to test the question. The meat and wine were set in the temple and the door was sealed. But the priests had “ a privy entrance ” under the table, and they laughed to themselves. Daniel, however, soon made them laugh on the other side ot their mouths; for he strewed ashes over the floor, and in the morning the footsteps of men, women, and children betrayed the fraud. The king slew the priests, and Daniel demolished Bel and his temple. That was bad enough. But Daniel did still worse. He under­ took to slay without sword or staff a great dragon which the Babylonians worshipped. Taking pitch and fat and hair he “did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof; this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder ”—we sup­ pose with disappointment and spite. This was more than the Babylonians could stand. They told the king he was become a Jew, and threatened to destroy him and his house if he did not hand Daniel over. The king, being afraid, let them have their way; and they “ cast him into the lion’s den, where he was six days.” During all that time, the lions were starved in order that they might devour the meddlesome Jew. But if the lions starved, Daniel didn’t. There was a prophet in Jewry, called Habbacuc, who was carrying some pottage out to his reapers in the field, when an angel of the Lord appeared and told him to take it to Babylon and give it to Daniel. “ Baby­ lon ! ” said Habbacuc, “ I never saw it, and I don’t know where the den is.” Whereupon the angel caught him by the hair and sailed off with him to Babylon. What a comfortable way to travel! We should just like to see some modern prophet, say Mr. Spurgeon, do a thousand miles in that style. • What would the angel have done if Habbacuc had been bald ? And how did the half-scalped prophet get the pottage into the den ? If the lions respected Daniel, they might show him less courtesy; and while Daniel was dining off the pottage they might dine off Habbacuc. However, it was done, and Daniel cleaned out the bowl. Then the angel lugged Habbacuc back to Jewry, no doubt clasping the bowl, which was very likely used afterwards for col­ lections instead of Habbacuc’s hat. “ Bel and the Dragon ” says that the king came on the seventh day to bewail Daniel, and found him still alive and flourishing. But our Bible says that he went the very next morning. The Lord had saved him by shutting the lions’ mouths; not with good meat, but with lockjaw. These poor animals were the real victims. Imagine their disgust when they prowled around the �104 Daniel and the Lions. nice well-fed prophet and couldn’t open their teeth for a bite I Daniel was fished or forked out; and as the king thought the lions wanted feeding, he threw in Daniel’s accusers. Perhaps they deserved it, but their wives and children were thrown in too ; and, although Daniel was such a pious fellow, he never observed anything improper in this treatment of innocent people. To finish the pretty drama, the king “ wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth (what a stretch 1) commanding them to “ tremble and fear before the God. of Daniel,” as though he ran a god of his own. Neither God’s prophets nor heathen kings ever thought the people had any rights. They just ordered them about like dogs, one day com­ manding them to worship this god, and the next day another,, until the people didn’t care a cent which it was. After these adventures, Daniel, who was so good at interpret­ ing dreams, took to dreaming himself. “ The visions of my head,” he says, “ troubled me.” The fact is he was old and in his dotage, like nearly all the learned divines who have wasted their time over his fancies. Once he “ fainted and was sick cer­ tain days.” Another time he was in a deep sleep on his face, and a mysterious hand plucked him up and set him on all-fours. He was evidently graduating fast for a lunatic asylum, and we have no doubt that he died as insane as any prophet could wish to be. What became of his incombustible friends we are not told, so all are free to guess, for our part, we believe they went into the stoking business down below, as they were well able to stand the heat; and if any Christian denies this we defy him to disprove it. Here endeth the true story of Daniel and the Lions. Let us pray ! PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY BIBLE ROMANCES.—XIV. THE JEW JUDGES. By G. W. FOOTE. ---------------- The Jews were never a happy family. They were nearly always fighting other people or each other. Whenever their chroniclers say “ there was peace in the land ” for a few years, they seem to regard it as an extraordinary occurrence. But the Lord is largely to blame for this. He selected the Jews from among all the peoples of the world, and had extensive and almost exclusive dealings with them. Yet he never managed to civilise them, although he could easily have done so ; for the power which produced the universe out of nothing was surely capable of reforming a few of the inhabitants of this little world. The natural consequence of this neglect was that when the Lord sent them his only begotten and dearly beloved son, they crucified him right away. After the death of that wonderful fighting-cock, Joshua, the chosen people forsook the Lord and worshipped other gods. They knew that he was very jealous, and that he was able to torture and kill them if he liked, yet they were utterly careless whether they pleased him or not. The Bible explains this by saying that they were stubborn and stiff-necked. That is, they were jackasses, who might have taken lessons in sensible be­ havior from Balaam’s “moke.” Why then did not the Lord choose a wiser nation ? The Jews “ forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ash taroth.” Baal was identical with Bel of the Babylonians and with Moloch, although in the course of time he improved and became, as Soury says, “ no longer the god of destruction and death in nature, but the father of life, the supreme dispenser of light and heat, the principle and cause of the renewing which yearly clothes the earth with luxuriant vegetation.” This Baal is evidently the sun. Ashtaroth was the feminine deity, better known as Astarte. She was the goddess of voluptuousness and fecundity, as Baal was of virility and strength. Their worship included the most incredible lasciviousness, and it is not wonder­ ful that an amorous people like the Jews should turn their backs on the stern Iahveh, and court the softer deities of Syria. Their bacchic strains at midnight in the sacred groves were better than the horrid skrieks of human sacrifice, and the fever of lust was less awful than the rage of murder. �106 The Jew Judges. But if the Lord thought otherwise, why did he not take pre­ cautions against their natural tendency? He clearly foresaw all the mischief, for he purposely left in the promised lancl “ five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in Mount Lebanon in order that his chosen people might in the first place be tempted, and in the second place be punished when they went astray. These were left “to prove Israel, whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord,” as well as “to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof.’’ 'Ihis strikes the carnal mind as simply infamous. Why did not the Lord give them entire possession, so that they might have lived in peace with their neighbors, and in pious obedience to him ? The only answer is that he loved war and bloodshed, and looked forward to plenty of fine sport in that line. The children of Israel, we are told, intermarried with the •Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. This displeased the Lord. He wanted to keep a pure stock, like a good breeder. He knew that crossing would make them too human for his purpose. He objected to the spoiling of Abra­ ham’s blood, which, like that of Pope’s hero, “had rolled through rascals ever since the flood.” But Israel did still worse. They “ served Baalim and the groves.” This was an unpardonable sin. The Lord hated com­ petition. He knew there was little chance for him in the open god-market, where people paid their money and took their choice, and he was resolved to retain the Jews by hook or by crook so that he might boast of having a people of his own. He had brought them out of Egypt with a high hand, had helped them to overcome all their enemies, had worked any number of miracles for them, and had actually sent them down vast •quantities of “ angels’ food” from his celestial larder. And now they disowned him altogether. What god could be expected to stand such scurvy treatment? So “ the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia; and the children of Israel served Chushan-rishathaim eight years.” What a neat phrase I The Lord sold them. That does not mean that he took money from the king of Mesopotamia and handed them over like a flock of sheep at so much a head. It means that the Lord, who had promised to preserve them a mighty nation, and to let them live for ever on the fat of the land, allowed the foreigner to oppress them and make them half-starved slaves ; thus selling them meanly and detestably, as the gods always have sold those who were weak and foolish enough to trust them. After eight years of bondage, the Jews were delivered by �The Jew Judges. 107 Othniel, the son of Kenaz, •whom the Lord “raised up” for the purpose. The spirit of the. Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel, and the land had rest forty years. But the good men of Israel went wrong again after his death, and the Lord “ strengthened Eglon the king of Moab ” against them. He “ went and smote Israel, and possessed himself of the city of palm trees ” devoted to the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth. And the unfortunate Jews served him eighteen years. In their distress they cried unto the Lord, who heard their prayers, and raised them up another deliverer in “ Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man left handed.” Ehud was left handed in more senses than one. He “ delivered ” Israel by assassina­ tion. After preparing a big two-edged dagger, which he con­ cealed under his clothes, he paid a visit to the king. Under pretence of offering a present, and of having some secret news to communicate, he obtained a private interview, and stabbed poor Eglon, who was a very fat man, in the stomach, so that the dagger stopped in and his bowels came out. This little perform­ ance being safely completed, Ehud made off. He then gathered the Israelites together and fell on the soldiers of Moab, all of whom were put to death. They were ten thousand in all, and “ not a man escaped.” What a pretty story 1 Ten thousand Moabitish soldiers had sufficed to keep in subjection for eighteen years a people number­ ing more than three millions and with at least six hundred thou­ sand men of arms I It could not be done even now when trained soldiers with rifles have such immense advantage over undisci­ plined and ill-armed multitudes; and how much less could it have been done when the weapons and methods of warfare were rude, when men fought mostly hand to hand, and one man was just as good as another. Ehud assassinated Eglon for ruling over the Jews, and as the Lord raised him up “ a deliverer,” while the narrative seems to approve his conduct, we must conclude that in those days the Lord sanctioned such an act. Assassination of obstructive monarchs is, therefore, according to Scripture, a virtuous deed. How do the clergy reconcile this with their talk about Freethought brandishing the regicidal steel? After the disembowelling of poor fat-bellied Eglon “theland had rest fourscore years.” So the third chapter of Judges should have ended. But some later Jewish scribe has tacked on another verse about “ Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad.” Like the peace of God, this passes all understanding. The Philistines must have taken a long time to kill, unless they stood in single file for the J ewish warrior to spear them one by one. Shagmar was a tough fellow, his ox goad was tough, the whole story is tough, and it requires a very tough throat to swallow it. �108 The Jew Judges. After the death of Ehud “the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord,” who once more “ sold them ” to Jabin, King of Canaan. This monarch “mightily oppressed them,” for he had nine hundred chariots of iron. How many soldiers he had we are not told. But unless they were a vast host, it is difficult to understand how he could mightily oppress a nation as populous as Scotland is now, and nearly as populous as England was in the reign of Elizabeth. Our surprise at Jabin’s mighty oppression of Israel is increased when we read that his iron chariots, his army, and his great captain Sisera, were all overcome by Barak and ten thousand Jews! It was a woman that stirred Israel up to fight. She was called Deborah. Her husband was one Lapidoth. No doubt he was merely a necessary appendage to his wife who ruled the roost. Deborah was a prophetess, and she “judged Israel at that time.” She “ dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in Mount Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” This is very significant. Deborah was clearly a Sibyl, who told fortunes and revealed the secrets of futurity. People who practise that business now are sent to jail, but in ancient times they were honored and trusted. This Jewish prophetess uttered her oracles under a palm-tree, the reason being that groves were dedicated to religious worship, and the rustling of tree-tops was deemed the whispered revela­ tions of divinity. There can be little douht that Deborah kept a sacred grove, and that her oracles were nothing but wind. At her instigation Barak, the son of Abinoam, collected ten thousand men to fight Jabin; and Sisera gathered together all his iron chariots and all his warriors to put down the impudent rebel. But the Lord fought for Israel, as Pan fought for the Greeks at Marathon, and the result was that the Canaanites were utterly discomfited. Every man of them fell under the swords of the Jews, except Sisera himself, who alighted from his chariot and fled. There was a Kenite called Heber, of the children of Hohab the father-in-law of Moses, who had a wife named Jael. This woman was a crafty wretch, and she settled Sisera’s hash with all the cunning of her kind. She invited him into her tent, gave him some milk to drink, covered him up with a mantle, and advised him to go to sleep. “ My husband and your king Jabin,” said she, “ are very good friends, and I will shelter you from the Jews, if they come and ask after you, I’ll say you are not here, and I’ll stand in the door of the tent to keep anybody from look­ ing in. Now, my dear sir, you may sleep in safety. Trust to me, and I’ll see that all is right. Shut your eyes and have a good nap.” Poor Sisera did so. And when he was sound asleep the treacherous cat took a big hammer and a long tenpenny nail and fastened his head to the floor. �The Jew Judges. 109 Then she went out to meet Barak. “ Good day,” said she, ■“you seem very eager, whom are you looking for?” “Why Sisera, to be sure; has he passed this way?” “ Oh dear no, he’s in my tent, sound asleep: just come and see.” So they went in, and there lay Sisera in the sleep of death. That is how the Lord fights. With him all is fair in war. He smiles on assassination and treachery between allies. His prophetess Deborah and his general Barak sang a long duet over their victory, in which they said “ Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.” Blessed, forsooth 1 A woman who violates the sacred laws of hospitality, inveigles a hunted man into her tent, pretends old friendship for him, lulls ■him into a false security with her deceit, and then treacherously murders him, is a fit mate for the Devil. Jabin was soon disposed of after the murder of Sisera, and Israel had rest another forty years. But they went wrong ^again, and the Lord “ delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.” Now if the reader will turn to the thirty-first chapter of Numbers he will find that the Midianites were utterly destroyed by the Jews u*der Moses. Their cities were burnt; all the males, the married women and the children were slain; and the young virgins reserved for a worse fate. Yet here are the Midianites again, stronger than ever, and able to oppress the Jews for seven years! These fatherless and motherless Midianites, who apparently sprang from the ground or dropped down from the skies, played the very devil with the Jews, stealing their harvests, and driving them into dens and caves, so that they once more “ cried unto the Lord ” for help. Then the Lord sent down an angel, who took up his residence under an oak tree. Having secured lodgings, he visited Gideon the son of Joash, whom he found threshing wheat on the sly to ■cheat the Midianites. He accosted him very abruptly but very cunningly, calling him a “ mighty man of valour,” and saying “ the Lord is with thee.” Now Gideon, although he was hiding him­ self from the enemy, took the personal compliment with the greatest complacency. But he scouted the idea of the Lord being with the < >ws. “Nay, nay,” said he, “that’s a trifle too thin. How can the Lord be with us while he leaves us in this mess ? The Lord indeed 1 Where is he? What has become of him? Our fathers used to talk about his miracles. We have never seen one. No doubt it was all a joke.” Then the angel “looked upon him,” as much as to say “Oh Gideon, Gideon!” And opening his holy lips he said “thou shalt save Israel from the Midianites.” “ Come, now,” said Gideon, “ that’s a good one. What’s the use of talking such nonsense to a poor fellow like me ? ” “ Nay,” answered the angel, “ I’m not joking; you shall �110 The Jew Judges. do it.” But Gideon, like every other Jew, was a canny person^ and he required a sign to warrant the angel’s statement. He put some flesh and unleavened cakes on a rock, and drenched them with broth; whereupon the angel brought fire up out of the rock which burnt them up. That settled it. He was an angel. But before Gideon would assault the Midianites he demanded another sign. He laid a fleece of wool on the ground, and in the morning it was wet with dew while all the ground was dry. Thatmiracle, however, did not suffice him. So the next night he spread the fleece again, and in the morning it was dry while all' the ground was wet. That fleece ought to have been preserved like the blood of Saint Januarius in the bottle at Naples. And just as the con­ gealed blood liquefies once a year under the hand of the priests, we have no doubt the fleece would still exhibit its miraculouscharacter. Unfortunately it is lost. The priests fleece their pious sheep, but they never show them anything so wonderful as Gideon’s fleece. Gideon gathered together a decent little army, but this dis­ pleased the Lord. “No,” said he, “that won’t do. If you defeat the Midianites with such an army, the Jews will boast that they have won the victory themselves. Now I want the glory myself, and I mean to let everybody see that I am run­ ning this campaign. So please send away a lot of your men.” Obedient Gideon dismissed twenty-two thousand, and retained only ten thousand. “That’s still too many,” said the Lord;, “just take them down to the water to drink; those who stoop down to drink you may send home, but those who lap the water like a dog you may keep.” Only three hundred passed in this examination. ^Gideon and the doggish three hundred went up against the Midianitish army, which was exceedingly numerous, like grass­ hoppers or the sand by the sea shore. Each of them carried a lamp in a pitcher. When they drew near the enemy they broke the pitchers and flourished the lamps in their left hand, while with their right hands they blew their trumpets. The Midianites were scared and thrown into great disorder. They fought each* other by mistake and then fled, the Jews pursuing them with great slaughter, and bringing back to Gideon as trophies of victory the heads of two princes. Jehovah’s prize-fighters were not very refined. Imagine the French beating the Germans and bringing the heads of Bismarck and Moltke to Paris ! Even the French “ infidels ” would scarcely do that, but God’s favoritesthought it a glorious part of war, and he never taught them better. Having killed 100,000 Midianites, Gideon went on with histhree hundred men, defeated another army of fifteen thousand,, and despoiled two cities. Is it not strange that men of such �The Jew Judges. Ill prowess could be oppressed repeatedly, and for years together, by their neighbors? The Jews then desired Gideon to rule over them, but he knew Them too well and declined the honor. He requested instead seven hundred shekels of gold and other precious spoil of war. With a portion of his treasure Gideon made an ephod, and put it in his own city, Ophrah; and “ all Israel went a whoring after it.” That is, they went after other gods as soon as they had got ■all they wanted from the Lord. The land had now another rest of forty , years 1 Why forty •each time ? Because that was a sacred number, and we are not reading history but romance. Gideon lived to a good old age and left a numerous family. He had seventy sons and perhaps as many daughters. Like all God’s favorites he was a thorough-going polygamist. He had “ many wives ” and at least one “ concubine.” No doubt with the wealth and the women he had a fine time. As soon as he was dead, the Jews “went a whoring after Baalim.” Abimelech, the son of Gideon by his concubine, put his seventy brothers to death and ruled over Israel for three years, until in one of his wars a woman broke his skull with a millstone and let daylight into his silly brains. He was followed by Tola, who judged Israel twenty-three years ; after whom came Jair, who judged for twenty-two years, and who had thirty sons who “ rode on thirty ass colts.” They •and their sisters, with the old man and his wives, must have made a nice little tea-party. When he died, the Jews “went it blind.” They worshipped •all the gods of all their neighbors with the utmost impartiality; which provoked the Lord so that he let the Philistines and the Ammonites oppress them until they repented, when he raised them up a deliverer in Jephthah the Gileadite, a great fighting man and the son of a harlot. Before going out to fight the Ammonites, he vowed that on his return he would offer up to the Lord as a burnt offering the first thing that came out of his own doors. The Ammonites were smitten with immense slaughter, and Jephthah returned to Mizpeh. His only daughter, who knew nothing of his vow, came out to meet him with dance and song. The pious father was very sorry, but he kept his promise to God, and after allowing his daughter two months to bewail her virginity, he “ did with her according to his vow.” This tragedy being finished, Jephthah and the Gileadites quarreled and fought with their brethren of the tribe of Ephraim, and slew forty-two thousand of them. This man of blood judged Israel six years. He was succeeded by Ibzan, who judged for seven years ; Elon, ten years; and Abdon, eight years. All recorded of them besides is that they had plenty of wives, children and donkeys. After these came Samson, the mighty, �112 The Jew Judges. the valiant, the wonderful, whose career we reserve fora separate number of this Series. In the seventeenth chapter of Judges we come to the Levite, whose concubine was so horribly abused. He became priest to one Micah, a fellow who robbed his mother, got wealthy, set up gods for himself and kept his own parson. But the Danites stole the Levite and made him their priest. Clericals appear to have been scarce then. Now-a-days the market is glutted with them. This Levite had a concubine who played him false and left him, He fetched her back, and on his way home he stayed a night at Gibeah, which was inhabited by Benjamites. Just as in the case of Lot’s visitors, the people come to the Levite’s host and demanded his guest. The old man quietly refused, but offered them instead his own daughter (a maiden) and the Levite’s con­ cubine, whom they might abuse as much as they pleased. In the end, the poor concubine was thrust out to the lustful crowd, and so brutally treated by them that in the morning she lay dead at the door. Then the Levite cut her up into twelve pieces and sent one to each of the tribes of Israel, who assembled and, after severe loss to themselves, so punished the Benjamites that only six hundred out of twenty-six thousand escaped. What a horrible story ! Yet this record of unnatural passion, brutal lust, and awful bloodshed is part of God’s Word, and is put into the hands of children to make them pure and kind and good! The fugitive Benjamites had no wives, and it seemed that one tribe would utterly perish. But they soon received the gift cf four hundred virgins who were spared in a religious massacre at Jabesh-gilead; and not long after they stole a lot of the daughters of Shiloh while they were merrymaking. The rape of the Sabines is of course mythical, but this is veritable history, and all who doubt it will be damned. The fact is, we have here a trace of that old system of wife-stealing so prevalent amongst savages. God’s chosen people were ignorant, superstitious, idolatrous, lustful, and cruel; while their judges were no more than savage chieftains, whose noblest virtue was physical courage, and their highest happiness the possession of many wives and the procreation of many children. The Zulus are just as civilised as they were; yet how Christians would laugh if they were told that God had chosen the Zulus to be the re­ cipients of his messages to the world, and the ultimate producers of the universal Messiah. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Erejethought Publishing Company, 2d, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES-XV. SAINT JOHN’S NIGHTMARE. By G. W. FOOTE. Let me hope, dear reader, that your head is strong and sound ; I Q for we now approach that great subject, the interpretation of < the Apocalypse, which,, as Bishop South said, generally finds a 5^ I man cracked or leaves him so. It has occupied the attention of thousands of crazy enthusiasts, and has- occasioned the writing of a whole library of books, which are a monument of learned imbecility. While the world has unconcernedly pursued its business and pleasure, a host of demented Christians have tried to foretell the course of events from a study of one of the maddest productions of the human brain. All their predictions have been falsified, but the prophets are never discouraged, and they begin their vaticinations with renewed confidence after every fresh exposure. ,S The Apocalypse forms a fit end to the Christian scriptures f 0 $ ) “ for-as the book of Genesis commences the Bible by outraging . L, science,ithe book of Revelation concludes it by defying common• sense. ^No-better title could be devised for it. than Saint Johnr’s 1 -Nightmare. It is the work of some early Jew-Christian, whose brain was addled with superstition, his heart inflamed by the sufferings of his co-religionists, and his imagination excited by the delusion of the immediate second coming of Christ. There is a cause for everything, including lunacy. How came John to suffer from nightmare ? The easiest supposition is that he ate a pork supper, but this is excluded by the fact that he was a Jew. A careful perusal of the Apocalypse discovers the correct answer. John had imitated, and even excelled, a curious feat of the prophet Ezekiel. That heady Jew, in order to qualify himself for the business of prophecy, ate a roll; and John, for the same purpose, ate a loaf. This language must, however, be taken figuratively. Ezekiel’s roll was of parchment, and John’s loaf was a book of the same material. In both cases the food was “in the mouth sweet as honey;” but in John’s case he himself says “ as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter ;” and we should judge that Ezekiel’s luncheon had much the same .» effect, as he certainly behaved like a man with a bad-bellyache. Now a parchment book is a pretty tough meal, enough to cause indigestion in the stoutest stomach, and so we ea» understand $ the origin of Saint John’s Nightmare. The authorship of Revelation has been much discussed. Luther deemed it to be “ neither apostolical nor prophetic.” A thousand years before, Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of �114 St. John's Nightmare. Origen, mentions that some objected to the whole work as with­ out sense or reason, and as displaying such dense ignorance, that an apostle, or even one in the Church, could not have written it; and they assigned it to Cerinthus, who held the doctrine of the reign of Christ on earth. It was not in the cata­ logue of the Council of Laodicea. Nor was it the only work of the kind ; for the Ante-Nicene library gives apocryphal Revela­ tions of Moses, Esdras, Paul, and John the Theologian; while Tischendorf, in his Prolegomena, gives an abstract of the Revelations of Peter, Bartholomew, Mary, and Daniel. There was also a Revelation of Thomas, now known only by the decree of Pope Gelasius ranking it as apocryphal. One half of Luther’s dictum is open to question. Our Apo­ calypse may be apostolic after all. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest fathers, evidently refers to it as the work of “ John, one of the apostles of Christ.” But the word apostle was employed very loosely in that age, and it is possible that the real author of Revelation was Presbyter John. However that may be, it is certainly one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature extant^ 9, and ft affords a good idea of the mental state of true believers in I the infancy of the faith. The author of ^Supernatural R> lig-ionn considers it the only apostolic book we have. He ascribes it to John, the brother of James; and no one can deny that it breathes the very spirit of those Sons of Thunder, who asked Jesus to call down fire from heaven to destroy the unbelieving Samaritans. Whether Apostle John or Presbyter John, the author was assuredly a Jew. He is very wroth with men who have the impudence to “say they are Jews and are not.” His view of angels, spirits, and demons is Jewish. His doctrine of the millennium, as Gfrorer has shown, was held by many of the Rabbins. His grammar is execrable, and his style, as Davidson remarks, is “ so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of Greek.” His elegant Jewish idioms, borrowed from the worst parts of the prophets, are another proof that he was one of the “chosen people.” He makes God Almighty, for instance, tell the Church of Laodicea “ because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." No Greek would have written in that style. Another proof is the writer’s evident hostility to the move­ ment for converting the Gentiles. Renan and the author of ■^Supernatural Religion,** both agree that Paul is referred to in the passage about those who say they are apostles, and are not, but are liars. Let us further notice that the sealed elect are all •of the twelve tribes of Israel; that the heavenly city is called the New Jerusalem; that the twenty-four elders make up the number of the Jewish Sanhedrim; that the outer court of the temple of God in the New Jerusalem, like that of Herod’s second temple, is “given unto the Gentiles;” that only Jews cat of the fruit of the tree of life, while the other nations drink �St. John’s Nightmare. 115 a decoction of the leaves; that the ark of the covenant is seen in the heavenly temple; that those who were victorious over the Beast “ sing the song of Moses and that the author ends his Nightmare with a fine piece of Jewish “cheek,” promising the most diabolical plagues to anyone who should add to it, and eternal damnation to anyone who should take away a single word. The “Speaker’s Commentary” says that “the conception of the sanctity and symbolical dignity of numbers^2jsdie.therderived by-the-Jews from-their heathen neighbors” or not, is “re­ flected from the pages of the Old Testament.” We find it on almost every page of Revelation. Numbers Three, Four and Forty are duly honored, but the greatest regard is shown to the most sacred number Seven. There are seven spirits before the throne and seven lamps burning there, seven golden candle­ sticks, seven churches, seven stars in the Son of Man's right hand, the book of fate is sealed with seven seals, the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes, and seven angels pour out seven golden vials full of the wrath of God. What Professor Moses Stuart well calls the “numerosity” of the book is conspicuous throughout/ * aad; the very number of the Beast is a crowning proof of its Jewish origin. There yet remains the fact that a great deal of the language and imagery of Revelation is borrowed from Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and, above all, from the book of Enoch. As in dreams we have usually a kaleidoscope of our waking ex­ periences, so in Saint John’s Nightmare there is a jumble of recollections. Almost everything is second-hand. The only original image is that of the Sixth Seal, and even its conclusion is marred by an obvious plagiarism from -Jesus. The four beasts in the fourth chapter are accurately stolen from Ezekiel, being simply the great prophet’s cherubim in a new position. We have already referred to the eating of the roll. The fine excla­ mation over the fall of Babylon, who “ made all the nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,” is a slight spoiling of one of the superbest verses in Jeremiah ; while the title, “ Mother of Harlots,” is clearly adopted from the older prophets who were extremely fond of such language. John purloins pretty freely also from the book of Enoch, which was written during the century before Christ, and became so quickly accepted that the author of the Epistle of Jude actually quotes it as the work of old translated Enoch the “ seventh from Adam.” Many of the New Testament writers are indebted to this remarkable book, which anticipates some of the doctrines and maxims ascribed to Jesus, and more than foreshadows the dogma of the Trinity. But no other writer drew from it so extensively as John. He transcribed whole passages with the most unblushing licence. His oft-quoted phrase, “King of kings, L >rd of lords,” is taken from Enoch. His theory of the Jewish saints in heaven not having been �116 St. John’s Nightmare. “polluted with women” is derived from the same source, as well as the ‘ ‘ ten thousand times ten thousand ” before the throne. Enoch also furnished him with the lake of brimstone, the last judgment, the tree of life whose fruit is given to the elect, the book of life, the living fountains, the new heaven and earth, the great white throne, and the “Ancient of Days, whose head was like white wool.” If John paid back to Enoch, Ezekiel, Jere­ miah and Daniel, all he stole from them, he would be completely bankrupt, and his remaining assets would not redeem him fro m the lowest poverty. The date of Saint John’s Nightmare is difficult to fix. Lardner placed it at the year 95-96, but more recent critics shift it back nearly twenty years. Davidson thinks the book was composed about 68-69, and it bears internal evidence of having been written soon after the death of Nero, and either when the fall of Jerusalem was imminent or directly after it occurred. Now let us examine the book as it stands. John, like all primitive Christians, believed in the immediate second coming of Jesus, who has not been seen or heard of yet. The end of the world was drawing near, and John was commissioned to show the “things which must shortly come to pass.” His exordium ends with the significant words “for the time is at hand.” This craze has periodically afflicted the Christian world. Paul believed in the speedy return of the crucified Savior, no less than John. The early Church, knowing that the Son of Man was coming like a thief in the night, lived in daily expectation of his appearance through the clouds. Gradually, however, the belief declined; but even in the third century there was a fierce controversy about the millennium ; Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, writing a treatise in support of the idea, and Origen opposing it with the greatest warmth. Six hundred years later the doctrine revived, and all Christendom expected that the world would come to an end with the tenth century. But the world con­ tinued to roll along as before, and never troubled itself about prophets and fools. Since then the madness has broken out from time to time, but it is now dying away like many other pestilent disorders of the great Age of Faith. Dr. Cumming fore­ told the end of the world several times, but the event never came off, and he went to his grave a discredited prophet. We have still a pious charlatan who plays the old game, although he has often been found out. He wrote an elaborate treatise to prove that the late Louis Napoleon was the destined Antichrist. A few months ago he proved from Saint John’s Nightmare that Gambetta was the forerunner of Antichrist, who was clearly Prince Jerome. He has now a fresh interpretation quite as true as the rest; hundreds crowd to see him cast the political horoscope; and he edits a religious journal, which boasts of a hundred thousand readers—mostly fools. " John’s Revelation is addressed to the “seven churches which �St. John’s Nightmare. 117 are in Asia.” He does not appear to have thought that Christi­ anity would ever extend beyond those limits. Now Ephesus, bmyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, were very closely situated. What a small conquest in forty years by a God-supported creed 1 ItdAalmost as though the approaching dissolution of all things were addressed “ to the seven churches which are in Highgate, Epping, Woolwich, Brompton, Richmond, Hammersmith, and Kilburn.” John’s Nightmare happened “ on the Lord’s day.” The first thing he heard was a tremendous voice like a trumpet, and the first thing he saw was seven golden candlesticks. If John had lived in the nineteenth century he would have seen gasaliers or electric burners. In the midst of the candlesticks was a person like the Son of Alan, dressed in a kind of nightshirt, with feet u 6 burniQg brass, flaming eyes, and a fine woolly head of hair. He held, seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword with his teeth, and his voice was like the falls of Niagara. This was God the Son in a new character. Poor John was horribly frightened, but the Lord reassured him, and explained that the seven candlesticks were the seven churches, and the seven stars their seven angels. Before this heavenly visitor had spoken two minutes he called Paul a liar, said that some pretended Jews were of the synagogue of the Devil, and twice declared his hatred of the Nicolaitanes. These people were a Christian sect accounted heretical by John. Irenaeus traces its origin to Nicolaus, one of the seven deacons mentioned in the sixth of Acts. Tertullian says it was a sect of Gnostics. If his surmise be correct, it shows that Gnosticism probably existed before Christianity. Orthodox John hated all heretics, and of course he made God hate them too. When the Lord had ended his message to the seven churches, John saw a door opened in heaven, whether front or back he does not say. Then a voice like a trumpet called him up, and he went up. God Almighty, like a big stone of jasper and sardine, sat on a throne, which was arched by a green rainbow. Round the throne were seated twenty-four elders (the exact number of the Jewish Sanhedrim), dressed in white and wearing golden crowns. Prowling round the throne as a body-guard were four wonderful beasts with eyes in their heads and eyes in their posteriors, and six wings apiece. The description of these animals is borrowed almost word for word from Ezekiel’s account of the cherubim. They were a strange collection of pets, and they justify Heine’s witticism about all the menagerie of the Apocalypse. If lhirnum eould only purchase one-of them for his show, he- would jeturn Jumbo to the Zoological Gardens, and countermand his order to the King of Siam for a white elephant. Ifdie could also secure Alother- Eve’s serpent, Balaam’s ass, and Jonah’s whale, he might reckon on making a million a year as long as the-show-lasted. These beasts lead a very monotonous life. They sing day and �118 St. John's Nightmare. night, without any rest, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” After their song, the twenty-four elders fall down and sing, “ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” And . this concert goes on for ever and ever. How sick the elders and the elderly beasts must be of the dreary per­ formance ! And unless the Lord is infinitely vain, he must be as sick as thejj/ John next saw Jesus Christ, in the form of a slain lamb, with seven horns and seven eyes, take a book out of God’s hand and loose its seven seals. Later on we read of the marriage supper of this juvenile sheep, but the author does not record whether the lamb himself was served up with mint-sauce. Four horses appeared on the breaking of as many seals. The second, third, and fourth were red, black, and pale, signifying slaughter, famine, and death. The first was white, signifying the purity of the Gospel, and its rider went forth conquering and to conquer. This exactly resembles the Kalki avatar of Vishnu. Whatever John’s faults were, he was certainly a good borrower. When the fifth seal was broken John saw “ under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and when the sixth was broken, the sun turned black and the moon red, the stars tumbled down on the earth, the sky rolled up, and all the human race ran and hid themselves in rocks and dens. In fact, it was what the Yankees call an almighty smash. Then four angels kept the four winds from blowing, and another angel sealed a hundred and forty-four thousand elect, who were all Jews and all virgins “not defiled with women.” Considering the profligacy of the Jews at that time, we should have thought it impossible to find so many. But truth is always strange, stranger than fiction. The primitive Christians were evidently Essenean Jews; they contemned marriage, and' regarded virginity as the highest virtue. These elect Jews surrounded the elders and the beasts, and only they could learn the song. All the Gentiles who were saved had back seats, and aS"the French say, they “assisted ” at the. performance. We must passover the extraordinary locusts, with men’s faces, women’s hair, and lion’s teeth, who came out of the bottomless pit; the great army of two hundred million horsemen ; and come to the woman who gave birrh to a man-child that was pursued by a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and a tail that whisked down a third part of the stars. What a tail 1 The woman, we take it, means Judaism ; the man-child, Christianity ; and the dragon, the Devil. This eminent personage was to league with the Beast, oppress the saints, set up a universal kingdom, blaspheme God, and gather all the kings and armies of the world to the great battle of Armageddon, where they were �St. John's Nightmare. 119 to be defeated by Jesus Christ and the hosts of heaven. This battle has not been fought yet, but as Armageddon is the valley of Megiddon mentioned by Zeckariah, the reader will know where to expect it; although as to when it may be looked for we have no information. The Devil is to be chained in the bottomless pit fora thousand years, during which time those who have not worshipped the Beast are to reign with Christ, and everybody will be happy and wise and good. Why doesn’t the millennium come at once ? When the thousand years are expired, the Devil is to be loosed agaiu, and allowed to deceive the nations, until he is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone with the Beast and false prophet, and tormented day and night for ever. Poor Devil! Then cometh judgment day. The saved go to heaven and the damned IbQl (Ml• Who the Devil was we know, but who the devil was the Beast? Undoubtedly Nero, whose holocaust of Christians at Rome, for the suspected crime of burning the city, had filled the Church with hatred and dismay. Not daring to write Nero’s name, any more than that of Borne, John put it between the lines. “There are,” he says, “seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come ; and when he cometh he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” The seven kings, we hold, meant seven Roman emperors ; and the eighth, who had already reigned but was to reign again, meant Nero. Suetonius relates that, long after the tyrant’s death, many believed that he was still alive, and would * ] soon reappear and avenge himself on his enemies. Renan calls the Nero fable ‘ cette ideejmere de I Apocalypse'^—the germ idea 1 of the Apocalypse; and he.is supported by Volckmar, Ewald Reville, Scholten, Reuss, Krenkel, and a host of others. ’ The,number of tiie Beast, too, was 666, and the letters of the tyrant’s name in Hebrew (Csesar Nero) just make it up. There have, of course, been thousands of people, from whose names the number of the Beast could be made up. Napoleon was one of them, and Euglisb Tories used to think him Antichrist. They now fancy it is Air. Gladstone, whose name does just as well. John had neither of these in his mind. He meant Nero who was to return, to regain his throne by the helo of the Parthians to set up as Antichrist, to persecute the faithful, and finally to be overthrown by Jesus Christ at the great battle of Arma­ geddon. Babylon unquestionably means Rome. There is no mistaking the seven-hilled city, or the great harlot, arrayed in purple and scarlet, and “ drunk with the blood of the saints.” But John’s prophecies have not been fulfilled. He could see no farther through a millstone than his neighbors. Rome has not been “ utterly burned with fire,” nor are the voices of craftsmen and musicians dumb in her streets. �120 St. John's Nightmare. i John’s description of the New Jerusalem is very amusing. It is fifteen hundred miles in length, and the same in breadth and height—a heavenly cube. Hell is much larger, but that is natural, for the Christian scheme damns the many and saves the few. Why-are the celestial mansions fifteen hundred miles high? We expect that when the city was laid out, no space was reserved for the angels to practise flying, and they were therefore pro­ vided with lofty domes, so that they might exercise their wings inside, on wet days as well as dry. Had John been a Greek or a Roman, he would have imagined an artistic heaven, full of splendid architecture, noble statues, and glorious pictures. But being an unartistic Jew, he could imagine nothing but heaps of gold and precious stones. The same defect is still apparent in the “chosen people.” Their women revel in showy dress, and their men delight in gold . /, rings, gold studs, and gold watchchains big enough to cable the-^.rM'r “ Great Eastern;’4 _ The Jew comes out in another circumstance. The founda­ tions of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the twelve Apostles; but the twelve gates, each a pearl, bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Bible is a Jew-book from beginning to end, and we civilised Europeans still go about in what Carlyle called Hebrew Old-Clothes. We have no room to notice the many Protestant divines who have exercised their ingenuity in showing that Saint John really prophesied the iniquitous life and awful death of the Catholic Church; since we are fully persuaded that he could not look so far ahead, and that he expected a universal flare-up soon after his Nightmare was written. But we may observe that the Catholics have begun to round on. the Protestants ; and that Signor Pastorini, for instance, applies the sounding of the fifth trumpet to Luther who, renouncing his faith and vows, may be said to have fallen ; and when he opened the door of hell there issued forth a thick smoke, or a strong spirit of seduction, which had been hatched in hell. May this noble game of tit-for-tat con­ tinue ! It will be a glorious sight for the sceptic to behold the two great halves of Christendom proving each other’s depravity from the silly Nightmare of Saint John. The sceptic cannot decide between them. He is obliged to act like Voltaire who, when he heard two old women vilifying each other, said—I be­ lieve them both. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fbbbthought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XVI. A VIRGIN MOTHER. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- -0.---------- There is nothing new under the sun, said the wise king. This observation is peculiarly true with respect to religion. Modern creeds are simply old ones in a new guise, and Christianity itself is a patchwork of cuttings from the religious wardrobe of antiquity. Patchwork requires much labor and time, and Christianity was slowly constructed. Many of its essential features were unknown to the primitive Church. The apostolic writings, for instance, do not mention or allude to the subject of this romance. Neither Paul nor John knew anything of the miraculous birth of Jesus. The Gospels belong to a much later date. In the second century Christianity grew by incorporating to itself the most venerated dogmas of other superstitions. Our Gospels were written when the process was nearly completed, more than a hundred years after the death of Christ. The mighty river of every great system is formed gradually. Its nominal source is perhaps a trickling rill in some remote and well-nigh inaccessible region ; as it runs it is. joined by other streams, many of them larger than itself, until at last it gains the level ground, and flows on through a broad deep channel to the sea. The grand river, with ships on its bosom and cities on its banks, bears no proportion or resemblance to the mountain rill whence it derives its name. And so with Christianity, which is unlike its spring, the man Jesus. It has flowed through centuries, and received tribute from innumerable streams on either side ; Egyptian myth, Greek philosophy, Essenean doctrine, and Oriental legend. Its like­ ness to its founder is little else than in name. The Immaculate Conception was borrowed from the mytho­ logy of Egypt. No deity was more idolised by the multitude than the virgin mother of Horus. Juvenal remarked, at the end of the first century, that the Roman painters almost lived on the goddess Isis. “Such,” says Sharpe, “was the popularity of * that most winning form of worship, which is still continued there in the pictures of the Virgin Mary with the infant Jesus in her arms.” The same author, after describing a representation of the birth of King Amunothph III., says that “In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the first and second chapters of Luke’s Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in * “Egyptian Mythology,” p. 86. �122 A Virgin Mother. Matthew’s Gospel, which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus, are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings.” * We may observe that the drawing referred to was on one of the walls of the Temple of Luxor. The god Thoth announces to the maiden queen that she should “bring forth a son” who would be a ruler in the land. Then the gods Kneph and Athor take her by the hand, and place in her mouth the symbol of the child’s life. Next come the midwives in attendance on her labor, and the nurses with the infant just born. Finally a number of sages pay adoration to the wonderful baby. All this takes us- back to the myth of Isis and Horus, and shows us how greatly it influenced the Egyptian mind. On the temple of the goddess at Sais there was the inscription, “The fruit which I have brought forth is the sun.” Plutarch, in his De Iside, states that “This Isis is the chaste Minerva, who, without fearing to lose her title of virgin, says she is the mother of the sun.” She was styled Our Lady, the Queen of Heaven, the Star of the Sea, the Governess, the Earth Mother, the Rose, the Mother of God, the Savior of Souls, the Intercessor, the Sanctifier, the Immaculate Virgin, and so forth. All these titles have been applied by Christians to the Virgin-Mary. Her symbol was the Sistrum. The bars across the opening signified virginity. “ The goddesses,” says Bonwick,f “ to whom the instrument was dedicated, though always mpthers, were ever virgins. The sistrum was, therefore, the symbol of the Celestial Mother.” It is at least six thousand years old. The doctrine of the incarnation and immaculate conception were thus well estab­ lished in Egypt some time before Adam dug potatoes in Eden, and millenniums before Jesus Christ was born or thought of. The child Horus went through a career like that of Jesus. He had a miraculous birth, death and resurrection. He is usually depicted as an infant in his mother’s arms. Bonwick observes that “ the earliest representations of the Madonna have quite a Greco-Egyptian character, and there can be little doubt that Isis nursing Horus was the origin of them all.” J Another notable point is that black Madonnas used to be common in Europe. Now there was a black Isis too, supposed to symbolise not only the Mother of the Gods, but the primeval darkness which preceded light, and gave birth to all things. The glorified Horus carried his mother to heaven, as Ariadne was carried by Bacchus, and Alcmense by Hercules. Christianity very soon demanded the same honor for the mother of Jesus. The Collyridians and Marians distinctly deified her; while the Melchites, at the council of Nice, contended that the true Trinity * Ibid, p. 19. f “ Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought,” p. 215. $ Ibid, p. 142. �A Virgin Mother. 123 was the Father, the Virgin Mother Mary, and the Son Jesus. This heretical sect, which got suppressed, had a more intelligible notion of the Trinity than the Christians who triumphed. Father, mother, and son, we can all appreciate; but the three m one, who are neither one nor three and yet both, are so mysterious that, like the peace of God, they pass all under­ standing. Bonwick says we have the best testimony that the worship of Isis was early transferred to the Virgin Mary. Higgins, how­ ever, thinks it was the Roman worship of Juno which Chris­ tianity borrowed. According to this learned writer, “The * goddess Februata Juno became the Purificata Virgo Maria. The (nd Romans celebrated this festival in precisely the same way as the moderns—-by processions with wax lights, etc., and on the same day, the second of February. The author of the Perennial Calendar observes, that it is a remarkable coincidence that the festival of the miraculous conception of Juno Jugalis, the blessed Virgin, the Queen of Heaven, should fall on the very day the modern Romans have fixed the festival of the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary. Being merely a continuation of an ancient festival, there is nothing remarkable in it.” Probably the truth is that both Egypt and Rome contributed to the Christian mythology. The Madonna and Child were copied from Isis and Horus ; and the festival of Juno was trans­ ferred to the Virgin Mary during that period when the Church stooped to conquer, and won over the multitudes of Paganism by appropriating nearly all its rites and celebrations. Let us now glance at another aspect of the question The gods of antiquity were a lustful crew. They were very fond of the fair daughters of men. Ovid and other poets give us a lively description of their doings. Many wonderful personages in the heroic age were born of ladies who conceived by holy ghosts. The illicit offspring of minor deities were very numerous. But the greatest rake of all was Jupiter. He who brandished the lightning and hurled the thunderbolt from Olympus ruling both gods and men, frequently gave Juno the slip and came down on the spree. Lovely damsels and handsome spouses were his sport; and they were soon won, for he laughed at locks and bolts, and was always ready to eke out persuasion with force. In pursuing his amours he adopted many disguises. He courted Antiope as a satyr, Europa as a bull, and Leda as a swan, while Alcmense was betrayed by his assuming the form of her husband. How different from Jehovah, who hated women, and cared for nothing but orgies of blood! Yet the greatest misogynist has his moment of weakness. Jehovah yielded at last to the charms of Mary. He who never felt the tender passion in his lusty youth eventually broke his own seventh commandment, and in ins dotage carried on an amour with a carpenter’s wife. * “ Anacalypsis,” vol. iii., p. 82. �124 / > ■ * * A Virgin Mother. We say he broke the seventh commandment, but true believers think differently. Sovereigns and deities were chartered liber­ tines. It was once deemed a greater honor to be a king’s mistress than a common man’s wife, and the highest of all honors to be the mistress of a god. Many heroes boasted of their descent from such unions, and they were regarded as superior to their fellow men. There was even a religious side to all this gallantry, and it was common to ascribe virginity to the young ladies who were impregnated by celestial lovers. The world was full of such notions. Fohi, in China, was miraculously conceived by a nymph who bathed in a river, and whose garments were touched by a lotus plant, the emblem of love. He became a founder of religion, a warrior, and a lawgiver. Codom was born on the shores of a lake, between Siam and Camboya, of a virgin who became pregnant by the sunbeams. She was translated to heaven, but the boy was found by a hermit, and grew up to be a great sage and worker of miracles. Archer, in Corea, was born in the same fashion. Huitzilipochtli, in Mexico, was given birth to by a woman who caught in her bosom a feather ball which descended from the heavens. In a legend of the Apaches, rain caused a supernatural conception; in Tahiti it was the shadow of a bread-tree leaf which Taaroa passed over Hina. The mother of the first Mandan chief conceived by eating the fat of a bison cow. Many other instances might be cited, but these may suffice. In historical times we have Buddha miraculously conceived, and even in the most cultivated period of Athenian history a legend grew up that Plato was born supernaturally, the god Apollo having visited his mother as the Virgin Mary was visited by the Holy Ghost. It is a singular fact that the early Christians never disputed the Pagan mythology. On the contrary, they appealed to it in support of their own superstitions. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, furnishes a striking illus­ tration. “ When,” he wrote, “we say also that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing dif­ ferent from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter. Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; 2Esculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven ; and Bacchus, too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, the Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danse; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.” In other words, Justin says: You have men born of gods, just like our Jesus Christ, and �A Virgin Mother. 125 though you revile us, we are really all in the same boat. The testimony of credulous writers like this is all Christians have to warrant the monstrous legends of their faith. The date assigned for the birth of Jesus is another proof that the story is mythical. On the 25th of December the zodiacal sign of the celestial Virgin shows on’ the eastern horizon, the sun has then risen one degree above the solstitial point, and the year is just born. The Romans observed this day as a festival, and it was the birthday of all the great sun-gods of Egypt) Persia, India, and Greece. Our first Gospel significantly relates that the star of the nativity was perceived by the worshippers of Ormuzd. Persian magi, or wise men from the east, first saw the portent of the Son of God’s birth, and brought the news to King Herod. The Jews had not noticed the shining wonder. We have here a trace of astrology, or the superstition that events on earth are decided or heralded by the motions of the stars. The same Gospel says that the wise men followed the star they had seen in the east, until it stood over the place where little Jesus was doing his first crow. What an absurdity ! Fol­ lowing a star is ludicrous enough. It is like chasing the moon, a diversion affected by children and lunatics. But imagine a star resting over a particular chimney-stack! The writer of “ Matthew ” knew nothing of astronomy, or he would not have perpetrated such a silly blunder. The stars are so distant that a few hundred miles at this end make no difference in the angle of vision. _ Of our four Gospels only two, Matthew and Luke, record the birth of Jesus. Both Mark and John are silent about it. They evidently thought the prophet of Nazareth was born in the usual way. No one during the life of Jesus ever hinted at his super­ natural origin. His countrymen asked, “Is not this the car­ penter’s son ? ” and nobody answered that he was the son of the Holy Ghost. Now Luke was confessedly not an authority on the subject. He merely undertook to write what the early Christians gene­ rally believed. Only the first Gospel remains, and that was never written by Matthew. According to primitive tradition Matthew did write a Gospel, but in Hebrew. Our Gospel of Matthew is in Greek. Its author, too, was evidently not a Jew. He utterly misunderstood Jewish idioms, and seven times in the first four chapters he drags in prophecies which any Jew would see had absolutely no relation to the matter in hand. With respect to the birth of Jesus, these two Gospels differ on every point. Matthew omits the Annunciation, and says that Mary’s pregnancy was revealed to Joseph in a dream. Luke lets the poor cuckold find it out himself. And while stating that angelic visitors appeared to shepherds who were watching their flocks, he never once refers to the star, or the wise men, or the jealousy of Herod, ot the questions put to the priests and scribes, �126 A Virgin Mother. or the journey into Egypt, or the massacre of the innocents. These two witnesses flatly contradict each other, and being both on the same side of the case, they must be ruled out of court. They also stumble over the date of the baby god’s birth. Both say it was in the reign of Herod the Great, but Luke fixes it at the time of the taxing, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Now this gentleman was not appointed to the office till long after the death of Herod, and his census did not take place till about ten years after the time when Jesus is supposed to have been born. O Luke, Luke 1 You should have kept quiet over that little affair of the taxing, for it completely upsets your evidence. Out you go, arm in arm with Matthew, and don’t appear in court again. Our Gospels tell us very little about Mary, but there are two apocryphal Gospels that supply the deficiency. The first is the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, which was received as genuine and authentic by several, of the early sects. The second is the Proto­ evangelion, which was ascribed to James the brother of Jesus. It was frequently referred to by the Fathers, and it obtained a very general credit in the Christian world. Mary, they say, was the daughter of a rich man named Joachim, sprung from the royal family of David. Her mother’s name was Anna. She was born at Nazareth, and educated in the Temple at Jerusalem. Her origin was miraculous. Joachim and Anna for a long time had no children. She prayed hard to the Lord for a baby, and he skulked away from the gibes and jeers of his fellows into the wilderness, where he fasted forty days and forty nights. That was a poor preparation for becoming a father, but an angel came and set matters right. Joachim went home, and in due course little Mary came to light. This wonderful maiden walked nine steps when she was nine months old. At the age of three years she was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, where she mounted the stairs like a grown woman, and danced a jig to the admiration of all Israel. Her. parents left her there to be brought up with the other virgins. As she grew in years she grew in grace. She enjoyed the conversation of angels, and received visitors from God every day. _ The priests, however, seem to have mistrusted this chaste virgin, for at the age of fourteen they resolved to marry her to prevent mischief. Her blood was perhaps more like lava than ice. It may even be true, as some have suspected, that the priests had initiated her already into the mysteries of Venus, and were anxious to father the fruit of their pious labors on some simple layman. At any rate, they summoned all the mar­ riageable men of the house of David to appear and go through a kind of raffle for the girl. The Lord directed the game, and Joseph won. He begged to be excused, on the ground that he was an old man. Perhaps the poor fellow smelt a rat. How­ ever, he had to submit, and Mary became his wife. A French �A Virgin Mother. 127 wit says that a young husband may have a child, but an old one is sure to. Joseph left his dear young virgin wife at home while he went abroad carpentering. When he returned she was in the family-way. What was the cause of Mary’s misfortune ? Bishop Talley­ rand, in a letter he is said to have written to the Pope after their quarrel, states that the Roman authorities discovered that Mary had an intrigue with a Roman soldier named Panthera. In the second century Celsus twitted the Christians with worshipping the bastard child of a virgin who had been forced by a Roman soldier of the same name. The Sepher Toldeth Jesu, an ancient Jewish story, describes Joseph Pandera, not as a Roman soldier, but as an idle profligate belonging to the fallen tribe of Judah He was a man of fine figure and rare beauty. By the assistance of Mary’s mother he was introduced to her one Sabbath evening • and she, thinking he was her betrothed Jochanan, yielded herself to his desires. There is a striking agreement in these stories as to the name of Mary’s seducer. We are loth to defame the young lady’s character, but we cannot help thinking that where there is so much smoke there must be some fire. The “ Protoevangelion,” like the Gospel of Luke, gives a story of the Annunciation. An angel tells Mary that, while continuing to be a virgin, she shall conceive and bring forth a son. This heavenly messenger was the archangel Gabriel. Mary was then only fourteen. That was a youthful age for a mother, but the Holy Ghost was in an eager mood, and could brook no delay. When Joseph “ returned from his building houses abroad,” he found the Virgin “grown big.” As in Matthew, Joseph decided to put her away privily. But the angel paid him a visit one night, admonished him to keep the young woman, and told him that what was within her was “ the work of the Holy Ghost.” Joseph of course gave in. The priests, however, were not so easily satisfied. They made him drink some of the rot-gut water of trial; but as it had no evil effect on the old fellow, they exonerated him from the charge of having taken his young bride’s virginity. Pious Christians have written vast quantities of obscene rub­ bish on this subject, most of which must be left in the obscurity of a dead language. French writers imagine the Holy Ghost hovering over Mary, as Jove in the shape of a swan overshadowed the charms of Leda. The speculations of Saint Ambrose cannot be translated from the Latin. His least indecent theory is that Mary was impregnated through the ear. Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin to the end of the chapter. The Gospels mention the brothers of Jesus but Christian piety assumes that they were sons of Joseph by another wife. Apocryphal writings inform us that Mary died soon after the crucifixion. One document states that she was attended in her last moments by the twelve A.postles two of whom were raised from the dead to be present. Another docu- �-128 A Virgin Mother. ment states that her body was taken to heaven by angels in the presence of Thomas, and that the brethren who would not believe it reopened the tomb and found the corpse of God’s mother missing. This Christian fable of the Virgin Mother is still devoutly believed by millions of. sane, men, who have accepted it on grounds of faith, and are entirely ignorant of its real origin. We have proved that the superstition is far older than Chris­ tianity. We have shown that Paul and the Apostles khew nothing of it; that it was incorporated into the Christian religion after their time,; and that the strongest evidence in support of the miraculous birth of Jesus, is a probably interpo­ lated chapter in a Gospel supposed to have been written by Matthew, but which was most certainly not written by a Jew nor even in existence until long after all the contemporaries of the Prophet of Nazareth had mouldered into dust. Whoever persists in believing the fable after learning these facts is a slave to faith, and on the broad road to Colney Hatch.. If a pious young lady were now to give birth to a child, and protest that she knew nothing about it except that one night an angel told her that she was - to become a virgin mother, would her parents and friends believe the story ? And if she went into a court declaring that the third person of the Christian Trinity was her partner in the business, would any magistrate make an order against the Holy Ghost for the maintenance of the child/? Jesus Christ is said to have had no father. Thousands of other boys have been in the same plight. There is no miracle in that. If the founder of Christianity wished to prove his super­ natural origin, he should have “gone the whole hog,” and dispensed with a mother too. That would have been a real miracle. But at present his divine paternity is more than dubious. If there is a mother in the case, depend upon it there is a father somewhere. That which is born of the spirit is spirit, not flesh and blood ; and the Holy Ghost is far too shadowy a person to be the father of a lusty boy. We feel sure that Jesus.Christ.was born like other men, and we decline to believe that God Almighty ever stooped to debauch an old man’s wife. The whole story is a fable. There never was in this world, and there never will be such a monstrous absurdity as a Virgin Mother. l’RTCE ONE PENNY. London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28,Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES-XVII. GOD IN A BOX. By G. W. FOOTE. > What blasphemy! the pious ■will exclaim. God in a box I How shocking! The wretch who dares to utter such-language should be severely punished; the wretch who dares to write it should be hung. Nay, hanging is too good for him. .He ought to be burnt, broken on the wheel, or slowly tortured to death. But soft a while, ye loving followers of the meek and lowly one ! The blasphemy is not mine. I did not put God in a box; the Jews did it. They were very free with gods. They nailed up one, as a farmer fixes a bat or a weasel on the barn-door ; and centuries before that, they carried about his father in a travelling trunk. Whatever blasphemy is implied in the title ofthis Romance must be charged to their account. The Bible warrants every statement I make, and I challenge, contradiction. I found God in a box and did not put him there. I merely lift the lid and show him inside. It is a veritable fact that Jehovah of the Jews, who became God the Father of Christianity, was originally a lump of stone, or some other fetish, enclosed in a wooden box His devotees carried him with them in all their wanderings. When they fought, they took him into the battle to ensure victory. He was their star of fortune, their, glory, and their pride. While they retained him, and kept him good-humored, they were prosperous in peace and war ; when they,provoked him, they were chastised with famine, plague, and slaughter; when they lost him, they sank under the frown of fate, and became the prey of foreign conquest or civil dissension. They gave him, as meat and drink, the flesh and . blood of animals ; and sometimes his altars were polluted with a darker sacrifice of human life. Like all fetishes, he was tabu except to the priests. . No layman was suffered to approach him. Invading his privacy was sacrilege, and punished with instant death. When the Jews carried and carted Jahveh from place to place, they were in a very low state of culture. They had not ad­ vanced beyond fetish-worship, which is the primitive form of religion. The word Fetish comes from the Portuguese fetiqho, and signifies a charm. We find traces of fetishism in the most advanced crgeds. Savages treasure a curious stone, a piece of ivory, a fish-tooth, a rare shell, a mineral, or a gem ; and Euro­ peans still wear bone or metal crosses, attached to a string of shining beads, which are told over during prayer; while an occult virtue is ascribed to different jewels in every civilised country. AmoDgst the vulgar, throughout Christendom, amulets �130 God in a Box. are still worn, and often secreted next the skin. They are held to bring luck, and as sovereign against danger. Even the worship of images is preserved in the Catholic adoration of saints. Nor are the most austere Protestants free from this superstition. Their great fetish is the Bible. They reverence its very leaves and cover ; they damn everybody who doubts it; and they kiss it as a token when they are obliged to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It might easily be inferred, from the fourth verse of the third chapter of Hosea, even if there were no other evidence, that the worship of teraphim, or images, was a feature of primitive Judaism. But we are not confined to this source of information. When Jacob made tracks from uncle Laban’s, with both his daughters and all the sheep and cattle worth having, the old man had to go a seven days’ journey after them to recover his gods. Rachel, who seems to have been just the right wife for Jacob, had stolen the whole lot, without leaving her father a single god to worship. Laban hunted high and low for his tera­ phim, but never found them ; for his cunning slut of a daughter covered them over, and while he searched her tent she sat upon them—hatching. Jahveh also was no doubt a portable family god. He first calls himself the god of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. After­ wards he calls himself the god of Israel—that is, of the descend­ ants of these patriarchs. He never calls himself the god of all mankind. On the contrary, he admits the existence of other gods, and is openly jealous of them. The Jews, in turn, always speak of him as our god. He was their own Jahveh. They '■ ran ” him, and were ready to back him against the field. We are first introduced to God in a Box in the twenty-fifth of Exodus. Jahveh was sick and tired of roaming about, and having casual interviews with his prophet, in a burning bush, in a public-house, or on the top of a hill. He determined to settle down and dwell with his people. Accordingly, Moses was instructed to build him a residence. He was to have a tent all to himself, a first-class article, made of the very best stuff; fine linen of various colors, badgers’ skins, rams’ skins, and goats’ hair ; with brass and silver for the fittings, and gold and jewels for the decorations. Inside the tent, which our English version dignifies with the name of tabernacle, there was to be placed a nice snug box for him to lie in, instead of squatting igno­ miniously on the floor. The Bible calls it an ark, but the Hebrew word so translated, means a box, a mummy case, or a treasure chest. He was also to be supplied with furniture and domestic utensils; a wooden table overlaid with gold, three feet long, eighteen inches broad, and two feet three inches high, with golden dishes, covers, spoons and bowls; and a golden candlestick bearing seven lights, with golden tongs and snuff-dishes. Altogether it was a very genteel establishment for a bachelor god. When Jahveh came to inspect it, he said it �God in a Box. 131 would do capitally, and took immediate possession. Directly he entered the place was filled with smoke, a fact which surprises those who fancy the Devil is the sole dealer in that commodity. No doubt he found it very useful. His priests, who were accustomed to incense, could stand the fume, but intruders were soon smoked out. The priests were ordered to keep some shewbread always on that table, so that he might have a snack at any time. This is a common thing with fetish worshippers. Tylor says that pots and other necessaries are put in the fetish huts still, but “ the principal thing in the hut is the stool for the fetish to sit on, and there is a little bottle of brandy always ready for him.”1 Probably, although it is not so stated, the Jewish priests gave Jahveh a drop of something to drink; for it was a thirsty climate, and the old fellow often betrayed a sanguinary violence of temper which usually results from intoxication. There is, indeed, a suggestion of this in Judges ix., 13, where we read of “wine which cheereth God and man.” The dimensions of the table were in keeping with those of the ark, which was three feet nine long, two feet three broad, and two feet three deep. That was the old fellow’s size ! We might wonder how Christians could think that God Almighty ever got inside such a box, if we did not know that they still imagine him to be in a little piece of bread. What is too great for the faith of people who, as Browning says, see God made and eaten every day ? Now what was really inside that box ? I will not indulge in conjecture, nor cite “ infidel ” authors, but go at once to a great Dutch scholar, who has recently lectured on the religions of the world before the elite of Biblical students in London and the University of Oxford. Kuenen says: “When we observe how the ark was treated and what effects were ascribed to it, it becomes almost certain that it was held to be the abode of Jahveh, so that he, in some way or other, was himself present in it Then only is it that we can explain the desire of the Israelites to have the ark with them in the army, their joy at its arrival, and its solemn conveyance to the new capital of the empire in David’s reign. Now was the ark empty, or did it contain a stone, Jahveh’s real abode, of which the ark was only the reposi­ tory? This we do not know, although the latter opinion, in conjunction with the later accounts of the Pentateuch, appears to us to possess great probability.” 2 .More orthodox English writers treat the subject with euphe­ misms. Eadie says : “ This sacred chest was the awful emblem of the Jewish religion.” The Speaker’s Commentary says: “.Now he was ready visibly to testify that he made his abode with them. He claimed to have a dwelling for himself.” Old 1 “ Primitive Culture,” vol. ii., p. 144. 2 “Religion of Israel,” vol. i., p. 233. �132 God in a Box. Bishop Patrick says: “It was his cabinet, as we now speak, into which none entered but himself.” Kuenen’s surmise is strengthened by all our knowledge of fetishism. At each end of the ark was a cherub, evidently a sacred fowl of some kind, facing inwards, and bending down over the ark. This is the attitude of worship. They were adoring the image within. Being covered with gold, the ark looked like solid metal, though it was really made of shittim wood, according to Jahveh’s directions. The reader must not expect a long disserta­ tion on shittim wood. Kimchi says it is the best kind of cedar. Aben Ezra says it is a sacred wood that grows in the wilderness by Sinai. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” describes it as an acacia. Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah xl., calls it lignum imputribile, an incorruptible wood. If he is right the ark may yet turn up, unless it has “ gone to smash.” The ark was topped by a mercy seat of pure gold. “There,” said the Lord to Moses, “ I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims.” And in David’s time he is described (2 Samuel vi., 2) as “ the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.” Clearly he fixed himself there at communion time. Now what was the mercy seat? It was simply the lid of the box. The Hebrew Kapporeth means to cover, and in the First of Chronicles xxviii.* 2, the holy of holies is called the house of the Kapporeth. Here then the whole case lies in a nutshell. If Jehovah and God the Father are indeed the same, we may say to the Chris­ tians—Your God was once carried about in a box, and he used to get out and sit on the cover. It is highly probable that the Jews borrowed their idea of an ark from the Egyptians, whom most nations have found, as Fuseli said of Blake, “ damned good to steal from.” Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, in his “Manners and Customs of the Ancient. Egyptians,” says that “one of the most important ceremonies was the procession of shrines,” which is mentioned in the Rosetta stone, and frequently represented on the walls of the. temples. The lesser shrine was a sort of canopy ; the great shrine was an ark or sacred boat. Like the Jewish ark, it was borne by priests. It was also carried in the same way, by means of staves passed through metal rings at the side. Wilkinson further remarks that the wings of two figures of the goddess Thmei or Truth, overshadowing the sacred beetle of the Sun, contained in some of the Egyptian arks, “ call to mind the cherubim of the Jews.” The chosen people seem to have “ bor­ rowed of the Egyptians ” in more senses than one. The Bible is remarkably precise in its details as to the ark. It even informs us who made it. There was only one man in all Israel whom Jahveh thought fit for the job. This was Bezaleel. of the tribe of Judah, a kind of jack-of-all-trades, and what he �God in a Box. 133 did not know the Lord taught him. He wove the linen, tanned the skins, carved the wood, made the brass fittings, beat the gold, cut the stones, and fixed everything up. In theatrical par­ lance, he was a first-class utility man. It is an astonishing thing that, many centuries later, when Solomon built the first temple at Jerusalem, he found no Jew able to do the metal work, and had to send to Tyre for a competent artist. The Jews were not a progressive people. In this respect, at least, they seem, like Hamlet’s crab, to have walked backward. Most fetishes are used for divination, and Jahveh was no exception. He piloted the Jews about the wilderness, and with such extreme accuracy that it took them forty years to do a month’s journey. The priests carried him in front. When he stopped, all the people halted and pitched their tents until he chose to move on again. Sometimes he rested a couple of days, sometimes a month, and sometimes a year. Except when engaged in bloodshed, he was the laziest god that ever lived. He relished an occasional massacre, but for the rest he held with Tennyson’s lotos-eaters that “ there is no joy but calm.” Moses had to keep this drowsy deity up to the scratch with shouting. When the ark set forward, he cried, “ Rise up, Jahveh, and let thine enemies be scattered;” and when it rested he cried, “Return, O Jahveh, unto the many thousands of Israel.” God in the box was of great service to the Jews in crossing Jordan. The river was swollen witfi the spring freshet, and the question of transport was very difficult. But Jahveh was equal to the emergency. The priests marched boldly along with the ark, and when their feet touched the brim of the water, Jordan disparted, the waters that poured down from above standing up in a heap. They held Jahveh in the bed of the river until all Israel had crossed safely, after which they followed suit, and Jordan flowed on as before. ' ’ Savages frequently take their gods into battle, and so did the Jews. General Joshua found old Jahveh of immense aid in the conquest of Canaan. The priests carried him for a whole week round Jericho, which so weakened its walls that, when the Levites trumpeted and the people shouted, they fell down flat. _ There can be no doubt that the Jews relied on their fetish for victory. When the men of Ai repulsed their attack, Joshua rent his clothes and prostrated himself before the ark, where he remained for many hours, until the Lord revealed the secret of their defeat. On a previous occasion, during the lifetime of Moses, a detachment of Jews were smitten and pursued by the enemy, because they went up a hill while Jahveh staid at the bottom. When Canaan was conquered, Jahveh’s tent was set up at Shiloh, whence he was fetched to Eben-ezer in the days of Eli Whether the ark remained there all that time is an open question’ We read of a place called Bethel in the book of Judges and Bethel means the “ house of god.” ’ �134 God in a Box. The adventures of Jahveh and his box in the war with the Philistines under Eli are very lively and amusing. He appears to have been neglected by the Jews, and not without reason, for his virtue was temporarily exhausted. But after their heavy defeat by the Philistines, they resolved to fetch the ark from Shiloh, and give old Jahveh another trial. When their fetish arrived they made the earth ring with their shouts, on hearing which “the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp/’ Being, however, a warlike race, they soon regained courage ; and they acquitted themselves so well in the next battle, that the Jews were utterly routed with the loss of thirty thousand men. The Philistines found plenty of loot, and amongst the spoil of war was old Jahveh in the box. When Eli, the aged high priest, heard that the ark had fallen into the hands of the uncircumcised, and that his two sons, its custodians, were slain, he fell off from his seat backward, and broke his neck. Poor old fellow 1 Would our Archbishop of Canter­ bury be affected in that way? We suspect not. He would probably go on living, and stick to his fifteen thousand a year. When Phineas’ wife, Eli’s daughter-in-law, heard the news, she was seized with sudden travail, and died after giving birth to a son. Her last words were, “The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.” The fetish was their pal­ ladium, and with it disappeared all their hopes. Being strangers to the bigotry of monotheists, the Philistines treated old Jahveh with great respect. Although a foreigner, he was still a god, and they were ready to adopt him. Savages often act in that way. Waitz tells us, in his “ Anthropology,” that the Fan tees, for instance, even “ purchase gods which have acquired a certain celebrity. The gods are put on their trial, to see whether they are more powerful than others, and if they prove themselves so, obtain preference and a higher rank above other gods.” Jahveh was taken on trial. The Philistines put him in their joss-house beside their own god Dagon. It was a dangerous ex­ periment, for two of a trade seldom agree. During the day Jahveh behaved himself decently, but in the night he got out of bis box and “ went for ” Dagon. Now poor Dagon was taken at a disadvantage. Being a fish-god, he hadn’t a leg to stand on, and he was soon sprawling on the floor. Jahveh then retreated into his box, where the Philistines found him placidly reposing m the morning, as though he knew as little about the night’s mischief as the heathen Chinee knew about euchre. They set Dagon up again. All went well during the day as before, but in the night old Jahveh again slipped out of his box and assaulted his rival. This time he was in deadly earnest. He broke Dagon’s head off, amputated his hands, and left nothing but the stump. In the morning the Philistines beheld this doleful spectacle, and yet the author of it all lay stone-still in his box, looking as childlike and bland as ever. �God in a Box. 135 But this did not suffice. Old Jahveh’s blood was up. He smote the men of Ashdod with emerods. The most superficial reader® of the Bible, when they remember what a lousy victory the Lord gained over the magicians of Egypt, will readily con­ ceive that this was a very dirty disorder. It was the bleeding piles or worse. Perhaps the sweet Psalmist had this incident in mind when he sang that the Lord “smote his enemies in the hinder-parts : he put them to a perpetual reproach.” The Ashdodians were disconcerted by this attack in the rear, and at a public meeting on the question, they decided to pass old Jahveh on to the next city. But the men of Gath fared no better, for “ they had emerods in their secret parts.” The Ekronites also had a turn, and after great suffering and loss of life, they sent old Jahveh and his box back to the Jews with their compli­ ments, and a peace-offering of five golden mice and five golden emerods. Parallels to this story exist in Pagan writings. Herodotus gays that Venus afflicted with “ emerods ” the Scythians who plundered her temple. Grotius relates a similar fiction as to the institution of the Phallica. When the Athenians ridiculed some images of Bacchus, the god sent them a genital disease, and to prevent its depopulating the city, they received his images with pomp, and displayed Thrysi with figures of the afflicted parts bound to them. The men of Beth-shemesh, where the ark first stopped on Jewish soil, welcomed it piously ; but they were rash enough to look into it, and their profane curiosity so enraged old JahveL. that he slew fifty thousand and seventy of them. This is a good illustration of the idea of tabu, and a signal instance of his love of butchery. They passed the ark on to Kirjathjearim, where it remained for twenty years, until David ordered its removal to Jerusalem. Its journey to the capital was, however, arrested at Nachon's threshing-floor. Just there the oxen shook the ark badly, and a man called Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it. His object was to save Jahveh from the ignominy of being tossed out in the dust. Nevertheless the fetish took it as an insult, and immediately killed poor Uzzah, either by a kind of torpedo shock or by a blow on the head. This is a further illustration of tabu. David was highly displeased with the Lord for this “ breach Upon Uzzah:” and being afraid that his turn might come next ho left the ark at the house of Obed-edom, and went to Jerusalem alone. But when he heard that it brought a blessing to its lucky guardian, he fetched it away to the capital, and put it in a brand new tent. The pious king was so overjoyed that he danced naked before the ark, and his wife rebuked him for his indecent exposure. Soon afterwards David resolved to do the Lord a good turn. Here am I, said- he, dwelling in a fine cedar house, while dear old �136 God in a Box. Jahveh lives in a tent:, it isn’t fair; I’ll build him a house. But the Lord declined the offer. No, no, said he ; don’t you go building me a new-fangled shanty : I’ve lived in a nice, airy, well-ventilated tent ever since I can remember, and I mean to go on living in one ; just mind your own business and let me bide. Yet the Lord relented in Solomon’s reign, and allowed himself to be placed in the temple, although he insisted on being supplied with exact copies of his old furniture. .When the priests opened the ark, according to the First of Kings viii.-)(>9, they found nothing inside “save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Ho'reb.” The fetish had disap­ peared. Probably they had by that time grown ashamed of it; yet as religion cannot advance by too great leaps, they kept the box, called it the ark of the covenant, and treated it simply as an oracle. Many years later the box itself became an oppro­ brium.. The great prophet Jeremiah declared that the time would come when- “they shall say no more, the ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it: neither shall'they visit it: neither shall that be done any more.” The author of “Hebrews” does not quite agree with the book of Kings. He states, in chap, ix., 4, that irn addition to the tables of stone, the ark contained a specimen pot of that wonderful manna, and Aaron’s blooming rod. What finally became of the ark? Josephus says there was no such thing in the second temple. The apocryphal book of Maccabees states that the prophet Jeremy, being warned of God, hid it in a cave on Mount Pisgah, and sealed up the entrance, so that those who followed him could not find it; and that its resting-place is to remain “unknown until the time that God gather his people again together.” The Jews still believe it will come with the Messiah. We fervently hope he will bring the box in its original state, with Jahveh inside. Archaeologists would be delighted to examine such a famous old fetish; and if the Messiah is anything like other Jews, he will no doubt accept the handsome price which the trustees of the British Museum would gladly give for such an interesting relic of antiquity. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Freetblought Publishing Company, 28, Stoneeutter St.,E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—XVIII. BULLY SAMSON. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦-------- Milton’s sublime genius has invested, the story of Samson with a fictitious grandeur. He saw that it contained materials for a tragedy in the Greek style, and this plan enabled him to sub­ ordinate those ludicrous incidents which would have degraded a modern tragedy on the subject. The hero’s thraldom and blindness suggested his own ill fortune and loss of sight, and the final triumph over the Philistines gave him an opportunity to vindicate - himself. The real hero of “Samson Agonistes” is John Milton.' All those pathetic lamentations and noble resolves flowed from the depths of his own sorrow and courage. No trace of his tender beauty or heroic splendour can be found in the story which was the occasion and not the source of his inspiration. The Bible- story of Samson is vulgar and absurd. We can only account for it by supposing that myth and tradition were clumsily blended. Samson is nothing but a great bully, ex­ tremely fond of women, and always swaggering and fighting. It is also pretty clear that he was addicted to drink. He is described as a teetotaler, but a close examination of several texts shows that he was in all probability as partial to good liquor as Jack Falstaff. Would he had the fat knight’s spirit and wit I In the last verse of the third of Judges £here is mention of Shamgar, the son of Anath, who slew six hundred Philistines with an ox goad; very probably by skewering them together like cat’s-meat; and Dr. H. Oort surmises that the exploits of this hero have been woven into a solar myth, and thus made to form a new history. His conjecture is highly credible. As to the solar myth there can be no doubt. The reader will meet with abundant evidence as we proceed. But there are two facts which should be stated now. Samson’s name is never mentioned in the whole of the Jewish Scriptures outside the four chapters devoted to his career ; and this renders it probable that the legend was borrowed somewhat late,’ and incorporated into the earlier narrative. It is also remarkable that while all the other Judges fight at the head of troops, Samson combats his enemies single-handed, and slays thousands without arms. They obtain occasional assistance from heaven, but his achieve­ ments are all supernatural. We are first introduced to Samson in the thirteenth chapter of Judges. His father’s name was Manoah, but his mother’s name is hidden, in consequence of that perverse contempt of women which is so conspicuous in God’s Word. The good lady was un- �138 Bully Samson. fortunately barren. She expected never to have a child. But never is a long time, and the chapter of accidents is fruitful in surprises. Manoah was not the only person of the male per­ suasion. One day a “ man of God ” appeared on the scene when she was alone, as men of God generally do, and promised her a son. His intervention was very effectual, and in due course she produced a sturdy baby, who grew up the champion athlete of all time. How strange it is that barren wives were so often selected by the Lord to become the mothers of prodigies I Sarah was barren, and ninety before she had Isaac. Rachel was long barren before the advent of Jacob, although cross-eyed Leah was very prolific. Hannah was barren, and fretted by the taunts of her productive rival Peninnah, until the Lord sent her Samuel. And the apocryphal gospels represent Saint Ann, the grandmother of God, as twenty years barren before she gave birth to the Virgin Mary. Mrs. Manoah went home and told her husband, who besought the Lord for further information, and desired that the man of God might come again. His request was granted. The welcome visitor appeared once more to the lady in her hus­ band’s absence. This time she ran and fetched Manoah, to whom the announcement was repeated. They invited the stranger to dine with them, but he refused, and equally declined to tell them his name. By his advice, Manoah burnt a kid as an offering to the Lord. He “ did wondrously ” while the happy couple looked on, doubtless performing some celestial tricks ; and when the flame rose from the altar he ascended with it, and vanished from their sight. Then they knew it was an angel, and they fell on their faces, exclaiming, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Now who was this visitor? From the Hebrew it appears that Mrs. Manoah addressed him as “ thou god of visibility.” The “ angel of the Lord ” is said to be equivalent to “ the Messiah.” According to the Rev. W. A. Scott, it was “the Great Judge;” Gill says it was “no other than the Son of God;” and Adam Clarke says it was “no other than the Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity.” If these learned commentators are right, this was about the first appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. On the other hand, the visitor may have been the First Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, old Jahveh himself. This is not a wild supposition ; for he who appeared to Moses in a burning bush, showed him on another occasion his posterior, and habitu­ ally conversed with him face to face, might very well call on the Manoahs, who belonged to the same chosen stock. Mrs. Manoah was ordered by the stranger, whether an angel, Jesus Christ, or God Almighty, not to eat grapes, nor to drink wine or anything “short,” for the child was to be a Nazarite from the womb. No razor was to come on his head after he saw daylight, from which we infer that the fashion of that time �Bully Samson. 139 was a remarkably close crop ; and when he grew up he was to redeem Israel from the hand of the Philistines, a people who were continually oppressing the Jews, and who seem to have been preserved by the Lord for that very purpose, so that he might occasionally strike in, and as they say, “ show the strength of his muscle.” One part of this prediction is very suggestive. How could this boy be a Nazarite, when that sect was in all probability not in existence until hundreds of years after the date of the Judges ? The Nazarites were teetotalers and strict ascetics, which Samson most assuredly was not. Why then was he called a Nazarite ? Because he had long flowing hair, like all the members of that sect, who eschewed the razor and all its works as affronting the decrees of God. But his luxuriant curls have a different reason. They amounted to seven, which was a sacred number with the Jews. They were his glory, like the shining locks of Apollo ; and his strength lay in them, as is the case with all the solar gods, for that abundant hair represents the sun’s rays, which are resplendent in summer, shorn in the winter, and renewed in the spring. The very name of this miraculous child betrays his mytho­ logical character. Samson, or Shimshon, means sun-like accord­ ing to Gesenius ; their sun according to Saint Jerome ; and little sun according to Adam Clarke. Bag, or fish, gave Dagon, or fish-god; and from Shemesh, the sun, was derived Shemesh-sun or sun-god. We find the first syllable retained in many Biblical names, such as Shem, Shemuel (Samuel), Shemida, Shemiramoth, and Shemezer. The Phoenician sun-god Baal, who was notoriously worshipped by the recreant Jews, leaves similar traces in the names of the sons of Saul and David, Eshbaal, Meribaal, and Baalyadah, as preserved in Chronicles, but changed by the Rabbi compilers of Samuel into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, and Elyadah. There were also two places in Palestine, one in Dan and the other in Napthali, called Bethshemesh or Ir-shemesh, that is “ house of the sun ” or “ citv of the sun.” J Dr. Oort well remarks of Samson’s adventures that “a solar myth doubtless lies at the bottom of them, as we may see by the very name of the hero, which signifies sun-god. In some of the features of the story, the original meaning may still be traced quite clearly.”1 The same view is admirably expanded and supported in a disquisition on 'l The Legend of Samson,” by Professor H. Steinthal, of the University of Berlin, which forms an appendix to Goldziher’s very valuable “ Mythology of the Hebrews.” J These sun-gods are found among all peoples who have ad­ vanced beyond fetishism. We have Apollo in Greece, Ra in Bgypt, Surya in India, and Balder in Scandinavia. The mighty 1 “ Bible for Young People,” vol. ii., p. 226. �140 Bully Samson, orb was an object of wonder and praise, and soon personified and worshipped. Light, heat, and life sprang from the benignant god of day; and all their fluctuations were reflected in his career. Sunrise and sunset, the war of light and cloud, the fecund power of spring, the consuming heat of summer, the blighting approach of winter, were all described in his birth, battles, triumphs, defeat, death and resurrection. Samson was the Jewish Hercules, although, as Dupuis remarks, he was a poor copy. Adam Clarke, who noticed the resemblance, insinuated that Hercules was copied from Samson, an idea which every scholar would now regard as absurd. We shall find many points of likeness as we proceed- with the review of our hero’s career. How Samson’s youth was spent we do not know. The Bible says that he “ grew,” but most children do that at some rate or other. We are also informed that “ the Lord blessed him,” although not in what way. We imagine him as a boisterous lad, fond of exercising his raw strength; pulling cats’ tails, poking out dogs’ eyes, robbing orchards, thrashing his schoolfellows, stealing old men’s sticks and lame men’s crutches, making fun of females, and “cheeking” his elders. All these characteristics may be inferred from his behavior in after life. He entered the camp of Dan, it seems, while still young, and there “ the spirit of the Lord began to move him at times.” An early movement of the spirit sent him after a young woman at Timnath, a daughter of the Philistines. He returned home in sharp haste, and told the old people to go down and get her for his wife. They very properly desired him to choose a wife from his own tribe, but he cut them short. “ She just suits me,” said he, “ so you’d better fetch her at once.” This conduct was very undutiful, but then “ it was of the Lord.” On this occasion, as on every other, Samson went courting amongst aliens, in direct violation of God’s law; but as the Lord prompted him to the first offence, we presume that he is equally responsible for all that followed. Hercules slew the lion of the Nemean forest without any weapon, and Samson first displayed his prowess by slaying a young lion with “ nothing in his hand.” We are left to con­ jecture how the feat was performed, but religious artists have not hesitated to supplement the Bible narrative. There is one picture which represents Samson with the lion between his legs, while he wrenches open its jaws with his two hands. If that young lion’s teeth were in good order, it must have been rough work for his fingers, unless the Lord specially hardened them as he did Pharaoh’s heart. Samson kept his exploit secret and went on to his young woman. Shortly after, on passing the spot again, he found a swarm of bees and honey in the lion’s carcase. He took a couple of handfuls, of which he ate some himself, and gave the rest to his parents. The wedding was arranged, and thirty young men �Bully Samson. 141 ■came to share in the merriment. By way of killing the time, Samson propounded a riddle. If they solved it in seven days, he was to give them thirty sheets and thirty changes of raiment; if not, they were to give him the same articles. The riddle was, “ Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” For six days they tried to crack this hard nut, and on the seventh they threatened Mrs. Samson that if she did not worm the answer out of her husband, they would murder her and all the family. She coaxed the great bully, wept all day like a thunder-shower, and “lay sore upon him,” until at last he told her the answer, which she conveyed to his friends, who ■of course won the bet. Samson delicately taunted them with having “ ploughed with his heifer,” and then absconded, leaving his wife for his bosom friend. Being in a dreadful rage, he went to Ashkelon, and killed thirty men to cool himself down. A passage in Virgil’s fourth Georgic indicates the ancient belief that bees might be engendered in the carcase of an ox. It was, however, a mere superstition, involving a physical im­ possibility. Bees do not build in dead flesh, for their wax and honey would be spoiled by putrefaction, and Samson’s riddle is a riddle still. The slaying of the lion is mythological. We have already mentioned Hercules, but more remains. The Assyrians and Lydians, Semitic nations like the Jews, worshipped a sun-god named Sandan or Sandon, who was also a lion killer. The lion is found as the animal of Apollo on the Lycian monuments as well as at Patara. “ Hence,” says Steinthal, “ it becomes clear that the lion was accepted by the Semitic nations as a symbol of the summer heat............. ‘ Samson, Hercules, or Sandon, kills the lion ’ means therefore ‘ He is the beneficent saving power that protects the earth against the burning heat of summer.’ Samson is the kind Aristaeos who delivers the Island of Keos from the lion, the protector of bees and hives of honey, which is most abundant when the sun is in the lion.” Having satiated his anger, Samson remembered the young woman at Timnath, and at harvest time he went down with a nice present. Like the rude lover in Voltaire’s “L’lngenu,” he walked to her bedroom, but her father barred his way. “No, no,” said he, “that little game won’t do now, Samson ; the girl’s another man’s wife, so hands off ; yet there’s her sister, a fine handsome girl, and you can have her if you like.” Samson said he would see him in Hades first, and bolted in a tempest of passion. He caught three hundred foxes, tied them in pairs tail to tail, stuck firebrands between their rumps, and sent them into the standing corn of the Philistines. Terrible destruction en­ sued, and the enraged Philistines burnt the young woman of Timnath and her father to death. Samson must have been a dexterous sportsman to catch three hundred foxes. Some commentators try to evade the difficulty ■by maintaining that the word staaKm means handfuls or sheaves �142 Bully Samson. of corn, instead of jackals or foxes ; but the word rendered as caught never means simply to get, but always to seize by strata­ gem. We learn from Ovid’s “Fasti” that it was a Roman custom in April to let loose a number of foxes in the circus with lighted flambeaux on their backs ; and the people took pleasure in seeing the poor animals run about until they were roasted by the flames. Dr. Oort considers the whole episode as mythical, and states that “in the reddish-brown jackals, with torches between their tails, we easily recognise the lurid thunder-cloud, from the projecting points of which the lightning-flashes seem to dart.” In any case Samson’s feat is incredible. He must have been as wily as the Devil to catch so many foxes, and three hundred could not be collected without attracting atten­ tion. Nor could they make much progress if the couples were fairly matched, and pulled in opposite directions. Our opinion is that Samson could have burnt down all the Philistines’ corn in less time than it takes to catch one fox ; but, on the other hand, if he had acted like a sensible man, he would not have been Samson. After smiting the Philistines hip and thigh, Samson retreated to the rocky fastness of Etam, although it is strange that so irre­ sistible a warrior should hide himself from his enemies. His own people sided with the Philistines, and he grimly allowed himself to be bound with new ropes, and delivered up to the foe. But as they shouted he broke through his bonds like tinder, and went for them with the jawbone of a jackass that happened to be­ lying about. When he stopped slashing, a thousand corpses were piled in heaps. Those Philistines must have been jackasses too. They must have stood and waited their turns. Why did they not skedaddle, and leave Samson to cut slices out of the air ? According to Herodotus, Hercules had a similar adventure in ■®gypt> where the inhabitants took him to offer as a sacrifice to Jupiter. For awhile he submitted quietly, but when they led him up to the altar, he put forth his strength and slew them all. The charming old raconteur points out, however, that the Egyp­ tians were not guilty of human sacrifices. Samson was dreadfully thirsty after completing his tally of victims, and being ready to die, he called on the Lord, who clave a hollow in the jawbone and brought water from it. One com­ mentator suggests that the socket of a tooth became a well. What a monstrous ass ! Hercules was favored with a similar miracle. After slaying the dragon of the Hesperides, he was in danger of perishing with thirst in the scorching deserts of Libya, but the gods caused a fountain to issue from a rock which he struck with his foot. Dr., Oort considers the jawbone and the spring as mythical; the former being the jagged thunder-cloud, from which the lightning shoots, while the latter is the rain that pours out of it as the sun-god triumphs. �Bully Samson. 143 This tremendous massacre of Philistines appears to have gained Samson the Judgeship of Israel, which he held for twenty years. Such a strong fellow no doubt found very few who dared to disobey him. With Samson it was a word and a blow, and no one that felt his fist once ever lived to feel it twice. His next exploit was that of a perfect bully. He went down to Gaza for a spree, intending to stay all night at a brothel. While he sported with his harlot the Gazites heard the news, and they laid in wait for him, so as to kill him in the morning. But they were woefully disappointed, for at midnight Samson grew restless, and wanted to stretch himself. He sallied out, pro­ bably without paying his score, lugged off the gates of the city on his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of a hill. How they got them back is a knotty question. Perhaps they induced Samson to convey them back, and in return settled his account with “ the harlot.” His next amour, for like the pagan Hercules he had many, was with Delilah. She dwelt in Nachal Sorek, that is, the Vine Valley. This may be a mythical trait, representing the zealous wooing of the vine by the sun-god ; or it may imply that Samson was anything but a Nazarite. The word Delilah, according to Ewald, means traitress; but the generally accepted meaning is languid, delicate, triste. Great bullies are usually enamoured of frail little women. As Omphale befooled Hercules, so Delilah befooled Samson. Milton treats her as his wife, yet it is pretty clear that she was a professional beauty. The Philistines offered her eleven hundred pieces of silver to find out and reveal the secret of Samson’s strength. He tricked her thrice, but the fourth time she had him. He told her that his strength lay in his hair, and that if it were shaven he would become as weak as another man. She made him “ sleep upon her knees ” a sleep so profound that it was probably the result of drunkenness and exhaustion; called in a barber, who shaved off his seven locks and left him bald as a plate; and then handed him over to the Philistines, who bound him with brass fetters, put out his eyes, and made him grind in their prison house. But Samson’s turn was coming. His death was to be more marvellous than his life. In the fifth act of the play he was to make positively his last appearance, to eclipse all his previous efforts, and literally bring down the house. The Philistine lords arranged for a public holiday to celebrate Samson’s capture, and to honor their god Dagon for delivering him into their hands. When their hearts were merry, they called for Samson to make them sport, from which it would appear that they had turned him into a kind of clown. They should have been more careful, for Samson’s hair had begun to grow again, and his p ite “ showed like a stubble land at harvest home.” Why did they not keep a barber to give him a clean shave every morning ? Very dearly did they pay for their negli- �144 Bully Samson. gence. Samson got his keeper to let him lean for rest against the two middle pillars that supported the great roof of the temple, on which there were about three thousand men and women. Then he clasped the pillars with either hand, prayed the Lord to let him avenge himself on the Philistines for the loss of his eyes, bowed himself with all his might, and brought down the whole structure in shapeless ruin. Thus Bully Samson sank, terrible in death, surrounded by great heaps of slain enemies. His people searched out his corpse, and buried it in the family vault. Samson’s suicide is capable of a mythic interpretation. Her­ cules also destroyed himself by burning, but arose out of the flames to Olympus. “The sun-god,” observes Steinthal, “in fighting against the summer heat is fighting against himself; if he kills it, he kills himself.” The Phoenicians, Assyrians and Lydians attributed suicide to their sun-gods, for only thus could they understand the sun’s mitigation of its own heat. Yet they did not suppose that the god actually died, but only that he renewed himself like the Phoenix. In this respect the story of Samson seems to lack a fitting conclusion ; but it must be re­ membered that the Rabbis did not intend it to be regarded as a solar myth, that it contains a mixture of elements, and that, as Ewald holds, the present version was probably based on an earlier work. Bully Samson’s history has not a single redeeming feature. He judged Israel for twenty years, but that post did not require much virtue, and it was often occupied by sturdy rogues. Adam Clarke admits that “ if we regard what is called the choice of Hercules, his preference of virtue to pleasure, we shall find that the heathen is, morally speaking, vastly superior.” Yet this learned commentator elsewhere says that “a parallel has often been drawn between Samson and our blessed Lord, of whom he has been supposed to be a most illustrious type.” This brings the Prophet of Nazareth very low indeed, and classes him with the gutter-crowd of Bible worthies. Jesus Christ was not, in our opinion, so transcendently good and wise and great as his followers assert; but he certainly deserves to be rescued from the critical violence of Doctor Adam Clarke. He in nowise resembles the mythical Jewish hero, who drank, spreed, raked, fought, and murdered wholesale. It would be more truthful to say that he is an “ illustrious type ” of God the Father, for there is a most remarkable resemblance between the characters of Jehovah and Samson. Old Jahveh is the head of the house, but Bully Samson is a cadet of the family and shares the blood. PRICE ONE PENNY. London: Fkeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XIX. GOSPEL GHOSTS. By G. W. FOOTE. --------- ♦--------- The belief la ghosts is rapidly dying out. They are scarcely ever heard of in towns, except in a forlorn condition at Spiritist Seances, where they are at the beck and call of professional mediums, and reduced to playing tricks for their sport and profit. Most surviving ghosts lurk about villages and lonely homesteads. The reason of this is obvious. Life and society quicken the intellect in towns, while the quiet and solitude of the country stimulate the imagination. And ghosts are entirely a matter of fancy. Like miracles they depend on faith. If you believe in them you you may see them ; if you do not you never will. The superstitious man might behold one in a dimly-lighted room, but a sceptic would sot perceive one in a dark churchyard. Ghosts are pure illusions. They are literally, to use a slang phrase, “ all my eye.” Yet the Bible abounds with these phantasms. They are of Various kinds, from little spectres to the great Ghost, commonly called Holy, who himself appears in a variety of forms. Such a feet is, however, not surprising when we consider that God s Word is full of the grossest superstitions. Its very author, when he came on earth in the person of Jesus Christ, actually thought that mad people had devils in them, and were to be cured by the exorcist instead of the doctor. Nothing unscientific or absurd need therefore surprise us in his writings. We ought rather, in read­ ing them, to be thankful for the smallest mercies in the shape of knowledge and common sense. Gospel Ghosts are the subject of this Romance, but I cannot treat them without some preliminary words on those of the Old Testament. We are very early introduced to one of these. The second verse of Genesis says that “ the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” But as there were no eyes to view this ocean traveller, the very fish not being then in existence, we have no notion of its form or feature. All we can say is that it was the loneliest ghost on record, with the most miserable occupation. It was worse off than Noah, for although he sailed the seas for twelve months without sight of land, and must have been heartily «ick of so much water, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he had a drop of “ something short ” inside his floating menagerie ; especially when we reflect that the first thing he did after the Flood, directly he had offered his burnt offering to the Lord, was to get dead drunk, which seems to show his ardent love of the cratur. The next ^host was “ the Lord God,” whom Adam and Eve heard “ walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Scripture �146 I “l ill I Gospel Ghosts. states that they heard his voice, so he was probably holding a conversation with himself, as persons of weak intellect often do. This is quite in keeping with the sequel, which displays him in a dreadful passion at occurences which anyone but a fool would have naturally expected. Yet this ghost is, in a manner, an advance on the first, having passed, as Herbert Spencer would say, from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous state, from the simple to the complex. The “ Spirit of the Lord ” appears to have been a gaseous body, if I may so speak of a ghost; but the “ Lord God ” has a voice and a walking apparatus, and is therefore organic, I wonder how long this process of development took. The ghostly biologist who answers that question will settle a puzzling problem in chronology, namely, the interval of time between “ in the beginning ” and the creation of Adam. After the Flood, and until the Jews settled down in Palestine, the Lord frequently appeared again. He visited Abraham several times, and on one occasion stopped to dinner. Two of his angels, or himself divided into two, called on Lot at Sodom, and put up with him for the night. He met Jacob near Jabbok brook and held a wrestling match with him, in which, after many hours’ rough sport, he was at last defeated, although he dislocated his adversary’s thigh. Moses saw him in a burning bush, in a public­ house, and up a mountain, where he spent forty days with him and had a panoramic view of his “ afterwards.” Altogether Jahveli was a pretty busy ghost, until he found it more respectable and prudent to cultivate a retiring disposition. Lastly, there were many angelic ghosts in the Old Testament who played various parts, such as heavenly messsengers, pro­ misers of children to barren wives, (these were doubtless young and good-looking), lying prophets, and wholesale murderers. But the most remarkable angels were those sons of God who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and who were appa­ rently the progenitors of a mongrel race of giants. It has, how­ ever, been suggested that this narrative was written by a subtle satirist who sailed as close to the wind as he could; that these sons of God were priests, a class always fond of the fair sex; and that the mongrel offspring wrere the bastard children they pro­ created. The first Bible ghost, in the more modern sense of the word, is that of the prophet Samuel, who was raised by the witch of Endor. This old lady kept a “ familiar spirit,” and no doubt a bristly tom-cat. Her trade was summoning ghosts in the dead of night. She was one of the survivors of a numerous tribe of witches and wizards whom Saul had rooted out of the land in his vigorous and sensible reign ; but in his decline, when the priests and conjurers were all against him, and he was himself troubled with fits of melancholy and superstition, he paid this old Hecate a visit. Apparently ashamed of his weakness, he went in disguise, and asked her to bring up Samuel. There was much haggling before she would begin the performance, for according to the �Gospel Ghosts. 147 law her life was in danger, but at last she brought the old fellow up. Probably as business had been dull of late, she had grown unused to ghosts ; at any rate, when she saw Samuel she screamed, and fancied she saw streams of spectres issuing from the ground. Samuel wore a mantle, so there are clothes in the spirit world, as the Spiritists of to-day aver, although some of their lady mediums have been detected playing the ghost themselves with devilish little on. Samuel’s ghost spoke, and all other ghosts indulge more or less in the same diversion. They generally talk utter nonsense, although Samuel’s language was rather wicked than absurd. I should like to know what sort of voice he had. Superstition generally ascribes to ghosts the ghost of a voice. Savages describe the spirit-voice as a chirp or murmur, and the classic descriptions of Homer and Ovid are very similar. Shakespeare makes the King’s ghost in Hamlet speak monotonous lines which we naturally associate with subdued accents; and the low mysterious tone is still affected by the “ familiar spirits ” of modern mediums. A screaming ghost would be a screaming farce. Those who wish to find the explanation of this and many other facts of Animism should consult Mr. E. B. Tylor’s magnificent work on “Primitive Culture.” Now let us make a leap to the time of Elijah, who played an extraordinary trick with a ghost. He was lodging with a widow at Zarephath, and living on her miraculous barrel of meal and cruse of oil, which never failed, but gave forth perennial supplies of pancakes. This fortunate lady’s boy fell ill and died, and she reproached the prophet with being the cause of her loss. He in turn gave the Lord a lecture on the subject, and asked what he meant by slaying the poor woman’s son. Then Elijah carried the little corpse up into the garret he occupied rent free, laid it on his bed, “ stretched himself upon the child three times.” and besought the Lord to let its soul come back. His prayer was heard, the third stretch was lucky, “ the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” Curiously there is a similar feat recorded of Elisha, who inherited Elijah’s mantle, and pro­ bably all the rest of his paraphernalia. His hostess, however, was not a widow but a wife. Her husband was old, and she had no child when Elisha first came to their house, but that little defect was soon remedied. She had a son and heir, who grew big enough to carry his father’s dinner to the reaping field, where alas ! he was killed by a sunstroke. Elisha operated on the corpse as Elijah had done before him. He stretched himself on the child, mouth on mouth, eyes on eyes, and hands on hands, gave it a good warming, and then went downstairs to get up the steam again, perhaps over a bottle of inspiration. Being well primed, he ascended and gave the corpse another middle. This effort was crowned with complete success. The child’s soul returned, he sneezed seven times, and opened his eyes, no doubt, thinking Elisha had been giving him snuff. �148 Gospel Ghosts. What a fine example of barbaric superstition I Among savages, such as the ancient Jews undoubtedly were, it is a common belief that the soul leaves the body when a man faints or dies, and may sometimes be brought back by calling on it; and thus, says Tylor, “ the bringing back of lost souls becomes a regular part of the sorcerer s or priest's professions." Elijah and Elisha seem to have both been in this line of business, and these two cases may have been recorded merely as specimens of their skill. And how interesting and instructive is that incident of the child sneezing seven times ! The breath and the soul were the same thing, and both passed through the nose. God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. At the Flood all in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. Jacob, as Tylor says, prayed that man’s soul might not thenceforth depart from his body when he sneezed. It has been a general custom to utter a pious ejaculation on sneezing; and when, after a good sneeze Christians say “God bless me !” they are unconsciously performing an ancient religious rite. Sternutation is widely associated with demoniacal possession. The idea appears among peoples so diverse as the Hindus, the Persians, the Kelts, the Kaffirs, and the Jews, not to mention a number of other races. The Messalians, an heretical sect, used to spit and blow their noses to expel the (lemons they might have drawn in with their breath. There are pictures of mediaeval exorcists driving out devils through the patients’ nostrils; and centuries earlier Josephus told of his seeing a certain Jew, named Eleazar, cure demoniacs by drawing the demons out through the same channel. Yes, the nose is as prominent in religious history as it is on our faces, and its intimate connection with the soul may explain why the priests have always led us by this particular organ. Elisha s bones, although they could not resuscitate themselves, had the power of reviving others. A corpse dropped hurriedly into his sepulchre stood up alive and kicking. Ezekiel saw a whole valley of dry bones start into life again. Probably the old ghosts were ready to resume their bodies at a very short notice, for they were supposed to haunt the place of their burial. Quite another kind of ghost was the one that passed before the face of Eliphaz in the dead of night and made the “ hair of his flesh ” stand up like quills upon the fretful porcupine. Unfortunately we have no description of it; yet, as it preached a long sermom, we may conjecture that it was the ghost of a parson looking out fo<’ a fresh pulpit. * This preliminary dissertation on the apparitions of the Old Testament has proved longer than I expected ; but it is necessary to my purpose, and it will enable the reader to understand the Gospe Ghosts. Jesus Christ himself was considered a ghost by some of the early heretics. They could not conceive that Deity was born of a woman, ate, drank, and slept, and suffered an ignominious death ; so they held that the Messiah was not a being of flesh and blood, but a phantasm. There is something to be said for this opinion �Gospel Ghosts. 149 for the same Jesus who was crucified and buried ascended into heaven ; and does not St. Paul say that “ flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God ?” But on the other hand there are the very plain unequivocal words which Luke puts into the mouth of Jesus on his appearence to the eleven, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. ’ This seems decisive. Yet those fastidious heretics may be met half way, for if Jesus was not a ghost, he was the son of a ghost. With the exception of those spirits Jesus was in the habit of casting out from people who never possessed them, a sprightly variety of which he sent into the Gadarean swine, the first authentic ghost he took in hand was that of Jairus's daughter. Some critics, among whom is Olshausen, throw doubt on this how­ ever. When Jesus came to raise the girl from the dead, in other words to call her ghost back, he said “ the maid is not dead, but sleepeth.” Those critics take this language literally, and assert that it was not a case of resurrection at all. When the doctors differ who shall decide? No doubt this is a very important ■question, but somehow the world is quite content to leave it unsettled, even though it remain open till the day of judgment. Matthew, Mark and Luke narrate this story, but John does not. Mark and Luke both say that Jesus, after restoring the maid to her friends, charged them that they should tell no man, while Matthew says that “ the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.” This is a good illustration of Gospel Harmony. Yet it is fair to say that the different stories may be reconciled by ■supposing that Jesus told a white lie. He might have asked them to keep the miracle a secret, in order to get it well published. Jesus raised up more than one person from the dead, as indeed was to be expected, for Rabbi Acha in the Talmud only expressed the general belief when he said that “ in the Messianic time God will wake the dead, as he did before by Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel.” The second case was that of the widow's son at Nain. Jesus resuscitated him publicly before “ much people ” as he was being carried to the grave. Of course the young man, like the young maid, was never heard of again; and although the “ rumor went forth through all Judaea,” it never reached the ears of Matthew, Mark and John. Josephus did not hear of it, nor even Paul, for he told Agrippa that Christ was the first that rose from the dead, and in Corinthians (xv, 20) he calls him “ the firstfruits of them that slept.” For any useful result, or any conviction it produced, this miracle was as barren as the figtree. Philostratus relates a similar story of Apollonius of Tyana, who met one day in the streets of Rome a damsel carried out to burial, followed by her betrothed, and by a weeping company. He bade them set down the bier, saying he would staunch their tears; and having enquired her name, whispered something in her ear, and then, taking her by the hand, he lifted her up, and she began straightway to speak, and returned to her father s house. This story is quite as beautiful as Luke's, and probably quite as true. �150 Gospel Ghosts. Professor Rhys. Davids and other Buddhist scholars narrate it with slight varia­ tions, but it is more finely rendered by Mr. Edwin Arnold in his noble poem “ The Light of Asia.” A young mother brings theMaster her dying child, bitten by a poisonous snake, and implores, his aid. Gazing at her with his gentle eyes, and laying on her his patient hand, he says that there is one thing which might heal her grief and the boy’s wound, if she could find it; a black mustard-seed, taken from a house where no father, mother, child or slave has died. But she seeks it in vain, for although those of whom she begs kindly offer her the seed, she cannot take it, because every house bears the taint of death ; and she returns tothe pitiful wise Master with the sad news. A far more beautiful story is told of Buddha. “ My sister! thou hast found,” the Master said, “ Searching for what none finds—that bitter balm I had to give thee. He thou lovedst slept Dead on thy bosom yesterday : to-day Thou know’st the whole wide world weeps with thy woe: The grief which all hearts share grows less for one. Lo ! I would pour my blood if I could stay Thy tears and win the secret of that curse Which makes sweet love our anguish, and which drives— O’er flowers and pastures to the sacrifice— As these dumb beasts are driven—-men their lords. I seek that secret bury thou thy child. How pathetic, yet how sane! How far above Luke’s story of' Christ, which teaches no lesson and touches no eternal problem ! Yet Buddha was a “ heathen moralist,” who lived centuries before Christ was born. Luke claims to have had “ perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” and he certainly beats the other evangelists in his account of the ruler’s daughter. Yet he yields to reporter John in the case of Lazarus; in fact, John, beats all three of his rivals hollow, for while he hunts up all the details of the gentleman's resurrection, they never once get on, the scent. Lazarus was loved by Jesus; he lived and died, rose from the tomb, and lived and died again, unless he is still roam­ ing the earth; yet Matthew, Mark and Luke never heard of him.. What makes this ignorance still more striking is that John repre­ sents the raising of Lazarus as the fact which provoked the resent­ ment of the chief priests and Pharisees, and led to the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus knew that his friend Lazarus lay dying, but would not save his life, because he meant to work a bigger miracle. When he arrived at Bethany, Martha and Mary were surrounded with sympathetic friends, and weeping over their brother’s grave. Thescene was so affecting that “ Jesus wept ” too, although he knew,, which they did not, that in less than a minute Lazarus would be restored to life. Jesus is called “ the man of sorrows,” and not without cause, for he could pipe his optics on the smallest provo­ cation. �Gospel Ghosts. 151 Lazarus had been dead four days, and his flesh was rather high. Martha said “he stinketh ” ; and St. Ambrose wrote that the smell was like Egyptian darkness, so thick that it could be felt. But Jesus, being the son of Jahveh, and used to the sickly odor ■of burnt offerings, was not deterred by such a trifle. Approaching the tomb, he first asked his celestial parent to back him up, and then shouted “ Lazarus, come forth!” Whereupon the corpse started up all alive, but not kicking, for it was bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and must have looked remarkably like a bale of bacon. Lazarus was soon unpacked, and then he walked away into infinite space, for he was never heard of afterwards. Many people saw this miracle, but it was not mentioned at the trial of Jesus before Pilate. What a strange omission 1 If Lazarus had been produced in court, with the witnesses of his resurrection, is it likely that Pilate would have sentenced Jesus to death ? Or, if the chief priests and Pharisees believed in the miracle, would they have tried to kill one who had proved him­ self the master of Death ? Why did Jesus shout “Lazarus, come forth”? Would not a whisper have done as well ? There is a theatrical air about the whole performance. Renan suggests that it was all a trick, got up between Lazarus and Jesus, when the latter’s head was turned and his conscience perverted by the Messianic delusion. Dr. Davidson saves the credit of his Savior by impeaching John’s accuracy, and charging him with “ converting the Lazarus of the parable in Luke into a historical person.” Keim also holds that “ not a doubt can remain of the spuriousness of the whole story.” A host of Biblical critics agree with this view, including Schenkel Strauss, Baur, Weisse and Hilgenfeld. What became of Lazarus after his resurrection ? Scripture is silent, but tradition says he became Bishop of Marseilles, which is no doubt as true as that he wrote the wrote the “ Marseillaise.” Epiphanius relates that he lived thirty years after his “ second birth.” What a pity he did not occupy some of that time in writing his autobiography 1 The history of the four days he spent God knows where would have been the best bit of literary property in the market. There is a tradition that the first thinoLazarus asked on coming to, was whether he should die aoaimand on being told “ Yes,” he never smiled more. Had he 'then’ like Jesus a little later, spent those four days in Hell ? Or had he been to Heaven, and finding it dismally monotonous, as Revelation depicts, was he terrified at the thought of returning, and dwelling for ever with what Heine called “ all the menagerie of the Apocalypse ” ? Robert Browning has brought great learn­ ing and subtlety to bear on this subject, in his Epistle of Karshish the Arab Physician, but of course he is a poet and not a theologian. Jesus Christ's ghost will be dealt with in my next Romance which I shall devote entirely to his resurrection and ascension.’ I conclude this one with a few words on the great ghost, the �152 Gospel Ghosts. ghost of ghosts, the Holy Ghost. Let us, dear reader, approach this mystical spirit with fear and trembling; for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a sin that will never be forgiven us in this world or the next. It leads as surely to the pit as jumping from the gallery of a theatre ; and is all the more to be dreaded because nobody knows exactly what it is. Men have speculated whether this being should be called he she, or it. But the incidents treated in my Romance of “A Virgin Mother ” decisively settle that question. Mary “ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” What shape the heavenly father of Jesus took when he visited Joseph s young woman is a moot point. Protestant writers shirk the subject, but Catholics go in for the dove or the pigeon. They ridicule the pagan story of Jove’s making love to Leda in the form of a swan, and becoming the father of Castor and Pollux. But what difference is there between these two myths except in the size of the bird ? Yet to laugh at the one is legitimate fun, while to laugh at the other is unpardonable sin. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost depends on a mere point in ornithology. There is no doubt as to the Holy Ghost's form on his next appearance. When Jesus was baptised “ he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.” This is Matthew's account. Luke goes farther. He writes as though all the bystanders witnessed the marvel as well as Jesus, “ The heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove.” Fancy such an avatar occurring to­ day, and some pious sportsman taking a pot shot at the sacred bird, and eating the Holy Ghost for supper. Fortunately the age of miracles is past, and we need not fear such a catastrophe. The last appearance of the Holy Ghost was on that famous day of Pentecost, when he came in the form of tongues of fire on the heads of the twelve apostles. The effect of this visitation was singular : they all began to jabber strange tongues. Some of the auditors thought they were filled with the spirit, and others said they were drunk. A similar diversity of opinion haj obtained since. Many men have been “ filled with the Holy Ghost,” like those captains of the first Salvation Army, have talked with strange tongues, have seen visions and dreamed dreams ; and while some people have thought them inspired, others have thought them delirious. This latter class have ever, as in the Acts, been stigmatised as “ mockers,” but their number is rapidly increasing in this age of science and common-sense. They have always had the laugh on their side, and now the world is coming over too. A mighty roar of laughter is shaking the realms of superstition, flutteringall the ghosts, warning them to melt into thin air, and “ like the baseless fabric of a vision faded, leave not a wrack behind.” PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. �BIBLE ROMANCES—XX. A RISING GOD. By G. W. FOOTE. -------- ♦------We now approach the Romance of the Resurrection and the strange exploits of the famous Jerusalem ghost. Singular as it. may appear, the “ greatest religion in the world ” is founded on the history of this phantom. For eighteen centuries it has rested the eternal welfare of mankind on a fable. Ever since St. Paul wrote “If Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain,” Christianity has staked everything on a mythical story, no more respectable than that of the Cock Lane ghost. The wild delu­ sions of an hysterical woman, communicated to a multitude of others by a well known process of infusion, originated that Gospel of the Resurrection which is described as the Christian’s support in life and consolation in death, and without which none of us should see salvation. In the previous Romance of “ Gospel Ghosts ” I prepared the ground for this, and considerable space was devoted to the Old Testament ghosts because their treatment was essential to my purpose. My readers can now estimate the statements of Canon Westcott on this subject, and see through his sophistries. In his “ Gospel of the Resurrection ” he contends that Christ s disciples were not likely to have been deceived, because “there was no popular belief at the time which could have inspired them with a faith in an imaginary Resurrection.” This writer presumes on his readers’ ignorance. The resurrection of the dead was a. primary doctrine of the Pharisees, and distinguished them from the Sadducees. These parties were the two great religious divisions of Judaism, the former representing popular Dissent and the latter the orthodox State Church. When Paul stood before the Sanhedrim, and was in danger for reviling the high priest Ananias, he dexterously availed himself of their jealousy by crying, “ I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee : of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” This; clever evasion set them by the ears at once, and “there arose a dissension.” On a former occasion the Pharisees cornered Jesus with a puzzle that turned on their favorite doctrine.; they asked him whose wife a woman seven times married would be at the resurrection. Canon Westcott’s statement is thus belied by his own Scripture. And it is further belied by history, for the sect, of Essenes, to which Jesus himself probably belonged, joined with the Pharisees in their opposition to the Mosaic doctrine of the Sadducees, and their acceptance of the belief in a future life.. We have also seen that the raising of persons from the dead was-, not uncommon in the days of the prophets, that Jesus several �154 A Rising God. times performed the same feat, and that the Jews fully expected the Messiah to revive corpses after the manner of Elijah. The learned Canon merely alludes to these significant facts, -and then tries to nullify them by arguing that “ the belief in the resuscitation of the dead to the vicissitudes of ordinary life would indispose for the belief in a rising to a life wholly new in kind and issue.” Perhaps so, but what new feature was there in the story of Christ’s resurrection ? It is beyond all dispute that he was believed to have risen in the body. Beyond a certain capacity for mysteriously appearing and vanishing, and floating •through closed doors, he displayed all the characteristics of a human being. He walked, talked and dined; and when the -apostles imagined him a spirit, he repudiated the idea, and invited them to feel his muscle. True, he ascended into heaven before their eyes, but it was in a bodily form; and they were ■quite prepared to see him levitate, for Enoch and Elijah had gone aloft in that way, and could the Messiah do any less ? The idea of a lost leader’s return is not novel. Witness the legends of Arthur, Arminius, Barbarossa, and Napoleon. Even Nero, as Suetonius relates, was expected to come again and resume his throne. And to this day the crazy Southcotians believe that their Joanna will revisit the earth. But perhaps the most signal parallel to the apostles’ frame of mind is to be found in the story of Omar, who, when the report of Mohammed’s death was brought, drew his scimitar, and swore he would kill the wretch who dared to say that the prophet of Allah could die. Let it not be said that it was impossible for a legend concern­ ing Jesus to grow up during the lifetime of his disciples. Light­ foot well says that the Jews were perhaps the most superstitious people that ever lived. With equal truth Iienan asserts that “ Palestine was one of the countries most in arrear in the science ■ of the day; the Cali beans were the most ignorant of all the inhabitants of Palestine, and the disciples of Jesus might be leckoned among the most stupid Galilseans.” There was nothing too. extravagant for their credulity. Sixteen centuries later a similar legend to that of Jesus Christ arose among the followers ■of one of his compatriots. Sabbathai Sevi, in 1666, proclaimed himself the Messiah, and attracted a crowd of disciples. Being seized by the Sultan, who would not tolerate his vagaries, he had to face the grim alternative of making a summary exit from this world or becoming a Mussulman. He preferred conversion to ■execution, and lived until 1676, when he succumbed to a colic instead of the bowstring. “ It might have been expected,” says Milman, “ that his sect, if it survived his apostacy, at least would have expired with his death ; but there is no calculating the ■obstinacy of human credulity: his followers gave out that he was transported to heaven like Enoch and Elijah ; and notwithstand­ ing the constant and active opposition of the Jewish priesthood, the sect spread in all quarters.” Now if, in the seventeenth cen­ tury, such a legend could arise respecting a man -who publicly �A Rising God. 155 apostatised, and who, instead of suffering martyrdom, died of flatulence ; how much more easily, in the first century, might a similar legend gather round the memory of a nobler character, whose tragic end is one of the most pathetic episodes in human history. Having in another volume admitted that our four gospels can­ not be traced back farther than the second half of the second eentury, Canon Westcott is obliged to make much of the earlier epistles of St. Paul. The First of Corinthians is universally allowed to be authentic, and in the fifteenth chapter the great apostle gives his “testimony to Christ’s resurrection.” Paul writes that “ he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures : And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve : After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James ; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also’ as of one born out of due time.” There is no idealism about this, says the learned Canon; it is purely historic. He then arbitrarily fixes the date of Paul’s conversion at “ ten years after the Lord’s death,” and concludes that we have the unimpeachable witness of a contemporary. What marvellous logic! What astounding ignorance of the laws of evidence ! Paul was not an actual witness of the Resurrection; and as. there is not the slightest evidence that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh, how could he recognise his apparition ? For ten years after the crucifixion Paul disbelieved the story of the risen Christ, and persecuted those who embraced it. He was not a dolt, but a man of sharp, inquiring intellect; and surely he examined the story before he rejected it. Investigation and argument never convinced him of its truth ; it required a miracleio persuade him. And even that is open to doubt, for there are many who hold that he was converted by a sunstroke. On the road to Damascus, where he intended to ferret out the Christians, “ suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven T and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?” This was not a case of sun­ stroke, say the apologists, for the narrative states that “ the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” But Paul himself, in relating the adventure (Acts xxii., 9), says that they “ saw indeed the light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” On the whole it is clear that he only heard the voice, while neither he nor they beheld any apparition. It was clearly a case of sun­ stroke attended with hallucination. Paul may be pardoned for yielding to delusions at a time of intense excitement, but there ©an be no excuse for the Christian apologists who share them in ©old blood. Paid obviously considers this “ appearance B of Christ of the same kind as the others. He made no distinction between sub- �156 A Rising God. jective and objective experiences. Of what value, then, is his testimony ? And how can he stand sponsor for the other witnesses he enumerates but does not produce ? Who were the “ five hundred brethen ” that saw the risen Christ? Why did not Paul record their evidence fully? Why were not the survivors brought before a responsible committee, and their examinations taken down and preserved ? And how did there happen to be “five hundred brethren” assembled in one place, when the disciples, immediately after the Ascension “ together were about an hundred and twenty ” ? Did Jesus descend again from heaven, and give another farewell perform­ ance, positively for the last time ? Now let us come to the four gospels. These were not in existence until long after Jesus and all his disciples had mouldered to dust. They are not contemporary witness, but the voice of tradition, put into a literary form by unknown writers. As might be expected, they agree considerably as to the sayings of Jesus, but differ widely as to his doings; and their disagreement is naturally greatest with respect to the supernatural portions of his history. Matthew states that at the crucifixion there was darkness over all the land for three hours. Luke says it extended “ over all the earth.” Mark and John never heard of it, nor did Josephus, who was also a Jew. It also escaped the notice of every profane historian. Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus and Plutarch do not mention this extraordinary occurrence, although two of them carefully recorded prodigies and wonders. Matthew also states that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. Luke of course agrees, and Mark and John are again silent. An earthquake is introduced to account for this rent, but how could an earthquake tear a soft, flexible substance without throwing down the solid structure to which it was attached ? Matthew further alleges that this capricious earthquake opened the graves, and that many of the sleeping saints arose and strolled into Jerusalem. Mark and John are again silent. Even Luke throws up the sponge, and leaves Matthew in possession of the field. Earthquakes were cheap enough in that superstitious age, and ghosts were as plentiful as blackberries. No wonder the Christians borrowed a few for their Savior's death. How could they do less, when as much was done for Pagan kings and emperors ? Shakespeare, who let nothing slip, notices how “ In the most high and palmy state of Rome, A little ere the mighty Julius fell, The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.” Why are not the prodigies related of the death of Caesar as cred­ ible as those related of the death of Christ ? Matthew’s use of the word “ saints ” in this story is very singular. As they died before Jesus, they were not redeemed �A Rising God. 157 by his precious blood. Perhaps it is true, as Irenaeus asserts, that Jesus lived till fifty ; and thus a crowd of disciples might have gone to their graves before he gave up the ghost. And what became of the “ saints ” after their resurrection? Why did aot Paul produce a few of them instead of vaguely alluding to those “ five hundred brethren ” ? According to Eusebius, Quadratus presented an apology to the Emperor Hadrian about A.D. 120, in which he asserted that some of them were still surviving ! Many of the biggest lies on record were told by those early Christians ; and if the Devil is the father of liars as well as lies, they have a good claim to be considered his eldest children. In what condition did the “ saints ” arise ? Were they stinking like Lazarus ? They were not spirits, but resuscitated bodies. Did they return home “ like ghosts to trouble joy,” as the Lotos Eaters say in Tennyson’s poem ? Surely there must have been great confusion. The late Mr. Solomons probably found Mrs. Solomons married again to Mr. Isaacs, and so reconciled to her lot as to resent his impertinent intrusion. Jesus would of course be obliged to act as umpire ; and in deciding whose wife Mrs. Solomons-Isaacs was, he would be unable to resort to the evasion with which he baffled the Pharisees. “ Don’t tell me that in the kingdom of heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in mar­ riage,” roars Solomons, “ this ain’t heaven; and I want my wife.” “ No, no,” shrieks Isaacs; “ he shan’t have her. Send that preposterous fellow back to his grave, and tell him to lie there quietly, without plaguing his old neighbours, or there’ll be a breach of the peace, Mr. Jesus.” Let us draw a veil over the dreadful scene. It has been doubted whether Jesus actually died on the cross. Crucifixion was very slow murder to a man in the prime of life. The victims sometimes lingered for days, perishing at last from sheer exhaustion. Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours, and when Joseph of Arimathsea applied for the body “Pilate marvelled if he were already dead.” This is Mark’s version. John, however, says that he was hastily removed with the two thieves, “ that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day.” Considering these facts, some have held that Jesus did not die then, that the resurrection and ascension were “ a plant,” arranged between him and the disciples, and that he retired to an Essenian monastery, where he spent the remainder of his days in quiet obscurity. Matthew describes the burial. Joseph of Arimathsea, lays the body in a new tomb, rolls a big stone against the entrance, and goes home to supper. In that sepulchre Jesus performed the marvellous feat of remaining three days between Friday night and Sunday morning. Perhaps he reckoned the nights as over­ time, but even then his arithmetic was rather elastic. . While Jesus was putting in three days’time between Friday night and Sunday morning, the chief priests and Pharisees were also acting in an extraordinary way. They went and told Pilate �158 A Rising God. that Jesus had promised to rise again after three days, and asked him to take precautions against his disciples’ playing thepart of body-snatchers. He gave them a watch of soldiers, and they made the sepulchre still surer by sealing the stone. But in the night there was another earthquake ; an angel flew down from heaven and rolled back the stone, sat on it, and frightened the keepers into fits. In the confusion Jesus picked himself up and walked off to borrow a suit of clothes. The watch then went and told the chief priests and elders, who gave them “large money,” asked them to say that the disciples came by night and stole the body while they slept, and promised to make it all right with Pilate. Was there ever a sillier story? The big-wigs of Jerusalem had executed Jesus as “a deceiver.” Surely, then, when they found he was not, when they learnt that he had angels in his retinue and was lord of death, they would have trembled with fear, and repented in sackcloth and ashes. Deceiving the people in this extremity was simply asinine, for that would be no pro­ tection against him. Nor is it likely that the soldiers would say they had slept at their posts, when it was an offence punishable with death. The promise to pacify Pilate was all fudge, for the Governor and the Sanhedrim lived in a constant state of mutual enmity. Regard it how you will, this story is absurd. It is the work of a man who knew nothing ahout the political and social condition of Jerusalem. But this is not all. How did the priests come to know that Jesus prophesied his resurrection? His very disciples were ignorant of the fact (John xx., 9) and how could the priests be aware of what was unknown to them ? Fortunately, there is a little sentence in Matthew’s narrative which throws a flood of light on the whole affair. The saying that the disciples stole the body, he says, “ is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” Until this day ! Does not this show that the story was written long after date ? Does it not allow scope for the introduction of any quantity of legend and mythology ? .The contradictions of the four gospels now come fast and thick. In their stories of the visit to the sepulchre, of Christ’s first appearance, of his subsequent interviews with his disciples,, and of his final ascension to heaven, they differ hopelessly. Such conflicting evidence would be laughed out of any court of law, and shall it be accepted in the high court of reason ? These inspired writers scarcely agree on a single point, while their dis­ agreements are numerous and essential. I cannot deal with them all, but I select a few typical cases. Matthew brings two women to the tomb, Mary Magdalene and “ the other Mary.” Mark brings these two with a third called Salome. Luke ignores Salome, and brings a third called Joanna, with “ other women ” whose names are not mentioned. John brings Mary Magdalene alone. Here is gospel harmony for youf However, they all agree that mad Mary Magdalene was there if �A Rising God. 159 anybody was. Jesus had cast seven devils out of her ; in other words, she was afflicted with hysteria; and it is quite possible that she invented the whole story of the resurrection, and forced it on the disciples by mere force of impudence and iteration. Matthew says there was an earthquake, and that an angel rolled away the stone and sat on it. Mark says the women saw no angel, but the stone was rolled away, and on looking in they saw a young man in white. Luke also omits the angel, but he places two men in shiny suits in the sepulchre. John merely says that they found the sepulchre open, without seeing any angel or man, although two angels were there afterwards when Mary Magdalene came the second time. The wonder is that the crazy creature did not see a million. Matthew says that Jesus appeared first to the women. Mark says that he appeared to Mary Magdalene alone. Luke says that his first appearance was to two of the disciples as they were walking to Emmaus. John agrees for once with Mark. Matthew says that the angel told the disciples to go into Galilee, where they should see their Master; and Mark agrees with him. Luke omits this message, and keeps the disciples in Jerusalem. John also omits the message, although he takes Jesus and the disciples to Galilee. And right on the heels of John pomes the Acts, stating that Jesus and his disciples never went into Galilee at all, but that he expressly “ commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” Gospel harmony is like Dutch harmony, in which each man sings his own tune, without caring a curse for his neighbors. We have had some good illustrations already, but they are tame to those that follow. The gospels differ as to the subsequent appearances of Christ as well as about the first. Matthew says that he appeared only ■once, just before going aloft. A lark says he appeared three times : to the women, to two disciples as they walked, and to the eleven. Luke says he appeared twice : to the two pedestrians, and to the eleven in a room. John says he appeared four times : to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples in a room without Thomas, to the same again with Thomas, and to the same once more at Tiberias. John only tells the dramatic story of doubting Thomas Didymus, and of course he is the only evangelist who introduces the spear-thrust. It was necessary that when sceptical Tom wanted to plunge his hand in his Savior s entrails, he should find a ready-made hole. When Jesus appeared to the eleven in a third-floor back he must have floated through the door or crept through the keyhole. Yet he gave them ocular and palpable proof that he was not a spirit, but good solid flesh and bone. Luke and John both make him eat broiled fish and honeycomb with his disciples, the un­ digested remnants of which he appears to have carried in his stomach to heaven. I now come to the Ascension, or the flight of the Jerusalem �160 A Rising God. ghost. Of course the Christians were obliged to get rid of their “ resurrected ” Savior in some way. They could not produce him when people began to inquire, and so they had to account for his disappearance. Only one resource was possible. They reported that he had “ gone up.” But they did this in the clumsiest fashion, and their various accounts are a remarkable instance of “ gospel harmony.” Matthew (that is, the first gospel; for Matthew had as much to do with it as the man in the moon) does not even narrate the ascension. He vaguely hints that Jesus evanesced after appearing to the eleven disciples who were left after Judas stretched his own neck, up “ a mountain ” somewhere in Galilee. John (or the fourth gospel) breaks off with a fine piece of bun­ combe, and leaves Jesus flitting about in the world like a dis­ consolate bat. The whole positive story of the ascension lies between Mark and Luke. Luke says that Jesus ascended from Bethany, a short distance from Jerusalem, on the very day of his resurrection, or, at the latest, the next morning. Mark, on the contrary, without any precision as to time, distinctly states that he ascended from Galilee, at least sixty miles from Jerusalem. It cannot be said that they agree as to time ; it can certainly be said that they differ as to place ; and this difference puts them both out of court until one or the other can find a corroborating witness. There is only one more witness to examine—the anony­ mous author of the undated “ Acts of the Apostles.” He agrees With Mark as to the place, but differs from both Mark and Luke as to the time ; for he plainly says that Jesus spent forty days (off and on) with his disciples before levitating through the clouds. There is a significant statement in this last account. Jesus was “taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” That is, he was lost in a cloud, just as they were. With a little licence in metaphor, we might say that the whole thing concluded in smoke. And this is the end of the Rising God. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by Ramse^ and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.j �BIBLE ROMANCES—XXI. THE BIBLE MENAGERIE. By G. W. FOOTE. Menageries are delightful places to visit. The objects of the show are not only interesting but alive. It is not art but nature. The animals do not keep one posture and a fixed gaze. They exhibit the varying emotions of conscious vitality, in limbs, features and eyes. Unfortunately, however, the Bible menagerie is cold and dead. Many of its specimens, it is true, belong to species which still inhabit the earth; but others alas! are with­ out any living counterparts, and there are sceptics wicked enough to suggest that they are artificial products of a pious imagination. The first animals specifically mentioned in the Bible are “ great whales.” God made a quantity of these on the fifth day of creation out of the same material from which he manufactured everything else, namely Nothing. The Revised Bible calls them “ great sea-monsters.” Calvin translates the Hebrew word tannin as tunny fish. Patrick thinks it means the crocodile, and Adam Clarke any large aquatic animal. What a beautifully clear language Hebrew is, and what a happy family are the commen-, tators! Job is supposed to refer to one of these “great whales ” in his fantastic description of leviathan, a creature which the Revised Bible degrades into a crocodile. Rabbi Kimchi says it is the same animal mentioned in the Creation story, and the largest fish in the sea. But whether leviathan was a whale or a crocodile there are no specimens of either now extant in the least resem­ bling Job’s, with its “comely proportions,” its pyrotechnic “neesings,” its eyes “like the eyelids of the morning,” and its breath that could light a fire without matches. The author of the Book of Job was a poet, and he seems to have used all the license of his tribe in this piece of description. If he were alive now he might earn a good living by drawing up the adver­ tisements for Wombwell’s menagerie or the Bank Holidav announcements for “the Zoo.” J A still more distinguished member of the “ great whale ” family was the interesting mammal that so obligingly took in Mr. Jonah out of the wet, when he was literally about to perish from water on the brain. We have already related the prophet’s adventures and.at present we are only concerned with his three-days’ com­ panion. How the hospitable creature got Mr. Jonah down is a debateable question. Without a miracle, the gullet of a whale will only accommodate an ordinary herring. What a distention its poor throat must have suffered! In every way it was a frightful �162 The Bible Menagerie. stretch. The Talmudic writers give many interesting details of this animal’s character. They say it possessed seven eyes, one for every day in the week. They also assert that it was a male, and that Mr. Jonah, finding its entrails rather restricted, besought Jehovah to change his quarters. He was then transferred to a female; but as she was in an interesting condition, Mr. Jonah found his accommodation still more limited; and he was therefore compelled to ask Jehovah to shift him back to his original apart­ ments. Whether male or female, the poor whale must have been sadly punished by entertaining a man in its belly for three days and nights. What a horrid stoppage of the bowels! There was plenty of emetic in the shape of salt water, but it would not operate until the Lord’s time was come. Some Arabic writers, in opposition to Jesus Christ and the book of Jonah, assign forty days, instead of three, as the period of Mr. Jonah’s residence in the whale’s interior. The supposition is too cruel. Anyhow, it was a wonderful fish ; and any aquarium that possessed one like it, as well as a preacher who could stand being swallowed and vomited, would soon make a large fortune. There might be a performance twice a week, and man and whale could have Sunday to themselves for rest and devotion. The Book of Jonah describes the animal that took him for a deep-sea excursion as “ a great fish,” and Bochart and other commentators have opined that it was a shark, some of that species being quite capable of swallowing and containing a man. But sharks have an awkward habit of “ chawing” with their for­ midable rows of teeth ; and Mr. Jonah’s condition, after passing that ghastly barricade, would defy surgery. Fortunately we have the authority of Jesus Christ for saying that the animal was a whale. Yet this makes the Bible contradict science or itself, for a whale is not a fish, although it lives in the sea. Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve are the next animals the Bible mentions. One was made out of mud, and the other out of a spare rib. Both were modelled like their maker, who is there­ fore, we presume, bisexual. With the scripture in their hands, the Christian priests still maintain that man is the image of God. If the Almighty is like some of them he is very ugly. Mr. Adam doubtless differed a good deal from the men of to-day. He lived nine hundred and thirty years, and according to Jewish tradition he was several hundred feet long. His skeleton, if it is ever discovered, will tax the resources of our largest museums. The Bible menagerie is well supplied with serpents. One of these is a truly remarkable creature. It held a conversation with Mrs. Eve, and introduced her to the forbidden fruit. She was not at all astonished at its powers of speech, and we may infer that serpents talked in those days. God was asleep or off duty at the time. When he discovered the serpent’s trick, he cursed it, dooming it to go upon its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. Clearly, therefore, Mrs. Eve’s serpent must have peram- �The Bible Menagerie. 163 bulated on its back, its head, or its tail; unless we allow, with Josephus, that it walked on legs, besides possessing a human voice. Adam Clarke, in a learned disquisition on the many renderings of the Hebrew machash, concludes that it means an ape, and perhaps an orang-outang. What a pity the world has lost the primitive zoological dictionary! It was compiled by Mr. Adam, who gave names to every beast of the field and every fowl of the air as the Lord paraded them before the grand stand. No doubt the volume was ornamented with cuts by the old man or one of the boys, who had plenty of leisure for the work. If it existed now, it would not only be the most precious of ancient relics, but throw a clarifying light on the vexed question whether Mrs. Eve succumbed to a serpent or a monkey. Mrs. Eve’s tempter is not the only talking animal in the Bible menagerie. There is at least another, namely Balaam’s ass, whose exploits we have already narrated. This four-legged wonder, like most asses, had a faculty for seeing angels. The Lord opened its mouth, as he has the mouth of many an ass since. From this fact we judge it was not a loquacious animal, like its modern successors. According to the story, its elo­ quence required to be stimulated with a stick: an excellent hint to congregations that are troubled with a dull preacher. Recurring to serpents, the Lord sent some fiery ones to bite the Jews for murmuring against his commissariat. The bite of this reptile was mortal to “ much people.” Some of them, how­ ever, recovered by a sort of homoeopathic treatment. They looked at a serpent of brass stuck on a pole, and were healed. We commend this remedy to the attention of the British Govern­ ment in India. It would probably save the lives of thousands of Hindoos. Should there be any difficulty in finding a brazen serpent, any Christian church or Missionary Society could easily furnish one, and between them they might supply every district with one of its own. We may add that the fiery serpents in Numbers are serpentine seraphim. They are mentioned by Paul (Hebrews i., 7), and by Isaiah (vi., 2), who locates them with the Lord of Hosts and gives them hands and speech. God’s command to Moses is not “ Make thee a fiery serpent,” as the Bible renders it, but “Make thee a seraph.” The whole legend is probably connected with animal worship. The Egyp­ tians adored the ibis, the cat and the crocodile, and the Jews who had resided in the Nile valley were naturally infected with the same superstition. When Jehovah and Moses had apparently ended in smoke at Mount Sinai, the chosen people called on Aaron to make them a new god, and he obligingly made them a golden calf (out of their metal, of course, not Ais), which they danced round naked, to the great disgust of Moses, although he had just viewed the Lord’s seat of honor. Aaron’s calf is very suggestive of the Egyptian worship of Apis. The Jews have had a sneaking fondness for the golden calf ever since. Even so late �164 The Bible Menagerie. as the reign of Jeroboam (1 Kings xii., 28, 29) they worshipped two golden calves at Dan and Beth-el, and the brazen serpent remained till the time of Hezekiah. According to the Bible (2 Kings xviii., 4) it was the original article manufactured by Moses. Hem I J Related to the fiery serpents are the dragons which are men* tioned fourteen times in the Bible. The best description we know of this fabulous monster is in the eleventh Canto of the first Book of Spenser’s “ Faerie Queene ”; a work no less romantic than the Bible, and far more delightful. Dragons could walk or fly; their shape was something like a lizard’s ; they were covered with hard scales ; their tails were long and powerful; they had “ deep devouring jaws ” with several ranks of terrible teeth; and their claws were viciously keen and strong. Fourteen times does the word of God certify to this animal’s existence, and who shall eliminate it from the Bible menagerie ? Perish the thought! Whoever doubts the existence of dragons is an unbeliever, and all unbelievers shall have their portion in the lake that burneth with brimstone and fire. The most remarkable dragon was the one seen by St. John in his holy nightmare. It was “ a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. AVhat a tail! And what a tale ! St. John shines forth as the boss stretcher, and O Arabian Nights and Baron Munchausen, hide your diminished heads. Another flying animal is the Columba Paracletus, the holy dove or pigeon, the third person of the blessed Trinity—in short the Holy Ghost. It moved over the face of the waters in the reign of “ Chaos and old Night,” and visited the Virgin Mary after the manner of Ledas swan. Jove, however, like his bird, was the more powerful, or his mistress was the more fruitful; for twins sprang from his embrace, while Jahveh’s only produced a lacka­ daisical youth with corkscrew curls. Flying also, and serpentine, is the cockatrice, -which the Revised Bible has changed to a basilisk, although they are the same thing.. This marvellous creature is several times mentioned in holy writ. Sir Thomas Browne makes it the subject of a chapter in his “ Vulgar Errors.” “ Such an animal there is,” he says, “ if we evade not the testimony of Scripture.” The quaint and learned old doctor gives a list of profane writers who have mentioned it, from Pliny to Scaliger, and gravely asserts on the latter’s authority that “ a basilisk was found at Rome in the days of Leo the Fourth.” The modern basilisk, according to Browne, “ is generally described with legs, wings, a serpentine and winding tail, and a crest or comb somewhat like a cock. But the basilisk of elder times was a proper kind of serpent, not above three palms long.” Winged or not, it had two peculiarities. It killed with its glances, and it was hatched by a toad or a serpent from �The Bible Menagerie. 165 a cock’s egg. We should like to see such a cock. It would be * a knowing old bird. The only cock, in our opinion, likely to do the feat, was the one that crowed at Peter ; and we daresay the apostle would share our view of that astonishing fowl. It is certainly surprising that the Bible menagerie should contain a cockatrice, but we need not wonder at the ancient Jews believing in the existence of such a creature, for Mr. B. H. Cowper justly remarks that “ The race of Rabbis delighted in creating animals otherwise unknown in heaven above or earth below.”f They sported a wild cock, whose feet rested on the earth while its head touched heaven ; and a bird called the zig, of such magnitude, that when it spread out its wings it caused an eclipse of the sun. Another extraordinary fowl was so colossal that one of its eggs, dropping on the earth, submerged sixty villages, and broke down three hundred cedars. Eggs like that would be dirt cheap at thirteenpence a dozen. Among the unclean animals forbidden to the Jews by the Levitical law were “ fowls that creep, going upon all four.” These four-legged birds would be very interesting to the ornithologist. Two verses farther (Leviticus xi., 21) we are introduced to creeping things “which have legs above their feet.” What a delightful novelty it would be to discover some of the creeping things, suggested by this text, with their feet above their legs I Locusts, beetles and grasshoppers are not considered edible now, but Moses recommended them to the Jews. Yet he prohibited jugged hare on the ground that the hare “cheweth the cud” and is therefore unclean. This is one of the Mistakes of Moses. The hare is not a ruminant. No doubt the inspired penman observed that the hare has a habit of moving its jaws when, resting, and thus fell in to a very natural error. But why did not the Lord set him straight on this point? And why also (we may inquire) did the Lord take so much trouble in the time of Moses to decide what animals were clean and what unclean, when the distinction was well known before the Flood ? (Gen. vii., 2). May we not, after all, conclude that the Levitical law with respect to clean and unclean animals was borrowed from Egypt? Porphyry tells us that “ the Egyptian priests abstained from the flesh of all solid-hoofed quadrupeds, which had toes and no horns, and from all birds of prey and from fish.” Lane says that the modern Egyptians will not eat fish without scales. According to Josephus, Manetho accused the Jews of being turned out of * So late as 1710 the French Academy received a memoir from M. Lapeyronie, of Montpellier, on some “ cock’s eggs ” brought to him by a farmer. Some learned blockheads examined one, and found no yolk, but a colored particle in the centre, which they took to be the young serpent. The cock was dissected, but the farmer brought more eggs. They were laid by his hens 1 f Article on the Talmud, Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan. 1868 �166 The Bible Menagerie. Egypt because they were leprous and impure. Pig’s flesh was said to promote skin disease, and the Jews were stringently for­ bidden to touch it. Abstention from pork has ever since been a prune article of their faith. But whose were those swine into which Jesus sent a legion of devils? Perhaps the animals were bred for the export trade, as the Jew butchers in Russia sell ke slier meat to their co-religionists and dispose of all the bad to the Gentiles. Yet the miracle was rather rough on the unfortunate porkers, and Jesus Christ evidently did not agree with Charles Lamb on the subject of Roast Pig. Among the very small animals, smaller than locusts, beetles and grasshoppers, the Lord’s peculiar favorite is the louse ; and perhaps it was for this reason that the pious genius of Robert Burns immortalised the creature. The magicians of Egypt kept up with Messrs. Moses and Aaron in their first three perform­ ances. They turned their rods into serpents; after all the water in Egypt was turned into blood, they turned the rest into blood; and they brought up frogs galore as well as their opponents. But when the Hebrew conjurors turned all the dust of Egypt into lice, the native magicians gave up the competition. “ This is the finger of God,” they cried. They recognised his trade­ mark. When they saw the lice they knew the Lord was shaking himself to some purpose. We come now to the cherubim, a curious kind of fowl, gene­ rally depicted by Bible illustrators with plenty of head and no tail, all stem and no stern. They are graphically described by Ezekiel (x., 12, 14). They had four faces, which is twice as many as some Christians have; a cherub’s, a man’s, a lion’s and an eagle’s. Their bodies, backs, hands and wings were covered with eyes, so that there was no getting round them. Saint Tohn (Revelation iv., 6—8) improves upon Ezekiel by splitting this composite creature into four separate ones, omitting the cherub however, and substituting a calf. These four beasts have six wings each, and are “ full of eyes before and behind.” They are a sort of body-guard to the Lord, and protect his throne against Republicans and Socialists. No doubt they face the in­ habitants of the New Jerusalem, and turn their many-eyed pos­ teriors to their sovereign, who probably dotted them with optics in that quarter to break the monotony and give the surface an air of intelligence. We presume it would be blasphemy to com­ pare these creatures with Argus of the Greek mythology, who had a hundred eyes, only two of which slept at a time. What a price Barnum would give for a couple of cherubim I He might sell Jumbo and the white elephant, and make a magnificent fortune on the Hebrew wonder. Walk up, walk up ! ladies and gentlemen; see the four-headed marvel with one leg and two million eyes, just purchased at immense cost from Messrs. Ezekiel and St. John, head keepers of the Bible menagerie, and warranted by the Pope of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury. �The Bible Menagerie. 167 We dare say Barnum would offer a good price for a pair of unicorns. This animal is mentioned seven times in the Bible. Daniel’s bear (vii., 5) with three ribs in its mouth, would also be a catch; or one of Isaiah’s satyrs (xiii., 21) which the Revised Bible rashly changes into he-goats ; or the horses of fire, like the flaming steeds of Apollo, that carried Elijah to heaven ; or Aaron’s blooming rod that turns into a serpent and swallows other reptiles like greased lightning. A few specimens from what Heine calls the Menagerie of the Apocalypse would also be a great attraction. The Son of Man (i., 13-16) with white woolly hair, brass feet, a voice like a cataract, and fiery eyes, doing the sword trick. The lamb (v., 6) with seven horns and seven eyes. The locusts (ix., 7-10) shaped like horses, with men’s faces, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, scorpion’s tails, iron breast-plates and golden crowns. The leopard (xiii., 1, 2) with bear’s feet, a lion’s mouth, seven heads and ten horns. To these curiosities might be added one of the antediluvian giants (Genesis vi., 4). These personages undoubtedly existed, although the Revised Bible is ashamed of them, and hides them behind the Hebrew Nephilim. They are such monsters (Numbers xiii., 33) that ordinary men look like grasshoppers beside them. There might also be included a specimen or two of those hardy Egyptian cattle that were first killed by the murrain, then plagued with boils, and after­ wards killed again with fiery hail (Exodus ix). Behemoth might likewise have figured in the collection, if it had not been degraded into a commonplace character in the Revised Bible. Our juvenile imagination was inflamed by the extraordinary description in the fortieth chapter of Job. “ Behold now behemoth,” exclaims the Lord, and we pictured an animal as big as a cathedral. Alas for the romantic fancies of youth! Behemoth turns out to be merely our old friend the hippopotamus. It must, however, have suffered an alteration since the days of Job, for we do not find at present that “his force is in the navel of his belly.” We may here observe that many animals in the Bible menaferie. are wrongly ticketed, especially those in the eleventh of ieviticus. The eagle should be the vufiure, the vulture the kite, the kite the red kite, the owl the ostrich, the nighthawk the owl, the cuckow the gull, the ferret the gecko, the chameleon the frog, the mole, the chameleon, the bittern, the porcupine, the swan the ibis, the heron the grasshopper. At least this is what we gather from the Revised Bible and the commentators. There is a dog in the Bible menagerie but it is treated with great contempt. “By the law,” says Cruden, “it was declared unclean, and was very much despised among the Jews: the most offensive expression they could use, was to compare a man to a dead dog.” What disgusting ingratitude to one of man’s best friends! The dog has played an important part in the history of civilisation, and is held in esteem by nearly every people �168 The Bible Menagerie. except the Jews. The Zend Avesta enjoins kindness to our •canine companions, because he who made man made the dog also. Compare this with Paul’s selfish exclamation “ Doth God care for oxen?” (1 Corinthians ix., 9). Before Christians are able to display any care for the lower animals, they must neglect the teachings of the Bible, and expel the virus of Judaism from their blood. The most noble and pathetic lines on a dog in the English language were written by the sceptical Byron. The last animals we can refer to in the Bible menagerie are angels. What their exact shape is no man knoweth, but as they are usually represented with wings, we may regard them as a species of fowl; although, curiously enough, Jacob saw them, in his dream, climbing a ladder. But perhaps, as the schoolboy said, it was moulting time, and the angels were disabled from flying. According to the Psalms (lxxviii, 24, 25) they live on manna, a large supply of which was sent down to the wandering Jews from the heavenly larder. They are not, how­ ever, incapable of eating a meat dinner, for two of them (Genesis xviii.) sat down with Abraham and the Lord to a succulent repast of roast veal. But there is no such savory dish in heaven ; the menu is most monotonous—manna for breakfast, manna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper. No wonder the Jews tired of it, and longed for the fleshpots of Egypt. Add to this that angels have no sex, and neither marry nor give in marriage, and you will be able to form some idea of the happy prospect in store for you when you join the heavenly band. It is true that the sons of God, in Genesis, who saw the daughters of men that they were fair, have been regarded as angels by some subtle commentators, who could see as far into a millstone as most of their neighbors ; and undoubtedly there is a good deal to be said for the conjecture. But, on the other hand, nobody is bound to believe it; and, besides, even if angels went courting in those days, there may have been a revolution in their physi­ ology since, or the Lord, being a jealous God, may have un­ manned his courtiers, to prevent their fawning on any objects but himself. From the language of Jesus Christ and the revela­ tion of Saint John, we infer that Paradise is filled with angelic •eunuchs, eating manna **and singing psalms for ever and ever. Oh what must it be to be there 1 PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. �BIBLE ROMANCES.—XXII. THE CRUCIFIXION. By G. W, FOOTE. ------- ♦------The poet Wordsworth pictures a “fingering slave,” so eager in the pursuit of science, and so lost to all sense of decency, that he “ would peep and botanise upon his mother’s grave.” There are also many orthodox Christians who will start at the idea of the Crucifixion of their blessed Savior being included in these Bible Romances. Nothing is sacred to a sapper, says the French song; and these irate believers will exclaim that nothing is sacred to a, Freethinker. Some of them will go farther and indulge in ■epithets and expletives that leave Wordsworth’s reprobation far behind. Let me, however, beseech my ruffled critics to pause and reflect. I do not propose to laugh at the Crucifixion, or to treat it as a subject for jest; for the tragedies of life are truly sacred, whether enacted in a palace or a cottage, or under the infinite cope of heaven. I would no more mock Jesus on his ■cross than I would mock Prometheus on his rock. My purpose is different. I wish to show that the Gospel story of the Cruci­ fixion is pure romance from beginning to end; that the evangelists are hopelessly at variance with each other; that their narratives betray a gross ignorance of Jewish law and custom; and that if Jesus Christ did “ suffer under Pontius Pilate,” there is no authentic history of how and why his sufferings were inflicted. My space does not allow me to go into all the details of this sub­ ject ; I shall therefore be obliged to deal with its broad features and salient points. According to the story, why did Jesus go to Calvary ? Hix preaching, miracles and popularity, had excited the enmity of the priests. These Jerusalem sky-pilots knew he was master of Life and lord of Death, for they were apprised of his having raised corpses from the tomb, and restored them to their old board and lodging. Yet, with these facts before their eyes, or in their minds, they sought to put the miracle-worker himself out of the way ; and a greater marvel still, they succeeded in doing it. He was per­ fectly well-known, yet they paid one of his disciples to point him out; and they arrested him in the garden of Gethsemane, although the mere sound of his voice flung his apprehenders on their baeks. Nay more, when peppery Peter drew a sword, and cut off an ear of one of them, Jesus actually picked it up and fastened it on again. Most men would be inclined to let such a miraculous person alone; but those obstinate Jews persisted in their design in �170 The Crucifixion. spite of heaven and hell. They were always a stiff-necked and perverse people. i Matthew, Mark and Luke, represent Jesus as brought before Caiaphas for examination, while John places the trial in the house of Annas. Whichever place we take, the story is equally incred­ ible. The Judges who were trying the culprit would certainly not walk about the room with the witnesses, the servants, and the crowd ; much less would they spit upon and revile ’him. There remains a still more fatal objection. Jesus could not have j been tried by priests, whether they were high or low. Let us ; hear a learned Jewish rabbi on this point“ The whole trial from the beginning to the end, is contrary to Jewish law and custom as in force at the time of Jesus. No court of justice with jurisdiction in penal cases could or ever did hold its session in the place of the high priest. There were three legal bodies in Jerusalem to decide penal cases : the great Sanhedrim, of seventyone members, and the two minor Sanhedrim, each of twenty-three members . The court of priests had no penal jurisdiction except in the affairs of the temple service, and then over priests and Levites only.”* How then,. Christians will ask, did the Jewish writers of the Gospels fall into such a glaring error ? The answer is simpleThe Gospels were not written by disciples of Jesus, or by Jews at all. They were composed in Greek, nobody knows where . or by whom, more than a hundred years after the alleged Cruci­ fixion.! The subsequent trial before Pilate is also full of fancies. We pass by the absurd statement that the Roman governor at Jeru­ salem sent a prisoner to Herod who ruled in Galilee merely because. the man was born there; which is as silly as the supposition that a Frenchman who committed a murder in England would be sent for trial to Paris. Pilate’s wife sent to her husband on the judgment-seat to say that she had suffered a bad dream about Jesus, and that he was innocent and should be acquitted. A very likely message to a Roman governor in the reign of Tiberius ! Pilate himself “ finds no fault ” in Jesus, and afterwards sentences him to death. Another likely circum­ stance ! He exculpates himself by washing his hands in public, to symbolise his guiltlessness of the man’s blood, and to throw it upon the Jews. What transparent absurdity! Such an act would be meaningless to a Roman, and it was more than Pilate’s life was worth to show such contempt for the imperial law. Tiberius would have whipped off his head in a jiffy. * Rabbi Wise, “ Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth," p. 66. t “ There is no evidence that either the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the other writings, as we have them, existed within a hundred and twenty years after the Crucifixion.’’—Rev. Dr. Giles “ Christian Records,” p. 9. �The Crucifixion. 171 When did the Crucifixion occur ? Matthew, Mark and Luke, distinctly assert that Jesus had already eaten of the Passover. The festival had therefore begun. But this exposes the evangelists’ ignorance of Jewish customs. Rabbi Wise says that “ In the first place, the Jews did no public business on that day; had no court sessions, no trials, and certainly no executions on any Sabbath or feast day. And in the second place, the first day of the Passover never was on a Friday, and never can be, according to the established principles of the Jewish calendar.”* The fourth Gospel is later than the other three, and the work of a more learned pen. The author silently corrects his predecessors’ mistake, and makes Joseph of Arimathsea bury Jesus before the Passover begins. The evangelists differ as to the hour of execution. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus gave up the ghost about the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon ; and Mark states definitely that Jesus was crucified about the third hour, or nine o’clock in the morning. According to Luke, however, the trial did not begin till the morning after the arrest; and there must have been a very sharp despatch of business to get Jesus nailed up by nine o’clock. John is even more irreconcileable with the other writers, for he distinctly says that Pilate’s court was still sitting at mid­ day, three hours after Jesus (according to Mark) was on the cross. According to John, Jesus carried his own cross from the preetorium to the place of execution. But Matthew, Mark and Luke, say that, owing to his prostrate condition, it had to be carried for him by Simon of Cyrene. The Lord only knows who Simon was. From the narrative as it stands, without any other light, he appears to have turned up promiscuously, as such handy people always do in romances. One of the early Christian sects, the Basilidians, made this utility-man play a further part in the drama. They denied that Jesus was crucified in person, and asserted that he only suffered by proxy, poor Simon having been tucked up in his stead. /That profane wit, the Rev. Robert, Taylor, imagines a conversation between the original and the substitute. Simon reproves Jesus for letting him be crucified ; it was carrying the simulation a great deal too far. But Jesus replies “ Oh no, Simon, my boy ; you may as well die for me as I for you.” We may add that Muhammed evidently accepted the heretical notion of some victim having suffered for Jesus. A phantom or a criminal, the Kuran says, was substituted on the cross, and the innocent Jesus was translated into the seventh heaven. Another Christian idea was that Judas Iscariot had to act as proxy. This is a funnier notion, and involves a sort of poetical justice. It might be called “ Judas for Jesus, or the biter bit.” * “ Origin of Christianity,” p. 30. �172 The Crucifixion. The Synoptics represent Jesus as failing under the burden of the cross, and Christian artists picture him tottering, with a great wooden structure on his shoulders, heavy enough to tax the strength of a giant. But this is all imagination. What the prisoner had to carry was not the upright part, which was a fixture at the place of execution, but simply the cross-piece, or patibulum; and the obligation was imposed, not as a physical labor, but as a moral indignity. — There have been hot disputes whether the feet as well as the hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross. Some rationalists have contended that he did not actually die, and his feet being uninjured, he was able to walk about after “ the resurrection.” But Luke (xxiv., 39) makes Jesus show the disciples his hands and feet to prove his authenticity. John, however, omits the feet, and mentions the hands and side. But John was up to something, as we shall see presently. Pilate set an inscription on the cross in three languages, and the evangelists read it so clearly that they write it in four different ways. Matthew says it was “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” Mark says it was “ The King of the Jews.” Luke says it was “This is the King of the Jews.” John says it was “ Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” This is a beautiful instance of Gospel Harmony. Anybody can see that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were inspired to write the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Three hundred years after the Crucifixion, the very cross on which Jesus suffered was found by St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, together with the crosses that bore the two thieves. The novel explorer was turned eighty, and very much in her dotage. She went to Jerusalem on purpose to find the cross, and it was not likely that the bishop and his clergy would let her go away disappointed. The authentic nature of Christ’s cross was shown by its working miracles, while the others were no more efficacious than ordinary wood. Helena took a part of the true cross to Constantine ; the rest she enclosed in a silver box, and left in care of the bishop of Jerusalem, who periodically exhibited it to the faithful, for a consideration. Afterwards little bits of it were sold, and in a short space of time the sacred wood was “ spread all over the earth.” To account for this extra­ ordinary distribution, it was asserted that the true cross was like the widow’s cruse of oil; the more there was taken from it the more there was left. Calvin said that if all the pieces in Europe were collected into a heap, they would form a good shipload. Crowds of monkish pedlars lived on the cross, who never could live on the square. The historians of Saint Helena’s lucky “ find ” say that the true cross bore the very title affixed to it by Pilate. Yet by some unfortunate accident the clergy of Jerusalem omitted to copy it. We are therefore unable to decide between the different versions �The Crucifixion. 173 of the four evangelists. Alack and alack ! And now the age of I miracles is flown, and the true cross, with many other pious relics,' has melted into “ the infinite azure of the past.” Crucifixion is said to have produced an agony of thirst, and John makes Jesus suffer from this craving. “ I thirst,” cried the victim, and they gave him a sponge full of vinegar; perhaps the posca, or vinegar and water commonly drunk by the Roman soldiers. The other evangelists mention a different concoction, which was offered to Jesus as he reached Golgotha. Matthew says it was vinegar and gall, while Mark says it was wine mingled with myrrh ; two very delectable drinks. According to Matthew and Mark, although Luke and John do not mention the tremendous circumstance, Jesus shrieked on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani—My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Whereupon, say the evangelists, some of the by­ standers remarked “ This man calleth for Elias.’ Moonshine! The writers were ignorant of Hebrew. If the by-standers were Romans, they knew no more of Elias than of Tobit. If they were Jews, they could not have confounded Eli with Elias, for the words differ very widely in their pronunciation. The tag to the exclamation is obviously the work of men who knew nothing of Hebrew, who saw that Eli and Elias were alike to the eye, without knowing how they differed to the ear. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? It is the first verse of the twenty-second Psalm. What a terrible cry! Abandoned by disciples, mocked by enemies, and forsaken by God. Where are the legions of angels that should come to the rescue ? Are all the armies of the ghosts no match for a com­ pany of Roman soldiers? Blood trickles from the thorncrowned brow; the body strains against the cruel nails in the gory hands and feet; the throat and lips are parched with thirst; and overhead shines the implacable Syrian sun, every beam like a sword of fire. There is no help on earth, and none in heaven. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Yet with this terrible cry ringing in their ears, the Chris­ tians assert that the man who uttered it was “ very God of very God.” Surely it is the dying exclamation of a deluded enthusiast! And the speaker was of less heroic mould, if the story be true, than many a martyr of liberty and progress. Giordano Bruno languished for seven years in a loathsome dun­ geon. He was tortured—no one knows how often—by the fiends of the Inquisition. At length he was sentenced to be burnt alive. But captivity had not broken his proud spirit, and he said to his judges: “ I suspect you pronounce my sentence with far more fear than I hear it.” The fire shrivelled his body, and with inconceivable pangs turned the noblest heart on earth to dust, but it could not wring a single plaint from the scorching lips. Bruno stood alone against the world with no hope of assistance from heaven, and no expectation �174 The Crucifixion. of a martyr’s crown. Truth was his goddess, and he served her with a noble devotion. Unlike Christ, who quailed under the frown of Death, he met it with a serene smile; for he had that within him which Death might extinguish, but could not terrify a daring fiery spirit that out-soared the malice of men, and out­ shone the flames of the stake. Various versions are also given of Jesus’s last words According to John, he said “ It is finished ” immediately before expiring; and hundreds of sermons have been preached on this enigmatical sentence. According to Luke, however, he said “ Father unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, simply say that he uttered a loud cry and gave up the ghost. Another instance of Gospel,Harmony! J Mark adds that a Roman centurion, who was standing by, when he heard Jesus cry out, exclaimed “ Truly this man was the son of God.” Whoever knew such a little evidence go such a‘very long way ? Was there ever another man in the world so easily satisfied ? The exclamation is simply impossible ; its meaning is so absolutely foreign to the Roman mind. Matthew chronicles the same event, but he throws in an earthquake and the resurrection of “ many bodies of saints,” besides the loud cry of Jesus, to account for the centurion's conviction. Differences obtain also as to who were the friendly spectators of the Crucifixion. Matthew says that Jesus was watched from afar by Galilean women, who had traipsed after him to Jerusalem including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses’ and the mother of Zebedee’s children, a female apparently with­ out a name. Mark’s account is similar, but he introduces a lady called Salome. Luke says that Jesus was followed by a great crowd of both sexes. But John artistically excludes the tag-rag and bob-tail. of true believers ; gets up a pathetic scene between Jesus, his mother, and the beloved disciple ; and brings on Mary Magdalene and another Mary to fill up the stage. On the other hand, John’ barely alludes to the two malefactors who were crucified with Jesus ; while Matthew and Mark made them mock their companion. Luke works up a more striking scene. One thief mocks Jesus, and is rebuked by the other ■ and the Savior as a reward for the man’s generosity, says, “ To­ day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” We wonder how Jesus kept his promise. According to the Apostles’ Creed, he descended into hell for three days after the Crucifixion, on which occasion we presume, he “ preached to the spirits in prison.” After his resurrection also, as we read in John, he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him, saying, “ For lam not yet ascended to my Father.” On the whole, we conclude that, owing to a lapse of memory on the part of Jesus, the penitent thief had to hang about the gates of Paradise for forty days before he could walk in with Jesus. John, or whoever was the author of the fourth Gospel, tells us something else about these two thieves and Jesus. The Jews �The Crucifixion. 175 requested Pilate to let all three be taken down before the Sabbath began, and he dispatched some soldiers for that purpose. They broke the legs of the two thieves, but finding Jesus already dead, they left his continuations alone. One of them, however, prodded him in the side with a spear, and “forthwith came there out blood and water.” What arrant nonsense! If Jesus had been dead for any time, the spear would have drawn no blood. If he were alive, it would draw blood, but no water, unless he suffered from dropsy. Why did that soldier prod Jesus with his spear? And why is not the incident related by the other evangelists ? Because John required it as a preparation for another incident as to which they are equally silent. After the Resurrection, Jesus desires doubting Thomas Didymus to thrust his hand in his Savior’s side, to satisfy himself that it was all correct. John introduces the spear-thrust, which Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of, simply to have a hole ready for Tom’s fist. Now we come to a matter on which John is silent while the other three evangelists prattle. During the Crucifixion there was darkness over all the land for the space of three hours. The Pagan historians, as well as John, knew nothing of this marvellous eclipse. It happened in the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, each of whom, says Gibbon, “ in a laborious work has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect.” Yet these writers never heard of the supernatural dark­ ness of the Passion. To meet this difficulty, the early Fathers discovered a passage in Phlegon, which states that the greatest eclipse ever known occurred in the two hundred and second Olympiad. But, as Gibbon ironically observed, the passage “ is now wisely abandoned,” and at the present day no apologist of Christianity thinks of defending it. It was nothing but a fraud, devised to buttress a tottering fable. Matthew mentions another circumstance, which is omitted not only by John, but also by Mark and Luke. In addition to the eclipse, there was an earthquake, which shook the temple, rent its holy veil in twain, and opened the graves of many saints, who quietly got up and walked into Jerusalem. Having already dealt with this piece of fiction in my romance of “ A Rising God,” I shall content myself with asking why Matthew only, of all the four evangelists, heard of this tremendous occurrence. A no less curious fact is, that the Jews who witnessed these extraordinary events never believed them; and as Diderot said, the transcen­ dent wonder of wonders is not the miraculous career of Christ but the incredulity of the Jews. Imagine such a story as that of the Crucifixion under exami­ nation in a court of law. How the opposing counsel would badger the witnesses. How he would expose their mutual con­ tradictions on every important point. How he would gloat over �176 The Crucifixion. the fact that some of them saw and heard the most startling occurrences, while others never noticed them, although they were present. How confidently he would ask the court to treat the evidence of such witnesses as altogether unworthy of credit. When we turn to the rest of the New Testament we find grave reasons for doubting whether Jesus was crucified at all. Paul preached “Christ and him crucified,” and the very emphasis seems to show that there was an opposite school. His great rival, Peter (Acts v., 30), speaks to the Jews soon after the alleged Crucifixion, of “Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree ”; and again at Caesarea (Acts x., 39) he speaks of Jesus and the Jews in the third person,” whom they slew and hanged on a tree.” Peter further says (Acts xii., 29>, “they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.” And in his first epistle he speaks of Jesus “ Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Peter does indeed, refer twice in the second of Acts to Jesus as “ crucified,” but it is in a long-winded speech, which was probably com­ posed for him by the author. Curiously too, Paul himself (Galatians in., 13) sides for once with Peter. “ Christ,” he says, “ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.” On the whole, it is impossible to decide whether Jesus was crucified or hung. The reader buys his Bible and takes his choice. Whoever wishes to read more on this subject should refer to the “ Jewish Life of Christ,” which I edited in collaboration with my friend Mr. Wheeler. He will there find that the Taimuds speak of Jeshu, by whom Lardner says is meant our Jesus, as having been hung. This much, however, is certain : the cross on which Jesus was, crucified, if he suffered that death, was not shaped Eke the cross we see in religious pictures. It resembled a big letter T, and there was no extension of the upright beam above the cross­ piece.. The true cross was an ancient phallic symbol. It was used in Egyptian hieroglyphics as the sign of life. When Con­ stantine aboEshed the punishment of crucifixion, the Roman cross ceased to be famihar, and the Christian priests were therefore able to confound it with the most venerated symbol of ancient faiths. They thus artfufiy transformed an executed rebel into a sacred figure, radiating the mysticism of aU the creeds. PRICE ONE PENNY. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � 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 &amp; 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 Bible romances Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 176 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Inscription in ink on t.p.: Joseph Mazzini Wheeler. First series (p.1-96), Second series (p.[97]-104). Contents: The Creation Story; Noah's Flood; Eve And The Apple; The Bible Devil; The Ten Plagues; Jonah And The Whale; The Wandering Jews; The Tower Of Babel; Balaam's Ass; Cain And Abel; Lot's Wife; Daniel and the Lions. Bible Romances; The Jew Judges; Saint John's Nightmare; A Virgin Mother; God in a Box; Bully Samson; Gospel Ghosts; A Rising God; The Bible Menagerie; The Crucifixion. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1884-85 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N227 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Bible romances), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/16d13d808ea179b946d3f78bf31c91f1.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=jtIqIReHBDKyYva%7EZ3q0i0-SxEELkYsMEhlYI8amKUJirZ0IX48EeuB6rWNS6nF6CvCniQ6j9HbolirsjJ-b8K-oMb6PK9YnCdPNVEdNkZAtFIm6fr6HfwRKANmZurTezQdUqQID7V4EClhZKbQHCyb4rk3Athuz4luAcig%7E51BxJZ4fsDHAk%7EWszjVLFb7xkZpOYEvwhMePr1S%7ERM7whK1jXy5eXxKPUricKsaxce%7Enx6%7E8TwWwXMADIRtraLOZrGe-RvX%7EZPUMuVczJuw0WlvxvDdtej5k99Yuu%7EqiTjeodVftq0CLfV8Xit24YVl4HKGvBnYJrAiItZOWxciebQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 165988dbce21eb09b628c864420be1bd PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY “_________________ -^££0 I WREATHE THE LIVING BROWS. I ORATION ON BY COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. Price Threepence. ■ * ^onbon: i PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,! 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. OL 1890. 2 ��# i2 I Hi'S 8*2 WREATHE THE LIVING- BROWS. AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN BY COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1890. �INTRODUCTION. The following oration by Colonel Ingersoll was delivered in the Horticultural Hall, New York, on October 21, 1890. Although the object of the meeting was to raise a testimonial for Walt Whitman in his old age, several halls had been refused, the proprietors and lessees being too bigoted to allow the greatest orator in the United States to enter their doors. Walt Whatman sat in an easy wheeled chair on the platform. Before the crowded assembly broke up he spoke the following characteristic words :— “ Only a word, my friends, only a word. After all, the main factor, my friends, is in meeting, being face to face and meeting like this. I thought I would like to come forward with my living voice and thank you for coming and thank Robert Ingersoll for speaking, and that is about all. With such brief thanks to you and him and showing myself to bear testimony—I think that is the Quaker term—face to face, I bid you all hail and farewell.” �AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. I. In the year 1855 the American people knew but little of books. Their ideals, their models, were English. Young and Pollok, Addison and Watts were regarded as great poets. Some of the more reckless read Thom­ son’ s Seasons and the poems and novels of Sir Walter Scott. A few, not quite orthodox, delighted in the mechanical monotony of Pope, and the really wicked __those lost to all religious shame—were worshippers of Shakespeare. The really orthodox Protestant, un­ troubled by doubts, considered Milton the greatest poet of them all. Byron and Shelley were hardly respect­ able—not to be read by young persons. It was admitted on all hands that Burns was a child of nature of whom his mother was ashamed and proud. In the blessed year aforesaid, candor, free and sincere speech, were under the ban. Creeds at that time were entrenched behind statutes, prejudice, custom, ignor­ ance, stupidity, Puritanism and slavery ; that is to say, slavery of mind and body. Of course it always has been, and for ever, will be, impossible for slavery, or any kind or form of injustice, to produce a great poet. There are hundreds of verse makers and writers on the side of wrong—enemies of progress—-but they are not poets, they are not men of genius. ,. At this time a young man—he to whom tins testi­ monial is given—he upon whose head have fallen the snows of more than seventy winters—this man, born within the sound of the sea, gave to the world a book, Leaves of Grass. This book was, and is, the true transcript of a soul. The man is unmasked. No drapery of hypocrisy, no pretence, no fear. The book was as original in form as in thought. All customs �4 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. were forgotten or disregarded, all rules broken—nothing mechanical—no imitation—spontaneous, running and winding like a river, multitudinous in its thoughts as the waves of the sea—nothing mathematical or measured. In everything a touch of chaos—lacking what is called form as clouds lack form, but not lacking the splendor of sunrise or the glory of sunset. It was a marvellous collection and aggregation of fragments, hints, suggestions, memories and prophecies, weeds and flowers, clouds and clods, sights and sounds, emotions and passions, waves, shadows and constellations. His book was received by many with disdain, with horror, with indignation and protest—by the few as a marvellous, almost miraculous, message to the world— full of thought, philosophy, poetry and music. In the republic of mediocrity genius is dangerous. A great soul appears and fills the world with new and marvellous harmonies. In his words is the old Pro­ methean flame. The heart of nature beats and throbs in his line. The respectable prudes and pedagogues sound the alarm, and cry, or rather screech : “ Is this a book for a young person ?” A poem true to life as a Greek statue—candid as nature—fills these barren souls with fear. Drapery about the perfect was suggested by im­ modesty. The provincial prudes, and others of like mould, pretend that love is a duty rather than a passion—a kind of self-denial—not an overmastering joy. They preach the gospel of pretence and pantalettes. In the presence of sincerity, of truth, they cast down their eyes and endeavor to feel immodest. To them the most beautiful thing is hypocrisy adorned with a blush. . They have no idea of an honest, pure passion, glorying in its strength—intense, intoxicated with the beautiful—giving even to inanimate things pulse and motion, and that transfigures, ennobles and idealises the object of its adoration. They do not walk the streets of the city of life— they explore the sewers ; they stand in the gutters and cry “ Unclean !” They pretend that beauty is a snare ; that love is a Delilah ; that the highway of joy is the �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 5 broad road, lined with flowers and filled with perfume, leading to the city of eternal sorrow. Since the year 1855 the American people have de­ veloped ; they are somewhat acquainted with the litera­ ture of the world. They have witnessed the most tremendous of revolutions, not only upon the fields of battle, but in the world of thought. The American citizen has concluded that it is hardly worth while being a sovereign unless he has the right to think for himself. And now, from this height, with the vantage-ground of to-day, I propose to examine this book and to state, in a general way, what Walt Whitman has done, what he has accomplished, and the place he has won in the world of thought. II. THE RELIGION OF THE BODY. Walt Whitman stood, when he published his book, where all stand to-night—on the perpetually moving line where history ends and prophecy begins. He was full of life to the very tips of his fingers—brave, eager, candid, joyous with health. He was acquainted with the past. He knew something of song and story, of philosophy and art—much of the heroic dead, of brave suffering, of the thoughts of men, the habits of the peOple_rich as well as poor—familiar with labor, a friend of wind and wave, touched by love and friend­ ship—liking the open road, enjoying the fields and paths, the crags—friend of the forest—feeling that he was free—neither master nor slave—willing that all should know his thoughts—open as the sky, candid as nature—and he gave his thoughts, his dreams, his con­ clusions, his hopes, and his mental portrait to his fellow-men. Walt Whitman announced the gospel of the body. He confronted the people. He denied the depravity of man. He insisted that love is not a crime ; that men and women should be proudly natural; that they need not grovel on the earth and cover their faces for shame. �6 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. He taught the dignity and glory of the father and mother ; the sacredness of maternity. Maternity, tender and pure as the tear of pity, holy as suffering—the crown, the flower, the ecstasy of love. People had been taught from Bibles and from creeds that maternity was a kind of crime ; that the woman should be purified by some ceremony in some temple built in honor of some god. This barbarism was attacked in Leaves of Grass. The glory of simple life was sung ; a declaration of independence was made for each and all. And yet this appeal to manhood and to womanhood was misunderstood. It was denounced simply because it was in harmony with the great trend of nature. To me, the most obscene word in our language is celibacy. It was not the fashion for people to speak or write their thoughts. We were flooded with the literature of hypocrisy. The writers did not faithfully describe the worlds in which they lived. They endeavored to make a fashionable world. They pretended that the cottage or the hut in which they dwelt was a palace, and they called the little area in which they threw their slops their domain, their realm, their empire. They were ashamed of the real, of what their world actually was. They imitated ; that is to say, they told lies, and these lies filled the literature of most lands. Walt Whitman defended the sacredness of love, the purity of passion—the passion that builds every home and fills the world with art and song. They cried out: “ He is a defender of passion— he is a libertine ! He lives in the mire. He lacks spirituality !” Whoever differs with the multitude, especially with a led multitude—that is to say, with a multitude of taggers—will find out from their leaders that he has committed an unpardonable sin. It is a crime to travel a road of your own, especially if you put up guide-boards for the information of others. Many centuries ago Epicurus, the greatest man of his century, and of many centuries before and after, said : “ Happiness is the only good : happiness is the �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 7 supreme end.” This man was temperate, frugal, generous, noble—and yet through all these years he has been denounced by the hypocrites of the world as a mere eater and drinker. It was said that Whitman had exaggerated the importance of love—that he had made too much of this passion. Let me say that no poet—not excepting Shakespeare—has had imagination enough to exagge­ rate the importance of human love—a passion that contains all heights and all depths—ample as space, with a sky in which glitter all constellations, and that has within it all storms, all lightnings, all wrecks and ruins, all griefs, all sorrows, all shadows, and all the joy and sunshine of which the heart and brain are capable. No writer must be measured by a word or line or paragraph. He is to be measured by his work—by the tendency, not of one line, but by the tendency of all. Which way does the great stream tend ? Is it for good or evil ? Are the motives high and noble, or low and infamous ? We cannot measure Shakespeare by a few lines, neither can we measure the Bible by a few chapters, nor Leaves of Grass by a few paragraphs. In each there are many things that I neither approve nor believe—but in all books you will find a mingling of wisdom and foolishness, of prophecies and mistakes— in other words, among the excellencies there will be defects. The mine is not all gold, or all silver, or all diamonds—there are baser metals. The trees of the forest are not all of one size. On some of the highest there are dead and useless limbs, and and there may be growing beneath the bushes, weeds, and now and then a poisonous vine. If I were to edit the great books of the world, I might leave out some lines and I might leave out the best. I have no right to make of my brain a sieve and say that only that which passes through belongs to the rest of the human race. I claim the right to choose. I give that right to all. Walt Whitman had the courage to express his �8 OKATION ON WALT WHITMAN. thought—the candor to tell the truth. And here let me say it gives me joy—a kind of perfect satisfaction —to look above the bigoted bats, the satisfied owls and wrens and chickadees, and see the great eagle poised, circling higher and higher, unconscious of their exist­ ence. And it gives me joy, a kind of perfect satisfaction, to look above the petty passions and jealousies of small and respectable people—above the considerations of place and power and reputation, and see a brave, intrepid man. It must be remembered that the American people had separated from the Old World—that we had declared not only the independence of colonies, but the independence of the individual. We had done more—we had declared that the State could no longer be ruled by the Church, and that the Church could not be ruled by the State, and that the individual could not be ruled by the Church. These declarations were in danger of being forgotten. We needed a new voice, sonorous, loud, and clear, a new poet for America for the new epoch, somebody to chant the morning song of the new day. The great man who gives a true transcript of his mind, fascinates and instructs. Most writers suppress individuality. They wish to please the public. They flatter the stupid and pander to the prejudice of their readers. They write for the market—making books as other mechanics make shoes. They have no message—they bear no torch—they are simply the slaves of customers. The books they manufacture are handled by “ the trade ” ; they are regarded as harmless. The pulpit does not object ; the young person can read the monotonous pages without a blush—or a thought. On the title-pages of these books you will find the im­ print of the great publishers—on the rest of the pages, nothing. These books might be prescribed for insomnia. III. Men of talent, men of business, touch life upon few sides. They travel but the beaten path. The creative spirit is not in them. They regard with suspicion a poet who touches life on every side. They have little �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 9 confidence in that divine thing called sympathy, and they do not and cannot understand the man who enters into the hopes, the aims, and the feelings of all others. In all genius there is the touch of chaos—a little of the vagabond ; and the successful tradesman, the man who buys and sells, or manages a bank, does not care to deal with a person who has only poems for collaterals —they have a little fear of such people, and _ regard them as the awkward country man does a sleight-ofhand performer. In every age in which books have been produced the governing class, the respectable, have been opposed to the works of real genius. If what are known as. the best people could have their way, if the pulpit had been consulted—the provincial moralists — the works . of Shakespeare would have been suppressed. Not a line would have reached our time. And the same may be said of every dramatist of his age. If the Scotch Kirk could have decided, nothing would have been known of Robert Burns. If the good people, the orthodox, could have had their say, not one line of Voltaire would now be known. All the plates of the French Encyclopedia would have been destroyed with the thousands that were destroyed. Nothing would have been known of D’Alembert, Grimm, Diderot, or any of the Titans who warred against the thrones and altars and laid the foundation of modern literature not only, but what is of far greater moment, universal education. It is not too much to say that every book now held in high esteem would have been destroyed, if those in authority could have had their will. Every book of modern times, that has a real value, that has enlarged the intellectual horizon of mankind, that has de­ veloped the brain, that has furnished real food for thought, can be found in the Index Expurgatorius of the Papacy, and nearly every one has been commended to the free minds of men by the denunciations of Protestants. If the guardians of society, the protectors of “ young persons,” could have had their way, we should have known nothing of Byron or Shelley. The voices that �10 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. thrill the world would now be silent. If authority could have had its way, the world would have been as ignorant now as it was when our ancestors lived in holes or hung from dead limbs by their prehensile tails. But we are not forced to go very far back. If Shake­ speare had been published for the first time now, those divine plays, greater than continents and seas, greater even than the constellations of the midnight sky— would be excluded from the mails by the decision of the present enlightened postmaster-general. The poets have always lived in an ideal world, and that ideal world has always been far better than the real world. As a consequence, they have forever roused, not simply the imagination, but the energies— the enthusiasm of the human race. The great poets have been on the side of the oppressed —of the downtrodden. They have suffered with the imprisoned and the enslaved, and whenever and wherever man has suffered for the right, wherever the hero has been stricken down—whether on field or scaffold—some man of genius has walked by his side, and some poet has given form and expression, not simply to his deeds, but to his aspirations. From the Greek and Roman world we still hear the voices of a few. The poets, the philosophers, the artists, and the orators still speak. Countless millions have been covered by the waves of oblivion, but the few who uttered the elemental truths, who had sympathy for the whole human race, and who were great enough to prophesy a grander day, are as alive to-night as when they roused, by their bodily presence, by their living voices, by their works of art, the enthusiasm of their fellow men. Think of the respectable people, of the men of wealth and position, those who dwelt in mansions, children of success, who went down to the grave voiceless, and whose names we do not know. Think of the vast multitudes, the endless processions, that entered the caverns of eternal light—leaving no thought—no truth as a legacy to mankind ! The great poets have| sympathised; with the people. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN, 11 They have uttered in all ages the human cry. Un­ bought by gold, unawed by power, they have lifted high the torch that illuminates the world'. IV. Walt Whitman is in the highest sense a believer in democracy. He knows that there is but one excuse for government—the preservation of liberty ; to the end that man may be happy. He knows that there is but one excuse for any institution, secular and religious —the preservation of liberty ; and there is but one ex­ cuse for schools, for universal education, for the ascer­ tainment of facts, namely, the preservation of liberty. He resents the arrogance and cruelty of power. He has sworn never to be tyrant or slave. He has solemnly declared : I speak the password primeval—I give the’sign of democracy. By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms. This one declaration covers the entire ground. It is a declaration of independence, and it is also a declara­ tion of justice, that is to say, a declaration of the independence of the individual, and a declaration that all shall be free. The man who has this spirit can truthfully say : I have taken off my hat to nothing known or unknown, I swear I am for those that have never been mastered. There is in Whitman what he calls “ The boundless impatience of restraint ”—together with that sense of justice which compelled him to say “Neithera servant nor a master, am I.” He was wise enough to know that giving others the same rights that he claims for himself could not harm him, and he was great enough to say: “ As if it were not indispensable to my own rights that others possess the same.” He felt as all should feel, that the liberty of no man is safe unless the liberty of each is safe. There is in our country a little of the old servile spirit a little of the bowing and cringing to others. Many �12 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. Americans do not understand that the officers of the government are simply the servants of the people. Nothing is so demoralising as the worship of place. Whitman has reminded the people of this countay that they are supreme, and he has said to them : The President is there in the White House for you—it is not you who are here for him. The Secretaries act in their bureaus for you—not you here for them. All doctrines, all politics and civilisation exurge from you. All sculpture and monuments and anything inscribed any­ where are tallied in you. He describes the ideal American citizen—the one Who says, indifferently and alike, “ How are you friend?” to the President at his levee. And he says, “ Good day, my brother,” to the slave that hoes in the sugar field. Long ago, when the politicians were wrong, when the judges were subservient, when the pulpit was coward, Walt Whitman shouted: Man shall not hold property in man. The least developed person on earth is just as important and to himself or herself as the most developed person is to himself or herself. • This is the very soul of true democracy. Beauty is not all there is of poetry. It must contain the truth. It is not simply an oak, rude and grand, neither is it simply a vine. It is both. Around the oak of truth runs the vine of beauty. Walt Whitman utters the elemental truths and is the poet of democracy. He is also the poet of individuality. V. INDIVIDUALITY. In order to protect the liberties of a nation, we must protect the individual. A democracy is a nation of free individuals. The individuals are not to be sacri­ ficed to the nation. The nation exists only for the pur­ �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 13 pose of guarding and protecting the individuality of men and women. Walt Whitman has told us that : » The whole theory of the universe is directed to one single individual—namely to you.” And he has also told us that the greatest city—the greatest nation—is “ where the citizen is the head and the ideal.” And that The greatest city is that which has the greatest man. or woman. ... . . If it be but a few ragged huts, it is still the greatest city m the whole world. By this test, maybe the greatest city on the continent to-night is Camden. This poet has asked of us this question : What do you suppose will satisfy the soul, except to walk free and own no superior ? The man who asks this question has leftyio impress of his lips in the dust, and has no dirt upon his knees. He carries the idea of individuality to its utmost height: What do you suppose I have intimated to you in a hundred ways But that man or woman is as good as God ? And that there is no God any more divine than yourself ? Glorying in individuality, in the freedom of the soul, he cries out: Oh, the joy of suffering ! To struggle against great odds ; To meet enemies undaunted ; To be entirely alone with them—to find out how much I can stand; To look strife, torture, prison, popular odium, death, face to face; £ •,, To mount the scaffold—to advance to the muzzle of guns with perfect nonchalance— To be indeed a god. Walt Whitman is willing to stand alone. sufficient unto himself, and he says : He is �14 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. Henceforth I ask not good fortune—I am good fortune. Strong and content I travel the open road. I am one of those who look carelessly into faces of Presidents and Governors as to say, “ Who are you P” And not only this, but he has the courage to say, “ Nothing—not God—is greater to one than oneself.’’’ Walt Whitman is the poet of Individuality, the defender of the rights of each for the sake of all—and his sympathies are as wide as the world. He is the defender of the whole race. VI. HUMANITY. The great poet is intensely human—infinitely sym­ pathetic-entering into the joys and griefs of others, bearing their burdens, knowing their sorrows. Brain without heart is not much; they must act together. When the respectable people of the North, the rich, the successful, were willing to carry out the Fugitive Slave Law, Walt Whitman said : I am the wounded slave—I wince at the bite of the dogs. Hell and despair are upon me—“ Crack,” and again “ crack ” the marksmen; ’ I clutch the rails of the fence—my blood drips, thinned with the ooze of my skin ; I fall on the weeds and stones; The riders spur their unwilling horses—haul close ; Taunt my dizzy ears and beat me with the butts of their whips. Agonies are one of my changes of garment. I do not ask the wounded person how he feels. I, myself, become the wounded person. ’ I see myself in prison shaped like another man ; And feel the dull unintermitted pain. For me the keepers of convicts shoulder their carbines and keep watch. It is I, let out in the morning and barred at night Not a prisoner walks handcuffed to the jail but I am hand­ cuffed to him and walk by his side. Judge not as the judge judges, but as the sun falling upon a helpless thing. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 15 Of the very worst he had the infinite tenderness to say : “ Not until the sun excludes you will I exclude In this age of greed, when houses and lands, and stocks and bonds, outrank human life ; when gold is more of value than blood, these words should be read by all : When, the psalm sings, instead of the singer; When the script preaches, instead of the preacher; When the pulpit descends and goes, instead of the carver that carved the supporting desk; When I can touch the body of books, by night or by day, and when they touch my body back again; When the holy vessels, or the bits of Eucharist, or lath and plast procreate as effectually as the young silversmiths or bakers or the masons in their overalls; When the university convinces like a slumbering woman and child convince; When the minted gold in the vault smiles like the night watchman’s daughter; When warranty deeds loaf in chairs opposite, and are my friendly companions; I intend to reach them my hand and make as much of them as I do of men and women like you! VII. The poet is also a painter, a sculptor—he, too, deals in form and color. The great poet is of necessity a great artist. With a few words he creates pictures, filling his canvas with living men and women—with those who feel and speak. Have you ever read the account of the stage driver’s funeral ? Let me. read it: Cold dash of waves at the ferry wharf—posh of ice in the river—half-frozen mud in the street—a gray discouraged sky overhead—short-lasting daylight of twelfth month. A hearse and stages—other vehicles give place—the funeral of an old Broadway stage-driver—the cortege mostly drivers. Steady the trot to the cemetery—duly rattles the deathbell—the gate is passed—the new-dug grave is hollowed out —the living alight—the hearse uncloses. The coffin is passed out—lowered and settled—the whip is laid on the coffin—the earth is softly shoveled in. The mound above is flattened with the spades. �16 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. Silence : and among them no one moves or speaks. It is done. He is decently laid away. Is there anything more ? He was a good fellow—free mouthed—quick tempered— not bad looking—able to take his own part—witty—sensitive to a slight—ready with life or death foi’ a friend—fond of women—gambled—ate hearty—drank hearty—had known what it was to be flush—grew low spirited toward the lastsickened—was helped by a contribution—died aged forty-one years—and that was his funeral. Let me read you another description—one of a woman: Behold a woman ! She looks out from her Quaker cap, her face is clear and. more beautiful than the sky. She sits in an arm-chair under the shaded porch of the farm-house. The sun just shines on her old, white head. Her ample gown is of cream-hued linen. Her grandsons raised the flax and her granddaughters spun, it with the distaff and the wheel. The melodious charactei’ of the earth. The finished—beyond which philosophy cannot go and does not wish to go. The justified mother of men. Would you hear of an old-time sea fight ? Would you learn who won by the light of the moon and stars ? List to the yarn as my grandmother’s father, the sailor, told it to me : Our foe was no skulk in his ship, I tell you, said he. His was the surly English pluck, and there is no tougher or truer, and never was and never will be. Long the lower eve he came, horribly raking us. We closed with him; the yards entangled, the cannon touched. My captain lashed fast with his own hands. We had received some eighteen pound shots under the water, and on our lower gun deck two large pieces had burst at the first fire, killing all around and blowing up overhead. Fighting at sundown; fighting at dark. Ten o’clock at night; the full moon well up; our leaks on the gain; five feet of water reported. The master-at-arms loosing the prisoners confined in the hold to give them a chance for themselves. �17 ORATION WALT WHITMAN. The transit to and from the magazine is now stopped by the sentinels. They see so many strange faces they do not know whom to trust. Our frigate takes fire. The other asks if we demand quarter, If our colors are struck and the fighting done. Now I laugh content, for I hear the voice of my little Captain, “ We have not struck,” he composedly cries, “ we have just begun our part of the fighting.” Only three guns in use. One is directed by the Captain himself against the enemy’s mainmast. Two, well served with grape and canister, silences his mus­ ketry and clears his decks. The taps alone second the fire of his little battery, especially the maintop. They hold out bravely during the whole of the action, Not a moment’s cease. The leaks gain fast on the pumps, the fire eats toward the powder magazine; one of the pumps has been shot away; it is thought we are sinking. Serene stands the little Captain, He is not hurried; his voice neither high nor low. His eyes give more light to us than our battle lanterns. Toward twelve, there in the beams of the moon, they sur­ render to us. Stretched and still lies the midnight, Two great hulks motionless on the breast of the darkness, Our vessel riddled and slowly sinking, preparations to pass to the one we have conquered. The captain on the quarter-deck coolly giving his orders through a countenance white as a sheet; Near by, the corpse of the child that served in the cabin; The dead face of an old salt, with long white hair and care­ fully curled whiskers. The flames, spite of all that can be done, flecked aloft and below, The husky voices of the two officers yet fit for duty. Formless stacks of bodies and bodies by themselves, dabs of flesh upon the masts and spars; Cut of cordage, tangle of rigging, slight shock of the sooth of waves; Black and impassive guns, litter of powder parcels, strong scent. A few large stars overhead, silent and mournful, shining; delicate sniffs of sea breeze, smells of sedge grass and fields by the shore; death messages given in charge to survivors. B �18 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. The hiss of the surgeon’s knife, the gnawing teeth of his saw, Wheeze, cluck, swash of falling blood, short, wild scream, long, dull, tapering groan. Some people say that this is not poetry—that it lacks measure and rhyme. VIII. WHAT IS POETRY ? The whole world is engaged in the invisible com­ merce of thought. That is to say, in the exchange of thoughts by words, symbols, sounds, colors and forms. The motions of the silent, invisible world, where feeling glows and thought flames—that contains all seeds of action—are made known only by sounds and colors, forms, objects, relations, uses and qualities—so that the visible universe is a dictionary, an aggregation of symbols, by which and through which is carried on the invisible commerce of thought. Each object is capable of many meanings, or of being used in many ways to convey ideas or states of feeling or of facts that take place in the world of the brain. The greatest poet is the one who selects the best, the most appropriate symbols to convey the best, the highest, the sublimest thoughts. Each man occupies a world of his own. He is the only citizen of his world. He is subject and sovereign, and the best he can do is to give the facts concerning the world in which he lives to the citizens of other worlds. No two of these worlds are alike. They are of all kinds, from the flat, barren and uninteresting—from the small and shrivelled and worthless—to those whose rivers and mountains and seas and constellations belittle and cheapen the visible world. The inhabitants of these marvellous worlds have been the singers of songs, utterers of great speech—the creators of art. And here lies the difference between creators and imitators : the creator tells what passes in his own world—thé imitator does not. The imitator abdicates, and by the fact of imitation falls upon his knees. He is like one who, hearing a traveller talk, pretends to others that he has travelled. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 19 In nearly all lands, the poet has been privileged—for the sake of beanty, they have allowed him to speak, and for that reason he has told the story of the oppressed, and has excited the indignation of honest men and even the pity of tyrants. He, above all others, has added to the intellectual beauty of the world. He has been the true creator of language, and has left his impress on mankind. What I have said is not only true of poetry—it is true of all speech. All are compelled to use the visible world as a dictionary. Words have been invented and are being invented—for the reason that new powers are found in the old symbols, new qualities, relations, uses, and meanings. The growth of language is necessary on account of the development of the human mind. The savage needs but few symbols—the civil­ ised many—the poet most of all. The old idea was, however, that the poet must be a rhymer. Before printing was known, it was said : the rhyme assists the memory. That excuse no longer exists. Is rhyme a necessary part of poetry ? In my judgment, rhyme is a hindrance to expression. The rhymer is compelled to wander from his subject—to say more or less than hemeans—to introduce irrelevant matter that interferes continually with the dramatic action and is a perpetual obstruction to sincere utterance. All poems, of necessity, must be short. The highly and purely poetic is the sudden bursting into blossom of a great and tender thought. The planting of the seed, the growth, the bud and flower must be rapid. The spring must be quick and warm—the soil perfect, the sunshine and rain enough—everything should tend to hasten, nothing to delay. In poetry, as in wit, the crystallisation must be sudden. , The greatest poems are rhythmical. While rhyme is a hindrance, rhythm seems to be the comrade of the poetic. Rhythm has a natural foundation. Under emotion, the blood rises and falls, the muscles contract and relax, and this action of the blood is as rhythmical as the rise and fall of the sea. In the highest form of expression, the thought should be in harmony with this natural ebb and flow. �20 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. The highest poetic truth is expressed in rhythmical form. I have sometimes thought that an idea selects its own words, chooses its own garments, and that when the thought has possession, absolutely, of the speaker or writer, he unconsciously allows the thought to clothe itself. The great poetry of the world keeps time with the winds and the waves. I do not mean by rhythm a recurring accent at accurately measured intervals. Perfect time is the death of music. There should always be room for eager haste and delicious delay, and whatever change there may be in the rhythm or time, the action itself should suggest perfect freedom. A word more about rhythm. I believe that certain feelings and passions—joy, grief, emulation, revenge, produce certain molecular movements in the brain—• that every thought is accompanied by certain physical phenomena. Now it may be that certain sounds, colors, and forms produce the same molecular action in the brain that accompanies certain feelings, and that these sounds, colors, and forms produce first, the molecular movements, and these in their turn reproduce the feel­ ings in motions and states of mind capable of producing the same or like molecular movements. So that what we call heroic music, produces the same molecular action in the brain — the same physical changes — that are produced by the real feeling of heroism ; that the sounds we call plaintive produce the same molecular movement in the brain that grief, or the twilight of grief, actually produces. There may be a rhythmical molecular movement belonging to each state of mind, that accompanies each thought or passion, and it may be that music, or paint­ ing, or sculpture, produces the same state of mind or feeling that produces the music or painting or sculp­ ture, by producing the same molecular movements. All arts are born of the same spirit, and express like thoughts in different ways—that is to say, they produce like states of mind and feeling. The sculptor, the painter, the composer, the poet, the orator, work to the same end, with different materials. The painter �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 21 expresses through form and color and relation ; the sculptor through form and relation. The poet also paints and chisels—his words give form, relation, and color. His statues and his paintings do not crumble, neither do they fade, nor will they as long as language endures. The composer touches the passions, produces the very states of feeling produced by the painter and' sculptor, and poet and orator. In all these there must be rhythm—that is to say, proportion—that is to say, harmony, melody. So that the greatest poet is the one who idealizes the common, who gives new meanings to old symbols, who transfigures the ordinary things of life. He must deal with the hopes and fears, and with the experiences of the people. The poetic is not the exceptional. A perfect poem, is like a perfect day. It has the undefinable charm of naturalness and ease. It must not appear to be the result of great labor. We feel, in spite of ourselves, that man does best that which he does easiest. The great poet is the instrumentality, not always of his time, but of the best of his time, and he must be in. unison and accord with the ideals of his race. The sublimer he is the simpler he is. The thoughts of the people must be clad in the garments of feeling—the words must be known, apt, familiar. The height must be in the thought, in the sympathy. In the olden time they used to have May day parties, and the prettiest child was crowned Queen of May. Imagine an old blacksmith and his wife looking at their little daughter clad in white and crowned with roses. They would wonder while they looked at her, how they ever came to have so beautiful a child. It is thus that the poet clothes the intellectual children or ideals of the people. They must not be gemmed and garlanded beyond the recognition of their parents. Out from all the flowers and beauty must look the eyes of the child they know. We have grown tired of gods and goddesses in art. Milton’s heavenly militia excites our laughter. Light­ houses have driven sirens from the dangerous coasts. We have found that we do not depend on the imagina­ �22 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. tion for wonders—there are millions of miracles under our feet. Nothing can be more marvellous than the common and every day facts of life. The phantoms have been cast aside. Men and women are enough for men and women. In their lives is all the tragedy and all the comedy that they can comprehend. The painter no longer crowds his canvas with the ■winged and impossible —he paints life as he sees it, people as he knows them, and in whom he is interested. “ The Angelus,” the perfection of pathos, is nothing but two peasants bending their heads in thankfulness as they hear the solemn sound of the distant* bell—two peasants, who have nothing to be thankful for—nothing but weariness and want, nothing but the crusts that they soften with their tears—nothing. And yet as you look at that picture you feel that they have something besides to be thankful for—that they have life, love and hope—and so th.e distant bell makes music in their simple hearts. IX. The attitude of Whitman toward religion has not been understood. Towards all forms of worship, towards all creeds, he has maintained the attitude of absolute fairness. He does not believe that nature has given her last message to man. He does not believe that all has been ascertained/ He denies that any sect has written down the entire truth. He believes in progress, and, so believing, he says : We can consider bibles and religions divine. I do not say they are not divine. I say they have all grown out of us and may grow out of us still. It is not they who give the life. It is you who give the life. My thoughts are hymns of the praise of things ; In the dispute on God and eternity I am silent. Have you thought there could be but a single Supreme ? There can be any number of Supremes. One does not countervail another any more than one eyesight countervails another. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 23 Upon the great questions, as to the great problems, he feels only the serenity of a great and well-poised soul. No array of terms can. say how much I am at peace about God and about death. I hear and behold God in every object, not understanding God, not in the least. Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself. In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my face in the glass. I find letters from God dropped in the street and every one is signed by God’s name. The whole visible world is regarded by him as a revelation, and so is the invisible world, and with this feeling he writes : Not objecting to special revelations—considering a curl of smoke or a hair on the back of my hand just as curious as any revelation. The creeds do not satisfy, the old mythologies are not enough ; they are too narrow at best, giving only hints and suggestions ; and feeling this lack in that which has been written and preached, Whitman says : Magnifying and applying come I; Outbidding at the start the old cautious hucksters ; Taking myself the exact dimensions of Jehovah; Lithographing Kronos, Zeus his son and Herkules his grand­ son ; Buying drafts of Osiris, Isis, Belus, Brahm, and Buddha; In my portfolio placing Manito alone—Alah on a leaf—the crucifix engraved x With Odin and the hideous face of Mexitli and every ido 1 and image— Taking them all for what they are worth, and not a cent more. Whitman keeps open house. He is intellectually hospitable. He extends his hand to a new idea. He does not accept a creed because it is wrinkled and old and has a long white beard. He knows that hypocrisy has a venerable look, and that it relies on looks and masks— on stupidity—and fear. Neither does h e rej ect �24 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN, or accept the new because it is new. He wants the truth, and so he welcomes all until he knows just who and what they are. PHILOSOPHY. Walt Whitman is a philosopher. The more a man has thought, the more he has studied, the more he has travelled intellectually, the less certain he is. Only the very ignorant are perfectly satisfied that they know, To the common man the great problems are easy, He has no trouble in accounting for the universe. He can tell you the origin and destiny of man and the why and the wherefore of things. As a rule, he is a believer in special providence, and is egoistic enough to suppose that everything that happens in the universe happens in reference to him. A colony of red ants lived at the foot of the Alps. It happened one day, that an avalanche destroyed the hill; and one of the ants was heard to remark : “ Who could have taken so much trouble to destroy our home ? ” Walt Whitman walked by the side of the sea “ where the fierce old mother endlessly cries for her castaways,” and endeavoured to think out, to fathom the mystery of being ? and he says : I too, but signify, at the utmost, a little washed up drift, A few sands and dead leaves gathered together—merging myself as part of the sands and drift. Aware, now, that amid all the blab whose echoes recoil upon me, I have not once had the least idea of who or what I am. But that for all my insolent poems, the real me still stands untouched, untold, altogether unreached, Withdrawn afar, mocking me with mock congratulatory signs and voices, With peals of distant ironical laughter at every word I have written or shall write, Striking me with insults as I fall helpless on the sand. I perceive I have not understood anything, not a single object; and that no man ever can. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 25 There is in our language no profounder poem than the one entitled “ Elemental Drifts.'’ The effort to find the origin of things has ever been, and will forever be, fruitless. Those who endeavour to find the secret of life resemble a man looking in the mirror, who thinks that if he only could be quick enough he could grasp the image that he sees behind the glass. The latest word of this poet upon this subject is as follows : (e To me this life with all its realities and functions is finally a mystery, the real something yet to be evolved, and the stamp and shape and life here some­ how given an important, perhaps the main, outline to something further. Somehow this hangs over every­ thing else, and stands behind it, is inside of all facts, and the concrete and material and the worldly affairs of life and sense. That is the purport and meaning behind all the other meanings, of Leaves of Grass’' As a matter of fact the questions of origin and destiny are beyond the grasp of the human mind. We can see a certain distance ; beyond that everything is only indistinct; and beyond the indistinct is the unseen. In the presence of these mysteries—and everything is a mystery so far as origin, destiny, and nature are con­ cerned—the intelligent, honest man is compelled to say, “ I do not know.” In the great midnight a few truths like stars shine on forever—and from the brain of man come a few struggling gleams of light—a few momentary sparks. Some have contended that everything is spirit; others that everything is matter ; and again, others who maintained that a part is matter and 9. part is spirit; some that spirit was first and matter after; others that matter was first and spirit after ; and others that matter and spirit have existed together. But none of these people can by any possibility tell what matter is, or what spirit is, or what the difference is between spirit and matter. The materialists look upon the spiritualists as sub­ stantially crazy ; and the spiritualists regard the materialists as low and groveling. These spiritualistic �26 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. people hold matter in contempt ; but, after all, matter is quite a mystery. You take in your hand a little earth—a little dust. Do you know what it is ? In this dust you put a seed ; the rain falls upon it; the light strikes it; the seed grows ; it bursts into blossom ; it produces fruit. What is this dust—this womb ? Do you understand it? Is there anything in the wide universe more wonderful than this ? Take a grain of sand, reduce it to powder, take the smallest possible particle, look at it with a microscope, contemplate its every part for days, and it remains the citadel of a secret—an impregnable fortress. Bring all the theologians, philosophers, and scientists in serried ranks against it; let them attack on every side with all the arts and arms of thought and force. The citadel does not fall. Over the battlements floats the flag and the victorious secret smiles at the baffled hosts. Walt Whitman did not and does not imagine that he has reached the limit—the end of the road travelled by the human race. He knows that every victory over nature is but the preparation for another battle. This truth was in his mind when he said : “ Understand me well; it is provided in the essence of things, that from any fruition of success, no matter what, shall come forth something to make a greater struggle necessary.” This is the generalisation of all history. XI. THE TWO POEMS. There are two of these poems to which I have time to call special attention. The first is entitled, “ A Word Out of the Sea.” The boy, coming out of the rocked cradle, wandering over the sands and fields, up from the mystic play of shadows, out of the patches of briers and blackberries —from the memories of birds—from the thousand responses of his heart—goes back to the sea and his childhood, and sings a reminiscence. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 27 Two guests from Alabama—two birds—build their nest, and there were four light green eggs, spotted with brown, and the two birds sang for joy : Shine, shine, Pour down your warmth together, great sun! While we bask, we two together. Two together—< Windsblow south, or winds blow north, Day come white, or night come black, Home, or rivers and mountains from home, Singing all time, minding no time, If we two but keep together. In a little while one of the birds is missed and never appeared again, and all through the summer the mate, the solitary guest, was singing of the lost: Blow, blow, Blow up, sea winds, along Paumanok’s shore; I wait and I wait till you blow my mate to me. And the boy that night, blending himself with the shadows, with bare feet, went down to the sea, where the white arms out in the breakers were tirelessly tossing ; listening to the songs and translating the notes. And the singing bird called loud and high for the mate, wondering what the dusky spot was in the brown and yellow, seeing the mate whichever way he looked, piercing the woods and the earth with his song, hoping that the mate might hear his cry ; stopping that he might not lose her answer ; waiting and then •crying again : “Here I am!” And this gentle call is for you. Do not be deceived by the whistle of the wind ; those are the shadows ; and at last crying : 0 past, 0 joy ! In the air, in the woods, over fields, Loved! loved! loved ! Loved—but no more with me— We two togethei* no more. And then the boy, understanding the song that had awakened in his breast a thousand songs clearer and louder and more sorrowful than the bird’s, knowing �28 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. that the cry of unsatisfied love would never again be absent from him; thinking then of the destiny of all, and asking of the sea the final word, and the sea answering, delaying not and hurrying not, spoke the low delicious word “ Death !” “ ever Death !” The next poem, one that will live as long as our language, entitled, “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed,” is on the death of Lincoln. The sweetest, wisest soul of all my days and lands. . One who reads this will never forget the odor of the lilac, “lustrous western star” and “the grey-brown bird singing in the pines and cedars.” In this poem the dramatic unities are perfectly pre­ served, the atmosphere and climate in harmony with every event. Never will he forget the solemn journey of the coffin through day and night, with the great cloud darkening the land, nor the pomp of inlooped flags, the procession long and winding, the flambeaus of night, the torches’ flames, the silent sea of faces, the unbared heads, the thousand voices, rising strong and solemn, the dirges, the shuddering organs, the tolling bells—and the sprig of lilac. And then for a moment they will hear the grey­ brown bird singing in the cedars, bashful and tender, while the lustrous star lingers in the West, and they will remember the pictures hung on the chamber walls to adorn the burial house—pictures of spring and farms and homes and the grey smoke, lucid and bright, and the floods of yellow gold—of the gorgeous indolent sinking sun—the sweet herbage under foot— the green leaves of the trees prolific—the breast of the river with the wind-dapple here and there, and the varied and ample land—and the most excellent sun so calm and haughty—the violet and purple morn with just felt breezes. The gentle, soft-born measureless light—the miracle spreading, bathing all—the fulfilled noon—the coming eve delicious and the welcome night and the stars. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 29 And then again they will hear the song of the grey­ brown bird in the limitless dusk amid the cedars and pines. Again they will remember the star and again the odor of the lilac. But most of all, the song of the bird translated and becoming the chant for death: THE CHANT FOE DEATH. Come lovely and soothing death, Undulate ’round the world, serenely arriving, arriving, In the day, in the night, to all, to each, Sooner or later delicate death. Praised be the fathomless universe, Por life and joy, and for objects and knowledge curious, And for love, sweet love—but praise ! praise! praise ! For the sure enwinding arms of cool enfolding death. Dark mother always gliding near with soft feet, Have none chanted for thee a chant of fullest welcome p Then I chant it for thee, I glorify thee above all, I bring thee a song that when thou must indeed come, come unfalteringly. Approach, strong deliveress, When it is so, when thou hast taken them I joyously sing the dead, Lost in the loving floating ocean of thee, Laved in the flood of thy bliss, 0 death. From me to thee glad serenades, Dances for thee I propose saluting thee, adornments and feastings for thee, And the sights of the open landscape and the high-spread sky are flitting. And life and the fields, and the bright and thoughtful night. The night in silence under many a star, The ocean shore and the husky whispering wave whose voice I know, And the soul turning to thee, O vast and well-veiled death," And the body gratefully nestling close to thee. Over the tree-tops I float thee a song, Over the rising and sinking waves, over the myriad fields and I ■«. the prairies wide, Over the dense-packed cities all—and the teeming wharves and waves, I float this carol to thee, with joy to thee, 0 death. �30 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN, This poem, in memory of “ the sweetest, wisest soul of all our days and lands,” and for whose sake lilac and star and bird were entwined, will last as long as the memory of Lincoln. XII. OLD AGE. Walt Whitman- is not only the poet of childhood, of youth, of manhood, but, above all, of old age. He has not been soured by slander or petrified by preju­ dice ; neither calumny nor flattery has made him re­ vengeful or arrogant. Now sitting by the fireside, in the winter of life, His jocund heart still beating in his breast, he is just as brave and calm and kind as in his man­ hood’s proudest days, when roses blossomed in his cheeks. He has taken life’s seven steps. Now, as the gamester might say, “ on velvet.” He is enjoying “ old age expanded, broad, with the haughty breadth of the universe ; old age, flowing free, with the delicious, near-by freedom of death ; old age, superbly rising, welcoming the ineffable aggregation of dying days.” He is taking the “ loftiest look at last,” and before he goes he utters thanks “ for health, the midday sun, the impalpable air—for life, mere life ; for precious ever lingering memories of mother, father, brothers, sisters, friends ; for all his days, for gentle words, carresses, gifts from foreign lands, for shelter, wine and meat, for sweet appreciation, for beings, groups, love, deeds, words, books ; for colors, forms ; for all the brave, strong men who forward sprung in freedom’s help—all years—in all lands ; the cannoneers of song and thought—the great artillerists, the foremost leaders, captains of the soul.” It is a great thing to preach philosophy—far greater to live it. The highest philosophy accepts the inevit­ able with a smile, and greets it as though it were desired. To be satisfied : This is wealth—success. �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 31 The real philosopher knows that everything has hap­ pened that could have happened—consequently he accepts. He is glad that he has lived—glad that he has had his moment on the stage. In this spirit Whitman has accepted life. I shall go forth; I shall traverse these states, but I cannot tell whither or how iong. Perhaps soon, some day or night, while I am singing, my voice will suddenly cease, O soul! Then all may arrive but to this : The glances of my eyes that swept the daylight, The unspeakable love I interchanged with women, My joys in the open air, My walks in the Mannahatta, The continual good will I have met, The curious attachments of young men to me, My reflections alone—the absorption into me from the land­ scape, stars, animals, thunder, rain, and snow in my interviews alone; The words of my mouth—rude, ignorant—my many faults and derelictions; The light touches on my lips of the lips of my comrades at parting, The tracks which I leave on the sidewalks and fields— May all arrive at but this beginning of me; This beginning of me—and yet it is enough, 0, soul! 0, soul, we have positively appeared; that is enough. Yes, Walt Whitman has appeared. He has his place upon the stage. The drama is not ended. His voice is still heard. He is the Poet of Democracy—of all people. He is the poet of the body and soul. He has sounded the note of Individuality. He has given the pass-word primeval. He is the Poet of Humanity—of Intellectual Hospitality. He has voiced the aspirations of America—and, above all, he is the poet of Love and Death. How grandly, how bravely he has given his thought, and how superb is his farewell—his leave-taking : After the supper and talk ; after the day is done. As a friend from friends his final withdrawal prolonging. Good-bye and good-bye with emotional lips repeating. �32 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. So hard for his hand to release those hands—no more will they meet— No more for.communion of sorrow and joy of old and young, A far-stretching journey awaits him to return no more. Shunning postponing severance, seeking to ward off the last word ever so little, Even at the exit dooi’ turning—charges superfluous calling back—even as he descends the steps, Something to eke out a minute additional—shadows of night­ fall deepening, Farewell messages lessening, dimmer the forthgoer’s visage and form, Soon to be lost for aye in the darkness; loth, oh, so loth to depart! And is this all ? Will the forthgoer be lost, and for ever ? Is death the end ? Over the grave bends Love sobbing, and by her side stands Hope and whispers : We shall meet again. Before all life is death, and after all death is life. The falling leaf, touched with the hectic flush, that testifies of autumn’s death, is, in a subtler sense, a prophecy of spring. Walt Whitman has dreamed great dreams, told great truths and uttered sublime thoughts. He has held aloft the torch and bravely led the way. As you read the marvellous book, or the person, called Leaves of Grass, you feel the freedom of the antique world ; you hear the voices of the morning, of the first great singers—voices elemental as those of sea and storm. The horizon enlarges, the heavens grow ample, limitations are forgotten —the realisation of the will, the accomplishment of the ideal, seem to be within your power. Obstructions become petty and disappear. The chains and bars are broken, and the distinctions of caste are lost. The soul is in the open air, under the blue and stars —the flag of Nature. Creeds, theories, and philosophies ask to be examined, contradicted, reconstructed. Pre­ judices disappear, superstitions vanish, and custom abdicates. The sacred places become highways, duties and desires clasp hands and become comrades and friends. Authority drops the sceptre, the priest the mitre, and the purple falls from kings. The inanimate �ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. 33 becomes articulate, the meanest and humblest things utter speech, and the dumb and voiceless burst into song. A feeling of independence takes possession of the soul, the body expands, the blood flows full and free, superiors vanish, flattery is a lost art, and life becomes rich, royal and superb. The world becomes a personal possession, and the oceans, the continents and constellations belong to you. You are in the centre, everything radiates from you, and in your veins beats and throbs the pulse of all life. You become a rover, careless and free. You wander by the shores of all seas and hear the eternal psalm. You feel the silence of the wide forest, and stand beneath the intertwined and over-arching boughs, entranced with symphonies of winds and woods. You are borne on the tides of eager and swift rivers, hear the rush and roar of cataracts as they fall beneath the seven-hued arch, and watch the eagles as they circling soar. You traverse gorges dark and dim, and climb the scarred and threa­ tening cliffs. You stand in orchards where the blossoms fall like snow, where the birds nest and sing, and painted moths make aimless journeys through the happy air. You live the lives of those who till the earth, and walk amid the perfumed fields, hear the reapers’ song, and feel the breadth and scope of earth and sky. You are in the great cities, in the midst of multitudes, of the endless processions. You are on the wide plains—the prairies—with hunter and trapper, with savage and pioneer, and you feel the soft grass yielding under your feet. You sail in many ships, and breathe the free air of the sea. You travel many roads, and countless paths. You visit palaces and prisons, hospitals and courts ; you pity kings and convicts, and your sympathy goes out to all the suffering and insane, the oppressed and enslaved, and even to the infamous. You hear the din of labor, all sounds of factory, field, and forest, of all tools, instruments, and machines. You become familiar with men and women of all employments, trades, and professions—with birth and burial, with wedding feast and funeral chant. You see the cloud and flame of war, and you enjoy the ineffable perfect days of peace. �34 ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN. In?hls°ne book’ in these wondrous Leaves of Grass yi>n1r?.d hmts and suggestions, touches and fragments’ of all there is of life, that lies between the babe, whose rounded cheeks dimple beneath his mother’s laughing oving eyes, and the old man, snow-crowned, who, with a smile, extends his hand to death. And we have met to-night to honor ourselves by honoring the author of Leaves of Grass. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street London, E.O. ’ �WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL s. d. x 0 j g MISTAKES OF MOSES ... ... ... Superior edition, in cloth ... ... ... Only Complete Edition published in England.* DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT ... ... q g Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. REPLY TO GLADSTONE ... ... With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler. ' ROME OR REASON ? ... 0 Reply to Cardinal Manning CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS ... FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field Second Reply to Dr. Field 4 0 4 ... 0 3 ... 0 2 ... 0 0 2 ... 0 2 THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION ......................... 0 A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford 2 GOD AND MAN. ... ... THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH ... THE DYING CREED ... DO I BLASPHEME ? 2 0 THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE ... 2 o 2 THE GREAT MISTAKE LIVE TOPICS ... ... ... ... .01 0 1 MYTH AND MIRACLE ... ... 0 1 REAL BLASPHEMY ... ... 0 x ..................... 0 2 SOCIAL SALVATION MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ... ... 0 2 ... GOD AND THE STATE ... WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II. .. ... 0 0 2 2 ... 0 2 Progressive Publishing Co, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. �“THE FREETHINKER” Edited by G. W. FOOTE. The Only Penny Freethought Paper in England. Circulates throughout the World. Published every Thursday. �THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY’S C ATALOG U E. ■ ---- 0--------All orders to be sent, with remittwnce, to K. Forder, 88 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. Rate of postage—Orders under 3d., one halfpenny orders under 6d. one penny. Orders over 6d. post free. SEPTEMBER, 1890. AVELING, DR. E. B. Darwin. Made Easy. Cloth ... ... ... 10 Dr. Aveling is a Fellow of the London University, and this is the best popular exposition of Darwinism extant. BENTHAM, JEREMY The Church of England. Catechism Examined. A tren­ chant analysis, in Bentham’s best manner, showing how the Catechism is calculated to make children hypocrites or fools, if not worse. Sir Samuel Romilly was of opinion that the work would be prosecuted for blasphemy, though it escaped that fate in consequence of the writer’s eminence. With a Biographical Preface by J. M. Wheeler ... Utilitarianism... ... ... ... ... “A place must be assigned to Bentham among the masters of wisdom.”—John Stuart Mill. “ A man of first-rate genius.”—Edward Dicey. “It is impossible to know Bentham without admiring and revering him ”—Sir Samuel Romilly. “ Everything that comes from the pen or from the mind of Mr. Bentham is entitled to profound regard.”—James Mill. “He found jurisprudence a gibberish and left it a science.”—Macaulay. 10 0 3 �(2) COLLINS, ANTHONY Free Will and Necessity. A Philosophical Inquiry concerning Human Liberty. First published in 1715. Now reprinted with Preface and Annota­ tions by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Intro­ duction by J. M. Wheeler ... ... ... Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 10 2 0 “ I do not know of anything that has been advanced by later writers in support of the scheme of Necessity, of which the germ is not to be found in the Inquiry of Collins.”—Prof. Dugald Stewart. “ Collins states the arguments against human freedom with a logical force unsurpassed by any Necessitarian.” —Prof. A. C. Fraser. “ Collins writes with wonderful power and closeness of reasoning.”—Prof. Huxley. “ Collins was one of the most terrible enemies of the Christian religion.”—Voltaire. FEUERBACH, LUDWIG The Essence of Religion. God the Image of Man, Man s Dependence upon Nature the Last and Only Source of Religion ... ... ... ... i o “ No one has demonstrated and explained the purely human origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig Feuerbach. ’ ’—Bachner. “ I confess that to Feuerbach I owe a debt of inesti­ mable gratitude. _ Feeling about in uncertainty for the ground, and finding everywhere shifting sands, Feuer­ bach cast a sudden blaze in the darkness and disclosed to me the way.”—Rev. S. Baring Gould. FOOTE, G. W. Is Socialism Sound ? Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besant ... ... ... ... Superior Edition, in cloth ... ... Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. Dr. James McGann ... Superior Edition, in cloth ... ... ... Darwin on God ... Superior Edition, in cloth ... ... ... ... ... ... Contents :—Darwin’s Grandfather—Darwin’s Father— Darwin’s Early Piety—Almost a Clergyman—On Board the “ Beagle ”—Settling at Down—Death and Burial— Purpose of Pamphlet—Some Objections—Darwin Abair- i o 2 0 1 o i g o 6 j q �( 3 ) dons Christianity—Deism—Creation—Origin of Life— Origin of Man— Animism—A Personal Creator Design _ Divine Beneficence—Religion and Morality—.Agnos­ ticism and Atheism. Infidel Death-Beds. Second edition, much enlarged Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 0 8 1 3 List of Freethinkers dealt with :—Lord Amberley, Baskerville, Bayle, Bentham, Bert, Lord .golingbroke, Broussais, Bruno, Buckle, Byron, Carlile Clifiord, Clootz, Collins, Comte, Condorcet, Cooper, D Alembert, Danton, Charles and Erasmus Darwin, Delambre, Diderot, Bolet, Geo. Eliot, Frederick the Great, Gambetta, Garabaldi, Gendre, Gibbon, Godwin, Gœthe, Grote, Helvetiua, Hetherington, Hobbes, Austin Holyoake, iHago, Hume, Littré, Harriet Martineau, Jean Mealier, «Tames ana J onn Stuart Mill, Mirabeau, Robt. Owen, Paine, Palmer, Rabelais, Reade, Mdme. Roland, George Sand, Schiller, Shelley, Spinoza, Strauss, Toland, Vanini, Voltaire, Volney, Watson, John Watts, Woolston. Letters to the Clergy. First Series. 128pp. ... 1, Creation, to the Bishop of Carlisle; 2, The Believing Thief, to the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon; 3, The Atonement, to the Bishop of Peter­ borough; 4, Old Testament Morality, to the Rev. E. Conder, D.D.; 5, Inspiration, to the Rev. R. F. Horton, M.A.; 6, Credentials of the Gospel, to the Rev. Prof. J. A. Beet; 7, Miracles, to the Rev. Brownlow Maitland; 8, Prayer, to the Rev. T. Teignmouth Shore, M.A. Defence of Free Speech. Three Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Coleridge. With a Special Preface and many Footnotes ... Letters to Jesus Christ Philosophy of Secularism The Bible God... The Folly of Prayer The Impossible Creed. An Open Letter to the Bishop of Peterborough on the Sermon on the Mount ... Christianity and Progress. Reply to Mr. Gladstone Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy. A Candid Criticism ... Theosophy and Secularism. A Rejoinder to Mrs. Besant The New Cagliostro. An Open Letter to Madame Blavatsky ... 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 �( * ) What Was Christ ? A Reply to J. s. Mill 0 2 ^tl-aU ,Ev,lden1c.e writers make the passage on Ghust their stock reliance, and Mr. Foote thoroughly dissects and analyses it, and denounces it as valueless.’’ —2Vational Reformer. The Shadow of the Sword. A moral and statistical -Essay on War 0 2 war^ndbth Pamphlet, exposing the horrors of wai and the burden imposed upon the people by the war systems of Europe.”—Echo. “A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone should read.”—Rimes. Eoy,11 ^auP®rsa Showing what Royalty does for the People, and what the People do for Royalty The Dying Atheist. A Story ... 0 2 0 1 Was Jesus Insane? A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the Prophet of Nazareth 0 1 Is the Bible Inspired ? A Criticism on “ Lux Mundi.” 0 1 The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes’s Converted Atheist A Lie m Five Chapters 0 1 Bible Heroes—First Series, in elegant wrapper (1) Mr. Adam, (2) Captain Noah, (3) Father Abraham, (4) Juggling Jacob, (5) Master Joseph, (6) Joseph’s Brethren, (7) Holy Moses I., (8) Holy Moses II., (9) Parson Aaron, (10) General Joshua, (11) Jephthah and Co., (12) Professor Samson. One Penny each singly. 1 0 Bible Heroes—Series, in elegant wrapper (13) Prophet Samuel, (14) King Saul, (15) Saint David I., (16) Saint David II., (17) Sultan Solomon, (18) Poor Job, (19) Hairy Elijah, (20) Bald Elisha, (21) General Jehu, (22) Doctor Daniel, (23) The Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, (24) St. Peter, (25) St. Paul. Bible Romances. New Edition. Revised and largely rewritten.—(1) The Creation Story, 2d.; (2) Eve and the Apple, Id.; (3), Cain and Abel, Id.; (4) Noah’s Flood, 2d. (5) The Tower of Babel, Id; (6) Lot’s Wife, Id. Other numbers following on the first of each month. 1 0 �( 5 ) G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians. Complete, paper covers ... ... Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth Sold also in separate Parts as follows— The Contradictions are printed in parallel columns . . ... ... 2. Bible Absurdities. All the chief Absurdities from Genesis to Revelation, conveniently and strikingly arranged, with appropriate headlines, giving the point of each absurdity in a sentence 3. Bible Atrocities. Containing all the godly wicked­ ness from Genesis to Revelation. Each infamy has a separate headline for easy reference ... 4. Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities, Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies ... 1. Bible Contradictions. 1 4 2 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 G. W. FOOTE & J. M. WHEELER The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu, or Bookof the Generation of Jesus, With an Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes Superior Edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth ’ 0 6 1 0 “Messrs. G. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the Freethought party under great obligation by the careful manner in which they have collected and stated the information on a very doubtful and difficult subject...... We have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and sometimes very erudite notes.”— National Reformer. Crimes of Christianity. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp. Hundreds of exact References to Standard Autho­ rities. No pains spared to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity... ... ... ... ... Chapters (1) Christ to Constantine; (2) Con­ stantine to Hypatia; (3) Monkery; (4) Pious Forgeries; (5) Pious Frauds; (6) Rise of the Papacy; (7) Crimes of the Popes; (8) Perse­ cution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades. “The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with exactitude, and the 2 6 �( 6 ) work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the opponents of Christianity.”—National Reformer. “ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—Weekly Times. “The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Huddersfield Examiner. “ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Age (U.S.A.) HUME, DAVID The Mortality Of the Soul With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. This essay was first published after IIume’< death. It is not included in the ordinary editions of the Essays. Prof. Huxley calls it “ A remarkable essay ” and “ a model of clear and vigorous statement.” ... ... Liberty and. Necessity. An argument against Free Will and in favor of Moral Causation ... ... 0 2 0 4 COL. ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. Some Mistakes of Moses. With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. The only complete edition in England. Accurate as Colenso, and fascinating as a novel. 132pp. ... ... ... ... Superior Edition, on superfinepaper, bound in cloth Defence of Freethought. A five hours’ speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy ... Reply to Gladstone. With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler ... ... ... ... ... Rome or Reason? A Reply to Cardinal Manning ... Crimes against Criminals ... ... ... Why am I an Agnostic ? Parts I. and II., each ... Faith and. Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field ... God. and. Man. Second Reply to Dr. Field ... The Dying Creed. ... ... ... •• The Household, of Faith ... ... ... The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with the Hon. F. D. Oourdert and Gov. S. L. Woodford ... Art and. Morality ... ... ... ••• Do I Blaspheme? ... ... ... ••• The Clergy and Common Sense... ... 1 0 1 6 0 6' 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 �( 7 ) 'X Social Salvation ... ... ... ... God and the State ... ... ... ... Marriage and Divorce. An Agnostic’s View ... The Great Mistake ... ... ... ... Live Topics ... ... ... ... ... Myth and Miracle ... ... ... ... Real Blasphemy ... ... ... ... Repairing the Idols ... ... ... ... Whole of the above TPor7iS of Ingersoll bound in two o o 0 o o o o o 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 volumes, cloth, 7s. SHELLE? A Refutation of Deism. In a Dialogue. With an Introduction by G. W. Foote ... ... ... 0 4 THOMSON JAMES (B.V) Satires and Profanites. New Edition ... ... Contents :—The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm (Jehovah, Son & Co)—The Devil in the Church of England — Religion in the Rocky Mountains—ChristiwrEve in the Upper Circles —A Commission of Inquiry on Royalty—A Bible Lesson on Monarchy—The One Thing Needful. 1 o “ It cannot be neglected by any who are interested in one of the most pathetic personages of our time.”— Academy. “As clever as they are often profane.”—Christian World. “Well worth preserving.”—Weekly Dispatch. “Reminds one of the genius of Swift.”— Oldham Chronicle. J. M. WHEELER Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers of all Ages and Nations. Handsomely bound in cloth “ The Dictionary wJrnvolved enormous labor, and the compiler deserves the thanks of the Ereethought party.” —National Reformer. “ The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought “ At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing those Christians who are continually inquiring for our great men, asserting that all great men have been on the side of Christianity.”—Truthseeker (New York). “The most important Freethought work published this year.”—De Dageraad (Amsterdam). “ A good and useful work that was much needed.”— Commonweal. 7 6 �( 8 ) Letters from Heaven Letters from Hell ... ... ... ... o o ... 02 ... Post free 7d. One Thousand carriage free. Sample packet of 20 (one of each tract) post free 1. Salvation by Faith (Ingersoll); 2, Death of Adam (Nelson); 3, Bible Blunders (Foote); 4, The Bible and Teetotalism (Wheeler); 5, Bible Harmony (Holy Ghost); 6, Which is the Safe Side? (Foote); 7, Voltaire’s Death-Bed ; 8, The Parson’s Creed (verse) ; 9, Prophecy Tested (Ball); 10, Christianity and the Family (Ingersoll); 11, Thomas Paine’s Death-Bed ; 12, Shelley’s Reli­ gion ; 13, J. S. Mill on Christianity ; 14, A Gol­ den Opportunity (facetious); 15, Darwin’s Reli­ gious Views; 16, Atheists and Atheism; 17. Good Friday at Jerusalem; 18, Parsons on “ Smut ” (Foote); 19, Mrs. Eve (Foote); 20, New Testament Forgeries (Wheeler). 0 6 Mr. G-. W. Foote’s Portrait by Amey. Cabinet size... Post free and carefully packed, Is. Id. Imperial Size, very fine . . ... ... Post free and carefully packed, 3s. 2d. 1 0 ... ... ... ... i 1 MISCELLANEOUS Picture of the Statue of Bruno at Rome Post free in. Letts’s case, 3d. “FREETHINKER” TRACTS. Per hundred 0 2 3 0 “THE FREETHINKER” Edited by G.W. FOOTE. The Only Penny Freethought Paper in England. Circulates throughout the World. Published every Thursday. Printed by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. ��FREETROUGHT PUBLICATIONS. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by J. M. Wheeler _ _ . . _ 10 FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins 1 0 Reprinted from 17)5 ed., with Preface and Annotations by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by J. M. Wheeler. Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 2 0 THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach 1 0 IS SOCIALISM SOUND i Four Nights’Public Debate between Annie Besant and G. W. Foote ----1 0 Superior edition, in cloth ----2 '0 CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J. McCann 10 ^Superior edition, in cloth ------1 6 DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote .-.-06 Superior edition, in cloth - .10 INFIDEL DEATH BEDS. By G. W. Foote. Second edition. Much enlarged ----08 Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 13 LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp. 1 0 BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. First series, in elegant wrapper 10 BIBLE HEROES. Second series, in elegant wrapper 10 BIBLE HANDBOOK FOR FREETHINKERS and INQUIRING CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Complete, paper covers -14" Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth 2 0 THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes 0 6 CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp. 2 6 SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. 132pp. 10 SATIRES AND PROFANITIES. By James. Thomson (B.V.) 1 0 BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of all Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Handsomely bound in cloth .--.76 DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT. A five hours’ speech at the , Trial of O. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. By Col. R. G. Ingersoll '0 6 A REFUTATION OF DEISM, tn a Dialogue. By Shelley. With an Introduction by G. W. Foote 0 4 R. FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource An oration on Walt Whitman Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 34, 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher's catalogue (8 p.), dated September 1890, at end. No. 45g in Stein checklist. "The following oration by Colonel Ingersoll was delivered in the Horticultural Hall, New York, on October 21, 1890". Essays previously published in a variety of journals and books, which are listed in the Acknowledgements section. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N382 Subject The topic of the resource Poetry Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An oration on Walt Whitman), 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 American Poetry NSS Poetry Poetry in English Walt Whitman https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cd4f89d5a9eb142348ce83cbdb3e571b.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=InGGkk7q-ED1Zcq1OjmQnu7r9WgR9IKWnlS3aaxUlR4Y%7EPiCLMFKboo-igmUNbZYJmpTMUQ%7EhtW6tXLSfzkHVVdLrGHZdufwe%7ExHdrvgMuIRkUPSVgqsoHCy3KLSAl6aTz4299Ad9wzX%7Ea7UXbjsx6rJKykj3xs6BGuf41yiFIEh-uC6zxbUjYUomEH46VwC-GYL%7EvYZgtlIfQceltufAhsqes6gJFG96b%7EYsyrgxU803jY6xm9sZk9IApf6VXdPxCSNVswnf9vIqGrVLyos2vZBSFhgZqmIjvq175xcP33I99-HBmX6zSOeAkmcmAKnkebYI59H5QHkz5s%7E7WZjuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 34b0379aee51fcf95b2df4e35fbe578e PDF Text Text THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL Price Twopence, LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1892. �LONDON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �The Three Philanthropists By Robert Gr. Ingersoll. I. “ Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail, And say there is no sin but to be rich.” Mr. A. lived in the kingdom of------ -. He was a sincere professional philanthropist. He was absolutely certain that he loved his fellow men, and that his views were humane and scientific. He concluded to turn his attention to taking care of people less fortunate than himself. With this object in view he investigated the common people that lived about him, and he found that they were extremely ignorant, that many of them seemed to take no particular interest in life or in business, that few of them had any theories of their own, and that, while many had muscle, there was only now and then one who had any mind worth speaking of. Nearly all of them were destitute of ambition. They were satisfied if they got something to eat, a place to sleep, and could now and then indulge in some form of dissipation. They seemed to have great confidence in to-morrow—trusted to luck, and took no thought for the future. Many of them were extravagant, most of them dissipated, and a good many dishonest. Mr. A. found that many of the husbands not only failed to support their families, but that some of them lived on the labor of their wives; that many of the wives were careless of their obligations, knew nothing �4 The Three Philanthropists. about the art of cooking, nothing of keeping house 1 and that parents, as a general thing, neglected their children or treated them with cruelty. He also founj that many of the people were so shiftless that they died of want and exposure. After having obtained this information, Mr. A. made up his mind to do what little he could to better theif condition. He petitioned the king to assist him, and asked that he be allowed to take control of five hundred people in consideration that he would pay a certain amount into the treasury of the kingdom. The king, being satisfied that Mr. A. could take care of these people better than they were taking care of themselves, granted the petition. Mr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took these people from their old homes and haunts to a plantation of his own. He divided them into groups, and over each group placed a superintendent. He made certain rules and regulations for their conduct. They were only compelled to work from twelve to fourteen hours a day, leaving ten hours for sleep and recreation. Good and substantial food was provided. Their houses were confortable and their clothing sufficient. Their work was laid out from day to day and from month to month, so that they knew exactly what they were to do in each hour of every day. These rules were made for the good of the people, to the end that they might not interfere with each other, that they might attend to their duties, and enjoy themselves in a reasonable way. They were not allowed to waste their time, or to use stimulants or profane language. They were told to be respectful to the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A.; to be obedient, and, above all, to accept the position in which Providence had placed them, without complaining, and to cheerfully perform their tasks. Mr. A. had found out all that the five hundred persons had earned the year before they were taken control of by him—just how much they had added to �The Three Philanthropists. 5 the wealth of the world. He had statistics taken for the year before with great care showing the number of deaths, the cases of sickness and of destitution, the number who had committed suicide, how many had been convicted of crimes and misdemeanors, how many days they had been idle, and how much time and money they had spent in drink and for worthless amusements. During the first year of their enslavement he kept like statistics. He found that they had earned several times as much ; that there had been no cases of desti­ tution, no drunkenness; that no crimes had been committed; that there had been but little sickness, owing to the regular course of their lives; that few bad been guilty of misdemeanors, owing to the certainty of punishment; and that they had been so watched and superintended that for the most part they had travelled the highway of virtue and industry. Mr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride showed these statistics to his friends. He not only demonstrated that the five hundred people were better off than they had been before, but that his own income was very largely increased. He congratulated himself that he had added to the well-being of these people not only, but had laid the foundation of a great fortune for himself. On these facts and these figures he claimed not only to be a philanthropist, but a philo­ sopher ; and all the people who had a mind to go into the same business agreed with him. Some denounced the entire proceeding as unwar­ ranted, as contrary to reason and justice. These insisted that the five hundred people had a right to live in their own way, provided they did not interfere with others; that they had the right to go through the world with little food and with poor clothes, and to live in huts, if such was their choice. But Mr. A. had no trouble in answering these objectors. He insisted that well-being is the only good, and that every human being is under obligation, not only to take care of him­ self, but to do what little he can towards taking care of �6 The Three Philanthropists. others; that where five hundred people neglect to take care of themselves, it is the duty of somebody else, who has more intelligence and more means, to take care of them; that the man who takes five hundred people and improves their condition, gives them on the average better food, better clothes, and keeps them out of mischief, is a benefactor. “These people,” said Mr. A., “were tried. They were found incapable of taking care of themselves. They lacked intelligence, or will, or honesty, or industry, or ambition, or something, so that in the struggle for existence they fell behind, became stragglers, dropped by the wayside, died in gutters; while many were destined to end their days eithei’ in dungeons or on scaffolds. Besides all this, they were a nuisance to their prosperous fellow citizens, a perpetual menace to the peace of society. They increased the burden of taxation; they filled the ranks of the criminal classes, they made it necessary to build more jails, to employ more policemen and judges ; so that I, by enslaving them, not only assisted them, not only protected them against themselves, not only bettered theii’ condition, not only added to the well-being of society at large, but greatly increased my own fortune.” Mr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by giving him superior intelligence, the genius of command, the aptitude of taking charge of others, had made it his duty to exercise these faculties for the well-being of the people and for the glory of God. Mr. A. fre­ quently declared that he was God’s steward. He often said he thanked God that he was not governed by a sickly sentiment, but that he was a man of sense, of judgment, of force of character, and that the means employed by him were in accordance with the logic of facts. Some of the people thus enslaved objected, saying that they had the same right to control themselves that Mr. A. had to control himself. But it only required a little discipline to satisfy them that they were wrong. �The Three Philanthropists. 1 Some of the people were quite happy, and declared that nothing gave them such perfect contentment as the absence of all responsibility. Mr. A. insisted that all men had not been endowed with the same capacity ; that the weak ought to be cared for by the strong; that such was evidently the design of the Creator, and that he intended to do what little he could to carry that design into effect. Mr. A. was very successful. In a few. years he had several thousands of men, women, and children working for him. He amassed a large fortune. He felt that he had been intrusted with this money by Providence. He therefore built several churches, and once in a while gave large sums to societies for the spread of civilisation. He passed away regretted by a great many people—not including those who had lived under his immediate administration. He was buried with great pomp, the king being one of the pall-bearers, and on his tomb was this: HE WAS THE PROVIDENCE OF THE POOR. �8 The Three Philanthropists. II. “ And, being rich, my virtue then ehall be To say there is no vice but beggary.” Mr. B. did not believe in slavery.. He despised the institution with every drop of his blood, and was an advocate of universal freedom. He held all of the ideas of Mr. A. in supreme contempt, and frequently spent whole evenings in denouncing the inhumanity and injustice of the whole business. He even went so far as to contend that many of A.’s slaves had more intel­ ligence than A. himself, and that, whether they had intelligence or not, they had the right to be free. He insisted that Mr. A.’s philanthropy was a sham ; that he never bought a human being for the purpose of bettering that being’s condition ; that he went into the business simply to make money for himself; and that his talk about his slaves committing less crime than when they were free was simply to justify the crime committed by himself in enslaving his fellow-men. Mr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employed some five or six thousand men. He used to say that these men were not forced to work for him; that they were at perfect liberty to accept or reject the terms ; that, so far as he was concerned, he would just as soon commit larceny or robbery as to force a man to work for him. “ Every laborer under my roof,” he used to say, “ is as free to choose as I am.” Mr. B. believed in absolutely free trade; thought it an outrage to interfere with the free interplay of forces; said that every man should buy, or at least have the privilege of buying, where he could buy cheapest, and should have the privilege of selling where he could get the most. He insisted that a man who has labor to sell has the right to sell it to the best ad­ vantage, and that the purchaser has the right to buy it at the lowest price. He did not enslave men—he hired them. Some said that he took advantage of their necessities, but he answered that he created no neces- �The Three Philanthropists. 9 sities, that he was not responsible for their condition-, that he did not make them poor, that he found them poor and gave them work, and gave them the same wages that he could employ others for. He insisted that he was absolutely just to all; he did not give one man more than another, and he never refused to employ a man on account of the man’s religion or politics; all that he did was simply to employ that man if the man wished to be employed, and give him the wages, no more and no less, that some other man of like capacity was willing to work for. Mr. B. also said that the price of the article manu­ factured by him fixed the wages of the persons em­ ployed, and that he, Mr. B., was not responsible for the price of the article he manufactured; consequently he was not responsible for the wages of the workmen. He agreed to pay them a certain price, he taking the risk of selling his articles, and he paid them regularly just on the day he agreed to pay them, and if they were not satisfied with the wages, they were at perfect liberty to leave. One of his private sayings was, “ The pool’ ye have always with you.” And from this he argued that some men were made poor so that others could be generous. “ Take poverty and suffering from the world,” he said, “ and you destroy sympathy and generosity.” Mr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of his workmen complained that their wages did not allow them to live in comfort. Many had large families, and therefore but little to eat. Some of them lived in crowded rooms. Many of the children were carried off by disease; but Mr. B. took the ground that all these people had the right to go, that he did not force them to remain, that if they were not healthy it was not his fault, and that whenever it pleased Providence to remove a child, or one of Lhe parents, he, Mr. B., was not responsible. Mr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were extravagant; that they bought things that they did not �10 The Three Philanthropists. Qeecl; that they wasted in beer and tobacco money that they should save for funerals; that many of them visited places of amusement when they should have been thinking about death, and that others bought toys to please the children when they hardly had bread enough to eat. He felt that he was in no way account­ able for this extravagance, nor for the fact that their wages did not give them the necessaries of life, because he not only gave them the same wages that other manufacturers gave, but the same wages that other workmen were willing to work for. Mr. B. said—and he always said this as though it ended the argument—and he generally stood up to say it: “ The great law of supply and demand is of divine origin; it is the only law that will work in all possible or conceivable cases ; and this law fixes the price of all labor, and from it there is no appeal. If people are not satisfied with the operation of this law, then let them make a new world for themselves.” Some of Mr. B/s friends reported that on several occasions, forgetting what he had said on others, he did declare that his confidence was somewhat weakened in the law of supply and demand; but this was only when there seemed to be an over-production of the things he was engaged in manufacturing, and at such times he seemed to doubt the absolute equity of the great law. Mr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A., because when his workmen got old he did not have to care for them, when they were sick he paid no doctors, and when their children died he bought no coffins. In this way he was relieved of a large part of the expenses that had to be borne by Mr. A. When his workmen became too old, they were sent to the poor-house; when they were sick, they were assisted by charitable societies ; and when they died, they were buried by pity. In a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many millions. He also considered himself as one of God's �The Three Philanthropists. H stewards; felt that Providence had given him the intelligence to combine interests, to carry out great schemes, and that he was specially raised up to give employment to many thousands of people. He often regretted that he could do no more for his laborers without lessening his own profits, or, rather, without lessening his fund for the blessing of mankind the blessing to begin immediately after his death. He was so anxious to be the providence of posterity that he was sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with contem­ poraries. He felt that it was necessary for him to be economical, to save every dollar that he could, because in this way he could increase the fund that was finally to bless mankind. He also felt that in this way he could lay the foundations of a permanent fame—that he could build, through his executors, an asylum to be called the “ B. Asylum,” that he could fill a building with books to be called the “ B. Library,” and that .he could also build and endow an institution of learning to be called the “ B. College,” and that, in addition, a large amount of money could be given for the purpose of civilising the citizens of less fortunate countries, to the end that they might become imbued with that spirit of combination and manufacture that results in putting large fortunes in the hands of those who have been selected by Providence, on account of their talents, to make a better distribution of wealth than those who earned it could have done. Mr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure such legislation as would protect him from foreign com­ petition. He did not believe the law of supply and demand would work when interfered with by manufac­ turers living in othei’ countries. Mr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He had what is called a level head, was not easily turned aside from his purpose, and felt that he was in accord with the general sentiment of his time. By his own exertions he rose from poverty to wealth. He was born in a hut and died in a palace. He was a patron �12 The Three Philanthropists. of art and enriched his walls with the works of the masters.. He insisted that others could and should follow his example. For those who failed or refused he had no sympathy. He accounted for their poverty and wretchedness by saying: “These paupers have only themselves to blame.” He died without ever having lost a dollar. His funeral was magnificent, and clergy­ men vied with each other in laudations of the dead, over his dust rises a monument of marble with the words: HE LIVED FOR OTHERS. III. “ But there are men who steal, and vainly try To gild the crime with pompous charity.” There was another man, Mr. C., who also had the genius for combination. He understood the value of capital, the value of labor; knew exactly how much could.be done with machinery ; understood the economy of things ; knew how to do everything in the easiest and shortest way. And he, too, was a manufacturer and had in his employ many thousands of men, women, and children. He was what is called a visionary, a sentimentalist, rather weak in his will, not very obstinate, had but little egotism ; and it never occurred to him that he had been selected by Providence, or any supernatural power, to divide the property of others. It did not seem to him that he had any right to take �The Three Philanthropists. 13 from other men their labor without giving them a full equivalent. He felt that if he had more intelligence than his fellow men he ought to use that intelligence not only for his own good but for theirs ; that he cer­ tainly ought not to use it for the purpose of gaining an advantage over those who were his intellectual inferiors. He used to say that a man strong intellectually had no more right to take advantage of a man weak intellec­ tually than the physically strong had to rob the physi­ cally weak. He also insisted that we should not take advantage of each other’s necessities; that you should not ask a drowning man a greater price for lumber than you would if he stood on the shore; that if you took into consideration the necessities of your fellow man, it should be only to lessen the price of that which you would sell to him, not to increase it. He insisted that honest men do not take advantage of their fellows. He was so weak that he had not perfect confidence in the great law of supply and demand as applied to flesh and blood. He took into consideration another law of supply and demand: he knew that the working man had to be supplied with food, and that his nature demanded something to eat, a house to live in, clothes to wear. Mr. C. used to think about this law of supply and demand as applicable to individuals. He found that men would work for exceedingly small wages when pressed for the necessaries of life; that under some circumstances they would give theii’ labor for half of what it was worth to the employer, because they were in a position where they must do something for wife or child. He concluded that he had no right to take advantage of the necessities of others, and that he should in the first place honestly find what the work was worth to him, and then give to the man who did the work that amount. Other manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substan­ tially insane, whilst most of his workmen looked upon �14 The Three Philanthropists. him as an exceedingly good-natured man, without any particular genius for business. Mr. C., however, cared little about the opinions of others, so long as he main­ tained his respect for himself. At the end of the first year he found that he had made a large profit, and thereupon he divided this profit with the people who had earned it. Some of his friends said to him that he ought to endow some public institution; that there should be a college in his native town ; but Mr. C. was of such a peculiar turn of mind that he thought justice ought to go before charity, and a little in front of egotism and a desire to immortalise one’s self. He said that it seemed to him that of all persons in the world entitled to this profit were the men who had earned it, and the men who had made it by their labor, by days of actual toil. He insisted that, as they had earned it, it was really theirs, and if it was theirs, they should have it and should spend it in their own way. Mr. C. was told that he would make the workmen in other factories dissatisfied, that other manufacturers would become his enemies, and that his course would scandalise some of the greatest men who had done so much for the civilisation of the world and for the spread of intelligence. Mr. C. became extremely un­ popular with men of talent, with those who had a genius for business. He, however, pursued his way, and carried on his business with the idea that the men who did the work were entitled to a fair share of the profits ; that, after all, money was not as sacred as men, and that the law of supply and demand, as under­ stood, did not apply to flesh and blood. Mi*. C. said : “ I cannot be happy if those who work for me are defrauded. If I feel I am taking what belongs to them, then my life becomes miserable. To feel that I have done justice is one of the necessities of my nature. I do not wish to establish colleges. I wish to establish no public institution. My desire is to enable those who work for me to establish a few �The Three Philanthropists. 15 thousand homes for themselves. My ambition is to enable them to buy the books they ready want to read. I do not wish to establish a hospital, but I want to make it possible for my workmen to have the services of the best physicians physicians of their own choice. It is not for me to take their money and use it for the good of others or for my own glory. It is for me to give what they have earned to them. After I have given them the money that belongs to them, I can give them. my advice—I can tell them how I hope they will use it; and after I have advised them, they will use it as they please. You cannot make great men and great women by suppres­ sion. Slavery is not the school in which genius is born. Every human being must make his own mistakes for himself, must learn for himself, must have his own ex­ perience ; and if the world improves, it must be from choice, not from force; and every man who does justice, who sets the example of fair dealing, hastens the coming of universal honesty, of universal civilisation.” Mr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent, honestly and faithfully. When he died, there .were at the funeral those who had worked for him, their wives and their children. Their tears fell upon his grave. They planted flowers and paid to him the tribute of their love. Above his silent dust they erected a monu­ ment with this inscription : HE ALLOWED OTHERS TO LIVE FOR THEMSELVES. �WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL. MISTAKES OF MOSES ... ... ... 1 o Superior edition, in cloth ... ... ... 1 g Only Complete Edition published in England. DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT ... ... 0 6 Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler ... ... ... .. 0 4 ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4 CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS ........................ 0 3 AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ............... 0 3 FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field ... 0 2 GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field ... 0 2 THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH ... ... 0 2 LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2 THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION ... ... 0 2 A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford THE DYING CREED . o 2 DO I BLASPHEME ? ... ....................0 2 THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE ... 0 2 SOCIAL SALVATION ... ... ... 0 2 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ... ... 0 2 GOD AND THE STATE ... ... ... 0 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? ... ... 0 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II. ... 0 2 ART AND MORALITY ... ... ... 0 2 CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY ... 0 1 CHRIST AND MIRACLES . . ... ... 0 1 THE GREAT MISTAKE ... ... ... 0 1 LIVE TOPICS . 0 1 MYTH AND MIRACLE . . ... 0 1 REAL BLASPHEMY ... ... ... 0 1 REPAIRING THE IDOLS ... ... ... 0 1 “ THE FREETHINKER,” the only penny Freethought paper in England; sixteen pages; edited by G. W. Footk. Published every Thursday. Should be read by all reformers and lovers of progress. R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.O. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; 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 three philanthropists Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll listed on back cover. Reprinted from North American Review Vol. 153. December 1891. No. 79a in Stein checklist. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1892 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N403 Subject The topic of the resource Liberalism 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 three philanthropists), 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 Liberalism NSS Press https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/beae9e13b142a64f2281a3ce30fddfb5.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=h5IRfWgLaeU%7E6JcpEjzGcsmI%7EpEr-ybnXnscrjfhv6ipQkbQVAj6-BJID90ZKd3l9Gh5Nwq8WOdVP5T9zevOjeTYlrTvBNdaBbGimsYdbirOLiN-Tw-5t-YZvPm00iDbq2b4ob0ZGWZ45IoIJyWEakVJ9bZVEmZbbheLV91NnhNvYkO9%7EfwKnWBHrL5IJYuBQdkH-HjN2Cjmwn9l0QEwV6jQcKRlMnaYY3uJF323igJfcvYl9e5EaJwTLVGTbgyuRa%7EEz6RDY8Qb0CqcVk-JCyjjS4xyGYaBC%7EZ80pXeB4zg3C5xYcyE1G1EcQx63FG2k-UXOvcMEfc-PGT4kLuadw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1a0c132fe7880897ecb9589b1658d081 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY DEFENCE BEING A THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH BEFORE LORD COLERIDGE On APRIL gj, 1.883, BY W. ZE1 O O T ZE (Editor of the “ Freethinker.”') New Edition with Intboduction and Footnotes. 5<rnbon: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, ) 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1889. ��DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH BEING A THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY IN THE COURT OF QUEENS RENCIT BEFOBE LORD COLERIDGE On APRIL S4, 1883, BY CG. NET. FOOTE (Editor of the “ Freethinker.”j New Edition PROGRESSIVE . with Introduction and gLinbnn: PUBLISHING Footnotes. COMPANY 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1889. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �INTRODUCTION. Me. Bradlaugh has introduced a Bill in the House of Commons for the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. That Bill has been rejected by a majority of 141 to 46 votes. This is sufficiently decisive as to the immedi­ ate prospects of such a measure. The speeches of straightforward bigots like Colonel Sandys, and of . canting bigots like Mr. Samuel Smith, reveal the sort of opposition Mr. Bradlaugh’s bill will have to over­ come before it passes into law. In these circumstances I have thought it advisable to reprint my defence before Lord Coleridge on the occasion of my second trial for blasphemy in the Court of the Queen’s Bench. My first trjal was at the Old Bailey before Mr. Justice North. This judge played the part of a prosecuting counsel; he treated me with the grossest incivility, and the scandal of his conduct elicited protests from the Liberal section of the public Press. On Thursday, March 1, 1883, the case was first heard. I addressed the jury in a speech of three hours* duration, and the result was a disagreement. On the following Monday, March 5, the case was heard again. This time the jury, which had the appearance of being carefully selected, returned a verdict of Guilty without leaving the box ; and I was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal. A previous indictment, which also included Mr. Bradlaugh, as well as Mr. Ramsey, had been hanging �Introduction. over me for several months. It had been removed by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench, where it- was placed in the Crown List and did not come on for hearing until two months after my sentence on the second indictment. My defence was therefore prepared in a prison cell. The conditions were in one sense unfavourable, although I was supplied with books and papers for the purpose, and certain relaxations were allowed me in the matter of visits through the kindness of Lord Coleridge, whose generosity will ever live in my memory. But the situation had its compensations. The dreary monotony of prison life was broken, its darkness was relieved by light from the great world outside, my spirits were cheered by intellectual occu­ pation, and I enjoyed the advantage of preparing my defence without the distractions of ordinary daily life. During the delivery of my speech to the jury Lord Coleridge listened with rapt attention. When it closed he adjourned the court until the next morning, and “that,” he said to the jury, “will give you a full opportunity of reflecting calmly on the very striking and able speech you have just heard.” Let me not be suspected of vanity. My object in quoting his lordship’s words is not to air my own ac­ complishments, of whose limitations no one is more sensible than myself. I simply desire to remove an impression which is less injurious to me than to the cause I have the honor to advocate. Lord Coleridge’s praise, of my speech is an exalted testimony to the truth that “ blasphemers ” are not necessarily an abject species, and that Christianity may be fiercely and contemptuously assailed by men who are many degrees removed from the condition of vulgar brawlers. �Introduction. * v. It would have given me pleasure to include his lordship’s Judgment in this reprint, but as he has pub­ lished it himself in the form of a pamphlet, I did not feel at liberty to do so. I have, however, givefl some extracts in the footnotes, the object of which is to elucidate my speech without the reader’s having to peruse other publications. Those who care to pursue the subject will find a full account of my trials and imprisonment in a volume entitled Prisoner for Blasphemy. The leading counsel for the prosecution at my trials was Sir Hardinge Giffard, now Lord Halsbury. This gentleman is a Tory, and a bigot of the first water. He believes, or affects to believe, that there are no honest men in the world but those of his own Church. He conducted the long litigation against Mr. Bradlaugh with signal unsuccess, and he succeeded in sending me to prison. This is the extent of his services to the Tory cause, and it must be admitted that he has reaped a handsome reward. As Lord Chancellor he enjoys a salary of £10,000 a year, with a retiring pension of £5,000 as long as he lingers in this vale of tears. It only remains to add that the jury, after being locked up for three hours, found it impossible to agree I have since ascertained that three jurymen held out obstinately against a verdict of Guilty. This was more than sufficient. While one juryman holds out, bigotry has fingers to grasp with, but no thumb. Sir Hardinge Giffaxd saw this, and the prosecution was abandoned. May 25, lRl... G. W. FOOTE. �COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH. April 24, 1883. Lord Coleridge presiding. MR. FOOTE'S SPEECH IN DEFENCE. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury,— I am very happy, not to stand in this position, but to learn what I had not learned before—how a criminal trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two months ago I was tried in another court, and before another judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who are Conducting this prosecution have not now a judge who will allow them to walk out of court while he argues their brief for them in their absence.1 Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson, Mr. Foote, and that is, that one judge cannot hear another judge censured or even commended. Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction, and I will simply, therefore, confine what observations I might have made on that head to the emphatic state­ ment that I have learnt to-day, for the first time— although this is the second time I have had to answer a criminal charge—how a criminal trial should be conducted. Notwithstanding the terrible natKe of jmy posi­ tion, there is some consolation in being able, 1 Judge North, who presided at my trial at the Old Bailey, practically held Sir Hardinge Giffard’s brief. After his opening speech the counsel walked out of court and never returned, knowing the case was in very good hands. �Defence of Free Speech. 7 for the first time in two months, to talk to twelve honest men. Two months ago I fell amongst fMeves, and have had to remain in their society ever aajice, so long as I have been in any society at all. Ifife not my intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the ground which was traversed by my co-defendent in his pathetic account of the mental difficulties which attended the preparation of his defence ; but I will add, that although we have profited—I may say in especial by the facilities which his lordship so kindly ordered for us, and by the kind consideration of the governor of Holloway Gaol—yet it has been altogether impossible, in the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a man to do any justice to such a case as I have to main­ tain. Prison diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a material item—is not of the most invigorating character. (Laughter.) My blood is to some extent impoverished, my faculties are to a large extent weakened, and it is only with considerable difficulty that I shall be able to make them obey the mandate of my will.2 The mental circumstances, how depressing have they been I In looking over a law book I saw something about solitary confinement as only being allowable for one month at a time, and for not more than three months in one year. What the nature of the confinement is I am unable to ascertain, but it strikes me that twenty-three hours’ confinement out of twenty-four, in a small cell about six feet wide, comes as close as possible to any reason­ able definition of solitary confinement.3 Still it is no 2 I had been treated in prison like an ordinary criminal, wearing prison clothes and eating prison food. The sudden and complete change of diet disordered my stomach, and I suffered severely from diarrhoea, Lord Coleridge was shocked on learning of my treatment. “ I have,” he said in open court, “ just been informed, and I hardly knewTt before, what such imprisonment as yours means, and what in the form it has been inflicted upon you it must meaa®MWHBj|that I do know of it, I will take care that the proper amthori uW know of it also.” 3 1 had befen locked up in a brick cell twelve feet by six, with no books to read. One hour in every twenty-four was allowed for exercise^rBwmfeonsisted in walking round a ring with other pri­ soners. After this abortive trial I was allowed two hours, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. It was a most welcome relief. �8 Defence of Free Speech. use wearying you with the difficulties that have attended the preparation of my defence. This much, however, must be said in connection with it>; that a change has come over the method of treating those who are found guilty and sentenced to punishment under these laws. Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, an indis­ putable matter of fact, I and my co-defendants are undergoing essentially the severest punishment that has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the last 120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in Clerkenwell Gaol with twelve month’s hard labor, in the year 1763, there has been no punishment meted out to a, Freethought publisher or writer at all approxi­ mating to what we have to undergo. The sentence, even before the law practically fell into disuse, from forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six, four, and three months. My sentence, gentlemen, was twelve months. Again, prisoners were nearly all treated as first-class misdemeanants —as far as I can ascertain, all were—they were not sentenced to twelve months—not merely of intellectual death—but of conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred from access to their friends, and most of them even carried on their literary work, and supported those near and dear to them. We have to depend on the charity of those who, notwithstanding the position in which we stood two months ago, and stand now, do not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a great vital principle struck at through us, however unworthy we may be to defend it, and who in lending their aid to see that our interests do not suffer so much as they otherwise would, are actuated by more than friendship for us, by their love of that principle which has been assailed by our conviction,^ sentence, and committal to gaol, and is again assailed in ,the prose­ cution which is being conducted here to-day. A change, gentlemen, has come over the public mind with respect to heresy and blasphefli^ which every reader of history finds intelligibly Religious bigotry is nevei’ more vicious than when it has a large infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their cause can be defended by argument they are ready to. �Defence of Free Speech. 9 defend it by those means. While they feel that super­ natural power is maintaining their creed they are to a large extent content in trusting their cause to the deity in whom they believe. But when they feel that the ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away under their feet ; when they feel that the major portion of the intellectual power of their day and generation is arrayed against their creed, when it is not scornful or indifferent to it ; when, in short, the creed is not only losing its members’ brains, but its own wits ; then it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics who are striking week after week the most deadly blow’s at the creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe, but at those who happen to be poor and comparatively obscure. These poorer and more pronounced Free­ thinkers are made the scapegoats for the more respect­ able Agnosticism of the day, which is more cultured, but infinitely more hypocritical. The martyrdom of olden times had something of the heroic in it. A man was led out to death. He could summon courage for the minutes or hours during which he still had to face his enemies. They placed faggots round his funeral pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life ended ; and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst under such circumstances. Then also the persecutors had the courage of the principles on which they pro­ ceeded, and said, “ We do this to the heretic in the name of God; we do it because he has outraged the dignity of God, and because he has preached ideas that are leading others. to eternal destruction with him.” But now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ; like Pilate, it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all its pretences will be discounted, I believe, by you. When it is said, “ We don’t do this in the interests of outraged Omnipotence, and we, the finite, are not arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying out a measure of social sanitation, and preventing men from making indecent attacks on the feelings of others you will agree with me in believing that this is hypocrisy and cowardice too. Looked at clearly, it is utterly impossible that you can draw any line of �10 Defence of Free Speech. demarcation between the manner of controversy in religion and that in politics, or any other department of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference as to the matter, unless you go the full length of the principle which is implied, and logically say: “ We do so because religion is not as these. There is matter as well as manner, and we protect the feelings of men with respect to these subjects, because there is invul­ nerable truth somewhere imbedded in the'ir belief, and we will not allow it to be assailed.” I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention, before I proceed to deal with matters of more import­ ance, and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that fell from the lips of the junior counsel for the prose­ cution in what he called the temporary absence of his leader—a temporary absence which has turned out to be considerably protracted. One remark he made use of was that we had attempted to make a wicked and nefarious profit out of the trade in these blasphemous libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous, because if, as he held, the libels were wicked andnefarious, there was no need to say anything about the nature of the profit. But he himself ought to know— at any rate his leader would have known—that a pas­ sage was read at our previous trial, and used as evidence against me in particlar—a passage which distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale— and a large sale is always a comparative term, for what may be a large sale for the Freethinker would not be large for the Times—the proprietor was many pounds out of pocket. The learned counsel for the prosecution, I daresay, knew that, but then it suited his denuncia­ tory style to talk about wicked and nefarious profit. (Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of the prosecution—it is his business. You can get any quantity of that sort of thing by ordering it, provided you at the same time give some guarantee that, after ordering, it will be paid for. He spoke of a blustering challenge which was thrown out in one of the alleged libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said that a man at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted i �Defence of Dree Speech. 11 for blasphemy.4 The learned counsel omitted to tell you what you will find by referring to the Indictment,, that the word “ blasphemy ’’ is between inverted commas, which shows it was employed there, not in the sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which he might not attach the same meaning as those using it. So much for that. And now one word more as to his introduction before I proceed. The word “licentiousness” was introduced. The word “decency” was introduced. I have to complain of all this. I propose to follow the' method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s trial some days ago in this court, and had the full approval of his lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior counsel for the prosecution did, notwithstanding he said he would not, and read to you any passages from those alleged libels. Although I do that, I feel what an immense disadvantage results to me because the words “ indecency,” “ licentiousness,” are bandied about outside before the great jury of public opinion'; and we may in this way be pronounced guilty and sentenced for offences which people outside have never had properly explained to them. Thus we are brought in guilty of blasphemy, and people say we should have been so sentenced and and punished because our. attack was indecent. Now, the word “ indecency,” as you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un­ becoming or obscene.5 People will take which meaning best suits their purpose, and so we are at this great disadvantage when none of these libels are read out, 4 Mr. Seymour had been prosecuted for Blasphemy at Tunbridge Wells, found guilty, and bound over to come up for judgment. I had denounced the cowardice of attacking obscure Freethinkers and leaving their leaders unmolested. 5 Lord Coleridge very handsomely assisted me on this point. In his summing-up he said to the jury:—“Mr. Foote is anxious to have it impressed on you that he is not a licentious writer, and that this word does not fairly apply to his publications. You will have the documents before you, and you must judge for your­ selves. I should say that he is right. He may be blasphemous, but he certainly is not licentious, in the ordinary sense of the ■word, and you do not find him pandering to the bad passions of mankind.” �12 Defence of Free Speech. that we may be brought in guilty of one charge and sent to prison on it, and people outside may think that we are really guilty of another offence and actually punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence. I leave the junior counsel for the prosecution. My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of these prosecutions. I wish to say a word or two on that head. They have one great disadvantage from the point of view of the prosecution—they advertise and disseminate widely the very opinions which they try to suppress ; and it seems to me if our prosecutors were honest and had the interests of their professed principles at heart, they would shrink from taking any such steps. Then again, history shows us that no work that was ever prosecuted was successfully put down. There was only one method of persecution that succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of extermination. If you take the case of the massacre of the Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian llteresies—the very names of which read as the names of some old fossil things that belonged to a different era of the world’s history—you will find wherever a sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination —that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of holding the objectionable opinion : but when books and pamphlets have been prosecuted they have never been put down. Unless you can seize and secure everybody infected with heresy, naturally you arouse theii* indignation and excite their fervor—you make those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and consequently they fight all the harder for the cause attacked. Paine’s Age of Reason was a prose'cuted work. Richard Carlile was sent to gaol for nine years for selling it ; his wife and sister were sent to gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You would have thought that would have suppressed the Age of Reason; yet, as a matter of fact, that work still has a large circulation, and a Sale all the larger because of the prosecutions instituted against it fifty or sixty years ago. Take the case of a prosecuted work belonging to another class of literature—a pamphlet published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, the pro­ �Defence of Free Speech. 13 sedition of which, was denounced by the then Lord Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a work that had been circulated at the rsjte of one hundred per year for forty years, was run up to a sale of one hundred and seventy-five thousand. It is per­ fectly clear, therefore, that in that case the prosecutors had defeated their own object. When a question as to the Freethinker was asked in the House of Commons, so far back as February in last year, Sir William Harcourt replied that it was the opinion of all persons who had to do with these matters, that it was not politic to proceed legally against such a publication. That answer was made to Mr. Freshfield. A few days afterwards he made a similar answer to Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who rush in “ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecu­ tion has unfortunately done that. It is a curious thing, gentlemen, that all those who have been moving against the persons who are alleged to be responsible for the Freethinker, belong to one political party. The junior counsel for the prosecution told you that no doubt one of the two defendants would ask you to believe this was a political move. Every person con­ nected with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield represents the immaculate borough of Dover, and Mr. Redmond is the representative of a small Irish con­ stituency, the whole of whose voters could be conveyed to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.) Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of London that secured a verdict against myself and my co-defendant two months ago. I need not tell you what the politics of the Corporation of the City of London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy what they will be when brought into something like accord with the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to be introduced. The prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge Giffard, is also a Tory. I don’t mean to say that he is the worse for that. Every man has a right to belong to which political party he pleases. Tory, Whig, Con­ servative and Liberal, are great historic names, and men of genius and high character may be found on both sides. But it is a curious thing that this prosecu- �■K 14 Dejence of Free Speech. tion should be conducted so entirely by men of one political persuasion, while those struck at belong to the extreme opposite political persuasion. These two things should operate in your minds, and influence your views as to the motives which animate those who conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry it out. And last, though not least, we have sir Henry Tyler, also a Tory of the deepest dye, who has been the pronounced and bitter public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh,» one of my co-defendants who is released from his position of danger by a verdict of acquittal. At my previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen. I am very glad indeed to be able to rely on the authority of his lord ship in saying that the nominal prosecutor in this case is the Queen, and the actual prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is Sir Henry Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason for Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir Henry Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in financial pursuits. He was known to be a dexterous financier and an experienced director of public com­ panies. He was known to be not so much loved by shareholders as by political friends, and you would think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry Tyler would be one of the last persons who would receive an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler had an enemy in Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had been rebuked in the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown for his mad antagonism to Mr. Bradlaugh. It is he who has found all the funds for this prosecu­ tion, and I ask you to believe that this prosecution was initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and his political friends for a purely political purpose; to cripple, if possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win through religious prejudice what could not be won by open political warfare. As I said before, men of genius and high character are to be found in the two great political camps, but this is a miserable descent for a great historic party, which once had its Peels and its Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.) „ ’ 't �Defence of Free Speech. 15 Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ” has a theological meaning as well as a moral <and legal one ; and directly you put the question theologically, What is blasphemy ? you are stunned by a babel of contradictory answers. In our own country the Chris­ tian says Jesus Christ is God, and it is blasphemy to say he is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit in our national legislature, says Jesus Christ was not God, and it is blasphemy to say he was. In short, one might say, theologically, that blasphemy is entirely a question of geography ; the answer to the question will depend upon the country you are in and the time you put the question. It is a matter of longitude and latitude, and if we are to rely upon the very loose view of the law I shall have to refer to, as given by Starkie, it is a matter of very considerable latitude. The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to (n the Old Testament is simply that of cursing God, which I suppose no one would do, if even he had a e monitress like Job’s wife, except his proper position was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch. (Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and it is unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in the judicial murder of Jesus Christ. And you have the spirit of the blasphemy law brought out in the prosecution of Jesus of Nazareth, and, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, the proceedings for blasphemy against St. Paul. With the Jews a man was soon found guilty, and very often after they had stoned him to death they settled at leisure the question ■whether he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate, who represented the majesty of the law, that stood between the bigotry of the Jews and their victim. And you will remember that it was the Roman power, the secular power, which cared for none of these things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his life from his J ewish enemies, who would have put him to death as a blasphemer. Morally, blasphemy can only be committed by a person who believes in the existence of the Deity whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that �16 Defence of Free Speech. on record in his Life of Voltaire. He says that ridicule or abuse of deities in -whom he doesn't believe is only ridicule and abuse of ideas which have no meaning to him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy unless he believes in the being whom he blasphemes. In practice, blasphemy means, always did and always will, a strong attack upon what we happen to believe. The early Christain used to blaspheme before he gained a victory over Paganism, and he was put to death. The Protestant used to blaspheme before he triumphed in England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blasphemed before he won political rights as against a domineering State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians blasphemed and they were imprisoned ; but when they became a powerful section of the community they were tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became blasphemers. It is particularly necessary you should bear this in mind, because you must consider the very unfair position in which a man stands who is brought before a tribunal believing in the existence of the deity and the attributes of the deity, who is said to be blasbhemed in a publication for which it is maintained he is responsible; and when at the same time they have to adjudicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the manner of it. If they dislike the matter they are sure to object to the manner; and so a man in my position stands at a dreadful disadvantage. Blasphemy means a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it happens to be—that is, our religous belief; and, curiously enough, I have noticed many publications which urged that the blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should be made a crime to insult any form of religous belief. I should not oppose any such amendment as that, because it would very soon reduce the whole thing to an absurdity; for every sect would be prosecuting every other sect ; courts of justice would be filled with disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have to be abolished, and every form of opinion would be equal in the eye of the law, and I hold it should be. Our indictment is at common law. The great danger of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or �Defence of Free Speech. 17 hiurder—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And it really comes to this—that no man can know thoroughly what a blasphemous libel is ; and no man can be sure whether he is penning a blasphemous libel or not ; and the only way to find out what the offence is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve months, which is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of this kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the matter is put into their hands ; and if they don’t like it, that is sufficient for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very unfortunate thing that any man should be tried for such an offence at common law. Recently, when I was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in bis summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the exist­ ence of deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the jury, would not bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to i)e discharged ; and I was kept in prison until the next trial took place. Mr. Justice North told the jury on the second trial nothing of the sort. He left out altogether the words as to denying the existence of deity. What made the change in three days ? It is impossible for me to say. It may be he thought a conviction easier with such an interpretation of the law ; or it may be that he had read the comments in the daily press, and that some alteration had been made, perhaps for the better. The view which was entertained by Mr. Justice North does not seem to be the view entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, in whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I may judge by nis summing-up on the trial of one of my co-defendants in this action last week. Then, again, we. have Mr. Justice Stephen, who is practically at variance, not only with Mr. Justice North, but with the still higher authority of his lordship ; so that it would largely depend, in being tried at common law, whether one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this judge or the other. In the particular case I cited, one jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; but another jury four days before-^—although the evidence was exactly the same—declined to. So that you have a double uncertainty—your fate depends upon the view of the law entertained by the judge who presides at �18 Defence of Free Speech. the trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the jury. I submit, gentlemen, that is a very grave defect, and puts at great disadvantage men who stand in my position. If a man is to be sent to gaol for twelve months, blasphemous libel should be defined by statute. The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of Queen’s Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash the indictment, on which I am now being tried, that this statute was aimed at specific offenders, and only laid down so much law as referred to them. No doubt that is true enough ; but still, if the statute does not fully define blasphemy, yet everything included within the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a word about ridicule, abuse or contumely. The statute says anybody who has professed, the Christian religion within these realms, shall, for denying the existence of God, or saying there are more gods than one, or denying the truth of Christianity, be subject to certain penalties. The law was called “ferocious” by Mr. Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens us as to the nature of the age in which those Blas­ phemy Laws originated. So that even the statute appears to contain a view of the law, which the Lord Chief Justice so considerately said he should not feel justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than it seemed to him. Having said we were tried at common law, and dwelt on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law ? Common law is judge-made law and jury-made law. Mr. Justice Stephen on this point has some very notable remarks in the introduction to his Digest of the Criminal Law: “ It is not until a very late stage in its history that law is regarded as a series of commands issued by the sovereign power of the state. Indeed, even in our own time and country that conception of it is gaining ground very slowly. An earlier and, to some extent, a still prevailing view of it is, that it is more like an art or science, the principles of which are first enunciated vaguely, and are gradually reduced to a precision by their application to particular circumstances. Somehow, no one can say precisely how, though more or less plausible and instructive conjectures upon the subject may �Defence of Jbree Speech. 19 beSiade, certain principles came to be accepted as the law of tn® land, The judges held themselves bound to decide the eases which came before them according to those principles, and as new combinations of circumstances threw light on the way in which they operated, the principles were, in some cases, more fully developed and qualified, and in others evaded or practically set at nought and repealed.” That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case. I ask you to consider that this common law is merely old common usage, altogether alien to the spirit of our age ; and that it cannot be enforced without making invidious, unfair, and infamous distinctions between one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to say that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any ‘power to prevent it. Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court of Justice, not set a new precedent ? I propose briefly to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy, my co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime. I urge that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our age. The junior counsel for the prosecution said blas­ phemy was prosecuted very seldom ; it had not been prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and he urged as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed. “ For fifty years I” That is not true. From my slight knowledge of literature, which is not, as one of the journals gtlid, entirely confined to Tom Paine and the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I could undertake to furnish the junior counsel for the prosecution with some tons of blasphemy published during that fifty years ; although I probably could not find the prosecution such a powerful motive as they have recently had for for proceeding against these blasphemous libels. The law against blasphemy is practically obsolete—the fact that there have been no such prosecutions for fifty years ought tn settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which includes the whole of the offences against religion, says : “ The whole of this law is practically obsolete, and might be repealed with advantage.” And he further says it would be sufficient as to blasphemy if the power of prosecution were confined to the Attorney-General. In this case the Attorney-General has had nothing to �Defence of Dree Speech. do with the prosecution. The j ury were told in another court that the Public Prosecutor had instituted it. As a matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose­ cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule, and I submit that his allowance or disallowance is scarcely equivalent to the allowance or disallowance of the Attorney-General, and certainly not equivalent to the institution cf proceedings by the AttorneyGeneral. Mr. Justice Stephen says : “My own opinion is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought not to be made the subject of temporal punishment at all, though, if it tended to produce a breach of the peace, it might be dealt with on those grounds.” I shall have a few words to say about breach of the peace shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephen says : “ This law is practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal punishment should be inflicted for it. You. are made the entire judges of this question, under the very clear language of the celebrated Libel Act, called “ Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate libel trials. When issue was joined between the Crown and one or more defendants, it was there laid down that the jury were not bound to bring in a verdict of guilty merely on the proof of the publication by such defendants of a paper, and of the sense ascribed to the same in the indictment. So that I hold yoti are the complete judges ; there is no power on earth that can go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give a reason for your verdict ; you are simply called upon to say guilty or not guilty ; and I submit you have a perfect right to say guilty or not—especially not guilty —on the broad issue of the question; and thus to declare that this blasphemy law is utterly alien to the spirit of our age. It would be impossible for the old common law to be enforced now. The old common law was never put in force against persons who only ridiculed the Christian religion. Our indictment charges us with bringing the Christian religion into disbelief ; so that bringing it into disbelief is blasphemy. That is logical—bring­ ing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross contempt. All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of �Defence of Free Speech. 21 forty years ago, and as far down as tlie year 1867, turn upon the right of a man to question and oppose publicly the truth of the Christian religion. Peter Annett stated in the Free Inquirer his disbelief in the inspiration of the Pentateuch, and was punished foi’ it ; Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in seven big volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop of the English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew Arnold, rebuke him for disproving what no sensible person believes. Woolston languished in Newgate for years, and died there. For what? For saying that the miracles of the New Testament should not be taken literally but allegorically. Mr. Matthew Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy tales, and are all doomed, and that educated and intelligent men treat them as portions of the world’s superstition. Nobody now thinks of prosecuting Mr. Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same offence as Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same offence as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of punishing him. If, gentleman, the common law is more humane now, it is only because the spirit of the age is more humane. That you are bound to take into consideration, and that should influence you in giving a verdict of not guilty to me and to my co-defendant. I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year 1867, which will show you that the common law has always held that it is a crime to call in question the truth of the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the case of Cowan v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of Exchequer ; it originally arose in Liverpool. The secretary of the Liverpool Secular Society had engaged the assembly room for the purpose of two lectures. The lectrtrfes were entitled, “ The character and teaching of Christ; the former defective, the latter misleading and the second, “ The Bible shown to be no more inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of ridicule, sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet when the owner of the rooms, after the expense of advertising had been incurred, refused the use of them for the lectures, and declined to compensate the per­ sons who had rented for those two nights, it was held �22 Defence of Free Speech. by the Court of Exchequer that it was au illegal act to deliver such lectures with such titles, and that no damages could be recovered, because the rooms had been declined for the perpetration of an illegal act. Acting on this case, some solicitors at Southampton last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly Room for a lecture by myself, on the ground that the lecture would be an illegal act. The lady who owned the room was pious, although she had not the honesty to recompense my friends for damages they had in­ curred on the strength of her own agent’s written con­ tract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any impugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal act, and my contention therefore holds good, that bringing Christianity into disbelief is as much a part of blasphemy as bringing it into contempt. It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of England, and, as such, it must not be attacked. We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of this by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it, that if Christianity were part and parcel of the law of the land, in the sense in which the words are generally used, then it would be impossible to bring about any reform of law, because no law could be criticised, much less ridiculed, on the same ground that Christianity, which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or criti­ cised. Something occurred to me which seems to go even further than that; and that is, that if Christianity were part and parcel of the law of the land, then the prosecution for blasphemy would be an absurdity. There is no crime in criticising any law, or j&iiculing any law, in the pages of Punch. If Christianity were part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be no crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the Royal Commissioners in 18-11. In their report they went into it at great length. The Royal Commission endorsed that view, and pointed out fully that if Chris­ tianity were part of the law of the land, still the law could be criticised and ridiculed, and, therefore, no �Defence of Free Speech. 23 •blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds. Sir Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first said that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the country. He was a man of great intellectual ability, and a most upright judge ; but if he lived in our age, would he endorse such ridiculous language now ? He was infected by the superstition of his age. This same judge sentenced two women to be hung for witchcraft, an offence which we now know never could exist, notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The time will come when it it will be thought quite as absurd to prosecute people for the crime of blasphemy as we think it now to hang people for witchcraft. If blasphemy be a crime at all, it is only a crime against God, who, if he be omni­ scient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite capable of punishing it all. Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great alterations in the State and in Society, alterations which will justify you in setting this old barbarous law aside. To begin with, compulsory oaths have been abolished in our courts of justice. Evidence can now be given by Freethinkers on affirmation. Mr. Bradlaugh last week was acquitted on the evidence of people, every one of whom affirmed, and not one of whom took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to Parliament. I don’t wish to enter into a religious dis­ cussion, or to provoke a dying bigotry, but I do say, that if with the views the Jews are known to entertain of the founder of Christianity, and if with the acts of their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people, they canube admitted in our national legislature, and help to make laws which are stupidly said to be pro­ tective of Christianity, then it is absurd for Christians to prosecute Freethinkers for carrying on honest criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t believe, and which they think they are bound to oppose and attack. Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used to be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now the House of Commons simply cling to a narrow theistic ledge. I have heard not only counsel but a judge �24 Drfence of Dree Speech. speaking to a jury about Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior, when they ought to have known—perhaps did know, but didn’t remember in the heat of enthusiasm —that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that there might be some among them who knew Chris­ tianity and rejected it. That shows you, still further, that the principles and opinions which lie at the base of these proceedings are not universal as they once were : and that it is time all invidious distinctions were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to stand on their own bottom ; and if they cannot stand on their own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them fall. Now these alterations in the state of society are more particularly shown in the writings of our principal men. Mr. Leslie Stephen, for instance, in answering the question, “ Are we Christians ?” says : c,No. I should reply we are not Christians; a few try to pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially men of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming social symptoms; a great number call themselves Christians, because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of respectability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avowedly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name.” No one who has any knowledge of the kind of lan­ guage held by intelligent men will doubt that such sentiments are exceedingly common. You all know the great and honored name of Darwin, who spent his whole life in undermining the very foundations of Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know when the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prosti­ tuted name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go, and no further,” saw it was evident he was victor, it professed to honor him, and had him buried in West­ minster Abbey ; but the world is beginning to know if the Church has Darwin’s corpse, it is all of Darwin that the Church has had or ever will have. �’ 1 ▼ Detence of Free Speech. 25 A g^at scientist who does not confine himself to mere qcience^ as for the most part Darwin did, says : “The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris and Zeus, Shdthe man who should revive them would be justly laughed to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown, have fortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this day, are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the justice of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen­ tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the sem'barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until, now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if philosophers have suffered their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules, and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated, scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound science, and to visit, with such petty thunder­ bolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those whorefuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.” Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand here on the charge I have to answer. And why? One is the language of a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other the language of a penny paper. Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsley says in his work on “ Responsibility in Mental Disease,” that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all three mad. (Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why ? Because it would not be safe to attack a man like that. �26 Defence of Free Speech. He is part of a powerful corporation that wonltWp.lly round any of its members attacked, and therefore he is left unmolested. Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his Study of Sociology, speaks thus of the Christian Trinity : “ Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are each of them almighty; and yet there are not three almighties but one almighty; that one of the almighties suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them; and that whosoever does not believe this ‘without doubt shall perish everlastingly.’ ” That is language which is, perhaps, as scornful as any a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could use. There is no essential difference between that and language of the most militant Freethought.6 Mr. John Stuart Mill, who was a writer with a world­ wide reputation, and occupied a seat in the House of Commons, said that his father looked upon religion as the greatest enemy of morality; first by setting up “ flotations excellencies, belief in creeds’, devotional feel­ ings and ceremonies not connected with the good of human kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals, making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. I have a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression, that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra of wicked­ * Lord Coleridge honestly confessed, with regard to many of the heretical passages I read from leading writers, that he had “ a difficulty in distinguishing them from the incriminated publi­ cation.” “They do appear to me,” he added “to be open to exactly the same charge and the same grounds of observation that Mr. Foote's publications are.” Later on he said, “I admit as far as I can judge some of them, that they are strong, shall I say coarse, expressions of contempt and hatred for the recognised truths of Christianity.” �Defence of Free Speech. 27 ness he considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre­ sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.” In one of those alleged libels, the only passage I shall refer to, there is a statement to the effect—a state­ ment not in my handwriting—(unfortunately I am in the position of having not only to defend my own right but the right of others to be heard) in one of those libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity of the Old Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. What is the difference between a phrase like that and the extract I have read from the writings of John Stuart Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that the God of Chris­ tianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.” The difference is that one is the language of a nineshilling book, and the other the language of a penny paper. Writers and publishers of nine-shilling books should not be allowed to go scot free and the writers of penny papers be made the scape-goat of the cultured agnostics of the day. John Stuart Mill’s great friend George Grote, the author of the History of Greece is commonly admitted to be the author of a little book, An Analysis of the In­ fluence of Natural Religion, which he put together from the notes of that great jurisprudist, Jeremy Bentham, in which natural religion is described as one historic craze, the foe of the human race, and its doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most extreme language. I will ask your attention to another writer. Lord Derby—who has given his support to a movement for the abolition of the blasphemy laws— some months ago, presiding at a meeting at Liverpool, said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the few men who had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker. He is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is a writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In hi's fine and delicate way he ridicules the Christian Trinity. He says : “ In imagining a sort of infinitely magnified and improved Lord Shaftesbury, with a race of vile offenders to deal with whom his natural goodness would incline him to let off, only his sense of justice will not allow it; then a younger Lord Shaftesbury, on tho scale of his fathei’ and very dear to him, �28 Defence oj Erec Speech. who might live in grandeur and splendor if he liked, but who prefers to leave his home, to go and live among the race of offenders, and to be put to an ignominious death, on condition that his merits shall be counted against their demerits, and that his father’s goodness shall be restrained no longer from taking effect, but any offender shall be admitted to the benefit of it on simply pleading the satisfaction made by the son; and then, finally, a third Lord Shaftesbury, still on the same high scale, who keeps very much in the background, and works in a very occult manner, but very efficaciously never­ theless, and who is busy in applying everywhere the benefits of the son's satisfaction and the father’s goodness.” The same writer actually introduces, by way of showing the absurdities into which Christians them­ selves have run, a long and learned discussion which took place at the University of Paris nearly three centuries ago, as to whether Jesus at his ascension had his clothes on, or appeared naked before his disciples ; and if he did, what became of his clothes ? (Laughter.) If such a thing had appeared in the Freethinker, the junior counsel for the prosecution would have said “ they are bringing our Savior’s name into contempt, they are reproaching the Christian religion, and , we bring them before you that they may be handed over to the tender mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew Arnold is in no fear of prosecution ; it is only the poorer and humbler Freethinkers who are to be attacked.7 Mr. John Morley—who has thrown his great influence in the scale against me—in his book on “Voltaire.” says, “ That a religion which has shed more blood than any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if published in England now, would be made the subject of a prosecution, if there was any honesty in conducting these prosecutions. Mr. Morley now joins the chorus of those who howl the false word “indecent” at me ; but no living person, no sentence under this old law, 7 Mr. Matthew Arnold subsequently issued a new edition of literature and, Dogma in which this passage was omitted. Curiously, at abou: the same time, he became tlie recipient of a Government pension of £250 a year. His blasphemy and mine met with very different rewards. �nee of Free Speech. 29 can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval of my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would rather be sitting down in my cell, or meditatively walking up and down with racking anxiety at my breast, than walk into the House of Commons throwmy past behind me, and treating those whose views are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor of a renegade.s Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as follows of the Old Testament: ‘•Such a catalogue of crimes would be sufficient to destroy the character of any Pagan divinity whatever. I fail to per­ ceive any reason why the Jews alone should be privileged to represent their god as guilty of such actions without suffer­ ing the inference which in other cases would undoubtedly be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of deity were not of an exalted order, nor their principles of morals of a very admirable kind There is, indeed, nothing extraordinary in the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient Hebrew should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would rather be suprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their savage deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their god, should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in the one case from the commands, in the other, from the immedi­ ate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindus relate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all the standards of morality, no such conciousness is ever appar­ ent in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far worse offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his character of the grace of shame ” 8 Mr. John Morley was then editing the Pall Mall Gazette, in which I was furiously denounced and my sentence justified. After my trial before Lord Coleridge, M ■. Morley found my sen­ tence “monstrous.” Subsequently, when a me norial for my release had been signed by suci men as Herbert Spencer, Professor Tyndall, Professor Huxley, Frederic Harrison, and a large number of eminent write's, scholars, scientists and artists, Mr. Morley declared I was “ suffering from a scandalously excessive punish­ ment.” But he did not put his own signature to the memorial. He was approached early, and his fLst question wag “Who’s signed ? ’ Mr. Morley, says one < f his constituents, has “ the theory of courage.” �30 Defence of Dree Speech. If that had appeared in the Freethinker it would have formed one of the counts of my indictment. But no one has interfered with Lord Amberley.9 A ques­ tion was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution of one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of the numbers was meant to caricature Almighty God. The question was stopped by his lordship. With Lord Amberley’s words before us, it is easy to understand that could not be meant to’represent Almighty God. A man who after careful reflection, after weighing evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and moral faculties upon the question, has arrived at*the conclusion that there is an infinite spirit of the uni­ verse akin to ours, though greater—such a man would never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my lips, or from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country, because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or attack. It is not Almighty God who could be ridiculed in a picture like that- It is the Hebrew deity—the deity of semi-barbarous people who lived 3,000 years ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who told them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they had never built, to take possession of them in his name, and brutally murder every man, woman, and chiln found in them. Can it be a crime to ridicule or even to caricature a my liological personage like this ? It is not Almighty God who is ridiculed, it is simply the deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become decent and civilised now. The influences of culture and humanity are at work, and although we utter the same old shibboleths, we have different ideas, different tastes, and I hope different aspirations. The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the Christian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus, and criticises in a hostile manner the Holy Scripture. If the law were put in force fairly, it would be put in force there. Shelley has been referred to. Shelley 0 Lord Amberley’s will was set aside. ITe left his Little son t'> be educated by a Freethinker named Spalding; but, as a Free­ thinker has no rights bat those which ne enjovs on sufferance, Lord Amberley’s father^ Earl Russell, had the child taken away and brought up ns a Christian. . ■ J j J ■ �Defence of Tree Speech. 31 wrote, among other poems, one called “ Queen Mab.” He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a vengeful, pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick­ name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for blood. As Jjhe rest of this extract is couched in similar language, I forbear, out of consideration for the feel­ ings of those who may differ from me, from reading further. But what I have read is sufficient to show that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous is anything that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And in one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to Liberty,” he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean ser­ pent ”— “The Galilean serpent forth did creep, And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.” Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s works now,1 and even the leading counsel for the prose­ cution could actually accept office under a Ministry, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty, on whose book­ stalls. Shelley’s works are exposed for sale, was a member. Of the poets of our day, it may be said, threefourths of them write quite as blasphemously, accord­ ing to the language of the prosecution, as any one in the Freethinker. Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest, if not our greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I don’t think so—uses in a poetical form the same language that was used by Elijah to the priests of Baal. You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah had a sort of competitive theological examination, and they put the question to a practical test. They built altars and they cried respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cut and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but the fire would not come. What did Elijah do ? Did he call them to a kind of theological discussion, and say: “Now there is a mistake somewhere, and we must thrash this out according to the well-known canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with 1 Lord Coleridge pointed out that Shelley’s Qaeen Mab had been prosecuted, and his children taken from him by Lord Eldon. I was aware of it, and therefore I said that no one thinks of prose cuting “those who sell Shelley’s works now.” �32 Defence of Free Speech. what Rabelais would call sanglante derision, and he said, in the language of to-day : “ Where is your god, what is he doing, why doesn’t he answer you, has he gone on a journey, what is the matter with him ?” That is the language of irony, and the deadliest sarcasm, and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had had one tithe of the religious bigotry of our prosecutors they would have done so. Mr. Swinburne, in his great “ Hymn to Man,” turns the same kind of derision on the priests of Christendom. He represents them as calling upon their deity, and says, “ Cry aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then he says, by way of finish :— “ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, n'or warmth in his breath; Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth of his death? Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him and men, Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he comes to show judgment again? Shall god then die as the beast die? whois it hath broken his rod? O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself god. They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward, whose faith is as flame; O thou the lord god of thy tyrants, they call thee, their god by thy name. By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the point of thy sword. Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten; thy death is upon thee, 0 lord. And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through the wind of her wings— Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.” Iu his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he says : “ 0 hidden face of man, wherover The years have woven a viewless veil— If thou wast verily man’s lover, What did thy love or blood avail ? Thy blood the priests make poison of, And in gold shekels coin thy love. �Defence of Free Speech. 33 So when our souls look back to thee They sicken, seeing against thy side, Too foul to speak of or to see, The leprous likeness of a bride. Whose kissing lips through his lips grown Leave their god rotten to the bone. When we would see thee man, and know What heart thou liadst toward men indeed, Lo, thy blood-blackened altars, lo The lips of priests that pray and feed While their own hell's worm curls and licks The poison of the crucifix. Thou bad’st let children come to thee; What children now but curses come ? What manhood in that god can be Who sees their worship, and is dumb? No soul ’that lived, loved, wrought, and died, Is this their carrion crucified. Nay, if their god and thou be one, If thou and this thing be the same, Though shouldst not look upon the sun; The sun grows haggard at thy name. Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er; Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.” Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Free­ thinkers would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a mythological deity ; they may ridicule miracles ; but they will never ridicule the tragic and pathetic sub­ limities of human life, which are sacred, whether enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know how to draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here. If the quotations I have read you had appeared in the Freethinker they would have formed one of the counts of the indictment. The only difference between them is, that one is in a twelve-shilling book, and the other in a penny paper. One short extract from another poet, who is recognised as possessing the highest excellence by the greatest critics, whose writings have been praised in the Athenceum and the Fortnightly Review. I am refering to Mr. James Thomson. He says : �34 Defence of Free Speech. 11 If any human soul at all Must die the second death, must fall Into that gulph of quenchless flame Which keeps its victims still the same, Unpurified as unconsumed, To everlasting torments doomed j. Then I give God my scorn and hate And turning back from Heaven’s gate (Suppose me got there1) bow Adieu ! Almighty Devil damn me too.'” If that language had appeared in the Freethinker, it would have formed one of the counts of the indictment. What is the difference ? Again, I say, the difference is between a five-shilling book and a penny paper. When those books were reviewed, did men point out those passages and condemn them ? Not at all. They simply praised the poet’s genius; blasphemy is not taken into consideration by men who write for papers of such standing. George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm, aimed at the popular idols of the day. She translated Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity and Strauss’ Life of Jesus, both of which are indictable at common law, though they have never been attacked. Renan, in his Life of Jesus, supposes that the raising of Lazarus took place at a time, when under the messianic delusion the mind of Jesus had become perverted, and that he had arranged the thing with Lazarus. Anonymous books are pouring from the press. Here is one published by Williams and Norgate. It is called the Evolution of Christianity. Speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, it says : “ Truly, if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god. of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian nation.” Only one other instance of ridicule. The same writer, referring to the sudden and mysterious death of Ananias and Sapphira, as narraced in the Acts of the Apostles, says : �Defence of Free Speech. 35 “Anafllas an^apphijB.his wife sold some property, and kept back amortion of the price. Perhaps Aananias was a shrewd practical man, distrustful of socialism and desirous of holding «something in reserve for possible contingencies. Or Sapphira may have hinted that, if anything should happen to her busband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds, she would not IHfe the position of a pauper scrambling among the other ’ widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have been the jnotivefcA the doomed couple, if they had been arraigned ‘before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so trivial an offence; but under the new regime of the Holy Ghost, this ^tahappy husband and wife were condemned to instant exe­ cution.” 2 That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared in the freethinker, it might have formed one of the counts of our present indictment. I have referred you to great living writers, to foreign works pouring into the country ; I have referred you to anonymous writings, and now I hold one in my hand which is circulated over the country and bears the imprint of popular publishers like Messrs. John and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way of Chris­ tianity : “ Buddhism is the only religion which has made its way by sheer moral strength; it has become the vast religion that it is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to propagate its tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with blood from keystone to battlements; its tenets and dogmas are redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb to that fountain of blood. that its poets are never tired of hymning.. Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fireBuddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid dungeon.” That is being circulated wholesale by respectable pub­ lishers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of the counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the Freethinker. Yet we know these publishers will never be molested, because they are not poor, and especially because they don’t happen to be friendly with a poli. 2 Mr. A. G-ill was the author of this work. A new edition, since published, bears his name on the title-page. Mr. Grill has nlso written a pamphlet on the Blasphemy Laws with reference to my prosecution. ' * ' \ �36 Defence of Free Speech. ■ tician, whose enemies want to strike . him with a religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the political .sword. I leave that and take the objection that will be raised, that we have dealt too' freely in ridicule. What is it ? You will remember the ending of some of the problems of Euclid, which is what is called a reductio ad absurdwm, that is reducing a thing to an absurdity. That is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of arguifrent. The comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why may it not be used in religious matters also ? Refer! ence was made to a caricature, in one of our political journals, which shall be nameless here. Mr. Gladstone is represented as “No. 1 and morally the Conclusion is that he was the murderer of one of his dearest friends. Nobody thinks of prosecuting that paper—the idea would be laughed at. We may caricature living states­ men, but not dead dogmas! Surely, you will not give youi’ warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr. Buckle says that every man should have a right to treat opinion as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule it, however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than Buckle, John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the Westminster Tieview, on the Richard Carlile prosecu­ tions, in the year 1824 ; and speaking of ridicule in that article, he says : “ If the proposition that Chris­ tianity is untrue can legally be conveyed to the mind, what can be more absurd than to condemn it, when conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon of ridicule has been used by a very large proportion of the great intellectual emancipators of mankind. Socrates used it ; at the risk of offending some, I may say that Jesus used it; Lucian used it; the early Christian Fathers used it unsparingly against their Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their works such a collection of vituperative phrases as would throw into the shade anything that ever appeared in the Freethinker. Luther used it, and used it well; Erasmus used it ; the Lollards use it; and it was freely used in the Catholic and Protestant controversy that raged through and after the reign of Henry VIII. It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France. �Defence of Free Speech. 37 I know some may thitak that it is impolitic to introduce the name*or Voltaire here ; but Lord Brougham says that Vbltaire was the greatest spiritual emancipator sincfe the dayscjtf Luther. The only difference between such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, was his iHhnitable wit. He had wit and his enemies hated him forut. Ridicule has been used in all times. To take ridicule from our literature you would have to go through such a winnowing and pruning process that you would destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their ridicule, and what a loss there would be 1 Ridicule is a weapon which has been used by so many great emancipators of mankind ; if we have used it, even in a coarser manner than they, it is the same weapon; and if the weapon is a legal one there can be no illegality in the mere method of using it, and there has been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it illegal. I say that it is a dangerous thing to make men amenable to criminal prosecution simply on a question of opinion and taste. Really if you are to eliminate ridicule from religious controversy, you hand it over entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living are the owl and the ass. But we don't want to become asinine or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seems to me, if I may make a pun, that the gravest thing in the world is the grave ; and if gentlemen want the world to be utterly grave they will turn it into a graveyard, and that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to do for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet them by subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which means slow murder ; which cannot kill a strong man in two or three months, but which may, in twelve months, convert him into a physical and mental wreck, a byword and a scorn ; another evidence forsooth of the truth and mercy of their creed ! And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a minute or two to the argument about outraging people’s feelings. You never hear it proposed that this should be mutual; it is always a one-sided thing. As Mill says in his great essay on “ Liberty �38 Defence of Free Speech. “ With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of those weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion; against the unprevail­ ing they may not only be used without general diflrpproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.” I should regard this argument with more favor if it were attempted to be made mutual. Suppose I were to put into your hands a book like that of Father Pinamonti’s Hell Open to Christians, which is circulated by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It con­ tains a picture of the torments of hell for*every day in the week. That is repulsive to my mind. In my opinion it would debauch the minds of children into whose hands it fell, but I should not think of calling in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such a question is the great outside jury of public opinion. Indecent attacks on religion, it is said, must be put down. I want you to cast out of your minds altogether the absurd talk of indecency or licentiousness. If we are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blasphemy if you will ; and don’t by confusing the real nature of our alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be punished for blasphemy, we ought to be punished for indecency, of which I say we are not guilty. It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I have looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t think there is anything in it to which this libel can approximate. If a man starts chemical works close to you, and poisons the atmosphere you breathe, you have no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or else remove your business and residence. That is trenching on your rights. But in a case of this sort every man has his remedy. There is no act of Parliament to compel any person to purchase a copy of the Freethinker. The copies that will be placed in your hands were pur­ chased, not to be read, but for the purposes of prosecu­ tion. It was not a surreptitious thing ; it was not a publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with �Defen<^ of Free Speech. 39 fraethought of the most insidious kind in every line. It is called the Freethinker; the man who purchased it must h$ve done so deliberately, and gone into the shop to do it. As it was not a paper freely exposed in the shop windows in London, a man must have meant, before he went into the shop, to purchase that very thing, and must have known the character of the con­ tents before he purchased it. I submit that as a man is not forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he can do is to allow other people to exercise their rights. It appears now that liberty is to be taken in the sense of the rough Yankee, who defined it as the right to do as he pleased and to make everybody else do so too. Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be protected from having unwelcome things forced on its attention, but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to dislike! Now, I will just draw your attention to what we have been told is the proper view of this question. Starkie on Libel has been quoted. I have not got Starkie’s work, but I have got Folkard’s edition of the Lazo of Libel and T must quote from that. The fact that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie shows in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution. That a man should be in peril of losing his liberty on the dictum of “ the late Mr. Starkie ” is a most dreadful thing. I hope that won’t continue. He says : “ A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equiva­ lent to such an intention in law, as well as in morals—a state of apathy and indifference to the interests of society—is the broad boundary between right and wrong.” I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is the broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be alleged that I am apathetic to the interests of society, I give it the most emphatic denial. When “ nefarious profit ” is talked about, I tell the learned gentlemen for the prosecution that they get far more out of their advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause must not count on profit; he can only count on the satisfaction of what to him is duty done. There is no such thing as apathy here to the interests of society. �40 Defence of Free Speech. I have given of my time and means, for great political and social causes, as much as these men. I am no more apathetic to the interests of society than they are. All these w >rds mean very little. The contention that has been rai ted is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the use of aljectives. These are not questi >ns of fact, and when the prosecution talk about “ maliciously insult­ ing,” “ wickedly doing so and so,” they simply use a string of adjectives which every man may interpret differently from every other man, a string of adjectives which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind of law by which a man is to be tried. It seems to me that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a noose put round the neck of every man who writes or speaks on the subject of religion ; and if he happens to be on the unpopular side somebody will pull the string, and without being worse than those in the race before him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled. I hope I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I can only deplore it. I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I want to say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Renan says he has seachedthe whole Roman law before the time of Constantine, without finding a single edict against any opinions. Professor Hunter says practically the same thing. Blasphemy and heresy were originally not tried by secular courts like these at all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the t-ubject of law, said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesi­ astical law ; and when the writ de heretico comburendd’ was abolished in the reign of Charles II., there was still special reservation made for ecclesiastical courts to 3 This was the writ for burning heretics aliv ■. It was only abolish-d after the Res’oration, although it had fallen into d suetude for half a century. Daring the Protectorate, hovever, the Parliame it gravely discusse I whether poor Nayler—a much maligned eccentric—should be burnt or not. and the Lord only knows how far they wouli have carried out the “reign of the saints if Cromwell had not sent them packing.” �Defence of 'Free Speech. 41 try offences. But when the clergy began to lose their power over the people, the judges brought in the very heresy law tBat had been abolished; the same heresy with another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain that in bad old times, when judges depended so much upon the favor of the Crown and the privileged classes, and when the Church of England was held necessary to the maintainance of the constitution, it was not wonderful that they should deliver judgments on the question of blasphemy, which really made it heresy as against the State Church. I say that blasphemy meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the State Church. I am told we might have discussion on controverted points of religion if decently conducted. That was not the language of those great judges of the past. They said we might discuss controverted points of the Christian religion—those that were controverted amongst learned Christians ; but that the great dogmas that lay at the base of the articles of the Established Church could not be called in question ; and I could give judgment after judgment. But I will give you one case that happened in this century. In the case of the Queen against Gathercole, in which the defendant libtlled the Scorton Nunnery, Baron Alderson laid it down : “ That a person may, without being liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect (save the established religion of the country), and the only reasou why the latter is in a different situation from the other is, because it is the form established by law, and it is therefore a part of the constitution of the country.” Russell on Crimes, volume 3, page 196, gives the case a little more fully. He says : “ When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the Roman Catholic faith called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson, B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecu­ tion for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any sect of the Christian religion save the established religion of the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from the other is, because it is the form established by law, and is therefore part of the constitution of the country.” �42 Fefence of Free Speech. Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that heresy and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought to mean, simply ridicule of the State Church or denial of its doctrine ; that where religious sects differ from the State Church, no matter what sect of Noncbnformity it be, whether it be a section of the great Roman Catholic Church itself, or a Jewish body or Mahomedan believing in the existence of a deity, yet on those grounds where they differ from the Established Church, they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and invidious right to the Established Church ? If any of you are Dissenters, remember the murders, the robberies, and the indignities, inflicted on your ancestors by the State Chilrch. If any one of you are Quakers, remem­ ber that the gaols of London were full of your ancestors who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen, remem­ ber that, and don’t give this State Church any protection. Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm or argument, or other forms of attack? It has its livings worth ten or twelve millions a year ; it has its edifices for worship in every parish of the country ; it has its funds for the purposes of propaganda and defence apart from its State connections. It has had until very recently, practically all the educational appliances in its own hands ; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected against the onslaughts of a few comparatively poor men ? If a Church with such advantages cannot hold its own, in the name of truth let it go down. To pro­ secute us in the interests of this Church, though ostensibly in the name of God, is to prostitute whatever is sacred in religion, and to degrade what should be a great spiritual power, into a mere police agent, a haunter of criminal courts, and an instructor of Old Bailey special pleaders. Every man has a right to three things—protection for person, property, and character, and all that can be legitimately derived from these. The ordinary law of libel gives a man protection for his character, but it is surely monstrous that he should claim protection for his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that his tastes shall not be violently outraged against his �Defence of Free Speech. 43 will, I hope, gentlemen, you -will take that rational view -of the question. We have libelled no man’s character, we have invaded no man’s person or property. This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu­ factured by priests in the interests of their own order to put down dissent and heresy. It now lingers amongst us as a legacy utterly alien to the spirit of our age, which unfortunately we have not had resolution enough to cast among those absurdities which time holds in his wallet of oblivion. One word gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr. Justice Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment Should be inflicted for blasphemy unless it led to a breach of the peace. I have no objection to that, pro­ vided we are indicted for a breach of the peace. Very little breach of the peace might make a good case of blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like this shall not be constructive ; it shall be actual. They might have put somebody in the witness-box who could have said that reading the Freethinker had impaired his digestion and disturbed his sleep. (Laughter.) They might have even found somebody who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was Induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentle­ men, they have not attempted to prove that any special publicity was given to it outside the circle of the people who approved it. They have not even been shown there was an advertisement of it in any Christian or religious paper. They have not even told you that any extravagant display was made of it; and I undertake to say that you might never have known of it if the prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this be construed as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment says we have done all this, to the great displeasure of almighty god, and to the danger of our Lady the Queen her crown and dignity. You must bear that in mind. The law books say again and again that a blasphemous libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy on the Deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is prepos­ terous to say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace. If you want that you must go to the Salvation Army. �44 efence of Free Speech. They have a perfect right to their ideas—I have nothing to say about them ; but their policy has led to actual breaches of the peace ; and even in India, where, according to the law, no prosecution could be started against a paper like the Freethinker, many are sent to gaol because they will insist upon processions in the street. We have not caused tumult in the streets. We have not sent out men with banners and bands in which ' each musician plays more or less his own tune. (Laughter) We have not sent out men who make hideous discord and commit a common nuisance. Nothing of the sort is alleged. A paper like this had to be bought and oar utterances had to be sought. We have not done any­ thing against the peace. I give the indictment an absolute denial. To talked of danger to the peace is only a mask tn hide the hideous and repulsive features of intoler­ ance and persecution. They don’t want to punish us decause we have assailed religion, but because w*e have endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentle­ men. Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and uot if we have assailed religion ; and as you know we have not endangered the peace, you will of course bring in a verdict of Not Guilty. Gentlemen, I hope you will by your verdict to-day champion that great law of liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty which implies the equal right of everyman, so long as he does not trench upon the equal right of every other man, to print what he pleases for people who choose to buy and read it, so long as he does not libel men’s characters ■or incite people to the commission of crime. Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in the result of this trial. I am anxious for the rights and liberties of thousands of my countrymen. Young as I am, I have for many years fought for my principles, taken soldier’s wages when there were any, and gone cheerfully without when there were none, and fought on all the same, as I mean to do to the end ; and I am doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment by the verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose sacrifices for conviction may not equal mine. The bit­ terness of my fate can scarcely be enhanced by your <yerdict. Yet this does not diminish my solicitude as to �Defence of Free Speech. 45 its character. If, after the recent scandalous proceedings in another court, you, as a special jury in this High Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate a new era of persecution, in which no advantage can accrue to truth or morality, but in which fierce passions will be kindled, oppression and resistance matched against each other, and the land perhaps disgraced with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I hope, you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused and eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work ; you will close a melancholy and discreditable chapter of history ; you will proclaim that henceforth the press shall be absolutely free, unless it libel men’s characters or contain incitements to crime, and that all offences against belief and taste shall be left to the great jury of public opinion ; you will earn the gratitude of all who value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and inde­ pendence as the crown of their manhood ; you will save your country from becoming ridiculous in the eyes of nations that we are accustomed to consider as less enlightened and free ; and you will earn for your­ selves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its progress, and its glory. ��G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL. Bible Contradictions ... ... ... ... 0 4 Part I. of the Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians. The Contradiction's are printed inparallel columns. Bible Absurdities ... ... ... ... 0 4 Part IL All the chief Absurdities from Genesis to Revelation, conveniently and strikingly arranged, with appropriate headlines, giving the point of each absurdity in a sentence. Bible Atrocities ... ... ... ... 0 4 Part III. Containing all the godly wickedness from Genesis to Revelation. Each infamy has a separate headline for easy reference. Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities, Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. Part IV. of the Bible Handbook ... ... ... ... BIBLE HANDBOOK(complete). Above 4 parts in 1 vol. In paper covers... ... ... ... ... Better edition, in cloth ... ... ... ... DR. E. B. AVELING. Darwin Made Easy. 144pp., cloth ... ... 0 4 1 4 2 0 1 0 Th® best popular exposition of Darwinism ever published. NOW ISSUING. A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS. ZEW CT. XL. WHEELER. Parts I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Paper Covers, Sixpence each. TO BE FOLLOWED BY A FRESH PART EVERY MONTH. “The Die ionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler deserves the thanks of the Ereethought party. These sixpenny parts Should be widely subscribed for.”—National Reformer. ‘ The work will be of the greatest val e.’—Freethouglit (San Franciseo). “ At last we have the long wanted means of silencing those Christians who are continually inquiring for our great men, and asserting that all great men have been on the side of Christianity. . . . Freethinkers would do well to get this woik part by part. ’—Truthseelcer (New York). �CRIMES of CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER. VOL. I. Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine ; (2) Constantins to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pioui Frauds ; (6) Rise of the Papacy ; (7) Crimes of the Popes^g (8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades. Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities. No pains have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, un­ answerable Indictment of Christianity. The Tree is judged by its Fruit. 224 pp., cloth hoards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d. “The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppjd nents of Christianity.”—TVatzonaZ Reformer. “ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”— Weekly Times. “ The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders­ field Examiner. “ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U.S.A. “ Two keen writers.”-—Truthseeker ("London). “ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity^—Lz’Zeraz’tf World. “ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as We hay® been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open (Chicago). “Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—-Weekly Dispatch. “ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up.^ow pfj&fed, and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle. “ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York). “ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of auMorlties.”—Western Figaro. Vol. II. is in Preparation. JEWISH LIFEEOF CHRIST An Extraordinary Work. Edited by G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER Cheap Edition, 6d. Superior Edition, printed on fine paper and bound in cloth, Is. “ Messrs. G-. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the Freethought party under great obligation by the careful manner in which they have collected and stated the information on a very doubtful and difficult subject. . . . We have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and sometimes very erudite notes.”—National Reformer. Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. ��MR, FOOTE’S BOOKS and PAMPHLETS PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth ............. 2 A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve Months’ Imprisonment. Copies in paper covers, soiled, 6d, CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. I. ... „. 2 In collaboration witli J. M. Wheeler. IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?................................................... 1 Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besant. Ditto in cloth, 2s. CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM .............. 1 Four Nights’ Public Debate with the Bev. Dr, James McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d, INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS ......................................... 0 Second edition, enlarged. Ditto in cloth..................................................................... 1 DARWIN ON GOD ............................................................... 0 DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH ............................. 0 Three Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Colei idge. PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM............................. 0 LETTERS TO JESUS GHRIST ......................... 0 THE BIBLE GOD ............................................................... 0 THE FOLLY OF PRAYER ........................................ 0 CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS............................. 0 v A Reply to Mr. Gladstone. WHAT WAS CHRIST ?................................................... 0 A Reply to J. S. Mill. WAS JESUS INSANE ?................................................... 0 A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the Prophet of Nazareth. THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD............................. 0 ROYAL PAUPERS ... 0 � 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 &amp; 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 Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883 Description An account of the resource Edition: New ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 45, [2] p. ; 19 cm. Notes: New edition, with author's introduction signed May 25,1889, and footnotes. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N237 Subject The topic of the resource Blasphemy Freedom of speech 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 (Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883), 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-Great Britain Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain Freedom of Speech NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2c7233677cfc0e14a428118d92c2e090.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=Rjcdoc7fmnxWEKVreGF%7EE9mE6JWJSN33cftMvNlFzP7aZghYgsW60oWKa6%7ESh8dVDlxShq4C8rHbH1hPJ2obZjs-PE1TWCjMrRjBLRnKwjeo6cYZWQ5pVKe9GrrOUW7J72Q-gOZ8IYV%7ETfIp6391LjqGjsnGRvVJZe1hYZbPynDGHy4CV71-D8M%7Ee-teyVsteBl8rqSqXF7xdwpNMa0cULDW2wmUi0vpctca7jgfJApF99mg0UH5yASIPsW2dybTDsrHz-VoUY2xbwnmQWjz-PyxAesAjyliy32WkgDKreMn8j9kv9WDp9oTroF9IJNpiHiqfegq0BkyDIrEnt3tig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bb741d165dc405fc5c24bdb2315558af PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY REPLY TO GLADSTONE BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. Reprintedfrom the “ North American Review June, 1888. With Publisher’s Note, and BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR By J. M. Wheeler. PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1888. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. Mr. Gladstone, in his old age, has lost none of his versatil ity Besides leading the Liberal party, he writes magazine articles on a variety of topics. He even aspires to add a new role to his reper­ tory, that of Defender of the Faith. On the eve of the last general elections—perhaps the occasion was well timed—he burst upon the world with a vindication of the Mosaic cosmogony. This led him into a controversy with Professor Huxley, in which he displayed his usual ability as a rhetorician, with a surprising igno­ rance of the very rudiments of physical science. Recently he has championed Christianity against the scepticism of Robert Elsmere, and now he defends his creed against the attacks of Colonel Inger­ soll in the North American Review. Colonel Ingersoll’s reply to Mr. Gladstone is here presented to the English reader. It was desirable that Mr. Gladstone’s criticism should be presented with it, so that the reader might command a full view of the discussion. He has been communicated with, but he replies that he has made other arrangements ; and whatever may be legally possible it would be unjust, or at least unmannerly, to reprint his part of the debate without his permission. Fortunately Colonel Ingersoll is a controversialist who always puts his opponent’s case carefully before refuting it, and therefore the disadvantage of the absence of Mr. Gladstone’s article from this brochure is reduced to a minimum. This debate has a history. Six years ago Colonel Ingersoll, whose fame as a Freethought orator had become universal in .America, was invited by Mr. Allen Thorndike Rice, the editor of the North, American Review, to contribute an article on the Chris­ tian Religion. This was replied to by Judge Black, who relished the rejoinder so little that nothing could induce him to renew the �( 4 ) contest. During the autumn of last year the Bev. Dr Field con­ tributed to the same Review an “ Open Letter to Colonel Inger­ soll.” This was replied to in an “ Open Letter to Dr. Field.” Dr. Field rejoined, and Colonel Ingersoll replied again. The great Freethinker s letters sent up the circulation of the Review to an unprecedented extent. Both are reprinted for English readers by the Progressive Publishing Co. under the respective titles of Faith and Fact and God and Man. Whether Mr. Gladstone took pity on poor Dr. Field and chivalrously rushed to his rescue, or whether he was tempted by a, very handsome cheque, is a question which he alone can answer. Be that as it may, , the Review announced a forthcoming article by Mr. Gladstone on the religious opinions of Colonel Ingersoll. It duly appeared in the May number, and the Review went through a large number of editions. Probably half the ministers in the States bought a copy, hoping to find fresh “ points ” for their own answers to “the infidel.” Colonel Ingersoll lost no time in replying. His letter to Mr. Gladstone appeared in the June number. It will be highly relished by the Freethought party in England. The writer is in his very best form. Dialectically speaking, he flays his opponent; yet he does it with perfect courtesy, and pays him compliments while rubbing in the Attic salt. Mr. Gladstone tried to be equally urbane, though he did not always succeed. Sometimes he fell into a supercilious vein, and at others he petulantly quarrelled with the great Freethinker’s “ tone,” as though all men should be as solemn as himself. But candor and good-nature predominated, and it was while under the influence of his better genius that Mr. Gladstone made the admission, which is at once true and well expressed, that “ Colonel Ingersoll writes with a rare and enviable brilliancy.” It only remains to add that this seems a favorable opportunity for presenting a brief biography of Colonel Ingersoll. Mr. J. M, Wheeler had the materials already collected for another purpose, and he was able to draw up a narrative of facts and dates which will interest all admirers of the great Freethought orator. �LIFE OF COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL. The proud title of Liberator is not only his due who, sword in nana, delivers his country from its oppressors. The shackles of bigotry and superstition are no less injurious than the dominion of a 01 eign foe, and the thinker who from his study combats the prejudices of ages, the orator who from the platform asserts the rights oí the oppressed, or stirs men’s minds from the lethargy of blind belief, deserve to be enrolled among the emancipators and benefactors of humanity. Such a Liberator is the subject of the present brief biography. J Robert Green Ingersoll, the greatest living American orator, and one of the most remarkable men of the day, was born in the township of Dresden, in the State of New York, on the 11th of August, 1832. He is thus a little more than one year older than the man with whom he has been most frequently compared, Charles Bradlaugh. He was of Puritan stock. His father was a Congre­ gational minister and Bob, as he was called by his comrades, was educated m accordance with the straitest opinions of the sect. But the trammels of theology never enmeshed his mind. He was a natural Pagan, fond of fun and adventure. He says in one of his lectures that he could never remember the time when he believed in eternal punishment, though he sometimes used to wonder God 11 * d not burn him to a cinder for playing truant from school, from such acknowledgments as these some sage religion­ ists have concluded that Bob was a wild and forward youth. His brother, John L. Ingersoll, has, however, given his testimony, in answer toi some calumnies from Talmage, that “ As for Robert, I will say that he was as good and obedient a boy as I ever knew.” ihe boy, too, seems to have educated his father, for, like so many other ministers he came to give up the doctrine of eternal torments, though so clearly taught in the Bible. His liberal views raised dissensions among his flock, which gave his family some insight into the true inward spirit of religion. s Robert’s boyhood was spent in Wisconsin and Illinois, where the iamily removed m 1843. The keeness of his mind and the propensity which he displayed for arguing matters out with his father doubtless induced that parent to set him to the study of the law. When his term had expired he opened a law office in Shawneetown, Illinois, in conjunction with his brother, Eben C. Ingersoll. Political discussions occupied some share of their time, and his brother subsequently became a member �( e ) of Congress. In 1857 they removed to Peoria, and here Ingersoll was married. It was a most blissful union. Politics still occupied much of his attention, and in 1860 he put up, for the first and only time, for the House of Uongress. His religious heresy, which he never concealed, was used against-him, and he was defeated. Upon the outbreak of the civil war in 1862 he entered into the Union and Anti-Slavery cause with enthusiasm. He raised the 11th Regiment of Illinois Cavalry, of which he was appointed colonel. Eminently capable of infusing his own spirit into others, he was beloved by his men, and numerous anecdotes are told of his generosity and bravery. One soldier loves to tell how, when wounded, he was covered with the colonel’s own cloak during the severity of winter, and stuck to the colonel’s whisky flask. He was in the battle of Shiloh and other engagements. Although earnestly convinced of the righteousness of the Unionist cause, he was too sensitive for the brutal trade of war. He says : “ I never saw oui’ men fire but I thought of the widows and orphans they would make, and wished they would miss.” The fortune of war made him prisoner to the Confederates, but his eloquence on the anti-slavery side proved so “ corrupting ” to his captors that he was gladly exchanged. Returned to the North, he still fought with his tongue for the political rights of the black. Renowned for his legal advocacy, he was in 1866 appointed Attorney-General for Illinois. But for religious bigotry he would also have been made governor of that State. Asked once how much his fine copy of Voltaire cost him, he replied, “I believe it cost me the governor­ ship of the State of Illinois.” His private practice became large, and his generosity increased with his wealth. Ingersoll's money has always been at the service of those he loves. He has long had the custom of keeping a drawer where all his family go and. take whatevei’ they please. Asked concerning this by one of his inter­ viewers, he replied, “ I desire my children to have the same freedom as myself.” Ingersoll’s home is a model one. Those who have the pleasure of visiting it come away with the observation, “ See how these Freethinkers love one another.” Perfect freedom reigns, yet each delights in sharing the pleasures of others. Ingersoll has never in his life beaten his children. He stigmatises the man who does so as a brute. He believes in the power of kindness. Shakespeare, “ the inspired word,” is on his table, and near it is a copy of Burns, “ the family hymn book.” His favorite modern author is George Eliot, but Darwin, Huxley, Humboldt, and all the best writers are in his library, not for show but for use. “ What a grand house you live in!” a caller on Colonel Ingersoll is quoted as saying. “I wish,” the Colonel replied, “ that I lived in the poorest house in New York.” “ What do you mean by saying that?” the visitor asked. “I mean that I wish that every man in New York had a better house than I have.” He is full of the milk of human kind­ ness. A characteristic of the man is his refusal to buy articles �( 7 ) unless lie knows the makers have been adequately paid. He has been known to keep an important client waiting while he has run from his office to pick up a fallen child, coming back with the remark that he never misses such a chance. Ingersoll stands over six feet in height and is massive in propor­ tion? His broad shoulders and chest capacity tell of strong vitality and lung power, improved by use. His head shows keen and bright intellectual power, his features are animated with frank good, humor. Upon the platform he is full of action. He walks about and is emphatic in his gestures. But he is always easy and at home with his audience. He laughs at his own jokes, and seizes, the moment when he is closest togethei’ with his hearers to lift them above themselves in some stream of noble thought or glowing feeling. He is one of the most natural of orators, never at a loss for a pregnant word, though he will occasionally pause, half hesitatingly, to give full effect to some telling phrase. He has been known to make a hard-headed jury laugh outright, and then put their handkerchiefs to their eyes within a few moments. How great a political power fine oratory may be was seen at the Republican Convention of June, 1876, when Ingersoll proposed James Gillespie Blaine for President. The opposition testified to. his abilities by insisting that the vote should not be taken until the following day, when the delegates would have recovered from theoverpowering effect of his eloquence. Had it been taken during the enthusiasm excited by Ingersoll’s speech, no doubt Blaine, would have been triumphant. As it was, he lacked only 28 votes out of a total of 754. Prom that time his services as a campaign orator have been in demand throughout the States. He may be. said, indeed, to have become the national orator, being continually selected to speak on any great public occasion. In 1877 he was offered and refused the post of Minister to. Germany, a position the United States always assigns to her most distinguished citizens. But Ingersoll was too busy for posts of honor. Not only was he employed in the most important law suits, which compelled his removal to Washington, but he devoted a con­ siderable share of time to the advocacy of Preethought. It is greatly to his honor that one of his first published discourses was delivered in vindication of Thomas Paine, the rebellious needleman, to whom the debt of the American Republic can scarcely be exag­ gerated, yet whose memory has been assailed with the foulest malignity because he had the courage to seek to emancipate his fellows from the tyranny of priestcraft as well as from that of kings. Ingersoll, too, has been frequently attacked. Men who dare not meet him face to face malign him from their coward’s castle of the pulpit. They have reported his conversion several times. They have made him lose his voice through infidel lectures, and swear that never again would he attack the Christian religion! His name is good enough to trade on, and skunks whose own merits would never insure them a hearing, seek notoriety by attacking �(8) the infidel. But Ingersoll lives in the open, and his courage, man­ liness and generosity are well known. Ingersoll is unmistakably the finest orator of the great liepublic. Henry Ward Beecher, no mean rival, called him “the most brilliant speaker of the English tongue of all men on this globe.” Not only does he draw larger audiences than any of his plat­ form rivals, but his speeches will bear reading. They all bespeak the healthy large-hearted man who sees life steadily, and sees it whole. Occasionally he soars into the finest prose poetry. We always feel we are in the presence of a man who candidly says what he thinks and feels what he says. There is no beating about the bush with Ingersoll. He has seen and read with his eyes open, and he has the courage to tell the result of his investigations. The verbiage of sophistry has no effect upon him. He is satisfied with nothing short of the bed-rock of solid fact. Nothing is too sacred to be tested by reason. Appreciating the saying of Shaftes­ bury, that “ solemnity is of the essence of imposture,” he exposes the humorous side of the stupidly solemn. Whatever subject he touches he adorns with wit and vivacity. Joseph Hatton, in his work entitled To-day in America, says “ Ingersoll is not like any talker I have ever heard before. He reminds me a little of Spurgeon, whose Saxon-English and broad homely similes are akin to the Ingersoll method. He has not the dignity of Bright nor the polish of Gladstone; but he has the earnestness of both, coupled with a boldness of metaphor and a vigor of style that are peculiarly American. ... I have seen nothing like the enthusiasm which his oratory evokes, not in multi­ tudes of thoughtless people, but in vast assemblages of educated and responsible men and women who have paid four shillings each for their seats.” Ingersoll has probably a larger personal following than any man in the States. Men and women feel that in emanci­ pating their minds from superstitious fears, he has rendered them a personal service. Women, for whose equality of rights with man he is a determined advocate, always form a prominent feature in his audiences. They admire his manliness, strength, his chivalry and tenderness for the weak, and his fervent love of the home. The source of his power, is no less in his emotional and affectional utterances than in his intellectual courage. He has the true spells of persuasion, simple and direct speech, strong love of truth, and firm hold upon nature. It is the merit of the orator that his language is level with the ear of the whole of his audience. Seldom in his speeches does he indulge in classical allusion such as that in the present reply to the flesh-eating birds fabled to inhabit the lake Stymphalus. His language is that of the people. His words are clear, short, crisp and strong, like that of the best poetry. His speeches are never wire-drawn. Every blow tells. Moreover, he has an apti­ tude of anecdotal illustration which carries all before it. He is reputed to be the best teller of a good story in America. The joke �( 9 ) may be an old. one, but it is told with, snch point, hnmoi, and. evident enjoyment that it is irresistible. And then he passes from wit to pathos, like a beam of light streaming now on a bed of flowers and anon into a cavern. _ All his speeches are animated by the moral sentiment. Take the following from his oration at the mass meeting on behalf of the civil rights of the colored people, held at Lincoln Hall, Oct. 22, 1883, which I transcribe because it has not hitherto been published in England. “ I am inferior to any man whose rights I trample under foot. Men are not superior bv reascn of the accidents of race and color. They are superior who have the best heart, the best brain. Superiority is born of honesty, of virtue, of charity, and above all, of the love of liberty. Toe superior man is the providence of the inferior. He is eyes for the blind, strength for the weak, and a shield for the defenceless. He stands erect by bending above the fallen. He rises by lifting others.” At this meeting Frederick Douglass, the slave orator, introduced Ingersoll by reciting Leigh Hunt’s famous lines on Abou Ben Adhem, and the ringing cheers of the assembly showed that their appropriateness was felt. In his present reply to Mr. Gladstone, Ingersoll alludes to the Poccasset religious maniac, Freeman, who went a step beyond Father Abraham and murdered his own child. A yet more cele­ brated instance of the fruits of fanaticism came under Ingersoll’s own observation. It was his fortune to be in President Garfield’s company on the memorable 2nd of July, 1881, when Guiteau assassinated the President in the waiting room of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway. Ingersoll at once threw his own body in front of Garfield while the assassin was continuing to fire. He would undoubtedly have been shot had not Guiteau at that moment been seized and disarmed. His courage and self-devotion was unavailing. Two rapid shots had already done their murderous work before any attempt could be made to protect the President, even by Mr. Blaine, on whose arm he was leaning ; but the effort of Ingersoll to give his own life for that of his friend will ever redound to his honor. Emerson well says there is no true orator who is not a hero. The orator must ever stand with forward foot in the attitude of ad­ vancing. Ingersoll’s defence of Mr. C. B. Reynolds, who was indicted for blasphemy at Morristown in New Jersey, in 1886, was characteristic of the true leader. Though suffering from sore throat, and forced to forego important remunerative engagements, he personally appeared on behalf of the prisoner at the tinal in May of last year. His Defence, of Freethought on that occasion, in a five hours’ speech to the jury, is a noble specimen of oratorical power. It doubtless had a powerful effect on the bigotry of New Jersey. Although, thanks to the adverse summing-up of the judge, he failed to get the prisoner acquitted, Mr. Reynolds was let off with a slight fine, which, together with all espenses, was met by �( 10 ) Colonel Ingersoll. Prosecutions for blasphemy will probably never more be heard of in New Jersey. It is scarcely necessary to enumerate his published lectures and writings. They are almost as well-known in England as on the other side of the herring pond. The title of one of them, Take a Road of Your Own, illustrates the spirit of his teachings. No more telling indictments of orthodoxy have been published than his lectures on Gods, Ghosts, What Must I JDo to Be Saved, Myth and Miracle, Real Blasphemy and The Dying Greed. The Mistakes of Moses, his largest work, is brimful of fun and lively argument. His first contribution to the North American Review was in August, 1881, when he wrote on the subject “Is All the Bible Inspired?” Since then he has held his own against Judge Black, Professor G-. P. Fisher, and, more recently, the Rev. H. Field, who, being over­ weighted by the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, is doubtless glad to have Mr. Gladstone come “ to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” ° Colonel Ingersoll has also contributed introductory chapters toModern Thinkers, by Prof. Van Denslow; to The Brain and the Bible, by Edgar C. Beall; and to Men, Women and Gods, by Helen Gardener, a young lady he introduced to the Freethought platform. His writings are just like his speeches, and, we should surmise, are written to dictation. We can imagine we see him marching up and down, emphasising his points and softly chuckling as his bn mor occasionally ripples forth. �REPLY TO GLADSTONE. To the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, M.P., My dear Sir: At the threshold of this Reply, it gives me pleasure to say that for your intellect and character I have the greatest respect; and let me say further, that I shall consider your arguments, assertions, and inferences entirely apart from your personality apart from the exalted position that you occupy in the estimation of the civilised world. I gladly acknowledge the inestimable services that you have rendered, not only to England, but to mankind. Most men are chilled and narrowed by the snows of age ; their thoughts are darkened by the approach of night. But you, for many years, have hastened toward the light, and your mind has been “ an autumn that grew the more by reaping.” Under no circumstances could I feel justified in taking advantage of the admissions that you have made as to the “ errors,” the “ misfeasance,” the. “infirmities and the perversity” of the Chris­ tian Church. . . It is perfectly apparent that churches, being only aggregations of people, contain the prejudice, the ignorance, the vices and the virtues of ordinary human beings. The perfect cannot be made out of the imperfect. A man is not necessarily a great mathematician because he admits the correctness of the multiplication table. The best creed may be believed by the worst of the human race. Neither the crimes nor the virtues of the church tend to prove or disprove the supernatural origin of religion. The massacre of St. Bartholomew tends no more to establish the inspiration of the Scriptures, than the bombardment of Alexandria. But there is one thing that cannot be admitted, and that is your statement that the constitution of man is in a “warped, impaired,. �( 12 ) and dislocated condition,” and that - those deformities indispose men to belief. Let us examine this. We say that a thing is “ warped ” that was once nearer level flat »■■ straight; that it is “ unpaired ” when it was once nearer perfect and that it is" dislocated when it was once united. Oonsemientlv’ you have said that at some time the human constitution was un warped, ummpaired and with each part working in harmony with all, Yon seem to believe m the degeneracy of man, and that our unfortunate race, starting at perfection, has travelled downward through all the wasted years. It is hardly possible that our ancestors were perfect. If historv proves anything, it establishes the fact that civilisation was not first and savagery afterwards. Certainly the tendency of man is not now towards barbarism. There must have been a time when language was unknown, when lips had never formed a word That which man knows man must have learned. The victories’ of our race have been, slowly and painfully won. It is a long distance from the gibberish of the savage to the sonnets of Shakespeare—a long and weary road from the pipe of Pan to the great orchestra voiced with every tone from the glad warble of a mated bird to the hoarse thunder of the sea. The road is long that lies between the discordant cnes uttered by the barbarian over the gashed body of his foe and the marvellous music of Wagner and Beethoven. It is hardly possible to conceive of the years that lie between the caves in which crouched our naked ancestors crunching the bones of wild beasts, and the home of a civilised man with its comforts its articles of luxury and use,-with its works of art, with its enriched and illuminated walls. Think of the billowed years that must have rolled between these shores. Think of the vast distance that man has slowly groped from the dark dens and lairs of ignorance and tear to the intellectual conquests of our day. Is it true that these deformities, these “ warped, impaired, and dislocated constitutions indispose men to belief ” ? Can we in this way account for the doubts entertained by the intellectual leaders ■of mankind ? it will not do, in this age and time, to account for unbelief in is e ormed and dislocated way. The exact opposite must be t™e‘ igaorance and credulity sustain the relation of cause and e ec . gnorance is satisfied with assertion, with appearance. As man rises m the scale of intelligence he demands evidence. He begins to look back of appearance. He asks the priest for reasons. The most ignorant part of Christendom is the most orthodox. �( 13 ) You have simply repeated a favorite assertion of the clergy, to the effect that man rejects the Gospel because he is naturally depraved and hard of heart—because, owing to the sin of Adam and Eve, he has fallen from the perfection and purity of paradise to that “ impaired ” condition in which he is satisfied with the filthy rags of reason, observation and experience. The truth is, that what you call unbelief is only a higher and holier faith. Millions of men reject Christianity because of its cruelty. The Bible was never rejected by the cruel. It has been upheld by countless tyrants—by the dealers in human flesh—by the destroyers of nations—by the enemies of intelligence—by the stealers of babes and the whippers of women. It is also true that it has been held as sacred by the good, the self-denying, the virtuous and the loving, who clung to the sacred volume on account of the good it contains and in spite of all its cruelties and crimes. You are mistaken when you say that all “ the faults of all the Christian bodies and subdivisions of bodies have been carefully raked together,” in my reply to Dr. Field, “ and made part and parcel of the indictment against the divine scheme of salvation.” No thoughtful man pretends that any fault of any Christian body can be used as an argument against what you call the “ divine scheme of redemption.” I find in your remarks the frequent charge that I am guilty of making assertions and leaving them to stand without the assistance of argument or fact, and it may be proper, at this particular point, to inquire how you know that there is a divine “ scheme of re­ demption.” My objections to this “ divine scheme of redemption” are: first, that there is not the slightest evidence that it is divine ; second, that it is not in any sense a “ scheme,” human or divine ; and third, that it cannot, by any possibility, result in the redemp­ tion of a human being. It cannot be divine, because it has no foundation in the nature of things, and is not in accordance with reason. It is based on the idea that right and wrong are the expression of an arbitrary will, and not words applied to and descriptive of acts in the light of consequences. It rests upon the absurdity called “ pardon,” upon the assumption that when a crime has been committed justice will be satisfied with the punishment of the innocent. One person may suffer, or reap a benefit, in consequence of the act of another, but no man can be justly punished for the crime, or justly rewarded for the virtues, of another. A “ scheme ” that punishes an inno- �/ (14) cent man for the vices of another can hardly be called divine. Can a murderer find justification in the agonies of his victim ? There is no vicarious vice; there is no vicarious virtue. For me it is hard to understand how a just and loving being can charge one o f his children with the vices, or credit him with the virtues, of another. And why should we call anything a “ divine scheme ” that has been a failure from the “ fall of man” until the present moment? What race, what nation, has been redeemed through the instru­ mentality of this divine scheme ” ? Have not the subjects of redemption been for the most part the enemies of civilisation ? Has not almost every valuable book since the invention of printing been denounced by the believers in the “ divine scheme ” ? In­ telligence, the development of the mind, the discoveries of science, the inventions of genius, the cultivation of the imagination through art and music, and the practice of virtue will redeem the human •race. These are the saviors of mankind. You admit that the “ Christian churches have by their exag­ gerations and shortcomings, and by their faults of conduct, con­ tributed to bring about a condition of hostility to religious faith.” If one.wishes to know the worst that man has done, all that ■power guided by cruelty can do, all the excuses that can be framed for the commission of every crime, the infinite difference that can exist between that which is professed and that which is practised, ■the marvellous malignity of meekness, the arrogance of humility and the savagery of what is known as “ universal love,” let him read the history of the Christian Church. Yet, I not only admit that millions of Christians have been honest in the expression of their opinions, but that they have been among the best and noblest of our race. And it is further admitted that a creed should be examined apart from the conduct of those who have assented to its truth. The Church should be judged as a whole, and its faults should be accounted for either by the weakness of human nature, or by reason of some defect or vice in the religion taught—or by both. Is there anything in the Christian religion—anything in what you are pleased to call the “ Sacred Scriptures,” tending to cause the crimes and atrocities that have been committed by the Church ? It seems to be natural for man to defend himself and the ones he loves. The father slays the man who would kill his child—he defends the body. The Christian father burns the heretic—he defends the soul. �( 15 ) If “ orthodox Christianity ” be true, an infidel has not the rigftt to live. Every book in which the Bible is attacked should be burned’with its author. Why hesitate to burn a man whose con­ stitution is “ warped, impaired, and dislocated,” for a few moments, when hundreds of others will be saved from eternal flames ? In Christianity you will find the cause of persecution. The idea that belief is essential to salvation—this ignorant and merciless dogma—accounts for the atrocities of the Church. This absurd declaration built the dungeons, used the instruments of torture, erected the scaffolds and lighted the fagots of a thousand years. What, I pray you, is the •'■'heavenly treasure” in the keeping of your Church? Is it a belief in an infinite God? That was believed thousands of years before the serpent tempted Eve. Is it the belief in the immortality of the soul? That is far older. Is it that man should tieat his neighbor as himself ? That is more ancient. What is the treasure in the keeping of the Church ? Let me tell you. It is this : That there is but one true religion— Christianity—and that all others are false; that the prophets, and Christs, and priests of all others have been and are impostors, or the victims of insanity; that the Bible is the one inspired book— the one authentic record of the words of God: that all men are naturally depraved and deserve to be punished with unspeakable torments forever : that there is only one path that leads to heaven, while countless highways lead to hell; that there is only one name under heaven by which a human being can be saved; that we must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; that this life, with its few and fleeting years, fixes the fate of man ; that the few will be saved and the many for ever lost. This is “the heavenly treasure” within the keeping of your Church. And this “ treasure ” has been guarded by the cherubim of persecution, whose flaming swords were wet for many centuries with the best and bravest blood. It has been guarded by cunning, by hypocrisy, by mendacity, by honesty, by calumniating the generous, by maligning the good, by thumbscrews and racks, by charity and love, by robbery and assassination, by poison and fire, by the virtues of the ignorant and the vices of the learned, by the violence of mobs and the whirlwinds of war, by every hope and every fear, by every cruelty and every crime, and by all there is of the wild beast in the heart of man. With great propriety it may be asked : In the keeping of which Church is this “ heavenly treasure ” ? Did the Catholics have it, and was it taken by Luther ? Did Henry the VIII. seize it, and �i 16 ) is it now in the keeping of the Church of England? Which of the warring sects in America has this treasure ; or have we in this country only the “ rust and canker ” ? Is it an Episcopal Church, that refuses to associate with a colored man for whom Christ died, and who is good enough for the society of the angelic host ? But wherever this “ heavenly treasure ” has been, about it have always hovered the Stymphalian birds of superstition, thrusting their brazen beaks and claws deep into the flesh of honest wen You were pleased to point out as the particular line justifying your assertion “that denunciation, sarcasm, and invective con­ stitute the staple of my work,” that line in which I speak of those who expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy, and add: “I take this as a specimen of the mode of statement which permeates the whole.” Dr. Field commenced his Open Letter by saying : “lam glad that I know you, even though some of my brethren look upon you as a monster y because of your unbelief” In reply I simply said : “ The statement in your Letter that some of your brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief tends to show that those who love God are not always the friends of their fellow-men. Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be eternally damned—that they are by nature depraved—that there is no soundness or health in them——can be so arrogantly egotistic as to look upon others as monsters ? And yet some of your brethren, who regard unbelievers as infamous, rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect to receive as alms an eternity of joy.” Is there any denunciation, sarcasm or invective in this ? Why should one who admits that he himself is totally depraved call any other man, by way of reproach, a monster ? Possibly he might be justified in addressing him as a fellow-monster. I am not satisfied with your statement that “ the Christian re­ ceives as alms all whatsoever he receives at all.” Is it true that man deserves only punishment ? Does the man who makes the world better, who works and battles for the right, and dies for the good of his fellow-men, deserve nothing but pain and anguish ? Is happiness a gift or a consequence ? Is heaven only a well-con­ ducted poorhouse ? Are the angels in their highest estate nothing but happy paupers ? Must all the redeemed feel that they are in heaven simply because there was a miscarriage of justice? Will the lost be the only ones who will know that the right thing has been done, and will they alone appreciate the “ ethical elements of religion ” ? Will they repeat the words that you have quoted �( 17 ) “ Mercy and judgment are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other ” ? or will those words be spoken by the redeemed as they joyously contemplate the writhings of the lost ? No one will dispute ■'■'that in the discussion of important ques­ tions calmness and sobriety are essential.” But solemnity need not be carried to the verge of mental paralysis. In the search for truth—that everything in nature seems to hide—man needs the assistance of all his faculties. All the senses should be awake. Humor should carry a torch, Wit should give its sudden light, Candor should hold the scale s, Reason, the final arbiter, should put his royal stamp on every fact, and Memory, with a miser’s care, should keep and guard the mental gold. The Church has always despised the man of humor, hated laughter and encouraged the lethargy of solemnity. It is not willing that the mind should subject its creed to every test of truth. It wishes to overawe. It does not say, “ He that hath a mind to think let him think ” ; but, “ He that hath ears to hear let him hear.” The Church has always abhorred wit—that is to say, it does not enjoy being struck by the lightning of the soul. The foundation of wit is logic, and it has always been the enemy of the supernatural, the solemn and absurd. You express great regret that no one at the present day is able to write like Pascal. You admire his wit and tenderness, and the unique, brilliant and fascinating manner in which he treated the profoundest and most complex themes. Sharing in your admira­ tion and regret, I call your attention to what might be called one of his religious generalisations : “Disease is the natural state of a Christian.” Certainly it cannot be said that I have ever mingled the profound and complex in a more fascinating manner. Another instance is given of the “ tumultuous method in which I conduct, not, indeed, my argument, but my case.” Dr. Field had drawn a distinction between superstition and religion, to which I replied : “ You are shocked at the Hindoo mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com­ mand of her God. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ? What is your opinion of Jehovah himself ?” These simple questions seem to have excited you to an unusual degree, and you ask in words of some severity “ Whether this is the tone in which controversies ought to be carried on ?” And you say that “ not only is the name of Jehovah encircled in the heart of every believer with the profoundest reverence and love, but that the Christian religion teaches, through the incarnation, a personal relation with God so lofty that it can only be approached in �(1*) deep, reverential calm.” You admit that “a person who deems a given religion to be wicked, may be led onward by logical consis­ tency to impugn in strong terms the character of the author and object of that religion,” but you insist that such person is “ bound by the laws of social morality and decency to consider well the terms and meaning of his indictment.” Was there any lack of “ reverential calm ” in my question ? I gave no opinion, drew no indictment, but simply asked for the •opinion of another. Was that a violation of the “ laws of social morality and decency ” ? It is not necessary for me to discuss this question with you. It has been decided by Jehovah himself. You probably remember the account given in the eighteenth chapter of 1 Kings, of a contest between the prophets of Baal and rhe prophets of Jehovah. There were four hundred and fifty prophets of the false God who ■endeavored to induce their deity to consume with fire from heaven the sacrifice upon his altar. According to the account, they were greatly in earnest. They certainly appeared to have some hope of ■success, but the fire did not descend. “ And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘ Ory aloud, for he is a god ; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.’” Do you consider that the proper way to attack the God of another? Did not Elijah know that the name of Baal ‘‘was encircled in the heart of every believer with the profoundest reverence and love ” ? Did he “ violate the laws of social morality and decency ” ? But Jehovah and Elijah did not stop at this point. They were not satisfied with mocking the prophets of Baal, but they brought them down to the brook Kishon—four hundred and fifty of them —and there they murdered every one. Does it appear to you that on that occasion, on the banks of the brook Kishon, “ Mercy and judgment met together, and that righteousness and peace kissed each other ” ? The question arises: Has everyone who reads the Old Testa­ ment the right to express his thought as to the character of • Jehovah ? You will admit that as he reads his mind will receive ¡some impression, and that when he finishes the “ inspired volume ” •he will have some opinion as to the character of Jehovah. Has Ke the right to express that opinion ? Is the Bible a revelation from God to man ? Is it a revelation to the man who reads it, or 'to the man who does not read it? If to the man who reads it, has he the right to give to others the revelation that God has �( 19 ) given to him ? If he comes to the conclusion at which you have arrived, that Jehovah is' God, has he the right to express that -opinion ? If he concludes, as I have done, that Jehovah is a myth, must he refrain from giving, his honest thought ? Christians do not hesitate to give their opinion of heretics, philosophers, and infidels. They are not restrained by the “laws of social morality and decency.” They have persecuted to the extent of their power, and their Jehovah pronounced upon unbelievers every curse capable of being expressed in the Hebrew dialect. At this moment thousands of missionaries are attacking the gods of the heathen world, and heaping contempt on the religion of others. But as you have seen proper to defend Jehovah, let us for a moment examine this deity of the ancient Jews. . There are several tests of character. It may be that all the virtues can be expressed in the word “ kindness,” and that nearly all the vices are gathered together in the word “ cruelty.” Laughter is a test of character. When we know what a man laughs at, we know what he really is. Does he laugh at misfor­ tune, at poverty, at honesty in rags, at industry without food at the agonies of his fellow-men? Does he laugh when he sees’the eonvict clothed in the garments of shame, at the criminal on the scaffold ? Does he rub his hands with glee over the embers of an enemy s home ? Think of a man capable of laughing while looking at Marguerite in the prison cell with her dead babe by her side. What must be the real character of a God who laughs at rhe calamities ©f his children, mocks at their fears, their desola­ tion their distress and anguish ? Would an infinitely loving God hold his ignorant children in derision ? Would he pity, or mock ? have, or destroy ? Educate, or exterminate ? Would he lead them with gentle hands toward the light, or lie in wait for them I like a wild beast ? Think of the echoes of Jehovah’s laughter in I the rayless caverns of the eternal prison. Can a good man mock 1 at the children of deformity? Will he deride the misshapen? ’ Your Jehovah deformed some of his own children, and then held em up to scorn and hatred. These divine mistakes, these blunders of the infinite, were not allowed to enter the temple erected m honor of him who had dishonored them. Does a kind father mock his deformed child ? What would you think of a mother who would deride and taunt her misshapen babe ? t here is another test. How does a man use power ? Is he gentle, or cruel ? Does he defend the weak, succor the oppressed or trample on the fallen ? ’ �( 20 ) If you. will read again the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuter­ onomy, you will find how Jehovah, the compassionate, whose name js enshrined in so many hearts, threatened to use his power. “ The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting and mildew. And thy heaven which is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth which is under thee shall be iron. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust.” . . . “ And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air and unto the beasts of the earth.” . . “ The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness. And thou shalt eat of the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters. The tender and delicate woman among you, .... her eye shall be evil . . . toward her young one . . and toward her children which she shall bear; for she shall eat them.” Should it be found that these curses were in fact uttered by the God of hell, and that the translators had made a mistake in at­ tributing them to Jehovah, could you say that the sentiments expressed are inconsistent with the supposed character of the Infinite Fiend ? A nation is judged by its laws—by the punishment it inflicts. The nation that punishes ordinary offences with death is regarded as barbarous, and the nation that tortures before it kills is denounced as savage. What can you say of the government of Jehovah, in which death was the penalty for hundreds of offences ?—death for the expression of an honest thought—death for touching with a good intention a sacred ark—death for making hair oil—for eating shew bread—for imitating incense and perfumery ? In the history of the world a more cruel code cannot be found. Crimes seem to have been invented to gratify a fiendish desire to shed the blood of men. There is another test: How does a man treat the animals in his power—his faithful horse—his patient ox—his loving dog ? How did Jehovah treat the animals in Egypt ? Would a loving God, with fierce hail from heaven, bruise and kill the innocent cattle for the crimes of their owners ? Would he torment, torture and destroy them for the sins of men ? Jehovah was a God of blood. His altar was adorned with the horns of a beast. He established a religion in which every tempi©’ was a slaughter house, and every priest a butcher—a religion that demanded the death of the first-born, and delighted in the destruc­ tion of life. There is still another test : The civilised man gives to others the rights that he claims for himself. He believes in the liberty �( 21 ) of thought and expression, and abhors persecution for conscience’ sake. Did Jehovah believe in the innocence of thought and the liberty of expression ? Kindness is found with true greatness. Tyranny lodges only in the breast of the small, the narrow, the shrivelled and the selfish. Did Jehovah teach and practice generosity ? Was he a believer in religious liberty ? If he was and is, in fact, God, he must have known, even four thousand years ago, that worship must be free, and that he who is forced upon his knees cannot, by any possibility, have the spirit of prayer. Let me call your attention to a few passages in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy : “ If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods. . . . thou shaltnot consent unto him, nor hearken unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him : but thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Is it possible for you to find in the literature of this world more awful passages than these ? Did ever savagery, with strange and uncouth marks, with awkward forms of beast and bird, pollute the dripping walls of caves with such commands ? Are these the words of infinite mercy ? When they were uttered, did “ righteousness and peace kiss each other ” ? How can any loving man or woman “ encircle the name of Jehovah ”—author of these words—“ with profoundest reverence and love ’’ ? Do I rebel because my “ con­ stitution is warped, impaired and dislocated ” ? Is it because of “ total depravity ” that I denounce the brutality of Jehovah ? If my heart were only good—if I loved my neighbor as myself, should I then see infinite mercy in these hideous words ? Do I lack “ reverential calm ’’ ? These frightful passages, like coiled adders, were in the hearts of Jehovah’s chosen people when they crucified “• the Sinless Man.” Jehovah did not tell the husband to reason with his wife. She was to be answered only with death. She was to be bruised and mangled to a bleeding, shapeless mass of quivering flesh, for having breathed an honest thought. If there is anything of importance in this world, it is the family, the home, the marriage of true souls, the equality of husband and wife, the true republicanism of the heart, the real democracy of the fireside. Let us read the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of Genesis : �( 22 ) “ Unto the woman he said. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Never will I worship any being who added to the sorrows and agonies of maternity. Never will I bow to any God who intro­ duced slavery into every home—who made the wife a slave and the husband a tyrant. The Old Testament shows that Jehovah, like his creators, held women in contempt. They were regarded as property : “ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife—nor his ox.” Why should a pure woman worship a God who upheld polygamy? Let us finish this subject: The institution of slavery involves all crimes. Jehovah was a believer in slavery. This is enough. Why should any civilised man worship him ? Why should his name be “.encircled with love and tenderness ” in any human heart ? He believed that man could become the property of man—that it was right for his chosen people to deal in human flesh—to buy and sell mothers and babes. He taught that the captives were the property of the captors and directed his chosen people to kill, to enslave, or to pollute. In the presence of these commandments, what becomes of the fine saying “ Love thy neighbor as thyself ” ? What shall we say of a God who established slavery, and then had the effrontery to say “ Thou shalt not steal ” ? It may be insisted that Jehovah is the Father of all—and that he has “made of one blood all the nations of the earth.” How then can we account for the wars of extermination ? Does not thecommandment “ Love thy neighbor as thyself,” apply to nations precisely the same as to individuals ? Nations, like individuals,, become great by the practice of virtue. How did Jehovah com­ mand his people to treat their neighbors ? He commanded his generals to destroy all—men, women and babes : “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and mv sword shall devour flesh.” J “ That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.” “ • • • I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. ...” *• The sword without and terror within shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also, with the man of grey hairs.” Is it possible that these words fell from the lips of the Most Merciful ? You may reply that the inhabitants of Canaan were unfit to live—that they were ignorant and cruel. Why did not Jehovah, �the “ Father of all, ’ give them the Ten Commandments ? Why did he leave them without a Bible, without prophets and priests ? Why did he shower all the blessings of revelation on one poor and wretched tribe, and leave the great world in ignorance and crime —and why did he order his favorite children to murder those whom he had neglected ? By the question I asked of Dr. Field, the intention was to show that Jephthah, when he sacrificed his daughter to Jehovah, was as much the slave of superstition as is the Hindoo mother when she throws her babe into the yellow waves of the Ganges. It seems that this savage Jephthah was in direct communication with Jehovah at Mizpeh, and that he made a vow unto the Lord and said : “ If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” In the first place, it is perfectly clear that the sacrifice intended' was a human sacrifice, from the words : “ that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me.” Some human being —wife, daughter, friend—was expected to come. According tn the account, his daughter—his only daughter, his only child—came first. If Jephthah was in communication with God, why did God allow this man to make this vow ; and why did he allow the daughter that he loved to be first, and why did he keep silent and allow the vow to be kept, while flames devoured the daughter’s flesh ? St. Paul is not authority. He praises Samuel, the man who hewed Agag in pieces ; David, who compelled hundreds to pass under the saws and harrows of death ; and many others who shed the blood of the innocent and helpless. Paul is an unsafe guide. He who commends the brutalities of the past, sows the seeds of future crimes. If “ believers are not obliged to approve of the conduct of Jephthah ” are they free to condemn the conduct of Jehovah ? If you will read the account you will see that the “ spirit of the Lord was upon Jephthah ” when he made the cruel vow. If Paul did not commend Jephthah for keeping this vow, what was the act that excited his admiration ? Was it because Jephthah slew on the banks of the Jordan “ forty and two thousand ” of the sons of Ephraim ? In regard to Abraham, the argument is precisely the same, �( 24 ) except that Jehovah is said to have interfered, and allowed an animal to be slain instead. One of the answers given by you is that “ it may be allowed that the narrative is not within our comprehension : ” and for that reason you say that “ it behoves us to tread cautiously in ap­ proaching it.” Why cautiously ? These stories of Abraham and Jephthah have cost many an innocent life. Only a few years ago, here in my country, a man by the name of Freeman, believing that God demanded at least the show of obedience—believing what he had read in the Old Testa­ ment that ‘'without the shedding of blood there is no remission,” and so believing, touched with insanity, sacrificed his little girl— plunged into her innocent breast the dagger, believing it to be God’s will, and thinking that if it were not God’s will his hand would be stayed. I know of nothing more pathetic than the story of this crime told by this man. Nothing can be more monstrous than the conception of a God who demands sacrifice—of a God who would ask of a father that he murder his son—of a father that he would burn his daughter. It is far beyond my comprehension how any man ever could ha^e believed such an infinite, such a cruel absurdity. At the command of the real God—if there be one—I would not sacrifice my child, I would not murder my wife. But as long as there are people in the world whose minds are so that they can believe the stories of Abraham and Jephthah, just so long there will be men who will take the lives of the ones they love best. You have taken the position that the conditions are different; and you say that: “ A ccording to the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were placed under a law, not of consciously perceived right and wrong, but of simple obedience. The tree of which alone they were forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; duty lay for them in following the command of the Most High, before and until they became capable of appreciating it by an ethical standard. Their knowledge was but that of an infant who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that he is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the things so ordered.” If Adam and Eve could not “ consciously perceive right and wrong,” how is it possible for you to say that “ duty lay for them in following the command of the Most High ” ? How can a person “ incapable of perceiving right and wrong ” have an idea of duty ? You are driven to say that Adam and Eve had no moral sense. �How under such circumstances could they have the sense of guilt, or of obligation ? And why should such persons be punished ? And why should the whole human race become tainted by the ■offence of those who had no moral sense ? Do you intend to be understood as saying that Jehovah allowed his children to enslave each other because “ duty lay for them in following the command of the Most High ” ? Was it for this reason that he caused them to exterminate each other ? Do you account for the severity of his punishments by the fact that the poor creatures punished were not aware of the enormity of the ■offences they had committed ? What shall we say of a God who has one of his children stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sunday, and allows another to enslave his fellow man ? Have you discovered any theory that will account for both of these facts ? Another word as to Abraham :—You defend his willingness to kill his son because “ the estimate of human life at the time was different ”—because “ the position of the father in the family was different; its members were regarded as in some sense his pro­ perty ; ” and because “ there is every reason to suppose that around Abraham in the ‘ land of Moriah ’ the practice of human sacrifice as an act of religion was in full vigor.” Let us examine these three excuses : Was Jehovah justified in putting a low estimate on human life ? Was he in earnest when he said “ that whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed ’’ ? Did he pander to the barbarian view of the worth­ lessness of life ? If the estimate of human life was low, what was the sacrifice worth ? Was the son the property of the father ? Did Jehovah uphold this savage view ? Had the father the right to sell or kill his child ? Do you defend Jehovah and Abraham because the ignorant wretches in the “ land of Moriah,” knowing, nothing of the true God, cut the throats of their babes “ as an act of religion ” ? Was Jehovah led away by the example of the Gods of Moriah ? Do you not see that your excuses are simply the suggestions of other crimes ? You see clearly that the Hindoo mother, when she throws her babe into the Ganges at the command of her God, “ sins against first principles ”; but you excuse Abraham because he lived in the childhood of the race. Can Jehovah be excused because of his youth ? Not satisfied with your explanation, your defences and excuses, you take the ground that when Abraham said : “ My son, God will provide a lamb for a burnt offering,” he may have “ be- �( ¿6 ) lieved implicitly that a way of rescue would be found for his son.”-1 In other words, that Abraham did not believe that he would be required to shed the blood of Isaac. So that, after all, the faith of Abraham consisted in “ believing implicitly ” that Jehovah was not in earnest. You have discovered a way by which, as you think, the neck of orthodoxy can escape the noose of Darwin, and in that connection you use this remarkable language : “ I should reply that the moral history of man, in its principal stream, has been distinctly an evolution from the first until now.” It is hard to see how this statement agrees with the one in the begining of your Remarks, in which you speak of the human con­ stitution in its “ warped, impaired and dislocated ” condition. When you wrote that line you were certainly a theologian—a believer in the Episcopal creed—and your mind, by mere force of habit, was at that moment contemplating man as he is supposed to have been created—perfect in every part. At that time you were endeavoring to account for the unbelief now in the world, and you did this by stating that the human constitution is “ warped, impaired and dislocated ” ; but the moment you are brought face to face with the great truths uttered by Darwin, you admit “ that the moral history of man has been distinctly an evolution from thefirst until now.” Is this not a fountain that brings forth sweet and bitter waters ? I insist, that the discoveries of Darwin do away absolutely with the inspiration of the Scriptures—with the account of creation in Genesis, and demonstrate not simply the falsity, not simply the wickedness, but the foolishness of the “ sacred volume.” There is nothing in Darwin to show that all has been evolved from “ primal night and from chaos.” There is no evidence of “ primal night.” There is no proof of universal chaos. Did your Jehovah spend an eternity in “primal night,” with no companioni but chaos ? It makes no difference how long a lower form may require to' reach a higher. It makes no difference whether forms can be simply modified, or absolutely changed. These facts have not the slightest tendency to throw the slightest light on the beginning or on the destiny of things. I most cheerfully admit that gods have the right to create swiftly or slowly. The reptile may become a bird in one day, or in a thousand billion years—this fact has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a first cause, but it has something to �( 27 ) do with the truth of the Bible, and with the existence of a personal God of infinite power and wisdom. Does not a gradual improvement in the thing created show acorresponding improvement in the creator ? The Church demon­ strated the falsity and folly of Darwin’s theories by showing that they contradicted the Mosaic account of creation, and now the theories of Darwin having been fairly established, the Church says that the Mosaic account is true because it is in harmony with Darwin. Now if it was to turn out that Darwin was mistaken, what then? To me it is somewhat difficult to understand the mental processes of one who really feels that “ the gap between man and the inferior animals or their relationship was stated, perhaps, even more em­ phatically by Bishop Butler than by Darwin.” Butler answered Deists, who objected to the cruelties of the Bible and yet lauded the G-od of Nature, by showing that the G-od of Nature is as cruel as the G-od of the Bible. That is to say, he succeeded in showing that both Gods are bad. He had no possible conception of the splendid generalisations of Darwin—the great truths that have revolutionised the thought of the world. But there was one question asked by Bishop Butler that throws a flame of light upon the probable origin of most, if not all, religions : “ Why might not whole communities and public bodies be seized with fits of insanity as well as individuals ? ” If you are convinced that Moses and Darwin are in exact accord, will you be good enough to tell who, in your judgment, were the parents of Adam and Eve ? Do you find in Darwin any theory that satisfactorily accounts for the “ inspired fact ” that a Bib, commencing with Monogenic Propagation—falling into halves by a contraction in the middle—reaching, after many ages of Evolution, the Amphigenic stage, and then, by the Survival of the Fittest, assisted by Natural Selection, moulded and modified by Environ­ ment, became at last, the mother of the human race ? Here is a world in which there are countless varieties of life— these varieties in all probability related to each other—all living upon each other—everything devouring something, and in its turn devoured by something else—everywhere claw and beak, hoof and tooth,—everything seeking the life of something else—every drop of water a battle field, every atom being for some wild beast a jungle—every place a golgotha—and such a world is declared to be the work of the infinitely wise and compassionate. According to your idea, Jehovah prepared a home for his children —first a garden in which they should be tempted and from which �(M ) they should be driven ; then a world filled with briars and thorns and wild and poisonous beasts—a world in which the air should be filled with the enemies of human' life—a world in which disease should be contagious, and in which it was impossible to tell, except by actual experiment, the poisonous from the nutritious. And these children were allowed to live in dens and holes and fight their way against monstrous serpents and crouching beasts—were allowed to live in ignorance and fear—to have false ideas of this good and loving God—ideas so false that they made of him a fiend —ideas so false, that they sacrificed their wives and babes to appease the imaginary wrath of this' monster. And this God gave to different nations different ideas of himself, knowing that in consequence of that these nations would meet upon countless fields of death and drain each other’s veins. Would it not have been better had the world been so that parents would transmit only their virtues—only their perfections, physical and mental, allowing their diseases and their vices to perish with them ? In my reply to Dr. Field I had asked : Why should God demand a sacrifice from man ? Why should the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg from the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light ? Upon which you remark, “ that if the infinite is to make no demands upon the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and ■strong should scarcely make them on the weak and small.” Can this be called reasoning ? Why should the infinite demand a sacrifice from man ? In the first place, the infinite is condition­ less—the infinite cannot want—the infinite has. A conditioned being may want; but the gratification of a want involves a change of condition. If God be conditionless, he can have ho wants— consequently, no human being can gratify the infinite. But you insist that “ if the infinite is to make no demands upon the finite, by parity of reasoning, the great and strong should ■scarcely make them on the weak and small.” The great have wants. The strong are often in need, in peril, .and the great and strong often need the services of the small and weak. It was the mouse that freed the lion. England is a great .and powerful nation—yet she may need the assistance of the weakest of her citizens. The world is filled with illustrations. The lack of logic is in this: The infinite cannot want anything ; the strong and the great may, and as a fact always do. The great and the strong cannot help the infinite—they can help the small and the weak, and the small and the weak can often help the great and strong. �( 29 ) You ask: “ Why then should the father make demands of love, obedience, and sacrifice from his young child ? No sensible father ever demanded love from his child, Every civilised father knows that love rises like the perfume from a flower. You cannot command it by simple authority. It cannot obey A father demands obedience from a child for the good ot the child and for the good of himself. But suppose the father to be infinite—why should the child sacrifice anything for him ? But it may be that you answer all these questions, all these difficulties, by admitting, as you have in your Remarks, “ that these problems are insoluble by our understanding.’ Why, then, do you accept them? Why do you defend that which you cannot understand ? Why does your reason volunteer as a soldier under the flag of the incomprehensible ? I asked of Dr. Field, and I ask again, this question : Why should and infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve the vile ? , What do I mean by this question ? Simply this : The earth­ quake, the lightning, the pestilence, are no respecters of persons. The vile are not always destroyed, the good are not always saved. I asked: Why should God treat all alike in this world, and m another make an infinite difference ? This, I suppose, is “ insoluble to our understanding.” _ . Why should Jehovah allow his worshippers, his. adorers, to be destroyed by his enemies ? Can you by any possibility answer this question ? You may account for all these inconsistencies, these cruel con­ tradictions, as John Wesley accounted for earthquakes when he insisted that they were produced by the wickedness of men, and that the only way to prevent them was for everybody to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And you may have some way of showing that Mr. Wesley’s idea is entirely'consistent with the theories of Mr. Darwin. You seem to think that’as long as there is more goodness than evil in the world, as long as there is more joy than sadness., we are compelled to infer that the author of the world is infinitely good, powerful and wise, and as long as a majority are out of gutters and prisons, the “ divine scheme ” is a success. According to this system of logic, if there weie a few more unfortunates, if there was just a little more evil than good, then we should be driven to acknowledge that the world was created by an infinite malevolent being. As a matter of fact, the history of the world has been such that �( 30 ) not only your theologians but your apostles, and not only your apostles but your prophets, and not only your prophets but your Jehovah, have all been forced to account for the evil, the injustice and the suffering, by the wickedness of man, the natural depravity of the human heart and the wiles and machinations of a malevo­ lent being second only in power to Jehovah himself, Again and again you have called me to account for “ mere sug­ gestions and assertions without proof ” and yet your remarks'’ are filled with assertions and mere suggestions without proof. You admit that “great believers are not able to explain the inequalities of adjustment between human beings and the conditions in which they have been set down to work out their destiny.” How do you know “ that they have been set down to work out their destiny ? If that was so, and is, the purpose, then the being who settled the “ destiny,” and the means by which it was to be “ worked out,” is responsible for all that happens.’ And is this the end of your argument, “ That you are not able to explain the inequalities of adjustment between human beings ” p Is the solution of this problem beyond your power ? Does the Bible shed no light ? Is the Christian in the presence of this question as dumb as the Agnostic ? When the injustice of this world is so flagrant that you cannot harmonise that awful fact with the wisdom and goodness of an infinite God, do you not see that you have surrendered, or at least that you have raised a flag of truce beneath which your adversary accepts as final your stated ment that you do not know and that your imagination is not suffi­ cient to frame an excuse for God ? It gave me great pleasure to find that at last even you have been driven to say that ‘‘ it is a duty incumbent upon us respectively, according to our means and opportunities, to decide by the use of the faculty of reason given us, the great questions of natural and revealed religion.” You admit “that I am to decide for myself, by the use of my reason,” whether the Bible is the word of God or not, whether there is any revealed religion, and whether there be or be not an infinite being who created and who governs this world. You also admit that we are to decide these questions according to the balance of the evidence. Is this in accordance with the doctrine of Jehovah ? Did Jehovah say to the husband that if his wife became convinced, according to her means and her opportunities, and decided accord­ ing to her reason, that it was better to worship some other God than Jehovah, then that he was to say to her : “ You are entitled �( 31. ) to decide according to the balance of the evidence as it seems to you ”? Have you abandoned Jehovah? Is man more just than he? Have you appealed from him to the standard of reason ? Is it possible that the leader of the English Liberals is nearer civilised than Jehovah ? Do you know that in this sentence you demonstrate the existence of a dawn in your mind ? This sentence makes it certain that in the East of the midnight of Episcopal superstition there is. the Herald of the coming day. And if this sentence shows a dawn, what shall I say of the next: “ We are not entitled, either for or against belief, to set up in this province any rule of investigation except such as common sense teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life ” ? This certainly is a morning star. Let me take this statement, let me hold it as a torch, and by its light I beg of you to read the Bible once again. Is it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and loving ■God would drown a world that he had taken no means to civilise— to whom he had given no Bible, no gospel, taught no scientific fact, and in which the seeds of art had not been sown ; that he would create a world that ought to be drowned ? That a being of infinite wisdom would create a rival, knowing that the rival would fill perdition with countless souls destined to suffer eternal pain ? Is it according to common sense that an infinitely good ■God would order some of his children to kill others ? That he would command soldiers to rip open with the sword of war the bodies of women—wreaking vengeance on babes unborn? Is it according to reason that a good, loving, compassionate, and just ■God would establish slavery among men, and that a pure God would uphold polygamy ? Is it according to common sense that he who wished to make men merciful and loving would demand the sacrifice of animals, so that his altars would be wet with the blood of oxen, sheep, and doves ? Is it according to reason that a good God would inflict tortures upon his ignorant children—that he would torture animals to death : and is it in accordance with common sense and reason that this God would create countless billions of people knowing that they would be eternally damned ? What is common sense ? Is it the result of observation, reason, and experience, or is it the child of credulity ? There is this curious fact: The far past and the far future seem to belong to the miraculous and the monstrous. The present, as a rule, is the realm of common sense. If you say to a man : �( 32 ) “Eighteen hundred years ago the dead were raised,” he will reply : “Yes, I know that.” And if you say : “A hundred thou­ sand years from now all the dead will be raised,” he will pro­ bably reply : “ I presume so.” But if you tell him : “ I saw a dead man raised to-day,” he will ask, “ From what madhouse haveyou escaped ? ” The moment we decide “ according to reason,” “ according to the balance of evidence,” we are charged with having “ violated the laws of social morality and decency,” and the defender of the miraculous and the incomprehensible takes another position. The theologian has a city of refuge to which he flies—an old breastwork behind which he kneels—a rifle-pit into which he crawls. You have described this city, this breastwork, this riflepit, and also the leaf under which the ostrich of theology thrusts its head. Let me quote : “ Our demands for evidence must be limited by the general reason of the case. Does that general reason of the case make it probable that a finite being, with a finite place in a comprehensive scheme devised and administered by a being who is infinite, would' be able even to embrace within his view, or rightly to appreciate all the motives or aims that there may have been in the mind of the divine disposer ? ” And this is what you call “ deciding by the use of the faculty of reason,” “ according to the evidence,” or at least “'according to the balance of evidence.” This is a conclusion reached by a “ rule of investigation such as common sense teaches us to use in the ordinary conduct of life.” Will you have the kindness to explain what it is to act contrary to evidence, or contrary to common sense ? Can you imagine a superstition so gross that it cannot be defended by that argument ? Nothing, it seems to me, could have been easier than for Jehovah to have reasonably explained his scheme. You may answer that the human intellect is not sufficient to understand the explanation. Why then do not theologians stop explaining ? Why do they feel it incumbent upon them to explain that which they admit God would have explained had the human mind been capable of under­ standing it ? How much better would it have been if Jehovah had said a few things on these subjects. It always seemed wonderful to me that he spent several days and nights on Mount Sinai explaining toMoses how he could detect the presence of leprosy, without once thinking to give him a prescription for its cure. There were thousands and thousands of opportunities for this- �( 33 ) God to withdraw from these questions the shadow and the cloud. When Jehovah out of the whirlwind asked questions of Job, how much better it would have been if Job had asked and Jehovah had answered. You say that we should be governed by evidence and by common sense. Then you tell us that the questions are beyond the reach of reason, and with which common sense has nothing to do. If we then ask for an explanation, you reply in the scornful challenge of Dante. You seem to imagine that every man who gives an opinion, takes his solemn oath that the opinion is the absolute end of all investigation on that subject. In my opinion, Shakespeare was, intellectually, the greatest of the human race, and my intention was simply to express that view. It never occurred to me that any one would suppose that I thought Shakespeare a greater actor than Garrick, a more wonderful com­ poser than Wagner, a better violinist than Remenyi, or a heavier man than Daniel Lambert. It is to be regretted that you were misled by my words and really supposed that I intended to say that Shakespeare was a greater general than Caesar. But, after all, your criticism has no possible bearing on the point at issue. Is it an effort to avoid that which cannot be met? The real ques­ tion is this : If we cannot account for Christ without a miracle, how can we account for Shakespeare ? Dr. Field took the ground that Christ himself was a miracle ; that it was impossible toaccount for such a being in any natural way; and, guided by com­ mon sense, guided by the rule of investigation such as common sense teaches, I called attention to Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, and Shakespeare. In another place in your remarks, when my statement about, Shakespeare was not in your mind, you say : “ All is done by steps—nothing by strides, leaps or bounds—all from protoplasm up to Shakespeare.” Why did you end the series with Shake­ speare ? Did you intend to say Dante or Bishop Butler ? It is curious to see how much ingenuity a great man exercisea when guided by what he calls “ the rule of investigation as sug­ gested by common sense.” I pointed out some things that Christ? did not teach—among others, that he said nothing with regard to. the family relation, nothing against slavery, nothing about educa­ tion, nothing as to the rights and duties of nations, nothing as to. any scientific truth. And this is answered by saying that “ I am quite able to point out the way in which the Savior of the world might have been much greater as a teacher than he actually was.” B �( 34 ) Is this an answer, or is it simply taking refuge behind a name ? Would it not have been better if Christ had told his disciples that they must not persecute; that they had no right to destroy their fellow men ; that they must not put heretics in dungeons, or destroy them with flames ; that they must not invent and use instruments of torture ; that they must not appeal to brutality, nor endeavor to sow with bloody hands the seeds of peace ? Would it not have been far better had he said : “ I come not to bring a sword, 'but peace ” ? Would not this have saved countless cruelties and count­ less lives ? You seem to think that you have fully answered my objection when you say that Christ taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage. Why should a husband and wife be compelled to live with each ether after love is dead ? Why should the wife still be bound in indissoluble chains to a husband who is cruel, infamous and false ? Why should her life be destroyed because of his ? Why should she be chained to a criminal and an outcast ? Nothing can be more unphilosophic than this. Why fill the world with the chil­ dren of indifference and hatred ? The marriage contract is the most important, the most sacred, that human beings can make. It will be sacredly kept by good men and by good women. But if a loving woman—tender, noble, and true—makes this contract with a man whom she believed to be worthy of all respect and love, and who is found to be a cruel, worthless wretch, why should her life be lost ? Do you not know that the indissolubility of the marriage contract leads to its violation, forms an excuse for immorality, eats out the very heart of truth, and gives to vice that which alone belongs to love ? But in order that you may know why the objection was raised, 1 call your attention to the fact that Christ offered a reward, not •only in this world, but in another, to any husband who would desert his wife. And do you know that this hideous offer caused millions to desert their wives and children ? Theologians have the habit of using names instead of arguments, -of appealing to some man, great in some direction, to establish ■their creed ; but we all know that no man is great enough to be ■an authority, except in that particular domain in which he won his -eminence ; and we all know that great men are not great in all -directions. Bacon died a believer in the Ptolemaic system of ■astronomy. Tycho Brahe kept an imbecile in his service, putting down with great care the words that fell from the hanging lip of �( 35 ) idiocy, and then endeavored to put them together in a way to form prophecies. Sir Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft not only, but in its lowest and most vulgar forms;. and some of the greatest men of antiquity examined the entrails of birds to find the secrets of the future. It has always seemed to me that reasons are better than names. After taking the ground that Christ could not have been a greater teacher than he actually was, you ask: “ Where would have been the wisdom of delivering to an uninstructed population of a particular age a codified religion which was to serve for all nations, all ages, all states of civilisation ?” Does not this question admit that the teachings of Christ will not serve for all nations, all ages and all states of civilisation ? But let me ask : If it was necessary for Christ “ to deliver to an uninstructed population of a particular age a certain religion suited only for that particular age,” why should a civilised and scientific age eighteen hundred years afterwards be absolutely bound by that religion ? Do you not see that your position cannot be defended, and that you have provided no way for retreat ? If the religion of Christ was for that age, is it for this ? Are you 'willing to admit that the Ten Commandments are not for all time ? If, then, four thousand years before Christ, commandments were given not simply for “ an uninstructed population of a particular age, but for all time,” can you give a reason why the religion of Christ should not have been of the same character ? In the first place you say that God has revealed himself to the world—that he has revealed a religion; and in the next place, that “ he has not revealed a perfect religion, for the reason that no room would be left for the career of human thought.” Why did not God reveal this imperfect religion to all people instead of to a small and insignificant tribe, a tribe without commerce and without influence among the nations of the world ? Why did he hide this imperfect light under a bushel ? If the light was necessary for one, was it not necessary for all ? And why did he drown a world to whom he had not even given that light ? According to your reasoning, would there not have been left greater room for the career of human thought, had no revelation been made ? You say that “you have known a person who, after studying the old classical or Olympian religion for a third part of a century, at length began to hope that he had some partial comprehension of it, some inkling of what it meant.” You say this for the purpose of showing how impossible it is to understand the Bible. If it is so �( 36 ) difficult, why do you call it a revelation ? And yet, according to your creed, the man who does not understand the revelation and believe it, or who does not believe it, whether he understands it or not, is to reap the harvest of everlasting pain. Ought not the revelation to be revealed ? In order to escape from the fact that Christ denounced the chosen people of God as “ a generation of vipers ” and as “ whited sepulchres,” you take the ground that the scribes and pharisees It ..111 were not the chosen people. Of what blood were they ? IL will not do to say that they were not the people. Can you deny that Christ addressed the chosen people when he said : “ Jerusalem, which killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee ” ? You have called me to an account for what I said in regard to Ananias and Sapphira. First, I am charged with having said that the apostles conceived the idea of having all things in common, and you denounce this as an interpolation; second, “ that motives of prudence are stated as a matter of fact to have influenced the offending couple,” and this is charged as an interpolation ; and, third, that I stated that the apostles sent for the wife of Ananias ; and this is characterised as a pure invention. To me it seems reasonable to suppose that the idea of having all things in common was conceived by those who had nothing, or had the least, and not by those who had plenty. In the last verses of the fourth chapter of the Acts, you will find this : “ Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessed of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet : and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation), a Levite and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Now it occurred to me that the idea was in all probability sug­ gested by the men at whose feet the property was laid. It never entered my mind that the idea originated with those who had land for sale. There may be a different standard by which human nature is measured in your country, than in mine ; but if. the thing had happened in the United States, I feel absolutely positive that it would have been at the suggestion of the apostles. “ Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles feet.” In my Letter to Dr. Field I stated—not at the time pretending �( 37 ) to quote from the New Testament—that Ananias and Sapphira, after talking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, probably concluded to keep a little, just enough to keep them from starvation if the good and pious bankers should abscond. It never occurred to me that any man would imagine that this was a quotation, and I feel like asking your pardon for having led you into this error. We are informed in the Bible that “ they kept back a part of the price.” It occurred to me, “judging by the rule of investigation according to common sense,” that there was a reason for this, and I could think of no reason except that they did not care to trust the apostles with all, and that they kept back just a little, thinking it might be useful if the rest should be lost. According to the account, after Peter had made a few remarks to Ananias, “ Ananias fell down and gave up the ghost; . . . and the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.” Whereupon Peter said : “ Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost; and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.” The only objection found to this is, that I inferred that the apostles had sent for her. Sending for her was not the offence. The failure to tell her what had happened to her husband was the offence—keeping his fate a secret from her in order that she might be caught in the same net that had been set for her husband by Jehovah. This was the offence. This was the mean and cruel thing to which I objected. Have you answered that ? Of course, I feel sure that the thing never occurred ; the proba­ bility being that Ananias and Sapphira never lived and never died. It is probably a story invented by the early Church to make the collection of subscriptions somewhat easier. And yet we find a man in the nineteenth century, foremost of his fellow-citizens in the affairs of a great nation, upholding this barbaric view of God. Let me beg of you to use your reason “ according to the rule suggested by common sense.” Let us do what little we can to rescue the reputation, even of a Jewish myth, from the calumnies of Ignorance and Fear. �( 38 ) So, again, I am charged with having given certain words as a quotation from the Bible in which two passages are combined: “ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned. And these shall go away into ever­ lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” They were given as two passages. No one for a moment sup­ posed that they would be read together as one, and no one imagined that any one in answering the argument would be led to "believe that they were intended as one. Neither was there in this the slightest negligence, as I was answering a man who is perfectly familiar with the Bible. The objection was too small to make. It is hardly large enough to answer—and had it not been made by you it would not have been answered. You are not satisfied with what I have said upon the subject of immortality. What I said was this: The idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. You answer this by saying that “ the Egyptians were believers in immortality, but were not a people of high intellectual develop­ ment.” How such a statement tends to answer what I have said, is beyond my powers of discernment. Is there the slightest con­ nection between my statement and your objection ? You may make still another answer, and say that “ the ancient Greeks were a race of perhaps unparalleled intellectual capacity, and that notwithstanding that, the most powerful mind of the Greek philosophy, that of Aristotle, had no clear conception of a personal existence in a future state ?” May I be allowed to ask this simple question : Who has ? Are you urging an objection to the dogma of immortality, when you say that a race of unparalleled ‘ intellectual capacity had no confidence in it ? Is that a doctrine believed only by people who lack intellectual capacity ? I stated that the idea of immortality was born of love. You reply, “The Egyptians believed it, but they were not intellectual.” Is not this a non sequitur ? The question is : Were they a loving people ? Does history show that there is a moral governor of the world ? What witnesses shall we call ? The billions of slaves who were paid with blows ?—the countless mothers whose babes were sold ? �( 39 ) Have we time to examine the Waldenses, the Covenanters of Scot­ land, the Catholics of Ireland, the victims of St. Bartholomew, of the Spanish Inquisition, all those who have died in flames ? Shall we hear the story of Bruno ? Shall we ask Servetus ? Shall we ask the millions slaughtered by Christian swords in America—all the victims of ambition, of perjury, of ignorance, of superstition and revenge, of storm and earthquake, of famine, flood and fire ? Can all the agonies and crimes, can all the inequalities of the world be answered by reading the “ noble Psalm ” in which are found the words : “ Call upon me in the day of trouble, so I will hear thee, and thou shalt praise me ?” Do you prove the truth of these fine words, this honey of Trebizond, by the victims of reli­ gious persecution ? Shall we hear the sighs and sobs of Siberia ? Another thing. Why should you, from the page of Greek history, with the sponge of your judgment, wipe out all names but one, and tell us that the most powerful mind of the Greek philo­ sophy was that of Aristotle ? How did you ascertain this fact ? Is it not fair to suppose that you merely intended to say that, according to your view, Aristotle had the most powerful mind among all the philosophers of Greece ? I should not call attention to this, except for your criticism on a like remark of mine as to the intellectual superiority of Shakespeare. But if you knew the trouble I have had in finding out your meaning, from your words, you would pardon me for calling attention to a single line from Aristotle : “ Clearness is the virtue of style.” To me Epicurus seems far greater than Aristotle. He had clearer vision. His cheek was closer to the breast of Nature, and he planted his philosophy nearer to the bed-rock of fact. He was practical enough to know that virtue is the means and happiness the end ; that the highest philosophy is the art of living. He was wise enough to say that nothing is of the slightest value to man that does not increase or preserve his well-being, and he was great enough to know and courageous enough to declare that all the gods and ghosts were monstrous phantoms born of ignorance and fear. I still insist that human affection is the foundation of the idea of immortality; that love was the first to speak that word, no matter whether they who spoke it were savage or civilised, Egyptian or Greek. But if we are immortal, if there be another world, why was it not clearly set forth in the Old Testament ? Certainly, the authors of that book had an opportunity to learn it from the Egyptians. Why was it not revealed by Jehovah ? Why did he waste his time in giving orders for the consecration of priests—in �( 40 ) saying that they must have sheep’s blood put on their right ears and on their right thumbs and on their right big toes ? Could a God with any sense of humor give such directions, or watch without huge laughter the performance of such a ceremony ? In order to see the beauty, the depth and tenderness of such a consecration, is it essential to be in a state of “ reverential calm ” ? Is it not strange that Chist did not tell of another world dis­ tinctly, clearly, without parable, and without the mist of 'meta­ phor ? The fact is that the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans taught the immortality of the soul, not as a glittering guess—a possible perhaps—but as a clear and demonstrated truth, for many centuries before the birth of Christ. If the Old Testament proves anything, it is that death ends all. And the New Testament, by basing immortality on the resurrection of the body, but “keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it to oui‘ hope.” In my reply to Dr. Field, I said: “ The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent; we believe, or disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in the for­ mation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.” Does the brain think without our consent ? Can we control our thought ? Can we tell what we are going to think to-morrow ? Can we stop thinking ? Is belief the result of that which to us is evidence, or is it a product of the will ? Can the scales in which reason weighs evidence be turned by the will ? Why then should evidence be weighed ? If it all depends on the will, what is evidence ? Is there any opportunity of being dishonest in the formation of an opinion ? Must not the man who forms the opinion know what it is ? He cannot knowingly cheat himself. He cannot be deceived with dice that he loads. He cannot play unfairly at solitaire without knowing that he has lost the game. He cannot knowingly weigh with false scales and believe in the correctness of the result. You have not even attempted to answer my arguments upon these points, but you have unconsciously avoided them. You did not attack the citadel. In military parlance, you proceeded to “ shell the woods.” The noise is precisely the same as though �( 41 ) •every shot had been directed against the enemy’s position, but the result is not. You do not seem willing to implicitly trust the correctness of your aim. You prefer to place the target after the shot. Tke question is whether the will knowingly can change evidence, and whether there is any opportunity of being dishonest in the formation of an opinion. You have changed the issue. You have erased the word formation and interpolated the word expression. Let us suppose that a man has given an opinion, knowing that it is not based on any fact. Can you say that he has given his opinion ? The moment a prejudice is known to be a prejudice, it disappears. Ignorance is the soil in which prejudice must grow. Touched by a ray of light, it dies. The judgment of man may be warped by prejudice and passion, but it cannot be consciously warped. It is impossible for any man to be influenced by a known prejudice, because a known prejudice cannot exist. I am not contending that all opinions have been honestly ex­ pressed. What I contend is that when a dishonest opinion has been expressed it is not the opinion that was formed. The cases suggested by you are not in point. Fathers are hon­ estly swayed, if really swayed, by love; and queens and judges have pretended to be swayed by the highest motives, by the clearest evidence, in order that they might kill rivals, reap rewards, and gratify revenge. But what has all this to do with the fact that he who watches the scales in which evidence is weighed knows the actual result ? Let us examine your case : If a father is consciously swayed by his love for his son, and for that reason says that his son is innocent, then he has not expressed his opinion. If he is uncon­ sciously swayed and says that his son is innocent, then he has expressed his opinion. In both instances his opinion was inde­ pendent of his will; but in the first instance he did not express his opinion. You will certainly see this distinction between the formation and the expression of an opinion. The same argument applies to the man who consciously has a desire to condemn. Such a conscious desire cannot affect the. testimony—cannot affect the opinion. Queen Elizabeth undoubt­ edly desired the death of Mary Stuart, but this conscious desire could not have been the foundation on which rested Elizabeth’s opinion as to the guilt or innocence of her rival. It is barely possible that Elizabeth did not express her real opinion. Do you believe that the English judges in the matter of the Popish Plot gave judgment in accordance with their opinions ? Are you satisfied �( 42 ) that Napoleon expressed his real opinion, when he justified himself for the assassination of the Due d’Enghien ? If you answer these questions in the affirmative, you admit that I am right. If you answer in the negative, you admit that you are wrong. The moment you admit that the opinion formed cannot be changed by expressing a pretended opinion, your argument is turned against yourself. It is admitted that prejudice strengthens, weakens and colors evidence ; but prejudice is honest. And when one acts knowingly against the evidence, that is not by reason of prejudice. According to my views of propriety, it would be unbecoming for me to say that your argument on these questions is a a piece of plausible shallowness.” Such language might be regarded as lack­ ing “ reverential calm,” and I therefore refrain from even characterising it as plausible. Is it not perfectly apparent that you have changed the issue, and that instead of showing that opinions are creatures of the will, you have discussed the quality of actions ? What have corrupt and cruel judgments pronounced by corrupt and cruel judges to do with their real opinions ? When a judge forms one opinion and renders another he is called corrupt. The corruption does not consist in forming his opinion, but in rendering one that he did not form. Does a dishonest creditor, who incorrectly adds a number of items making the aggregate too large, necessarily change his opinion as to. the relations of numbers ? When an error is known, it is not a mistake ; but a conclusion reached by a mistake, or by a prejudice, or by both, is a necessary conclusion. He who pretends to come to a conclusion by a mistake which he knows is not a mistake, knows that he has not expressed his real opinion. Can anything be more illogical than the assertion that because a boy reaches, through negligence in adding figures, a wrong result, that he is accountable for his opinion of the result ? If he knew he was negligent what must his opinion of the result have been ? So with the man who boldly announces that he has discovered the numerical expression of the relation sustained by the diameter to the circumference of a circle. If he is honest in the announce­ ment, then the announcement was caused not by his will but by his ignorance. His will cannot make the announcement true, and he could not by any possibility have supposed that his will could affect the correctness of his announcement. The will of one who thinks that he has invented or discovered what is called perpetual motion, is not at fault. The man, if honest, has been misled; if not honest, he endeavors to mislead others. There is prejudice, �( 43 ) and prejudice does raise a clamor, and the intellect is affected and the judgment is darkened and the opinion is deformed; but th© prejudice is real and the clamor is sincere and the judgment is upright and the opinion is honest. The intellect is not always supreme. It is surrounded by clouds. It sometimes sits in darkness. It is often misled—sometimes, in superstitious fear, it abdicates. It is not always a white light. The passions and prejudices are prismatic—they color thoughts. Desires betray the judgment and cunningly mislead the will. You seem to think that the fact of responsibility is in danger unless it rests upon the will, and this will you regard as something without a cause, springing into being in some mysterious way without father or mother, without seed or soil, or rain or light. You must admit that man is a conditioned being—that he has wants, objects, ends, and aims, and that these are gratified and attained only by the use of means. Do not these wants and these objects have something to do with the will, and does not the intellect have something to do with the means ? Is not the will a product ? Independently of conditions, can it exist ? Is it not necessarily produced? Behind every wish and thought, every dream and fancy, every fear and hope, are there not countless causes ? Man feels shame. What does this prove ? He pities himself. What does this demonstrate ? The dark continent of motive and desire has never been explored. In the brain, that wondrous world with one inhabitant, there are recesses dim and dark, treacherous sands and dangerous shores, where seeming sirens tempt and fade ; streams that rise in unknown lands from hidden springs, strange seas with ebb and flow of tides, resistless billows urged by storms of flame, profound and awful depths hidden by mist of dreams, obscure and phantom realms where vague and fearful things are half revealed, jungles where passion’s tigers crouch, and skies of cloud and blue where fancies fly with painted wings that dazzle and mislead ; and the poor sovereign of this pictured world is led by old desires and ancient hates, and stained by crimes of many vanished years, and pushed by hands that long ago were dust, until he feels like some bewildered slave that Mockery has throned and crowned. No one pretends that the mind of man is perfect—that it is not affected by desires, colored by hopes, weakened by fears, deformed by ignorance and distorted by superstition. But all this has nothing to do with the innocence of opinion. It may be that the Thugs were taught that murder is innocent; but did the teachers believe what they taught ? Did the pupils �( 44 ) believe the teachers ? Did not Jehovah teach that the act that we describe as murder was a duty ? Were not his teachings prac­ ticed by Moses and Joshua and Jephthah and Samuel and David ? Were they honest ? But what has all this to do with the point at issue ? Society has the right to protect itself, even from honest murderers and conscientious thieves. The belief of a criminal does not disarm society; it protects itself from him as from a poisonous serpent, or from a beast that lives on human flesh. We are under no obligation to stand still and allow ourselves to be murdered by one who honestly thinks that it is his duty to take our lives. And yet accords ing to your argument, we have no right to defend ourselves from honest Thugs. Was Saul of Tarsus a Thug when he persecuted Christians “ even unto strange cities ” ? Is the Thug of India more ferocious than Torquemada, the Thug of Spain ? If belief depends upon the will, can all men have correct opinions who will to have them ? Acts are good, or bad, according to their consequences, and not according to the intentions of the actors. Honest opinions may be wrong, and opinions dishonestly expressed may be right. Do you mean to say that because passion and prejudice, the reckless “ pilots ’twixt the dangerous shores of will and judgment,” sway the mind, that the opinions which you have expressed in youi’ Demarks to me are not your opinions ? Certainly you will admit that in all probability you have prejudices and passions, and if so, can the opinions that you have expressed, according to your argu­ ment, be honest ? My lack of confidence in your argument gives me perfect confidence in your candor. You may remember the philosopher who retained his reputation for veracity, in spite of the fact that he kept saying : “ There is no truth in man.” Are only those opinions honest that are formed without any interference of passion, affection, habit or fancy ? What would the opinion of a man without passions, affections, or fancies be worth ? The alchemist gave up his search for a universal solvent upon being asked in what kind of a vessel he expected to keep it when found. It may be admitted that Biel “ shows us how the life of Dante co-operated with his extraordinary natural gifts and capabilities to make him what he was,” but does this tend to show that Dante changed his opinions by an act of his will, or that he reached honest opinions by knowingly using false weight and measures ? You must admit that the opinions, habits and religions of men depend, at least in some degree, on race, occupation, training and �capacity. Is not every thoughtful man compelled to agree with Edgar Fawcett, in whose brain are united the beauty of the poet and the subtlety of the logician— “ Who sees how vice her venom wreaks On the frail babe before it speaks, And how heredity enslaves With ghostly hands that reach from graves ” ? Why do you hold the intellect criminally responsible for opinions, when you admit that it is controlled by the will ? And why do you hold the will responsible, when you insist that it is swayed by the passions and affections ? But all this has nothing to do with the fact that every opinion has been honestly formed, whether honestly expressed or not. No one pretends that all governments have been honestly formed and honestly administered. All vices, and some virtues, are re­ presented in most nations. In my opinion a republic is far better than a monarchy. The legally expressed will of the people is the only rightful sovereign. This sovereignty, however, does not embrace the realm of thought or opinion, In that world, each human being is a sovereign—throned and crowned : One is a majority. The good citizens of that realm give to others all rights that they claim for themselves, and those who appeal to force are the only traitors. The existence of theological despotisms, of God-anointed kings, does not tend to prove that a known prejudice can determine the weight of evidence. When men were so ignorant as to suppose that God would destroy them unless they burnt heretics, they lighted the fagots in self-defence. Feeling as I do that man is not responsible for his opinions, I characterised persecution for opinion’s sake as infamous. So it is perfectly clear to me, that it would be the infamy of infamies for an infinite being to create vast numbers of men knowing that they would suffei' eternal pain. If an infinite God creates a man on purpose to damn him, or creates him knowing that he will be damned, is not the crime the same ? We make mistakes and failures because we are finite ; but can you conceive of any excuse for an infinite being who creates failures ? If you had the power to change, by a wish, a statue into a human being, and you knew that this being would die without a “ change of heart ” and suffer endless pain, what would you do ? Can you think of any excuse for an earthly father, who, having wealth, learning, and leisure, leaves his own children in ignorance and darkness ? Do you believe that a God of infinite wisdom, �( 46 ) justice, and love, called countless generations of men into being, knowing that they would be used as fuel for the eternal fire ? Many will regret that you did not give your views upon the main questions—the principal issues—involved, instead of calling attention, for the most part, to the unimportant. If men were discussing the causes and results of the Franco-Prussian war, it would hardly be worth while for a third person to interrupt the argument for the purpose of calling attention to a misspelled word in the terms of surrender. If we admit that man is responsible for his opinions and his thoughts,, and that his will is perfectly free, still these admissions do not even tend to prove the inspiration of the Bible, or the “ divine scheme of redemption.” In my judgment, the days of the supernatural are numbered. The dogma of inspiration must be abandoned. As man advances —as his intellect enlarges, as his knowledge increases, as his ideals become nobler, the Bibles and creeds will lose their authority—the miraculous will be classed with the impossible, and the idea of special providence will be discarded. Thousands of religions have perished, innumerable gods have died, and why should the religion of our time be exempt from the common fate ? Creeds cannot remain permanent in a world in which know­ ledge increases. Science and superstition cannot peaceably occupy the same brain. This is an age of investigation, of dis­ covery and thought. Science destroys the dogmas that mislead the mind and waste the energies of man. It points out the ends that can be accomplished; takes into consideration the limits of our faculties ; fixes our attention on the affairs of this world, and erects beacons of warning on the dangerous shores. It seeks to ascertain the conditions of health, to the end that life may be enriched and lengthened, and it reads with a smile this passage : 11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons,, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Science is the enemy of fear and credulity. It invites investiga­ tion, challenges the reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the uubeliever. It seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, educa­ tion and liberty to the human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It has furnished a foundation for morals, a philosophy for the guidance of man. From all books it selects the good, and from all theories, the true. It seeks to civilise the human race by the cultivation of the intellect and heart. It refines through art, music, and the drama, giving voice and ex- �( 47 ) pression to every noble thought. The mysterious does not excite the feeling of worship, but the ambition to understand. It does not pray—it works. It does not answer inquiry with the malicious cry of “ blasphemy.” Its feelings are not hurt by contradiction, neither does it ask to be protected by law from the laughter of heretics. It has taught man that he cannot walk beyond the horizon, that the questions of origin and destiny cannot be answered, that an infinite personality cannot be comprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any system of religion based on the supernatural cannot by any possibility be established, such a religion not being within the domain of evidence. And, above all, it teaches that all our duties are here—that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom ; and that “ man believes not what he would, but what he can.” And after all it may be that “ to ride an unbroken horse with the reins thrown upon his neck,” as you charge me with doing, gives a greater variety of sensations, a keener delight, and a better prospect of winning the race, than to sit solemnly astride of a dead one, in “ a deep reverential calm,” with the bridle firmly in your hand. Again assuring you of my profound respect, I remain, Sincerely yours, Robert G-. Ingersoll. �� 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 &amp; 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 Reply to Gladstone Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Wheeler, J. M. (Joseph Mazzini) [1850-1898] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 47 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: No. 43d in Stein checklist. Reprinted from the North American Review June,1888, with publisher's note and biography of the author by J.M. Wheeler. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1888 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N389 G5777 Subject The topic of the resource Free thought 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 Free Thought NSS William Ewert Gladstone https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a79caa91f1988bf2b0fee2b2a3816272.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=INkBM9aTgUB7VSBYd7QF3wDJ-gTIF7h6ND560d3yJWqXOXczu-%7E81Mob4SGPP636e33sW1w-BIM7Bwg%7Ety-3GNtKJDKwDznU7yRcZMEURzUhSlMDMRfBEhO4YxjcVeB6bh7yyaTh2TFwYVQyPV6tgSpDz90wJhxyicQUu4-bKdy9QugbS7PzVvgOD8BvDHwFEAuMNewt5oSx5HYRF1-OMSANX6nPnYRjXLMftnA1TB2YsMwFCRkR9Nz0iuQNkDvBVzpVG8%7E3R0ycSMPU5fT93ACjMLbQJFuoJWy%7EMRIr6eTXFZylfZVk7vtM3xNfCISNik4RjTZPxtZlNCCNy2L7%7EQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3e857c9f4fa9009c8717894bf11bf267 PDF Text Text A REFUTATION OF DEISM IN A DIALOGUE BY PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. PRICE FOUUPENC E. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C, 1890. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. TOOTH, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C, �EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION. On the twenty-fifth of March, 1811, a young student was expelled from University College, Oxford. He had committed an unpardonable sin. After avoiding the ordinary offences, such as drinking, gambling, and debauching girls, he had fallen into the enormity of thinking for himself. His opinions were atheistic, and he had written a pamphlet on The Necessity of Atheism. For this terrible crime the college authorities expelled him, giving him till “ early to-morrow morning ” to quit the place he had polluted. That young student was Percy Bysshe Shelley. He was then in his nineteenth year. Two years later he printed a private edition of Queen Mab. Early in the same year (1814) he published through Schulze and Dean, of 13 Poland Street, a pamphlet entitled A Refutation of Deism, which is reprinted in the following pages. Shelley’s object was to attack both natural and revealed religion. The method he adopted in this pamphlet was not lacking in astuteness. Theosophus assails Christianity in the name of reason, and Eusebes demonstrates that the difficulties of Theism are as great as those of the creed founded upon the Bible. It is a bold extension of the logical method pursued by Bishop Butler in his famous Analogy, and, considering Shelley’s age, it is conducted with great ability. The style is rather stiff, as youthful prose is apt to be; but although something is sacrificed to sonorousness, there is no sacrifice of perspicuity to ornament. Shelley lost no time in cultivating simplicity of statement, with the result that his mature prose, even when dealing with metaphysical topics or the subtlest qualities of poetry, was as lucid as it was beautiful. This pamphlet does not escape the malignant zeal of Mr. J. C. Jeafferson, who has accumulated all that Philistinian �iv. Editor’s Introduction. industry could discover or distort against the poet of Atheism, and called it The Real Shelley. He allows that “ the style contrasts favorably ” with Shelley’s “ earlier prose writings,” and speaks of “ the author’s adroit handling of his two argu­ mentative puppets.” But he falls foul of the Preface, which he regards as excelling everything of the kind “ in the whole range of English literature” in “mis-statements and false suggestions.” Were it not for Shelley’s “ want ” of that quality, Mr. Jeafferson would “ suspect him of grim humor in making the arguments for Atheism proceed from a Christian’s mouth.” But the real “ want ” is in Mr. Jeafferson himself. There is not, as a matter of fact, a single false statement in Shelley’s preface. What he says is true as far as it goes, and is precisely what Hume says in other words at the close of the Essay on Miracles and in many other parts of his sceptical writings. Mr. Jeafiferson seems ignorant of the nature of irony. One is tempted to exclaim with Hamlet—“ How absolute the knave is I We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.” Mr. Jeafferson is of opinion that Shelley’s pamphlet should have been called “ A Dialogue for the Fuller Demonstration of the Necessity of Atheism.” But as he . admits that this would have prevented its being read, an ordinary person will be apt to think that Shelley was wiser than his critic. Those who did read the pamphlet, being fit to read it, could be under no mistake as to the writer’s purpose. No one but Mr. Jeafferson has ever accused Shelley of timidity. He who advocated Atheism in prose and verse, and drew upon himself the hatred of the religious world, adopted the method of this pamphlet in order to avoid a persecution for blasphemy I Such is the incredible paradox of Mr. Jeafferson, and its absurdity is only equalled by its dishonesty. Mr. Jeafferson appears to approve the Blasphemy Laws, under which men suffered ferocious sentences in the early part of this century, and he censures Shelley for not tempting their tender mercies. That a persecutor should be enamored of his Inquisition is intelligible, but when he gravely reproves a heretic for not laying an information against himself, he simply invites derision. G. W. Foote. �Eusebes and Theosophus. EUSEBES. O Theosophtts, I have long regretted and observed the strange infatuation which has blinded your understanding. It is not without acute uneasiness that I have beheld the progress of your audacious scepticism trample on the most venerable insti­ tutions of our forefathers, until it has rejected the salvation which the only begotten Son of God deigned to proffer in person to a guilty and unbelieving world. To this excess, then, has the pride of the human understanding at length arrived ? To measure itself with Omniscience ! To scan the intentions of Inscrutability ! You can have reflected but superficially on this awful and important subject. The love of paradox, an affectation of singularity, or the pride of reason has seduced you to the barren and gloomy paths of infidelity. Surely you have hardened yourself against the truth with a spirit of coldness and cavil. Have you been wholly inattentive to the accumulated evidence which the Deity has been pleased to attach to the revelation of his will ? The ancient books in which the advent of the Messiah was predicted, the miracles by which its truth has been so conspicuously confirmed, the martyrs who have undergone every variety of torment in attestation of its veracity ? You seem to require mathematical demonstration in a case which admits of no more than strong moral proba­ bility. Surely the merit of that faith which we are required to repose in our Redeemer would be thus entirely done away. Where is the difficulty of according credit to that which is perfectly plain and evident? How is he entitled to a recom­ pense who believes what he cannot disbelieve ? When there is satisfactory evidence that the witnesses of the Christian miracles passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, and consented severally to be racked, burned, and strangled, in testimony of the truth of their account, will it be asserted that they were actuated by a disinterested desire �6 A Refutation of Deism. of deceiving others ? That they were hypocrites for no end hut to teach the purest doctrine that ever enlightened the world, and martyrs without any prospect of emolument or fame ? The sophist, who gravely advances an opinion thus absurd, certainly sins with gratuitous and indefensible per­ tinacity. The history of Christianity is itself the most indisputable proof of those miracles by which its origin was sanctioned to the world. It is itself one great miracle. A few humble men established it in the face of an opposing universe. In less than fifty years an astonishing multitude was converted, as * Suetonius, Pliny,f Tacitus,J and Lucian attest; and shortly afterwards thousands who had boldly overturned the altars, slain the priests and burned the temples of Paganism, were loud in demanding the recompense of martyrdom from the hands of the infuriated heathens Not until three centuries after the coming of the Messiah did his holy religion incorporate itself with the institutions of the Roman Empire, and derive support from the visible arm of fleshly strength. Thus long without any assistance but that of its Omnipotent author, Christianity prevailed in defiance of incredible persecutions, and drew fresh vigor from circumstances the most desperate and unpromising. By what process of sophistry can a rational being persuade himself to reject a religion, the original pro­ pagation of which is an event wholly unparalleled in the sphere of human experience ? The morality of the Christian religion is as original and sublime, as its miracles and mysteries are unlike all other portents. A patient acquiescence in injuries and violence; a passive submission to the will of sovereigns; a disregard of those ties by which the feelings of humanity have ever been bound to this unimportant world; humility and faith are doctrines neither similar nor comparable to those of any other system.§ Friendship, patriotism, and magnanimity; the heart that is quick in sensibility, the hand that is inflexible in execu­ tion : genius, learning and courage, are qualities which have engaged the admiration of mankind, but which we are taught by Christianity to consider as splendid and delusive vices. I know not why a Theist should feel himself more inclined* § * Judcei, impulsore Chrestofurbantes,facile eomprimuntur.—Suet, in Tib. Affecti suppliciis Christiani, genus liominum superstitionis novce et maleficcB.—Id. in Nerone. f Multi omnis cetatis utriusque sexus etiam; neque enirn civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam et agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est.—Plin. Epist. I Tacit. Annal L. xv., sect. xlv. § See the Internal Evidence of Christianity; see also Paley’s Evidences, vol. ii., p. 27. �A Refutation of Deism. 7 to distrust the historians of Jesus Christ than those of Alexander the Great. What do the tidings of redemption contain which render them peculiarly obnoxious to discredit ? It will not be disputed that a revelation of the Divine will is a benefit to mankind. It will not be asserted that even under * the Christian revelation, we have too clear a solution of the vast enigma of the Universe, too satisfactory a justification of the attributes of God. When we call to mind the profound ignorance in which, with the exception of the Jews, the philo­ sophers of antiquity were plunged; when we recollect that men, eminent for dazzling talents and fallacious virtues, Epi­ curus, Democritus, Piiny, Lucretius,f Euripides, and innumer­ able others, dared publicly to avow their faith in Atheism with impunity, and that the Theists, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras and Plato, vainly endeavored by that human reason, which is truly incommensurate to so vast a purpose, to establish among philosophers the belief in one Almighty God, the creator and preserver- of the world; when we recollect that the multitude were grossly and ridiculously idolatrous, and that the magi­ strates, if not Atheists, regarded the being of a God in the light of an abstruse and uninteresting speculation ; j when we add to these considerations a remembrance of the wars and the oppressions, which about the time of the advent of the Messiah, desolated the human race, is it not more credible that the Deity actually interposed to check the rapid progress of human deterioration, than that he permitted a specious and pestilent imposture to seduce mankind into the labyrinth of a deadlier superstition ? Surely the Deity has not created man immortal, and left him for ever in ignorance of his glorious destination. If the Christian Religion is false, I see not upon what founda­ tion our belief in a moral governor of the universe, or our hopes of immortality can rest. Thus then the plain reason of the case, and the suffrage of the civilised world, conspire with the more indisputable sugges­ tions of faith, to render impregnable that system which has been so vainly and so wantonly assailed. Suppose, however, it were admitted that the conclusions of human reason and the lessons of worldly virtue should be found, in the detail, incon­ gruous with Divine Revelation; by the dictates of which would * Paley’s Evidences, vol. i., p. 3. f Plin. Nat. His. Cap. de Deo., Euripides, Bellerophon, Frag. xxv. Ihinc igitur terrorem animi, tenebrasque necesse est Non radii soils, neque lucida tela diei Discutient, sed natures species ratioque: Pnncipium hinc cujus nobis exordia sumet, Nullam rem nihilo gigni divinitus unquam. Luc. de Rer. Nat. Lib. 1 [w. 147-151]. J See Cicero de Natura Deorum. �$ A Refutation of Deism. it become us to abide ? Not by that which errs whenever it is employed, but by that which is incapable of error: not by the ephemeral systems of vain philosophy, but by the word of God, which shall endure for ever. Reflect, 0 Theosophus, that if the religion you reject be true, you are justly excluded by the benefits which result from a belief in its efficiency to salvation. Be not regardless, there­ fore, I entreat you, of the curses so emphatically heaped upon infidels by the inspired organs of the will of God: the fire which is never quenched, the worm that never dies. I dare not think that the God in whom I trust for salvation, would terrify his creatures with menaces of punishment which he does not intend to inflict. The ingratitude of incredulity is, perhaps, the only sin to which the Almighty cannot extend his mercy without compromising his justice. How can the human heart endure, without despair, the mere conception of so tremendous an alternative? Return, I entreat you, to that tower of strength which securely overlooks the chaos of the conflicting opinions of men. Return to that God who is your creator and preserver, by whom alone you are defended from the. ceaseless wiles of your eternal enemy. Are human insti­ tutions so faultless that the principle upon which they are fonnded.may strive with the voice of God? Know that faith is superior to reason, in as much as the creature is surpassed by the Creator: and that whensoever they are incompatible, the suggestions of the latter, not those of the former, are to be questioned. Permit me to exhibit in their genuine deformity the errors which are seducing you to destruction. State to me with candor the train of sophisms by which the evil spirit has deluded your understanding. Confess the secret motives of your disbelief; suffer me to administer a remedy to your intel­ lectual disease. I fear not the contagion of such revolting sentiments : I fear only lest patience should desert me before you have finished the detail of your presumptuous credulity. THEOSOPHUS. I am not only prepared to confess, but to vindicate my sentiments. I cannot refrain, however, from premising, that in this controversy I labor under a disadvantage from which you are exempt. You believe that incredulity is immoral, and regard him as an object of suspicion and distrust whose creed is incongruous with your own. But truth is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas. I can no more con­ ceive that a man who perceives the disagreement of any ideas should be persuaded of their agreement that he should over­ come a physical impossibility. The reasonableness or the �A Refutation of Deism. 9 •folly of the articles of our creed is therefore no legitimate object of merit our demerit; our opinions depend not on -the will, but on the understanding. If I am in error (and the wisest of us may not presume to deem himself secure from all illusion) that error is the con­ sequence of the prejudices by which I am prevented, of the ignorance, by which I am incapacitated from forming a correct estimation of the subject. Remove those prejudices,dispel that ignorance, make truth apparent, and fear not the obstacles that remain to be encountered. But do not repeat to me those terrible and frequent curses, by whose intolerance and cruelty I have so often been disgusted in the perusal of your sacred books. Do not tell me that the All-Merciful will punish me for the conclusions of that reason by which he has thought fit to distinguish me from the beasts that perish. Above all, refrain from urging considerations drawn from reason, to degrade that which you are thereby compelled to acknowledge as the ultimate arbiter of the dispute. Answer my objections as I engage to answer your assertions point by point, word by word. You believe that the only and ever-present God begot a Son whom he sent to reform the world, and to propitiate its sins; you believe that a book, called the Bible, contains a true account of this event, together with an infinity of miracles and prophecies which preceded it from the creation of the world. Your opinion that these circumstances really happened appears to me, from some considerations which I will proceed to state, destitute of rational foundation. To expose all the inconsistency, immorality and false pretensions which I perceive in the Bible, demands a minute­ ness of criticism at least as voluminous as itself. I shall con­ fine myself, therefore, to the confronting of your tenets with those primitive and general principles which are the basis of -all moral reasoning. In creating the Universe, God certainly proposed to himself the happiness of his creatures. It is just, therefore, to con­ clude that he left no means unemployed, which did not involve an impossibility, to accomplish this design. In fixing a ■residence for this image of his own Majesty, he was doubtless ■careful that every occasion of detriment, every opportunity of evil, should be removed. He was aware of the extent of his powers, he foresaw the consequences of his conduct, and -doubtless modelled his being consentaneously with the world •of which he was to be the inhabitant, and the circumstances which were destined to surround him. The account given by the Bible has but a faint concordance with the surmises of reason concerning this event. �10 A Refutation of Deism. According to this book, God created Satan, who, instigated by the impulses of his nature, contended with the Omnipotent for the Throne of Heaven. After a contest for the empire, in which God was victorious, Satan was thrust into a pit of burn­ ing sulphur. On man’s creation, God placed within his reach a tree whose fruit he forbade him to taste, on pain of death; permitting Satan, at the same time, to employ all his artifice to persuade this innocent and wondering creature to transgress the fatal prohibition. The first man yielded to this temptation; and to satisfy Divine Justice the whole of his posterity must have been eternally burned in hell, if God had not sent his only Son on earth, to save those few whose salvation had been foreseen and determined before the creation of the world. God is here represented as creating man with certain passions and powers, surrounding him with certain circum­ stances, and then condemning him to everlasting torments because he acted as omniscience had foreseen, and was such as omnipotence had made him. For to assert that the Creator is the author of all good, and the creature the author of all evil, is to assert that one man makes a straight line and a crooked one, and that another makes the incongruity. * Barbarous and uncivilised nations have uniformly adored, under various names, a God of which themselves were the model: revengeful, bloodthirsty, grovelling and capricious. The idol of a savage is a demon that delights in carnage. The steam of slaughter, the dissonance of groans, the flames of a desolated land, are the offerings which he deems acceptable, and his innumerable votaries throughout the world have made it a point of duty to worship him to his taste.h The Phenicians, the Druids, and the Mexicans have immolated hundreds at the shrines of their divinity, and the high and holy name of God has been in all ages the watchword of the most unsparing massacres, the sanction of the most atrocious perfidies. But I appeal to your candor, 0 Eusebes, if there exist a record of such grovelling absurdities and enormities so atrocious, a picture of the Deity so characteristic of a demon as that which the sacred writings of the Jews contain. I demand of you, whether as a conscientious Theist you can reconcile the con­ duct which is attributed to the God of the Jews with your conceptions of the purity and benevolence of the divine nature. The loathsome and minute obscenities to which the inspired writers perpetually descend, the filthy observances which God is described as personally instituting^ the total disregard of * Hobbes. f See Preface to Le Bon Sens. �A Refutation of Deism. 11 truth and contempt of the first principles of morality, mani­ fested on the most public occasions by the chosen favorites of Heaven, might corrupt, were they not so flagitious as to disgust. When the chief of this obscure and brutal horde of assassins asserts that the God of the Universe was enclosed in a box of shittim wood,* “ two feet long and three feet wide,”f and brought home in a new cart, I smile at the impertinence of so shallow an imposture. But it is blasphemy of a more hideous and unexampled nature to maintain that the Almighty God expressly commanded Moses to invade an unoffending nation; and, on account of the difference of their worship, utterly to destroy every human being it contained, to murder every infant and unarmed man in cold blood, to massacre the captives, to rip up the matrons, and to retain the maidens alone for concubinage and violation. J At the very time that philosophers xxiii. Heyne, speaking of the opinions entertained of the Jews by ancient poets and philosophers, says:—Meminit quidem superstitionis Judaicce Horatius, verurn ut earn risu exploders!—Heyn. ad. Virg. Poll, in Arg. * 1 Sam. chap, v., 8. f Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads. f Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side ? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay everyman his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the chil­ dren of Levi did according to the word of Moses : and there fell of the people on that day twenty-three thousand men (Exodus xxxii., 26.) And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses ; and they slew all the males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burned all their huts wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the con­ gregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was [wroth] with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved, all the women alive ? behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, KEEP alive for yourselves (Numbers xxxi., 7-18.) And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, king of Heshbonj utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city (Deutiii., 6.) And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword (Joshua.) So Joshua fought against Debir, and utterly destroyed all the souls �12 A Refutation of Deism. of the most enterprising benevolence were founding in Greece those institutions which have rendered it the wonder and luminary of the world, am I required to believe that the weak and wicked king of an obscure and barbarous nation, a mur­ derer, a traitor and a tyrant, was the man after God’s own heart ? _ A wretch, at the thought of whose unparalleled •enormities the sternest soul must sicken in dismay! An unnatural monster, who sawed his fellow beings in sunder, harrowed them to fragments under harrows of iron, chopped them to pieces with axes, and burned them in brick-kilns, because they bowed before a different and less bloody idol than his own. It is surely no perverse conclusion of an infatuated understanding that the God of the Jews is not the benevolent author of this beautiful world. The conduct of the Deity in the promulgation of the Gospel, appears not to the eye of reason more compatible with his immutability and omnipotence than the history of his actions under the law accords with his benevolence. You assert that the human race merited eternal reprobation because their common father had transgressed the divirm com­ mand, and that the crucifixion of the Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient efficacy to satisfy eternal justice. But it is no less inconsistent with justice and subversive of morality that millions should be responsible for a crime which they had no share in committing, than that, if they had really committed it, the crucifixion of an innocent being could absolve them from moral turpitude. Ferretne ulla civitas latorem istiusmodi legis, ut condemnaretur filius, aut nepos, si pater aut avus deliquisset ? Certainly this is a mode of legislation peculiar to a state of savagness and anarchy; this is the irrefragable logic of tyranny and imposture. The supposition that God has ever supernaturally revealed his will to man at any other period than the original creation of the human race, necessarily involves a compromise of his benevolence. It assumes that he withheld from mankind a benefit which it was in his power to confer. That he suffered his creatures to remain in ignorance of truths essential to their happiness and salvation. That during the lapse of innumerable ages, every individual of the human race had perished without redemption, from an universal stain which the Deity at length descended in person to erase. That the good and wise of all that were therein : he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded (Joshua, chap, x.) And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and took it. And he brought forth the people therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln; this did he also unto all the children of Ammon (2 Sam. xii., 29.) �A Refutation of Deism. 13 ages, involved in one common fate with the ignorant and. wicked, have been tainted by involuntary and inevitable error which torments infinite in duration may not avail to expiate. In vain will you assure me with amiable inconsistency that the mercy of God will be extended to the virtuous, and that the vicious will alone be punished. The foundation of the Christian Religion is manifestly compromised by a concession of this nature. A subterfuge thus palpable plainly annihilates the necessity of the incarnation of God for the redemption of the human race, and represents the descent of the Messiah as a gratuitous display of Deity, solely adapted to perplex, to terrify and to embroil mankind. It is sufficiently evident that an omniscient being never con­ ceived the design of reforming the world by Christianity. Omniscience would surely have foreseen the inefficacy of that I system, which experience demonstrates not only to have been utterly impotent in restraining, but to have been most active in exhaling the malevolent propensities of men. During the period which elapsed between the removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople in 328, and its capture by the Turks in 1453, what salutary influence did Christianity exercise upon that world which it was intended to enlighten ? Never before was Europe the theatre of such ceaseless and sanguinary wars; never were the people so brutalised by ignorance and debased by slavery. I will admit that one prediction of Jesus Christ has been indisputably fulfilled. I come not to bring peace upon earth but § a sword. Christianity indeed has equalled Judaism in the I. atrocities, and exceeded it in the extent of its desolation. I festivalsmillions of men, women, and children, have been killed Eleven of sacrifice, poisoned, tortured, assassinated, and I pillaged in the spirit in the Religion burned to and for thepublic in battle, butchered of their sleep, of Peace, death at glory rof the most merciful God. ............................. ~ ‘ ’ In vain will you tell me that these terrible effects flow not 1 1| from Christianity, but from the abuse of it. No such excuse ri will avail to palliate the enormities of a religion pretended to be i>| divine. A limited intelligence is only so far responsible for t the effects of its agency as it foresaw, or might have foreseen I them ; but Omniscience is manifestly chargeable with all the consequence of its conduct. Christianity itself declares that 3 J I the worth of the tree is to be determined by the quality of its it I fruit. Tlie extermination of infidels ; the mutual persecutions »| of hostile sects; the midnight massacres and slow burning of 11 thousands, because their creed contained either more or less i: than the orthodox standard, of which Christianity has been the immediate occasion; and the invariable opposition which �14 A Refutation of Deism. philosophy has ever encountered from the spirit of revealed religion, plainly show that a very slight portion of sagacity was sufficient to have estimated at is true value the advantages of that belief to which some Theists are unaccountably attached. You lay great stress upon the originality of the Christian system of morals. If this claim be just, either your religion must be false, or the Deity has willed that opposite modes of conduct should be pursued by mankind at different times, under the same circumstances; which is absurd. The doctrine of acquiescing in the most insolent despotism ; of praying for and loving our enemies ; of faith and humility, appears to fix the perfection of the human character in that abjectness and credulity which priests and tyrants of all ages have found sufficiently convenient for their purposes. It is evident that a whole nation of Christians (could such an anomaly maintain itself a day) would become, like cattle, the property of the first occupier. It is evident that ten highway­ men would suffice to subjugate the world if it were composed ef slaves who dared not to resist oppression. The apathy to love and friendship, recommended by your creed, would, if attainable, not be less pernicious. This enthusiasm of anti-social misanthropy, if it were an actual rule of conduct, and not the speculation of a few interested persons, would speedily annihilate the human race. A total abstinance from sexual intercourse is not perhaps enjoined, but is strenuously recommended, and was actually practised * to a frightful extent by the primitive Christians.! The penalties inflicted by that monster Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, on the pleasures of unlicensed love, are so iniquitously severe, that no modern legislator could have affixed them to the most atrocious crimes J This cold-blooded and hypocritical ruffian cut his son’s throat, strangled his wife, murdered his father-in-law and his brother-in-law, and main­ tained at his court a set of bloodthirsty and bigoted Christian priests, one of whom was sufficient to excite the one half of the world to massacre the other I am willing to admit that some few axioms of morality, which Christianity has borrowed from the philosophers of Greece and India, dictate, in an unconnected state, rules of conduct w orthy of regard ; but the purest and most elevated lessons of morality must remain nugatory, the most probable * Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me ; it is good for a man not to touch a woman. _ _ I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, _ it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry ; it is better to marry than burn (1 Cor., chap, vii.) . .. f See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, vol. ii., p. 210. J Ibid, vol. n., p. 269. �A Refutation of Deism. 15 inducements to virtue must fail of their effect, so long as the slightest weight is attached to that dogma which is the vital essence of revealed religion. Belief is set up as the criterion of merit or demerit; a man is to be judged not by the purity of his intentions but by the orthodoxy of his creed; an assent to certain propositions, is to outweigh in the balance of Christianity the most generous and elevated virtue. But the intensity of belief, like that of every other passion, is precisely proportioned to the degrees of excitement. A graduated scale, on which should be marked the capabilities of propositions to approach to the test of the senses, would be a just measure of the belief which ought to be attached to them; and but for the influence of prejudice or ignorance this invariably is the measure of belief. That is believed which is apprehended to be true, nor can the mind by any exertion avoid attaching credit to an opinion attended with over­ whelming evidence. Belief is not an act of volition, nor can it be regulated by the mind ; it is manifestly incapable therefore of either merit or criminality. The system which assumes a false criterion of moral virtue must be as pernicious as it is absurd. Above all it cannot be divine, as it is impossible that the Creator- of the human mind should be ignorant of its primary powers. The degree of evidence afforded by miracles and prophecies in favor of the Christian Religion is lastly to be considered. Evidence of a more imposing and irresistible nature is required in proportion to the remoteness of any event from the sphere of our experience. Every case of miracles is a contest of opposite improbabilities, whether it is more contrary to experience that a miracle should be true, or that the story on which it is supported should be false : whether the immut­ able laws of this harmonious world should have undergone violation, or that some obscure Greeks and Jews should have conspired to fabricate a tale of wonder. The actual appearance of a departed spirit would be a cir­ cumstance truly unusual and portentous ; but the accumulated testimony of twelve old women that a spirit had appeared is neither unprecedented nor miraculous. It seems less credible that the God whose immensity is un­ circumscribed by space, should have committed adultery with a carpenter’s wife, than that some bold knaves or insane dupes had deceived the credulous multitude. * We have perpetual and mournful experience of the latter : the former is yet under dispute. History affords us innumerable examples of the pos­ * See Paley's Evidences, vol. i., chap. i. �16 A Refutation of Deism. sibility of the one : Philosophy has in all ages protested against the probability of the other. Every superstition can produce its dupes, its miracles and its mysteries; each is prepared to justify its peculiar tenets by an equal assemblage of portents, prophecies and martyrdoms. Prophecies, however circumstantial, are liable to the same objection as direct miracles : it is more agreeable to experience that the historical evidence of the prediction really having preceded the event pretended to be foretold should be false, or that a lucky conjuncture of events should have justified the conjecture of the prophet, than that God should communicate to a man the discernment of future events. I defy you to * produce more than one instance of prophecy in the Bible,, wherein the inspired writer speaks so as to be understood, wherein his prediction has not been so unintelligible and obscure as to have been itself the subject of controversy among Christians. That one prediction which I expect is certainly most explicit and circumstantial. It is the only one of this nature which the Bible contains. Jesus himself here predicts his own arrival in the clouds to consummate a period of supernatural desolation, before the generation which he addressed should pass away f Eighteen hundred years have past, and no such event is pretended to have happened. This single plain prophecy, thus conspicuously false, may serve as a criterion of those which are more vague and indirect, and which apply in a hundred senses to a hundred things. Either the pretended predictions in the Bible were meant to be understood, or they were not. If they were, why is there any dispute concerning them : if they were not, wherefore were they written at all ? But the God of Christianity spoke to mankind in parables, that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand The Gospels contain internal evidence that they were not written by eye-witnesses of the event which they pretend to record. The Gospel of St. Matthew was plainly not written * See the Controversy of Bishop Watson and Thomas Paine. Paine’s Criticism on the 19th chapter of Isaiah. t Immediately after the tribulation of these days shall the sun bedarkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken : and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angel with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled (Matt. chap, xxiv.) �17 A Refutation of Deism. until some time after the taking of Jerusalem, that is, at least forty years after the execution of Jesus Christ: for he makes Jesus say that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the altar and the temple Now Zacharias, son of Barachias, was assas­ * sinated between the altar and the temple by a faction of zealots during the siege of Jerusalem.f You assert that the design of the instances of supernatural interposition which the Gospel records was to convince man­ kind that Jesus Christ was truly the expected Redeemer. But it is as impossible that any human sophistry should frustrate the manifestation of Omnipotence, as that Omniscience should fail to select the most efficient means of accomplishing its design. Eighteen centuries have passed and the tenth part of the human race have a blind and mechanical belief in that Redeemer, without a complete reliance on the merits of whom, their lot is fixed in everlasting misery : surely if the Christian system be thus dreadfully important its Omnipotent author would have rendered it incapable of those abuses from which it has never been exempt, and to which it is subject in common with all human institutions, he would not have left it a matter of ceaseless cavil or complete indifference to the immense majority of mankind. Surely some more conspicuous evidences of its authenticity would have been afforded than driving out devils, drowning pigs, curing blind men, animating a dead body and turning water into wine. Some theatre worthier of the transcendent event, than Judaea, would have been chosen, some historians more adapted by their accomplishments and their genius to record the incarnation of the immutable God. The Humane Society restores drowned persons; every empiric can cure every disease ; drowning pigs is no very difficult matter, and driving out devils was far from being an original or an unusual occupation in Judaea. Do not recite these stale absurdities as proofs of the divine origin of Christianity. If the Almighty has spoken, would not the Universe have been convinced? If he had judged the knowledge of his will to have been more important than any other science to man­ kind, would he not have rendered it more evident and more clear ? Now, 0 Eusebes, have I enumerated the general grounds of my disbelief of the Christian Religion. I could have collated its Sacred Writings with the Brahminical record of the early ages of the world, and identified its institutions with the ancient worship of the Sun. I might have entered into an * See Matthew xxiii., 35. j- Josephus. B �18 A Refutation of Deism. elaborate comparison of the innumerable discordances which exist between the inspired historians of the same event. Enough, however, has been said to vindicate me from the charge of groundless and infatuated scepticism. I trust, there­ fore, to your candor for the consideration, and to your logic for the refutation, of my arguments. EUSEBES. I will not dissemble, 0 Theosophus, the difficulty of solving your general objections to Christianity, on the grounds of human reason. I did not assist at the councils of the Almighty when he determined to extend his mercy to mankind, nor can I venture to affirm that it exceeded the limits of his power to have afforded a more conspicuous or universal manifestation of his will. But this is a difficulty which attends Christianity in common with the belief in the being and attributes of God. This whole scheme of things might have been, according to our partial conceptions, infinitely more admirable and perfect. Poisons, earthquakes, disease, war, famine and venomous serpents; slavery and persecution are the consequences of certain causes, which according to human judgment might well have been dispensed with in arranging the economy of the globe. Is this the reasoning which the Theist will choose to employ ? Will he impose limitations on that Deity whom he professes to regard with so profound a veneration ? Will he place his God between the horns of a logical dilemma which shall restrict the fulness either of his power or his bounty ? Certainly he will prefer to resign his objections to Chris­ tianity than pursue the reasoning upon which 1 hey are found, to the dreadful conclusions of cold and dreary Atheism. I confess that Christianity appears not unattended with difficulty to the understanding which approaches it with a determination to judge its mysteries by reason. I will ever * confess that the discourse, which you have just delivered, ought to unsettle any candid mind engaged in a similar attempt. The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. But if I succeed in convincing you that reason conducts to conclusions destructive of morality, happiness, and the hope of futurity, and inconsistent with the very existence of human society, I trust that you will no longer confide in a director so dangerous and faithless. I require you to declare, 0 Theosophus, whether you would [* Qy. ? even.] �A Refutation of Deism. 19 embrace Christianity or Atheism, if no other systems of belief shall be found to stand the touchstone of inquiry. THEOSOPHUS. I no not hesitate to prefer the Christian system, or indeed any system of religion, however rude and gross, to Atheism. Here we truly sympathise; nor do I blame, however I may feel inclined to pity, the man who in his zeal to escape this gloomy faith, should plunge into the most abject superstition. The Atheist is a monster among men. Inducements, which are omnipotent over the conduct of others, are impotent for him. His private judgment is his criterion of right and wrong. He dreads no judge but his own conscience, he fears no hell but the loss of his self-esteem. He is not to be restrained by punishments, for death is divested of its terror, and whatever enters into his heart to conceive, that will he not scruple to execute. Iste non timet omnia providentem et cogitantem, et animadvertentem, et omnia ad se pertinere putantem, curiosum, et plenum negotii Deum. This dark and terrible doctrine was surely the abortion of some blind speculator’s brain ; some strange and hideous per­ version of intellect, some portentous distortion of reason. There can surely be no metaphysician sufficiently bigoted to his own system to look upon this harmonious world, and dispute the necessity of intelligence ; to contemplate the design and deny the designer; to enjoy the spectacle of this beautiful Universe and not feel himself instinctively persuaded to gratitude and adoration. What arguments of the slightest plausibility can be adduced to support a doctrine rejected alike by the instinct of the savage and the reason of the sage ? I readily engage, with you, to reject reason as a faithless guide, if you can demonstrate that it conducts to atheism. So little, however, do I mistrust the dictates of reason, concerning a supreme being, that I promise, in the event of your success, io subscribe the wildest and most monstrous creed which you can devise. I will call credulity, faith; reason, impiety; the dictates of the understanding shall be the temptations of the Devil, and the wildest dreams of the imagination the infallible inspirations of Grace. ECJSEBES. Let me request you then to state, concisely, the grounds of your belief in the being of a God. In my reply I shall endeavor to controvert your reasoning, and shall hold myself acquitted by my zeal for the Christian religion, of the blasphemies which I must utter in the progress of my discourse. �20 A Refutation of Deism. THEOSOPHUS. I will readily state the grounds of my belief in the being of a God. You can only have remained ignorant of the obvious proofs of this important truth, from a superstitious reliance upon the evidence afforded by a revealed religion. The reason­ ing lies within an extremely narrow compass; quicquid enirn nos veil meliores vol beatiores facturum est, aut in aperto, aut in proximo posuit natura. From every design we justly infer a designer. If we examine the structure of a watch, we shall readily confess the existence of a watchmaker. No work of man could possibly have existed from all eternity. From the contemplation of any product of human art we conclude that there was an artificer who arranged its several parts. In like manner, from the marks of design and contrivance exhibited in the Universe, we are necessitated to infer a designer, a contriver. If the parts of the Universe have been designed, contrived and adapted, the existence of a God is manifest. But design is sufficiently apparent. The wonderful adapta­ tion of substances which act to those which are acted upon; of the eye to light, and of light to the eye; of the ear . to sound, and of sound to the ear; of every object of. sensation to the sense which it impresses prove that neither blind chance nor undistinguishing necessity has brought them into being. The adaptation of certain animals to certain climates, the relation borne to each other by animals and vegetables, and by different tribes of animals; the relation, lastly, between man and the circumstances of his external situation are so many demonstrations of DeityAll is order, design and harmony, so far as we can descry the tendency of things, and every new enlargement of our views, every new display of the material world, affords a new illustration of the power, the wisdom and the benevolence of God r . The existence of God has never been the topic of popular dispute. There is a tendency to devotion, a thirst for reliance on supernatural aid inherent in the human, mind. Scarcely any people, however barbarous, have been discovered who do not acknowledge with reverence and awe the supeinatuial causes of the natural effects which they experience. They worship, it is true, the vilest and most inanimate substances, but they firmly confide in the holiness and power of these symbols, and thus own their connection with what they can neither see nor perceive. . If there is motion in the Universe, there is a God * lhe * See Dugald Stewart’s Outlines oj Moral Philosophy., and Paleys Natural Theology. �A Refutation of Deism. 21 power of beginning motion is no less an attribute of mind than sensation or thought. Wherever motion exists it is evident that mind has operated. The phenomena of the Universe indicate the agency of powers which cannot belong to inert matter. Everything which begins to exist must have a cause : every combination conspiring to an end implies intelligence. EUSEBES. Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred. The matter in controversy is the existence of design in the Universe, and it is not permitted to assume the contested pre­ mises and thence infer the matter in dispute. Insidiously to employ the words contrivance, design and adaptation before these circumstances are made apparent in the Universe, thence justly inferring a contriver, is a popular sophism against which it behoves us to be watchful. To assert that motion is an attribute of mind, that matter is inert, that every combination is the result of intelligence, is also an assumption of the matter in dispute. Why do we admit design in any machine of human con­ trivance ? Simply because innumerable instances of machines having been contrived by human art are present to our mind, because we are acquainted with persons who could construct such machines; but if, having no previous knowledge of any artificial contrivance, we had accidentally found a watch upon the ground, we should have been justified in concluding that it was a thing of Nature, that it was a combination of matter with whose cause we were unacquainted, and that any attempt to account for the origin of its existence would be equally pre­ sumptuous and unsatisfactory. The analogy which you attempt to establish between the contrivances of human art and the various existences of the Universe, is inadmissible. We attribute these effects to human intelligence, because we know beforehand that human intelli­ gence is capable of producing them. Take away this know­ ledge, and the grounds of our reasoning will be destroyed. Our entire ignorance, therefore, of the Divine Nature leaves this analogy defective in its most essential point of comparison. What consideration remains to be urged in support of the creation of the Universe by a supreme Being? Its admirable fitness for the production of certain effects, that wonderful consent of all its parts, that universal harmony by whose changeless laws innumerable systems of worlds perform their stated revolutions, and the blood is driven through the veins of the minutest animalcule that sports in the corruption of an insect’s lymph: on this account did the Universe require an �A Refutation of Deism. intelligent Creator, because it exists producing invariable effects, and inasmuch as it is admirably organised for the pro­ duction of these effects, so the more did it require a creative intelligence. Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, “ That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent Creator.” In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe to its end you infer the necessity of an intelligent Creator. But if the fitness of the Universe to produce certain effects be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of this Universe? If we find great difficulty from its admirable arrangement in conceiving that the Universe has existed from all eternity, and to resolve this difficulty suppose a Creator, how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator’s creation whose perfections comprehend an arrangement far more accurate and just. The belief of an infinity of creative and created Gods, each more eminently requiring an intelligent author of his being than the foregoing, is a direct consequence of the premises which you have stated. The assumption that the Universe is a design, leads to a conclusion that there are [an] infinity of creative and created Gods, which is absurd. It is impossible indeed to prescribe limits to learned error, when philosophy relinquishes experience and feeling for speculation. Until it is clearly proved that the Universe was created, we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity. In a case where two pi’opositions are diametrically opposite, the mind believes that which is less incomprehensible : it is easier to suppose that the Universe has existed, from all eternity than to conceive an eternal being capable of creating it. If the mind sinks beneath the weight of one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the burthen ? A man knows, not only that he now is, but that there was a time when he did not exist; consequently there must have been a cause. But we can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects. There certainly is a genera­ tive power which is effected by particular instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments, nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration. We admit that the generative power is incomprehensible, but to suppose that the same effects are produced by an eternal Omnipotent �A Refutation of Deism. 23 and Omniscient Being, leaves the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more incomprehensible. We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects. An infinite number of effects demand an infinite number of causes, nor is the philosopher justified in supposing a greater connection or unity in the latter than is perceptible in the former. The same energy cannot be at once the cause of the serpent and the sheep ; of the blight by which the harvest is destroyed, and the sunshine by which it is matured; of the ferocious propensities by which man becomes a vic.tim to him­ self, and of the accurate judgment by which his institutions are improved. The spirit of our accurate and exact philosophy is outraged by conclusions which contradict each other so glaringly. The greatest, equally with the smallest motions of the Universe, are subjected to the rigid necessity of inevitable laws. These laws are the unknown causes of the known effects perceivable in the Universe. Their effects are the boundaries of our knowledge, their names the expressions of our ignorance. To suppose some existence beyond or above them, is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what has already been accounted for by the laws of motion and the properties of matter. I admit that the nature of these laws is incomprehensible, but the hypothesis of a Deity adds a gratuitous difficulty, which so far from alleviating those which it is adduced to explain, requires new hypotheses for the elucidation of its own inherent contradictions. The laws of attraction and repulsion, desire and aversion, suffice to account for every phenomenon of the moral and physical world. A precise knowledge of the properties of any object, is alone requisite to determine its manner of action. Let the mathematician be acquainted with the weight and volume of a cannon ball, together with the degree of velocity and inclination with which it is impelled, and he will accurately delineate the course it must describe, and determine the force with which it will strike an object at a given distance. Let the influencing motive, present to the mind of any person be given, and the knowledge of his consequent conduct will result. Let the bulk and velocity of a comet be discovered, and the astronomer, by the accurate estimation of the equal and contrary actions of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, will justly predict the period of its return. The anomalous motions of the heavenly bodies, their unequal velocities and frequent aberrations, are corrected by that gra­ vitation by which they are caused. The illustrious Laplace has shown that the approach of the Moon to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, is only a secular equation of a very long �24 A Refutation of Deism. period, which has its maximum and minimum. The system of the Universe then is upheld solely by physical powers. The necessity of matter is the ruler of the world. It is vain philo­ sophy which supposes more causes than are exactly adequate to explain the phenomena of things. Hypotheses non jingo: quicquid enim ex phcenomenis non deducitur, hypothesis vocanda est; et hypotheses vel metaphysicce, vel physicoe, vel qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanicce, in philosophia locum non habent. You assert that the construction of the animal machine, the fitness of certain animals to certain situations, the connection between the organs of perception and that which is perceived; the relation between everything which exists, and that which tends to preserve it in its existence, imply design. It is manifest that if the eye could not see, nor the stomach digest, the human frame could not preserve its present mode of exist­ ence. It is equally certain, however, that the elements of its composition, if they did not exist in one form, must exist in another; and that the combinations which they would form, must so long as they endured, derive support for their peculiar mode of being from their fitness to the circumstances of their situation. It by no means follows that because a being exists, perform­ ing certain functions, he was fitted by another being to the performance of these functions. So rash a conclusion would conduct, as I have before shown, to an absurdity; and it becomes infinitely more unwarrantable from the consideration that the known laws of matter and motion, suffice to unravel, even in the present imperfect state of moral and physical science, the majority of those difficulties which the hypothesis of a Deity was invented to explain. Doubtless no disposition of inert matter, or matter deprived of qualities, could ever have composed an animal, a tree, or even a stone. But matter deprived of qualities, is an abstrac­ tion, concerning which it is impossible to form an idea. Matter, such as we behold it, is not inert. It is infinitely active and subtile. Light, electricity and magnetism are fluids not surpassed by thought itself in tenuity and activity: like thought they are sometimes the cause and sometimes the effect of motion; and, distinct as they are from every other class of substances with which we are acquainted, seem to possess equal claims with thought to the unmeaning distinction of immateriality. The laws of motion and the properties of matter suffice to account for every phenomenon, or combination of phenomena exhibited in the Universe. That certain animals exist in certain climates, results from the consentaneity of their frames �A Refutation of Deism. 25 to the circumstances of their situation : let these circumstances be altered, to a sufficient degree, and the elements of their composition must exist in some new combination no less resulting than the former from those inevitable laws by which the Universe is governed. It is the necessary consequence of the organisation of man, that his stomach should digest his food: it inevitably results also from his gluttonous and unnatural appetite for the flesh of animals that his frame be diseased and his vigor impaired ; but in neither of these cases is adaptation of means to end to be perceived. Unnatural diet, and the habits consequent upon its use are the means, and every complication of frightful •disease is the end, but to assert that these means were adapted to this end by the Creator of the world, or that human caprice can avail to traverse the precautions of Omnipotence, is absurd. These are the consequences of the properties of organised matter; and it is a strange perversion of the understanding to argue that a certain sheep was created to be butchered and devoured by a certain individual of the human species, when the conformation of the latter, as is manifest to the most superficial student of comparative anatomy, classes him with those animals who feed on fruits and vegetables. * The means by which the existence of an animal is sustained, requires a designer in no greater degree than the existence itself of the animal. If it exists, there must be means to support its existence. In a world where omne mutatur nihil interit, no organised being can exist without a continual separa­ tion of that substance which is incessantly exhausted, nor can this separation take place otherwise than by the invariable laws which result from the relations of matter. We are in­ capacitated only by our ignorance from referring every phe­ nomenon, however unusual, minute or complex, to the laws of motion and the properties of matter; and it is an egregious offence against the first principles of reason to suppose an immaterial creator of the world, in quo omnia moventur serf, sine mutud passione: which is equally a superfluous hypo­ thesis in the mechanical philosophy of Newton and a useless ■excrescence on the inductive logic of Bacon. What then is this harmony, this order which you maintain to have required for its establishment, what it needs not for its maintenance, the agency of a supernatural intelligence ? Inas­ much as the order visible in the Universe requires one cause, ■so does the disorder whose operation is not less clearly apparent, * See Cuvier Logons d’Anat. Bees’ Cyclopedia, art. Man. Comp. tom. iii., p. 169, 373, 448, 465, 480. �26 A Refutation of Deism. demand another. Order and disorder are no more than modifications of our own perceptions of the relations which subsist between ourselves and external objects, and if we are justified in inferring the operation of a benevolent power from the advantages attendant on the former, the evils of the latter bear equal testimony to the activity of a malignant principle,, no less pertinacious in inducing evil out of good, than the other is unremit ing in procuring good from evil. If we permit our imagination to traverse the obscure regions of possibility, we may doubtless imagine, according to the complexion of our minds, that disorder may have a relative tendency to unmingled good, or order be relatively replete with exquisite and subtile evil. To neither of these conclusions, which are equally presumptuous and unfounded, will it become the philosopher to assent. Order and disorder are expressionsdenoting our perceptions of what is injurious or beneficial te ourselves, or to the beings in whose welfare we are compelled to sympathise by the similarity of their conformation to our own? A beautiful antelope panting under the fangs of a tiger, a defenceless ox, groaning beneath the butcher’s axe, is a spectacle which instantly awakens compassion in a virtuous and un­ vitiated breast. Many there are, however, sufficiently hardened to the rebukes of justice and the precepts of humanity, as to regard the deliberate butchery of thousands of their species, as a theme of exultation and a source of honor, and to consider any failure in these remorseless enterprises as a defect in the system of things. The criteria of order and disorder are as various as those beings from whose opinions and feelings they result. Populous cities are destroyed by earthquakes, and desolated by pestilence. Ambition is everywhere devoting its millions to incalculable calamity. Superstition, in a thousand shapes, is employed in brutalising and degrading the human species, and fitting it to endure without a murmur the oppression of its innumerable tyrants. All this is abstractedly neither good nor evil, because good and evil are words employed to designate that peculiar state of our own perceptions resulting from the encounter of any object calculated to produce pleasure or pain. Exclude the idea of relation, and the words good and evil aredeprived of import. Earthquakes are injurious to the cities which they destroy,, beneficial to those whose commerce was injured by their pros­ perity, and indifferent to others which are too remote to be affected by their influence. Famine is good to the corn­ merchant, evil to the poor, and indifferent to those whose See Godwin’s Political Justice., vol. i., p. 449. �A Refutation of Deism. 27 fortunes can at all times command a superfluity. Ambition is evil to the restless bosom it inhabits, to the innumerable victims who are dragged by its ruthless thirst for infamy to expire in every variety of anguish, to the inhabitants of the country it depopulates, and to the human race whose improve­ ment it retards ; it is indifferent with regard to the system of the Universe, and is good only to the vultures and the jackals that track the conqueror’s career, and to the worms who feast in security on the desolation of his progress. It is manifest that we cannot reason with respect to the universal system from that which only exists in relation to our own perceptions. You allege some considerations in favor of a Deity from the universality of a belief in his existence. The superstitions of the savage and the religion of civilised Europe appear to you to conspire to prove a first cause. I maintain that it is from the evidence of revelation alone that this belief derives the slightest countenance. That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind which it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principles of human nature. The idiot, the child, and the savage, agree in attributing their own passions and propen­ * sities to the inanimate substances by which they are either benefited or injured. The former become gods and the latter demons ; hence prayers and sacrifices, by the means of which the rude theologian imagines that he may confirm the benevo­ lence of the one, or mitigate the malignity of the other. He has averted the wrath of a powerful enemy by supplications and submission ; he has secured the assistance of his neighbor by offerings; he has felt his own anger subside before the entreaties of a vanquished foe, and has cherished gratitude for the kindness of another. Therefore does he believe that the elements will listen to his vows. He is capable of love and hatred towards his fellow beings, and is variously impelled by those principles to benefit or injure them. The source of his error is sufficiently obvious. When the winds, the waves and the atmosphere, act in such a manner as to thwart or forward his designs, he attributes to them the same propensities of whose existence within himself he is conscious when he is instigated by benefits to kindness, or by injuries to revenge. The bigot of the woods can form no conception of beings possessed of properties differing from his own : it requires indeed, a mind considerably tinctured with science, and enlarged by cultivation to contemplate itself, not as the centre and model of the Universe, but as one of the infinitely various multitude of beings of which it is actually composed. There is no attribute of Qod which is not either borrowed * See Southey’s History of Brazil, p. 255. �28 A Refutation of Deism. from the passions and powers of the human mind, or which is not a negation. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Infinity, Immutability, Incomprehensibility and Immateriality are all words which designate properties and powers peculiar to organised beings, with the addition of negations, by which the idea of limitation is excluded. * That the frequency of a belief in God (for it is not universal) should be any argument in its favor, none to whom the innu­ merable mistakes of men are familiar, will assert. It is among men of genius and science that Atheism alone is found, but among these alone is cherished an hostility to those errors with which the illiterate and vulgar are infected. How small is the proportion of those who really believe in God, to the thousands who are prevented by their occupations from ever bestowing a serious thought upon the subject, and the millions who worship butterflies, bones, feathers, monkeys, calabashes and serpents. The word God, like other abstrac­ tions, signifies the agreement of certain propositions rather than the presence of any idea. If we found our belief in the existence of God on the universal consent of mankind, we are duped by the most palpable of sophisms. The word God cannot mean at the same time an ape, a snake, a bone, a cala­ bash, a Trinity, and a Unity. Nor can that belief be accounted universal against which men of powerful intellect and spotless virtue have in every age protested. Non pudet igitur physicum, id est speculatorem venatoremque naturae, ex animis vonsuetudine imbutis petere testimonium veritatis ? Hume has shown, to the satisfaction of all philosophers, that the only idea which we can form of causation is derivable^ from the constant conjunction of objects, and the consequent inference of one from the other. We denominate that pheno­ menon the cause of another which we observe with the fewest ■exceptions to precede its occurrence. Hence it would be inadmissible to deduce the being of a God from the existence of the Universe; even if this mode of reasoning did not conduct to the monstrous conclusion of an infinity of creative and created Gods, each more eminently requiring a Creator than its predecessor. If Power! be an attribute of existing substance, substance could not have derived its origin from power. One thing cannot be at the same time the cause and the effect of another. The word power expresses the capability of anything to be or act. The human mind never hesitates to annex the idea of * See Le. System# de la Nature. This book is one of the most eloquent vindications of Atheism. [f Printed deniable.'] + For a very profound disquisition on this subject, see Sir William Drummond’s Academical Questions, chap, i., p. 1. �A Refutation of Deism. 29 power to any object of its experience. To deny that power is the attribute of being is to deny that being can be. If power be an attribute of substance, the hypothesis of a God is a superfluous and unwarrantable assumption. Intelligence is that attribute of the Deity, which you hold to be most apparent in the Universe. Intelligence is only known to us as a mode of animal being. We cannot conceive intelli­ gence distinct from sensation and perception, which are attri­ butes to organised bodies. To assert that God is intelligent, is to assert that he has ideas ; and Locke has proved that ideas result from sensation. Sensation can exist only in an organised body, an organised body is necessarily limited both in extent and operation. The God of the rational Theosophis is a vast and wise animal. You have laid it down as a maxim that the power of begin­ ning motion is an attribute of mind as much as thought and sensation. Mind cannot create, it can only perceive. Mind is the recipient of impressions made on the organs of sense, and without the action of' external objects we should not only be deprived of all knowledge of the existence of mind, but totally incapable of the knowledge of anything. It is evident, there­ fore, that mind deserves to be considered as the effect rather than the'cause of motion. The ideas which suggest them­ selves too are prompted by the circumstances of our situation, these are the elements of thought, and from the various com­ binations of these our feelings, opinions, and volitions inevit­ ably result. That which is infinite necessarily includes that which is finite. The distinction therefore between the Universe and that by which the Universe is upheld, is manifestly erroneous. To devise the word God, that you may express a certain portion of the universal system, can answer no good purpose in philo­ sophy. In the language of reason, the words God and Universe are synonymous. Omnia enim per Dei potentiam facta sunt, imo, quia natures potentia nulla est nisi ipsa Dei potentia, artem est nos catemus Dei potentiam non intelligere quatenus causas naturales ignoramus ; adeoque stulte ad eandam Dei potentiam recurritur, quando rei alicujus, causarn naturalem, sive est, ipsam Dei potentiam ignoramus . * Thus from the principles of that reason to which you so rashly appealed as the ultimate arbiter of our dispute, have I shown that the popular arguments in favor of the being of a God are totally destitute of color. I have shown the absurdity of attributing intelligence to the cause of those effects which * Spinoza, Tract. Theologico.-Pol., chap, i., p. 14. �30 J. Refutation of Deism. we perceive in the Universe, and the fallacy which lurks in the argument from design. I have shown that order is no more than a peculiar manner of contemplating the operation of necessary agents, that mind is the effect, not the cause of motion, that power is the attribute, not the'origin of being. I have proved that we can have no evidence of the existence of a God from the principles of reason. You will have observed, from the zeal- with which I have urged arguments so revolting to my genuine sentiments, and conducted to a conclusion in direct contradiction to that faith which every good man must eternally preserve, how little I am inclined to sympathise with those of my religion who have pretended to prove the existence of God by the unassisted light of reason. I confess that the necessity of a revelation has been compromised by treacherous friends to Christianity, who have maintained that the sublime mysteries of the being of a God and the immortality of the soul are discoverable from other sources than itself. I have proved that on the principles of that philosophy to which Epicurus, Lord Bacon, Newton, Locke and Hume were addicted, the existence of God is a chimera. The Christian Religion then, alone, affords indisputable assurance that the world was created by the power and is pre­ served by the Providence of an Almighty God, who in justice has appointed a future life for the punishment .of the vicious and the remuneration of the virtuous. Now, 0 Theosophus, I call upon you to decide between Atheism and Christianity ; to declare whether you wilt pursue your principles to the destruction of the bonds of civilised society, or wear the easy yoke of that religion which proclaims “ peace upon earth, goodwill to all men.” THEOSOPHUS. I am not prepared at present, I confess, to reply clearly to your unexpected arguments. I assure you that no considerations, however specious, should seduce me to deny the existence of my Creator. I am willing to promise that if, after mature deliberation, the arguments which you have advanced in favor of Atheism should appear incontrovertible, I will endeavor to adopt so much of the Christian scheme as is consistent with my persuaion of the goodness, unity and majesty of God. �LIBERTY and NECESSITY AN ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE-WILL AND IN FAVOR OF MORAL CAUSATION BEING SECTION VIII OF An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. By DAVID HUME Price Fourpence. Price Fourpence. FREE WILL & NECESSITY A PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN LIBERTY. BY ANTHONY COLLINS. First published in 1715. Now reprinted, with Preface and Annotations, by G. W. FOOTE. And a Biographical Introduction by J. M. WHEELEN. -------- o-------“ I do not know of anything that has been advanced by later writers in support of the scheme of Necessity, of which the germ is not to be found in the Inquiry of Collins.” —Prof. Dugald Stewart. “ Collins states the argument against human freedom with a ■logical force unsurpassed by any Necessitarian.” — Prof. A. C. Fraser. “Collins writes with wonderful power and closeness of reasoning.” —Prof. Huxley. “Collins was one of the most terrible enemies of the Chris­ tian religion.” — Voltaire. PRICE ONE SHILLING. Superior Edition, printed on Superfine Paper, and bound in Cloth, Two Shillings. �THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION GOD THE IMAGE OF M \N, MAN'S DEPENDENCE UPON NATURE THE LAST AND ONLT SOURCE OF RELIGION. BY LUDWIG FEUERBACH. “No one has demonstrated and explained the purely human origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig Feuerbach.” —Buchner. “ I confess that to Feuerbach I owe a debt of inestimable gratitude. Feeling about in uncertainty for the ground, and finding everywhere shifting sands, Feuerbach cast a sudden, blaze in the darkness and disclosed to me the way.” —Rev. S. Baring-Gf-ould. PRICE ONE SHILLING. The Church of England Catechism Examined By JEREMY BENTHAM. With a Biographical Introduction by J. M. Wheeler. PRICE ONE SHILLING. ALSO UTILITARIANISM BY JEREMY BENTHAM. Price 3d.______________ Price 3d. “A place must be assigned to Bentham among the masters of wisdom.”—J. S. Mill. “ A man of first-rate genius.”—Edward Dicey. “It is impossible to know Bentham without admiring and revering him.” Sir Samuel Romilly. “Everything that comes from the pen or from the mind of Mr. Bentham is entitled to pr hound regard.” —James Mill. “ H found jurisprudence a gibberish and left it a science.”— Macaulay. PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING CO., 28 Stonecutter St., E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A refutation of deism in a dialogue Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Shelley, Percy Bysshe [1792-1822.] Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 30, [2] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Four titles from the publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4987 N613 Subject The topic of the resource Deism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A refutation of deism in a dialogue), 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 Deism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8bae7fbbc69ea20d6706adb0fbf77ba2.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=KExOL7nyeADGe94fA4mEzpykroCG9qDar1eZPlBj0deXSdaRyJFWshK8APIuzIpoJd1wc9%7ECLxy6sL%7EUyZX1qo4gXlRIJCAEAhZPM6gRFWFi3UJjQerpOWxsjiHBeHFcveyTMRpBpZYmFZqhDRc5gmlRVqauMvMsXCpFWyDdpqomuGpIyBYDKuQztlepC-xZq2M7xj9o4YQB44pVVbz7jS%7Ezn6g7qXYmYxf5aNeECQm4G5QMN22Nq5BwLSJ32bHLhOZo4PtFYuKyj0aatF5XFRwteAaOr6eTCkZyWTnR-l4HBce1D16b2OzTtS2znuc%7Exrj3ZBfWyVBeODBlcClDMg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f109b8df0125e057c0f9d599bfb7c03a PDF Text Text national secular society Verbatim Report OF THE TWO TRIALS OF G. W. Foote, W. J. Ramsey and H. A. Kemp, FOR Blasphemous Libel in the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker.” Held at the OLD BAILEY on Thursday, Ma/rch 1st, and on Monday, March 5th, 1883, Before Mr. Justice North and Two Common Juries. PRICE ONE SHILLING. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. ��DEDICATED TO THE PEOPLE OE ALL N A T I O N S. ��THE “FREETHINKER” CHRISTMAS NUMBER PROSECUTION. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY. Thursday, March 1st, 1883. (Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.) George William Foote, the editor • W. J. Ramsey, proprietor and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher, surrendered to their bail to answer a charge of having published a blasphemous libel in the 44 Freethinker,” the indictment being grounded on matter found in the columns of the Christmas Number of that journal. . Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. H Lewis instructed by Sir II. T. Nelson (the City Solicitor), on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Horace Avoi-y appeared for Kemp, and Foote and Ramsey were unrepre- in °Pening the case for the prosecutionsaid that the defendants were indicted for the offence of blas­ phemy, and happily, prosecutions of that character were rare m this country. The offence of blasphemy consisted in, among other things, making contumelious or disrespectful reproaches against the Christian religion or the Holy Scriptures. By the law of this country Christianity was part of our common law and whatever people’s private feelings might be, the publication of gross and violent attacks upon the Christian religion, insulting as they were to the feelings of a Christian community, was a matter which when it reached a certain point it was absolutely necessary +i° + was said’and he dare sa? veryoften said that the dragging into the light of publications of a blasphemed or indecent character sometimes did mischief by attracting public attention to that which would otherwise pass unnoticed. That observation was, however, subject to this exception, that if the �Report of Blasphemy Trials. nature or publication was such that it grieved and insulted the feelings of the community; if, for instance, in a shop-window in a public thoroughfare, things were exhibited to every young and innocent mind which ridiculed what they had been taught from their earliest years to regard with the utmost reverence, it was the duty of the authorities to take action to put a stop to such publication. In so doing, they did not drag into light subjects which but for the interference would have remained in obscurity. On the other hand, they drove at all events from the public thoroughfares and from the public- notice things which when displayed in shop-windows would necessarily attract a crowd. The authorities were either compelled to allow so great an out­ rage to public decency to continue, or they were called upon to vindicate the law. A great deal also must depend not only on the mode of publication, but also on the nature of the publication itself. There were some things—some doubts set forth in books and directed against the reverence which the law regarded as part of the law of the country, but which, nevertheless, were so expressed as to form no insult to those who thought differently. Doubts on many points—or many theological tenets—had of course occupied the minds of men for more than 1800 years, and so long as doubts of this description were expressed with due regard to the feelings of others, and without the intention of outrage and insult, he would be a very rash person indeed, who would think to drag into a criminal court disquisitions conceived in such a spirit, even although they might be adverse to the views which the great majority of Christian people entertained. Of course, whenever an outrage of the present character was the subject matter of complaint, it was common to hear observations directed to the supposed liberty of discussion, freedom of press and so forth. These were very plausible words to make use of, but when he called the attention of the jury to the nature of these publications, they would probably be of opinion that, quite apart from any question of theological difference, quite apart from any honest doubts people might entertain, those who were guilty of so great an outrage of public decency had no right to appeal to such topics as freedom of the press or liberty of dis­ cussion. The point to which he should have to direct the attention of the jury, was the outrage that had been committed on the feelings of a Christian community. When he said this, it was undoubtedly a fact that it had been found necessary, for instance, in our great Indian dominions, where Christianity was by no means the creed of the majority of the population, to pro­ tect the freedom of conscience, and the right of every man to hold his own faith by making criminal offenders of those who for -outrage and insult thought it necessary to issue contumelious or scornful publications concerning any religious sect, though not a �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 3 Christian sect. Probably their own feelings of what was right, and of what was due to the real freedom of mankind, would teach them that people should be allowed to hold their own views and to strenuously fight for them, but it was no part of the freedom of every man to insult, and revile, and hold up to ridicule everything which other people held in reverence. He had thought it right to make these observations, because it seemed to him a prostitution of great names to bear the titles of freedom of the press and liberty of discussion made use of when he had to call attention to such ribaldry as was contained in the present publication. He would not read, nor did he think it at all desirable that he should describe what that publication was. They would have it in their own hands and would form their own judgment on it. He certainly would not be a party publicly to describe the sort of thing that he had before him at that moment. This was the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker.” To make the Christmas Number appropriate, he presumed, to the season, the composers of this publication had thought it right to have a series of pictures respecting incidents in the life of our Lord and Savior. To say that they were caricatures would be an inadequate statement. Each incident, round some of which clustered the most awful mysteries of the Christian faith, formed the subject of the grossest and most degrading caricature. The Almighty himself was the subject matter of one of these pictures, and accompanied with them was letter-press, including a ribald song or poem so gross and outrageous in its character, that beyond calling the attention of the jury to it he would not out­ rage public decency by referring to it. Each and all of these matters were intended to insult and grieve the conscience of every man who was a Christian—nay, he would say any sincere worshipper of the great God above us, whatever form of belief he might hold. This was the object and intention of the paper of this character. If the subject matters of the indictment were not libels, he did not know what could be, for no indecency or out­ rage in language or picture could exceed the violence of this publication. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the evidence he intended to produce, observing in conclusion that if the paper did not speak for itself, as to. the hideous and out­ rageous blasphemy of its contents, he could only say that no such offence could be known to the law. Evidence was then called in support of the prosecution. Robert Sagar, a constable in the City of London Police Force, stated that on the 16th of last December he went to the bookseller’s shop at 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road, and purchased two copies (produced) of the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker.” The defendant Kemp was serving in the shop and received sixpence from him in payment for the two �4 Report of Blasphemy Trials. copies. On the 20th of January he purchased two more copies at the shop from the defendant Kemp, and on January 31st he agafn saw him behind the counter. Mr. Poland said that the numbers produced were entitled Christmas Number of the “Freethinker,” and were stated on the title-page to be “edited by G. W. Foote.” On the back sheet was an advertisement of Mr. Foote’s publications. . At the end of the book it was stated to be printed and published by H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, London, E.C. He put in the certificate of registration of the “ Free­ thinker,” from which it appeared that the name of the proprietor was given as IV. J. Ramsey, and the signature was that of H. A. Kemp, and the date of the signature being July 31st, 1882. In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, Sagar stated that he saw a number of books and other publications in the shop besides the “ Freethinker.” John Lowe, collector of rates for the parish of St. Brides, stated that on the 7th of November he received a cheque signed by Mr. W. J. Ramsey, in payment of a rate of £2 Is. 3d., in respect of 28 Stonecutter Street. W. G. Mitchell, cashier in the Birkbeck Bank, proved that the cheque in question had been duly debited to Mr. Ramseys account. William John Norrish, of 20 Fowler Street, Camberwell, who made affirmation instead of taking the oath, said that he lived for five years at 28 Stonecutter Street, and up to the time when he left in October last, it was the office of the Freethought Pub­ lishing Company. That Company had, however, removed to Fleet Street at the end of September. Witness was Mr. Brad­ laugh’s servant while at Stonecutter Street. Mr. Ramsey was manager of the Freethought Publishing Company, but witness was not aware that the “ Freethinker ” was at that time pub­ lished at the shop in Stonecutter Street. The name of the pub­ lication was not painted up over the door at the time he left, although it was there now. The defendant Kemp was not em­ ployed there at the time, but he went there occasionally, and witness had seen him there since ; Mr. Foote also used to look in occasionally. In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, witness said that while he was employed at Stonecutter Street there was no printing press nor were there any facilities for printing a newspaper there, and no printing was done on the premises. By Mr. Foote : Mr. Foote did not call often, and witness never saw him transact any business there. James Barber, assistant registrar of newspapers, stated that the last registration of the “ Freethinker ” related to a change �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 5 of proprietorship—Mr. Foote becoming proprietor in place of Mr. Ramsey. This was on the 7th of February last. William Oakhampstead, detective of the City of London Police Force, produced a copy of the “ Freethinker,” bought by him of Mr. Kemp, at 28 Stonecutter Street, on the 16th of February, in which appeared a notice stating that, although the Christmas Number had had a very large sale, the conductors were several pounds out of pocket by it. Sir H. Giffard pointed out that this notice appeared after the proprietorship of the paper was transferred to Mr. Foote. . John Edward Kellan, of 19 East Street, D'Oyley Square, solicitor’s clerk, produced several copies of the “Freethinker,” purchased by him at the office in Stonecutter Street, at various times. He went there principally in May and June last, and he had seen all the defendants there. All the copies bore the notice “edited by G. W. Foote,” and “printed and published by G. W. Ramsay, 28 Stonecutter Street.” There was also a notice to correspondents directing that all business com­ munications should be directed to Mr. W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street, and literary communications to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, W.C. In July last at the Mansion House witness gave evidence, and the attention of Messrs. Foote and Ramsay, who were then defendants, was called to these notices. Witness saw Mr. Foote at the shop on the 16th of February. By Mr. Foote: Witness had only seen Mr. Foote at the offiee on one occasion—on the 16th of February. By Mr. Ramsey: The name of Mr. Ramsey did not appear oil any of the copies of the “ Freethinker ” witness had bought since July. William Loy, City Constable, said he had seen the defendant Kemp in the office in Stonecutter Street every day in the week during the present year, the defendant Ramsey most days, and the defendant Foote occasionally. Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : How long have you been watching the place ? I have been on duty there for the last tw® years. I have not been watching the place more than others. You were not instructed to watch it? (No reply.) Were Further evidence was given by Mr. Foote’s landlady and her servant and by two postmen, to show that he had had letters addressed to him at his lodgings as editor of the “Freethinker,” but in cross-examination, all these witnesses admitted that they had never seen letters addressed to him as editor of the Christ­ mas Number of the “ Freethinker.” This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Avory said, with reference to the defendant Kemp, he did aiot think it right to occupy the time of the court by contesting �6 Report of Blasphemy Trials. the fact that the defendant had been at the shop selling these papers. He was bound to accept the definition laid down by his lordship the merest office-boy would be considered a publisher in the eyes of the law, and he would therefore reserve any observation he might have to make. Mr. Foote : My lord, at this stage of the proceedings, I am going to ask the prosecution to elect against which of the three defendants in this case they will go to the jury. There is no allegation of conspiracy, and no evidence has been presented to the court to support the charge of a joint act. I submit that even if the allegations sought to be proved, were proved—that I am editor of the particular number of the “ Freethinker” against which these proceedings are taken, that Mr. Ramsey is the pro­ prietor, and Mr. Kemp is printer and publisher,—still whatever act we have committed would not be a joint offence. There has been no evidence tendered to the effect that any copy of this paper was purchased in the presense of all of us. It is not con­ tended that we ever acted together at one and the same time, in one and the same place. It is not urged that we all three wrote any one of the libels in the indictment; it is not urged that we all three printed; and I submit to your lordship that the offences, if any, are distinct. What I might do as editor of any particular publication, what the defendant Ramsey might do as publisher or proprietor, and what the defendant Kemp might do as printer, or even as shopman, must be considered as entirely distinct matters having no necessary connexion. For instance, I might write an article which might be a blas­ phemous One. I might hand it to a printer to print. . In letting it go out of my hands into the printing-office I might be proved guilty of the offence of blasphemy, and it could not in any way concern the printer. If the printer prints it, he cannot in any way be concerned with any action except one commenced after the article was put into his possession, and which ends after his work is completed. The publisher’s act, again, is a different act, in a different place, and can have no necessary connexion with the two previous acts, as a thing might be written, and printed, and not even published. I sub­ mit then, your lordship, there is no allegation of conspiracy. As these actions are several, and not joint, it is altogether im­ proper to include the three of us in one indictment, and the prosecution should be called on to elect as to which they will go to the jury on. In support of this I may mention to your lordship the case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, in which the Lord Chief Justice used some language which could scarcely be exceeded in its strength. The reference is in the 12th Cox Criminal Law Cases, p. 87. The Lord Chief Justice there dwelt upon the damage which must necessarily be done to more �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 7 than one defendant joined in one indictment, on the ground that evidence which is given against one of the defendants might serve to the detriment of another defendant, while it would not be admissible if the defendants were being tried separately. There have been cases, too, in which, when several defendants have been joined in one indictment, the indictment has been subse­ quently quashed on this ground. There is the King against Lynn and Debney, 1, Carrington and Payne, 128; and there is also the case of the Queen against Tucker, 4, Burrows 2046. It was held by the court in these cases that the indictment was bad, because the action proved against the co-defendants was not a joint action, Mr. Justice North: I cannot hear you say now that the indict­ ment ought to be quashed. You should have taken that objection long since. Mr. Foote : I am not doing so, my lord. Mr. Justice North: That is the point you are putting to me now. Mr. Foote : No, my lord. I am very sorry if I have misled your lordship. My point is that on this ground the prosecution should be called on to elect which of us they should go to the jury against. Indeed, in the case of the King agains t Lynn and Debney, the prosecution was so called on. Of course the object, my lord, is obvious. If the prosecution decline to elect, then we shad have a case for appeal in the Court of Crown Cases-Reserved; if, on the other hand, the prosecution do elect, it will greatly diminish the work before the court, and it will not inflict injustice upon co-defendants, who, even if they suc­ ceed eventually in their appeal, will have, in the meantime, to undergo imprisonment. Mr. Ramsey also urged that the prosecution should be called on to elect against which of the defendants they would go to the jury, on the gro.und that there had been no evidence of a joint offence. Mr. Justice North: I see no reason for calling on the prose­ cution. Mr. Ramsey: I ask your lordship to make a note of this for the consideration of the Court of Crown cases Reserved. Mr. Justice North: Go on. As regard the note, I have made a note. Mr. Ramsey : Thank you, my lord. Mr. Justice North: Do not let my last observation mislead you, Ramsey. I have made a note, but I do not say I have made a note for the consideration of the court. Mr. Foote : My lord, in my case I submit there is no evidenceto go to the jury. To begin, my lord, I will go back to the 7th of February, when according to the evidence given in court,, �3 Report of Blasphemy Trials. a change was made in the proprietorship of the “Freethinker.” I was then registered as proprietor, but, my lord, I submit that no registration of my proprietorship on the 7th of February could at all prove or even indicate that I was editor of a particular publication bearing whatever title, which according to the indicment it is alleged was published on the 16th of December, nearly two months before. Then, my lord, what does the evidence amount to in general against me ? We have the evidence of one or two police officers who say that they have seen me at 28 Stone­ cutter Street, the place of publication, as it is alleged of this paper, and these police officers admit that my visits have been comparitively few, and that they have been distributed over a considerable space of time. In conjunction with this, we have the evidence of the witness Nourish, to the effect that I have been for years in the habit of occasionally calling at 28 Stonecutter Street, so that whatever there may be in the testimony of the police officers, it is only, so to speak, a continuation of the evidence of Mr. Norish, and his evidence is that I have called at 28 Sonecutter Street occasionally in a friendly way, but that he has never seen me transact business there. Neither of the police officers say that they have seen me transact business there. Now what is the evidence to go to the jury upon as to the specific publication in which these alleged libels are to be found ? I submit, my lord, that if I were proved to have been the editor of every other number bearing the title of the “ Freethinker,” it would not be proof that I was editor of this specific publication. It is not like a newspaper which runs from day to day, and from week to week. This is a special publication. It might or it might not have been edited by whoever is proved to have been the editor of the ordinary numbers of the paper, and I submit that there has not been the slightest shred of evi­ dence that could connect me with the editorship of this particular Christmas Number, which is before the court. The letter-carriers cannot say that they have ever delivered an envelope directed to me as editor of the Christmas “ Free­ thinker,” or as editor of the Christmas Number of the “ Free­ thinker.” They cannot even swear that they have delivered letters addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker ” at any time whatever between November 16th and December 16th, during which time it might reasonably be supposed that my editorial work in connexion with the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” would have been done. Then, my lord, we come to the evidence of the witness Curie. She says that she has seen envelopes addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker.” She also has never seen any envelope addiessed to me as editor of the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker.” She knows nothing of the Christmas Number. Then we have the evidence �'Report of Blasphemy Trials. 9 ■of Mary Finter. She also has never seen any letters which could be connected with this specific publication; and although it is true she says she has seen a copy of the Christmas “ Free­ thinker ” in my room, she also cannot say that there was more than one copy. She admits that she saw in my room papers of all shapes and colors, and therefore it is nothing extraordinary —when according to the prosecution that paper has had an enor­ mous sale—that a man who has in his room papers of all shapes and colors should also have in his room a publication which has attracted so much public attention as this. There is one remark of Sir H. Giffard’s which I might refer to. He said there had been no attempt on the part of the defendant Foote to deny that he was in any way responsible for this alleged publication of a blasphemous libel or of any others which had appeared in the numbers of the “ Freethinker.” But I am not in the witnessbox, I am not before this court tendering evidence, and it is not for me to help or in any way suggest lines of argument to the prosecution, or to save them their trouble, which cannot be a very burdensome matter when they have behind them such very powerful friends with such very long purses. It is not for me to make any such statements. I am simply dealing, and I am bound simply to deal, with the evidence of the prosecution—all the evidence which great expenditure of money and a large issue of subpoenas has been able to produce ; and I submit that there is no evidence to connect me with this Christmas Number of the’“ Freethinker,” and that even if I had been proved to have edited every other number, it would not be proof sufficient that I had edited this particular number. I lay great stress upon this point, because Sir H. Giffard evidently imagines that an adverse verdict of the jury, if we should have to appeal to them, would entail upon all of us, and upon me in particular, very grave penalties. For this reason I think the court ought to be perfectly satisfied that there is ample evidence to go to the jury upon before deciding that my case should be presented to them. I submit, my lord, that there is no evidence to go the jury upon. Mr. Justice North : You had better address the jury, Foote ; I am of opinion that there is. Mr. Foote : Does your lordship propose any adjournment? Mr. Justice North : Presently • not just yet. Mr. Foote : I may take considerable time. Mr. Justice North: I do not say that there will not be an adjournment before you finish ; but the usual time is half-past one. You had better begin. We will break off at about half­ past one, at whatever time will be most convenient to you. Mr. Foote : My lord and gentlemen of the jury. The case which is before you is one which the learned counsel for the pro­ secution has described as very grave ; and, although in one �10 Report of Blasphemy Trials. sense of the word I might seriously differ from him, I do agree that in another sense of the word the case is grave, because you are asked to give a verdict against me for an alleged blasphe­ mous libel, and both the law and the punishment involved m it have come down from barbarous and illiberal times, and that makes the case all the more grave. I will ask you to divest your minds, if possible, of all pre judice ; I will ask you to divest your minds entirely, if it be possible, of all memory of some of the language which was used by the learned counsel for the prosecu­ tion. I am prosecuted for blasphemous libel, and in the remainder of my remarks, for brevity’s sake, I shall simply use the word blasphemy. The learned counsel used this word once or twice in his opening, but he used the words decency and indecency at least six times as often. I am not prosecuted here on a charge of indecency. I am prosecuted on a charge of blasphemy. I can quite understand that, by substituting the word decency, other associations might be raised and other ideas excited in the minds of the jury, and that while a verdict was asked for on one ground, it might be sought to be snatched on another. I would ask you, therefore, to throw aside the word decency altogether. There is no obscenity alleged. The question before us is one of blasphemy, and I shall have to ask you in the course of my remarks to dismissfrom your minds also one or two misstatements of fact that were made by the learned counsel, and one of these I consider it necessary that you should divest your minds of at the present moment. Sir Hardinge G-iffard told you that even in India, where there are so many diverse and conflicting sects—and, indeed, the learned counsel might have said with quite as much truth where there were so many diverse and con­ flicting religions, amongst them being the religion, of our own country-—-that even in India the law had made it a criminal offence, to use contumelious language against the beliefs of others.' That is not true. The law relating to the subject in India is simpler and more liberal than that. It does not deal with words or with opinions—it deals with overt acts, and even those acts must be of the nature of obtrusion. The law of India does not make it criminal for a member of one religious sect to use the most contumelious language to a member of the same sect or to any other person on whom he did not voluntarily force himself, with respect to the tenets of any other sect, JTo, thelaw of India, which of course is the law therefore of a part of our British Empire, gives the same right to every sect and every religion—unlike the law to which Sir H. G-iffard appeals this morning. If you interfere with the religious worship in India of any other sect, if you commit a breach of the peace, not by words but by action, if you desecrate any shrine, or if you make a physical attack upon an idol—in that case the law of India �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 11 finds that you are interfering with the religious liberties of all. You have a perfect right, according to the law, to say what you please to people who choose to hear you, and to write what you please to people who choose to read what you write. You have no right to go further and compel people to listen to your con­ temptuous language, or to see you desecrate what they consider to be sacred. Quite recently in India, as the learned counsel most know, members of a body calling themselves the Salvation Army—with what right I will not now examine—have, under the law of India, been arrested, although they are Chris­ tians, and have gone to India for the purpose of converting the natives to what is, according to the learned counsel, the only true religion and the religion of this state ; they have been arrested for walking in procession through the streets, on the ground that they were flaunting themselves objectionably before members of other religious persuasions, and that such conduct would natu­ rally lead to a breach of the peace between the contending sects. The law of India, therefore, is not what the learned counsel says it is. If that law were applied to this country, as some day I hope it will be, an action could be brought against a Christian for outraging the feelings of a Freethinker. I will draw your attention, gentlemen of the jury, to a letter which appeared in the Daily News, signed by no less a person than Professor Hunter, of the,University College, London. Mr. Justice North: How has that anything to do with the case ? Mr. Foote : I am not going into the letter. I am only going to refer to it as containing a full proof of what I am saying to the jury. I am only dealing with Sir H. Giffard’s statement. Mr. Justice North: I am not going into that statement at all. The jury will not have to consider what the law of India is, but what the law affecting this case is. Mr. Foote : Then, my lord, I will discontinue my remarks on this point, expressing my regret that the learned counsel should have thought it necessary to occupy the time of the court with it. (Laugher.) The learned counsel for the prosecution told you that all you had to do was to determine the question of publication—that all the rest lay with the learned judge. I submit that that is not so. Sir H. Giffard : You have quite misunderstood me. Mr. Justice North: I did not understand you to say that. Sir H. Giffard \ On the contrary, I left both questions to the jury—whether it was blasphemy and whether it was published by the defendants. Mr. Foote continued: I will ask the gentlemen of the jury to take a copy of an Act passed in the 32nd year of George ITT., which is an Act dealing with trials for libel. It is entitled “ an �12 lieport of Blasphemy Trials. Act to remove doubts respecting the functions of juries in cases of libel.” The first clause runs thusWhereas doubts have arisen whether on the trial of an indictment or information for the making or publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are joined between the King and the defendant or defendants, on the plea of not guilty pleaded, it be competent to the jury im­ panelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole matter in issue: Be it therefore declared and enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and con­ sent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of.the same, that on every such trial, the jury sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter put in issue upon such indictment or information; and shall not be required or directed, by the Court or Judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, to find the defendant or defendants guilty, merely on the proof of the pub­ lication by such defendant or defendants of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same in such indict­ ment or information.” So, gentlemen, you have practically the decision of this whole matter in your own hands. I ask, my lord, that this Act shall be passed to the jury. Mr. Justice North: I shall tell them what points they will have to decide. Mr. Foote : May they not have a copy of the Act, my lord ? Mr. Justice North: No ; they will take the law from the directions I give to them ; not from reading Acts of Parliament. Mr. Foote : Gentlemen of the jury, I hope to obtain your verdict of not guilty on much broader grounds than those which have been up to the present indicated. I hope that you will remember that, bound as you are to give no man a reason for your verdict, vou are the ultimate court of appeal on all questions affecting the liberty of the press, the right of free speech, and the right of freethought, and that if some old laws which are even now unrepealed, such as laws dealing which excommunicate people, were made the ground of an indictment, you would without hesitation exercise the right which resides in you and give a verdict of Not Guilty, whatever might be the nature of the offence. I have even from the courts of law some justification for this appeal to you, because it is not so very long ago since a London magistrate refused a summons against a citizen under the law of Maintenance on the ground that the law of Maintenance was obso­ lete. It would be difficult to decide, if such a point were raised, what lapse of time renders a law obsolete, but I will ask you, gentlemen of the jury, to remember that it is more than fifty years since any prosecution for blasphemy took place in the City of London, and more than twenty-five years since any �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 13- prosecution for blashphemy took place in the whole of the country. That, in the meantime, attacks on religion have been published, and that some of them have been of a fierce and remorseless character, are facts of which the prosecution must be thoroughly aware. Would such a lapse of time make the law obsolete ? It would be difficult to lay down any hard and fast line, but I submit, that if a magistrate has a right to refuse to grant a summons under a certain law, on the ground that such law is obsolete, a jury would have a right tosayNot Guilty instead of Guilty, and refuse to send a man to gaol through their verdict, or to cripple him with a heavy fine, when they are equally aware that the law set in motion against him has not been enforced for so many years, and more, they see that men are singled out for prose­ cution, whose distinctive crime is not that they have used ridicule, even if all the accusations against them were proved—not that they have used sarcasm and irony, because it is well known that ridicule, sarcasm, and irony are used in all controversy, whether religious or otherwise—but simply because their publication is issued in a cheap form which brings it within the reach of the people. Prosecutions of this kind are never commenced against the rich and powerful or against the writers of 12s. books; they are always directed against men whose poverty makes them seem friendless, always against men who are speaking to the masses of the people; simply because the law under which such prosecutions are begun partakes of the nature, of a police law, and was intended to keep the masses of the people in a kind of bondage, a kind of political and social slavery to those who had the making of it, and who are, there­ fore, interested in seeing it carried out. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I want you to observe that the law under which we are being prosecuted—-as the learned judge, Mr. Justice Stephen, onlyrecently pointed out in a decision in the Court of Queen’s Bench—began with burning alive. The writ relating to heretics was only abolished in the reign of Charles II., and under that writ a man pronounced a heretic might be taken to the stake and burnt to ashes. That is a significant fact which ought to influence your minds to-day, as it shows that the origin of all such pro­ ceedings as the present is simply persecution. It shows that the law itself originated in a persecuting and barbarous age, that it is a relic of the past, a disgrace to civilisation, and a scandal to humanity; and a jury of intelligent and honest Englishmen ought not to allow themselves to be made the instruments of enforcing such a law. It is a remarkable thing that while the learned counsel for the prosecution observed that no one would think of interfering with what he called decent discussion of controverted points of religion, and while also he said that he did not think any proceedings for such an offence would lead to �14 iJ J £■ * A Report of Blasphemy Trials. anything, yet it was necessary that publications which outraged the feelings of the Christian public should be put down. Well, gentlemen, as the learned judge I have no doubt will tell you, the law is perfectly clear as to heresy and blasphemy, and one of our high judges—no less a person than Mr. Justice Stephens _ Pas recently in his ‘ ‘ History of the Criminal Law, stated that the real law in the matter of blasphemy is that the offence lies in the matter and not in the manner, and that any attack on the established religion of the country is blasphemous, and under that law could be punished as such. You have only to remember that what are called now controverted points of religion—such for instance as the subjects dealt with by Bishop Golenko in his <6 great work on the Pentateuch—were points that might not be controverted only a century before, and that while Bishop Colon Iso can still remain a colonial bishop of the English Church notwithstanding that he is the author of these volumes, impugning the authority of these five books of the Bible, yet the Bev. Mr. Wolston was actually sent to prison, and kept there for years, tor making the proposition now put forward by Bishop Colenzo. To that it is only a question of the public opinion of the country, measuring itself against the rigidity of the old law. As to the statute law there can only be one opinion. There is, I believe, only one statute against blasphemy in the statute book —the 9th and 10th William III. We are not indicted under that statute, but I think it necessary to point out to you the nature of the statute, so that you may understand the spirit of these laws. I find that any person who denies any member of the Trinity to be God, or says there are more gods than one, or denies that Jesus Christ was God, or denies the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, is, on a first conviction, to be deprived of any post he may occupy in the country; and, on a second ccm" viction, to be sent to gaol for three years, and to be deprived of his civil rights for the remainder of his natural life, so that he would be incapable of sueing any person who owed him any­ thing, and of defending himself against any person who sued him in an unjust suit. . At this point the court adjourned for lunch, Mr. Justice Aorth intimating to Mr. Foote that it was of no use for him to address t the jury on points that were not law. The jury would take what | was the existing law from him. On the resumption of the proceedings, Mr. Foote continued his speech as follows:—Gentlemen of the jury,—while I shall be exceedingly sorry to trespass out­ side my proper province and on the province of the learned judge, an while I propose not to follow the observations I was addressing to you immediately before the adjournment, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the indictment on which I �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 15 am prosecuted is an indictment at common law. Common law is a question of precedent. It is unwritten law except for pre­ cedent. The judges and juries have made it. It has contracted and expanded with the public opinion of the times, and I submit that as this indictment is under common law, with the Act of Geo. TIT , which I quoted before, you have a right to frame your decision upon the entire question, and the arguments I shall now address to you will be based on the assumption. Of course in what I shall say I am to a very large extent in his lordship’s hands. I should be exceedingly sorry to say anything that may be miscon­ strued into disrespect of the court, and I trust that anything I may say will be considered as merely the effort of a man untrained in law and untrained in the ■ procedure of courts, to defend himself for the first time in his life against a charge like this. Any unintelligible breach of etiquette I may commit will be, therefore, I am sure, overlooked. Now, we are told by the learned counsel in his opening address that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land. That may be true ; probably the learned judge will direct you that it is true. But, after all, gentlemen, the question of blasphemy is not such a question as that of theft or murder. It must be largely if not entirely a question of opinion, because even the learned counsel, in his opening remarks, observed that some latitude of dissent from Christianity, which was the law of the land, would be permitted, though there was a certain latitude which would not be permitted. Clearly,. therefore, the learned counsel is proceeding on the assumption that after all the guilt would lie in the manner and not the matter of the blasphemous libel. Now, gentlemen, I shall ask your attention to something which I consider ought to in­ fluence your judgment in this matter. I would ask you to bear in your minds the words which conclude the first count of the indictment. I am charged with having published blasphemous libels “to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion to the high displeasure of Almighty God, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.” It may be that this is merely the phraseology of indictments, but I have nothing whatever to do with that; I take the language of the indictment as it stands, and I would submit to you, gentlemen, that if one part of blasphemy consists in giving great displeasure or high displeasure to Almighty God, you cannot possibly have any evidence in support of this charge. Surely, gentlemen, the question of whether any words or pictures, which are only speeches addressed to the eye, are displeasing to Almighty God, is a question which you must be content to leave to the Deity to decide ; and if you believe in a Deity, and in future rewards find punishments, you will, I am sure, be content not to take up a position of protection, not to allow the finite to champion the �16 Report of Blasphemy Trials. interests of the infinite ; but to leave to the high tribunal in which you believe the judgment of all offences against itself. The learned counsel emphasised the words “ to the evil example of all those in like cases offending.” Well, gentlemen, you cannot be ignorant of the fact, as men of the world, moving about from day&to day, and week to week, and reading papers of all descrip­ tions that a prosecution like this even if successful m an adverse verdict, could not at all prevent the propagation of here­ tical opinions, even if those opinions were expressed or rather maintained with a degree of levity which you yourselves would disapprove I do not think that the terrorism of an adverse verdict could at all influence the very large number of heretics that exist in this country; but, on the contrary, 1 shall ask you to believe that it would be construed as persecution, and that persecution has, according to the showing of history unless, it has exterminated, always, by arousing the fervor of men, in­ creased the strength of their cause. In this case, instead of an adverse verdict being deterrent, it would only excite interest m the ideas that are stigmatised by it, and would only lead to a far greater curiosity about them; and as the learned counsel knows curiosity in such a case as this is very unfortunate be­ cause it frequently leads to results the very opposite to those which the plaintiffs desire. I am charged with the publica­ tion of a blasphemous libel “ to the great scandal and reproach o the Christian religion.” I would ask you to consider the real facts of this alleged blasphemous libel, and its publication. ±t is not alleged that men have been sent out into the streets to force the publication into people’s hands. It is not even alleged that people had it pressed on their notice, or that any extraordi­ nary prominence has been given to it other than that which the curiosity of the reader, who may have been informed of its existence, might imply. With this fact on your mind, what weight can you attach to the declaration of the learned counsel for the prosecution that the obvious intention was to outrage the feelings of the Christian public. The Christian public is a very wide one, and an outrage on the Christian public m the street might perhaps have a wider effect and publicity than any outrage through the press. Nothing of this kind is alleged. It is a press offence. There is no declaration whatever within the borders of the incriminated number of the “Freethinker that its object is to outrage any person’s feelings. Does not the learned counsel know—gentlemen you must—-that a paper which may be considered blasphemous by authority may be written, and published, and sold, and printed, by those who be­ lieve in what is stated in the publication, for people who equally believe in it. On the very face of the thing, we must assume with respect to any publication, whether heretical or �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 17 foihthem’ostanaiitiSthireCt17 intended P^P1* who entertain tor the most part the views propounded in it. If you were to start a paper m the hope that those who hold opinions directly opposite to those expressed in it, would support it you would very soon be undeceived. That is a matte?which will not create much controversy. I submit, therefore, that it is not a question of what any Christian, whether sensitive or in sensitive, might dislike m a Freethought paper which may be written printed, published, sold for people who believed the men who are responsible for the publication, and who also be lieve m the policy which guides them in disseminating their views. I would, therefore, ask you not to attach any particular importance to the learned counsel’s observations on^his pjint I submit that there has been no proof of the alleo-nd in tendon ; on the contrary, ah the evidLce is ¿SX The last charge of the first count in the indictment is that the libel is against the peace of our Lady the Queen her Crown I »nd dr^ty. There, again, I daresay I shah be¡¿formed tZ that is the legal way of stating that a blasphemous libel has bZ committed; but gentlemen, these are in the nature of reasons These are in the nature, if I may use such language of lustrations of the concrete effects of disseminating such ™ Mica tions, and if these concrete results do not follow“ that ough" to ¡''"i."''“ y0U ““ verdict you give. I utterly deny thatothere has been any evidence whatever tendered to show or that pZZZ oWHhee XS X&TX'u" ZaSZ’ °i crd lead> t0 ob&e‘"on & trary there has been caused a feeling of excitement of a pleasant character, and what may prove to be 5 mental character by the commenXS would not have taken place if the incriminated paper had been left alone to find its own public that approved it, and to be despised if you will, by the public that disapproved it. ‘ ‘ BrS of the peace, gentlemen! I think youwill find that i Freethinkers and heretics a“e not prone to bt/ol? the neaee Ynn vwin t +n- i V pi one to breaches of « J i r 11’-1 thmk’ be aware that there has been a good deal of excitement in the streets of of the peace have oceur^b“ law, simply because the pX^fX^aXTaX/ B �18 Report of Blasphemy Trials. leads to breaches of the peace. I submit that the proper way of Healing with matters of this kind—the mode which public opinion is slowly beginning to appreciate—is to deal with breaches of the peace as they occur, and that it should not be argued that the expression of certain opinions m a particular form will necessarily lead to breaches of the peace, unless it can be shown that such breaches of the peace have occured in the past, and that there are indications that they will in all probability occur in the future. With regard to these concrete results that are predicted from the blasphemous libels set forth in the indictment, I shall ask you to give a verdict of Not Guilty, and to withhold the verdict of Guilty. Now gentlemen, I leave the indictment for a moment, and I come to other considerations. Whether Christianity is really nsrt and parcel of the law of the land is a question which I Eve Si the hands of the learned judge He will direct you, gentlemen, on that subject. But I do affirm that dissent from Christianity is so widespread m our country that fair-play, justice and humanity, alike demand that a jury should not give a verdict of guilty in the case of a prosecution for blasphemy, unless they are fully persuaded that those who are accused really wished really intended, and really designed, not only that the feelings of others should be outraged, but that some commotion might be raised some violent commotion which might be called a breach of the peace and from which it might be inferred that they designed the promotion of their own views through the disruption of society and the violation of public order. Now, gentlemen, I told you before that one of the reasons in my opinion why the present prosecution was commenced, was that the alleged blasphemous>libels were published m a cheap paper, and I asked you to bear in mind, that there was plenty of heresy in expensive books published at 10s., 12s., and even as much as £1 and more.’ I think I have a right to ask that you should have some proof of this statement. I think I can show you that similar views are expressed by the leading writers of to-day—not perhaps in precisely the same language—for it is not to be expected that the paper which is addressed to the many will be conducted on just the same level, either intellectually or aesthetically speaking, as a pubbeation in the form of an expensive book which is only intended for men of education, intelligence, leisure, and learning —but such views are put before the public by the most prominent writers of the day. You will, of course, expect to find differences in the mode of expression—and as a matter of course differences of taste • but I submit that differences of taste affect the question vervhttie, unless, as I have said, they actually lead to breaches of the peace. But in a case like this there ought to be no dis­ tinction1^on grounds of taste. Surely the man who says a thing m �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 19 one way is not to be punished, while the man who says the same thing m another way is to go scot free. You cannot make a distinction between men on grounds of taste. I can imagine that lfthere were a parliament of aesthetic gentlemen, and Mr. Oscar **, j yer.e ma^e Prime Minister, some such arrangement as that W01U1iLfind3 wei.gbt before the jury; but in the present state of enlightened opinion, I do not think that any such arrangement would be accepted by you. Now, gentlemen, I shall call your attention first of all to a book which is published by no less a firm than the old and well established house of Longmans The author of the book----Mr. Justice North : What is the name of the book. MMr; Foote : The book is the “Autobiography of John Stuart Mr. Justice North : What are you going to refer to it for ? lord 'b00te: 1 am going t0 refer t0 one PaSe of it, my Mr. Justice North: What for? Mr- Foote : To show that identical views to those expressed in volumes^ paper before tbe court are expressed in expensive Mr. Justice North : I shall not hear anything of that sort. I am not trying the question, nor are the jury, whether the views expressed by other persons are sound or right. The question is a blasPhemous libel. I shall direct them that it will be for them to say whether the facts are proved m this case. 1 1 e111! * al1 your attention, my lord, to the remarks i* of Lord Justice Cockburn m the case. ;,¥r’ ¿jUSfclCe N°rth : I will hear anything relevant to the sub­ ject. My reason for asking-you was to find out whether vou were going to quote a law book. Mr. Foote : I will quote a verbatim report. Mr. Justice North : I can hear that. Annie Bes°ant Charles Bradlaugh and Mr. Justice North : By whom is your report published. m a verbatim report published by the Freethought Publishing Company—the shorthand notes of the full theCcoeurkgS’ h the cross-examination and the judgment of hem*1it?UStiCe N°rt11: Tbere is no evidence of that. * Did you did11"’ F°°te: 1 dld nOt Personally Pear it; but my co-defendants Mr. Justice North: I will hear you state anything you suogest as being said by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. 7 * * *° �20 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Mr. Foote : Mrs. Besant was about to read a passage from “Tristram Shandy”----Mr. Justice North : You have not proved the publication. Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord; but although this is not formal evidence and only the report of a case, I thought your lordship would not object to hear it. [Mr. Foote here handed in a copy of the report to the judge, and pointed out that the Lord Chief Justice had said he could not prevent Mrs. Besant from committing a passage to memory or from reading books if reciting from memory.] Mr. Justice North: 1 will allow you to go on, either quoting' from memory or reading from the book; but I cannot go into the question of whether this is right or not. Mr. Foote: I am not proposing that. I am only going to show that opinions like those expressed here extensively prevail. Mr Justice North: That is not the question at all. If they extensively prevail, so much the worse. What somebody else has said, whoever that person may be, cannot affect the question in this case. „ , Mr. Foote : But, my lord, might it not affect the question of whether a jury might not themselves by an adverse verdict be far more contributing to a breach of the peace than the publica­ tion in which they are asked to adjudicate. Mr. Justice North: I think not, and it shall not do so it 1 can help it. It is a mere waste of time to attempt to justify anything that has been said in the alleged libel by showing that someone else has said the same thing. Mr. Foote : In all trials the same process has been allowed. Mr. Justice North : It will not be allowed on this occasion. Mr Foote : If your lordship will pardon me for calling atten­ tion to the famous case of the King against Wiliam Hone, I would point out that there Hone read extracts to the jury. P Mr. Justice North: Very possibly it might have been very relevant in that case. . . ., Mr Foote • But, my lord, it was precisely a similar case; it was a case of a blasphemous libel. Lord Ellenborougb sat on the Bench. Mr. Justice North : Possibly. Mr. Foote: And Lord Ellenborough allowed Mr. Hone to read what he considered justificatory of his own publication, lhe same thing occurs in the case of the Queen agamst Bradlaugh ^Mr Justice North: We have nothing to do to-day with the question whether any author has taken the views which are taken in these libels, whoever the author was. Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am to go on read­ ing or not ? �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 21 Mr. Justice North : Go on with your address to the jury sir • that’s what I wish you do. But you cannot do what you’were about to do—refer to the book you mentioned for any such pur­ poses as that you indicate. r Mr. Foote : I hope your lordship does not misunderstand me. 1 am simply defending myself against the very grave charge under an old law. s Mr Justice North: Go on, go on, Foote. I know that. Go on with your address. Mr. Foote : Your lordship, these questions are part of my address. Gentlemen (turning to the jury), no less a person than a brother of one of our most distinguished judges has said___ Mr. Justice North: Now, again, I cannot have you quoting books not m evidence, for the sake of putting before the jury m 3?aiiterT th?L,Sta<te- The Passage you referred to is one in done the L°rd CiUef dustlce pointed out that that could not be Mr. Foote: But the action, my lord, of the Herd Chief Jus­ tice did not put a stop to the reading. ’ He said he would allow Mrs. Besant to-XTquote any X---------- dUlHUSS. of her address. passage as part TIT T xn Mr. Justice North: Go on. Mr Foote : No less a person than the brother of one of our most learned----do^hatJUStiCe N°rth : N°W did 1 UOt teH y°U that y0U could not this^case*?0^6 ' WU1 y°Ur lordship give a most distinct ruling in Mr. Justice North: I am ruling that you cannot do what you Are trying to do now. J I100?.6 : dam sorry> my lord, I cannot understand. Mr Justice North: I am sorry for it. I have tried to make myself clear. Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am not to read from any letter to show lustification of the libel 9 be^hown°te : My 1OTd’ “ aU °rdinary libel case Justification can Mr. Justice North : Go on. Mr. Foote : 1 do not wish to occupy the time of the court un- �22 Report of Blasphemy Trials. necessarily, but really I think your lordship ought to remember the grave position in which I stand, and ought not to stand m the way of anything which I consider to be of vital importance to my defence. . T • Mr. Justice North: 1 have pointed out to you what I consider to be questions the jury have got to decide. I hope you will no go outside the lines I have pointed out to you, but, with these remarks, I am very reluctant to interfere with any prisoner sayin* anything which he considers necessary, and I will not stop you. I hope you will not abuse the concession I consider I am making to you. _ ■ Mr. Foote : I should be very sorry, my lord.. I am only ■ stating what I consider necessary. To the question of Are we Christians ?” which was propounded by the late German writer, Strauss, the gentleman to whom I refer, answers “ No ! I should reply ; we are not Christians ; a tew try to pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially men of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming social symptoms ; a great number call themselves Christians, because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of respec­ tability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avow­ edly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name Gentlemen, you will all have heard, I am sure, of the great name of John Stuart Mill, who was not only a great writer, whichis his highest claim to distinction, but was also a member of Parliament, elected, despite the most unscrupulous use ot the fact that he was a heretic, by the constituency of West minster. John Stuart Mill says he was brought up without religion, and states that his father, who brought him up “ looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by setting up fictitious excellencies,—belief in creeds, devotiona^ feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good ot human-kind,—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues : but above all, by radically vitiating the standard of morals ; making it consist m doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. J. have a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly in­ creasing progression, that mankind have gone on adding trai after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called this God, and prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 23 of wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is com­ monly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.” That is very emphatic language, and if a great writer, with not only an English or even a European, but a universal re­ putation can disseminate, such language as that through the agency of respectable publishers and in expensive books surely those who occupy the same ground, teach the same ideas m their own way to those who are willing to listen to them without forcing them on anyone’s attention, should enjoy immunity from such penalties as are inflicted in a case like this, and should enjoy exactly the same rights as those who differ from them—I suppose, gentlemen, I shall not trespass too much on your patience if I ask you to go back for a moment to the fact that I mentioned before the adjournment, namely, that it is a quarter of a century since there was any prosecution for blasphemy in England, lhe case was that of a poor Cornish well-sinker, who was sent to gaol for having chalked some silly words on a gate which words the witnesses could not agree about. This man was liberated after a very short incarceration, because public opinion was aroused against the sentence, and the authorities round it necessary to remit the larger portion of it. A great ea 0 controversy was excited at the time, and among other gentlemen who took part in it was no less a person than the great historian, Mr Henry Thomas Buckle, and he stated It should be clearly understood that every man has an abso­ lute and irrefragable right to treat any doctrine as he thinks proper; either to argue against it, or to ridicule it. If his arguments are wrong, he can be refuted; if his ridicule is t ohsh, he can be out-ridiculed. To this there can be no ex­ ception. It matters not what the tenet may be, nor how dear it is to our feelings. Like all other opinions, it must take its chance; it must be roughly used ; it must stand every test: it must be thoroughly discussed and sifted. And we mav truth 7t that lf really be a great and valuable truth, such opposition will endear it to us the more, and that we shall cling to it the closer in proportion as it is argued against, aspersed, and attempted to be overthrown ” beTt W X’ 1*aSkZ°U toJemem?er this language-to rememher that this great man has said m language which I would I a riht6 5U°,ted ,lf 1 C0uld only emulate it, that we all have a right to treat any mere doctrine as we may think fit Gentlemen ideas are the possession of no man. The reputa­ tions of individuals in bygone generations are not the vested right of men of to-day. If we really believe that no man who ever existed in the world was possessed of divine attri­ butes, then we ought to be as free to impugn, ridicule and �24 Report of Blasphemy Trials. caricature what one has done as well as another. If you should imagine, or believe, or feel thoroughly convinced, that exception must be made in the case of one reputed man, and that he had the attributes of divinity, yet, remembering that you cannot be the judges of others, and that your sentiments cannot be the criterion of other people’s conduct, I think you will be disposed to accede the demands of justice, and will not give the verdict of guilty asked for by the prosecution, but will return a verdict of not guilty for the defendants. Another great writer of to-day, Professor Huxley, has. used language about the dogmas of Christianity, such as, if the law as explained by the learned counsel for the prosecution were in force, would lead to his standing in this dock on a criminal charge ; and if the law were carried out vigorously, would lead to his incarceration in gaol. Surely, if that be true, as every reader of the literature of to-day must know, you have to ask yourselves whether, after all, there is not a seoret motive behind this prosecution which has induced the movers in it to select these particular men and to charge them with blasphemous libel, while others, guilty at law of pre­ cisely the same offence, are allowed to go scot free, and are sometimes even patronised ano praised. You ought to deter­ mine that by your verdict you will show that the liberties of those who seem friendless and poor shall not be rashly im­ perilled in the interests of classes, but that every man, whether poor or rich, and whether he addresses his fellow men through the medium of a penny paper or a twelve shilling book has precisely the same rights. I will ask you to treat the law under which we are being tried as the magis­ trate treated the law of maintenance—as obsolete in this country. It is very often said, and has been said to-day by the learned counsel for the prosecution, that ridicule is not allowable, and that learned men who controvert disputed points of religion or topics of religion refrain from ridi­ cule. I might give you the example of Mr. Matthew Arnold, son of Dr. Arnold, the celebrated head-master of Rugby School. Lord Derby, the other day at Liverpool, declared that Mr. Matthew Arnold possessed the title of original thinker if any one could make that claim. Yet we find him speaking in a book on “ God and the Bible,” in language which might have f been used in the “ Freethinker” or any other heretical publi­ cation. One of his phrases runs thus ” Given the problem of getting the infant Christ born without the assist­ ance of a Father.” Certainly nothing stronger than that could have been quoted by the learned counsel, who had refrained from making any quotation, as if he not only intended to snatch a verdict, but also to prevent the outside �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 25 world from understanding what the offence charged really amounted to, and to induce them to think that the libels were indecent as well as blasphemous. Mr. Matthew Arnold spoke of the Trinity as “ Three Lord Shaftesburys.” If a poor man had done this he would have been put on his trial; but Mr. Matthew Arnold is screened because of his position. I might give you more from Mr. Matthew Arnold; but I refrain. I have quoted from Professor Huxley, but there is one passage in which he distinctly repudiates belief in the fuller part of the Old Testament, which is alleged to be blasphemously libelled in one of the drawings of the “ Freethinker.” Pro­ fessor Huxley says that people who call themselves Christians, believe that “Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become con­ verted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man oj science, or duly instructed person, who does; ” and Professor Huxley in the same address, has an eloquent fling at those- who, as he says, would make the myths of the Hebrews obligatory on the Englishmen of to-day, and who would. degrade the people of this country to the level of primitive Judaism. Now, gentlemen, I pass by Professor Huxley and Mr. Matthew Arnold, and come to Viscount Amberley. Mr. J"ustice North: Do you really think you are doing your­ self any good by this mode of address to the jury, who have only to decide the questions which I have pointed out to you just now p Mr.. Foote: I do, my lord. Lord Amberley distinctly repudiates all Christian belief, and says, for instance, with respect to the subject of the libel which is referred to in the indictment as to pages 8 and 9 of the “ Freethinker.” [Here Mr. Foote quoted a passage which shall be given in full in the last Part.] Now, gentlemen, is not this language as extreme as any­ thing that has been stated or pointed out to you as forming part of the blasphemous libel before you ? Just one other quotation.. One of the illustrations which is mentioned as occuring in this blasphemous libel on page 7 of the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker,” is called “ A back view.” �26 Iteport of Blasphemy Trials. That, on the face of it, does not represent a Deity. It represents a Hebrew myth—a Hebrew legend, if yon prefer the phrase—which, if one does not believe in its truth as history, and as matter of fact, is as much a subject of caricature, of ridicule, and of sarcasm, as the myths of the Greeks and Romans, or of any other people. Surely, gentlemen, you are not going to make it an offence to caricature the myths of Greece and Rome, which were coeval with the days of the Hebrews, who were much more barbarous than the Greeks and Romans, because they were much less informed as to natural laws, and were the most credulous and ignorant people who ever attracted the notice of the world. Another writer has said in an expensive book, “ Truly if the author of Exodus,”—and the quotation under this drawing was taken from the book of Exodus—“ had been possessed of the genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the God of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more ter­ ribly true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the re­ volting details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian nation.” (“ The Evolution of Christianity,” p. 25 ; William and Norgate ; 1883.) There are many other paragraphs following, which deal with other aspects of the character of the same Deity, all breathing the same sentiment. Gentlemen, so far I have proved my point, that in expensive books the same kind of heresy, and the same kind of language are employed, as are to be found in the publication which is now before you. I ask you, gentlemen, to believe that there must be some other reason prompting the prosecutors than those which are ostensibly on the face of their declarations, and that they are really seeking to gratify some ulterior design—probably seeking only the same objects as were sought in the previous prosecution for blas­ phemy, which is still pending—namely, an attack on a political opponent under an obsolete religious law, which was allowed to slumber until his enemies found it a useful weapon to employ against him for political ends. Now, gentlemen, I have given you one or two illustrations of permitted blasphemy in expensive books, and I will go on to trouble you for a minute or two with a few instances of permitted blasphemy in cheap publications which, however, are ignored because they call themselves Christian, and because those who conduct them are patronised by ecclesiastical dignitaries. One passage in a paper I hold in my hand, a Christian paper, says:— [Here follows a passage from the War Cry, impounded, but which we hope to give in our last Part.] Mr. Justice North: Now, Foote, I am going to put a stop to �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 27 this. I will not allow any more of these illustrations of what you call permitted blasphemy in cheap publications. I decline to have any more of them put before me. Mr. Foote: My lord, I will use them for another purpose, if you will allow me. Mr. Justice North: You will not use them here at all, sir. Mr. Foote : May they not be used, my lord, to show that an equally free use of religious symbols, and religious language, prevails widely in all classes of literature and society ? Mr. Justice North : No, they may not. I decline to hear them read. They are not in evidence, and I refuse to allow you to quote from such documents as part of your speech. Mr. Foote : Well, gentlemen, I will now ask your attention very briefly to another branch of the subj ect—one that 1 have mentioned before, and one that I wish to dwell upon at greater length now. The learned counsel for the prosecution told you—and this I hold is fatal to his case, if it is to be a question of logic—that discussion on controversial points of religion, even when they are conducted warmly by learned men, would not be made the subject of prosecution at law—that nothing would result from them ; by which I suppose he meant that a jury would not give a verdict against the prosecuted persons : thus showing that, in his opinion a jury has a very large dis­ cretion in the matter. I submit that this very statement carries with it a complete refutation of his argument. When these obsolete laws were being enforced against Richard Carlile and others, the prosecuted periodicals had a larger sale, and the society which was promoting them had a larger accession of strength, and was able to hold its own much better than before. John Stuart Mill pointed out at that time in the Westminster Review that, it is absurd to say a subject is open to discussion, and at the same time to bar one method of discussion. . Ridicule, gentlemen—what is it ? A logician would call it the reductio ad absurdum—that is to say, it reduces a. thing to absurdity. Some of you must know that ridicule is a most potent form of argument as used by so great a logician as Euclid. Why then, with respect to controverted points of religion, should a man be deemed a criminal because he has applied ridicule to those points, either pictorially, or in the language of every-day life ? Suppose you look around and take letters, or politics, or social matters, do you not find, that ridicule plays an important and growing part in every one of them?^ Do you not find that the comic journals are constantly rising, that the rate of the old-established ones is constantly increasing, and that their influence is constantly extending ? You do. And why is it you permit ridicule in controversy on all social matters ? Simply because the whole �28 Report of Blasphemy Trials. question is open to the fullest discussion, and you have no reservations. Ridicule is not a form of argument which is necessarily used to outrage the feelings of those from whom we differ, lent to point out absurd conclusion, and to show more clearly the ridiculous side of a thing. If the illustration takes the form of pictures instead of letterpress what essential difference can it make ? It is simply appealing to the eye instead of the ear, and can make no essential difference. If you agree with the learned counsel, that discussion on points of theology is allowable, and the widest difference on such points is allowable, you cannot logically bring in a person guilty of blasphemy—simply he differs in a usual way. When you allow that religion may be discussed without any reser­ vation you cannot exclude ridicule, which is only a form of argument, and has been found one of the most potent forms not only by philosophers and logicians, but by the greatest Christians, from Tertullian and other early Fathers, down to Martin Luther, who was the most practised hand at that, to our own time, when, if you look at the religious papers, either High Church or Low Church, you will find that they employ it most freely one against the other, considering it a fair and legitimate weapon of controversy. I will ask you to consider this question of outraging people’s feelings. Whose feelings, I would ask, have been outraged by the publication of this alleged blasphemous libel p I am not arguing whether I have been proved to have been connected with it. That is a question which I have raised before ; but I ask what evi­ dence is there that this publication, notwithstanding all the denunciations of the learned counsel for the prosecution, has outraged the feelings of those who differ from the doctrines propounded in it? The learned counsel may say liis feelings have been outraged; but, gentlemen, I do not think you will attach much importance to that. You can get any amount of denunciation from a prosecuting counsel, and his denunciations -can generally be measured by the number of guineas marked upon his brief. But I will put it to the prosecuting couusel— what feelings have been outraged ? They ought to have pro­ duced evidence that the feelings of certain people had been outraged. The question of outraging people’s feeling is open to unlimited controversy. If a shot is being fired in a par­ ticular direction, you can say what its tendency is. If certain physical forces are working together, you can say what the resultant tendency will be, but when you ^y that a thing tends to outrage the feelings of others, what criterion do you set up ? No criterion is possible. The only way in which such a question could be settled, is by producing witnesses. Probably, this might not be possible or practicable; but this �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 29 is not my fault. Witnesses ought to be produced, who will either solemnly affirm, or swear, that their feelings have been outraged by this publication—that it has in any way injured their digestion and disturbed their sleep. Really, gentlemen, when people talk of outraged feelings, they ought to consider that this is a two-edged argument. I do not know that any persons in this country are called on every time they put pen to paper, or use their tongues for those who in the main believe as they do, and agree with their policy—I do not know that any persons other than Freethinkers, are called upon every time they speak or write to consider the feelings of those who differ from them. You know, gentlemen, as well as I do, that if any person were prosecuted, because, either by pen or tongue, he had outraged the feelings of Freethinkers— and, gentlemen, through all grades of society, there are very many of them—the very idea would be scouted. This talk about outraging other people’s feelings, is only one way of cloaking the hideousness of an old persecuting law, only a mark put before the repulsive features of that persecution, which has in the past deluged the earth with blood, which is still capable of depriving a mother of her children, and of depriving a citizen of his civil and political rights, but which is happily losing its power day by day, and is destined to lose its power altogether before long. Now, gentlemen, I will ask you to consider in a separate way the question of a breach of the peace. What is the mean­ ing of. breach of the peace. It is exactly like the talk about outraged feelings ; it is only another cloak, another mask. There has not been the slightest evidence produced that any­ thing I have done has led to a breach of the peace or is in any way likely to do so. There has been no gathering in the streets, outside shops ; no expulsion from lecture halls—in fact, there has been absolutely nothing, except the fact that people who have bought the paper for the purposes of prose­ cution dislike it, or say they do, in order to wring a verdict of guilty from you. A breach of the peace, gentlemen, if it were actually committed, would be rightly regarded as a grave offence. It is the active interference with the liberty of another, the violation of his individual right. If we had been proved guilty of a breach of the peace what justification could I offer or make ? None. I have been proved guilty of nothing of the sort. The language of the indictment is mis­ leading. I shall not ask you to go over the ground I tra­ versed as to the law of India, but I will ask you to bear it in mind. India is part of our British Empire. If we hold an empire I suppose we feel obliged to rule it on principles of justice, and you cannot divorce justice from truth. Religion �30 Report of Blasphemy Trials. can only be upheld by law, and protected by law, in so far as it is considered necessary for the public peace and safety, or as it is considered necessary for our eternal salvation, and that whoever impugns it does so to the danger of others. But if these reasons are good here, they must be good every­ where the British flag flies ; they must be as good and true for India as for England. But why not attempt to force them there ? Because the vast majority of the people there are not Christians. Here the majority of the people are Christians— by profession, at least—and we have an established religion in the form of a State Church. It is therefore only a question of numbers. In India Christians cannot get any special pro­ tection—although they are under the same ruler—simply because they are in a minority ; but here the right is claimed of crushing out opposition to Christianity because it is in the majority. But surely such an argument should not prevail; .and if you think that each man has an equal right with every other man, and that if he is not trenching on the right of any other man. he ought not to be punished, you will withhold a verdict of guilty from the prosecution, and award a verdict of not guilty to me. Let me say what it is that any Free­ thinker could demand. Does he ask for privileges, does he ■demand exceptional advantages for himself ? I for one should be the very last to make any such claim, but unless you have evidence before you that this publication has been forced on the attention of others, unless you have evidence that it has been surreptitiously placed in their way and that they have unheedingly fallen into the trap, and have read it without knowing what they were doing ; unless you have evi­ dence that there has been some conspiracy to place this in the hands of children of Christian parents unknown to those parents—unless something of this kind can be proved, you ought to remember that all we ask, and that all I personally ask, is that you should yield to every other man the right which you would certainly claim for yourselves. You ought by a verdict of not guilty to allow it to go forth that you as twelve Englishmen, free men in a free country, recognise the grand principle of religious as well as civil liberty, and believe that every man has a right to say what he pleases to the people who choose to hear it and write what he pleases to people who choose to read it. Ho Freethinker could demand more than that. The whole history of the world, and especially the history of this country, ought to show you that those who claim what I have stated, while they demand more, will never rest satisfied with less. And now, gentlemen, just one thing more. If blasphemy is an offence at all it can, I argue, only be an offence against �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 31 the deity blasphemed. In various parts of the world the defi­ nitions of blasphemy differ. The Christian in this country says that to deny the divinity of Christ is blasphemy ; the J ew, that to affirm his divinity is blasphemy—yet even Jews and Chris­ tians, who differ so widely as to the specific character of blas­ phemy, are to be seen not only in the same executive branches of our national life, but even sitting together in the very legislative body that makes the laws of which we are told Christianity is part and parcel. You haxe Jews, Christians and heretics sitting together in the same House and helping to make our Christian laws 1 I have a great authority to sup­ port me in saying that blasphemy can only be committed against a specific deity in whom we believe. Mr. Justice North : I am not going to hear any argument to the effect that blasphemy is not against the law of the land. I say it is against the law of the land. The question for the jury will be whether this is blasphemy. I decline to hear argument that blasphemy is not against the law of the land. Mr. Foote: If blasphemy is an offence against the law of the land might not the jury be influenced in giving their verdict by the consideration as to whether the person specifi­ cally charged with the offence could really be guilty of it. Mr. Justice North: You may say anything you please on the question of whether you are guilty of the offence with which you are charged, or not. But I shall direct the jury that the alleged libel is against the law of the land. Mr. Foote: That may be ; I am not now trespassing on that ground. Mr. Justice North: Yes, you are, because you are addressing yourself to the question whether blasphemy ought to be the law of the land. f That I stopi1Mr. Foote: A great lawyer—no less a person than the late Lord Brougham—publicly asserted in a book written by him that, properly speaking, blasphemy is an offence that can only be committed by a believer in the deity blasphemed, and, gentlemen, this is a fact which I am desirous of im­ pressing upon you. The very statute which the learned judge will interpret to you, if he deals with it at all, sets forth that persons brought up in the Christian religion are to be subject to penalties if they are proved guilty of blasphemy. Mr. Justice North: You need not address yourself to that. We have nothing to do with the statute at this moment. Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord. I am only attempting to impress on the jury a fact which I think ought to constitute a part of their consideration when they are forming their judgment preparatory to giving their verdict—a fact which �32 Report of Blasphemy Trials. stands on the great and transcendant authority of a lawyer like Lord Brougham. Now, gentlemen, I will ask your atten­ tion to what is, perhaps, after all the most important thing to consider, even from the point of view of the prosecution itself. I affirm, and I have all history to support me, that these prosecutions necessarily fail in their desired efEect. Gentlemen, that ought to be a consideration that should weigh heavily with you. In the book I hold in my hand there is a poem which a jury declared to be blasphemous, notwith­ standing an eloquent defence by Serjeant Talfourd. Did that stop the sale ? Gentlemen, that poem is included in the col­ lected editions of Shelley, published by all sorts of firms, in every part of the English-speaking world, including our own country ; and “ Queen Mab ” is far more extensively sold and read to-day than it ever was before the publishers of it were prosecuted. There was another book prosecuted again and again, and its publisher, Richard Carlile, went to gaol year after year. He spent nine years in gaol, and his wife, sister, and shopman, went to gaol one after the other, while men also went to gaol in all parts of the country. You would have thought that such a sweeping execution of the law would have stopped the circulation of the book for ever, but, as a matter of fact, that book enjoys an exceedingly large circula­ tion to-day. I am within the truth when I say that consider­ ably over 1000 copies are sold every year. The prosecu­ tion did not stop its sale, it only gave it a wider circulation ; and Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason,” with his “Rights of Man,” which were both the subjects of prosecution, are read more than they ever would have been if the attempt to sup­ press them had not given them a wider publicity, and a more extensive circle of readers. You will have in your minds, I am sure, the prosecution instituted against Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant for publishing the book on the population question ; and it will be well for you to remember that it was openly stated in court, that while the sale of this little work had only been about 100 copies a year for thirty or forty years before, it was absolutely sent up by the prosecution to the enormous circulation of 150,000. That prosecution did not succeed in putting down the obnoxious publication. I submit that no such prosecution can possibly succeed. Prom the point of view of the prosecutors themselves it is a mistake. You only give a wider sale; you excite a greater curiosity; you bring, as it were, within the influence of the ideas dis­ seminated. by the publication, a larger number susceptible of receiving them; and you only tend to enlarge the class of men, who, if the laws of the land were carried out, might be treated as outlaws, and deprived of all their civil �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 33 aP’!^ political rights. IP this be so, you have a very serious thing to consider. Mr. Justice North Foote, I shall tell the jury that they have nothing whatever to do with that. If the prosecution is ill-advised and should lead to a great circulation of these papers, so much the worse, but that cannot throw any light whatever on what the jury ought to decide in your case. Mr. Foote: Gentlemen of the jury, I have only said what seemed to me necessary to influence your judgment—necessary for my own defence, necessary to obtain from you a verdict of Dot guilty. I again repeat that I had no intention of tres­ passing on the province of the learned judge. It is perfectly impossible, however, that a case like mine can be argued without occasionally something being said which the learned judge may think outside the province of a defendant, and if I were a lawyer (ike Sir Hardinge Giffard and had the purse of the Corporation of the (’ity of London to supply his legal skill, it might be different, f am too poor to employ such, legal assistance, and I can only use such arguments as seem to me to be likely to have their effect on your minds. I have tra­ versed a very large space, not only of time but of ground. I nave uenied utterly that Christianity can be considered in the sense stated by the learned counsel for the prosecution as protected by the law. I have denied that I am guilty of the con­ crete offences which are stated in this indictment. I deny that there has been or can be any proof that I have done any­ thing to the high displeasure of Almighty God ; I deny that 1 have done anything against the peace of our Lady the (¿ueen, her Crown, and dignity. I have also stated that this is an age of intellectual fair-play, that all kinds of argument eVuI1iK arSuIQeilt absurdum—ridicule—must be tolerated’ and that as it is allowed in politics, literature, philosophy, and’ social matters, it. must be allowed in religion too. I have argued that no evidence has been adduced to show that there has been any forcing of this publication on the attention of people who wish to have nothing to do with it. I have shown you and there has been no attempt to prove anything to the contrary, that there was no malignant motive in my mind and 1 believe none in the minds of either of my co-defendants’ in anything we have ever done. No such evidence has been tendered, and unless you consider that there has been such malignant motive, and that we have intended to cause a breach of the peace, and to forcibly outrage the feelings of those from whom we happen to differ—unless you believe this gme me a Ver^^ Of not guilfcF- lf y°u have the smallest doubt in your minds as to the sufficiency of the evi­ dence, 1 ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I ask �34 Report of Blasphemy Trials. you to act on the old English maxim that a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty. I told you at the outset that you are the last Court ot Appeal on all questions affecting the liberty of the press and the right of free speech and Freethought. When I say Freethought, I do not refer to specific doctrines that may pass under that name, but I refer to the great right of Freethought, that Freethought which is neither low as a cottage nor lofty as a pyramid, but is like the soaring azure vault of heaven, which over-arches both with equal ease. I ask you to affirm the liberty of the press, to show by your verdict that you are prepared to give to others the same freedom as you claim for yourselves. I ask you not to be misled by the statements that have been thrown out by the prosecution, not to be misled by the authority and influence of the mighty and rich Corporation which commenced the action, has found the money for it, and whose very solicitor was bound over to prosecute. I will ask you not to be influenced by these considerations, but rather to remember that this present attack is made upon us probably because we are connected with those who have been struck at again and again by some of the very persons who are engaged in the prosecution; to remember that England is growing day y day in its humanity and love of freedom; and that, as blas­ phemy has been an offence less and less proceeded against during the past century, so there will probably be fewer and fewer proceedings against it in the next. Indeed there may never be another prosecution for blasphemy, and I am sure you would not like to have it weigh on your minds that you were the instruments of the last act of persecution, t a you were the last jury, who sent to be caged like wild beasts, men against whose honesty there has been no charge. I am quite sure you will not. allow yourselves to be made the agents of sending such men to herd with the lowest criminals, to be subject to all the physical indignities such punishment involves, but that you will send me as well as my co-defendants, back to our homes and friends—who do not think the worse of us for the position in which we stand ; that you will send us back to them unstained, giving a verdict of not guilty for ma and my co-defendants, instead of the verdict of guilty for the prosecution; thus, as English juries have again and again done before, vindicating the glorious principle of the freedom of the press, against all the interested, religious, and political factions that may seek to impugn them for tneir own ends. (Applause in court.) ,___ Mr. Ramsey then addressed the jury as followsGentlemem 1 stand indicted before you for an alleged blasphemous libel, and �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 35 upon you the law throws the duty of defining what is and what is not blasphemy at common law. And yet the meaning of the word blasphemy has strangely changed and varied during the last 250 years, lhen Quakers were held to be blasphemous, and were punished as such. They were branded and flogged at the carts tail m the vain attempt to silence their blasphemy and jury after jury returned verdicts of guilty against men and wrnnen tor •holdingp the opinions which have proved iiu bar to the no Mar io cue ■i • t i -a . 7— -------T admission of John Bright to the Cabinet. Surely this fact alone should make a modern jury careful how they condemn any form of thought, even though it be as blasphemous in their eyes as the opinions of the Quakers were blasphemous in the eyes of the juries who condemned them, and who are now, in their turn condemned by every rational person. Later still, Unitarians were indictable and were punished as blasnhemprs ____ Unitarians are found such names as those of John Milton Dr Priestley the discoverer of oxygen, and Isaac Newton. Even now Unitarians are punishable under the same law of blas­ phemy under which you are asked to find me guilty, and are at the mercy of any common informer or over-zealmis �36 Report of Blasphemy Trials. from any respectable bookseller throughout the country, while as to the “ dread of future punishment,” the law is stripped of thia “ one of its principal sanctions,” by men hke Canon tarrar preaching, in Westminster Abbey, against the doctrine of eternal punishment. Will you, gentlemen, add your names to the shame­ ful list of those juries who tried—and tried vainly—by verdicts of “ guilty of blasphemy” to check the progress of free inquiry and free criticism. Less than a century ago Canon Farrar would by direction of Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, have been found guilty of blasphemy. In the last century prosecutions for heresy or blasphemy were plentiful, but to-day the spread of education has created a sounder public opinion. In nearly the last indictment for blasphemy m Middlesex Messrs. Moxon, the publishers of Shelley’s “Queen Mab, were found guilty under a similar indictment to that under which I now stand arraigned; yet to-day you may buy this blas­ phemous poem on any- railway bookstall in the country, and the inane verdict of the jury which condemned it is regarded with contempt and scorn. Is it in the company of that jury that your names, gentlemen, are to be recorded? A similar indict­ ment might to-day be preferred against Messrs Longmans as the publishers of the works of Bishop Colenso ; Chapman, Hall an Co. and Macmillan might equally be indicted for the publication of many of the essays of the late William Kingdon Clifford; and your verdict may revive a menace against the utterances of some of our best known writers and thinkers. It is idle to say that there is no intention of prosecuting these men ; any one who is vicious enough and bigoted enough can mdict the most respect­ able bookseller for blasphemy, and the law of blasphemy deals with matter not with manner; the law of blasphemy condemns equally Professor Clifford’s mocking account of the creation stories in Genesis, as it may condemn the mocking in the news­ paper before you. Messrs. Macmillan publish as to these creation stories these words: “One is an account of a wet be­ ginning of things, after which the waters were divided by a firm canopy of sky, and the dry land appeared underneath. Plants and animals and men were successively formed by the word of a deity enthroned above the canopy. Another account is ot a dry beginning of things—namely, a garden, subsequently watered bv a mist in which there were no plants until a man was put there to till it. This man was made from the dust of the ground bv a deity who walked about on the earth, and had divine associates, jealous of the man for sharing their privilege of knowing good from evil, and fearful that he would gam that of immortality also. The deity had taken a rib out of the man, and made a woman of it.” They publish : “ Now, to condemn all mankind for the sin of Adam and Eve ; to let the innocent �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 37 suffer for the guilty; to keep any one alive in torture for ever and ever—these actions are simply magnified copies of what bad men do. No juggling with ‘ divine justice and mercy ’ can make them anything else.” Herbert Spencer writes, and King and Co. publish: “ Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare will be endangered if there is not in all our churches an enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each of them almighty; that yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty; that one of the Almighties suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them.” Objection is raised to the strength of the language used with respect to God, yet the City does not prosecute the “Nemesis of Faith,” which says of God: He ! to have created mankind liable to fall—to have laid them in the way of a temptation under which he knew they would fall and then curse them and all who were to come of them, and ali the world for their sakes ; jealous, passionate, capricious, re­ vengeful, punishing children for their father’s sins, tempting men or at least permitting them to be tempted into blindness and folly, and then destroying them..............This is not God. This is a fiend. .... I would sooner perish for ever than stoop down before a Being who may have power to crush me, but whom my v air ^orbids me to reverence.” Mr. Matthew Arnold, published by Messrs. Smith, Elder and Co., describes the Trinity as the three Shaftesbury s, and terms God the Father £ithe elder Lord Shaftesbury.” What is therein the “Freethinker ”more outrageous than this ? John Stuart Mill, published by Longmans, declares that “The only difference between popular Christianity and the religion of Ormuzd and Ahriman is that the former pays its d Creator the bad compliment of having been the maker of the Devil, and of being at all times able to crush and annihilate him and his evil deeds and counsels, which nevertheless he does not do. To all these considerations ought to be added the extremely imperfect nature of the testimony itself which we possess for the miracles, real or supposed, which accompanied the foundation of Christianity and of every other revealed reli­ gion. lake it at the best, it is the un-crossexamined testimony of extremely ignorant people, credulous as such usually are.” y°u condemn me, remember that your verdict will be taken as an encouragement for prosecution of all these. 1 have no right to ask you to question the law, because to you and to the learned judge is given the duty of administering the law as ? but 1 would respectfully submit that the laws against blasphemy belong to a period when men foolishly sought to control opinion by legislation, and that the nower of defining what is a blasphemous publication lies in your hands. To-day .eminent men like Lord Shaftesbury condemn as blasphemous �38 Report of E lasphemy Trials. the publications of the Salvation Army; and if to bring religion into mockery and contempt be blasphemy, there is none more outrageous than that committed by these fanatics. In strong terms the same Lord Shaftesbury, a few years ago, denounced as blasphemous the famous volume “ Ecce Homo.’’ This prose­ cution challenges really the right of free and unlicensed print­ ing, so highly valued in England, and for which Milton so ably and earnestly pleaded; it assails that spirit of free inquiry, which is really the basis of all our progress, the spur and aid to all intellectual effort. I submit that you are not sitting as a jury to condemn us for want of good taste ; that is a matter for the wider jury of public opinion ; you are asked to condemn us as criminals because our opinions on theology differ from yours, and because jou may dislike our modes of expressing our opinions; you are asked to send us to undergo a punishment intended for grave crimes of conduct merely because we do not share your opinions on speculative matters. However the pro­ secution may try to gloss it over, you are asked to revive perse­ cution for the sake of gagging opinion, and to send men against whose lives and characters no fault is alleged to keep company with the scum of society. It is alleged that the publication of so-called blasphemy is an outrage; even if that be so it is an outrage from which no one need suffer save by his own free will • the persons whose feelings you are asked to guard by imprisoning us can guard their feelings by not buying the papers which when bought, and not till then, inflict on them pain. The use of ridicule and strong words by religionists against Freethinkers is common enough within the limits of this empne. The missionaries use mocking words of Hindu and Mahornedan forms of faith. If you would judge fairly of the criminality of the paper indicted, you should think of the pictures as de­ picting some god in whom you do not believe. Those who would punish with imprisonment the publisher of a print of Jupiter smoking a pipe might punish us. But no one else should do so. You may think that a peculiar picture of a pagan god is in bad taste—many people, Christians and Freethinkers, would acrree with you. But a man ought scarcely to be punished as a criminal for a breach of good taste, even admitting that such has been committed. Whether this be wise or unwise is another question. My appeal to you is to widen the liberty of speech enjoyed, not to restrict it. If you hold our methods of utterance improper in form or in method, your verdict, if it mark us as criminals, will make mankind look at our punishment rather than at our error. Every attempt is being made to rouse your supposed prejudices and to excite your feelings. I ask you to remember the essential question at issue, and not to allow yourselves to be blinded by the side issues so skilfully raised to �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 89 conceal the real point. Every attempt hitherto made to suppress opinion has ended in the wider diffusion of the opinions thus attacked. Persecution does not silence, it makes of the perse­ cuted heroes and martyrs, and gives to them a tenfold strength. No service will be done to morals by sending us to consort with criminals, and to you the sole authority is given of doing with us as three juries in this very building did with William Hone. He was indicted for blasphemy, and on three separate trials three verdicts of acquittal did then what I appeal to you to do now. They left opinion free for opinion to condemn, but refused to condemn the mere use of hard or mocking words as crime. Mr. Justice North, after remarking that Mr. Foote had wasted the time of the court by devoting a large portion of his address to matters which the jury had not to consider, that he had allowed him to read some extracts from books which perhaps he ought to have stopped, and that the jury must excuse him for not having done so, because he had been very reluctant to do any­ thing which might prevent a defendant saying anything he sup­ posed to be of value in his own defence, said: You have nothing to do with the definition of a blasphemous publication. The law says what a blasphemous pubheation is, but it is your duty to say whether the publication in this case is what the law con­ siders a blasphemous pubheation or not. The law as to blas­ phemy is clear, and I am going to tell you what is sufficient to constitute blasphemy. The illustrations I am going to give you, however, will not cover the whole of what may be blasphemy^ Now, if by writing or verbally, any one 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 contempt, 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. It is for you to say whether you consider the publication before you as having come within this definition of blasphemous libel or not. It is said that the law had better not pay any attention to blasphemy, and should not deal with it. It is essential that the law should do so, because blasphemous libels have a strong tendency to subvert religion and morality, and tend in a great measure to interfere with the law itself. But I do not dwell on this, because you will with me accept the law as it is, without hearing reasons for it. This being the definition of a blasphemous libel, let us con­ sider whether this paper comes within the definition. Does it or does it not scoff at the Almighty, and throw contempt on the tenets, or views entertained by professors of the Christian religion ? �40 Report of Blasphemy Trials. I am not going to call attention in public to the details of the charge. The learned counsel, who opened this case to you, very wisely refrained from stating in public the particular matters which you have to deal with. I shall do the same. I shall not read them in public or anything of the sort. I must, however, make a few remarks in respect to the questions you must put to yourselves regarding each. Now, the first count relates to what appears on pages 8, 9, and 10 of this publication, pages 8 and 9 being occupied entirely with pictures, and there being over the top of page 10 two pictures more. Now, just look at those pictures for yourselves. Look on page 9, at the top, on the left, on the picture below that. Look at the others in the left-hand column. Look at the first, I might say, and look at the last, and consider in looking at them whether they or any of them throw contempt on religion, or treat with derision the Holy Scriptures, the Christian religion, or the Deity. The second count relates to the woodcut on page 7. In connection with that, is the stanza below—the nine lines beginning with the words, “Now Moses,” which I daresay you have read. Now just look at the whole of that, looking at the picture and the words below it, and those nine lines below. What do you say to that? Then again the third is at page 8, near the bottom of the right-hand column, the third paragraph from the bottom. It begins with the word“ converted.” Now, just look at that. What, gentlemen, do you think of that? Something has been said about the right of free discussion, the right of controversy about matters of religion, in respect to which persons may take different views, and the right of conveying your own ideas to others. Look at that paragraph and consider whether that can possibly be justified on the ground of its being controversy or discussion or anything like it. Now look at the fourth ; the fourth is at pages 4 and 5. It purports to be an account of a trial for a blasphemous libel. If you read the first four lines you will see who the alleged prisoners are ; I daresay you may have seen the contents of it. I will ask you in particular to look at the second paragraph, beginning at the words “ The indictment.” It is after the first four lines stating who the parties are, and then comes the first paragraph “ The indictment.” There is one other part I will just call your attention to there. In the middle of the first column of page 5 you see the words “ This concluded the case for the prosecution.” Now look at the eight or ten lines follow­ ing that. I myself, gentlemen, have read the whole of these pages through. I do not call your attention to these pages as being worse than the rest, but as being what seems to be a fair sample of the rest. At any rate, they are found there. The sixth count relates to a passage at page 14, the second column, the second paragraph from the top. It begins with the word �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 41 “ Holyyou see what I refer to. I ask you to consider, gentle­ men, whether the proper term for that would be controversy or free discussion on a point to be reasonably considered, or whether the proper description of that would not be rather a piece of ribald obscenity. Then, gentlemen, there is only one other count, six, and that is really putting the first in a different way. After the time that has been taken up, I am not going to waste your time, and I am not going to give to this paper any of that notoriety which its authors would desire for it by dwelling on it at any length. I am not going to insult your understandings by supposing that any one of you requires any further explanation from me to enable you to form an opinion as to whether these are or are not blasphemous libels, having regard to that which I have told you as to what a blasphemous libel is—that is to say, whether this is a case of contumelious reproach or profane scoff­ ing against God Almighty, or the Persons of the Trinity, or the Holy Scriptures, or the Christian religion. As to that, gentlemen, I will say no more, but will leave it to you to consider. That is the first part of the case—and the question you have there to consider is, whether, having regard to this definition, these differ­ ent paragraphs are libels or not. I am proceeding now to the second point—but if you find that they are not libels, of course the result would be that the prisoners would be acquitted, but if you find that they are, the result would be that to that extent the prisoners are guilty. Their cases stand somewhat differently. I take Kemp first, as his learned counsel has not thought it neces­ sary to address you. He said very properly that as the evidence showed beyond a doubt that Kemp was proved to have sold the papers he would not address you on that point. You will recollect in regard to Kemp also that it is quite clear that on the 2nd of August, 1882, he signed the register of the news­ paper as the printer and publisher. Therefore, as regards Kemp, the only question is whether you are of opinion that it was a blasphemous libel or not. That he sold it is quite out of the question. Then next I take the case of Ramsey. What is his position ? As regards that, the law requires that newspapers should be registered, and it says—after providing for the way in which registration is to be made, which has been carried out as regards this paper by the documents produced here to-day—that every copy and extract from the registry of these documents shall be received as conclusive evidence of the contents of the register itself, so far as the same appears in the copy or extract. I read to you from the original, which has no magic force, but a copy of it is in evidence before you, and that copy is made by the statute sufficient evidence of the matters and things therein appearing. What appears ? As regards Ramsey, what appears is this, that when the “Free­ �42 Report of Blasphemy Trials. thinker” is first registered, on the 6th of November, 1881, Ramsey is the person who goes to the registry and who appears in the register as proprietor of the paper, and he signs his name at the bottom, stating that he is the printer and publisher also. On the 2nd of August, 1882, a change takes place. But before going to that, perhaps I should call your attention to these copies of the “ Freethinker ”—the first batch that were purchased before the proceedings at the Mansion House in July last, and of these I only take the first and last. It appears they are said to be edited by Foote, and in the notice to correspondents appears, “All business communications to be addressed to Mr. W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. ; literary communications to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, London, W.C.” At the foot of the last page is, “Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street.” Then, in August, 1882, a change takes place, and the register shows that Ramsey is continued as proprietor, but the printer and publisher then is Kemp. He is the one who signs the register as printer and publisher, but Ramsey is continued as proprietor down to and after Christmas 1882, while this Christ­ mas publication is issued ; in fact, down to February 7th, 1883. On that day a change takes place. Foote effects a new registra­ tion, from which it appears that Ramsey ceases to be proprietor of the paper, and Foote becomes proprietor. That is the history of the paper as it stands, so that Ramsey’s connexion is that he was proprietor from April, 1881, down to the 7th of February, 1883. That is his position. The proprietor of a newspaper is and was liable for all libels that appear in that paper. The theory was and is that if he is the person who prints and publishes the news­ paper himself he is responsible for the contents of it, and that if he does not do it himself he is responsible for the person who does it for him. That sometimes worked very hardly on the pro­ prietor, as he was found guilty of the offences of other persons. The law in this respect was therefore changed, and now the proprietor is not liable in that case. If in an indictment for the trial of a libel a plea is put in by the proprietor that he is not guilty, and evidence is given, and the evidence established a case against him by the act of any other person, it is competent for him to prove that the publication was made without his autho­ rity, consent, or knowledge, and that it did not arise from want of due care or caution on his part. In the present case there has been no attempt whatever made by Ramsey to prove any of these things. He has not attempted to escape from his primary responsibility by proving that this was done without his know­ ledge or consent, or that there was wanting due care on his part, and therefore, though the proprietor, might have satisfied you that although he was proprietor you ought not to find �Report of Blasphemy Trials. - 43 him guil ty; no attempt has been made to do so. He might have shown that the state of things appearing from this certi­ ficate was not correct, and that he was not proprietor ; but he has not done so, nor has he attempted to show that for some reason, to be proved by him, he is not responsible as proprietor for what a proprietor, generally speaking, would be responsible for—unless he proved that proper care and caution had been taken by him. Therefore, it being beyond all question that he was proprietor at that date, there is nothing whatever to show that he was not responsible. It goes further than that, because it is shown that he was connected with the par­ ticular premises, and was often there, and that he paid the rates. Well, there remains Foote ; and Foote is in a different position to that, and the question is whether you are satisfied that be has committed an offence in printing, publishing, or causing or permitting to be printed or published this paper. What is the position of things ? First of all, he says there is no evidence whatever to show that he had anything whatever to do with this particular Christmas Number, and you may recollect that he asked three or four persons who said that they had seen letters addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker,” whether they had ever seen letters or documents addressed to him as editor of the Christmas “Freethinker” or the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker.” Of course they said no. One could hardly imagine any circumstances under which such letters should be so addressed. What is the “Freethinker”? It is apparently a^weekly paper. I find here a number of the 23rd of April, and a number of the 30th of April. This purports to be, on the face of it, the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker” for 1883, price 3(7. On the face of it, these words indi­ cate that it is one of a series. The Christmas Number of the “ Graphic ” or the “ Illustrated London News ”—what would you understand by that ?—not a separately sold paper, but the number for Christmas of a publication coming out in numbers. Take the Christmas Number of “All the Year Round,” In considering who is the editor of this particular number, is there any reason for supposing that the editor of this number is a different person from the editor of the “ Freethinker,” which is coming out in numbers ? We find Mr. Foote’s name as editor on this number of the “ Freethinker.” It might be that it was put there with­ out his authority, and it is not enough to prove and show that he is editor because it stated on the face of it that he is. It might have your name or mine on it, and it would be a monstrous thing to say that, simply because your name or mine appears on it, we had placed it there. That, I say, is not enough in itself, but it is one of several pieces of evidence to which I am going to call your attention. On the first page we have “The Christmas �44 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Number of the ‘Freethinker,’ Edited by G. W. Foote.” Another thing is, that if you turn to the end you get a reference to his publications. You have “Mr. Foote’s Publications,” and then you have “ Blasphemy no Crime. The whole question fully treated with special reference to the prosecution of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ” That is one of the documents put forward with reference to Mr. Foote’s publications. Then there is this additional proof to show that the prisoner Foote is editor of this and other documents. These copies of the “ Freethinker,” from the 6th of March, down to the middle of June, state, every one of them, that the “Freethinker” is edited by Mr. G. W. Foote, and in the middle, in the page which I called your attention just now, besides the direction that business communications were to be directed to the manager, is one that literary communications were to be directed to Mr. G. W. Foote. It is possible that this might be done without his authority and knowledge, but it is not likely. But what is there to bring it home to him ? There is direct evidence that a trial took place at the Mansion House in July last, and it appears from the evidence of Kellan, who bought these numbers, and from whose custody they came, that he was examined as a witness in July last at the Mansion House. Ramsey and Foote were two of the defendants then, and Kellan proved the purchase of these numbers, all of which have “Edited by G. W. Foote,” and printed and published by­ Ramsey. He said attention was then drawn to these matters in the presence of Foote and Ramsey. Therefore, if you believe him, you have this fact, that it was called to Foote’s attention that these documents purported to be edited by him. If, knowing that it was stated they were edited by him, he does not choose to contradict it, it is very strong proof that it was done with his authority. We have the other batch of copies of this production, commencing on the 6th of August, 1882, and ending in January, 1883, and in these it appears in the same way from beginning to end, “ Edited by G. W. Foote.” Then we have “Printed and published by H. A. Kemp,” and then what appears to be precisely the same words as before, “All business communications to be addressed to the publisher ; literary communications to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9 South Orescent, Bedford Square, W.C.” Then what other evidence is there? You have this fact, that the woman in whose house he lodges, and the servant, both speak of having seen letters addressed to him as editor—sometimes with and some­ times without his name ; letters and parcels addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker,” and the poBtman gave as the reason why it should be pressed more on their attention than in usual cases—that several parcels came in that way that could not be put in through the door, and thad to be .handed in to the �Report of. Blasphemy Trials. 45 person who answered the bell. You have the evidence of these four or five persons, all stating teat letters addressed to Foote at that place were delivered there, left there, and were not taken away. There is another thing. He has defended himself. Has he denied that he is editor, or has he attempted to justify his opinions? Do you believe that he was defending a publica­ tion of his own or not, that the arguments he used were con­ sistent with the contention that he is responsible for it as editor or not? There is one other thing 1 should say. There is evidence of this one particular number of the publication being seen in his room. That is particular evidence as regards him. I ask you to say, taking these facts into consideration, whether he published or printed, or composed this document, or caused it to be published or printed, or composed. If he was the editor of it—if you come to the conclusion on the facts that he was editor of it—you must find that he published or printed, or com­ posed it, or caused it to be published, printed, or composed. Some remarks have been addressed to you about interfering with the liberty of the press, Freethinking, and so on. Do you suppose that in confining the authors of this infamous publica­ tion you will be interfering with the liberty of the press ? bl oh for a moment. Do you think you will be interfering with the right of free expression ? Not for a moment. We do not live in a country of unbridled license, where a man has a right to say anything he chooses to anybody. Laws are necessary in a civilised com­ munity, and if it is said that we are approaching a smte of thingsin which a man may say that he has a right to say anything in all places, it might also be said that two women in the street at night might go on abusing one another to their heart’s content, and were to be allowed to go on if they liked. It seems to me to be much more serious to say that persons should have the right of placarding and holding up to the public gaze, and asking persons to come and look at things of this kind, in order that they may be induced to buy them. If such a state of things existed, it would not be Freethought, but would be un­ bridled license. I do not think I need dwell on this further. You will hardly require being told that in finding persons guilty who did this, you would not be in the slightest degree interfering with the right of free speech or free discussion in any way. Something was said about the terms of the indictment. The prisoner Foote commented a good deal on the particular form of the indictment. He said, among other things, a certain thing which.seemed to me to be . Well, I would rather not touch upon it. He also said that it had not been proved that this act was a breach of the peace. T he form of the indictment is pub­ lishing these documents and tending to a breach of the peace. That formal part need not take any consideration. That is the �46 Report -ef Blasphemy Trials. legal result indicated. If you find that he did publish the libels, that is the formal conclusion arrived at. There is one thing further. It has been said that a prosecution of this sort does not answer any useful purpose, but that it leads to the dissemi­ nation of the libel. That is a very serious consideration for persons commencing proceedings of this sort, and no doubt it has been, carefully considered by the persons who instituted these proceedings. But such a state of things may be reached that one cannot refrain from taking action. The question for you is not what the result of this will be. The fact is that you are asked to say they are Not Guilty, because it can be of no use to find them Guilty, and it will perhaps increase the harm instead of decreasing it. That you have nothing whatever to do with. This prosecution has been commenced not without serious consideration whether it would be effectual or not. If the result is such as the prisoner Foote has indicated, that would be a matter we should all regret. Putting that out of sight, do you consider that this document is a blasphemous libel ? and, having regard to the evidence which has been given, do you think that the defendants have been proved to have taken part in publishing it ? I merely say, in conclusion, as to the way in which the prisoners have held themselves up as if they were being treated rather as what people call martyrs, that the question is whether they have committed the offence or not. The jury retired at ten minutes to five o’clock, and remained out until five minutes past seven, when The learned Judge caused them to be called into court, and asked them if he could in any way assist them by explaining the law again to them. The Foreman replied they all understood the law, but he tho ught there was no chance of their agreeing. The learned Judge—Would not a further consultation be at all likely to lead you to a conclusion ? The Foreman—I am afraid not, my lord. The learned Judge—Then I am very sorry to say I must dis­ charge you, and have the case tried again. (To the Clerk of Arraigns) I will attend here on Monday and try the case again with a different jury. Mr. Foote applied to be allowed out on bail, but The learned Judge peremptorily and very harshly refused the request. At the conclusion of the case, and on the learned Judge leav­ ing the bench, a large number of sympathisers of the defendants ran forward and shook hands with them over the dock-rail, and there were some cries of “Cheer up!” and “Bravo jury!” The court was, however, soon cleared. �THE SECOND TRIAL. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY. Monday, March 5th, 1883. {Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.) George William Foote (the editor), William James Ramsey and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher of the “Free­ thinker,” were brought upto undergo a fresh trial on a charge of having published a number of blasphemous libels in the Christmas Number of that journal. It will be remembered that on the previous Thursday the jury were unable to agree to a verdict on the charge against the defendants, and were accordingly dis­ charged. Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q..C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. F. H. Lewis prosecuted for Sir Thomas Nelson, the City Solicitor (instructed by the Public Prosecutor) ; Mr. Horace Avory defended Kemp • and Mr. Cluer watched the legal points of the case for Foote and Ramsey, who otherwise conducted their own defence. Long before the opening of the court, large numbers of persons waited patiently in the street, and when the doors were thrown open there was a rush to obtain seats, the gallery and body of the building being crowded within a period of two lmnutes. During a portion of the day, Aiderman Fowler, M.P. a member of the Corporation of the City of London, occupied a seat on the bench, as he visibly winced when Mr. Foote pointedly referred to his presence and denounced the prosecution instituted by the City Authorities. On the learned judge taking his seat, Mr Cluer said: My lord, I am retained, on behalf of the defendants Foote and Ramsey, to argue points of law only • generally they defend themselves. In accordance with the �48 Report of Blasphemy Trials. practise laid down in the case of King against. Parkins, I am here merely to address the court on technical points. The first point is, that your lordship should quash this indictment entirely on the ground that it is substantially bad in charging, these tlmee persons together in committing one crime, whereas,. in fact, it is a distinct offence in the case of each of them, and it is contrary to the usual course of justice to put prisoners on their trial together, and so prevent them calling one another as witnesses in their defence when that can be done. . Mr. Justice North: You say the three ought to be indicted separately? . . , Mr. Cluer: Separately, my lord. I rely principally upon the case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, reported in 12th Cox, page 87), and the words of the Lord Chief Justice are at page 93. That case, my lord, was a charge of conspiracy. Mr. Justice North: Are the other cases you refer to in the books belonging to the court? . . Mr. Cluer : I am going to refer to one which is in court, ana it is reported in Archibald. The case of the Queen against Bolton and Park was an indictment. The learned counsel having read the language of the late Lord Chief Justice. Cockburn, proceeded—That, my lord, merely states the Lord Chief Justice, s opinion as to the procedure that should have been adopted m that case, and that was a case of conspiracy in which the law does allow great latitude to the prosecution in the way of joining proceedings together. He has also expressed his disapproval of doing so in a case of conspiracy. The strongest case m my favor is that of King against Tucker (4th Burrows, page 97), that is for exercising a trade, and it was held that it was a distinct offence and could not therefore be made the subject of a joint prose­ cution. This, I submit, is a joint prosecution, and the evidence distinct evidence on the part of each of the prisoners, and there­ fore, I move your lordship to quash the indictment, or call upon the prosecution to elect against which of the prisoners they will now proceed. Sii- Hardinge Giffard: It is a perfectly elementary proposition that in all misdemeanors they are co-defendants, and are so indicted. Where there are distinct and separate acts which may or may not form evidence of a conspiracy, it is not necessary to go into a particular act. They are charged for the purpose of showing that they conspired. It was sought to show in the case to which my friend has referred that each of them had com­ mitted a felony, and the nature of the felony was one in which it was impossible that more than two of them could be parties to the felony. The Lord Chief Justice expresses his opinion that it was undesirable, while he sought to establish a case, of conspiracy, to attempt to prove that by a case of felony, which �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 49 ought to be made the subject of a specific indictment. What relation has that to this case, or the indictment before you ? Mr. Justice North: The case against those for conspiracy against trade was a misdemeanor. Sir H. Giffard: Without the facts of that case before me, I am not prepared to say what may be the meaning of the obser­ vation. I dare say it will be found to be a very intelligible matter. As plainly dealt with by Archibald it is an elementary proposition. Your lordship will find on page 70, where several persons join in the commission of an offence the whole of them may be indicted for it, or each separately. Mr. Cluer: What authority have you for that, Sir Hardinge ? Sir H. Giffard: Pray don’t interrupt. What has been urged on your lordship is the nature of the indictment. For this purpose your lordship knows nothing about the indictment. Mr. Justice North: I won’t trouble you, Sir Hardinge. Mr. Cluer: This is a distinct offence in each person. I think the case of King v. Tucker applies. Mr. Justice North: Tell me the name of the case nearest to the passage, that I may find it. Sir H. Giffard: The first authority quoted, the King against Atkinson. This Subject was made the subject of specific argument. Mr. Cluer: Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephens both agreed this was a proper question to bring before vour lordshin at the trial, and not one they could deal with. P Mr. Justice North: It is quite a proper matter to bring before me, but 1 cannot accede to it. It seems to me that the prisoners may be properly charged conjointly; and having regard to the facts put before me a few days ago, I don’t see how any of them can be prejudiced by being tried collectively instead of separately. J The Deputy Clerk of Arraigns (Mr. Avory) then proceeded to CaTr°UXthe names of the Jury> and the prisoner Foote challenged a Mr. Thomas Jackson, who was on the list, n ir’ Jackson was accordingly put in the witness-box and asked by Mr. Cluer: Have you expressed an opinion adverse to the defendants m this case ?—Yes. Mr. Cluer: Thank you. The learned Judge: Sir Hardinge, is it not better to with­ draw this juryman at once ? Whatever the verdict of the jury, 1 should be sorry to have a man among them who had expressed himself as prejudiced. 1 SiF Hardinge Giffard: Oh yes, my lord; I withdraw him. It will be much more satisfactory to the Crown and everybody else concerned. J J Mr. Jackson accordingly withdrew. D �50 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Sir Hardinge Giffard then proceeded to open the case for the prosecution in similar terms to those he employed in the previous TWe do not propose to repeat the evidence of the whole of the witnesses, which was substantially the same as that given in the first prosecution, and shall confine ourselves substantially to their cross-examination.] The first witness called was Robert Sagar, who was cross-examined by Mr. Avory. This shop is an ordinary bookseller's shop ?—Yes. With many other publications of different kinds there?— Yes. Did you say for what purpose you wanted this?—No. Or on a subsequent occasion?—No, sir. Mr. Foote : You purchased the first two copies of the Christ­ mas Number on the 16th December ?—Yes. Who told you to purchase them?—I had instructions from my superiors. . From your superior officer?—Yes. Who was that?—Detective Inspector McWilliams.. Who gave you the money to purchase them ?—I paid for them out of my own pocket. Who paid you back again?—No one yet. Do you expect to be refunded ?—Yes. . When you went a second time to purchase the two copies, who sent you then—the same gentleman?—Yes. Did he give you any money then ?—No. Have you had any since ?—Not for those copies.. What then, have you had money for ?—Travelling expenses. Do you expect to be refunded for those second two copies ?— Yes Have you any idea where the money will come from for your superiors to pay you with?—Yes. Where ?—The City Solicitor. Sir Thomas Nelson?—Yes. The gentleman who is in court now ?—Yes. When you purchased the first two copies did you see me in the shop?—Ko. . „ Did you see me when you purchased the second two copies? _ hJo Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsay : Do you remember having any conversation with me about this case ?—You spoke once or twice about it. . Do you remember me saying the City were spending plenty of money in engaging Sir Hardinge Giffard, who would not come without a large fee?—Fes. _ n . □ Do you remember saying the City had plenty of money, ana �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 51 ■were quite prepared to spend it ?—I don’t remember saying that. Will you swear you did not?—No. I may have said so-. Have you any recollection?—None at all. I recollect you mentioning Sir Hardinge Giffard’s name. Don't you remember saying the City had plenty of money, and were not afraid to spend it ?—No. You may have said so ?—Yes. Re-examined by Mr. Poland: McWilliams is your superior .officer ?—Yes. You were acting under his instructions in this matter?—Yes. When you purchased the copies in the shop, do you say there was a stock in the shop ?—I saw a pile of them. When was it you saw Foote in the shop ?—After I purchased the two second copies on the 20th of January. Lewis John Lowe was cross-examined as follows:— By Mr. Avory: Whose name was on the rate-book?—Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Mr. Justice North : The names, you mean, that were then on the rate-book ?—Yes, my lord. By Mr. Avory: My question to you is, Whose name is there now?—The same names are still there. Re-examined by Mr. Poland: The rate is dated 5th of Octo­ ber ?—Yes. The cheque that you received was in payment of that particular rate ?—Yes. How long is a rate made for?—For six months. The usual demand note is sent in?—Yes. This cheque is for the full rate ?—Yes, up to the end of this month. I suppose the practice is, when you get notice of change of occupation to alter the rate-book ?—Yes. William John Norrish was cross-examined by Mr. Avory as follows :— Were you there at Stonecutter Street as a weekly servant?— I was. You were there in the service of the Freethought Publishing Company at a weekly salary ?—Yes. Did you act there simply as a shopman to sell ?—Simply as a shopman. Under orders in everything you did ?—Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You have seen me, Mr. Norrish, only occasionally at Stonecutter Street ?—Only occa­ sionally. The “Freethinker,” I believe, had been sold at Stonecutter Street a considerable time before you removed to the employ­ ment of the Freethought Company ?—Yes. �52 Report of Blasphemy Trials. And during the period it was so sold did you often see me there?—No. . Did you ever see me transact any business there ?—JN ever. Had you any reason to suppose I was transacting business there?—None whatever. By Mr. Ramsey: Was I manager of the Freethought Publish­ ing Company at the time you lived at Stonecutter Street?—You Was I manager when you went to Fleet Street ?—You were. Am I manager now ?—You are. Did we remove to Fleet Street in consequence of requiring larger premises ?—We did. Was I entirely engaged in Fleet Street in managing the busi­ ness of the Company?—Not entirely. By Mr. Avory : Was there any facility for printing at Stone­ cutter Street?—None whatever. The learned Judge: I think you said the other day no print­ ing whatever was done there ? Witness: Yes, my lord. By Mr. Poland: When Foote came to Stonecutter Street, did he remain in the shop or go into a private part of the house ? Sometimes he would visit my own apartments. That is in a private part of the house-—the rooms you occu­ pied?—Yes. Mr. Justice North : That is what you mean ? Witness: Yes, my lord. . . Mr. Poland: I suppose Ramsey would sometimes be m the shop and sometimes in that part of the house ? Witness: Yes. . Mr. Janies Barber, who proved the registration of the “ free­ thinker,” was not cross-examined. _ . Okehampsted, an officer in the City police detective depart­ ment, was being shown a number of the “Freethinker” dated 18th of February, and asked whether he purchased the copy at Stonecutter Street, when Mr. Cluer said: I object to this evidence. The learned Judge : On what ground ? Mr. Cluer: I submit he has no right to produce the paper. The learned Judge: How can I say he cannot produce a PaMr.' Cluer: The date has been mentioned. My friend can read to the jury as evidence of the Christmas Number. Mr. Justice North: It can be used in that way. It doesn’t follow it is in evidence in that case. Mr. Cluer: I was obliged to interfere in order that it should not be tendered to the jury. The learned Judge : I cannot say it is not evidence. It would. �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 53 not be evidence if used as indicated by Mr. Cluer, but it might be evidence in other ways. I cannot reject it. Air. Poland: When did you purchase it?—On the 16th of February. Mr. Poland: Of whom?—Of the defendant Kemp. Mr. Poland : At the shop in Stonecutter Street ?—Yes. Mr. Poland: I propose to put that in evidence. I think I have established my right. The learned Judge: You are going to read a certain para­ graph. Show it to Mr. Cluer, and if he has any legal objection I will hear him. Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend has no power to put this in evidence against all the prisoners. It only, shows what very learned judges have held the extreme indiscretion of binding the prisoners altogether. There is no power to put this in against all the prisoners. He must state against whom it is directed, and he must prove who are the persons referred to in this paragraph, and who are the publisher and proprietor and printer of this par­ ticular number. The learned Judge: Look at the end. Mr. Cluer : That is in evidence. My name might be printed there as publisher unknown. It is published on February 18th, and bought on February 16th by this witness. I have no right to cross-examine the witness. I submit the witness has con­ tradicted himself as to this. I want my friend to prove who are the publisher, printer, and proprietor. Mr. Poland : I submit I have proved that already. Mr. Cluer : It was bought on the 16th of February. Mr. Poland: I tender it as evidence against Foote. Mr. Cluer : It was published before he was proprietor. The learned Judge: It is bought from Kemp ; and I consider it evidence against Foote. Mr. Cluer : It was purchased by this witness on the 16th. The learned Judge : It is published whenever it is issued. It was proved it was handed to the witness on the 16th of February. Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend cannot contradict his own evidence. He puts before the jury February 18th. Mr. Justice North: He proves a paper dated the 18th of Feb­ ruary was handed to the witness on the 16th. Mr. Poland : You made this note that you had bought it? Mr. Justice North: That is in evidence. Mr. Poland : Are you sure? Witness : I am positive. You can get them on a Thursday. They are all dated up to the Sunday following in each week. Mr. Justice North: Is this a Sunday paper?—It is dated for Sunday. �54 Report of Blaspli&my Trials. Mr. Poland : I propose to put this in evidence. The para­ graphs I think it necessary to read are those beginning with the words “ The Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ has had an incredible sale,” etc. (To witness) I think you said you bought that of Mr. Kemp ?—Yes. Mr. Poland: Just look at this notice (produced). Did you serve a notice, of which that is a copy, on Mr. Foote, by leaving it at 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, on February 22nd?— Yes. The learned Judge : There was another notice this witness produced. That, however, is not material. Mr. Poland : That is not material, my lord. Mr. Justice North: All that is proved at present is that this notice was left at Foote’s house. Mr. Foote : The prosecution seem to have forgotten that they have joined us in one indictment. (To witness) With whom did you leave this notice? The servant, Mary Finter—Miss Finter. You did not see me at that time ?—I did not. Have you been doing anything in this case besides serving notices and subpoenas?—Yes, buying some numbers. Who told you to buy them?—My inspector. Inspector McWilliams?—Yes. Did he give you money to purchase them?—No. You expect he will?—No, I don’t expect he will. Mr. Justice North: You advanced it yourself, and you expect it will be repaid ?—Yes, my lord. Mr. Foote : That is what I asked you. He said, my lord, he did not expect to be repaid. Witness: Not from Inspector McWilliams. Mr. Foote : You expect to be paid at some time from some­ body ? Witness: Yes. The learned Judge : I put it more shortly, Foote. You expect to be paid at some time from somebody ? Witness: Yes. By Mr. Foote : Have you any idea when?—Not when. Have you any idea from whom?—Yes. From whom ?—The City Solicitor. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: Have you any idea where the funds are to come from for this prosecution?—Not further than from the City Solicitor. Do you think he is finding it out of his own pocket ?—1 have no idea. You cannot answer ?—I cannot answer. Mrs. Curie was not cross-examined ; she did not add anything to her evidence on the previous occasion. Mr. Lewis examined �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 55 her as follows Have you a-servant named Mary Finter ?—Yes. She waits upon Mr. Foote. ... 0 Did you as his landlady occasionally go into his room?— Occasionally; very seldom. The learned Judge : Does he live there down to the present time?—Yes. . . Mr Lewis: Did you see the Christmas Number of rhe free­ thinker ” in Mr. Foote’s room ?—I would not swear. I did not notice any book particularly. To the best of your belief ?—I may have seen it. To the best of your belief have you seen the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” there ?—I would not swear. The learned Judge: You are asked whether to the best of your belief you have or have not.—I could not swear. The learned Judge : That will not do. You are asked as to the best of your belief. Witness: I have seen divers colored books there. Mr. Lewis: Have you to the best of your belief seen a number of the »Freethinker” there with that yellow cover ?—I have seen that cover or one the color of it. Containing a Number of the “Freethinker ” ?—Not a number of the “ Freethinker,” to my knowledge. Have you seen copies of the “Freethinker” m his room?—1 may have done. What is your belief. To the best of your belief have you seen there numbers of the “Freethinker”?—! may have done, but I could not swear to it. T mean something like that in that particular number . 1 may have seen that. I am not interested in it. I have never examined any book. The learned Judge : The question is whether, to the best of your belief, you have or have not seen a number of the “Free­ thinker ” there ? Witness: I have seen the color. The learned Judge: We are not speaking to you about the color, but about the document handed to you. Witness: I could not swear. Mary Finter, the servant to the last witness, was examined in chief by Mr. Poland as to having seen numbers of the “Free­ thinker ” in Mr. Foote's room, and as to the reception of letters addressed to Mr. Foote, and Mr. Poland called upon Mr. Foote to produce the letters m which he was described as “ G. W. Foote, ‘ Freethinker,’ ” or “ G. W. Foote, Editor, ‘ Freethinker,’ 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square.” Mr. Cluer: I object, my lord, to that. The learned Judge: I don’t trouble you, Mr. Poland, about �56 Jieport of Blasphemy Trials. the words addressed to hiiti, but as to the rest of the notice I will hear Mr. Cluer. Mr. Cluer: It is not proved this notice has been served on Foote. The learned Judge: He has lived at this house. Mr. Cluer : That is not enough. The learned Judge : Not to produce the documents? Mr. Cluer: Certainly not, my lord. The learned Judge: Do you wish to ask him any more questions ? Mr. Poland: No, rhy lord. Mr. Cluer: It is hot even proved this is Foote’s servant. The learned Judge : I will hear all your objections. Mr. Cluer: My objections, my lord, are, first, that it is not sufficient service; secondly, that my friend has not proved that .the defendant was there at the time it was served. The learned Judge : What do you mean by not being there? Mr. Cluer : My learned friend does not ask any question as to whether Foote was there at the time, and whether the notice was handed to the defendant or not. The learned Judge : It is unnecessary to hand it to him if the first service was properly effected. Mr. Cluer: The second point is that the notice to produce letters involves describing him as “Mr. G. W. Foote, ‘Free­ thinker,’” or “ G. W. Foote, Editor ‘ Freethinker? ” My friend is not entitled to produce these in evidence against the defendant. The learned Judge : They are not proved yet. Mr. Cluer: There’is another objection. The notice was served too late, last Tuesday the 27th. The learned Judge : Six days ago. Mr. Cluer: No, my lord; it was served only thirty-six hours before the trial. The learned Judge : That took place last Tuesday. Mr. Cluer: The notice must be served a reasonable time before the trial. They cannot rely upon this being served now. The learned Judge : As to the length of notice, I don’t trouble you. What do you say about the service? Mr. Poland: It is proved defendant was living at this place at this timé, and notice was delivered to the servant who attends on him at the house at which he is living. It is not necessary to prove personal service. The learned Judge : It might be served on a solicitor. Mr. Poland : It might be served on a solicitor if proof be given he is his solicitor at the time. The learned Judge : It need not be personal service. Mr. Poland: The question is whether there is reasonable �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 57 ground for believing it would find its way to his possession. I submit that is the usual way of serving notice. That is sufficient if it is proved he is living there at the time. Mr. Cluer: That has not been proved. The learned Judge: That is in evidence. Mr. Oluer: That it was served on him is not proved, and that he lives there up to the present day is positively untrue. Mr. Poland: It was served on his servant. Mr. Cluer: Not on his servant. Mr. Poland: The servant to Mrs. Curie. The learned Judge : The person who waits upon him. Mr. Poland : I submit, my lord, that is reasonable service. The learned Judge : I don’t think there is sufficient notice. Mr. Poland: Very well, then, my lord, I shall ask a further question upon that. (To witness Finter) Was defendant living at this address last week ? Witness : Yes. Until the trial, did he sleep there every night ?—I cannot say. Was he there every day ?—Yes. When papers are left for him, what do you do ?—I take them and put them in his room. Do you remember the witness Okehampsted giving you a paper last week ?—Yes. What did you do with it P—I took it up to Mr. Foote’s room. You remember going down to the trial last week ?—Yes. Did Mr. Foote sleep in the house the night before the trial ? —Yes. The learned Judge: You mean Foote slept in the house last Wednesday night? Witness: Yes. The learned Judge : This is put in his room. Mr. Cluer : I submit it is not proved it is served properly. It must be served a certain time according to law. My learned friend must prove that it was served before a certain hour. That is not proved yet. Is it proved conclusively that this has come to the defendant’s knowledge ? It is said it was put in his sitting-room, but that is not sufficient. The learned Judge: When did you put it in his room ? Witness: Directly it was given to me. The learned Judge : About what time? Witness : About half-past five in the afternoon. Mr. Oluer: Would your lordship ask if Foote slept there on Tuesday night ? The learned Judge: Yes, certainly. Do you remember if he slept there the night before ? �58 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Witness : I don’t think he did. Mr. Cluer: I submit that is not sufficient service. The servant only says that she left it in his room on the Thursday, and on the Tuesday night he did not sleep there. The learned Judge: I think that is sufficient. Mr. Cluer : She is not his servant. The learned Judge: She is the person who waits upon him. It does not appear he had a settled servant of his own. I presume he is a lodger there, who pays for lodging. Examination of witness continued by Mr. Poland :— I suppose there is a letter-box at your house? Witness: Yes. Do you take out the letters in the morning ?—Yes sir. What do you do with letters addressed to Mr. Foote P—I put them on the hall table. Are his rooms on the ground floor, or on the first floor ? On the third floor. How were those letters addressed to Mr. Foote ? Mr. Cluer: I object to that question, my lord. I submit that whatever he may have been called, or whether he was addressed as editor of the “ Freethinker,” would be no evidence against the defendant. If a person chooses to address me as Bachelor of Arts, it is no proof. The learned Judge : If letters are addressed to you as editor of a newspaper, and you receive them, is not that evidence P Mr. Cluer : I submit, my lord, it is not the sort of evidence in a criminal case that should go to the jury. I think your lordship should withdraw such evidence from the jury.. The learned Judge: Receiving letters so addressed without objection on his part would be evidence to submit to them for what it is worth. Examination continued by Mr. Poland: How were letters addressed there?—Some to Gr. W. Foote, 9 South .Crescent, Bedford Square, and some were addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker.” The learned Judge: Tell me that again. . t Witness: Some were addressed to the editor of the ‘ Free­ thinker,” but very seldom. Mr. Foote : She said, my lord, that letters were addressed to me as Mr. Foote, and that letters were also addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker.” The learned Judge : There are some letters, but very seldom addressed to you as editor of the “ Freethinker.” Mr. Foote: No, my lord, that is not so. The learned Judge : Tell me what you say. Had some Mr. Foote’s name as editor p Witness : Some had, and some had not. �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 59 Mr. Cluer: Your lordship rules that the continuous reception of letters is evidence ? . The learned Judge: There is always difficulty in dealing with the admissibility of evidence in connexion with letters one has not heard of. I only put to you the case. Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You could not say you had seen more than one copy of the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” in my room. Witness : I could not. You don’t believe you have ?—No. You have seen in my room papers of all shapes, sizes, and colors ?—Yes sir. . , , , Did you ever see any letter or envelope with the words “ Editor of the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ” on ?—No sir. Never. Could you swear that you saw any envelope or any document addressed as “Editor of the ‘ Freethinker,”’between the 16th of November and the 16th of December ?—I cannot SaYou are quite certain that you had only occasionally, and indeed but seldom, seen letters addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker? The learned Judge : Very seldom is what she said. Mr. Foote: In order that there may be no doubt as to the witness understanding, I ask, Have you ever seen an envelope addressed to Gr. W. Foote, and also on the same envelope the words “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ” ? Witness : I have seen it. Mr. Foe q e: Am I entitled to ask this witness a question arising out of her examination, as to my being at 9 South Crescent in time to receive the notice a witness said he served ? The learned Judge : Certainly to ask any question relevant in any way. You mnst make it relevant to that case. Subject to that there is no limit. Mr. Foote : You received this notice to produce about five on Tuesday afternoon ? The learned Judge: This matter has been gone into by your counsel; it has been exhausted, but I won’t stop you. You may put any question you like. Mr. Foote : It is only a question to show the time. The learned Judge: I am allowing you to put it. Mr. Foote: Did you see me at any time between the receipt of that notice and the following morning ?—I cannot say. To the best of your belief was I in the house between the serving of that notice to produce and the following morning? —You may have been, but I did not see you myself. �60 Report of Blasphemy Trials. You. didn’t see me ?—No. You answer the door, do you not ?—Yes, sir. Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord, I wish to ask. Mr. Poland: You answer the door, do you P Witness: Yes. Mr. Poland: Do lodgers have keys to let themselves in p Witness: Yes. Mr. Poland : Had Mr. Foote a latch key ? Witness: Yes. Thomas James Alford, in the employment of the PostmasterGeneral, proved delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, Bed­ ford Square, addressed “ G. W. Foote, Esq., Editor of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ” Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Did you ever make any memorandum at any time of a delivery to 9 South Crescent, of letters addressed to me as editor of the ‘ ‘ Freethinker ” ?— I have since Christmas. You have no memorandum before Christmas ?—No. By Christmas of course you mean the 25th of December ? —Most decidedly. Who served you with your subpoena ?—The police-officer Okehampsted. Had you seen him before he served you with the subpoena? —Yes. Had you any conversation with him about this prosecution? —No. Will you swear you have had no conversation with him upon this prosecution ?—He called at the office. What office ?—Our district office. The post-office?—Yes. I was called upstairs to see the dis­ trict postmaster. Was this gentleman who served you with a subpoena there then?—Yes. ’ Will you tell us what took place in his presence ?—The Postmaster asked me several questions. He asked me if I new Mr. Foote. I said I did. He also asked me if I had delivered any letters addressed 9 South Crescent. Did he ask you if you had delivered any letters addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker”?—No. When did this interview take place ?—I cannot say. The learned Judge: How long since about ? How many weeks since ?—It is about a month back. Mr. Foote: Had you had any conversation with any one about this prosecution before the interview ?—No. What induced you then to make a memorandum of the delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ?—If I am in­ structed by my superior officer I must do it. �Ilcport of Blasphemy Trials. 61 You. were instructed to do this by your superior officers ? —Yes. The learned Judge : When ? Witness: I should say about a month ago. Mr. Foote: My lord, I must go back on the question. (To witness) I ask you again, as you have only given me in reply something which took place about a month ago, what it was induced you to make memoranda or a memorandum of a delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ? The learned Judge: He has not said he began to make memoranda at Christmas. It is only since Christmas he began. Mr. Foote: The words would certainly bear that meaning. You only began making these memoranda after that interview with the person who served you with a subpoena and after the orders of your superior officer ?—Just so. And that is about a month ago ?—I should say about a month ago. You have no memorandum going further back than that ? —No. The learned Judge: Have you got the book here ? Witness: Yes. The learned Judge: Well you can tell us the day on which you made the first memorandum. Witness: The 10th of February. Thomas Campbell, another letter-carrier, gave evidence as to delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, some of which were addressed “ G-. W. Foote, Esq.,” and others “ Mr. Gr. W. Foote, editor of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ” Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Have you ever made any memorandum of the delivery of letters addressed to me at 9 South Orescent ?—I have since I saw the detective who served me with the subpoena. How long ago was that?—I believe on the 9th of last month. The 9th of last month is the earliest day of any memo­ randum you have ?—I did not make any memorandum on that day. The first I took was on the 10th. Do you often deliver letters or packets to the editor of the “ Freethinker ” ?—I often recollect letters, but I only recol­ lect one packet. You had often seen on letters “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ”? —Yes. What made you so particularly notice this large packet ?— It is the only large packet I can recollect delivering with the address on. It was too large to put through the box, and I had to wait for the servant to answer the door. �•62 Report of Blasphemy Trials. This happened three or four months ago ?—Yes. Could you say-whether it is nearer three or four?—Might it not be as long as four months ?—Yes. Might it not be longer?—Yes, it might be longer. Will you swear you delivered any letter, packet, or document of any kind, addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker,” 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, any time between the 16th of November, and the 16th of December?—I cannot swear that I have, because I didn’t take any notice. You would not be at all surprised to learn that you hadn’t?— I should be rather surprised to learn that I hadn’t. W’hy ?—Because my belief is, I have delivered letters pretty well every week to you so addressed. But you could not swear as to that individually ?—No, I could not. How long before the subpoena was served upon you had you any conversation about this prosecution?—I believe it was ’ on.the 9th of Febraury. That was the first time you had any conversation upon the subject ?—Yes. You have not been paid anything to come here to-day ?—I expect to be paid my expenses. It has cost me six shillings to come here. I have no doubt you will get it. Have you been paid any­ thing besides P^-I received half a crown the night my subpoena was served. Anything besides ?—Nothing else besides. William Loy, a constable, proved that he knew all the defendants, and was examined as follows :— Mr. Lewis : When did you last see Kemp on the premises in Stonecutter Street?—On Wednesday last. : And Foote: On the 16th of February. And Ramsey: On Tuesday or Wednesday last. In a general way, how long have you seen any of the defendants at the shop ? Mr. Cluer: I object to that. Mr. Lewis: How long have you seen Kemp there ?—Several m >nths. And Foote : Four or five months. And Ramsey : I have seen Ramsey for the last two years. By Mr. Avory: Where have you seen Kemp ?—-I have seen Kemp serving customers. Standing behind the counter acting as shopman?—Yes, sir. What is the earliest time in the morning you have been oub?—Six o’clock. lave you ever seen Kemp come to open the shop ?—I cannot say that he has opened the shop. �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 63 Have you ever seen anyone open the shop ?—Yes. Within the last three or four months?—Yes. Can you say who closed it ?—I have seen a boy. How many times ?—I cannot say. As far as you know within the last few months, has anyone slept there ?—Not to my knowledge. Have- you seen Kemp there serving persons who went into the shop with books and publications of different kinds P—Yes. Books and other publications ?—Papers generally. Have you seen books in the shop for sale ?—Yes. Can you fix the earliest day when you saw Kemp there at all ?—I cannot say. Well approximately ?—Four or five months back. I understand four or five months back is the earliest time you saw him there ?—Yes, it may have been, but I cannot fix the date. The learned Judge : How far was it back ? Witness : Four or five months to the best of my recollection. Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You say you have seen me at Stonecutter Street occasionally ?—Yes. How many times might that be altogether —Four or five times. How long is it since the first time you saw me there ?—I cannot fix the earliest date. But about ?—The earliest day I remember was on the 28th of January, but I had seen you before that time. The learned Judge: Without fixing the date, how far back do you think P Witness : About four or five months. The learned Judge: You cannot exactly fix the date P Witness : No, my lord. Mr. Foote: What you mean is, you have seen me in Stone­ cutter Street three or four times during the past four or five months ? The learned Judge : Four or five times. Mr. Foote : My estimate as to three or four times was very excusable. Do you remember how many times you said you had seen me in your evidence before the Lord Mayor ? Do you remember how many times you said you had seen me in Stonecutter Street in your deposition before the magistrate ?—Four or five times, I think. You would not be surprised to hear after all it was three or four times P—It might be three or four times. Instead of four or five ?—Yes. Do you know what you deposed before the magistrates as to the period of time over which those three or four times extended ?—Several months. �64 Report of Blasphemy Trials. In your deposition before the magistrates you told them that these three or four times extended over two or three years. You now tell us you have seen me four or five times instead of three or four, and that that occurred during the last three or four months. The learned Judge: Four or five months. Mr. Foote: How do you explain this tremendous discre­ pancy? * < Witness: I have seen you there once since the first hearing before the magistrates. Mr. Foote : You now say you have seen me a certain .num­ ber of times during a certain number of months^ and before the magistrates you say you saw me three times during a period of two or three years. The learned Judge: He answered that by telling you three or four times, and he has seen you once since the trial. Mr Foote: That does not explain the difference between the months and the years. The learned Judge: As to one, he has explained. As to the other, he has not, and you have a right to get it. Mr. Foote : How do you explain this discrepancy between four and five months and two or three years ? Witness: I had been on duty there two or three years. Mr Foote: The words, my lord, are very plain: “ I saw you three or four times.” Did you say this then ? Witness : Three or four then, and four or five now. Mr. Foote: You don’t know whether it was during four or five months or two or three years ? Mr Poland: You had no special reason for watching ? Witness: No. . . Mr. Poland: And do you account for the difference m that way? Witness: Yes. Mr. Foote : Can you offer any explanation as to this vast difference ? .Witness: I had no special reason for taking dates. Mr. Foote: I am speaking of the period over which the times are distributed. Witness: I have no further explanation to offer. Mr. Foote : What was the last time you saw me there ? Witness: 16th of February. Mr. Foote: You have no precise recollection of the first time ? Witness : I have not. Mr Foote: Have you seen me during any of those unfixable times transacting what looked to be business ? Witness : No, I have not. �65 lieport of Blasphemy Trials. Mr. Foote: You have seen me go into the shop and come out of it ?—Yes. Were my stays long, do you know ?—That I cannot say. By Mr. Ramsey: Do a large number of people go in and out ?—Yes. A great number of books and papers are sold there ?—I saw a great number in the shop. I cannot say what are sold out. You have seen a number of people go in and out ?—Yes. You have seen me go in and out ?—Yes. Like the others ?—Yes. Who instructed you to watch the premises?—Detective Sager spoke to me on the subject a week or ten days before the first hearing. He said, “ Just take notice of whom you see go in and out.” Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to Ramsey going in here ”?—No. Did you depose to that effect before the magistrate?—I don’t remember. Is it true ?—I don’t remember it. Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to Ramsey going in there ”?—I don’t remember. Did he or did he not say so ?—I don’t remember. Will you swear he did not say so ?—He may have said so. You won’t swear he didn’t ?—No, and I won’t swear he did. If you said in your deposition before the magistrate you would be wanted to give evidence, would that have been true ? Supposing you said so before the magistrate, was that true? Would it have been true if you had deposed that before the magistrate ?—I don’t remember. Mr. Ramsey ■ My lord, I am putting a very plain question. The learned Judge : Oh yes, it is quite plain enough, and he says he doesn’t know. Witness : I don’t remember. John Edward Kelland, clerk to Messrs. Batten, and Co., solicitors, of Victoria Street, Westminster, said in reply to Mr. PolandDuring the last year, I went frequently to the house in Stonecutter Street and purchased there weekly numbers of the “Freethinker.” I know the whole of the defendants. I have seen them at Stonecutter Street. In July I purchased copies of the “ Freethinker” from Ramsey, I have got the numbers I purchased from Ramsey. Each of these I produce was purchased from Ramsey. Ramsey was one of the defendants examined at the Mansion House in July. Foote was also there, but Kemp was not. The numbers I purchased were given in evidence in the presence of the two defendants. Attention was called to the fact that they appeared to be edited by G. W. Foote. The notice to K �66 Report of Blasphemy Trials. correspondents, which directed letters and literary communi­ cations to be sent to G-. W. Foote, editor, 9 South Crescent, was also called attention to. That notice appeared in these numbers, and at the end is a statement that they were printed and published by Ramsey at Stonecutter Street. The first I pro­ duce is dated March 26th, 1882, and the last, June 18th, 1882. After that occasion at the Mansion House, I purchased various other numbers at the same shop, the majority of them from Kemp. Those begin August 6th, and run on every week to December. In the number for December 3rd, the Christmas Humber of the “ Freethinker” is advertised. In the Number it says, “ Ready next week the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ” The learned Judge: Tell me what the date of the latest number of that parcel is. Witness : January 28th, my lord. The learned Judge : Do you remember about what time you saw Mr. Foote at Stonecutter Street? Witness : On the 16th of April. Examined by Mr. Avory : What was the earliest day you saw Kemp there ?—I cannot say the precise day. It was soon after the prosecution at the Mansion House. When did you purchase the first copy from Kemp ?—I can­ not say. May it have been two or three months after the first prose­ cution p—Before then I should say. Would y ou swear you ever purchased one until September ?— I cannot say the precise date. You were clerk to the solicitor who was prosecuting the matter in July p—Yes. Did you ever ask Kemp for anything else except the “ Free­ thinker ?”—Yes the “ National Reformer.” Anything else P—No other papers. Did you see other things there?—Yes a great number of other books and publications. Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : When did you first see me at Stonecutter Street ?—On the 16th of February. Did you ever purchase a copy of rhe Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” in my presence ?—No. How do you recognise the numbers of the “ Freethinker” you have put in p Witness : I don’t understand what you mean. The learned judge : Where do they come from ? Witness : From Stonecutter Street. Mr. Justice North: They were handed in at the Mansion House p Witness: Yes. �Bepori of Blasphemy Trials. 67 Mr. Justice North: In whose custody were they before they were handed in ? Witness: In the custody of the solicitors to the first prose­ cution. By Mr. Foote : What leads you to recognise these as the copies you purchased when they are put before you?—My signature. Did you put your signature on them at the time of pur­ chase?—I did. Inside the shop ?—At the office. Did anyone see you sign them ?—No, not particularly. Did you make any note of the fact ?—No. In any memorandum book ?—No. Did you make any memorandum of the purchase ?—No. You are with Messrs. Batten and Co.?—I am a clerk in their office. They are solicitors to Sir H. Tyler ?—They are. _ The firm gave you money to purchase these copies?—Yes. You have reason to suppose Sir H. Tyler will refund the money?—That I know nothing about. Do you make out bills of costs ?—I don’t. Do you see them when they are made out ?—No. Messrs. Batten are still Sir H. T} ler’s solicitors ?—Yes. How did you come to put these numbers into the hands of the prosecution in this case?—Because I was subpoenaed to do so. Had you any conversation with any of them before you were subpoenaed ?—No. No conversation about the numbers which you have pur­ chased since the first prosecution?—No,, only when Mr. Poland asks me to produce them I do. Are you aware how Mr. Poland became aware of your possession of them?—I am not. Do you think it is likely your employers tendered them ?— No they didn’t tender them at all. Do you think it is likely they informed the prosecution where they could be had ?—I cannot say ; it has nothing to do with me. To the best of your belief has there been any interview or correspondence between your employers (Sir H. Tyler’s solici­ tors) and the prosecutors in this case ?—There may have been. But are you aware whether there has or not ?—There were two or three letters. There have been letters ?—There may have been. 1 cannot say; I don’t look after the letters. Mr. Foote: You just said there had been. The learned judge: There might have been. �68 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Mr. Foote: He said some letters passed. He said there had been two or three letters. The learned judge: He said there had been some letters passed. Mr. Foote : Had there been p Witness: I cannot say; there might have been. Mr. Foote : You could not swear that letters had not passed ? Witness: No. _ _ . Mr. Foote : Have you any idea in your mind, speaking with­ out reservation, as to how the prosecution became aware of the fact that your employers had deposited with them copies of the “ Freethinker,” since the first prosecution, which you have purchased ? ' Witness: I don’t know, I am sure. Mr. Foote: Will you get any extra payment for this case? Witness : That I don’t know. Mr. Foote: Do you expect any ? Witness: I don’t know whether I expect any or whether I don’t. Mr. Foote: You expect to be treated liberally? Witness: Yes, I suppose I may say so. Mr. Foote: Then that is all, my lord. Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you have pur­ chased copies of the “ Freethinker ’’ before July last—I under­ stand you to say—chiefly from me ?—Yes, that is so. Was I in the habit of being in the shop when you came ?— Yes. Serving behind the counter ?—Yes. , Have you bought any since July of me ?—I don t think 1 have of you. . , Re-examined by Mr. Poland: In July you were examined before the Lord Mayor ?—Yes. Sir H. Tyler was the prosecutor ?—Yes. That related to some of these numbers ?—Yes. Did you give your evidence in open court in the ordinary way ?—Yes. „ And were your depositions taken and signed, r x es. Were you examined on the 28th of July and various other days ?—Yes. . Were you called more than once and the depositions taken on such occasion ?—Yes. . Do you attend by subpoena in this case P—Yes. And it was tendered in the ordinary way ?—Yes. Mr. Poland: That, my lord is the case on the part of the prosecuti : As regards the defendant Ramsey I submit there is no evidence to go to the jury on any single count on �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 6» the charge brought against him. The only evidence, as far as I can gather from the notes, is that he was not the registered proprietor at any time, but that he was the manager of the Freethought Publishing Company before and after removal. The learned Judge: Are you aware he is the registered proprietor from 1881 to 1883 ? That is in his own hand­ writing. Mr. Oluer: I beg your lordship’s pardon. My bad sight has led me wrong. Beyond that there is absolutely no evidence whatever. The learned Judge: What more do you want ? Mr. Cluer: That does not connect him with this Christmas Number. The learned Judge: Doesn’t it ? Mr. Cluer: The prosecution must prove it is published in order to prove their case. They must prove that they com­ posed, printed and published, or caused and procured to be published, the libel in question. The only evidence there is to go to the jury that Ramsey had anything to do withit is the certificate of the registration to him as proprietor of the journal and nothing else. The learned Judge: Assuming there is nothing else, what more is wanted for this action ? Mr. Cluer : There is no publication proved, my lord. The learned Judge: There is ample evidence of publica­ tion. Mr. Cluer: If there is it must be pointed out to me. It has not been shown. It is a matter of the person who published. I submit all that has been proved is that this was sold by Kemp on two occasions, two numbers each time. It is said that Kemp was a servant of Ramsey’s. It seems to me that the sole facts that the prosecution have proved against Ramsey, are that he was registered as proprietor and that the policeman sometimes saw him enter the shop in Stonecutter Street during the last two years, and that copies were bought ®f him by the last witness. As regards Ramsey I submit there is no case to go to the jury. The learned Judge: I think there is ample evidence to go to the jury, Mr. Cluer.Mr. Cluer: I have to submit on this indictment that your lordship should call upon the prosecution to elect against whom they will proceed. The learned Judge: I have already decided that. Mr. Cluer: I am moving after evidence has been given. I was then moving as to whether the indictment should be quashed as it stood. I am now moving that the prosecution should be called upon to elect whether they will proceed �70 Report of Blasphemy Trials. against Kemp, Ramsey, or Foote. I base my application upon the fact that the evidence is insufficient, and I think that it is exceedingly clear. The learned Judge: Don’t mind what you think about it, Mr. Cluer. Mr Cluer: The charge is a joint offence. They are charged jointly with a joint offence. They are not charged separately with having committed an offence, but charged jointly with having published blasphemous libels in the Christmas Num­ ber of the “ Freethinker.” I ask to be shown any word of evidence that supports that charge of a joint offence in pub­ lishing, writing, or composing this Christmas Number. In the case of the King against Lynn and Daveney, reported in Carrington and Payne, which was a case of obstruction of the highway, there was evidence of obstruction separately, although the parties were charged jointly; and the learned udge said the prosecution should elect against which they would proceed. I submit there is no evidence of a joint offence. If they are charged jointly the evidence must be proved jointly. I deny that the prosecution has proved any­ thing of the kind, and on the authority of this case I ask your lordship to call upon the prosecution to elect against which they will proceed. The learned Judge: My opinion is against you. Mr. Cluer: Will your lordship reserve the point P The learned Judge: I see no reason.. No. I forbear giving my reasons because I could not give them without Slating my opinion of the evidence, and that I wish to avoid. Mr. Cluer : Will your lordship reserve this point, because I consider this one of importance ? The learned Judge: I don’t think it is. Mr Cluer: Will you consider it ? I think it is a fit case. The learned Judge : I don’t want you to tell me what you think. I know it is only your way of speaking. I see no similarity between this case and the one you have quoted. Mr. Cluer: They were charged with a joint offence. The learned Judge: No, I don’t reserve anything on that. Mr. Cluer: I ask you to withdraw the case from the jury as regards Foote. The learned Judge: Your first point is on behalf of Ramsey alone ; your last point was on behalf of both. Now it is on hehalf of Foote. Mr. Cluer: The evidence is that of the detective Sagar, who produced two certificates of the registration of the “Free­ thinker,” and the second one of February 7th, 1883, shows it was transferred to Foote as proprietor. The other evidence is that of Norrish, who had only occasionally seen Foote at �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 71 Stonecutter Street. He did not see him often or see him transact business, nor had he reason to suppose he transacted business. The only other evidence I can find, is the fact of^ letters being addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker.” I have to submit that that is not sufficient to convict him of having published this particular number on which he is in dieted jointly with the other defendants. The evidence goes to this, that he has been seen at the place and that the paper bears his name as editor of the “ Freethinker. That I sub­ mit is not to be taken as an admission by the defendant in any way of the prosecution having proved he was editor, or trans­ acted any business, or did anything to show that he wrote or published the print. I submit the prosecution have failed to prove that Foote has in any way published this Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker.” The learned Judge: I think there is evidence to go to the jury upon the point. Portions of the evidence that bear upon Foote I will point out by and bye. , Mr. Avory: With regard to the defendant Kemp, I don t feel in a position to contest' the fact that he has been selling these papers over the counter, and his share in the responsi­ bility is rather a question for your lordship. The general question I leave to be dealt with by the other defendants. Mr. Foote in a most eloquent and able address said: Gentle­ men of the jury, I stand in a position of great difficulty and dis­ advantage. On Thursday last I defended myself against the very same charges in the very same indictment. The case lasted nearly seven hours, and tne jury retired for more than two hours without being able to come to an agreement. They were then discharged, and the learned judge said he would try the case again on Monday with a new jury. As I had been out on bail from my committal, and as I stood in the same position after that abortive trial as before it commenced, I asked the learned judge to renew my bail, but he refused. I pleaded that I should have no opportunity to prepare my defence, and I was peremp­ torily told I should have the same opportunity as I had had that day. Well, gentlemen, I have enjoyed the learned judge’s opportunity. I have spent all the weary hours since Thursday, with the exception of the three allowed for bodily exercise during the whole interval, in a small prison-cell six feet wide, and so dark that I could neither write nor read at midday with­ out the aid of gaslight. There was around me no sign of the animated life I am accustomed to, nothing but the loathsome sights and sounds of prison life. And in these trying and de pressing circumstances I have had to prepare to defend myself in a new trial against two junior counsel and a senior counsel, who have had no difficulties to contend with, who have behind them �12 Report of Blasphemy Trials. the wealth and authority of the greatest and richest Corporation in the world, and who might even walk out of court in the perfect assurance that the prosecution would not be allowed to suffer in their absence. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I want you to bear in mind who it is, or rather who they are, that insti­ gated this prosecution, commenced it, have found all the money for it, and are still carrying it on. There can be no doubt in your minds after the examination and cross-examination you have listened to, that all the money for this prosecution will be found by the Corporation of the City of London, a body which seems to have more money than it knows what to do with, a fact, however, which will not surprise you when you consider that such a body can go to the expense of £30,000 to give a dinner to a prince. Some of you may have noticed within the precincts of the City of London—holy as they are—certain publications hawked about the streets, with which there is no interference; publications hawked about in a manner intended to excite prurient curiosity on the part of the people who purchase them. These periodicals are not interfered with, while the periodical which is before you, or rather the publication which is before you, considering the small publicity that appears to have been given to it before the Corporation of London gave it such a splendid advertisement, seems to have been ferreted out from comparative obscurity in order that a ground of indictment may be found against those who are alleged to be connected with it, and in order that the City of London may show—before the Government absorbs it into a larger and, I hope, more effective and beneficent Corporation—a last remnant of its old character; may go back for fifty years of its own history to apply again principles that have never been appealed to since the prosecu­ tion in London of the Rev. Robert Taylor; may show to the whole of the Kingdom that the City of London, with almost its last breath, is determined to uphold those principles which are, I have no doubt, at its base in the past, and to show how much evil it can do before it is abolished for ever. It is alleged I am the editor of the “ Freethinker.” Supposing it were true, I am not in the witness-box and I am not here to give evi­ dence. Neither affirmations nor denials are my business. Sup­ pose I had edited every number of the “ Freethinker,” that would not give you sufficient proof to warrant you putting me in peril of the grave penalties that your verdict of Guilty would render me liable to. Even that would not show I was really responsible for the publication which lies before you. Again I say you must judge from what evidence has been tendered by the prosecution. Of course if men may be committed for trial on speculation and sent to gaol on suspicion, it may be pleaded that there are many old precedents which would even justify such a course as �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 73 that, but I think, gentlemen, you will agree with me that such a course ought not to be, and shall not be justified, if you have any power of deciding this by the verdict you give. The evidence against me, technically speaking, is rubbish. You have one or two witnesses that really speak as if they mean all they say, and all the evidence they can give against me is that I have been seen at Stonecutter Street a few times, amounting, as one wit­ ness said, to four or five times, over a period of several years. Some other persons who say they have seen me go in and out are very shaky in their evidence, and if the policeman is only as shaky on his legs as in his evidence, it is a wonder to me he can continue to be an efficient officer of the force. What value is there in the testimony of a witness like this, who deposes before one court that there are four or five times extending over as many months, and in another court that there are three or four, extending over two years? You have the fact alleged, and it may be considered proved, I supposed, by the learned counsel for the prosecution—I don’t know whether he takes that view of it or not—that on the 6th of February there was a change made in the registration of the proprietorship of the “ Freethinker,” and from that time I stood in the position of proprietor. That is a considerable distance from the 16th of December, when, according to the indictment, the blasphemous libels are said to have been committed. Tne reference which has been read to you from a recent number is one which in continuity of business would evidently be made by anybody concerned in it. These things don’t call for public statements to readers of papers. What is said in a police court or criminal court like this is naturally authoritative. What is said in newspapers is only with a view to the interest of the publication and the just curiosity of the readers in certain matters and certain words. Evidence has been ten­ dered that letters addressed to me as editor of the “Freethinker” have been delivered at South Crescent to me, but neither of the two postmen can swear he delivered any document so addressed to me between the 16th of November and the 16th of December, when you would naturally say any editorial work connected with the publication would have to be done. The evidence of the servant girl Finter is that she saw one copy of the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” in my room. She admits that she saw, and has seen in my room, papers of all shapes, sizes, and colors. The learned counsel for the prosecution read you an extract from a number of the “ Freethinker ” to the effect that it had a large circulation, and I feel quite sure in my own mind that no Christmas Number nor any other Freethought pub­ lication would be interfered with unless it had a large sale. So long as a Freethought publication has a small sale there is no danger; it is only when it thrives and when its principles are �74 Report of Blasphemy Trials. beginning to permeate large sections of society that men think it necessary to interfere on behalf of their own threatened interests. All indications point to the fact that this publication would have a large sale, and it would not be a wonderful thing if a copy of the paper were found in the room of a man whose room is littered with papers of all sorts, colors, and sizes. I make no statements or denials; I merely deal with the evidence. I say there is not a shred of evidence which would justify you in your position, having to give a grave legal verdict, to say in that position and capacity that I am responsible for this or any blasphemous libel which can be found within the corners of the publication. I will leave all that. It is not a kind of business in which I am particularly skilled or interested. I respect thetalent, ability and character of the learned gentlemen, but I should not care to make it my business to participate in such work as they have to do. I will proceed with what to me is of more interest, the consideration of the grounds of this prosecution, not from a technical point of view as the evidence concerns my­ self, but: rom the broader point as it may concern myself and co­ defendants alike. What is it? Were I in your position, and a man were brought before me on a grave criminal charge, I should ask this question—Under what statute is he prosecuted ? I am perfectly aware you will get your legal directions as to the law as it now stands from the learned judge, but I am not less aware that in defending myself I have all the privileges of a counsel, that I have a right to deal with everything included within the borders of the indictment; and I submit if there is any dis­ tinction to be made between a counsel in the law pleading for his elient, and a defendant who can only plead for himself, because his purse is not long enough to purchase that legal defence—if any such distinction is to be made, it should be made in favor of the man who stands in such a position of danger as I have the misfortune to stand in now. If you ask under what statute I am prosecuted, you will have as an answer, no statute. This is an. indictment at common law. Common law is what ? Judge-made law. I have the very highest respect for the intellectual power, the legal accomplishments, and the character of the learned judges who occupy our bench, but I do say that all judges—no matter what their position might be; no matter however wise or disinterested their judgments may be on ordinary criminals— necessarily from their position, are inheritors of that old and bad tradition of the priority of the Crown in all Crown prosecutions, especially when they touch the liberty of the press or the liberty of association, and the fight of free speech, bad traditions which have, unfortunately, as every reader of Government-allowed pro­ secutions during the last 150 years knows, stained our legal records and too often turned courts of justice into halls of �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 75 oppression. Now, gentlemen, I am making no invidious com­ ments ; I am only stating general principles and general facts ; and it is because of these facts and the principles which are implied in them that I want to impress upon you, the necessity of not allowing yourselves to be enmeshed by merely legal cobwebs. You have to give a decision on this very grave question, which I shall have to show you later on in my address, will have far reaching consequences whichever way your verdict goes, to give that decision on the broad, grounds of common sense and equity, with a due regard to what I have to say and a full regard to what the learned judge may have to say to you in his direction. J said the common law was judge-made law. We have been told by the learned counsel for .the prosecution, that we cannot permit insults to the Christian religion, that we may permit dis­ cussion on controverted points of religion, but we cannot allow insults to Christianity. I have to complain that while the language of old decisions is referred to, absolute and accurate language is not cited. I defy anybody to point out a single case in which any man has been prosecuted, much less in which any man has been convicted and sentenced, on a charge of merely bringing the true religion into contempt. The word contempt has always been coupled with the word unbelief or disbelief—to bring the Christian religion into disbelief or contempt. You must see the reasonableness of so coupling it. You must couple the truth of the thing with its immunity from insult, and so in all decisions the word disbelief was used with contempt. The phrase, “ controverted points of religion ” has never been used. It was held by Lord Justice Abbot, that while no general attack on Christianity could be permitted or tolerated, discussion on controverted points was allowable. Now, the learned counsel for the prosecution did not even dare to put the language of the learned judges to you in its old and, as I think, hideous nakedness; but he used the word religion, implying you were to believe that contro­ verted points of religion in general were to be discussed, but that no religion was to be insulted. I affirm broadly, and I don’t think it can be contradicted, that it is only religion established by law which has any standing in this country. In proof of this, Mr. Foote quoted the case of the Scorton Nunnery, reported at page 196 in the third volume of “Russell •n Crimes,” and proceeded:— So that you see here the learned judge lays it down that Mahomedans, Jews, and even Roman Catholics, may be insulted with impunity, so long as you only insult the latter sects on those points on which they happen to differ from the religion esta­ blished by law in our own country. Does not that show that we are dealing simply with a judge-made law, called common law, for the protection of the Church as by law established? �76 Report of Blasphemy Trials. Some very grave remarks on that will occur a little later on. I ask you to consider, what is it really that lies behind all this? There can be no doubt whatever that the basis of all law against blasphemy, whether statute or common law, is priestcraft. It is a commonplace of the history of English law, as well indeed as of the law of Christendom at large, that all laws against heresy were originally not only punishable by, but tryable by, ecclesias­ tical courts. I don’t mean that the ecclesiastical courts punished the offender, but they pronounced sentence upon him, and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the judgment of the Church. Mr. Justice Stephens says that law is not abolished yet; but what I want to show you is that the common law was really brought effectively into operation after the abolition of the writ de heretico comburendo in the reign of Charles II., that the common law is the after glow of the setting sun of persecution, and that the judges brought it in not to serve the public, but to serve the Church. Who was the first man who used the words that “ Christianity is part and parcel of the law of England ” ? Sir Matthew. Hale was the first judge who used those words. Without refering anybody to the statute on which he relied, the judge sentenced people to be burnt to death for witchcraft, or to be hung ; and no doubt his common sense was quite as great in the one case as the other. What is the prosecution of Freethinkers but the outcome of the same superstition which in the old days burnt and hanged .poor women and children for a crime we know now to be impossible ? And the time will come when we shall recognise the crime of blasphemy to be impossible. When a great Roman Emperor, Tiberius, was asked by an informer to allow a prosecution for an offence against the gods, his reply was that the wrongs against the gods must be dealt with by the gods. *1 hat is a point you will have to consider more fully when you come to the indict­ ment. The spirit which underlies all prosecutions for blasphemy has its origin in priestcraft in the past, and the credulity and ignorance thus engendered support it to-day. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the poet, well said that the statement that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land is as absurd as if one were to say—supposing there to be a law to. protect carpenter« and builders in the exercise of their profession—that architec­ ture was a part of the British Constitution. Let us see if Christianity can be declared to be part and parcel of the law of the land. What is the source of law ? The House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the Crown giving its assent, to bills passed by those two Houses. The House of Commons initiates matters of legislation. But are all the members of that House Christians ? The Christian oath every member was obliged to take before he took his seat—-the oath of allegiance—has been �Ileport of Blasphemy Trials. 77 broken down for many years, and a theistic oath substituted, for it; so that we have in the House of Commons—Jews, who cer­ tainly are not Christians, whose ancestors crucified Jesus Christ, whom Christians believe to have been, and to be, God,—Jews, who believed that Jesus Christ was not God, and that he was a blasphemer—and they have a hand in making the laws of the country in which Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land ! There are many men inside the House of Commons who had not the same odium and obloquy to encounter as Mr. Bradlaugh, but who still, in secret, are known to be sharers in his views. We had lately returned to the House of Commons, as member for Newcastle, Mr. .Morley. He is well known as a Positivist. A Positivist is one who believes in Auguste Comte’s philosophy, a man whom the late Léon Gambetta declared to have been the greatest thinker of the 19th century. What was the object of Comte's philosophy? It was to reorganise society by the systematic cultivation of humanity. Mr. Morley is a believer in that. Mr. Morley took to spelling god with a small g, and the Spectator, in retaliation, printed Mr. Morley’s name Í with a small m. Mr. John Morley is returned by the electors of | Newcastle, and takes his seat in the House of Commons to help ■ to make the laws of the country in which Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land! You have not only Jews and heretics in that House, but you have men shaky in their religious belief. I suppose if one said several of the Radical members of the House were Christians, one would be asked if he had been dining too much. There are men of all shades of opinion, not only of opposite opinions, but opinions antagonistic to Christianity, sitting in our national Legislature, helping to make the laws of the land. How, therefore, can it be said that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land? It has been said, and said in this court—not to-day, but on a previous trial—under this very same indictment, that a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as lord and savior,- and many other doctrines of Christianity, are necessary, because without them you have no guarantee for morality, and you have without them no guarantee as to the evidence tendered in a court. The phi ase used was that it interfered with the proper administration of the law. How can a disbelief in Christianity interfere with the administration of the law? The judgeshave over and over again said that the great sanction of the oath was a belief in future rewards and punishments. I scarcely condescended to examine such an argument, which makes— “ The fear of hell the hangman’s whip To hold the wretch in order,” and which degrades a being far below the level at which I would �78 Report of Blasphemy Trials. call him a man. I scorn to examine such an argument, but I want you to see this. If a belief in the doctrine is the great sanc­ tion of the oath, the oath has been practically abolished by legis­ lation, because though it is true the oath is taken in a court of justice, it is also true that the oath may be replaced by an affirmation; and the prosecution know very well that the evidence of the men given on affirmation is as good as that o-iven on oath. It is clear that there is no compulsory oath now, and that consequently there is no reason whatever for saying that if certain doctrines be perverted, the sanctity of the oath is «■one too. You know there is a large amount of perjury takes place in the courts of justice. Who are tie perjurers—the people who give their evidence on oath or who give it on affirmation ? Gentlemen, it is a fact that the perjurers don’t come from those who give evidence on affirmation, but from those who give it on oath, so that the sanctity of the oath may be one thing, and the sanctity of a man’s word another thing. Just glance for a moment over one or two instances of prosecution that have occurred under these laws. I will carry you back to the time of Naylor who, for blasphemy, was brought up beiore Lord Com. missioner Whitelocke. They had whipped him, imprisoned him, and they wished to put him to death. Lord Whitelocke gave it as his opinion that the time had passed for putting people to death. He said the power has lapsed, and Naylor was not put to death' So that you see what is considered blasphemy in one age and for which a man may be put to death, in another age may not be so considered, clearly showing that blasphemy is a matter of opinion amongst rival contending sects, and that those who have the upper hand would make a denial of their doctrines blasphemy. I want you to bear that carefully m mind. 1 now come to the last century. Woolston was sent to gaol and lmo-ered there for years, because he did not believe that the five books of the Pentateuch were inspired. Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing to day without refutation, aud still remain a Bishop of the English Church. We have changed very much, I think, since then. Peter Annett was sentenced to a month m Newgate, ordered to stand in the pillory twice, had to undergo a year’s imprisonment, and was brought back toNewgate until he found sureties for his good behavior. . What was his offence? His offence was denying the authenticity of the Pentateuch. The same thing is done by the Bishop of Exeter, one of the con­ tributors to “Essays and Reviews,” which Lord Shaftesbury declared to be blasphemous productions vomited forth from hell You, gentlemen, have heard the name of Gibbon, who said that the religions of the ancients were thought by the philosophers as equally false, by the people as equally rue, and by the statesman as equally useful. Gibbon was a sceptic, xou �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 79 know of Hume, one of the greatest metaphysicians that ever lived, and of Bolingbroke, the great orator and statesmen, both ■of whom were Freethinkers. These men’s writings, all men of learning and leisure read. Nobody ever thought of’ interfering with them, but when the men of the people come and utter the same doctrines they propounded, and sell them at the people’s price, in the language of the people, it is called blasphemy—thus clearly showing that blasphemy only means heresy written for the people at the people’s price. You have always had blas­ phemy prosecutions against cheap papers, showing the clear motive in the minds of those who institute those proceedings. The seller of the works of Thomas Paine was prosecuted^ Richard Carlile spent nine years in gaol for selling prosecuted publications, but in the end he triumphed; and I say that the exertions of that man and those who took part in the strugo-le with him, gave us more than a generation of peaceful enjoyment of one of the grandest principles—the liberty of the press, which is seriously threatened by proceedings like this. For if you get a verdict against one paper for one offence, you may bring prose­ cutions against other publications; and I see there is an*3associa­ tion started with a live secretary, whose object it is, seeing that the monster of Persecution has been roused out of its lair, to prosecute such writers as Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and others of that class. It is therefore clear that these bigots will be overjoyed if you give a verdict against us, because they know that ttien bigotry in this country will become active and give them support, so that they may­ crush down those who turn back from the darkness of the past and throw out the effulgent light of the sun of knowledge and progress, in whose meridian beam will bask the generations of those who follow us. Supposing you believe there is proof of publication against me and my co-defendants of the alleo-ed blasphemous libel which lies before you, still the proof of publi­ cation does not suffice. You have to bear in mind that belief on your part that this is a blasphemous libel does not suffice. You have to find there was malice in the case. Our indictment charges us with having wickedly published this, so that you must find theie was malice in the case before you can brin.tr jjx & verdict of Guilty. ° T from Folkard On the “Law of Slander and Label Mr. Foote proceeded: We, as the defendants, say that there has been no malice whatever. There has been no evidence tendered as to malice. There is plenty of money behind the pro­ secution ; plenty of detectives have been engaged; plenty of spies may be purchased at a price. Those spies may have been paid to follow us, to listen to our conversation, to hear what we say, and whether we ever stated our object was to outrage public �gO Report of Blasphemy Trials. feelings or to make malicious insults. Nothing of that sort has been done, for the simple reason that no such evidence ever existed and could not be proved by any number of spies or detectives. There has been no malice proved, and 1 don t know that it is necessary to do anything except to draw your attentio to Folkard, who says malice must be proved before you can bring in a verdict of Guilty. It has not only not been proved, but there has been no evidence tendered; therefore you are h°und to believe there has been no malice, and bring m a verdict of Not Guilty, and withhold your verdict of Guilty from theprosecutors, who have the Corporation of the City of London behind them One of the members (Aiderman Fowler) of the Corporation is now sitting on the bench while the case is being tried. Now gentlemen^ when we talk about outraging people s f eelings I want to know whose feelings are referred to. Does e p . cution really think it can get you to believe that the^jmlemical language of Christian controversies is not as outrageous to the feehngs of those they are opposed to as anything you can^find in the pages of that publication? If I give you a few choice epithets Ised by Christian polemists, you will agree there isPnothing exceptmnal. The following epithets are all extracted from onegecclesiastical historian, and as he was a Christian you can find no fault with him there. In Mosheim we find the lofiowmg choice epithets:-“ A set of^iserable and “ Malignant and superficial reasoners. That refers thinkers. When you remember that there was no prosecution o this language and when you remember it has been said that the Wood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, andnoticethe persistent use by Christians of weapons of ridicule against Paganism, which was the established religion of the Roman people, then yoube able to measure at its true value the charge against us—that we have used ridicule and malice in our attack on religion estabSa by law in our own land. Some of these phrases whmh were applied to the Romans were “servile; . perfidious, “ bloodsuckers ;” “ ignorant, wretched ;” “ exercised unna, ur lusts-” “procuring abortion;” consecrated brothels to divmitíí" stupidity;” ferocious;” olieentmus people;” “bigoted multitude;” savage tyranny of Ro“a“i.1^Pfer®2v Here is a description of Christians :—fhey are “guilty of man} forgeries •” have “ given us a series of fables;” their martyrologies beXmaAsof “ignorance and falsehood;” the early history of the apostles is “loaded with fables, doubts and difficulties, shortly after Christs death there were “several historiansfull of pious frauds and fabulous wonders; they were super stitious*” “ignorant;” Christian books were “corrupted and interpolated by Christians;” men have “forged books in_the name*of Christ and his apostles.” These beautiful descnptio �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 81 are to be found in “Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History,” and give a good idea of how Christians treat their enemies or those who differ from them in religion. Mr. Foote next submitted, from the same book, Christian descriptions of ancient philosophers:_ “ Enslaved to superstition;” “perfidious accusers;” “virulent;” had recourse to “ wild fictionsand romantic fables;” “ malignant calumniators;” “trifling cavillers;” “supercilious;” “volup­ tuous;” “ sensual.” Christian description of heretics and their beliefs : “ None had real piety at heart;” “wild and fanatical ;” “ monstrously abused Christian religion to the encouragement of their vices;” “pretended reformers;” having “licentious imaginations;” “delusion;” “folly;” “impious;” “extrava­ gant;” had “fictitious writings;” “blasphemers;” “fictitious miracles;” “vile impostors;” “pernicious;” “odious magicians ;” “lunatics;” “fornicators;” “grossly immoral;” believed in a “multitude of fictions;” “ impious doctrines ; ” favored the “lusts and passions ” and “all sorts of wickedness;” “impious, blasphemous, absurd notions ;” “full of impiety ;” “ most horrid, licentiousness;” “enormous wickedness;” “ignorant fanatics.” Christian description of priests of other religions: “Licen­ tious ;” ministered to “vice,” “cunning;” “crafty;” “cheats-” “ lazy and selfish ;” “ rabble ;” “ perfidious ;” “ virulent ;” “ bloody priesthood ;” “ bloodthirsty ;” “ little better than atheists.” Chris­ tian descriptions of Jews: “ Gave vigor to every sinful desire;” “sunk in ignorance;” “profligate wickedness;” “licentious;” “hypocrites;” “virulent and malignant;” “abandoned people;” “inhuman;” “perfidious.” Christian description of the sacred things of the Jews: “Extravagant and idle fancies ;”“ idolatry." Christian ridicule of the religion of others : “ Grossest idolatry •” offered “prayers void of piety and sense;” transacted tiling “ contrary to modesty and decency ;” “ object of ridicule and contempt;” “wretched theology;” “inhuman rites;” “vulgar superstition;” “corrupt and most abominable system of super­ stition ;” “fables of the priests ;” “superstition of the heathen priests.’ Christians description of gods of other people: “ Famous for their vices ;” “egregious criminals.” Christian de­ scription of Roman magistrates : “ Suborned false accusers •” were “corrupt judges. Mr. Foote continued as follows:— When one sees all the sects have been doing and saying of one another, one can only settle as to which to believe by adopting Voltaires plan, who, when he saw two old ladies quarrelling said, u Well, I believe them both.’* In all ages contending parties have reviled each other. Lucian lampooned the Christians, and they were as severe on the Pagans. The “Octavius” of Minutius Felix is a dialogue in which, while Cæcilius (the heathen) complains that Christians spit on Pagan gods, Octavius (the Christian) satirises the Pagans for, of all things, what think you? v �g2 lieport of Blasphemy Trials. —for worshipping the cross with a man upon it. Iren seus calls his opponente ‘‘slimy serpents” and many abusive epithets, Scules the ceons. Tertullian abuses Marcion and Herbe seen in Gibbon's account of the Anan ^Mother of God controversy. It was the same wi h Clement of Alexandria and other writers against heretics. A <^e num­ ber of Lollard ballads, writings, and prints were satirical, an in the times of the Reformation caricatures on religious subjects were common. Erasmus’ -Praise of Folly,” which was Ulusfra+ed bv Holbein who caricatured the Pope, is full of gwis iTisar« This work, says D’Aubigne, did more than any­ thin o- else to confirm the sacerdotal tendency of the age. I he Catholics said Erasmus, laid the egg and Luther batched it. The Reformers were treated with the grossest abuse and scunrl.ty wh ch they amply repaid. D’Aubigne, in his “ History of the Reformation of the 16th Century,” saysLuther s name X^std^ pasXTof IjeopfSCalled fortnight or a mOnth at most,’ said they, ‘ and this notorious heretic will be burnt.’ ” Luther wrote, but did not publish, a little treatise “De Execranda Venere Romanorum which I thtek W best be left untranslated. Luther was a Protestant and Henry VIII. became a Protestant too, after quai idling with Se Pope bocanse he would not gratify his lust I will show myself -“^^XVhorei Iwd) tuTmLe^on SmgOai waiepr'ovoke Satan until he falls down lifeloss and the weapons they are Pow ^“^^“Tliai Aquinas?' TTnll in his “Modern Infidelity” says of mfadels .— rmy rov« darkness rather than lmht, because their deeds are evil (pieface). 3s£i»ienTeVS°“^ notltog to 2osPe youtside of. the churches and creeds. If you �Tieport of Blasphemy Trials. 83 take up the journals devoted to the promulgation and mainten­ ance of rival ideas, you will find they are full of abuse of each other, the Protestant papers speaking of the Roman Catholics as being professors of a religion which they describe as the ___ _ 1 wiil not use the strong expression they employ~the scarlet lady of Babylon. Do not they call Catholics idolators and blasphemers and do not the Roman Catholics turn round and call the Pro­ testants heretics and blasphemers? Do not men callin»• them selves the Salvation Army go about and use the symbols and the time-honored expressions of the creed, and associate them with the most brutal language of military camps; yet, because they wear the label of Cnnstians, they are not blasphemers. Nobody in this country, whatever his religion, is called upon to respect the feelings of anyoody else. It is only the Freethinker who is told to respect the feelings of people from whom he differs and to respect them how ? To respect not when he enters the place of their worship, not when he stands side by side with them m the public streets in the business or pleasure of life but to respect their feelings even when he reads only what is in­ tended to be read, by Freethinkers without even knowing that a single pair of Christian eyes is to scan the page. Is not that similar to what is attempted here ? I think you will agree that it is. Whose feelings have been outraged ? Would it not have been well to have put some one in that box who was prepared to swear that his feelings had been outraged ? With the wealth of the Corporation of the City of London a quantity of any feelinoof outrage against this or any other publication can b A manufac° tured. Whose feelings have been outraged by the publication which lies before you? It bears its name outside ■ th-re is nothing, surreptitious about it; anybody who purchased it would do so with his eyes open ; those who purchase it must want it • it is not thrust into their hands by some one who said “ I am a Freethinker, I want your feelings outraged, your ’sense of decency scarified, and therefore I put this into your hand ” Nothing of the sort has been done, nothing of the kind Las been proved. Those who purchased the paper have done so by going for it into the shops themselves. Whose feelinp-s there­ fore have been injured? Nobody's except those who went into the shops to purchase copies of the paper to prosecute, and whose feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Come for a moment to. the question of ridicule. Take the comic papers. I hey contain sometimes ridicule of a serious nature You mns* never suppose because a man pulls a long face that he is wiser and better than others. You must never imagine because a man has a serious look that his judgment is better than that of a happy-looking person. Often the finest wit in the world haa been summed up in an epigram, and some of the greatest men �Report of Blasphemy Trials. g4 who have ever contributedIt. ft. ^ptogressrf mankind ^ponente t"'“so th^’bad no wit &g that made Voltaire hated was tart Only recently Cl d’Sone't ?X\’eXmX dXivesareP looking after. Didthe Liberal Party on that subject say •‘We ™t a —s • i +u„ odiMr of that paper because our feelings nave oceu SXdeXleem^ ^°c^ X^o^^w^^^^obU« we can ridicule people. .rxrrj„„ ufP Why is this? Because how^idteulcms^t1^ the consequence isthathe begins torecognise Its absurdity. Suppose you were to take the poi f pictures called A back vie . Looked at from the view of the Freethinker, Christian whose state of point of view of the s>mPle c*e ™ Christians of the middle ages Hd ^?:^"ddev» j“X holy ghost and to depict god and Jesus ana ,g in pictures and on vi^1D’ impassive • but looked§at from the point of view walls, it may be impressive, matter of scripture of the Freethinker, put W P absurdity For it is prebefore you, you reduce^it to an utter h when the posterousm an age like thrs to be neve si . fuU q{ foundations of the old fait „rotten bv no one knows whom, scholarship, to believe in writings writtenby no one know^ at a time no one knows when, an P in the old Hebrew It is impossible, I say that any one can be t the myth ridiculed in that picture. Cai\y0nVboimd to believe he infinite, the spirit of the universe as y < a ppj and sent is if you are theists, ever stopped o stav a few days with S“C“e^ Sy^cd”"iJto^ own creatures, and that the man kep hia i£ man . �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 85 to see his back parts ? I shall not trouble you with any comic -extracts from the Bible, but I might give you plenty of illus­ trations of ridicule from the Bible. Don’t you remember that altercation that took place between the prophet Elijah and the priests of Baal? They built altars and they called respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cried and cut themselves, but the fire would not come. What did Elijah do? Did he say “I have been reading your philo­ sophical treatise on the subject of Baal, and I find there a difficulty in the way of accepting your creed?” Did he say “ there are controverted points which I think we ought to dispute about and settle”? -Nothing of the sort; he turned to them with the gravest irony and said: “ Where is your god? Is he asleep? Has he gone on a journey?” Gentlemen, that is the .language of ridicule, and if what the learned counsel for the pro­ secution has told you to-day be true, the priests of Baal would have been perfectly justified in turning upon the prophet Elijah and settling him upon the spot; but they seemed to have more sympathy than even the learned counsel for the prosecution. Ridicule is only irksome to priests and preachers of religion. They are the only people who ask to be protected from ridicule. Did you ever hear of a man going to a court and asking for a summons for ridiculing an astronomer ? Did you ever hear of a summons being demanded for ridiculing a geologist? You never, heard of such a thing as an astronomer, a geologist, chemist, or man of science, asking to be protected from ridicule. If you went to a physiologist like Professor Huxley and laughed at the truth of his deductions he would say “ Laugh away, but it doesn’t touch the truththerefore he would never think of seek­ ing protection. Why ?—because he has got the truth, and the truth can protect itself. These men don’t dread ridicule because they know they have the truth and can prove it to every in­ quiring mind. It is only priests and preachers of religion who claim protection. I am a Freethinker, but I know my Bible well, and perhaps knowing it so well has made me a Freethinker; and I know, gentlemen, the life recorded in that book of the founder of Christianity. I know, gentlemen, whatever failings or flaws Freethinkers may think they find, not so much in his cha­ racter as in his teaching, and which I can quite understand as he was not in the possession of the knowledge of to-day, yet wo can say this, that he never gave any instructions to his dis­ ciples to bring men who differ from them or who would not receive their doctrine before the magistrate. He never told them to spend their money in employing learned counsel to prosecute those men before the judges and juries in order to cast them into gaol or cripple them by fine. He tells his dis­ ciples all were to agree together, and that the separating of th© �86 Report of Blasphemy Trials. wheat from the tares was to be left to a greater wisdom than theirs. From the Atheist point of view that is the true doctrine. Surely god must know his need! Surely he is powerful enough to avenge an insult against himself! Surely the all-searching eye of him, who you believe can pierce into the recesses of other men’s ’hearts and know all, must disapprove of avenging his insulted majesty by bringing an impeachment against men such as befits those who lived in barbarous times, and who were excluded from the light of science and scholarship which we enjoy to-day! It is only priests and teachers of religion who claim protection, because they feel that their authority depends upon privilege. They feel that unless they make a bold stand for their hold upon law, their hold upon the people may slip. They feel that it is necessary to guard their dogmas from the rough approach of common sense, and therefore those laws are always enforced in their interests. I ask you whether^ it is not a ghastly mockery to say when after 1800 years of Chnstianity^which is supposed to be divine, there are men who not only disbelieve it, and men in growing numbers who. disbelieve it, men who can actually assail it as they think in the interests of the salvation of mankind, that there should be such a prosecu­ tion as this ? Surely the god who said, “ Let there be light and there was light,” when he sent religion, would know of its effectupon the world: and the fact that the world is not convinced is to my mind conclusive proof that god has not spoken, for if he had no one could have resisted his voice. Why may not Chris­ tianity take its chance ? If it is argued against let it defend itself, not by the policeman’s truncheon ; let it defend an artistic or intellectual attack by intellectual or artistic weapons, and not confess itself beaten and then rush to drag its adversaries before judges, just as the Jews and Pagans dragged Christians ?v“en they could not put them down. The time has passed for certain ideas to be privileged, and every doctrine must take its chance. You will find that we are charged in the indictment with “publishing blasphemous libels against the Christian religion, to the high displeasure of almighty god, to the scandal and reproach of the Christian pro­ fession, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.” The high displeasure of almighty S0“^3 a matter you will not touch. If you believe in god, and the words of your oath imply you do, then you know he is omnipo­ tent, that he is all-seeing, that he is all-wise, all-just, and you must leave to that high tribunal the punishment or the forgive ness of any offence against itself. It has often been said in books of law that it is not for the protection of god, or even for theprotection of the Christian religion as such that these blasphemy laws are applied,' but to prevent the scandalising of the name o �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 87 almighty god, ■which, tends to a breach of the peace. That is the last clause stated here. The high displeasure, of almighty god we dismiss. The reproach to the Christian religion we may also dismiss pretty briefly. As a matter of fact, the reproach to the Christian religion is being carried on to-day by the leading scholars and scientific men, not only of England but of every country in the civilised world. It is as well you should reflect upon this. I have already mentioned certain names selected by the Protestant Prosecution Society to be proceeded against: Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Mr. Morley, and others. These men are all writing to the scandal of the Christian religion. Is it not a greater scandal to religion to say it is false than to laugh at it? Is it not worse to call a man a liar than to laugh at him? There can be no greater offence to Christianity, if it is to be fenced about by law, than that which nine-tenths of the leading writers in every country are committing. The clergy bewail it every year; the bishops are constantly lamenting the decline of religion, and one of them has said that god is being pushed from our popular life, and that the intellect of the nation instead of supporting the Christian religion is arrayed against it. What greater scandal can there be than that ? I can understand the logical bigotry of the men who want to prosecute leading blasphemers. John Stuart Mill, who was brought up without any Christian belief, whose father said that the idea of deity which the Christian religion taught was the highest conception of wickedness—John Stuart Mill disbelieved Christianity. He has left it on record in his autobiography, and in the “ Essays on Atheism ” published since his death. Those are two instances. Herbert Spencer speaks in the freest way in his books about the Trinity, in which one person is offended for the sins of persons outside the Trinity, and another person of the Trinity makes atonement, and yet all three are one. In his “ Sociology ” he cites many in­ stances of the lengths to which bigotry and credulity have gone. He illustrates the absurdity of the Trinity by three persons endeavoring to stand on one chair. If the “Freethinker '’ made a drawing of that kind to show the absurdity of the Trinity it would be a blasphemy, but a Christian, although a philosopher, is not a blasphemer when he gives the illustration I have men­ tioned. As reading quotations is a weariness of spirit to the reader and listener, I shall only trouble you with a few, but I shall run over the cases of one or two men outside the churches, and I will go to two dead men besides John Stuart Mill I speak of them as of to-day because their writings are of to-day, and the spirit of their works lives with us. You have heard of Shelley's “ Queen Mab.” That work has been sold for a generation and is being sold now by the leading publishers of �88 Report of Blasphemy Trials. England and America. No person would think of prosecuting for the sale of Shelley’s “ Queen Mab ” now, and yet it is full of the completest dissent from, and reproach to, the Christian reli­ gion and all religion. I don’t propose to read you any extract from that. Mr. Foote having referred to Byron’s poem in reply to Southey’s, in which the king is described as slipping into heaven, and concluding with the lines— “ When the tumult dwindled to a calm, He left him practising the Hundredth Psalm,” he remarked that nobody ever thought of proceeding against the sale of Byron’s works. He next proceeded to refer to Professor Huxley’s works, and quoted the following from his “Lay Ser­ mons” : “Themyths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus, and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the know­ ledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Pales­ tine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this day, are regarded by ninetenths of the civilised world as the authoritative standard of fact and the criterion of the justice of scientific conclusions, in all that relates to the origin of things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox.” Having referred to the “Evolution of Christianity,” from which he read an extract, Mr. Foote read the following two quotations from “Mill on Liberty”: “No Christian more firmly believes that Atheism is false, and tends to the dissolution of society, than Marcus Aurelius believed the same things of Christianity; he who, of all men then living, might have been thought the most capable of appreciating it. Unless anyone who approves of punishment, for the promulgation of opinions flatters himself that he is a wiser and a better man than Marcus Aurelius—-more deeply versed in the wisdom of his time, more elevated in his intellect above it, more earnest in his search for truth, or more single-minded in his devotion to it when found ; let him abstain from that assumption of the joint infallibility of himself and the multitudes which the great Antonius made with so unfortunate a result. . . . The man who left on the memory of those who wit­ nessed his life and conversation such an impression of his moral grandeur, that eighteen subsequent centuries have done homage to him as the almighty in person, was ignominiously put to death, as what ?—as a blasphemer. Men did not merely mistake their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of what he was, and treated him as that prodigy of impiety which �'Report of Blasphemy Trials. 89 they themselves are now held to be, for their treatment of him.” Mr. Foote also quoted in support of his argument from Mr. Leslie Stephens, who, in the current number of the “Nineteenth Century,” contended that there ought to be no interference with expressions in papers or from platforms of opinions on religious matters, even when expressed in an abusive or ridiculous manner, because everybody had the remedy in his own hands. Mr. Justice North: Be good enough to tell me the name of the book you are now quoting from ? Mr. Foote: “Essays in Freethinking,” my lord. He pro­ ceeded further to refer to Professor Huxley, who, speaking of the story of the creation, said: “There are those who represent the most numerous, respectable, and would-be orthodox of the public, and are what may be called ‘Adamites,’ pure and simple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eight persons who were landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after a universal deluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become converted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism, as if it were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man of science or duly in­ structed person who does.” Mr. Foote quoted from Mr. Matthew Arnold, who said that the personages of the Christian confession and their conversations were no more a matter of fact than the persons of the Greek Olympus and their conver­ sation. Viscount Amberley, speaking of the incarnation of Jesus, says: “ That some among these many female followers were drawn to him by that sentiment of love is, at least, highly probable. Whether Jesus entertained any such feelings towards one of them it is impossible to guess, for the human side of his nature has been carefully suppressed in the extant legend.” Again, the same writer remarked: “ As to the god of Israel, one of these two charges he cannot escape. Either he knew when he created Adam and Eve, that their nature was such that they would disobey, or he did not. In the first case he knowingly formed them liable to fall, knowingly placed them amid conditions which rendered their fall inevitable ; and then punished them for the catastrophe he had all along foreseen, as the necessary result of the character he had bestowed on them. In the second case, he was ignorant and short-sighted, being unable to guess what would be the nature of his own handiwork; and should not have under­ taken tasks which were obviously beyond the scope of his faculties.” He did not .believe in the perfection of the character of Jesus �90 . Report of Blasphemy Trials. even as a man, and he believed the gospel narrative not to be divine but to have been put in human form. Professor Clifford, and the Duke of Somerset might be added to the list of writers he had quoted from. Those should satisfy them that belief in the old testament as a piece of mythology was common in the highest circles of literature, and though they had not been made the subject of reproach, yet thosi who expressed the same thing in plain language, by plain illustration, were prosecuted. The defendant quoted a very amusing passage from the works of Colonel Ingersoll, to show how ridicule was used, and went on to ask, why are we singled out for prosecution? You will remember hearing me ask one of the witnesses, Kelland, in whose employ he was, and his answer was Messrs. Batten and Co., solicitors. They are the solicitors to Sir Henry Tyler. Sir' Henry Tyler is a man whose name you are somewhat familiar with by this time. All sorts of rumors have been flying about with reference to this gentleman. He has relinquished his position as president of the Brush Light Company. He is, a man of excessive piety, although it is true the shareholders don t like him much. In the House of Commons he made himself especially obnoxious—not to Mr. Bradlaugh personally, but to the House generally, and the members of his own Conservative party marked their disapproval of his conduct by walking out of the House and leaving him alone, when he put his question, not in his glory but in his shame. He put questions with reference to ladies associated with Mr. Bradlaugh by ties of blood, knowing that owing to the discreditable interference with the right of an English constituency—Mr. Bradlaugh would not be in his place in the House to speak, and knowing also that the ladies were not present. Sir Henry Tyler is a very pious man, who considers that blasphemy should be put down. He supported a former prosecution against the “Freethinker,’ but he was par­ ticularly careful to drag into the prosecution the name of Mr. Bradlaugh, although there was no evidence that he had been editor, publisher, proprietor, or in any way connected with it Sir H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh s, and Mr. Bradlaugh was therefore, in the most unwarrantable manner,, involved in an expensive litigation. Mr. Newdegate was sueing him at the same time for £500 not due and not yet paid. I he suit was very protracted, and Sir H. Tyler and other personages thought if Mr. Bradlaugh could only be brought in Guilty of a blasphemous libel, and if the penalties of the statute of ■William IV. could be imposed upon him, he would not only be deprived of his position in the House of Commons, but would be declared without right for the rest of his life to be a Party *o any suit—so that this would be a disfranchisement under the. statute, and Mr. Newdegate would get his £500 and costs. Sir �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 91 H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh’s, and a political opponent of the most pronounced type; and when political opponents of the most pronounced type take to de­ nouncing each other on a charge of blasphemy, you can under­ stand very readily that the motive is not so much religious as political, and it is pretty sure that if they can only cripple him in a political point of view, they will not trouble themselves about his religion. Sir T. Nelson (the City solicitor) and Sir H. Tyler are working together amicably, and it occurs to me there may be a malicious motive behind this prosecution, a motive of political animosity, and that- it is sought to strike at Mr. Brad-. laugh through men known to be connected with him in public and other work. May it not be hoped by these very political adversaries, that if a verdict of Guilty can be snatched in this case, which is being hurried on with such indecent haste, it will be easier to get a verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh in the other case, and that then he may be crippled in political life—a desire that his enemies wish so ardently to see realised. I hope you will decide, whatever may be the opinions of the prosecutor or others in this case, on the striptly legal merits, without being in­ fluenced by any religious or political considerations. I hope you will show by your verdict that you are not going to allow yourselves to be made the prosecuting instruments in a political fight,, but that you will let them fight it out in the arena of politics without recourse to the political weapons which they put in your hands, when they are afraid to strike themselves. Our indictment says we have done what ?—we have done something to the displeasure of almighty god and to the danger of the peace. A breach of the peace is a very serious and grave thing, and it quite justifies Mr. Justice Stephens in putting in a clause of reserva­ tion at the end of a sentence in which he disapproves of blas­ phemy prosecutions in his “ Digest of the Criminal Law ” (quota­ tion read). Here we have one of the very highest judges, who says he thinks no temporal punishment should be inflicted on a charge of blasphemy unless it can be shown that the blasphemy tends to a breach of the peace. That is a perfectly reasonable reservation. Then if it be a reasonable reservation it is only proper that its condition should be fulfilled by the prosecution. There has been no evidence to show that anything we have done has tended to a breach of the peace. You must not understand as tending to a breach of the peace something which differs from what you hold and that you may dislike. Before you come to the conclusion that a thing has a tendency to a breach of the peace you must be perfectly satisfied it would lead to an actual breach of the peace. What breach of the peace could the offence with which we are charged lead to ? There has been no allega­ tion that even a crowd assembled to look at it. The “Free- �92 Report of Blasphemy Trials. thinker ” was exposed for sale in shop-windows, but the prose­ cution don’t show that anybody was tempted to break a pane of glass in consequence. There has been no allegation of tumult in the street. Not even a boy has snatched another boy’s hat over the subject; there has not been a single blow struck, not a single disturbance or obstruction of thoroughfare; and if that be so, and there be no evidence tending to show anything to the con­ trary, you ought, considering there has been no breach of the peace, and no probability of any breach of the peace occurring, to pronounce your judgment on this very reasonable reservation, and say, that as its conditions have not been complied with, you will not give a verdict of Guilty but one of Not Guilty, and show that the time has arrived for the abolition of temporal punish­ ment for a spiritual offence. There is good, reason to believe that most people of any liberality of mind object to prosecutions of this kind. Dr. Hynes stated, on the 19th of May, 1819, that these Acts being enforced against Richard Carlile and others, did not stop the publications. He further said that Christianity dis­ claims them, that reason was every day gaining ground, and that they ought to abandon those prosecuting statutes, fit only to bind demons. Jeremy Bentham, in his “Letters to Count Lor eno on the Proposed Penal Code of the Spanish Cortes, speaking of blasphemies, said : “ To no end could I think of applying punish­ ment in any shape for such an offence.” Bentham further speaks of “theliberty of the press as the foundation of all other liberties. Let me give you the opinion of Professor Hunter, Professor of Roman Law at University College, London. Professor Hunter, in a letter to the “ Daily News,” says: “ The English law on the sub­ ject of blasphemy is a relic of barbarism and folly. It owes its place in our law-book simply to the fact that it has been a dead letter. To enforce it is to invoke all that is just and honorable in public opinion to demand its destruction. It is a weapon always ready to the hand of mischievous fools or designing knaves.” I don’t know in which category he would place this prosecution, whether that of mischievous fools or designing knaves. Buckle took exactly the same view. Mill, in an,article on Religious Prosecution, in the “Westminster Review, July, 1824, shows that “the line between argument and reviling is too difficult for even legal acuteness to draw ; that he who disbe­ lieves and attempts to disprove Christianity can put his arguments into no form which may not be pronounced calumnious and ille­ gal ; and that therefore the only mode of securing free inquiry is to tolerate the one as well as the other. ’ He aiso says: lo declare that an act is legal but with the proviso that it be per­ formed in a gentle and decorous manner, is opening a wide door for arbitrary discretion on the one part and dissatisfaction on the other. The difficulty is greatly increased when the act itself �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 93 is offensive to those who sit in judgment upon the manner of its performance.” Carlyle, in “Sartor Resartus,” says: “Wise man was he who counselled that speculation should have free course, and look fearlessly towards all the thirty-two points of the compass, whithersoever and howsoever it listed.” Sir W. Harcourt, reply­ ing to Mr. Freshfield, said: “I think it has been the view for a great many years of all persons responsible in these matters that more harm than advantage is produced to public morals by Government prosecutions in cases of this kind.” Again the Home Secretary, in reply to Mr. Redmond, observed: “Istated the other day that I thought it not wise to proceed legally against such publications.”- Mill speaks of the injustice of debarring “a man who may have a comprehensive and vigorous, though a vulgar and coarse mind, from publishing his speculalations on theological topics because his style lacks the polish of that of Hume and Gibbon.” Again, says the same writer: “If the proposition that Christianity is untrue may be legally con­ veyed to the mind, what can be more absurd than to say that to express that proposition by certain undefined and undefinable selections of terms, shall constitute a crime ?” No infidel socalled—a name every Freethinker disclaims—would disclaim any such protection as that which Mill pleads for. All we demand is equality—equal right with all our fellow citizens. We are with them citizens of one State, and should be equal in the eye of the law. Our lives are as public as other men’s, and is it found we are worse than other men ? In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, you know that everything that malice could invent has been invented with reference to him since he was elected to represent North­ ampton ; but although the fierce light of scandal has beaten upon him, yet even scandal, however vicious, and calumny however unfounded, has never been able to fasten upon a single foul spot in his life which could be held up for the reproach and the indig­ nation of mankind. Our lives are as good as the lives of others. Our doctrines may be different, but they are ours. If we speak in our homes, nobody need cross the thresholds ; if we write in papers we don’t give them away—people who want them must buy them. Everybody outraged has his remedy : he need not buy our paper; he need not listen to our doctrines or read them; and why should people who did not force their publications on him not be allowed the enjoyment of their tastes ? There is one thing I wish to call your attention to, and that is that these pro­ secutions never succeed. It has been said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Although one doesn’t want to pose as a martyr, still this prosecution is nothing less than martyrdom. It is not we who stand here of our own free will; it is not we who sought incarceration ever since Thursday in the dungeons behind. We would much rather have been about our business �94 Report of Blasphemy Trials. and our pleasure. We only wish, for freedom to do what we think is right. These prosecutions never succeed ; it is impossible that they should. In his article in the “Nineteenth Century,” Mr. Leslie Stepens says, and says truly, that there is only one form of persecution that you can justify on grounds of policy if you believe in the principle which underlies it, and that is extermination. Heresy may be treated by the orthodox Chris­ tian as he pleases, but then you cannot stamp out the disease by attacking a person here and there ; unless you can stamp out the germ you can do nothing. Lou cannot crush out a patty which numbers its tens of thousands by prosecutions of this de­ scription, while adherents are found from one end of the country to the other ; you cannot crush out a party here whose repre­ sentatives in France are actually in possession of the governmental affairs of that country. You cannot expect to crush out a party so multitudinous as that unless you exterminate it. It is im­ possible to succeed thus. In attempting it you would only deal a blow at your own faith and general liberty, and as for the men who are thrown into gaol or crippled by fine, do you think your treatment would strongly and favorably impress them with the reasonableness of your faith? You don t teach in that way now. You cannot, as in the old days, thrash ideas into children with the stick. The policy doesn’t succeed ; and endeavoring to thrash Christianity into people by means of a foulsome prison and a crippling fine, is worthy only of the times when the policy was adopted of enforcing argument on children, as it has been aptly described a posteriori, instead of trying to put argument into the child’s brains through the eyes and ears. Gentlemen, that policy will not succeed, and yon must know that it won’t. I ask you by your verdict of Not Guilty to show that you believe it, and to send us back to work, to take our part in the business of li.e, and to do what is incumbent upon us in our relationships as brothers, sons, husbands, citizens. Gentlemen, carry your minds back across the chasm of eighteen centuries and a half. You are in Jerusalem. A young Jew is haled along the street to the place of judgment. He is brought before his judge. 1 here is nothing repulsive about his lineaments. People who knew him _ not the people who were prosecuting him—loved him; and their verdict after all is the right one.. There is even the fire of genius smouldering in his eyes, notwithstanding.the depressing circumstances around him. He stands before his judge ; he is accused—of what, gentlemen? You know what he is accused of_ the word must be springing to your lips—Blasphemy! Every Christian among you knows that >our founder, Jesus Christ, .was crucified after being charged with blasphemy ;. and, gentlemen, it seems to me that no Christian should ever bring in a verdict of blasphemy after that, but that the very word ought �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 95 to be wiped from your vocabulary, as a reproach and a scandal to Jesus Christ. Surely, Christians, your founder was murdered as a blasphemer, for, although done judicially, it was still a murder. Surely you will not, when you have secured the possession of power, imitate the bad example of those who killed your founder, violate men's liberties, rob them of all that is perhaps dearest to them, and brand them with a stigma of public infamy by a verdict from the jury-box! Surely, gentlemen, it is impossible that you can do that! Who are we? Three poor men. Are we wicked? No, there is no proof of the charge. Our honor and honesty are unimpeached. It is not for us to play the Pharisee and say that we are better than other men. We only say that we are no worse. Our honor and our honesty are unimpeached. What have we done to be classed with thieves and felons, and dragged from our homes and sub­ mitted to the indignities of a life so loathsome and hideous, that it is even revolting to the spirits of the men who have to exercise -authority within the precincts of the gaol? You know we have done nothing to merit such a punishment. Therefore you ought to return a verdict of Not Guilty against us, because the prose­ cution have not given you sufficient evidence as to the fact; be­ cause whatever shred there is to gain from the decisions of judges in the past must be treated as obsolete, as the London magistrate treated the law of maintenance. On the ground that we have done nothing, as the indictment states, against the peace ; on the ground that our proceedings have led to no tumult in the streets no interference with the liberty of any man, his person or pro­ perty ; on the ground, gentlemen, that no evidence has been tendered to you of any malice in our case ; that there is no wicked motive animating anything we have done ; on the ground, if you -are Christians, that the founder of your own creed was murdered on a very similar charge to that of which we stand accused now; and. lastly, on the ground that you should in this third quarter of the nineteenth century, assert once and for ever the great principle of the absolute freedom of each man, unless he trench on the equal freedom of another, assert the great principle of the liberty of the press, liberty of the platform, liberty of free thouo-lit and liberty of free speech; I ask you to prevent such prosecu­ tions as are hinted at in the Times this morning; not to allow sects once more to be hurling anathemas against each other, and flying to the magistrates to settle questions which should be settled by intellectual means and moral suasion; not to open a discreditable chapter of English history that ought to have been closed for ever; but to give us a verdict of Not Guilty, to send us back home and to stamp your brand of disapprobation on the prosecution in this case, that is I say in certain interests of re­ ligion, and is degrading religion by associating it with all that �g6 Report of Blasphemy Trials. • ™„al obstructive, and loathsome ; to stamp that prosecution with the brand of your condemnation; to allow us to go away tarn tere free meni and so make it impossible that there over Hoi once Ld for ever, and associate your names on the page of Sy S liberty, ¿regress, and -e^^eV’ " xL’Sl.rrv: !aES;^~=^~Ss &nd peculiar clrcunXnces u^de/which it has rSfx’Ssii»“« S=KWS=S= men charged with a ballabie , d de’clared themselves unable S .‘•--K 1 4 St iron grating within earshot of a police offic • tirrender position has always been allowed to come b“«“d surrender S^pie^uX:i, Ld up»“ yoi the law Uws the �97 lieport of Blasphemy Trials. duty of defining what is and what is not blasphemy at com­ mon law; and I desire, gentlemen, with all due respect to the court to press upon you that on you by statute lies the responsibility of making this decision. It is by statute for you to say whether the publication indicted comes or does not come within the definition of blasphemy. In the long struggle for civil and religious liberty 111 this country the gradual emancipation of thought and action has been largely/rouX by English juries. They have gradually widened our freedom by refusing to find men guilty for publishing specula^ opinions, and have thus rendered obsolete ba?barous laws passed in savage and persecuting times ; they have stood between prisoners and j’udges pressing for a harsh constru/ tion of a harsh law, and have delivered from cruel sentences over and over again men of untainted moral character but of heretical opinions. Your deliverance is here supreme but your verdict once spoken your power is gone. If bv brii^in J m a verdict of Guilty you hand us over to the lawf then?hat law, cruel as it is, can be exercised in its full severity, and no disapproval on your part of a vindictive sentence will be of the smallest avail. That sentence will really be of your in feting, for you know what the law permits as punishment for heretical thought, and you have the power to prevent the infliction by returning a verdict of acquittal. Already one jury has refused to hand us over to such punishment Ldl press upon you at least not to fall below the level of their yerdict. You are not dealing here with a crime of conduct ■ you are dealing with an alleged crime of speculative thought and of the expression of that thought ° l Mr. Ramsey then urged the arguments used in his speech to the former jury, and concluded by saying: Gentlemen I ask of you a yerdict of deliverance from this cruel law—a law born of religious persecution, which has caused more misery broken more hearts, and ruined more lives, than the woX war ever waged. Supposing all was proved that the p™ cation allege to what does it amount ? That I have permitted a paper, of which I was the registered proprietor, to be used for the purpose not of attacking Ohristianity-for that of itself, the counsel for the prosecution has told you, would not be prosecuted—but of attacking it in a manner which over stepped the bounds of good taste. Surely such torture 2 I have undergone during the last few days is far more than all the pain this paper has inflicted-to be caged like some wUd beast m a den. Think what it is to one, to whom freedom! d liberty are dearer than life itself, to be surrounded wub an atmosphere of crime, to herd with wretches whose very presence is like some noxious pestilence. All this is loathsome to the G �gg Report of Blasphemy Trials. last decree. Think, gentlemen, of what it is to pace a narrow cell thinking, thinking of the anxious, loved ones at home until the heart aches with very weariness. I would not plead thus gentlemen, if we ha<j. done wrong to anyone if we had Jobbed if we had injured; but we have not. We are not criminals—we are not of that class of wretches who prey on their fellow-men. Like all who have been persec uted by these hateful lais we are honest, sober, peaceful citizens. Hismy nrkle and ¿Toast, which I will keep till I die, that, through­ out mv life of nearly forty years, I have never wronged, never Tnhiied never slandered I human being, nor made an enemy of3an honest man. We are men to whom the ties of home rf love of friendship, are the very essence of our lives. Think of lying on a wretched pallet unable to close your eyes all nieht from the knowledge that other eyes are sleepless and Tearful on your account, that little lips have gone sobbing to bed because you were not there to kiss them good-night, and then ask yourselves whether all the annoyance that this paper JeSd nSv have caused can equal one hour of this. I ask vou gentlemen, for a verdict of deliverance from this cruel law’fhat we may return to our homes and make them once more happy ; to our friends and make them once more glad. I ask yon to say that you will not permit the serpent of r ligious persecution to again rear its head. It has lain dorrrMnt for fifty years, and some of us hoped, for the credit humanity tWit was dead; but bigotry has warmed it into h?e again, and now, gentlemen, it is for you to place your heel upon it, and crush it for ever. ,, Many remarks were made by persons in court as to the marked inattention shown by the jury during the defence. Mr Justice North: Gentlemen of the jury, it is now the usual'hour ^ o’clock, for the rising of the court. Would you prefer’ that I should address you now or to morrow “ TWForeman of the Jury: We should prefer your lordship U£r°CJust?c°eWNorth: Very well, gentlemen.' A great many toWs have been introduced and urged upon you very elo­ quently and powerfully with which you have Whmg; to do, and which you must dismiss entirely from your attention. Whatyou have to consider is not what the law ought to be, but what the law is. The two questions you have to ask are— First whether these passages from this paper which are the subject of the present indictment, are or are not bJasPhe™°™ libels • then, in the second place, whet her each of the prisoners respectively is responsible for its publication. Those are the two questions for your consideration. A passage has �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 99 read from the introduction by a living and learned iud»e to what he calls a “ Digest of the Criminal Lawa statement as to what the law is, or rather what he considers it is. It is his suggestion, and in the course? of that he states what he considers the law is. The passage he quoted was not fully quoted. The learned judge having read the whole, proceeded: This prosecution could not have been instituted without the sanction of the person appointed to look after prosecutions of this description, whose consent is rendered necessary by the Act passed s>nce that time. The consent not only ■pf the Attorney-General but also of the Public Prosecutor ns requisite. 1 hat has been obtained for this prosecution. You have to consider whether this document is or is not a blasphemous publication, and that is the opinion he gives—that is what he says is the law now, as distinguished from the suggestion put forward as to what the law ou°-ht to be and how it should be altered. To put it shortly as regards the definition, what you have to consider is—Is there any contumelious or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture ? I leave out the otner parts. Is there any contumelious reproach or profane scoffing against, the Holy Scriptures, or anything ^e Holy Scriptures to ridicule, contempt, or derision? that is the question you have to put to yourselves. Are any of those passages put before you calculated to expose to ridi­ cule, to contempt or derision the Holy Scriptures or the Chris­ tian religion ? I must ask you to look at the passages, because 1 am not going to read to you any of the contents. I will only refer to tnem incidentally as they are all before you. I will ask you to look at the pictures on pages 8 and 9. There you will find the words “ A New Life of Christ.” One of the prisoners said that he was familiar with his Bible and knew what was staged in the Scriptures with respect to Christ and the Christian religion. What we know is this. He went home with his parents and was subject to them. Look at picture number 5 on page 8 in the left hand column, and con­ sider whether you find anything in the volume referred to that enables you to—I won’t say justify—say that it is fair honest criticism, with respect to the topic to which that pic­ ture refers. Look again at any one of the pictures in either of those pages, and asx yourselves whether it is contumelious contempt or profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion. Look at the second page : look at pictures 10 and 11; those are the two at the top, and ask yourselves again, is that fair or honest argument upon a point that might be open to controversy *? You have heard a good many extracts read from various publications written by some very eminent men. Has anything been quoted from those �2Q0- lieport of Blasphemy Trials. works corresponding with the passages you find here ? Has anything like it. been produced from any source ? Look again at page 10 : look at the first of those pictures. We know the history that is given to us, and the way m which the ¿lsclPjes acted at a time of extreme sadness and tribulation, at a time in which they believed they had lost a person for whom they had respect. Look at that ; look at our savior and say, gentle­ men what you think of that. The next is that at page 7. That is one upon which one of the prisoners has made certain remarks to you. The picture at the top you also see—those clouds, or whatever they are, and then you come to a P1®0® poetry, with reference to which I ask you, first of all, to look at the title, “ Jocular Jehovah.” Then omitting the first mi e lines, which are not the subject of a particular count the.next nine lines are the subject ot the second cpunt-thatis a thing which is said to be a blasphemous libel. I don t know whether you have read those nine lines, but if you have not I would ask you to do so. Look at the last line but one m par­ ticular and say what you think of that. Then the next is at page 3’ I think. There you will see a greater portion of two columns is taken up with a piece of poetry. At the bottom of the second column there are four paragraphs. The second of these paragraphs is the subject of the third count that suggest no meaning? Is it argument? Is it reason able? Is it a fair putting forward of the view a man may take upon a matter in dispuie, or is it profane scoffing • N turn over to page 4. There is a picture at the top of page 4, and then comes what purports to be a report of a trlai. vou look at the first lour lines you will see who the prisoners are described to be. Then look at the next paragraph begin­ ning with the words ” the indictment. 1 hen again theie is another passage I call your theie the middle of the first column of page 5. You will see tnere is a reference to a certain person, who on rising stated so and so Just look at the first two lines of that. I callyour atten­ tion to these passages and desire you to pay them special attention. The* subject of the other count is to be found op pagi u In the second column there are notices to corres­ pondents I ask your attention particularly to the name of So eo^poMeut5 (Holy Gh-i). Just loot: at.the next but two notices to that, and say what you hire attention to these, not because it is the libel charged here, but it in the Axwvr. to Ct > reapondonta and you may legitimately use it. 1 ou see that ».egmnmg One of the Wise Men ” I ask you to 1 ead that. Look at the one after, begmX‘with the words •• Long-faced Christians? There is one other 1 would ask you to look at; it is the fifth below that, �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 101 «beginning with the words “ Happv Sal.” I ask you a<>ain to put to yourselves the question—Is it or is it not a contu­ melious reproach or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture and the Christian religion? A few observations I must make Ujion the topics that have been urged upon you. It has been said you are the persons who are to say what the law of libel is. It is nothing of the kind. What you are to say is, taking the law from me, whether these particular things are or are uot blasphemous libels, having regard to the definition of a blasphemous libel. It is said you are the arbiters as to whether these persons are to suffer sentence or not. You are nothin^ of the kind. You are simply to answer the question, Are or are not these documents blasphemous libels? It is said that these prosecutions are a mistake, that they should never have been commenced and that they do harm. As to that I may ^ay that it is open to considerable doubt. It is said that these prosecutions only gain for the parties additional noto­ riety, and that it would have been better to have allowed them to wallow in their own filth. This is a serious matter to take into consideration. Something has been said about the real prosecutor, and reference has been made to his antecedents, lhe real prosecutor is her Majesty the Queen, and the person ■by whom this prosecution is instituted is the Public Prose- j cutor without whose sanction it could not have been com- ' menced. It has been, you may rely upon it, considered most senously whether it would or wouid not be wise to prosecute the parties who publish this paper, and whether it would not be better to prevent them obtaining any notorietv that a prosecution of this nature might give them. You may think ttat the prosecution is a mistake, that it would have been better to have left it alone and better if nothing had been done Ao give it notoriety. There may be other persons who take the viewthat feelings ought not to be outraged with impunity in the thoroughfares of London, and that the authorities should use their best endeavors to put such down and brine the per­ sons responsible for it to justice. What I want to put before you is this—you have nothing whatever to do with that. We are not responsible for this prosecution. We have not com­ menced it; we cannot prevent it. All that is to bedone by you is not tor you to consider whether it was wisely or unadvisedly ■commenced. It is brought here and it is for you to say whether having been brought here, it is what I have defined to be a -blasphemous libel. A good deal has been said of the effect 1C v^dict would have upon liberty of speech, liberty of thought, liberty of the press, and other things of that kind. A good many fine phrases have been brought into play, but .uhese are not material to the purposes of this inquiry. It is �102 Report of Blasphemy Trials. for you. to consider what the document is. Do you suppose that any of the public writers whose works have been referred to ever used such arguments, such a mode of putting their views before the public in their books—many of them con­ taining expressions of opinion with which you may or may not agree ? From some of them you may differ or you may agree with them. At any rate they have been put forward by persons with a feeling of responsibility, and the fact that they have expressed their views stronglv is perhaps not a matter for which they are to be blamed. They have expressed them in a decent manner, and not in such a manner as. to outrage the community. Are the passages like those to which I have directed your attention in this publication ? You may depend upon it that, whatever the view you take, there is not a respectable paper in the country that would have sullied its pages with these passages. Whether justi­ fiable or not you need hardly say that such matters as these should not be put forward. It has been suggested that it has not been proved that what has been done here is done wickedly and corruptly. It is said it is not done with malice. Is this a document that ought to have been published? Is the document such as I have described to you one that ought to be published or not? If it is not, the mere fact of its being such as I have described is enough to show malice. Maliciousness in point of law is that it is dime. Has anv legal justification been produced here ? Further, it is said it is not done unlawfully. It is said it is not contrary to the peace or likely to lead to a breach of the peace With respect to that, any libel is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and that is the reason it is stated. As to the words “ wickedly and corruptly, those are words which if you think the libel is such as I have described a blasphemous libel to be, you will have to consider in con­ nexion with the illustrations to which I have drawn your attention. Then again it is said these are published with an object. If it is for an object, is it such fair discussion as may peaceably be allowed? If it is not, then the reason for which they are put forward cannot matter. Supposing a per­ son publishes an obscene libel in the street he would be tried for the crime. I just remind you of this, that m the ^mtment it is not an obscene libel. The fact that you may think some of them are obscene is not any ground for thinking persons guilty unless they are blasphemous With these remarks I shall leave this part of the case. If you say these are not blasphemous libels you will acquit the prisoners. If VOU think they are blasphemous libels, then the question is whether each of the prisoners respectively is responsible tor �Report of Blasphemy Trials. 103 them. With respect to that I take first of all the simplest ©ase, that of Kemp. He is defended by counsel. His counsel will say that the proof of sale was too clear to be resisted and that it could not leave any doubt. You have got the fact that there is a publication,by reason of the sale of copies. As far therefore as you are concerned, do you think the docu­ ments blasphemous libels ? The next case is that of Ramsey. Newspapers have now to be registered, and on November 26th, 1881, the “ Freethinker ” was registered. It was presented for registration by Ramsey. He gave his name as proprietor, and he also describes himself as a publisher, of 28 Stonecutter Street, London. At the bottom of the form is a place for the printer and publisher to sign, and that is signed November, 1881. . The next registration is on August 2nd, 18s2, when it is registered, not by Ramsey, but by Kemp, and the registra­ tion is'altered for that reason. Kemp is the person who pre­ sents it, and his name appears as printer and publisher, but the name of the proprietor remains the same. Then the next change took place on February 7th, 1883—that is after this Christmas Number is published. Then Ramsey ceases to be proprietor, and the registration is effected by Foote, who describes himself as of Stonecutter Street. Ramsey’s name is given in the column of persons who cease to be proprietors and Foote’s name is inserted as proprietor. Foote is described as a journalist of Stonecutter Street, London, and his resi­ dence as 9 South Crescent, London. That is signed by Foote on February 7th, 1883. Ramsey was proprietor of the paper to February 7th, 1883, during the period that this document was published. There is to be remembered also, if it were necessary to go into it, that it is proved he paid rates with respect to this house in Stonecutter Street. As regards this, under the Act of Parliament I have referred to, I shall tell you that registry is in itself sufficient prima, facie evidence. Therefore that document itself proves the proprietorship during the period when this was in preparation and execution. Though the contrary was set up, no attempt has been made to show the contrary. I will tell you this, further: the pro­ prietor of a newspaper is liable for what appears in it. It is his business to take care that the contents are such as they ought to be ; and if he allows through neglect or insufficient editorial supervision, or from whatever reason, an indecent libel to appear, he is criminally responsible for it. In one or two cases that has undoubtedly produced hardship. A man was held criminally liable although he was not in the country at the time the libel was published. Therefore, to obviate that hardship, the law was altered thirty years ago. It is proved that Ramsey was the proprietor of the paper at the �104 Report of Blasphemy Trials. iime these passages were published, and if they were put in without his exercising due care or caution he is criminally responsible. The next case is that of Foote, because you understand one might be guilty and the other not. First of all it was contended that there was nothing to show he was the editor of this particular number; and you may recollect he asked a question, of one of those persons who left letters, for the purpose of eliciting whether he had delivered any letter addressed to Mr. Foote as editor of the Christmas Number of the paper. You will recollect this paper is the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” for 1882. It is not an isolated publication; it is a number published in connexion with something published in a series, as the Christmas Num­ ber of the “ Graphic,” “ Illustrated London News,” or the Christmas number of “ Belgravia.” Here you have got the Christmas Number for 1882. You have got proof that it is a weekly publication a little before Christmas. In one of the numbers it states the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” will be ready next week. It states what the articles are and the illustrations. Is not that a subject of the libel ? I will now call your attention to the contents. The advertisement is connecting it with the regular publication. You may have noticed it states at the top of the “ Freethinker ”—“ edited by G W. Foote and on the outside, though that is perhaps of minor importance, there appears an advertisement showing Foote's publications. The statement at the top of it is not of itself conclusive evidence about it, because it is possible the name of one of you might have been put there. For instance, it might be that Foote could show he had nothing to do with it. Ttie question is whether you find anything to show he was editor of it. With respect to that there are several matters. First, you recollect that it is proved that he and Ramsey, and two other* persons, were prosecuted the July previous. Copies of the “ Freethinker ” published incidentally at the time were part of the charge, and proved in evidence. The fact that these were edited by Foote was drawn to his attention, and the notice at the foot as to printing and pub­ lishing. In each of those notices to correspondents what appears is, that all business communications are to be addressed to Ramsey, and literary7 communications to Foote. At the end it appears, “ Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, at 28 Stonecutter Street.” It is the same in the whole of those papers. Therefore you have this fact—that at this time, at the top of the first page, were the words, “ edited by G. W. Foote;” that this is brought to his attention and put in evi­ dence against him in July, and therefore he knows all about it. No alteration takes place, because that continues the �Be,port of Blasphemy Trials. 105 same down to February. One change ultimately took place. “ Notices to correspondents ” was changed to “ literary commu­ nications to the editor, G. W. Footeand at the end there is an alteration made in the printing. That is now by Kemp and not by Ramsey. After Foote’s attention had been called to it, the notices to correspondents remained the same. Tben you have this also : letters are received by the servant de­ livered by the postmen at the address, and naturally enough their recollection is hazy ; but one of them, when pressed by the prisoner Foote, spoke about a parcel being too large to go into the letter-box, and that while waiting there for the ser­ vant to open the door he looked carefully at the address. You have the fact that during the few months preceding the issue ■of this number Foote is receiving letters addressed to him as editor. That is a matter for your consideration. There is a circumstance which is rather material, and that is the paper proved to have been seen in his room. That; would not go far by itself, but the possession of a paper in his room in which he is described as editor is another matter, and it is hardly •likely he would not know of it. On February 7th he became proprietor^ and publisher, and the paper is proved dated February 18th, purchased on the 16th, which states, “ edited and printed by G. W. Foote,” and the notice to correspondents is the same as it is when the paper contains this passage at the time Foote is proprietor and editor; and what he says is this: that “ the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ had an incredible sale, and yet, notwithstanding the enormous sale, they were actually several pounds out of pocket. I ask you whether you believe it to be proved that Foote was editor or not. If he is editor, the charge against him is of print­ ing and publishing, and causing—and you must be satisfied that he did print, or cause to be printed, and published, and composed—this paper before you can convict. In his address he justifies the publication. That is a matter you are entitled to take into consideration, whether he is not one of the persons who composed this. With these remarks I leave the case in your hands to say whether in your opinion these are blasphemous libels, and to say, if they are, whether these prisoners are. liable for the publication. I ought to say gentlemen, this paper of February 18th dees not affect Ramsey in any way—it was published by Kemp. Objection was taken as to its being evidence against Ramsey. The jury then considered their verdict, and after a consul­ tation of about two minutes returned a verdict of “ Guilty ” against all three prisoners. This announcement was received with a murmer of surprise from the gallery, which was filled with sympathisers of the defendants. The murmurs quickly �106 Report of Blasphemy Trials. turned to loud groans and hisses, in the mist of which a young woman, from whom a loud cry had broken, was carried out in a hysterical fit. Order having been with some difficulty restored ; after his lordship had threatened to have the court cleared, Mr. Avory said: With regard to Kemp, my lord, I hope I have not been understood as admitting anything more with regard to him. The learned Judge: You admitted the publication was so clear you could not contest it. Mr. Avory: I hope I have not been understood to say any­ thing more than that he was a shopman and sold the papers in theshop in the ordinary way. He was nothing more nor less than a paid servant. He is a married man with a family ; he was paid a weekly salary, and he was simply acting under the influence of the other prisoners. As to his name appearing on the papers, it was put there—Kemp’s name was substituted there as the nominee of those paying him, and afterwards, when he is brought into difficulty by his name being there, his name is taken out. He acceded to his name being put there no doubt, without any idea of making himself responsible. Of oourse, the object of the Newspaper Act is to have some one primarily liable for the publication of this matter, but it is not intended to include such men as Kemp. Norrish, wlu> practically occupied the same position as Kemp, is here as a witness for the prosecution. He has been there only for a few months, and Norrish was there for five years. This man must have lost his place if he had refused to sell anything. There is no suggestion that he derived any profit from the sale; he received nothing beyond his salary. Ou these grounds I hope your lordship will say this is a case to be dealt with differently from one in which you supposed he was deriving any profit from this matter. I may say, your lordship, any undertaking your lordship would impose upon him not to sell this again would be cheerfully agreed to by him. Mr. Justice North addressing Foote, said : George William Foote, you have been found Guilty by the jury of publishing these blasphemous libels. This trial has been to me a very painful one. I regret extremely to find a person of your undoubted intelligence, a man gifted by god with such great ability, should have chosen to prostitute his talents to the services of the Devil. I consider this paper totally different from any of the works you have brought before me in every way, and the sentence I now pass upon you is one of imprison­ ment for twelve calendar months. �Report of Blasphemy Trials, 107 Immediately upon the passing of this sentence a scene of the greatest excitement and tumult ensued in the gallery before mentioned as being full of the prisoners’ friends. Rising, as it seemed with one accord, they burst forth into a storm of hissing, groaning, and derisive cries. The prisoner Foote brought about a momentary lull, as, looking towards the Bench, he cried, “ My Lord, I thank you; it is worthy of your creed!” But immediately afterwards the uproar became worse than ever, several persons calling out “ Christians, indeed 1” “ Scroggs ” and ‘‘ Judge Jeffries.” It being found impossible for the officers of the court to obtain anything like decent order from the defiant audience in the gallery, the judge ordered that portion of the court to be summarily cleared, which was done after some little trouble by the police, and even then the roar of the crowd in the street could» be plainly heard inside. Addressing Ramsey, the learned Judge said:—William James Ramsey, you have been found guilty of publishing these same libels, but I don’t look upon you as deserving so severe a punishment as Foote, because I look upon you as more an agent to other persons. I don’t think the documents we have seen have emanated from you, for they show marks of intel­ ligence and ability, however perverted. But you are the person who has been the proprietor of the paper, and it is necessary that it should be known that a proprietor is respon­ sible if he publishes libels in his paper. I sentence you to nine months’ imprisonment. (Slight hissing at the back of the court, which was promptly suppressed.) The learned Judge, addressing Kemp, said:—Henry Arthur Kemp, you are the seller of this paper. You for some time were the printer and publisher, and you are the person who had the conduct of the sale of it. I think you less responsible for it than either of the other two, and I shall pass upon you a lighter sentence. At the same time, it is to be known that persons in your position are liable to punishment, and I hope that this will be a lesson to you and others. The sentence I pass upon you is imprisonment for three calendar months. THE CASE OF MR. CATTELL. Cattell, the Fleet Street newspaper agent, who had been oonvicted on Thursday last of selling the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker,” was then put into the dock to receive sentence. Mr. Keith Frith addressed the court in mitigation of punishment, and the prisoner was ordered to enter into his �108 Report of Blasphemy Trials. own recognisances in £200, and to find one surety in £100. to •come up for judgment when called upon. For a considerable time after the court rose crowds remained in the streets discussing the sentences passed, and much indignation was expressed at what were regarded as harsh and unmerited treatment. MEMORIAL. “ To the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. “The Humble Memorial of the undersigned. Sheweth “ That George William Foote, William James Ramsey, and Henry Kemp were on Monday, March 5th, found guilty of blasphemy at common law and sentenced to imprisonment, respectively, G. W. Foote, 12 months; W. J. Ramsey, 9 months ; and H. Kemp, 3 months. “Your memorialists respectfully submit that such an enforcement of laws against Blasphemy is out of accord with the spirit of the age, and humbly pray the mercy of the Crown in remission of the sentences imposed.” Friends will do good work by copying this out and obtain­ ing as many signatures as possible to each copy. The Memorial and the signatures should be sent to the Home Secretary as speedily as possible. It is particularly requested that no other form may be used than the one given above. �PRISON NOTES. I have been addressing the jury for half-an-hour when the judge adjourns for lunch. A friend runs across the way to ordei in a plateful of something for me and my co-defendants. While he is gone, we—Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Kemp, and I—are invited to retire down the dock stairs to a subterranean refectory. We enter a gaslit passage with a dark cell on either side. Into one of these miserable holes we go. The aged janitor, who holds the keys and looks very much like St. Peter, gazes reproachfully as though our descent into his Inferno were full proofs of our criminality. As we cross the threshold something stirs in the darkness. Is it a dog or a rat? No, it is Mr. Cattell. He hasbeen shivering there ever since ten o’clock, and it is now halfpast one. He is very glad to see us, and almost as glad to get a sup from our bottle of claret. Our platefuls of meat and vege­ tables look nice and smell nice ; our appetites are keen, and our stomachs empty, but there are no knives and forks. Stay, there are forks, but no knives. These lethal instruments are forbidden lest prisoners should cut their throats. Throughout the gaol similar precautions are taken. I am even writing with a quill (fortunately my preference) instead of a steel pen, because the latter is dangerous. A prisoner here once stabbed away at his windpipe with one, and they had much trouble in saving his life. These elaborate precautions and my own experience, although so brief, convince me that even in a House of Detention more than half the prisoners would commit suicide if they could. But revenons a nos moutons, or rather to our forks. We split the meat and gnaw it after the fashion of our primitive ancestors. The vegetables disappear somehow, and somehow we all denounce the miserably small capacity of the claret bottle. Then we feel cold in our subterranean dungeon, which never will be warm until the Day of Judgment. We walk up and down (it’s about three steps each way) like the panthers in the Zoo,- or rush round in Indian file like braves on the war-trail. We speculate how many laps to the mile. By way of stimulating my imagination, I suggest a million. The other beasts in the opposite den, whose mostly stupid faces we catch a glimpse of through the bars, evi­ �110 Prison Notes. dently regard us as imbeciles by the way they grin. St. Peter suddenly appears at the gate. We are summoned to the dock, and I must resume my address to the jury. It is two o’clock. It is four o’clock, I have concluded my address, and sit down a bit tired. Mr. Ramsey has a shott innings of about twenty minutes, reading from manuscript, every word to the point. Then the judge sums up in his peculiar prosecuting style. The jury retire ; and we pop half way down the dock stairs to make room for Mr. Cattell, who now takes the trial he has waited for all day. When his jury have delivered their verdict, the judge defers sentence until our jury return. We again descend to the Inferno. Minute after minute goes by, and we are half dis­ tracted with expectation. It is a mild agony of suspense. Our janitor gives us water to drink; we taste it, anti find a little goes a long way. The summons comes at last, after two hours and ten minutes waiting. There is profound silence in court. The judge tells the jury he has sent for them to know if he can assist them. I see what he means, and fear that the foreman may commit himself. But in quiet, firm tones he replies that the judge cannot help them; that they all know the law as well as the fact, and that there is no hope of their agreeing. Reluc­ tantly, very reluctantly, the judge discharges them. Then I ask him for bail. In bitter, vindictive tones he refuses, and we are marched off by an underground passage to Newgate Gaol. Newgate appears to be a large rambling structure. There are courtyards and offices in profusion, but the cells seem to be all together. Tier above tier of them, with galleries and staircases, look down the great hall, which commands a view of every door. We inscribe our names in a big book, and a dapper little officer, with a queer mixture of authority and respectfulness, writes out a description as though he were filling up a passport. All money, keys, pencils, etc., we are requested to give up, but I am allowed to retain my eyeglass. I am taken to cell Number One, which they tell me is about the best they have. It is asphalted on the floor and white-washed everywhere else ; height about nine feet, length ten, and breadth six, I am a little taken aback. Of course I knew that a cell was small, but the realisation was a bit rough. Here, thought I is a den for a blasphemer! Hell i» hotter, but more commodious. Why don't they send me there at once ? The head-warder comes to tell me that my friend with the big head has just called to do what he can for us. This is his facetious way of describing the junior member for North­ ampton. The honorable gentleman has ordered our meals to be sent in from across the way. After consuming a little coffee and �Prison Notes. Ill toast I retire to—anything but sleep. My bed is a rough ham­ mock strapped from side to side of the cell. It is very narrow, so that my shoulders abut on eitLer side. The clothes keep slipping off. and I keep imitating them. At last I find a good firm position, and lie still, clutching the refractory sheets and blankets. For a while my brain is busy. The thought of one or two I love most makes me womanish. But soon a recollection of the malig­ nant judge mak< s me clench my teeth, and with a phantas­ magoria of the trial before my eyes I gradually sink into a rest­ less sleep. Ding, ding—ding, ding—ding, ding! I open my eyes half­ startled. It is pitch dark save the faint glimmer of a distant lamp through the thick window. Suddenly the square flap in the centre of my door is let down with a bang; a little hand­ lamp is thrust through, and a gruff voice cries, “Now then, get up and light your gas ; look sharp.” I make no indecent haste nr response to his shouting, but leisurely light my gas. As soon as I am dressed the head warder summonses me down stairs, where he weighs and measures me. Height, five feet ten, in my shoes; weight, twelve, stone nine and a half, in my clothes. I see the prosecution, with all its worry and anxiety, has not pulled me down in flesh any more than it has in spirit. Breakfast comes in at eight, consisting of coffee, eggs and toast. At half-past we are taken out to exercise. We are all glad to see each other’s faces again. I hey take us to a middle court by ourselves, where we walk round and round and round, like pedestrains in a match. I hear my name called, and, on rushing down to the spot whence the voice issued, I see Mr. Bradlaugh’s face through iron rails on my side, then three feet of air and again iron rails on his side, lhis is how you see your friends. After Mr. Bradlaugh comes Mrs. Be sant, who thought she would have been able to shake one by the hand. “We are all very proud,” she says, “ of the brave fight you made yesterday.” I promised to scarify the judge on Monday ; and after a few more words we say good-bye. Mr. Wheeler comes next on business, as well as friendship. After the hour s exercise is over, we are marched back to our cells, where we are doomed to remain until the next morning. We prisoners are suddenly summoned into court; the officer thinks they are going to grant us bail after all. We reach the dock stairs (out of sight of the court) just in time to hear Mr. Avow asking for bail for Mr. Kemp. Justice North refuses in his vin­ dictive style. He has very evidently let the sun go down on his wrath. Mr. Avory asks him whether he makes no distinction between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. We hear his brutal reply, and then hurry back to our cells. Fortunatelv I have plenty of writing to do ; several letters arrive for me, and �such an unusual prisoner. Saturday passes very much like Friday ; indeed the greatest curse of prison life is its awful monotony. We meet at half-past ei»ht for one hour’s trot round the yard, where we see two friends each for fifteen minutes. The rest of the day I spend in reading and writing. Dr. Aveling sends in his card with a cheery word scrawled on the back, and soon after I received a welcome parcel of clean linen, etc. Sunday morning is a little less varied in one way, and a little more varied in another. In order to keep the blessed Sabbath holy (and miserable), we are not allowed to see any friends, and I observe that the regulation dinner for the day is the poorest in the week. We take our constitutional, however; and as the confinement is beginning to tell on me, I enjoy the exercise more than ever. After the stagnant air in my cell, even the air of this yard, enclosed on every side by high walls, seems a breath of Paradise. I throw back my shoulders, and expand my chest through mouth and nostrils. I lift my face towards the sky. Ah blessed vision 1 It is only a pale gleam of sunshine through the' canopy of London smoke, but it is light and heat and hf e to the prisoner and beyond it is infinitude into which his thoughts may soar. At eleven o’clock I go to chapel. Any change is a relief, and I am anxious to know what the Rev. Mr. Duffeld will say. He is chaplain of Newgate, but I have not seen him yet. Per­ haps he is ashamed to meet me. There is no organ m the chapel and no choir, and if it were not for the cook the singing would break down. Mr. Duffeld’s voice is not melodious, and although he starts the hymn he does not appear to possess much sense of tune- but the Francatelli of this establishment makes up for the parson’s deficiencies. The prayers are rushed through at sixty miles an hour, so are the responses and everything else. _ Mr. Duffeld reads a short sermon, not bad in its way, but quite inap­ propriate Then he marches out, the tall Governor follows with long strides, and then the prisoners file in silence through the . door It is a ghastly mockery, a blasphemous farce. What a ' commentary on the words “ Our Father ”! Now to work again I feel fresh strength to fight the bigots with. If the worst happens I must bear it. Printed and Published by Edward 3. Aveling D.Sc., for the Pro­ gressive Publishing Company, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � 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 &amp; 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 Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Ramsey, William James Kemp, Henry Arthur Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 112 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Trials held at the Old Bailey, 1 and 5 March 1883, before Mr Justice North and two common juries. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N267 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 (Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker"), 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-Great Britain Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain NSS Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc94e4861475a38701984125c78daffc.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=HlQQQ5QxuhyajSouH9a3UWUonQLH7iY39HRtQN-sx8tK3z5YtTw2PsaUTx0jxwSgrdTdbXHihHOCWahZuoQ-RMXtxWVPM5f5b-Jddv8aAznjk1O2HZnLogSaK65PG5CGXZICLA%7EnhzM40oePhep5eo26RX7zwN12bMDNBzut0XkMt3yLnRQtX3Ajkx8ihknbpyxvB7JJeF6%7E9w-8zeVVmjIw7IfZKnz-0QonNTTR9RZS6mXlQbr0tUsL2bJyY-6MscRh-NMqRV6MHbp9RWpoCMkvJen%7EgjF3v2J7Fnx2Dmp9gP5rHRHIk4xoeCabHH9P46zrXuE7sQcEsmFPo-bBog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 35cfcd1e262d7fd08a5847bc0a390fc6 PDF Text Text /S/% NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY THE PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM G. W. FOOTE. LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. « 1889. �The major portion of this pamphlet was published under a slightly different title in 1879. I have revised, that portion carefully and added some pages of new matter. G-. W. Foote. �£ >500 W2-5? THE PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM. ----- *----The present age is one of theological tliaw. The Reformation is by some regarded as the most remark­ able and important religious movement of modern times; while others consider as still more portentous that sceptical movement of last century, which culmi­ nated in the lightnings and thunders of the Revolution, and finally cleared the intellectual atmosphere of its densest and most oppressive clouds of superstition. Butprobably it will befound that this nineteenth century, which is not, as some writers seem to imagine, rudely severed from its predecessor, has continued less tumul­ tuously, because amidst fewer impediments, the critical work of the eighteenth, and is no less a period of reli­ gious disintegration and reconstruction. Traditional beliefs are being silently subverted by new agencies. Science, instead of critically attacking supernatural religion, has surely and irretrievably sapped its founda­ tions. The educated intelligence of to-day is not required to discuss minor points of doctrine and ritual, or the internal discrepancies of revelation, but finds itself confronted with the supreme all-subsuming question of whether the very essentials of faith can be maintained in presence of the indubitable truths of science, and of the rigorous habit of mind it engenders. Heretics, too, are less vigorously cursed fontheir wicked �4 Philosophy of Secularism. obstinacy, a sure sign of theological decadence. On the contrary, when they happen to be eminent in science or literature they are usually treated with marked respect; and the apologetic tone, which heresy has long discarded, is now assumed by those who have hitherto claimed to speak with authority. Christian Evidence Societies invite sceptics to fashionable West­ end halls to hear celebrated religious doctors show that the popular faith is after all not so very unreasonable, yet sceptics can hardly be induced to attend; and when these discourses are published sceptics can hardly be induced to read them; the real secret of all this being that such addresses are designed, not so much to meet the objections of those outside the Churches, as to soothe the doubts and allay the misgivings of those inside them. Even in the days of Voltaire, Buffon was obliged to recant what he knew to be true; and doubtless the Patriarch of Ferney himself would have paid a severe penalty for his scepticism, had he not eluded the vigilant malice of his foes by acting on his professed opinion that a philosopher, like a fox, should have plenty of holes to run to when the priests are on his track. But in our days no name commands greater respect than that of Darwin, whose biological theories reverse all time-honored notions of man’s origin and history, as the Copernican astronomy reversed the geo­ centric theory of the universe, so flattering to man’s complacent egotism. Huxley, Tyndall and Clifford1 are 1 Professor Clifford’s death was a sad blow to the cause of Freethought. We have to mourn the loss of a most valiant soldier of progress, fallen prematurely before a tithe of his work was done. �Philosophy of Secularism. 5 becoming quite fashionable; Air. Swinburne, whom the daintiest young ladies may read with parental consent if they eschew certain proscribed pieces in Poems and Ballads, publishes fiery lyrical impeach­ ments of Christianity, which a century or two ago would have commended him to a fiery death; and even Mr. Carlyle, the noble prophet of our time, was allowed without protest to write scornfully of Hebrew OldClothes. These are a few remarkable signs of our religious state in England, and by general admission the educated classes on the Continent are still more “ irreligious ” than our own. If the Reformation broke the infallibility of the Pope, and secured liberty and progress for Protestants ; if the Revolution drove feudalism and mental tyranny from their strongholds n France, and enlisted the bright quick French intel­ lect once for all in the service of reason and freedom it is no less true that the scientific movement of our age, which is co-extensive with civilisation, is doing a vaster though not more necessary work, and is slowly but surely preparing for that great Future, whose lineaments none of us can presume to trace, although here and there an aspect flashes on some straining vision. The old faiths ruin and rend, and the air is vocal with the clamour of new systems, each protesting itself the Religion of the Future. Sweet sentimental Deism claims first attention, because it retains what is thought to be the essence of old beliefs after discarding their reality. Next perhaps comes Positivism,2 far nobler 2 Positivism is exceedingly well represented in England. Al­ though numerically the smallest of sects, it has four very able �6 Philosophy of Secularism. and more vital, which manages to make itself well heard, having a few strong and skilful pleaders, who never lose sight of their creed whatever subject they happen to be treating. But Secularism, which in England at least is numerically far more important than Positivism, although gladly heard by thousands of common people, is scarcely known at all in circles of highest education where its principles are most powerfully operant. Mr. Gladstone, indeed, in his paper on “ The Courses of Religious Thought/’3 pub­ lished many years ago, thought it worth serious notice ; but with that exception I am not aware that Secu­ larism has received attention in any first-class pub­ lication. Yet the word secular is entering more and more into our general vocabulary, and in especial has become associated with that view of national edu­ cation which denies the propriety of religious teaching in Board Schools. This use of the word points to tile principle on which Secularism is based. The interests of this world and life are smtZar, and can be estimated and furthered by our unaided intellects; the interests of another life and world can be dealt with only by appealing to Revelation. Secularism proposes to culti­ vate the splendid provinces of Time, leaving the advocates in Dr. Congreve, Professor Beesley, Dr. Brydges, and Mr. Frederick Harrison. There are many points of resemblance between Positivism and Secularism. Indeed the resemblance would be almost complete if the Positivists in ignoring theology did not make a god of Comte, and with amazing disregard of that historic development they so emphasize, venerate all his later aberrations, as though he or any man could justly assume to prescribe the ways in which, through all succeeding genera­ tions, a great idea shall realise itself in practice. 3 Contemporary Review, June, 1876. �Philosophy of Secularism. 7 theologians to care for the realms of Eternity, and meaning to interfere with them only while their pursuit of salvation in another life hinders the attain­ ment of real welfare in this. Mr. Gladstone’s conception of Secularism, derived of course from its literature, may here be cited. After describing the Sceptic, the Atheist, and the Agnostic, he proceeds :— “ Then comes the Secularist. Him I understand to stop short of the three former schools in that he does not of necessity assert anything but the positive and exclusive claims of the purposes, the enjoyments, and the needs pre­ sented to us in the world of sight and experience. He does not require in principle even the universal suspense of Scepticism ; but, putting the two worlds into two scales of value, he finds that the one weighs much, the ofher either nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated. At the utmost he is like a chemist who, in a testing analysis, after putting into percentage all that he can measure, if he finds something behind so minute as to refuse any quantitative estimate, calls it by the name of ‘ trace.’ ” This account of Secularism is on the whole very fair, but evidently it requires much amplification before it can be perfectly understood by those who have not, pke Mr. Gladstone, read Secular literature for them­ selves. As Mr. Gladstone quoted words of mine in corroboration of his view of Secularism, I may with­ out immodesty undertake to give a fuller explanation of it; and this can best be done, not dogmatically, but popularly, allowing principles as it were to unfold themselves. Were I obliged to give an approximate definition of Secularism in one sentence I should say that it is �8 1 hilosoplnj of Secularism. naturalism in morals as distinguished from super­ naturalism ; meaning by this that the criterion of morality is derivable from reason and experience, and that its ground and guarantee exist in human nature independently of any theological belief. Mr. G. J. Holyoake, whose name is inseparably associated with Secularism, says: “ Secularism relates to the present existence of man and to actions the issue of which can be tested by the experience of this life.-” And again : “ Secularism means the moral duty of man deduced from considerations which pertain to this life alone. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by con­ siderations purely human.” The second of these quotations is clearly more comprehensive than the first, and is certainly a better expression of the view enter­ tained by the vast majority of Secularists. It dismisses theology from all control over the practical affairs of this life, and banishes it to the region of speculation. The commonest intelligence may see that this doctiine, however innocent it looks on paper, is in essence and practice revolutionary. It makes clean sweep of all that theologians regard as most significant and precious, 'Dr. Newman, in his Grammar of Assent, writes: “By Religion I mean the knowledge of God, of h:s will, and of our duties towards him; ” and he adds that the channels which Nature furnishes for our acquiring this knowledge “ teach us the Being and Attributes of God, our responsibility to him, our dependence on him, our prospect of reward or punishment, to be somehow brought about, according as we obey or disobey him.’ A better definition of what is generally deemed reli­ gion could not be found, and such religion as this �Philosophy of Secularism. 9 Secularism will have no concern with. From their point of view orthodox teachers are justified in calling it irreligious ; but those Secularists who agree with Carlyle that whoever believes in the infinite nature of Duty has a religion, repudiate the epithet irreligious just as they repudiate the epithet infidel, for the popu lar connotation of both includes something utterly inapplicable to Secularism as they understand it. Properly speaking, they assert, Secularism is not irreligious, but untheological; yet, as it entirely excludes from the sphere of human duty what most people regard as religion, it must explain and justify itself. Secularism rejects theology as a guide and authority in the affairs of this life because its pretensions are not warranted by its evidence. Natural Theology, to use a common but half-paradoxical phrase, never has been nor can be aught but a body of speculation, admir­ able enough in its way perhaps, but quite irreducible to the level of experience. Indeed, one’s strongest impres­ sion in reading treatises on that branch of metaphysics is that they are not so much proofs as excuses of faith, and would never have been written if the ideas sought to be verified had not already been enounced in Revela­ tion. As for Revealed Religion, it is based upon miracles, and these to the scientific mind are altogether in­ admissible, being trebly discredited. In the first place, they are at variance with the general fact of order in nature, the largest vessel or conception into which all our experiences flow ; adverse to that law of Universal Causation which underlies all scientific theories and guides all scientific research. Next, the natural �10 Philosophy of Secularism. history of miracles show us how they arise, and makes us view them as phenomena of superstition, manifest­ ing a certain coherence and order because the human Imagination which gave birth to them is subject to laws however baffling and subtle. All miracles had their origin from one and the same natural source. The belief in their occurrence invariably characterises certain stages of mental development, and gradually fades away as these are left farther and farther behind. They are not historical but psychological phenomena, not actual but merely mental, not proofs but results of faith.4 The miracles of Christianity are no exception to this rule; they stand in the same category as all others. As Mr. Arnold aptly observes : “ The time has come when the minds of men no longer put as a matter of course the Bible miracles in a class by them­ selves. Now, from the moment this time commences, from the moment that the comparative history of all miracles is a conception entertained, and a study admitted, the conclusion is certain, the reign of the Bible miracles is doomed/’ Lastly, miracles are dis­ credited for the reason insisted on by Mr. Greg— namely, that if we admit them, they prove nothing but the fact of their occurrence. If God is our author, 4 I do not say that miracles are impossible, an audacious and quite unscientific assertion rightly stigmatised as such by Professor Huxley in his admirable booklet on Hume. The region of “ may be ’’ is infinite, and finite minds blessed with sanity leave it alone, confining themselves to the certain and the probable. A miracle, as Huxley says, is no more impossible than a centuar, but it is just as improbable, and equally requires a tremendous array of unimpeachable evidence to support it. Every scholar knows that no such evidence is extant in the case of Christian or any other miracles. �Philosophy of Secularism. 11 he has endowed us with reason, and to the bar of that reason the utterances of the most astounding miracle­ workers must ultimately come; if condemned there, the miracles will afford them no aid; if approved there? the miracles will be to them useless. Miracles, then, are fatally discredited in every way. Yet upon them all Revelations are founded, and even Christianity, as Dr. Newman urged against the orators of the Tamworth Reading-Room, “ is a history supernatural, and almost scenic.” Thus if Natural Theology is merely speculative and irreducible to the level of experience, Revealed Religion, though more substantial, is erected upon a basis which modern science and criticism have hopeless undermined. Now if we relinquish belief in miracles we cannot letain belief in Special Providence and the Efficacy of Prayer, for these are simply aspects of the miraculous.5 Good-natured Adolf Naumann, the young German artist m Middlemarch, was not inaccurate though facetious in assuring Will Ladislaw that through him, as through a particular hook or claw, the universe was straining towards a certain picture yet to be painted ; for every present phenomenon, whether trivial or im­ portant, occurs here and now, rather than elsewhere and at some other time, by virtue of the whole universal past. All the forces of nature have conspired to place Y e often hear Prayer defended on emotional grounds not as a practical request but as a spiritual aspiration. This however merely proves the potency of habit. The “ Lord’s Prayer ” con­ tains a distinct request for daily bread. The practice of prayer originated when people believed that something could be got by IXdoHMrWeX°W 'Vith “° SUOh belief " slaT“t0 the �12 Philosophy of Secularism. where it is the smallest grain of sancl on the sea-shore, just as much as their interplay has strewn the aetherfloated constellations of illimitable space. The slightest interference with natural sequence implies a disruption of the whole economy of things. Who suspends one law of nature suspends them all. The pious supplicator for just a little rain in time of drought really asks for a world-wide revolution in meteorology. And the dullest intellects, even of the clerical order, are begin­ ning to see this. As a consequence prayers for rain in fine weather, or for fine weather in time of rain, have fallen almost entirely into disuse; and the most orthodox can now enjoy that joke about the clerk who asked his rector what was the good of pray­ ing for rain with the wind in that quarter. Nay more, so far has belief in the efficacy of prayer died out, that misguided simpletons who persist in conforming to apostolic injunction and practice, and in taking certain very explicit passages in the Gospels to mean what the words express, are regarded as Peculiar People, in the fullest sense of the term; and if through their primi­ tive pathology children should die under their hands, they run a serious risk of imprisonment for man­ slaughter, notwithstanding that the book which has misled them is declared to be God’s word by the law of the land. Occasionally, indeed, old habits assert themselves, and the nation suffers a recrudescence of superstition. When the life of the Prince of Wales was threatened by a malignant fever, prayers for his recovery were publicly offered up, and the wildest religious excitement mingled -with the most loyal anxiety. But the newspapers were largely responsible �Philosophy of Secularism. 13 for this ; they fanned the excitement daily until many people grew almost as feverish as the Prince himself, and “ irreligious ’’ persons who preserved their sanity intact smiled when they read in the most unblushingly mendacious of those papers exclamations of piety and saintly allusions to the great national wave of prayer surging against the Throne of Grace. The Prince’s life was spared, thanks to a good constitution and the highest medical skill, and a national thanksgiving was offered up in St. Paul’s. Yet the doctors were not forgotten ; the chief of them was made a knight, and the nation demanded a rectification of the drainage in the Prince’s palace, probably thinking that although prayer had been found efficacious there might be danger in tempting Providence a second time. Soon after that interesting event Mr. Spurgeon modestly observed that the philosophers were ' noisy enough in peaceful times, but shrank into their holes like mice when imminent calamity threatened the nation; which may be true without derogation to the philosophers, who, like wise men, do not bawl against popular madness, but reserve their admonitions until the heated multitude is calm and repentant. Professor Tyndall has invited the religious world to test the alleged efficacy of prayer by a practical experiment, such as allotting a ward in some hospital to be specially prayed for, and inquiring whether more cures are re­ corded in it than elsewhere. But this invitation has not been and never will be accepted. Superstitions always dislike contact with science and fact; they prefer to float about in the vague of sentiment, where pursuit is hopeless and no obstacles impede. If there �14 Philosophy of Secularism. is any efficacy in prayer, how can we account for the disastrous and repeated failures of righteous causes and the triumph of bad ? The voice of human supplication has ascended heavenwards in all ages from all parts of the earth, but when has a hand been extended from behind the veil ? The thoughtful poor have besought appeasement of their terrible hunger for some nobler life than is possible while poverty deadens every fine impulse and frustrates every unselfish thought, but whenever did prayer bring them aid ? The miserable have cried for comfort, sufferers for some mitigation of their pain, captives for deliverance, the oppressed for freedom, and those who have fought the great fight of good against ill for some ray of hope to lighten despair. but what answer has been vouchsafed •? What hope, what light Falls from the farthest starriest way On you that pray ? * * * * Can ye beat off one wave with prayer, Can ye move mountains ? bid the flower Take flight and turn to a bird in the air ? Can ye hold fast for shine or shower One wingless hour ?6 The dying words of Mr. Tennyson’s Arthur—“ More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of ”—are a weak solace to those who recognise its futility, and find life too stern for optimistic dreamsSalvation, in this life at least, cometh not by prayer, but by valiant effort under the guidance of wisdom and the inspiration of love. Knowledge alone is power. 0 A. 0. Swinburne, Felise. �Philosophy of Secularism. la Ignorant of Nature's laws, we are broken to pieces and ground to dust; knowing them, we win an empire of enduring civilisation within her borders. Recog­ nising the universal reign of law and the vanity of supplicating its reversal, and finding no special clause in the statutes of the universe for man’s behoof, Secu­ larism dismisses as merely superstitious the idea of an arbitrary special providence, and affirms Science to be the only available Providence of Man. Thus theological conceptions obtruded upon the sphere of secular interests are one by one expelled. We now come to the last, and, as the majority of people think, the most serious and important—namely, the doctrine of a Future life and of Future Reward and Punishment. Mr. Gladstone says that, putting this world and the next into two scales of value, the Secularist finds that the one weighs much, the other either nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated. This is very near the truth. Secularism, • as such, neither affirms nor denies a future life; it simply pro­ fesses no knowledge of such a state, no information re­ specting it which might serve as a guide in the affairs of this life. The first question to be asked concerning the alleged life beyond the grave is, Do we fenowr aught about it ? If there were indisputably a future life in store for us all, and that life immortal, and if we could obtain precise information of its actualities and require­ ments, then indeed the transcendence of eternal over temporal interests would impel us to live here with a view to the great Hereafter. But have we any know­ ledge of this future life ? Mere conjectures will not suffice; they may be true, but more probably false, and �16 Philosophy of Secularism. we cannot sacrifice the certain to the uncertain, or forego the smallest present happiness for the sake of some imagined future compensation. Have we any knowledge of a life beyond the grave 1 The Secularist answers decisively No. Whatever the progress of science or philosophy may hereafter reveal, at present we know nothing of per­ sonal immortality. The mystery of Death, if such there be, is yet unveiled, and inviolate still are the secrets of the grave. Science knows nothing of another life than this. When we are dead she sees but decom­ posing matter, and while we live she regards us but as the highest order of animal life, differentiated from other orders by clearly defined characteristics, but separated from them by no infinite impassable chasm. Neithei' can Philosophy enlighten us. She reveals to us the laws of what we call mind, but cannot acquaint us with any second entity called soul. Even if we accept Schopenhauer’s7 theory of will, and regard man as a conscious manifestation of the one supreme force, we are no nearer to personal immortality; for, if our soul emerged at birth from the unconscious infinite, it will probably immerge therein at death, just as a wave rises and flashes foam-crested in the sun, and plunges back into the ocean for ever. Indeed, the doctrine of man’s natural immortality is so incapable of proof that 7 Schopenhauer was one of the most powerful and original thinkers of this century, and his intellectual honesty is surprising in such a flaccid and insincere age. A physical fact worthy of notice is that his brain was the largest on record, not even ex­ cepting Kant’s. Those who cannot read his works in the German may find a capital exposition of his main ideas in Ribot’s La Philosophie de Schopenhauer. �Philosophy of Secularism. 17 many eminent Christians even are abandoning it in favor of the doctrine that everlasting life is a gift specially conferred by God upon the faithful elect. Their appeal is to Revelation, by which they mean the New Testament, all other Scriptures being to them gross impositions. But can Revelation satisfy the critical modern spirit ? When we can interrogate her, discord deafens us. Every religion—nay, every sect of religion—draws from Revelation its own peculiar answer, and accepts it as infallibly true, although widely at variance with others derived from the same source. These answers cannot all be true, and their very discord discredits each. The voice of God should give forth no such uncertain tidings. If he had indeed spoken, the universe would surely be convinced, and the same conviction fill every breast. Even, however, if Revelation proclaimed but one message concerning the future, and that message were similarly interpreted by all religions, we could not admit it as quite trust­ worthy, although we might regard it as a vague fore­ shadowing of the truth. For Revelation, unless every genius be considered an instrument through which eternal music is conveyed, must ultimately rely on miracles, and these the modern spirit has decisively rejected. Thus, then, it appears that neither Science, Philosophy, nor Revelation, affords us any knowledge of a future life. Yet, in order to guide our present life with a view to the future, such knowledge is indis­ pensable. In the absence of it we must live in the light of the present, basing our conduct on Secular reason, and working for Secular ends. How far this is compatible with elevated morality and noble idealism �18 Philosophy of Secularism. we shall presently inquire ancl decide. Intellectually, Secularism is at one with the most advanced thought of our age, and no immutable dogmas preclude it from accepting and incorporating any new truth. Science being the only providence it recognises, it is ever desirous to see and to welcome fresh developments thereof, assured that new knowledge must harmonise with the old, and deepen and broaden the civilisation of our race. In morals Secularism is utilitarian. In this world only two ethical methods are possible. Either we must take some supposed revelation of God’s will as the measure of our duties, or we must determine our actions with a view to the general good. The former course may be very pious, but is assuredly unphilosophical. As Feuerbach8 insists, to derive morality from God “ is nothing more than to withdraw it from the test of reason, to institute it as indubitable, unassail­ able, sacred, without rendering an account why.” Stout old Chapman’s9 protest against confound­ 8 Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, from which I quote, was translated form the German by Marian Evans (George Eliot). This remarkable work deserves and will amply requite a careful study. The thoroughness with which Feuerbach applied his subtle psychological method to the dogmas of Christianity, accounts for the hatred of him more than once expressed by Mansel in his notes to the famous Bampton Lectures. 9 George Chapman was one of those lofty austere natures that put to scorn the flabbiness which a sentimental Christianity does so much to foster ; as it were, some fine old Pagan spirit rein­ carnate in an Englishman of the great Elizabethan age. His “ Byron’s Conspiracy” furnished Shelley with the magnificent motto of The Revolt of Islam:— There is no danger to a man that knows What life and death is: there’s not any law Exceeds his knowledge ; neither is it lawful That he should stoop to any other law. �Philosophy of Secularism. ing the inherent nature of good is also memor­ able :— “ Should heaven turn hell For deeds well done, I would do ever well.” Secularism adopts the latter course. Were it necessary, a defence of utilitarian morality against theological abuse might here be made; but an ethical system which can boast so many noble and illustrious adherents may well be excused from vindicating its right to recognition and respect. Nevertheless it may be observed that, however fervid are theoretical objections to utilitarianism, its criterion of morality is the only one admitted in practice. Our jurisprudence is not required to justify itself before any theological bar, nor to show its conformity with the maxims uttered by Jesus and his disciples; and he would be thought a strange legislator who should insist on testing the value of a Parliamentary Bill by appealing to the New Testament. Secularism holds that whatever actions conduce to the general good are right, and that what­ ever have an opposite tendency are wrong. Manifold objections are urged against this simple rule on the ground of its impracticability; but as all of them apply with equal force to every conceivable rule, they may be peremptorily dismissed. The imperfections of human nature must affect the practicability of any moral law, however conceived or expressed. Chris­ tians who wrote before Secularism had to be combated never thought of maintaining that reason and expe­ rience are inefficient guides, although they did some­ times impugn the efficacy of natural motives to good.i 1 Darwin, Spencer, and nearly all the rest of our modernEvolu- �Philosophy of Secularism. So thoughtful ancl cautious a preacher as Barrow, whom Mr. Arnold accounts the best moral divine of our English Church, plainly says that “ wisdom is, in effect, the genuine parent of all moral and political virtue, justice, and honesty.”2 But some theologicallyminded persons, whose appearance betrays no remark­ able signs of asceticism, wax eloquent in reprobation of happiness as a sanction of morality at all. Duty, say they, is what all should strive after. Good; but the Secularist conceives it his duty to promote the general welfare. Happiness is not a degrading thing, but a source of elevation. We have all enjoyed that wonderful catechism of Pig-Philosophy in Latter-Day Pamphlets. What a scathing satire on the wretched Jesuitism abounding within and without the Churches, and bearing such malign and malodorous fruit! But it is not the necessary antithesis to the Religion of Sorrow. It is the mongrel makeshift of those “ whose gospel is their maw,” whose swinish egotism makes t’lem contemplate Nature as a universal Swine’sTrough, with plenty of pig’s wash for those who can thrust their fellows aside and get their paw in it. The Religion of Gladness is a different thing from this. Let us hear its great prophet Spinoza, one of the purest and noblest of modern minds : “Joy is the passage from a less to a greater perfection; sorrow is tionists, believe morality to have had a natural origin. Mr. Wake, however, in his valuable work, The Evolution of Morality, while admitting and powerfully illustrating its natural develop­ ment, apparently holds that its origin was supernatural, the germs of all the virtues having been divinely implanted in our primitive ancestors! Evidently the old superstition about '‘the meat­ roasting power of the meat-jack ” is not yet altogether extinct. 2 Sermon on “ The Pleasantness of Religion.’’ �Philosophy of Secularism. 21 the passage from a greater to a less perfection.” No ; suffering only tries, it does not nourish us; it proves our capacity, but does not produce it. What, after all, is happiness ? It consists in the fullest healthy exer­ cise of all our faculties, and is as various as they. Far from ignoble, it implies the highest normal develop­ ment of- our nature, the dream of Utopists from Plato downwards. And therefore, in affirming happiness to be the great purpose of social life, Secularism makes its moral law coincident with the law of man’s progress towards attainable perfection. Motives to righteousness Secularism finds m human nature. Since the evolution of morality has been traced by scientific thinkers the idea of our moral sense having had a supernatural origin has vanished into the limbo of superstitions. Our social sympathies are a natural growth, and may be indefinitely developed in the future by the same means which have developed them in the past. Morality and theology are essentially distinct. The ground and guarantee of morality are independent of any theological belief. When we are in earnest about the right we need no incitement from above. Morality has its natural ground in experience and reason, in the common nature and common wants of mankind. Wherever sentient beings live together in a social state, simple or complex, laws of morality must arise, for they are simply the permanent condi­ tions of social health ; and even if men entertained no belief in any supernatural power, they would still recognise and submit to the laws upon which societary welfare depends. “ Even,” says Dr. Martineau,3 3 Nineteenth Century, April, 1877. �22 Philosophy of Secularism. “ though we came out of nothing, and returned to nothing, we should be subject to the claim of righteous­ ness so long as we are what we are: morals have their own base, and are second to nothing.” Emerson, a religious transcendentalist, also admits that “ Truth, frankness, courage, love, humility, and all the virtues, range themselves on the side of prudence, or the aid of securing a present well-being.”4 The love professed by piety to God is the same feeling, though differently directed, which prompts the commonest generosities and succors of daily life. All moral appeals must ultimately be made to our human sympathies. Theo­ logical appeals are essentially not moral, but immoral. The hope of heaven and the fear of hell are motives purely personal and selfish. Their tendency is rather to make men worse than better. They may secure a grudging compliance with prescribed rules, but they must depress character instead of elevating it. They tend to concentrate a man’s whole attention on himself, and thus to develope and intensify his selfish propensi­ ties. No man, as Dr. Martineau many years ago observed, can faithfully follow his highest moral con­ ceptions who is continually casting side glances at the prospects of his own soul. Secularism appeals to no lust after posthumous rewards or dread of posthumous terrors, but to that fraternal feeling which is the vital essence of all true religion and has prompted heroic self-sacrifice in all ages and climes. It removes moral causation from the next world to this. It teaches that the harvest of our sowing will be reaped here, and to 4 Essay on Prudence. �Philosophy of Secularism. 23 the last grain eaten, by ourselves or others. Every act of our lives affects the whole subsequent history of our race. Our mental and moral like our bodily lungs have their appropriate atmospheres, of which every thought, word, and act, becomes a constituent atom.5 Incessantly around us goes on the conflict of good and evil, which a word, a gesture, a look of ours changes. And we cannot tell how great may be the influence of the least of these, for in nature all things hang together, and the greatest effects may flow from causes seeminglv slight and inconsiderable/’ When we thoroughly lay this to heart, and reflect that no contrition or remorse 5 Wherever men are gathered, all the air Is charged with human feeling, human thought; Each shout and cry and laugh, each curse and prayer Are into its vibrations surely wrought; Unspoken passion, wordless meditation, Are breathed into it with our respiration ; It is with our life fraught and overfraught. So that no man there breathes earth’s simple breath As if alone on mountains or wide seas ; But nourishes warm life or hastens death With joys and sorrows, health and foul disease, Wisdom and folly, good and evil labors Incessant of his multitudinous neighbors ; He in his turn affecting all of these. James Thomson, City of Dreadful Night. G The importance of individual action, even on the part of the meanest, is well expressed by George Eliot in the concluding sentence of Middlemarch :— " The growing good of the wor’d is partly dependent on unhistoric acts ; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the numbers who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” Even more memorable is the great saying attributed to Krishna, —“ He who does nothing stays the progress of the world.” �24 Philosophy of Secularism. can undo the past or efface the slightest record from the everlasting Book of Fate, we shall be more strongly re­ strained from evil and impelled to good than we could be by supernatural promises or threats. The promises may be mistrusted, the threats nullified by a late repentance; but the natural issues of conduct are in­ evitable and must be faced. Whatever the future may hold in store, Secularism bids us be true to our­ selves and our opportunities now. It does not under­ take to determine the vexed question of God’s exist­ ence, which it leaves each to decide for himself according to what light he has; nor does it dog­ matically deny the possibility of a future life. But it insists on utilising to the highest the possibilities that lie before us, and realising as far as may be by prac­ tical agencies that Earthly Paradise which would now be less remote if one-tithe of the time, the energy, the ability, the enthusiasm and the wealth devoted to making men fit candidates for another life had been devoted to making them fit citizens of this. If theie be a future life, this must be the best preparation for it; and if not, the consciousness of humane work achieved and duty done, will tint with rainbow and orient colors the mists of death more surely than expected glories from the vague and mystic land of dreams. There are those who cannot believe in any effective morality, much less any devotion to disinterested aims, without the positive certainty of immortal life. Under a pretence of piety they cloak the most grovelling estimate of human nature, which, with all its faults is infinitely better than their conception of it. Even �Philosophy of Secularism. 25 their love and reverence of God would seem foolish­ ness unless they were assured of living for ever. Withdraw posthumous hopes and fears, say they, and “ let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die ” would be the sanest philosophy. In his grave way Spinoza satirises this “ vulgar opinion,” which enjoins a regu­ lation of life according to the passions by those who have “ persuaded themselves that the souls perish with the bodies, and that there is not a second life for the miserable who have borne the crushing weight of piety ” ; “ a conduct,” he adds, “ as absurd, in my opinion, as that of a man who should fill his body with poisons and deadly food, for the fine reason that he had no hope to enjoy wholesome nourishment for all eternity, or who, seeing that the soul is not eternal or immortal, should renounce his reason, and wish to become insane ; things so proposterous that they are scarcely worth mention.” Others, again, deny that a philosophy which ignores the Infinite can have any grand ideal capable of lifting us above the petty tumults and sordid passions of life. But surely the idea of service to the great Humanity, whose past and future are to us practically infinite, is a conception vast enough for our finite minds. The instincts of Love, Reverence, and Service may be fully exercised and satisfied by devotion to a purely human ideal, without resort to unverifiable dogmas and inscrutible mysteries; and Secularism, which bids us think and act so that the great Human Family may profit by our lives, which exhorts us to labor for human progress and elevation here on earth, where effort may be effective and sacrifices must be real, is more pro­ �26 Philosophy of Secularism. foundly noble than any supernatural creed, and holds the promise of a wider and loftier beneficence. Secularism is often said to be atheistic. It is, how­ ever, neither atheistic nor theistic. It ignores the problem of God’s existence, which seems insoluble to finite intellects, and confines itself to the practical world of experience, without commending or forbidding speculation on matters that transcend it. Unquestion­ ably many Secularists are Atheists, but others are Theists, and this shows the compatibility of Secularism with either a positive or a negative attitude towards the hypothesis of a supreme universal intelligence. There is no atheistic declaration in the principles of any existing Secular society, although all are unanimous in opposing theology, which is at best an elaborate conjecture, and at the worst an elaborate and pernicious imposture. Educated humanity has now arrived at the positive stage of culture. Imagination, it is true, will ever holds its legitimate province; but it is the kindling and not the guiding element in our nature. When exer­ cising its proper influence it invests all things with “ a light that never was on sea or land ” ; it transforms lust into love, it creates the ideal, it nurtures enthu­ siasm, it produces heroism, it suggests all the glories of art, and even lends wings to the intellect of the scientist. But when it is substituted for knowledge, when it aims at becoming the leader instead of the kindler, it is a Phaeton who drives to disaster and ruin. It is degrading, or at any rate perilous, to be the dupe of fancy, however beautiful or magnificent. Reason should always hold sovereign sway in our minds, and �Philosophy of Secularism. reason tells us that we live in a universe of cause and effect, where ends must be accomplished by means, and where man himself is largely fashioned by circum­ stances. Reason tells us that our faculties are limited and that our knowledge is relative ; it enjoins us to believe what is ascertained, to give assent to no pro­ position of whose truth we are not assured, and to walk in the light of facts. This may seem a humble philosophy, but it is sound and not uncheerful, and it stands the wear and tear of life when prouder philoso­ phies are often reduced to rags and tatters. Nor is it just to call this philosophy “ negative.” Every system, indeed, is negative to every other system which it in anywise contradicts ; but in what other sense can a system be called negative, which leaves men all science to study, all art to pursue and enjoy, and all humanity to love and serve? It declines to traffic in supernatural hopes and fears, but it preserves all the sacred things of civilisation, and gives a deeper meaning to such words as husband and wife, father and mother, brother and sister, lover and friend. Incidentally, however, Secularism has what some will always persist in regarding as negative work. It finds noxious superstitions impeding its path, and must oppose them. It cannot ignore orthodoxy, although it would be glad to do so, for the dogmas and pretensions of the popular creed hinder its progress and thwart Secular improvement at every step. Favored and privileged and largely supported by the Statj, they usurp a fictitious dignity over less popular ideas. They thrust themselves into education, insist on teaching supernaturalism with the multiplication �28 Philosophy of Secularism. table, dose the scholars with Jewish mythology as though it were actual history, and assist their moral development with pictures of Daniel in the lions’ den and Jesus walking on the sea. They employ vast wealth in preparing for another world, which might be more profitably employed in bettering this. They prevent us from spending our Sunday rationally, refusing us any alternative but the church or the public-house. They deprive honest sceptics as far as possible of the common rights of citizenship.7 They retard a host of reforms,8 and still do their utmost to 7 Nearly every leading Secularist lias suffered in this respect. Mr. G. J. Holyoake was imprisoned for blasphemy ; Mr. Brad­ laugh had to win the seat which Northampton gave him, by means of almost superhuman energy and resource, in the face of the most bigoted and brutal opposition ; Mrs. Besant was and is robbed of her child by an order of the Court of Chancery ; and in would be a false modesty not to add that I have suffered twelve-months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal for editing a Freethought journal.—Here is another fact which must not be forgotten. Mr. Spencer, a Secularist of Manchester, left £500 in his will to assist in building a Secular Hall in that city ; but the will was contested by the Christian residuary legatee, and the Court set aside the bequest. Money cannot, therefore, be left to propagate Secularism, which is practically outlawed. This incident occurred so late as 1886. 8 The Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill is steadily opposed as con­ trary to Christian tradition. Scarcely any but theological arguments are used against it, and the Bishops fight it as though they were defending the very citadel of their faith.—Down at Middlesborough, quite recently, the County Council decided to erect a crematorium in the interest of the public health, while leaving the cemetery open as before for all who wished their bodies to be disposed of in the orthodox fashion. But before the project could be carried out the Vicar of All Saints called a public meeting to protest against this “ outrage on the Christian sentiment of the community.” Religious prejudice was pro­ foundly excited by these tactics, the medical officer of health was mobbed by infuriated females, the mayor received anonymous warnings to prepare for his latter end, and finally the project had to be abandoned. �Philosophy of Secularism. 29 suppress or curtail freedom of thought and speech. While all this continues, Secularism must actively oppose the popular creed. Nor is it just on the part of Christians to stigmatise this aggressive attitude. They forget that their faith was vigorously and per­ sistently aggressive against Paganism. Secularism may surely imitate that example, although it neither intends nor desires to demolish the temples of Chris­ tianity as the early Christians, headed by their bishops, destroyed the temples of Paganism and desecrated its shrines. Properly speaking, Secularism is doing a positive, not a negative, work in destroying superstition. Every error removed makes room for a truth; and if super­ stition is a kind of mental disease, he who expels it is a mental physician. His work is no more negative than the doctor's who combats a bodily malady, drives it out of the system, and leaves his patient in the full possession of health. Secular propaganda, by means of lectures, journals, and pamphlets, conducted for so many years, has pro­ duced a considerable effect on the public mind. A great change has been wrought during the past gene­ ration. Much of it has been accomplished by science, but much also by the energetic labors of Secular advo­ cates. Yet it must be admitted that Secular organisa­ tion is relatively defective. The reason of this, how­ ever, is by no means recondite. Secularism, as a distinct system, came into existence with the decline of the Socialist movement inaugurated by Robert Owen. When Socialism began to alarm the upper classes fifty years ago, the ministers of religion, conveniently for­ �30 1 hilosophy of Secularism. getting that the first Christians were communists, declared war against it, and made its followers deter­ mined foes to Christianity. When their movement subsided, the Socialists who were still eager for work accepted the new designation of Secularist, and these poor malcontents became the moving spirits of the new faith. Thus Secularism grew up, like every other system the world has ever seen, amidst distressing poverty; and as organisation is impossible in these davs without money, the development of Secular organisa­ tion is painfully slow. Wealthy and “respectable” dissenters from the popular creed generally keep their heresy to themselves. They have given too many hostages to Mrs. Grundy, and are nearly in the same position as the Church of England clergyman who sympathised with Wesleyanlsm but did not join it, giving nine solid reasons against doing so, namely, a wife and eight children. Some of them, doubtless, would leave money for the promotion of Secularism, but it has already been shown that this is impossible in the existing state of English law. For these reasons, and also because Secularism, like all new systems, appeals to the dissatisfied rather than the con­ tented, its staunchest adherents are found among the elite of the working classes. Inquire closely into the personnel of advanced movements, and you will find Secularists there out of all proportion to their nume­ rical strength. They are obliged to work in this indi­ vidual manner, for the bigotry against Secularism is still so strong that few dare to recognise its organi­ sations. They have always assisted the cause of National Education, and now it is carried they are �Philosophy of Secularism. 31 getting their members on School Boards, and doing their utmost to improve the quality of the instruction given to children, as well as to preserve them from the nefarious influence of priests. They promote Sunday freedom, they are advocates of international peace, they are sturdy friends of justice, they are firm sup­ porters of the emancipation of women, they are lovers of mental and personal liberty, and they are actively on the side of every political and social reform. Their votes can always be depended upon ; no one needs to solicit them. Where Christians may be they are sure to be; not because they necessarily have better hearts than their orthodox neighbors, but because their prin­ ciples impel them to fight for Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, irrespective of nationality, race, sex, or creed; and prompt them to exclaim, in the sublime language of Thomas Paine, “ the world is my country, and to do good is my religion.” Printed and Published by G-. W. Foors, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. �MR. FOOTE’S BOOKS and PAMPHLETS. 2 6 ... '...2 6 PRISONER, FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth ............... A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve Mouths’ Imprisonment. Copies in paper covers, soil d, 6d. CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. T. In collaboration with J. M. Wheel r. IS SOCIALISM SOUND ? .......................... ... Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besaut. Ditto in cloth, 2s. 1 o CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM .............. Four Nights’ Public Debate vith the Rev. Dr. James McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, is. 6d. 1 0 INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS .......................................... 0 Seco..d edition, enlarged. Ditto in cloth.............................................................................. 8 DARWIN ON GOD.................................................................. 6 3 DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH .......................... 0 4 Tiuve Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Cole­ ridge. LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST THE BIBLE GOD .............................. 0 4 .................................................................. 0 2 .......................................... 0 2 CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.............................. 0 A Reply to Mr. Gladstone. 2 WHAT WAS CHRIST? ... ' A Reply to J. S. Mill. 0 2 WAS JESUS INSANE ?...................................................... 0 A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the Prophet of Na areth. 1 THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD.......................... 0 2 ROYAL PAUPERS ... 0 THE FOLLY OF PRAYER ...................................... � 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 &amp; 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 philosophy of secularism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published 1879 "under a slightly different title"--Note inside front cover. "Mr Foote's books and pamphlets" listed on back cover. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N258 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The philosophy of secularism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Secularism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7c01741dff2a2314e778d6d27bc0d6e.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=Z2IaG4fVD4qByEa3TWjAD69moqD4WvEeM8QJB6JX8XDoOva2FDMWU%7E78u-IcVSyPousMcnuTTGC5e72JATTHlbl-7R1%7ElDpqgcervBE9fU7WEgmK1OaHWE7iyzu3edyiGHhl-%7Ez1HDcc6YFhsNH%7EVDl3rGuGX0K4-vLg5zTe9hNbCvya7uZ9eCWiPQB0f0KBXXVwNpDlOa6m5lmDo-Cb1UFV3J1MRpXq2-PTfGNw4tWxB9Od6XaYA6YLAvAIi5liLEnO8Zb68nh1MaMLBnWvx7bh2i1w84InD1lM%7EOZg4Nntf2dTIn1A3h2tndEa9gNB2nCJSIDu%7ECVSBasNL74Vlg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4a0b1b1a36e95bcaeca4ebd31e724c51 PDF Text Text �������������������������������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The dying creed : being the verbatim report of a lecture delivered in the Central Music Hall, Chicago, before 3000 people, on March 19th, 1884 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 57e in Stein checklist, but with different date [1884]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Annotations in coloured inks. Inserted loose a newspaper cutting from unidentified paper by Bruno, in response to Mr Dickens December 7 1889. The section summarising views of the doctor Sir W.W. Gull has been underlined in red.Portrait of Ingersoll on front cover. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1891 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N342 G5795 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The dying creed : being the verbatim report of a lecture delivered in the Central Music Hall, Chicago, before 3000 people, on March 19th, 1884), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Christianity-Controversial Literature https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4b1ccb040bcaac0eca089c9aa41b95ab.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=fDUcSQh%7E7Qx4gNfMAlUeoGqXkmFah-FiHvXMxJk%7EngF2GKQsysm96DOSXSjn8fd8Jjwi5N-LaaYKhJmgeOb45manrxjYJYIRj3QdfLrbmCloag2%7EJSiS8CFJnEMMCTSRE4UBM9aoF-tkH8ASwuBiiTdIkpfaI2dew8KMBUcHrQlGdrBqtv1iBw5veXY2mYTP3kAxj8k0F2CTXHf2rORAyE1REig9MFNsfN9nxTPKJJNeX49thCS3q2wCoR8Uu7tPokk7EO1bQ-Wx-sl59c-uCx5Q6U8GWtpw3QV1j-TQC6bT5%7EfWvLKtFWyjnjlje%7Enl3mZ77C38btBqg8BiHEMPvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9f889775b7197b80f47aa7459243db99 PDF Text Text ��8 on bT2-52national secular society LETTERS TO THE CLERGY BY G. W. FOOTE. LONDON; PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1880. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, ^28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �PR EFACE. readers of the Freethinker, in which the following Letters appeared at various dates, have requested me to reprint them in a separate and convenient form ; but as I always intended to do this, I make no pretence of my natural modesty being overcome by “ the urgent solicitation of friends,” nor bespeak the reader’s “ kind indulgence?’ When a writer of considerable practice deals with familiar subjects, and takes pains with his composition, he would be something worse than modest if he imagined that what he wrote could be of no interest to any section of readers. So far, indeed, am I from imagining anything of the kind, that I frankly confess to a belief that these Letters form a fairly all-round statement of the Freethought positions in regard to Christianity; and, as such, they will doubtless be useful to many who would otherwise have to wade through a great many volumes, without, perhaps, obtaining the same satisfaction. To instruct it is necessary to interest, and to procure a hearing one must condescend to excite attention. Manv �iv. Preface. For this reason, among others, I adopted the epistolary form of writing in the present instance. It gives an air of nearness to the remote, and of reality to the abstract; it imparts a feeling of personality, which I hope has never run into virulence or abuse ; it endows a papei’ warfare with some of the actuality and vividness of a face-to-face encounter ; and, lastly, more perhaps than any other form, it allows the writer to avail himself of a great variety of rhetoric, and especially of the apostrophe, which is the most striking of oratorical arts, but is apt, in impersonal forms of composition, to appear stilted and affected. In order to correct the abuses of the epistolary style, I have endeavored to fix my attention upon the argu­ ments I was discussing, rather than the persons I addressed. Most of these, indeed, were unknown to me except by repute, and this made it the more easy to avoid falling into mere personalities. Open letters are little likely to elicit replies from . the persons addressed, and my experience is no ex­ ception to the rule. Besides, it is the fashion in Christian circles to ignore the editors of Freethought journals; the conspiracy of silence being, indeed, the last resource of a tottering faith. As a matter of fact, I expected no replies, and consequently I am not disappointed. What I write will produce its proper effect, whether it is replied to or not; and I have obviously written for the general reader rather than the ministers whose names decorate the tops of my Letters. �Preface. vv For the convenience of many readers, who may keep this collection of Letters by them, and refer to it at intervals, I have had it printed in large clear type. There is a curious impression among the orthodox that Freethinkers, for the most part, are frivolous young persons ; but the chronology of this impression is on a par with that of the Bible; in other words, it is an arbitrary conjecture. Happily there are young Free­ thinkers, and they are the hope of the future; but a very large proportion are “ declined into the vale of years,” and theii’ eyes will find the type of this little volume a positive comfort. I have not burdened my pages with footnotes or references. Except from the work I was answering, I have seldom had occasion to quote from living or dead authors. Whenever I have done so I have indicated the work, but I have not thought it necessary to give the edition, volume, or page. In no single instance, I believe, have I cited any author as an authority. I have always appealed to the reason of my readers. I pay them the compliment of supposing they think for themselves. And in this case an apt quotation may occasionally be indulged in, for the sake of its beauty or felicity, without begging the question, or overawing the reader’s judgment, by appealing to great names. There are no authorities in the realm of thought. Only that is true thinking which goes on 'in the indi­ vidual brain. Every so-called belief which reposes on external authority, may be acquiescence or prejudice,, but never judgment or conviction. �This is all I have to say in introducing this little volume. I now leave it to destiny. Hope and fear, perhaps, are alike unphilosophical; yet, as the future is unseen, and imagination will seek to pierce the veil, I fondly indulge a hope that if 1 do not succeed in converting anyone to what I regard as the truth, I may nevertheless excite an interest in questions that underlie private and public life in every Christian country. Indifference on such matters implies a want of insight or seriousness, and I would fain stimulate the temper which prompts us to look beyond the ■material or transient interests of life into the highei’ region of the spiritual and durable—the region where intellect is free from the trammels of personal loss or gain ; where imagination takes no shape of individual hopes and fears ; where conscience is the august voice of Humanity echoing through the chambers of our hearts. �LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. ��CREATION. TO THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE. My Lord,— It seems strange that I should have to address you, at least for the sake of courtesy, in such exalted language. Your Lord and Savior hade his disciples to call no man Master, and Lord is a still loftier title. Yet you are legally entitled to this designation, and you are a lord in reality as well as in name. You have a seat, when you like to occupy it, in the House of Peers; you reside in a palace; and, besides your “ pickings,” the extent of which I have no means of ascertaining, you enjoy a settled income of £4,500 a year. I knew not how to. reconcile these things with your profession as a minister of the gospel of poverty and renunciation; but I presume your powers of casuistry are equal to the task; and, after all, as theology is full of mysteries, it is not unnatural that there should be mysteries in the character and conduct of theologians. You have been good enough, my lord, to write a a curious little volume on “ Creation.” It is the first of a series entitled “ Helps to Belief,” which naturally attracted my attention. I happen to require as much help to belief as any man I know, and accordingly I invested ninepence in a copy of your production. Unfortunately it has not recompensed me for the out­ lay. My unbelief is rather confirmed than shaken, �10 Letters to the Clergy. and I am farther off than ever from the repose which is to be found on the pillow of faith. I have, however, read your volume with great care, and I venture to offer a few remarks upon it. Let me first congratulate you on an admission. You say— “ The very difficulty, so to speak, with, regard to the theo­ logical view of the opening of the book of Genesis is, that theologians will not consent to regard the document as a lesson addressed merely to the infancy of humanity, will not allow it to be regarded as a childish thing to be put aside by the human race in its manhood.” Your language is skilfully guarded; it might be read in either of two opposite ways ; yet I interpret you as I would a Sibylline oracle, and take the most favorable meaning. Regarded in that light, your description of the Creation story is admirable; it does credit to your candor and intelligence, as well as your style. I thank you for the phrase. “ A childish thing ” is the finest commentary on the first chapter of Genesis. The very epithet “ childish ” is supremely felicitous. What is childlike in infancy is childish in manhood; what was excusable in an age of ignorance and barbarism is contemptible in an age of science and civilisation. Let me next indicate a few points on whieh I have the honor to agree with you. “ Creation,” you state, “ begins and ends with the formula ‘ God said/ ” Yes, my lord, that is the alpha and omega of the mystery. In the language of Hamlet it is “words, words, words.” Logomachies, in theology and meta­ physics, pass current for realities; but the first attempt to define them in consciousness exposes their vacuity. “ God said let there be light, and there was light,” is the statement of Genesis; similarly the Hindu scrip­ tures declare that “ Brahma said let there be worlds, and there were worlds ”—and the one text is as true as the other. You affirm that Genesis makes “ no pretension to being a scientific history.” The discovery is rather �Creation. 11 late in the day, for your Church has, during the better part of two thousand years, insisted on the contrary doctrine; and from the days of Galileo until now it has persecuted to the full extent of its power the scientific men who, in the words of Professor Huxley, have refused to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism. Nevertheless, as you disclaim this .“ pre­ tension/’ it may for the moment be dismissed. You appear to admit that Genesis is not “ a scientific history,” and the admission shows you are fully aware that Hebrew mythology can no longer be opposed, as a divine truth, to the teachings of Evolution. You assert that such “ truths ” as the Incarnation and the creation of man in God’s image “belong to a high ethereal region to which it is impossible for either philosophy or science to rise.” One half of this sentence, my lord, is perfectly true. Philosophy and science cannot breathe in the attenuated atmosphere of faith, nor are they able to see through the clouds of mystery. The very language you employ when you speak as a theologian is foreign to them. “ Creation/’ you exclaim, “is a mystery, heaven and earth are mysteries, but through all these there shines the light of a living God—He, too, a mystery.” How one mystery illuminates another mystery is a curious problem which philosophy and science will gladly leave to the “ high ethereal ” intellect of the pulpit. They may accept your statement, however, without feeling that it amounts to a revelation; for to the eyes of reason a mystery is nothing but ignorance or selfcontradiction. A galvanic battery is a mystery to the savage, the telephone is a mystery to country clergy­ men, and the origin of life is still a mystery to biologists. On the other hand, the Trinity is a mystery to the arith­ metician, and and Almighty Goodness and Wisdom is a mystery to those who see and feel the existence of evil. In the one case, the mystery is an unexplained fact; in the other case, it is a contradiction between a fact and a theory. Mystery, in short, is mist; sometimes cloud, �12 Letters to the Clergy. and sometimes smoke. The cloud is ignorance, and the smoke is theology. Persons who deal in mystery, my lord, are apt to contract a taint of insincerity. I am sorry to see you referring to Moses as the author of Genesis, and still more to see you referring to “ some ancient documents” which he used in its composition. Surely your lord­ ship is aware that no single scrap of the Old Testament can be carried beyond the tenth century before Christ, which is several hundred years from the supposed date of Moses ; surely your lordship is aware that no Jewish “ documents ” existed at the time of the Exodus. You display the art of a professional pleader, my lord, in dealing with Professor Haeckel’s remarks on Genesis. While rejecting it as a “ divine revelation/’ this Great Evolutionist says it “ contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of Creation current amongst most of the other ancient nations.” You subsequently allude to this as “ a striking tribute to its scientific character.” Nay more, you convert most into all, and exclaim “ From Moses to Linnseus! A tremendous step j and before Moses no one.” Without dilating on your perversion of Haeckel, I would ask you, my lord, whether you are ignorant of the fact that the Creation story in the first chapter of Genesis was borrowed from the mythology of Babylon, as the story of the Fall in the second and third chapters was borrowed from the mythology of Persia? Should you be ignorant, your ignorance is inexcusable ; should you not be ignorant, your pretence of ignorance is unpardonable. You deal at considerable length with the word “ create,” but you evade every difficulty it raises. You rush off to the Greek, the Sanscrit, and so forth ; but you never refer to the Hebrew, which is the original language of “ inspiration.” The Hebrew hara does not express absolute creation out of nothing, for such a metaphysical absurdity never entered into the heads of the ancient Jews. For this reason, perhaps, you �Creation. 13 journeyed north, south, east, and west, instead of staying at home, and consulted every language but the one containing “ the oracles of God?'’ You do not wish to be precise. You “ define creation as the em­ bodiment of thought in an objective form,” which leaves the matter indeterminate. An artist embodies his conceptions by means of pre-existing materials. Do you imply the same of God? If you do, you assume the eternity of matter; if you do not, you assume creation out of nothing. This is the doctrine upheld by your Church, and you should plainly avow or disclaim it. Bishop Pearson, whose Exposition of the Creed is still a standard work in your colleges, gives forth no uncertain sound. “ Antecedently to all things beside,” he says, “ there was at first nothing but God, who produced most part of the world merely out of nothing, and the rest out of that which was formerly made of nothing.” You, my lord, express yourself more obscurely. You state that the material universe —in contradistinction, I presume, to the immaterial universe—points to “ some kind of origin.” And you add that “ the existing cosmos testifies in a thousand ways to a pre-existent chaos, out of which cosmos has grown; according to modern language it has been evolved; God created the chaos and evolved the cosmos.” This is what your lordship proffers as a help to belief! Why did you not adduce one of those “ thousand” testimonies to chaos ? Can you really conceive chaos—a universal confusion, in which things happen at random, and nothing is anything ? Do you know of a single Evolutionist who teaches that matter once existed without its properties? Are not the properties of matter the same in a comet as in a planet ? Do you know so little of the nebular hypothesis as to suppose that Professor Tyndall’s ‘‘fiery cloud,”- of which worlds are formed, is the primitive substance of chaos ? You refer to the nebular hypothesis, my lord, as �1.4 Letters to the Clergy. though you firmly embraced it; but you fail to recollect, or you forget to mention, that the great French astronomer Laplace, whose account of this luminous theory you summarise, was a convinced Atheist. You proceed to assert that there must have been “ something ” behind this “ primitive cause of the existing cosmos/’’ “ Whence,” you inquire, “ came the particular constitution of the materials, and the laws by which the constituent particles of the matter are governed ? ” The sentence is extremely vicious. You are guilty of tautology, for the “ con­ stitution ” of matter and its “ laws” are the same thing. You are also guilty of begging the question, for in asking whence they came you assume their advent, which you may justly be called upon to prove. The petitio principii is a favorite fallacy with theolo­ gians. I find a beautiful instance in another part of your volume, where you innocently observe that “ we cannot contemplate Creation, without regarding the Creator.” The remark is a truism, my lord; Creator and Creation imply each other, and by designating the universe a Creation you beg the whole question at issue. That matter began to be, or will cease to exist, it is easy to affirm, and as easy to deny ; but all analogy points to its eternity. Science shows us that matter cannot be destroyed any more than it can be created, and force is never diminished although it assumes different manifestations. The presumption, therefore, is in favor of the everlasting existence of both, whether in the ultimate analysis they are co-eternals, or different aspects of the one infinite substance of the universe. I say the presumption is in its favor, and before that presumption can be shaken you must give solid reasons for supposing that the universe had a commencement. It is futile, my lord, to observe that its eternity is inconceivable, since it is equally impossible to conceive of its beginning or ending. Where experience fails us reason moves but blindly, �Greation. 15 ancl speculation lias no other guide than the light of analogy. And what analogy lends the slightest color to your hypothesis of Creation ? The highest mind of which we have any knowledge is the mind of man, and the mind of man cannot create, it can only con­ ceive. The utmost man is able to do is to move matter from one position to another. He does so in conformity with his conceptions; but, like himself, his “ creations ” are not imperishable. The universe which produced him finally absorbs him ; his proudest “ creations ” may last for a few thousand years, but the effacing hand of time is ever at work upon them, and sooner or later they disappear, unable to resist the claim of Nature who allows of no eternity but her own. Recurring for a moment to your treatment of Genesis, I see you remark that “ to all persons capable of forming an opinion, the chief doctrines of geology are now beyond the range of controversy.” You admit the great antiquity of the globe and the slow evolution of living forms, and you proceed as follows :— “Many persons, perhaps at one time almost all thoughtful persons, who read the account of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis, concluded that the change from chaos to cosmos, though gradual, was one soon brought about by several quickly succeeding fiats of the Almighty will. Geology teaches with irresistible force that this was not so.” These thoughtful persons, my lord, who were never­ theless mistaken, paid the Scripture the compliment of supposing it meant what it said. They never sus­ pected the wonderful elasticity of language in the grasp of theologians. They took the Bible, as you, my lord, are bound to take the Thirty-nine Articles, in the “ literal and grammatical sense.” Geology, therefore, was honestly resisted as impious, until a new and more dexterous race of commentators arose, in whose hands the time-honored language of Revela­ tion became as plastic as clay in the hands of the potter or the sculptor, and capible of being fashioned �16 Letters to the Clergy. into any form that suited the exigencies of the struggle between Reason and Faith. Your position is that there is no “ antagonism between the hypothesis of Evolution and the truth of Creation.” Admitting the justice of your language, your position is impregnable. There cannot be antag­ onism between Evolution and any truth. But I deny the justice of your language. I say that you reverse the proper order of words. Evolution is the “ truth/’ and Creation is the “hypothesis.” Thus regarded they are not antagonistic, for there cannot be antag­ onism where there is no contact. You are, of course, free to assert, without even defining your terms, that a “ spirit ” works through the process of Evolution. You are likewise free to affirm that a “ spirit ” mixes the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, and the oxygen and hydrogen in water. Science is unable to contradict these statements, just as science is unable to dispute the meat-roasting power of the meat-jack. But, on the other hand, it does not trouble about what cannot be proved or refuted, and leaves metaphysical entities and quiddities to the irony of Swift or the raillery of Voltaire. From Haeckel, my lord, you quote a strong pas­ sage against “ purpose ” in Nature; and you might have added that Darwin saw “ no more design in Natural Selection than in the way in which the wind blows.” Does it not occur to you that these lords of science, these satraps of magnificent provinces in her empire, know her more intimately than you do, and that what escapes their vigilant attention is in all probability rather fancy than fact ? Your unpractised eye sees God everywhere ; their practised eyes fail to detect his presence. Even other eyes than those of the great English and German biologists have been unable to perceive what to you is so obvious. Sir William Hamilton, for instance, before Evolution challenged the public mind, declared “ that the phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, so far from warranting �Greation. 17 any inference to the existence of Gocl, would, on the contrary, ground even an argument to his negation?’ A very different writer, Cardinal Newman, confesses, “ If I looked into a mirror and did not see my face, I should have the same sort of feeling which actually comes upon me when I look into this living busy world and see no reflection of its Creator.” You, my lord, look through Nature up to Nature’s God. I have your word for it, but I doubt if your vision is so telescopic. That “ volition originates,” as you allege, is only true within certain limits. Volition does, indeed, originate fresh collocations of matter, but it originates nothing else. And when you say that volition “ has no cause preceding itself,” you are simply alleging that all volition is eternal, which is diametrically opposed to your own doctrine that the human will, the only one of which we have absolute knowledge, is a gift from God. You will find, my lord, an admirable discussion of this point in Mr. Mill’s Essay on Theism. Volition, as he points out, only acts by means of pre-existing force, first within the body, and afterwards outside it. It does not answer, therefore, “ to the idea of a First Cause, since Force must in every instance be assumed' as prior to it; and there is not the slightest color, derived from experience, for supposing Force itself to have been created by a volition. As far as anything can be concluded from human experience, Force has all the attributes of a thing eternal and uncreated.” Your argument for a First Cause is completely answered in the same Essay. In reality, my lord, a First Cause is a contradiction in terms. Causes and effects only differ in their order of succession; both are phenomenal changes; every cause has been an effect, and every effect becomes a cause. Causation, indeed, only applies to the changes in Nature, without affecting its permanent substance. Your whole remarks on Causation betray an imperfect acquaintance with the subject or a miserable trifling with your readers. Certainly “ the idea of cause is in the mind itself,” but �18 Letters to the Clergy. how did it get there ? You deny that it is generated by experience, and you add that “ a momenta consideration will show that this cannot be so.” Do you really suppose, my lord, that the Experiential philosophers, from Locke to Bain, have not given a moment’s consideration to the question ? Do you assert this of Herbert Spencer ? Do you assert it of John Stuart Mill 1 Have you read the fifth and twenty-third chapters of the third book in Mill’s Logic 1 If you have, I say you are taking advantage of your reader’s ignorance; if you have not, you are unfitted for the task you have undertaken. Thus far, my lord, you have not arrived ata Creator, since you have not proved Creation, nor even defined it in intelligible language. Were I, for the sake of argument, to grant that mind is an entity as well as matter, the presumption would be in favor of their eternal co-existence. Whatever Deity you affirm is shorn of the attributes of infinity; he cannot be infinite in power, at least, even if he be in wisdom and goodness, for he has an everlasting rival or an everlasting colleague. Nor are your difficulties ended here. The benevolence of your Deity is imperilled. It was the opinion of Plato that God is prevented from realising his beneficent designs by the inherent badness and intractable qualities of matter. But this view is easily confronted by an opposite dogma. Bentham was justified in saying, “ I affirm that the Deity is perfectly and systematically malevolent, and that he was only prevented from realising these designs by the inherent goodness and incorruptible excellence of matter. I admit that there is not the smallest evidence for this, but it is just as well sup­ ported, and just as probable as the preceding theory of Plato. From metaphysical arguments, my lord, I turn to what you say on Design. “ The argument from design,” you allege, “ is, in fact, one of the foundation stones of natural theology, and remains unshaken.” �Creation. 19 But I doubt if you really mean this, for if the argu­ ment is “ unshaken” it is difficult to see what induced you to support it afresh. “ Helps to Belief” is a title which implies that belief is enfeebled. You have the sense to drop Paley’s preposterous illustration of the watch, and you dilate upon the human eye, which is an optical instrument so “ delicate and complicated ” that it must be held to “ indicate design,” and to deny it is “ something like an absurdity.” Again, my lord, 1 say you are begging the question. However delicate and complicated an organ may be, if we discover how it became so we have explained it; and if the process, at every stage, has shown nothing but the action of natural causes, what necessity is there for a supernatural hypothesis ? When Napoleon said to Laplace that his system left no room for God, the great astronomer replied iC Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.” The law of parsimony forbids the assumption of occult causes when known causes are adequate to account for the phenomena. Now, my lord, it is indisputable, and you are well aware of the fact, that the human eye did not spring into existence suddenly. We are able to trace the evolution of this organ down to its beginnings in low forms of life, where it is but a local susceptibility to the stimulus of light. To this you reply that the result is no “ less ingenious or an indication of design, because you can trace the process by which the result is attained,” The ingenuity, my lord, is not in the result but in the process. You must find it there or not at all. You seem to admit Natural Selection as an established truth, but is it not incompatible with Design, except in that universal sense in which Design can only be an assumption 1 If adaptation can be explained as a result, without introducing design as a cause, theology has nothing to gain by pointing to any organ however exquisitely developed. And if "Natural Selection involves, as it does, the elimination by whole­ sale massacre and torture of countless unfit specimens, �20 Letters to the Glergy. does not this conflict witli all our notions of the wise use of materials and the intelligent adjustment of means to an end 1 There is also, my lord, an aspect of the case which you prudently conceal. According to your theory,God has been making eyes for hundreds of thousands and per­ haps millions of years. How is it, then, after such long and extensive practice, that he produces so many failures ? How do you account for short-sighted eyes, and even blind eyes ? What is your explanation of ophthalmic hospitals ? Would not any human workman be laughed at who turned out such multitudes of mis­ takes ? You declare, my lord, in the language of Paley, that ££ a man cannot lift his hand to his head without finding enough to convince him of the existence of God.” In a certain sense the remark may be true. Should the head be dirty, the man might find one of those objects which satisfied the magicians of Egypt that Moses and Aaron were inspired, and induced them to exclaim ££ this is the finger of God.’’ For the purpose of your case you dwell upon the greatness of man. Your language savors more of the platform than the pulpit. Century after century your Church has taught the doctrine of the Fall, and man’s utter depravity. You, however, speak of his ££ front sublime,” which, if the human race be taken as a whole, is positively absurd; you speak of his ££ grand powers,” which are difficult to find in a savage who can only count three; and of his ££ exalted instincts,” which are not dis­ coverable in countless millions of mankind. Thus you praise “ God’s handiwork ” to prove his wisdom and beneficence; while, in the pulpit, you go to the other extreme to prove the doctrine of original sin. Pursuing the Design argument, you point to “ the truth ” that££ every arrangement in a plant or animal accomplishes some definite end.” What then, you ask, is ££ the justifiable conclusion as to the origin of the �Creation. 21 organism ? Is it not this, that the organ is the out­ come of a creative mincl ?” Supposing the statement to be true, your conclusion is not a necessary one. In the struggle for existence the superfluous is harmful, and its possessors would tend to extinction. In the long run also, as organs grow by use and atrophy from disuse, the useful organs would flourish and the useless decay and disappear. There is no magic in the process, and nothing magical in the result. But your statement is not true. Man himself possesses rudimentary organs, which are of no service; they fulfil no function, being useless relics of a long anterior state. One of them, the vermiform appendage of the cfficum, has been known to harbour seeds, which have set up inflammation and caused death. Man has a rudimentary tail; rudimentary muscles for moving the ears and the skin; rudimentary hair over the body; and rudimentary wisdom-teeth, which are a great nuisance, and a common cause of neuralgia. Through the. law of inheritance, likewise, the generative and nutritive organs of one sex are partially transmitted to Ahe other. Perhaps your lordship will be good enough to inform me what “ definite end ” is served by the rudi­ mentary mammae in men ? You merely allude to these things, my lord, as “ very exceptional cases,” as though a theory need not cover all the facts. You even venture on the remark that.“ exceptions prove rules,” which is not an admitted law in any system of logic I am acquainted with. You also observe that these “ exceptions ” only raise “ a plausible objection ” to the Design argu­ ment. Haeckel considers them “ a formidable obstacle,” and I prefer his opinion to yours, especially when I watch your curious attempt to explain away “ the plausible objection.” “ A friend once presented me with a warm garment of exceed' ingly ingenious construction, and hade me wear it during the coming winter. I did so, and for some time I had two feelings �22 Letters to the Clergy. with regard to the garment: one, that of admiration of the ingenuity of its construction; the other, that of gratitude to my friend for thinking of me and trying to keep me warm. But one day an observing neighbor, with a keen eye and much penetration, discovered a button which appeared to be of no use. I may say that the explanation of the button was that it was an essential part of a garment, somewhat like mine, and which my friend had originally intended to give me; but in the course of the construction he had determined to adopt a somewhat improved form, and so the tailor altered the pattern, but omitted to remove the button. My observing neighbor suspected that this was the case; for my own part I had no strong opinion on the subject. It seemed to me that, button or no button, the garment was admirably contrived, and that the kindness of the giver was beyond a doubt.” God then, my lord, forgets the buttons.’ It is a poor compliment to his omniscience. He decided to make things in one way, altered his mind, left in some of the old pattern through inadvertence, and hence the presence of rudimentary organs. How charming I How pretty it would be in a nursery book ! Do you really mean it, my lord; and do you really see any analogy between the making of a coat and the growth ot an organism r Turning to the mental and moral aspects of the world, you are confronted, my lord, with the existence of evil. You are obliged to admit the presence of “ phenomena which it seems difficult to reconcile with the most obvious notions of perfect benevolence.” You allow that God “ permits the existence of much which is evil/’ and you are ashamed to fall back upon the orthodox theory of Satan, who does all the harm while the Deify does all the good. Accepting evolution, at least up to the point of man’s “ soul/’ you must be perfectly aware that pain and misery are not on the surface of things but part of their very texture; and that Natural Selection acts through a struggle for existence which makes the earth a shambles. “ Kill or be killed is a strange rule of life tor Beneficence to impress on its creation. You see this, my lord, and you have two ways of surmounting the difficulty. �Creation. 23 First, you say that the abounding evil of this world is “ inconsistent with certain conceptions which we have formed.” It is to be presumed you mean that God’s ways are not our ways. I concede the fact, my lord, but how is it to be reconciled with youi’ theory ? Why do you call the Deity “ good ” if you mean that his goodness and ours are different “ conceptions ” ? Can you expect me to worship a God whose beneficence has to be vindicated by arts which insult my under­ standing ? Let me remind you of the memorable protest of Mr. Mill in his reply to Dean Mansel, whose footsteps you follow with a faltering tread. “I will call no being good/’ he said, “ who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures ; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.” Secondly, you suggest that God was hampered by unfavorable conditions. “ Perhaps, if we knew all,” you say, “ we should know, as in our ignorance it may be permissible to guess, that the method of Creation actually used by the Creator was the only one possible in the nature of things.” You say again that God is carrying out a purpose, and that he knows the best, or “ perhaps the only way of doing it.” You also surmise that “ he was pleased to submit himself to limitations.” If the Deity submitted himself to limitations, who imposed them ? If he had a choice, as your language implies, is he not responsible for the selection ? Did he not create “ the nature of things,” and if it was unsuitable could he not create another “ nature of things?” Can you conceive any limitations of Omnipotence ? Is it possible to imagine Omniscience doing “ the best in the circumstances ” ? You trust that “ somehow things will come right at the last.” But is not this the language of blind faith 1 Is it not also an admission that things are wrong at present ? I see no force in your remark that “ he who does not believe in God does not get rid of the evil and sorrow.” He may try to lessen them, my lord; and he gets rid �24 Letters to the Clergy. of the belief in a monster. At the very worst “ The grave s most holy peace is ever sure,” and meanwhile it is a comfort to think that, No Fiend with names divine Made us and tortures us; if we must pine It is to satiate no Being’s gall. In your opinion “ Atheism is connected either with the excessive ingenuity of a subtle intellect, or with moral considerations of a perverse and morbid kind.” I differ from you, my lord; but I allow that you have cleverly dressed up the old fiction that every Atheist is a fool or a rogue. Atheists are not to be deceived by phrases. When you say that “ life must have come from a fontal origin of life” you are only making a “mystery” more mysterious. When you say that “ the egg contains a principle of life, which postulates a giver of life,” you are once more begging the question. You are an Evolutionist except at the beginning and the end. You assume that God created life, and you are loth to believe in the natural genesis of man. You remark that the “ missing link ” is “ not to be found in any of the geological records of the past ” How do you know that ? The geological record is imperfect, and the preservation of “missing links” is not a natural necessity. Nor have geological investigations been made in any part of the world where the human race could have originated. You smile at Haeckel’s belief that the remains of our early progenitors are embedded in the depths of the Indian Ocean,” and you remark that “ an imaginary continent is, of course, not science, and does not really help us.” The conti­ nent, however, is not so “ imaginary.” Certainly it is not so imaginary as the supernatural theories you in­ troduce to.account for what we do not understand, and to contradict what we do. Nor is it so imaginary as the “ distinction ” you find in Genesis between the life of man and the life of the lower animals. The �25 Creation. Revised Version informs us that the “ living soul” or “ breath of life ” was common to both. The “ soul ” elicits one of your characteristic sen­ tences. “ Here,” you say, et Science fails us altogether, Philosophy speaks with a doubtful accent, and Theology remains master of the field.” True, my lord; theology is always master of the field of ignorance, and where our knowledge ends our religion begins. What we know is Nature, what we do not know is Gfod. Science is ever widening the circle of light in which we live and work, and on the border of darkness the theologian plies his trade, passing off as the voice of the Infinite the echo of his own babblings. THE BELIEVING THIEF, TO THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON. Sir,— You are one of the most popular preachers in Christendom, you gather round you a congregation of five thousand men and women, and your printed sermons are said to be circulated in every part of the world where the English language is spoken. Nature has endowed you with a clear musical voice, not the orator’s voice, which is capable of expressing every emotion, from the soft whisper of pity to the thunder of denunciation, but the preacher’s voice, fitted to express the subdued and monotonous feelings of Protestant theology. This gift, combined with a fair command of homely English, and a Saxon capacity for work, accounts for your remarkable success. You are not an evangelist of new ideas. You have not to C �26 Letters to the Glergy. create an appetite for what you supply. The material upon which you work was produced in unlimited quantities before you were born. Orthodox instincts, orthodox sentiments, and orthodox ideas, were already in existence, and you have only played upon them. Out of the five million inhabitants of London, who are mostly. Christians by training, temperament, and profession, you have collected five thousand. This proves you an able competitor against other preachers, but it gives you no position as a leader of thought or a general in the army of progress. You have a certain vein of facetiousness, and a reputation for telling “ good stories,” but your gifts in this direction are heightened and exaggerated by contrast. The pulpit is expected to be dull, or at least decorous, and feeble witticisms from such a quarter are apt to pass as potent; just as a somersault, which is commonplace on the part of a street arab, would be comic if cut by a clergyman. Your private life is said to be exemplary. I have no means of judging, but I am content to believe ; as a man 1 value my own character, and I am ready to respect yours. But I am unable to reconcile your mode of living with your profession. I cannot understand how anyone with a fair amount of sincerity can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and above all the gospel of the Sermon on the Mount, and at the same time maintain an establishment like yours. When I hear that your residence is one of the finest in the south of England, that your grounds are magnificent, that your live stock rivals the Queen’s at Windsor, that you keep a splendid carriage and several fine horses, that your table is well appointed and your cigars are excellent, I am positively amazed at your Imitation of Christ. At such a rate the cross is easy to be borne. When I consider that you fully enjoy all the good things of this life, which must be provided by" the labor of others, and that you have in addition the glorious assurance of a reserved seat in Paradise, I �The Believing Thief. 27 cannot help reflecting that there is after all a profound truth in the text that “ godliness is great gain.” What a difference there is between the founder of Christianity and its modern exponents! He had not solved the problem of how to make the best of both worlds. He drank to the dregs that bitter cup which has furnished them with an easy theme for the cheapest eloquence. He died upon the Cross, and they live upon the Cross. I am not one of his devoted admirers, but I turn from them to him with a sense of relief. He looks pathetic, tragic, sublime, in com­ parison with these who coin his blood into golden shekels. Nor am I able to reconcile your enjoyment of life with your belief in predestination, hell, and the eternal perdition of the majority of the human race. You do not merely accept these doctrines ; you cling to them, and you denounce your brethren who would desert them for a sweeter faith. You see multitudes of your fellow-creatures dancing along “ the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire.” The friend whose hand you clasp to-day may be in Hell to-morrow. Your own children may fall into the place of torment. Yet you smile, you crack jokes, you grow fat, you contract the rich many’s disease of gout. Is this consistent1? Is it honorable ? Is it humane ? If I believed your fright­ ful creed I hope I should have the decency to be solemn. When your gout is acute you show your trust in God, and your belief in the efficacy of prayer, by taking a holiday at Mentone. You leave the congre­ gation to pray for your recovery while you try the effect of the air and sunshine of the Mediterranean. Does it not occur to you that an Atheist might get better in such circumstances? Why is it that God does you more good in the South of Europe than in the South of London ? Why is prayer offered up in one place and answered in another ? Why does God help you, and give no relief to the suffering thousands �28 Letters to the Clergy. within a mile of your Tabernacle, who do not earn a splendid income by preaching “ Blessed be ye poor/’ who must bear their afflictions in the fetid atmosphere of narrow streets, and languish and die for want of the resources which keep you out of heaven. This is a long exordium to a brief letter. Let me now pass to the sermon I wish to eriticise. It was preached on April 7, and is therefore an expression of your ripest wisdom. Its title, The Believing Thief/’ attracted my attention. There are so many believing thieves, and I wondered which of them you selected. Six years ago 1 fell among thieves myself, and they were all believers. An Atheist was a rara avis in Holloway Gaol. There were Catholics and Protestants by the thousand, during the twelve months I enjoyed a seasonable relish of Christian charity, and I was fully prepared to meet a believing thief. You have intro­ duced one. You select the first on record, the thief who begged a favor of Jesus on the cross. He was the very first Christian who ever entered heaven, and you “ think the Savior took him with him (I don’t admire your grammar) as a specimen of what he meant to do.” This fortunate gentlemen, you admit, was a convicted felon, and perhaps a murderer, but he believed on Jesus at his last gasp, and his soul soared away from the cross to the realms of bliss and glory. The other thief missed his opportunity, and that one mistake made all the difference between heaven aud hell. It seems a heavy penalty for a single blunder, but everyone knows that the difference between heaven and hell is no greater than the difference between divine and human justice. I cannot but admire the airy manner in which you skim over the discrepancy in the gospel narratives. Luke is the only one who relates the incident of the believing thief; the others represent both thieves as mocking Jesus. But instead of seeing a gross con­ tradiction, as you would in any other history, you suppose they both mocked Jesus at first, and one of �The Believing Thiej. 29 them was converted while engaged in this pastime. Such a method of interpretation would make a harmony of the wildest discord. According to Luke, Jesus said to the believing thief “ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” You dwell upon To-day with “ damnable iteration,” and you affirm that the converted felon was in Paradise that very evening. You decline to speculate “ as to where our Lord went when he quitted the body which hung upon the cross/’ though you must be aware of the importance of this problem. The Creeds say that he “ descended into hell.” This was the opinion of the greatest Fathers, it is endorsed in the Church of England articles, and it is countenancad by Peter and Paul. You shun the discussion of this point, and indulge your foible of dogmatism. Jesus died an hour or two before the thief, and “ during that time the eternal glory flamed through the underworld, and was flashing through the gates of Paradise just when the pardoned thief was entering the eternal world,” so that the Savior and his “ specimen ” went through the pearly gates together. You add that “We know Paradise means heaven, for the apostle speaks of such a man caught up into Paradise, and anon he calls it the third heaven.” Your uncritical audience may swallow this as gospel, but I can hardly suppose you so ignorant. You must be aware that the matter is not so simple. Learned divines have written at great length on the subject, and although their speculations are not infallible, there is still less infallibility in your dogmatism. Take up so accessible a book as Bishop Beveridge’s Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Catholica, read his chapter on the third Article, consult his learned and voluminous foot­ notes, and then ask yourself whether it is honest to veil the controversy from your congregation, and to decide it for them peremptorily as though you were an independent oracle of God. Learning apart, sir, there is another reason against �30 Letters to the Olergy. your dogmatism, and that is the language of Scripture. If Jesus went to heaven the very evening of his Crucifixion, did he descend again to re-animate his body on the Sunday morning ? And why did he undertake two such journeys ? Was it simply to fulfil his promise to the believing thief? Or was it to settle with his Father the arrangements for his public ascent ? Not being inspired, you may decline to answer these questions. But there is another question to which I may demand a reply. According to your assertion, Jesus went up to heaven on the Friday evening ; but according to John (xx., 17), Jesus met Mary Magda­ lene in the garden on the Sunday, and when she would have approached him, he cried, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. If Jesus did not speak these words, we may as well sell our Bibles for waste-paper; if he did speak them, you have been preaching a falsehood. I know the tricks of your craft, but I refuse to be deceived. I take a sentence in its plain and grammatical meaning. “ I am not yet ascended unto my Father,” is as clear a sentence as ever came from the lips of God or man. If Jesus had visited “ the third heaven ” before, he would have said “ I am now descended from the Father.’"’ You may answei' (what will not a minister answer ?) that the “I” refers to Christ’s body, but this is flying in the face of common sense. “ I ” may mean soul and body, or soul without body, but it cannot mean body without soul. Three-fourths of your pretty rhetoric is thus ex­ ploded. The believing thief was not in Paradise with Jesus that very day. Forty days elapsed according to one narrative—and you must accept it—before the Lord ascended; and during that time the believing thief must have hung about “ the pearly gates ” wait­ ing for his Redeemer. Let me press the dilemma. If Jesus said “ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” he was mistaken, �Ute Believing Thief. 31 and if he was mistaken then, he may have been mis­ taken on a hundred other occasions. If Jesus did not say it, Luke is mistaken, and if Luke was mistaken once, he may have been mistaken often. Nay, if Luke was mistaken, Matthew, Mark, and John may have been mistaken ; and your infallible Scripture is like a dilapidated spider’s web ; or, if you prefer the simile, like a leaky kettle, which lets out the water of inspira­ tion, and puts out the fire of belief. The lessons you deduce from the story of the be­ lieving thief are not very edifying. First, you say, it shows the Savior’s condescension; and as man, in your view, is the riff-raff of creation, there is a great solace in his stooping to the worst of sinners. “ It gives me an assurance,” you exclaim, “ that he will not refuse to associate with me.” I presume you would call this modesty, but to my mind it is the pride which apes humility. You cannot boast of being the chief of sinners, for St. Paul seized upon that distinction. Nevertheless you may pride yourself, with a humble face, on being an excellent second. This attitude is common among the elect. They are miserable worms ; but how they rear their heads if others tell them so I Several times in the course of your sermon, you posi­ tively annex the Redeemer, calling him yours, and in­ viting your fellow sinners to come to “ my Lord.” See, sir, how tastes differ. You regard this as solemn ; to me it is laughable. I smile at your masked pride, and when you turn the seamy side of your cloak outwards I observe that the purple is all the nearer your heart. A great poet has satirised this “ humble ” posturing, and you will forgive me for quoting his epigram. Once in a saintly passion. I cried with desperate grief “ 0 Lord, my heart is black with guile, Of sinners I am chief.” Then stooped my guardian angel And whispered from behind, “ Vanity, my little man, You’re nothing of the kind!” �32 Letters to the Clergy. The second lesson is the supremacy of grace over works. According to your philosophy—borrowed chiefly, I suspect, from Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians—our noblest virtues are only splendid rags, that will make us burn all the better in Hell. Works cannot save us. The best man on earth deserves ever­ lasting torment every minute of his life. We are saved by grace. And the crowning proof of it is the salva­ tion of the believing thief. Death stared him in the face; he was incapable of good works. The grace of God entered into his heart, his soul was filled with faith, and, notwithstanding his life of crime, he soared from the cross into Paradise. Let me ask you wiry the other thief was less fortu­ nate. Why did the grace of God hold aloof from him ? Without that grace we cannot have faith, and with­ out faith we cannot be saved. Do you not see that this makes God everything and man nothing; that it is a gospel of fatalism, or arbitrary predestination; that all your preaching is wasted, except as it procures you a living ; and that it cannot possibly make the slightest difference how men act in this world, since God imparts grace or withholds it at his pleasure, saving whom he will save and damning whom he will damn 1 The third lesson is that the vilest sinner, who has led a life of selfishness orcrime—the thief, the seducer, the adulterer, the murderer—may be saved at the very last minute. “ In a single instant,” you declare, “ the sins of sixty or seventy years can be absolulely forgiven/’’ “ If a man dies,” you say, “ five minutes after his first act of faith, he is safe as if he had served the Lord for fifty years.” The believing thief went to Paradise through faith, and faith will enable the heaviest sinner to fly up to the pearly gates. Far be it from me to say that God, who made men, should plunge them into Hell, or inflict upon them the smallest suffering. I even deny his right to do so. He would be infamous to punish his own failures. Whatever responsibility there is in the case is from �The Believing Thief. 33 God to man, not from man to God. The creator is responsible, not the created. Still, man is governed by motives, and your doctrine is a premium on immorality. You set up a Heaven and a Hell, you offer pleasure or pain hereafter, and declare that a death-bed repentance will wash out a life of sin. True, you stipulate that the repentance shall be sincere, but the sinner will have little appre­ hension on that account. You appeal to his personal hopes and fears as to the future life; and you tell him that, however wicked he may be, he stands as great a chance of Heaven as the holiest saint, if he only looks to Jesus at the last. You call this a glorious gospel. I call it infamous. It is not a doctrine of mercy, but a doctrine of license. After appealing to men’s selfishness, without regard to reason ■or humanity, it shows them an easy way of making evil as profitable as good. Were I to adopt your own language I might call it “ infamous bosh.” You are in the habit of reading Flavel. From his sermon on this very subject you borrow the case of Marcus Caius Victorious, a heathen of the primitive times, who was converted to Christianity in his old age. But you dress up the story in an unscrupulous manner. According to Flavel, the Christians would not trust him for a long time, owing to “ the unusualfiess of a conversion at such an age.” Old age, however, is not enough for your purpose, so you turn him into “a gross sinner.” Your accuracy or honesty is a small matter. My •object in citing Flavel is to point oat that he saw the snare of death-bed repentance, and warned his hearers against it. You are more accommodating, sir; and in view of your belief, the more accommodating you are the more you sap the foundations of morality. Considering the company you picture in Heaven, the believing thief being a “ sample ” of the “ bulk,” I shall not be sorry if I am quartered elsewhere. I ■do not play the Pharisee, but, like every sensible and �34 Letters to the Clergy. self-respecting man, I choose my company. If it. makes no difference to the caterer, I prefer going below in the society of honest and intelligent sceptics, rather than above in the society of all the abject scoundrels who earned salvation by crying “ I’m sorry.” You appear to know a great deal about the invisible,, and I venture to ask you a question. “ Heaven and Hell,” you assert, “ are not places far away.” They are very near; in fact, you say, we may be in one or the other before the clock ticks again. Do you mean that heaven and hell are in the atmosphere ? Or do you mean that the soul, on leaving the body, flies with such inconceivable rapidity that distance is annihilated ?' Surely you have not stumbled on the truth that heaven and hell are within us. Let me conclude by asking you another question. You talk much about the believing thief. Do you know anything about the unbelieving one ? Daniel O’Connell declared that Benjamin Disraeli was the lineal descendant of the impenitent thief. Will you tell me if this is true ? And if so, have you any objection to preaching another sermon on the un­ believing thief, and his unbelieving posterity ? At any rate, it would be quite as instructive as your first sermon, and probably far more amusing. THE ATONEMENT, TO THE BISROP OF PETERBOROUGH. My Lord,— Like your brother in God, the Bishop of Carlisle, you have contributed a volume to the “ Helpsto Belief ” series; and as that volume is necessarily �The Atonement. 35 addressed to as many of the public as it chances to reach, I need not apologise for writing you this letter. According to the law, my lord, 1 am a member of the Church of England, and I have a right to look to you, as one of her Bishops, for spiritual guidance ; and certainly you should be able to give it, for you are paid the magnificent salary of £4,500 a year, which is only a trifle less than that of the Prime Minister of the British Empire. I can hardly suppose you take such a salary without feeling you deserve it, especially as it was part of the prospect before you when you declared your belief that you were called to your bishopric by the Holy Ghost. It is to be presumed, therefore, that you will not resent my approach, or feel aggrieved at my criticism of the help you have offered—at the cost of ninepence—to my belief. First, my lord, let me deal with your Preface. You remark that the Atonement is “ a subject the litera­ ture of which would fill a library.” True, my lord; the blood of Christ is nothing (in quantity) to the ink which his priests and prophets have shed in explaining it. After so many volumes on the subject one issurprised at the necessity for another. Ordinary blood does not require such a colossal literature. But the blood of Christ is a peculiar article, and its physiology and chemistry seem to change like the combinations of a kaleidoscope. In one respect your Preface is an apology. You observe that the “ large subject of the J ewish and Pagan sacrifices in their relation to the sacrifice of Christ,, could be only very inadequately dealt with.” But in an age of Evolution, my lord, when everything is being explained by the law of continuity and progression, this is simply evading your principal duty. You further observe that it was impossible to “ discuss the exact force and value ” of such terms as “ ransom,” “ redemption,” “ payment of debt,” and “ reconciliation.” Now these terms, my lord, are �36 Letters to the Clergy. found in the New Testament, which, as you fre­ quently assert, is the sole authority on the Atonement or any other Christian doctrine. Why, then, did you avoid what, as a preacher of the Word, you are chiefly bound to unfold 1 It is not true, as you allege, that you have confined yourself to the task of answering the “most common and salient objections to the doctrine of the Atonement/'’ for you devote but one chapter to that object, and four to general exposition. This excuse, therefore, fails utterly; indeed I can scarcely understand it, except on the supposition that your Preface was written before the volume. Your readers, my lord, are “ entreated ” to believe that you have “ endeavored to deal honestly with objections.” Why should you “entreat” them to believe this ? Does an honest man beg the world to acknow­ ledge him as such ? Does he not rely on his character speaking for itself 1 You have written and published your volume, and why should you protest your sincerity in the Preface? Had you a shrewd suspicion of its necessity? I admit the difficulty of a man in your position being honest—I mean intellectually. You provide, not proofs, but excuses for faith. You confess that you seek to help those who “ only doubt and yet would fain believe.” Is not the veiy suggestion immoral ? Why should we desire to believe anything ? I do not deny the fact; it is a frailty of our nature; but a public teacher should not pander to our infirmi­ ties. Writing for those who would “ fain believe ” is an easy occupation. Feeling ekes out the deficiencies of reason, and premises are distorted to justify impos­ sible conclusions. That you have “ dealt tenderly with doubts and difficulties ” I cheerfully admit. You smooth down the feathers of doubt with a loving hand, and deal tenderly—oh, so tenderly !—with every difficulty. I shall not emulate you, my lord, in this, respect; and perhaps you will find eventually that difficulties are like nettles, that if you cannot grasp them will sting. �The Atonement. 37 Your first chapter, my lord, opens with a piece of advice, namely, that those who explain a Christian doctrine should first “ state it in the very words of Scripture itself/’ But you do not follow your own recipe. You select a passage in which “ atonement,” “ redemption,” or “ propitiation ” does not occur. I admire your prudence and tenderness, but I wish you had more courage. The passage you select is as follows :— “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Ep. St. John i., 8,9). Now, my lord, I ask you frankly whether any theo­ logian, except one who deals tenderly with difficulties, would ever select this as his text for expounding the Atonement. The passage does not contain a reference to the doctrine. Would it not have been braver, and more honest, to select a strong, downright passage from Paul or Peter, to explain it, defend it, and stand by it to the death ? Why should Revelation require the as­ sistance of the most dexterous special-pleading ? Why should God’s truth be championed with subterfuges ? Why is it necessary to present the teachings of infi­ nite Wisdom and Goodness in the least offensive man­ ner ? To my mind, you had better leave the “ diffi­ cult, abstruse mystery,” as you call it, to take care of itself, than defend it by such specious arts. Let me, however, follow your divagations. You ask, What is sin ? and you define it as “ that tendency in our nature which induces it to resent and rebel against law ”—a definition which would delight the Ozar of Russia or the late King Bomba of Naples. You say that man is “ essentially lawless, and he is, moreover, the only being in creation that is so.” Other creatures live in harmony with their environment, but in man there is a struggle between conscience and desire. There is little struggle, my lord, between conscience �38 Letters to the Clergy. and desire among the lowest savages. A Thug has been known to feel remorse at having missed an opportunity of assassination, but this illustration will not serve your turn. As man ascends in the intel­ lectual and moral scale, he is able to perceive the law of reason, his sympathies are developed, and his imagination “looks before and after?’ He forms ideals, which he more or less strives to realise; and the conflict in his nature, to which you point, is simply an incident of his upward struggle. It is the antagonism ■of past and future in the arena of the present. To the Evolutionist it is perfectly intelligible. Tiger passion, or monkey lust, is no more a mystery than our rudi­ mentary tail. They are marks of our descent. And our ideals and aspirations are fore-gleams of the goal to which we are ever advancing. You make a mystery also of conscience, this monitor 44 which blames us when we transgress, which punishes us for it, too, by a very sore penalty.” Not in all cases, my lord. Remove the fear of discovery, and the dread of punishment, and there is a small residuum of con­ science in millions of Christians. I haye yet to learn that the clergy themselves are more sensitive than their neighbors. Thousands of Church livings are bought and sold in the market as openly as any other merchandise, yet every clergyman, on taking a benefice, solemnly swears that he has not been a party to any simoniacal contract. Do you mean to assert, my lord, that this perjury ca.uses the hypocrites a single pang I You desire the sceptic to inform you why man blames himself for wrong-doing, and why he does not blame himself for being stunted, sickly, dull, or stupid. You ask how it is he feels no remorse because he cannot write like Shakespeare or paint like Raphael. Does it not occur to you that conscience deals with conduct, and that conduct is determined by motives ? One element of conscience, and perhaps the strongest, is susceptibility to public opinion ; but public opinion, while it may induce a man to act in one way rather �The Atonement. 39 than another, cannot alter the limits of his nature. If stature, health, good looks, and ability were amenable to motives, conscience would have asserted its supremacy over them. We only blamg ourselves for what is blameworthy in others, and W reserve our reproaches for what is alterable. We do not blame a fchimney-pot for falling upon us, because it is useless. For the same reason we do not blame a man for being short or ugly. If our reproaches had any effect, there would soon be a forceful pressure of public opinion on little ill-looking people. I have said, my lord, that we only blame ourselves for what is blameworthy in others, and I add that what condemns is in both cases the same. “I 33 and 44 me 33 are very convenient terms, but they sanction a great deal of nonsense in philosophy and theology. It is “ 133 who am selfish and “ I ” who am generous. It is 133 who do wrong and “ I ” who repent. But this 133 is a very complex being, and in reality it is different parts of my nature that act in these various ways. I have personal impulses and social instincts. When I sin against the law of reason and humanity my better feelings condemn the transgression, and my remorse will be proportionate to their strength. Were I to strike my child in a moment of anger (I have never done it, and I hope I never shall), I should have little to fear from public opinion, which still sanctions such outrages; but I should suffer remorse, because my love for my child, and my sense of personal ■dignity, would -utter their emphatic protest when my passion subsided. Where is the mystery, my lord, and why do you assume that the Materialist is unable to account for the facts'? Why should you tell us that God has designed the sting of conscience as a punishment for disobedience1? Is it a mark of divine wisdom that the good should feel it most and the bad least ? Would < cattle-drover prod the swift ox and leave the slow ungoaded ? �40 Letters to the Clergy. Recurring to sin, my lord, I see you define it as “ an offence against a person.” 1 agree with you; but I differ from you when you say the person is God. I cannot sin against God, because I cannot injure him; although he can, sin against me, for he can make mo happy or miserable. I can only sin against my fellow men. This idea does not seem to have entered your mind. You refer me to God for forgiveness. A cheap philosophy, my lord I What of those I have wronged ? Were I a pious bank director, who had feathered, his own nest and ruined thousands, I might obtain God’s forgiveness, but would it be any reparation to those I had robbed? Would it restore the suicide to his happy home? Would it drown the curses of my victims ? You admit yourself “how unavailing penitence must be to remove the consequence of transgression.’* But you draw a distinction between forgiveness as an act and forgiveness as a sentiment. Nevertheless you see that this will not serve your purpose, for the doctrine of the Atonement involves the remission of penalties. You therefore fall back upon “ something strange, wonderful, not easy to understand or believe.” You assert that Christ procures actual forgiveness for us “in some mysterious way.” You say it is effected by a suspension of the laws of nature, which “ in some way ” withdraws us from “ what would otherwise be their inevitable and necessary operation.” In other words, my lord, you take refuge in a miracle, where I decline to follow you. You begin by appealing to reason, and end by renouncing it. No wonder you exclaim, a little later, when dealing with an objection, that “ this is merely an intellectual difficulty I ” When we plead to God for mercy, you tell us that “ our cry is helped, is made more prevailing, by the pleading for us of another, and that other Christ.” You say that this is neither immoral nor absurd, for “ friendly intercession is a familiar fact of our human experience,” and if it is neither unnatural nor unworthy �The Atonement. 41 as between man and man “ why should it be so as between man and God ?” Do you not see that the illustration is a poor compliment to. the Deity ? You make the Son more merciful than the F^fther. And as, according to the articles of your Church, it is all settled beforehand, the whole business is a divine comedy. I do not understand how “ there may be a wrath of God that is kindled by the flame of love,’"’ but if you choose to picture the Father “nursing his wrath to keep it warm,” and the Son cooling him down and coaxing him into a good temper, I have no right to quarrel with you. England is a free country —especially for Christians. “ Our repentance/’ you say, “ could not avail to obtain our pardon were it not for what Christ has done and is doing for us.” But what has he done, and what is he doing ? He is the “ propitiation for our sins.” But what does this mean “? You say it will “ help us little to have recourse to grammar and dictionary.” Perhaps so. But would it not help us to have recourse to the language of Peter and Paul ? You studiously avoid their utterances, and in my opinion you do so because they teach a doctrine of the Atonement which you desire to conceal. You repudiate their plainest teaching. “ Where,” you ask, “ in the whole New Testament is it alleged that Christ died in order to appease an angry God ? Nowhere 1 ” Turn, my lord, to Romans v., 9, and read—“ Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him,” or, according to the Revised Version, from “ the wrath of God.” Again you say that “this idea of Christ suffering the same, or an equivalent, penalty with that which is due by us, and this suffering being a satisfaction to the justice of God, is wholly indefensible.” Now Peter says (1st, iii., 18) “ Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.” Paul says (1st Cor., vi., 20) “ For ye are bought with a price.” He repeats this sentence in the next chapter. If words have any meaning your “ indefensible ” doctrine is supported by D �42 Letters to the Clergy. Scripture. Your own words that “ in the sacrifice of Christ’s death there was an atoning, a propitiatoryefficacy,'” really concede the whole case you would dispute. You hedge and trim, and talk mysteriously, but you finally settle down on the good old orthodox doctrine; the doctrine of Peter and Paul; the doctrine of your standard authorities, Beveridge and Pearson; the doctrine of your Book of Homilies; the doctrine of the eleventh Article of the Church of England. Adam fell, and we, his posterity, inherit his sinful nature, which, as your ninth Article declares, “ in every person born into this world deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Christ came to be crucified, as your second Article declares, in order “ to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” According to Scripture we must be saved by the name of Jesus or not at all; wherefore your articles (10, 13, 17, and 18) distinctly affirm that only those are saved who are “ chosen in Christ,” that our best deeds with­ out “ the grace of Christ ” are displeasing to God, and that the noblest men, outside the Christian pale, whether heathen or unbelievers, are doomed to ever­ lasting hell. Your heart, my lord, or your prudence, revolts against this hideous doctrine. But why did you sign the Thirty-nine Articles ? Why do you take £4,500 a year to teach what you cannot believe? Would it not be more manly to teach it plainly or disown it publicly ? You tell me that “ in some way Christ’s death has removed an obstacle to our forgiveness; ” you say you admit “ an Atonement ” but no “ particular theory of the Atonement; ” you say “ we are wise if we refrain from at all attempting to define; ” and finally you appeal to Faith to justify your “strange, mysterious, difficult, perplexing dogma.” Why should I believe what is strange, mysterious, difficult, and perplexing ? You have many good reasons for pretending to—a bishopric, a seat in the House of Lords, social distinc­ �The Atonement. 43 tion, and £4,500 a year. But what reason have I—a poor, persecuted Freethinker—to believe what I cannot understand; or what, so far as I do understand it, I utterly detest and abhor 1 Pardon me, my lord, for introducing the name of Thomas Paine ; but he was a great man, and his name will outlive that of any member of the present bench of Bishops. My object in mentioning this illustrious writer is to show you the impression made upon his mind, in boyhood, by your doctrine of Atonement; and I will give it in his own words from the Age of Reason. “ I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the Church, upon the subject of what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. Aftei- the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself in any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I did not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had anything in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection arising from the idea I had, that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it 1 believe in the same manner to this moment: and I moreover believe that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” I do not know whether God is too good to do such an action, for I have less acquaintance with him than Paine, who was a Deist; but, with that exception, I have the honor to endorse every word in this passage. You deny that the sacrifice of Christ was made “ to appease the wrath of an angry God^” but you allow that it was “ to effect the compassionate purpose of a loving God.” What is this but juggling with words ? It is not the form of expression I object to, but the substance of the doctrine. However you state it, the fact remains that God required the sacrifice of his own �44 Letters to the Clergy. son before he would be reconciled with his creatures. Nor will it avail to plead that Christ was a willing victim. This may prove his generosity, but it does not save the reputation of his father. Whether Christ came, as you affirm, or was ** sent,” as I read in St. Paul, your Deity is equally cruel and detestable. Calvinism boldly takes its stand on what it calls divine justice, which is happily very unlike human justice, and follows St. Paul in affirming God’s right to do as he likes with his own. It is not for us to question, but to obey. He is angiy with us for our sins, which he regards as infinite because they are com­ mitted against an infinite being; and as our sins, nay, every one of them, deserves an infinite punishment, it follows that we must suffer for them eternally. There is, however, one way of escape. Being a trinity, God is able to act in three different ways at once. Justice is therefore wielded by the Father, mercy by the Son, and grace by the Holy Ghost. The Father insists on payment of his debt of damnation, the Son offers to pay it all with his own sufferings, and the Holy Ghost undertakes to supervise the contract. Such is the time-honored doctrine of the Atone­ ment, and although I regard it as a theological pantomime, I am bound to confess that it hangs together logically; .while your doctrine, if I may be allowed a colloquialism, is neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. I have already observed, however, that you use language which implies the whole orthodox theory. You allow the three ideas of propitation, sacrifice, and atonement; and as an anatomist from a few bones, or even one, will construct the entire skeleton of the organism to which they belonged, so a skilful Calvinist would develope his complete theory out of your admissions. Your only escape from his remorseless logic is to cry “ A mystery, a mystery ’ ” But it is easy for the Calvinist to reply that, while the reason of a process may be a mystery, the process itself is not so, �The Atonement. 45 and that while the facts are uncertain, it is idle to discuss their explanation. Having tried to understand what you mean by Sropitiation, I can discover nothing but this, that esus Christ puts the Almighty in a good temper; but you do not state how the operation is performed, or why it is needed. You are equally hazy as to sacrifice. You tell me that the death of Christ removed an obstacle to our forgiveness, an “ obstacle existing not on the human but on the Divine side.” But you do not state the nature of the obstacle, or explain how one part of the Trinity removes obstacles from the mind of another part of the Trinity. As for atone­ ment, you veil your meaning, if you have a meaning, in a cloud of words. It is possible that you will im­ pose or a number of invertebrate readers, but every thinking person who yeads your essay will wonder how it is that Christian doctrines are defended by the method of emptying every leading term of the meaning it has borne for nearly two thousand years. The Christian ship is to be rebuilt and refitted, a fresh cargo is to be chartered, new bunting is to be run aloft, and all that is to be retained is the old figure­ head 1 ° To my mind it is beyond a doubt that the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is a sublimation of the old Jewish and Pagan notions of sacrifice. This you deny, and for various reasons. The first is that the Pagan idea of sacrifice was “ the substitution of an unwilling victim.” Not necessarily so, my lord; and if you read the two stories attentively you will find that Iphigenia was no more and no less an unwilling victim than Jesus Christ. Your second reason is that the immolation of victims was “ selfish and cowardly,” and I presume you intend it to be inferred that it is “ generous and brave ” on the part of Christians to avail themselves of the sufferings of their Savior, and that the beautiful hymn “ Throw it all upon Jesus ” is the perfection of disinterestedness. I cannot admit �46 Letters to the Clergy. the inference, and I dispute the fact. The ancient sacrifices were not necessarily “ selfish and cowardly.” They were nearly always corporate ceremonies. There was supposed to be a spiritual autonomy of the tribe or nation, and if the gods were offended they plagued the whole body of their worshippers. For this reason, as is pointed out by Renan, the national gods were always the most bloodthirsty and terrible, while the domestic gods were merciful and benign. The sacri­ fice, therefore, was made in the interest of the whole people, to avoid pestilence, famine, or extermination. It was not selfishness and cowardice, but a dark super­ stition, which led the Jews to hang the sons of Saul in order to arrest a famine. After three years’ suffer­ ing they inquired of David, who inquired of the Lord, and the Lord’s answer was singularly felicitous for David’s ambition. “ It is fo» Saul,” said Jehovah. The sons of the late king were then hanged, David was relieved of the presence of seven possible pretend­ ers to the throne, and “ God was entreated for the land.” Your third reason is no less unhappy. That the Jewish mind could entertain the “abhorrent” Mea of human sacrifice, which is involved in the death of Christ, you say is inconceivable. But you forget two important things; first, that Christianity spread chiefly among Gentiles and Jews who lived in Gentile cities ; second, that as the doctrine of the Atonement grew up gradually, the sacrifice of Christ was at once mystical and retrospective. His death was not the death of a man, but the death of a man-god; and that very fact is the secret of the Atonement. You are discreetly silent, my lord, as to the Blood of Christ, but it contains the whole mystery of the Atonement. Being at once God and man, he was proxy for both in a blood covenant, and thus the two estranged parties were made at one with each other. He was also a perfect sacrifice once for all, dispen­ sing with the further immolation of men or animals. �The Atonement. 47 Not only was his the ££ blood of the new covenant/’ it was “ shed for the remission of sin.” ££ Without shedding of blood,” says St. Paul, “ there is no remis­ sion/' and Christ fulfilled the whole of the conditions. This is the meaning of propitiation, sacrifice, and atonement. From beginning to end it is a doctrine of blood. It is the final development of a superstition which has prevailed in every part of the world, begin­ ning in the blood covenant of savages, ascending into the blood covenant of sacrifice in barbarous religions, and reaching its acme in the bleeding figure of your god-man Jesus Christ upon his sacrificial cross. His bloody sweat, his blood-stained brows, his gory hands and feet, and the blood-spurt from his wounded side, are all designed to emphasise the central idea. It is his blood that cleanses us from sin ; we have ££ redemp­ tion through his blood we are ££ justified by his blood he has ££ made peace through the blood of his cross.'’ And every time you renew your covenant with God at the communion table, you do so by drink­ ing the blood of Christ. The passionate words of Othello are a splendid summary of your creed—££ Blood, blood, Iago, blood.” Let me conclude, my lord, by reminding you of a great distinction, and the only distinction, between the Christian and the Pagan ideas of sacrifice. The Pagans, and also the Jews, sacrificed animals, and occasionally human beings, on the altars of their gods. The Christians, however, conceived the idea of their God becoming his own victim, and shedding his own blood instead of theirs. The Pagans were ready to die for their gods, but the Christians made their god die for them. It was a brilliant conception; worthy of the meekness which has walked the earth with fire and sword, and the humility which has revelled in dogma and persecution. �48 .Letters to the Clergy. OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY. TO THE REV. EUSTACE R. CONDER, D.D. Sir,— You have undertaken a bold task, but I fear your success will not be commensurate with your courage. The defence of the morality of the Old Testament is a forlorn hope. Victory is impossible. The utmost you can do is to show your possession of that virtue which is called fortitude in a king and obstinacy in another animal. The Present Day Tracts issued by the Religious Tract Society are written by men of eminence and ability. When the recent tenth volume fell into my hands it excited my respectful attention. Your own tract on “Moral Difficulties in the Old Testament Scriptures ” appealed most directly to my curiosity. I read it carefully, made copions annotations in the liberal margin which seemed provided for the. purpose, and set it aside for criticism in the Freethinker. I am now able to carry out my intention in this open letter, which I trust you will do me the honor of perusing. Should you desire to answer my criticism, I will gladly place the columns of my paper at your service. Wishing to track you step by step, I will first notice your introductory remarks. They exhibit your point of view, contain your definitions, disclose the principles that guide your judgment, and settle the ground on which discussion must take place. “ Mere intellectual difficulties,” you say, ought not to surprise us and need not trouble us. You regard them as natural, nay, inevitable, in the revelation of infinite wisdom. But “the case is otherwise with moral difficulties,” and we are “ constrained to solve them.” You define moral difficulties as “any such representa- �Old Testament Morality. 49 tions of the character and dealings of God as we are at a loss to reconcile with perfect rectitude, wisdom and love/’ I accept the definition as excellent. Yet I cannot agree with you that “ the supposition that the character of God actually falls short of absolute excel­ lence, or that his wisdom is fallible,” is to “ a sane and virtuous mind inconceivable.” John Stuart Mill denied the possibility of demonstrating the existence of a God at once all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good, in face of the tremendous evils that afflict and desolate the world. The only God, in his opinion, consistent with the facts of experience, is one of limited power, and perhaps of limited intelligence and benevolence. What you declare inconceivable he regarded as possible, or even probable; and neither you nor your colleagues will find it easy to induce the world to consider you more “sane and virtuous ” than this illustrious philosopher. There are two qualities you claim as indispensable to a proper consideration of the subject—reverence and honesty. You complain that “ reverence is reckoned superfluous by some who pride themselves on their honesty.” Sir, the complaint is unjust and illogical. Honesty is all you have a right to require or reason to expect. Reverence is not a preliminary; it should be a result. I decline to reverence your book, your doctrines, or your deity, without examination. I must discuss them openly, fearlessly, and completely. This is the only honest plan. If at the end I find what deserves my reverence, I shall yield it without solicita­ tion. But were I to approach your views with a feeling of reverence, the discussion would be decided before it commenced. I cannot swathe the sword of criticism at your bidding. Let it flash and cut; only falsehood will suffer; truth is invulnerable. It is idle to tell me that the Bible is “ the most venerable, wonderful, and indestructible monument of human thought.” If by venerable you mean ancient, the statement is untrue; in any other sense you are begging the question. Nor am I to be imposed upon �50 Letters to the Clergy. by your lavish chronology. The Bible has not been a power and a consolation “ through thousands of years.”' Even its oldest fragments are not to be carried beyond the ninth century before Christ. The greater part of the Old Testament is later than the Captivity. You have thus a chronology of considerably less than three thousand years; and during half that period the Bible was a sealed book to the people. Until the Reformation they were unable to read it in their vernacular tongues and become acquainted with its contents. You may regard me as “ coarse and vulgar ”—to use your own polite language—but I cannot reverence your “venerable documents.” Age is not necessarily respectable. Old thieves are found in the dock, and ancient superstitions in the human mind. Witchcraft is older than Christianity; would you therefore treat it with reverence if you heard the nurse teaching it to your children ? “ Coarse and vulgar ” are hard words, but I persist with my objection. I cannot allow that “ the sceptic is bound to keep a check on his hostile feeling” while “ the Christian is not bound to suppress his love to the Bible, or to affect an impossible impartiality.” If impartiality is impossible on the one side, why demand it so strenuously on the other? You speak of “pro­ fessional ” assailants of Christianity. Are you not one of its “ professional ” champions ? You frown at those who are “ bent on making out a case.” Is not that the object of your Tract? You say that the sceptical objections to Scripture have been “ discussed, and more or less satisfactorily disposed of, times without num­ ber.” Might not the sceptic say the same of your “ evidences ” ? You assert that the moral difficulties of the Bible “ occupy but a small place in it,” and that “ anywhere out of the Bible they would give us no trouble.” Is this true ? Are there not bestial stories in the Bible, voluptuous descriptions, and obscene phrases, that would subject an ordinary volume to prosecution, and its publisher to fine and imprisonment ? �OtS, Testament Morality. 51 Another remark in your introduction remains to be noticed. You declare that “ a real Christian ” is “ not less, but more sensitive than a sceptic to moi al diffi­ culties in the Bible.” Then, sir, the real Christian has a miraculous power of concealing his perturbation. Honest sceptics—even such eminent men as Voltaire and Paine—have been insulted and persecuted. Their criticisms met with no other answer until such replies had ceased to be effective. According to my in­ formation, the moral, as well as the “ merely intel­ lectual ” difficulties of the Bible, have been exposed by sceptics, and seldom, if ever, by Christians. The orthodox plan has been to commence with persecution of the critics of Scripture; then to pass on through successive stages of insult, denunciation, deprecation, and silence; finally, to resort to labored and dis­ ingenuous apologies, with the pretence that the world is really indebted to Christians for its knowledge of the “ apparent ” defects and deficiencies of Holy Writ. I come now to your specific treatment of the moral difficulties of Scripture. The first case is that of God’s dealings with Adam and Eve. Whether the story be literally true, or an allegory, you allow that the “ moral and spiritual meaning ” is the same. Man, you say, was “ endowed with a moral nature in which sin had no place,” a statement which is belied by the fact that he fell. He sinned; he was guilty of “ a deliberate viola­ tion of known duty ; ” he disobeyed “ God’s positive command;” he committed a breach of that “ law written in the heart; ” and he suffered the inevitable penalty. Such is your argument, and nearly every word is false. The fact is that Adam ate an apple, which he was forbidden to touch. Millions of boys have done the same thing since, but their parents have not damned them everlastingly for such a trivial offence. You may tell me that a parent’s command is one thing, and God’s another. I answer that an act cannot be affected by the greatness of the person who forbids it; otherwise �52 Letters to the Clergy. morality is nothing but submission to authority, and the goodness or badness of conduct depends on the disposition of lawgivers and executioners. What could two beings in the position of Adam and Eve know of duty? Mr. Gladstone himself, in his reply to Colonel Ingersoll, is obliged to admit that this unhappy couple had no “ ethical standard,” no rule of “consciously perceived right and wrong,” but were under the law of “ simple obedience.” “ Their con­ dition,” he continues, “ was greatly analagous to that of the infant, who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that he is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the thing so ordered.” In other words, they were infants in knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and they acted like infants in the presence of a shining allurement. I know not whether you have children, but, if you have, I suppose they have often done what you told them not to do. Yet I have no doubt you are too humane to turn them out of your house, and if you did the law would make you support them. It is a crime to strike a child, it is foolish to punish. Love is the true discipline, and wisdom and patience are its best instruments. I have a right to show even a child that certain things annoy me, but no right to beat it for a mistake, or to curse it for an indiscretion. Even if it sometimes showed a bad dis­ position, I should reflect that it probably derived it from its parents, and feel all the more tender and patient on that account. Nothing is more miserably stupid than the mere imposition of one’s will, with no other justification. Parents should guide, and in some cases restrain; but it is a wretched egotism which prompts them to say “Do this because I tell you to.” Let us apply this truth to the story of the Fall. Why did Jehovah act in a manner which I, as a human parent, should consider disgraceful ? Why did he steel his heart against his own creatures ? Why did he curse his own children ? Why did he prohibit an action in itself harmless ? Why did he plant a trap for �Old Testament Morality. 53 two inexperienced beings, and punish them for falling into it ? Would he not have shown more wisdom and humanity if, instead of telling them not to eat apples, he had told them to be just, kind, and merciful to each other, fortifying the precept with his own example ? Let me ask you to consider the curse pronounced by your God on his “ disobedient ” children for their first “ offence/’ I pass the grotesque curse upon the serpent who tempted them, and the ridiculous curse upon the inanimate ground beneath their feet. What remains is sufficient for my purpose. Jehovah sentenced the man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. This may be regarded as a curse in hot countries, where labor is irksome, and everything invites to repose ; but in temperate climates like ours it is a pleasant and wholesome discipline. There is a great deal of truth in the observation of an American humorist that “ doing nothing is hard work—if you keep at it.” I admit, however, that the woman’s sentence was far more serious, and a curse indeed. <f I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception,” said the Lord, “ in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Such language is to mind infamous. I had a mother, I have sisters, I have a wife. I know that a woman, especially with her first child, needs all sympathy and support during her confinement. Motherhood, as In­ gersoll remarks, is the most pathetic fact in nature. Surely, sir, if the woman merited punishment—which I atn far from conceding—a merciful God would not choose the most piteous crisis of her life to inflict it upon her. A fiend sent to torment her at such a mo­ ment might melt with compassion, and murmur “ Not now, not now ! ” Am I, then, to worship a deity who is too callous to relent? No, I will not. As the son of a woman, as the husband of a woman, I say that if there be a God who deliberately adds a pang to the sufferings of a woman in childbirth, I hate him with every drop of blood in my veins. Words are too feeble �54 Letters to the Glergy. to express my scorn and loathing. I would rather have his room in Hell than his company in Heaven. Why did Jehovah place a temptation in the way of his inexperienced children if he knew that their fall would involve such awful consequences'? Why did he allow the Devil to heighten the temptation with with all the arts of a consummate seducer ? Why did he not not warn them against the wiles of their enemy ? Why did he station a cherubim at the gate of Eden to prevent them from returning after their expulsion ? Would it not have been more considerate had he used the same means to prevent the Devil from disturbing their innocent serenity ? You justify God’s inflicting the penalty of Adam’s transgression upon his remote posterity. You say that they were “involved in his sin/’ In what way, sir? To tell me that Adam begat a son “ in his own image ” is only to tell me that the son was his father’s child. It does not justify the transmitted curse ? It does not explain why a being of “ perfect rectitude, wisdom, and love ” punishes millions of souls for the fault of one soul milleniums before their birth. To my mind it seems perfectly clear that, if each soul is to be saved or damned alone, every soul should have a fair start. I deny that I should be prejudiced by the sin of an­ other. If God makes me responsible for the offences of my ancestors, I suppose I must submit to his power, but I will never acknowledge his justice. Your own heart, sir, is evidently superior to your creed. You perceive that the conduct of Jehovah is incapable of justification on the ordinary principles of human morality. You fall back, therefore, upon the position of Bishop Butler, which is inexpugnable to the attacks of Deists, but indefensible against the attacks of a later scepticism. You ask whether the Bible account of the Fall presents “any moral diffi­ culty which does not meet us equally in daily expe­ rience ? ” But this is not the argument you undertook to maintain. You set yourself the task of reconciling �Old Testament Morality. 55 the conduct of Jehovah with “ perfect rectitude, wisdom and love.’'’ It is idle to point out that worse things than those in the Bible happen in the ordinary course of nature. The universe is not on trial, nor its ruler. We are not, for the moment, concerned with the God of Nature, if such a being exist, but with the God of the Bible. It is useless to defend your Deity by saying “Mine is as good as yours.” I have no deity to defend. You have; and I must beg you to defend him on the principles you accepted in your introduction. Before I proceed further I will quote the following passage from your essay :—“ We must understand love and righteousness in God to mean substantially the same thing with love and righteousness in man, only free from all limitation and defect; otherwise, neither objections nor replies have any meaning.” This is youi’ own rule of judgment, and you cannot complain if I rigorously apply it to the rest of our “ moral difficulties.-” With regard to the Deluge, you make the gratuitous assertion that “ the substantial and weighty evidence for its reality is often overlooked by those who ought to know better.” After this somewhat pedagogic utterance it is amusing to read the footnote, in which you refer your readers “ for the bearing of geological science on the question ” to a tract by Sir William Dawson. I have read this tract, and the author argues for a partial flood. To use his own words, it was “ one of those submersions of our continents which, locally or generally, have occurred over and over again, almost countless times, in the geological history of the earth.” Yet I find you asserting, in the very teeth of your picked authority, that the Deluge “ stands alone ” by reason of its “ stupendous scale.” May I conclude that this is a dexterous way of steering between the Scylla of the heterodox view of a local flood and the Charybdis of the orthodox view of a universal flood ? At any rate, you. commit yourself to neither, but moralise on either side as it suits your purpose. �56 Letters to the Clergy. Let me also express my astonishment at the use you make of an awkward text, which you would have shown more discretion in avoiding. After drawing a dark picture of the awful sin of the antediluvians, you quote the sentence “ There were giants in the earth in those days/’ and you ask the reader to imagine what might have happened if men with the lust and cruelty of a Nero or a Borgia, the strength of a Samson, and the intellect of a Caesar, had lived for a thousand years. De you believe in the reality of such prodigies ? That they are conceivable I admit, but so is a centaur, a dragon, or a satyr. Such imaginary beings do not trouble the heads of sensible men, nor are your antediluvian prodigies any more entitled to respect. You are ill-advised in introducing these “ giants.” As the Revised Version discloses to the unlearned reader, they were simply Nephilim, who, as the context in­ dicates, were like the Gigantes of the Pagan mythology, the mixed offspring of heaven and earth. You are a devout believer in the existence of these fabulous monsters, but the existence of tlie Pagan giants, as Lempriere says, was also “ supported by all the writers of antiquity, and received as an undeniable truth.” Taking the Bible record as it stands, as you profess to, with its Ci stupendous ” slaughter of men, women, and children—in fact, the extermination of the whole human race, with the exception of eight persons—what is your excuse for the God who planned and executed this unparalleled massacre ? First, you remark that the same kind of thing fre­ quently happens, although on a smaller scale. People have been swallowed by earthquakes, swept away by pestilence, and destroyed by floods. Volcanoes have buried cities, the sea has engulphed myriads of ships with their crews. But all this is beside the point. As well might a murderer argue that his victim must die at some time, and that cholera and small-pox kill a great many more than he does. The only reply you can possibly make is the one which St. Paul resorted �Old Testament Morality. 57 to when he desired to silence the objectors to pre­ destinate damnation ; namely, that God made us, and has a right to do as he will with his own. But this exalts his power at the expense of his beneficence, and puts an end to all controversy on the subject. You next observe that the antediluvians were awfully wicked. Still, they were God’s creatures, and surely the Maker could have reformed his own handi­ work. Could not the being who said “ Let there be light I and there was light,” as easily have said “ Let all men be good—or decent” with a similar result? No doubt you will reply with the argument from “ free­ will.” But, for my part, I think it shocking to make men what they are, to curse and torture them for being so, and to offer them consolation or excuse in the shape of a metaphysical puzzle. It is not thus that we reason on any other subject than theology. According to the story, God gave the devoted multitude a warning. Noah, that “ preacher of righteousness,” admonished them for the space of a hundred and twenty years. But the Lord should have selected a better prophet, or, if that were impossible, he should have sent a capable missionary from heaven. Noah’s character, as revealed by his conduct after the Flood—when he indulged himself in drunkenness, in­ decency, and indiscriminate cursing—was not calculated to lend persuasion to his appeals. Indeed, I have often wondered why Jehovah took the trouble to preserve this precious specimen of his primitive creatures. Admitting the necessity of a wholesale massacre, it seems to me that the Lord should have completed the work and left none of the old race surviving. This would have enabled him to start with a fresh stock, instead of re-peopling the world through Noah. Had he followed this sensible method, it is to be presumed that the world, a few centuries later, would not have fallen into such wickedness that a whole city could not yield a handful of righteous men to save it from ■destruction, while the elderly gentleman who was E �58 Letters to the Clergy. spared on that occasion celebrated the event by getting drunk and committing incest with his own daughters. Suppose I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the antediluvians were all incurably wicked, that there was no room for gradations, that every man and woman was full of infquity. Still, there remains the fact ihat multitudes of children perished in thecatastrophe, who could not have sinned as they v ere too young to be responsible. You are unable to dis­ pute the fact, and your explanation is piepostero.is. You declare that “ the suffering of the innocent with the guilty, and on account of the guilty, is part of the mysterious economy of human life?’ Do you seriously mean that such bungling is a mark of “ perfect wisdom ” and such indiscriminate slaughter a mark of “ perfect rectitude and love ” ? Could not Jehovah have spared the children as easily as the family of Noah? Was there not wood enough to build a thousand arks, and time enough for their construction ? No wonder you close this section of your essay by deprecating further criticism, and bidding your readers “ reverently bow before the veil, and patiently wait till God’s own hand withdraws it.” But if we have to await God’s con­ venience, after all, it is a waste of time on yogr part (not to use a harsher phrase) to offer temporary explanations. Were I not acquainted with the petrifying influence of religious dogmas on the best feelings of the human heart, and the feebleness of the human imagination with respect to distant scenes and events, I should marvel at the continued worship of a Deity who could find no other method of dealing with his crea­ tures than drowning them. It is easy to kill, it is difficult to educate and develope ; the one shows ignorance and brutality, the other wisdom and hi 'inan­ ity. The destructive impatience of Jehovah—who, like all barbaric gods, was fond of hurling his thunderbolts—would be an intolerable anachronism in our civilised jurisprudence. But what would be �Old Testament Morality. 591 detestable in human practice is sacred in religious theory. Men who would not hurt a child, and who shudder at the sight of blood, ascribe wholesale massacres and the most relentless cruelty to the God. of their inherited faith. For the most part, I am convinced, they never attempt to realise these horrors, which, if vividly conceived, would drive them mad or destroy their belief. But let it not be supposed that it does the character no injury to harbor such notions of the being one worships. The debasement of our ideal must re-act upon our feelings, and it would startle many a Christian philanthropist to recognise how much of the brutal callousness of mankind is due to theworship of barbarous and bloodthirsty gods. Here and there, indeed, worship is carried to the point of imita­ tion, and the result is an Alva or a Torquemada. It is even held by Dr. Forbes Winslow that if “Jack the Ripper ” is ever caught, he will be found to be suffering from religious mania, and perhaps to consider himself charged with a murderous mission from heaven. Passing from the Deluge I come to the destruction of the cities of the plain. You compare this event with the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii,, whose inhabitants you conjecture to have been “ equally wicked.” What is your reason for saying so ? There is nothing in the authentic records of history to justify the conjecture. You are a thick-' and-thin pleader for Jehovah, but you have no scruple at libelling your fellow men. In any case, the analogy is useless to your object. • Educated men—to whom, I suppose, your tract is addressed—are not so super­ stitious as to imagine that Mount Vesuvius is a provi­ dential reservoir, which belches out its contents when the Lord has someone to punish. Nor is there any similarity between a volcanic eruption, which is as natural as a thunderstorm, and the “ fire from heaven31 which the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The one is natural, the other is miraculous. Some �60 Letters to the Clergy. perception of this difference must have been present to yoor mind when you fell back upon the Abrahamic exclamation “ Shall not the judge of all the earth do right ?” This, you say, is “ the one reply ” to all such difficulties, and “ it is adequate.'’"’ I deny its adequate­ ness ; I call it a begging of the question. But I admit it is “ the one reply ” of Bibliolators. They cry off in the crisis of debate, close their eyes, and offer up a prayer. Scientific criticism of the Bible removes the “ difficulty” in quite another fashion. The cities of the plain are imaginary places. Ancient peoples .associated legends with every striking aspect of nature. Ignorant of geology, the Jews and other orientals .ascribed a supernatural origin to the Dead Sea and its volcanic surroundings. The story grew up of cities that were destroyed on its site, and to this day the natives believe they see fragments of buildings and pillars rising from the bottom of the lake. Similarly, the story of Lot and his daughters is legendary. Moab and Ammon were for many centuries the implacable enemies of the Jews, who libelled them generically by tracing their origin to the incestuous and prolific intercourse of a father with his own offspring. Let us now consider the case of the “heathen nations” whose slaughter you admit to have been “ authorised by God’s express command.” You pro­ test against these massacres being judged by our modern ideas of humanity, and this may be a fair excuse for the Jew’s, but what-excuse is it for Jehovah ? It is idle to talk of the barbarities of ancient times; we are not discussing the morality of the ancient Jews, but the morality of an “ inspired ” volume, which, if it comes from a God such as you define, can never sink below the loftiest benevolence, and still less shock the common feelings of civilised men and women. One of your observations on. the chosen people is ludicrous, even as a piece of special pleading. Con­ �Old Testament Morality. 61 sidering the cruelties of antiquity, you remark that the “ Hebrews, far from being a ferocious and bloodthirsty people, were marked by superior self-restraint and humanity.” You seem astonished at their moderation. But is it not obvious that the Jews were never treated by their conquerors with the cruelty they displayed towards their own victims ? Had they been so, they would have been annihilated. The Assyrian govern­ ment was coarse and brutal, but it never equalled the ferocity of Jehovah’s warriors. So far were the Jews from being ill-treated during the Captivity, that many of them who had settled in Babylon refused to return, to Palestine when they were free to do so. Even under the Pharaohs, they had been allowed to multiply enormously, and if they were compelled to work they were not allowed to starve, for when they were sick of the desert manna they bewailed their loss of the fleshpots of Egypt. I can conceive of nothing more absurd, or more immoral, than your plea that every man must die, and that death by the sword is generally less painful than death by disease. It is an outrage on common sense and common humanity. It would justify every private murder and every public massacre that ever was or could be committed. I know that I must die, but I do not wish a set of pious assassins to decide when and how I shall expire; yet, according to your argument, I should thankfully hold out my throat to any inspired butcher who will do me the honor of cutting it. Your next argument is that the nations, whose territory the Jews requisitioned, were doomed to extermination as “ the just punishment of their outrageous wickedness.” You forget that the Jews vexed the Lord more than the nations he drave out before them. You also forget that the defeated side is always in the wrong, and that the character of the Canaanites is described for us by those who robbed and murdered them. That the Jews were God's executioners is open to �62 Letters to the Clergy. suspicion when we reflect on their interest in the massacres. Nor is it tenable that in the extermination of whole nations of men, women, and children, there is “ no principle involved different from what is involved in the execution of a single murderer for a single crime.” There are two objections to this argument, and both of them unanswerable. In the first place, it is quite inconceivable that “ outrageous wickedness ” was universal. Had it been so, the Canaanites would have perished from social anarchy, without waiting for “ God’s execu­ tioners.” There must have been a moderate regard for the primary laws of human society. Men must have supported their wives and families, and mothers must have cooed over their smiling babes. Yet we read that the massacre of these people was universal and promiscuous. Nay more, we read that the camels and asses were involved in the slaughter, while the horses were subjected to the infamous process of houghing. You would cry £< Shame!” if this were done by a desperate Irish peasant, but you ask me to regard it as divine justice when it is done by Jewish marauders in the name of their God. In the next place, the object of individual punish­ ment is not vengeance, but the protection of society. It is a warning, an example, a deterrent; characters which can never belong to massacre and extermination. Edmund Burke professed himself unable to draw up an indictment against a whole people; but you, sir, are ready to draw up their indictment, pronounce their sentence, and superintend their execution. There is something worse than death. It is dis­ honor. There is something worse than murder. It is violation. I do not wonder at your silence on this topic. You feel that a plea for the selection of virgins for the Jewish conquerors would affront the conscience of humanity. Yet I must remind you that this was done by the express command of Jehovah. Youth and beauty were sacrificed on the altar of lust. Maidens �Old Testament Morality. 63 were handed over—loy your God—to the bloody em­ braces of the murderers of their fathers and brothers. Your treatment of the projected sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham does not lessen its “ difficulties?’ That human sacrifices were common at that time is pro­ bable ; that parents had power of life and death ■over their children is certain. But what has this to do with a divine command ? Was Jehovah unable to rise above the morality of the age ? It may be that such a sacrifice was not “ at variance either with Abraham’s own conscience or with the ideas of morality then universally prevailing.” But Abraham’s conscience is a poor standard, and we are not bound by the moral ideas of that period. You forget the real point at issue. It is Jehovah who is on trial. Why did he tell a father to slay his son, or lead him to suppose that such a sacrifice could be acceptable ? Should a father obey a voice from heaven command­ ing him to kill his son 1 Not now, you reply, for the voice would be a delusion. But that is your opinion. The voice is not a delusion to the man who hears it. If he acts in all sincerity is he justified ? I defy you to answer this question without absolving him or con­ demning Abraham. Twenty voices from heaven would not induce a brave and tender man to commit a murder. If Jehovah thundered in concert with all the gods of the Pantheon, from the Himalayas to Olympus, I would not dip my hands in blood at his bidding. I would rather incur his vengeance than earn his rewards. I would despise his heaven, and never fear his hell. The cursing Psalms are another theme for your sophistry. You quote a few of the mildest as though they were fair samples of the rest. You cannot com­ plain, therefore, if I quote one of the worst:—“ Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.” �'64 Letters to the Clergy. Such infamous words would disgrace the lips of a fiend ? Is it not strange to find them in “ an inspired manual of devotion ■” ? Do you imagine that the study of these curses upon the innocent wives and children of one’s enemies is calculated to make men tender and merciful 1 You allege that “ the persons denounced in these Psalms were enemies of God, of religion, and of the commonwealth,” but you admit that they were “ also (at least in some cases) personal enemies of the Psalmist.” Do you not see that this is a very con­ venient way of gratifying malignity under the cloak of religion Will you also tell me how the “ widows ” and the “ fatherless ” were the “ enemies of God, of religion, and of the commonwealth ” ? Your defence of David is labored and curious. With regard to the very politic execution of Saul’s male descendants to arrest a famine, you bid me remember the old principle of blood-vengeance. Is the man after God’s own heart to be judged by secular standards? What is the use of the Grace of God if it leaves men slaves to the foolish superstitions and coarse morality of their age ? There is one point of the story which you conveniently forget. After the execution of the seven victims “ the Lord was entreated for the land ” and the famine ceased. Does not this make Jehovah an accomplice of David’s ? Will you ask me to excuse David and Jehovah on the same grounds ? David’s mean, treacherous, and cowardly murder of Uriah, after vainly endeavoring to make him pass as the father of Bathsheba’s bastard, it enough to damn him in the eyes of every honest man. It reveals a dreadful turpitude of character. It was not one act of passion, bnt a series of calculated villainies. Yet all you have to say in palliation is that David repented, and you appear to think that repentance is higher than innocence. I differ from you, but I will not argue the point. I will merely say that David’s repentance was rather fear than remorse. I read that he made atone­ ment by going to war, and butchering his prisoners �Old Testament Morality. 65 with every circumstance of horror. “ Where,” you ask, “ shall we find a parallel to his repentance ?” I answer—happily nowhere. “ An exhaustive treatment ” of the moral difficulties of the Old Testament is not your aim. You add that “ perhaps no such treatment is possible.” Here, at least, I have the honor to agree with you. No special pleading, however able and subtle, can make the Jewish scriptures anything but a record of barbarism, with gleams of growing culture, and occasional aspirations towards higher things. Some of the Old Testament pages are filthy, some are brutal, and some are disgusting. To defend these is to palter s with conscience, and to sap the very foundations of morality. INSPIRATION. TO THE REV. ROBERT F HORTON, MA. Sir,— Sundry press notices drew my attention to your work on Inspiration and the Bible. The Pall Mall Gazette praised your “ able and courageous treatment of the subject.” The Scotsman spoke, of its “ perfect candor and fairness.” The Scottish Leader “ could not but commend the book.” Canon Cheyne himself, in addressing the last Church Congress, described your volume as “ freshly-written and stimulating.” These are good testimonials, as testimonials go, and I turned to your book with curiosity and expectation. What you have to sav is addressed to believers, and I am not a believer. Why then, you may ask, do I meddle with what does not concern me. 1 do so, first, �66 Letters to the Clergy. because the subject is interesting to every citizen of a country in which the Bible is legally declared to be the Word of God. I do so, secondly, because I have suffered imprisonment for “ bringing the Holy Scriptures into disbelief and contempt,’’ and I have a personal interest in the question. I do so, thirdly, because every man who publishes a book submits it to public criticism. I do so, lastly, because you have not scrupled to give your opinion of the “ modem infidel ” and the “ poor Secularist/’ Pardon me for saying that you quite misunderstand the “modern infidel” and the “poor Secularist/’ Dealing with what you are pleased to call the “ cast-iron theory of inspiration,” you say: “We have multitudes among us who have thrown their Bibles away, or are using them only as corpus vile to flog and to deride. We have only to glance at the literature which issues from the infidel press to see that our working men at least, the part of the community for whom Christ’s religion is peculiarity adapted, the cast-iron theory has rendered no very signal service. From it and it alone in almost every case comes the. first difficulty to the young mechanic, who is just beginning to think for himself. To it is due first the sceptical suspicion and last the utter rejection of the Book; and when the poor Secularist after years of vainly beating the air is brought back again to truth and reality, it is by the living Christ, whom he might have known and loved from the first.” How many “ poor Secularists ” have you brought back to “the living Christ”? How many have you seen brought back by other preachers ? I suspect you drew on your imagination for the facts, and so long as they “ point a moral or adorn a tale ” there is nothing to shock a mind accustomed to the time-honored methods of Christian apology. From the earliest ages, when fraud and forgery were rampant, down to the present, when the silliest fictions are circulated in religious tracts and periodicals, your Church has con­ served the precious art of hoodwinking its devotees. I say your Church, because the spirit and policy of every sect has been essentially the same. �Inspiration. 67 I observe in your preface that you “ hardly know an argument waged at the present day on the Secularist platforms which does not derive all its cogency from the false impression which we have ourselves given about the nature and claims of the Bible.” If you honestly believe this, you are basking in afooPs paradise. It is true that Secularists point out the self-contra­ dictions, the absurdities, the immoralities, the in­ decencies, and the scientific and historical blunders of the Bible. But if you could purge the Bible of all these, if you could abolish the peccant parts from human memory, so that no one could ever know that they existed, you would find the Secularist, or the “ infidel,” ready with strong and plentiful arguments against the inspiration of the rest. You cannot cheat us by flinging overboard what you consider contraband. We object to your ship, your flag, your figure-head, and your cargo. We shall never be satisfied until the Bible ranks with other books, and is judged by human standards. We shall wage our battle against Chris­ tianity until it ceases to exist. We are pledged to oppose every species of supernaturalism, whether it assumes the lordly air of infallible authority or the humbler attitude of defence and apology. You admit that Biblical criticism is very largely the work of rationalists, though you “ do not refuse to build a church because the masons employed are Free­ thinkers.” The illustration is an unfortunate one. Do you suppose the Freethinking masons are building for you? Will the clergy play the part of architects, while the materials are supplied and wrought by their superiors ? You deceive yourself if you think so. Scientific criticism has not finished its work on your creed. Its solvent influence cannot be arrested. You admit that much has been destroyed, and the fate of the rest is equally certain. You are like a Russian traveller, chased by wolves. What you fling to your pursuers only whets their appetite for more. There is no shelter in sight, the snowy steppe stretches out �68 Letters to the Clergy. illimitably, and the age of miracles is past. You will be surrounded, and every bone will be neatly picked. You waste your time in telling Agnostics and Rationalists that there is a “ middle course ” between the old doctrine of inspiration and the theory that the Bible “ is not different from the Sacred Literatures of other Religions.” Were your Scriptures a greater monument of genius and power than its rivals, it would still be open to the fundamental objections which apply to all revelations. The rationalist rejects miracles in literature as well as in physics. All the books in existence were written by men, and all of them, including the Bible, bear the unmistakeable marks of their human origin. You are too sagacious and well-informed not to seethat the Bible does bear these incontestible marks of a human production. Consequently you are anxious to get rid of the “ cast-iron theory of inspiration,” accord­ ing to which every book, every chapter, and every verse of Scripture is directly inspired by an infallible mind. You declare it “ almost incredible that any reasonable person could entertain ” such a theory. But I must remind you that this is still the official theory of nearly all the churches. Just as the Church of England insists on its Articles being taken in the “ plain grammatical sense,” so the ministers of almost every denomination present the Word of God as textu­ ally inspired. They make reservations in controversy, and subtle distinctions in books for educated readers,, but the “ cast-iron theory,” is implied in the majority of their sermons, and openly taught in Sunday-schools. There are, indeed, some eminent ministers who are accounted “ reasonable persons,” and who nevertheless teach what is “ almost incredible.” Mr. Spurgeon, for instance, has recently declared his solemn con­ viction that every word of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is absolutely true. It must be allowed, however, that this view, is becoming more and more impossible in these days of general education; and if �Inspiration. 69 your Bible is to be saved out of the storm of debate, it can only be by changing the old theory of inspiration, Whether the change can be successfully made, or whether the success can be permanent, is quite another matter. You have your opinion, I have mine, and we must agree to differ. There is one aspect of the question which you over­ look, and the point it involves is more vital than any you have considered. If the Bible is inspired at all it must be inspired in the original tongues. Those who cannot read Greek and Hebrew are without an inspired Bible. A translation is the work of fallible scholars. However accurate they may be, they must make mis­ takes ; however honest they may be, they will be influenced by prepossessions; however learned they may be, they must find it impossible to overcome the difficulty which arises from the diverse genius of different languages. Sir William Drummond was un­ acquainted with any two Hebrew scholars who trans­ lated any two consecutive verses alike; and although Greek is more precise in construction, and less obscure in consequence of its varied literature, there are a host of conflicting readings of texts in the New Testament. In any case, therefore, unless we meet with the miracle of an inspired translator, it is absolutely impossible for -an ordinary Englishman—who must be saved or ■damned in English—to have an inspired Bible. What is revelation to the reader of Greek and Hebrew is •only hearsay to the readers of translations. They may catch gleams of the poetry, master the philosophy, and understand the ethical teaching; but they can never be sure of possessing an exact knowledge of the divine or doctrinal parts of the revelation, which may lurk unperceived or appear perverted in an ill-rendered text. The Catholic has a way out of this difficulty, for the voice of God remains with the Church, and enables her to decide infallibly what is the right interpretation -of Scripture. But the Protestant has no way of -escape, and unless he is a Greek and Hebrew scholar �70 Letters to the Clergy. he is without an inspired book. You might call the' English Bible an approximate revelation, but I regard this as an absurdity. Revelation means certitude/ and certitude has no degrees. Besides, it appears to me that an omniscient God is able to speak in English, and that he would do so if he had anything to com­ municate to Englishmen. I cannot believe he would send his message through foreign channels, and place us at the mercy of translators and interpreters. My own opinion is that not one Christian in a thousand has ever given five minutes’ thought to the question of inspiration. “The point which strikes us,” you write, “ is that Christians are more certain that the Bible is inspired than they are of the grounds of their certainty.” What is this but saying that their certainty is only acquiescence, and their belief only a superstition ? Before I deal with your definition of inspiration I will go to the etymology of the word. I will ascertain what it originally meant, and I will inquire what it still means among savages and barbarians. There is nothing like going to the roots of a question. A. religion, which comes to us from a remote past cannot be understood without a knowledge of its primitive­ character. The term Inspiration comes from the Latin in, and spiro to breathe. From this also we derive the word spint. Now, among barbarous people, the breath is a symbol of the soul, which is supposed to go in and out of the body, in trance or dreams, through the organsof respiration ; and there is nothing more certain than that the primitive idea of inspiration was the actual possession of a human organism by the spirit of the god. “ The inspiration or breathing-in of a spirit intothe body of a priest or seer,” says Tylor, “ appears to such people a mechanical action, like pouring water into a jug.” The god enters the man’s body, and talks with his voice, and “ the convulsions, the unearthly voice in which the possessed priest answers in the- �Inspiration. 71 name of the deity within, and his falling into stupor when the god departs, all fit together, and in all ?uarters of the world the oracle-priests and diviners by amiliar spirits seem really diseased in body and mind,, and deluded by their own feelings, as well as skilled in cheating their votaries by sham symptoms and cunning answers.” This view is supported by a study of the Old Testament. Dr. Maudsley is of opinion that Ezekiel and Hosea, to say nothing of other prophets, were mad; and certainly no man in his senses would spend nearly four hundred days besieging a tile, or marry a degraded prostitute. When the Hebrew prophets opened their mouths they said “ Thus saith the Lord/7 Their messages were plain and peremptory. It was not they who spoke, but the Deity through their lips. Coming to the New Testament, also, we find the primitive theory still current. When the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles they spoke with strange tongues. Paul himself is sometimes careful to dis­ tinguish between his personal teaching and the direct commands of God. He ridiculed, though he admitted, the gift of tongues. Doubtless he heard too much of what Tylor calls “ the unearthly voice,” which still survives in the Christian pulpit, for artificial tones are thought the proper vehicle for the language of inspira­ tion. Among the Arabs of the Soudan there is an implicit belief in the primitive idea of inspiration. The deity speaks through the dervishes, and the Mahdi, without question, utters the authentic oracles of God. Similarly, tne ancient Jews, who were a branch of the same Semitic stem, and in very much the same stage of religious culture, looked to their prophets as mouth­ pieces of Jahveh. The contention is absurd that this view of inspiration grew up after the time of Ezra. It only became systematised and retrospective. Inspira­ tion ceased to be current simply because a wellorganised theocracy set its face against unlicensed �72 Letters to the Clergy. traders, and because when the monarchy had disappeared there was no longer room for prophetical dictators. Having dealt with the primitive meaning of Inspira­ tion, which you were perhaps too discreet to mention, I come to the present use of the word. Not only is the Bible said to be inspired, but the same is said of the orator and the poet. This implies a gradual secularisa­ tion of the idea. The teacher, the enthusiast, the prophet, is no longer the. oracle of an indwelling divinity. Genius has ceased to be what it once was, a spirit attending a man and speaking through him; it means no more than a natural exaltation of certain mental or moral powers. It would seem that the time is approaching when the word Inspiration will be emptied of all supernatural meaning. When that time arrives, as it assuredly will, I very much doubt if the Bible will hold its place at the top of our literature. There are splendid things, when adequately translated, in the old Scriptures of India, and the great voices of Greece and Rome carry a high message. Nor did the vein of Inspiration close with the ancients. Poets, thinkers, and moralists, as lofty as any of antiquity, have been amongst us, and only require age to mellow their golden reputations. One of them, the mightiest in the roll of fame, the magisterial genius of this planet, lived, died, and was buried in our own England. Upon his brow sits the shadow of thought beyond the scope of the bards of Israel; his eye has depth within depth, until the beholder is lost in its profundity; every passion trembles on his mobile lips; and in the corners of his mouth there lurk the subtle sprites of wit and humor—a wit as nimble as the lightning, a humor as sweet and impartial as the sunshine. His very language is divine, speaking every note from the whisper of love to the tempest of wrath, from the mother’s lullaby to the hero’s challenge, from the soft flutings of sylvan peace to the thunder-roll of battle and death. Let the poets and prophets of Israel approach. The mighty palace of his genius shall find them all an �Inspiration. 7.3 appropriate apartment, leaving a host of chambers to spare, in some of which the decorations are too lovely for their stern regard. You contend, however, that Shakespeare was not inspired. You claim Inspiration solely for the writers of the Bible. The Book of Jonah is, in that sense, more precious than “ Hamlet,” the Song of Solomon than “ A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” the story of Samson than the tragedy of Lear or Othello. What, then, do you mean by Inspiration ? I seek in your pages for a definition, and I cannot even find a descrip­ tion. You move in a vicious circle, making no more progress than a gin-horse. You remind me of Mr. Micawber’s steed, who was all action and no go. “ We mean by Inspiration,” you say, “ exactly those qualities and characteristics which are the marks or notes of the Bible.” This is vague enough for a Pagan oracle. But you improve on it a few pages further on. You there say—“ What is Inspiration? We have to answer, precisely that which the Bible is.” In other words, the Bible is inspired, and Inspiration is the Bible. You seem to me to be feebly following in the foot­ steps of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. You have his equivocalness without his genius, his mysteriousness without his flashes of light. When he said certain things in the Bible “find me ” he was expressing a real truth, though in a mystical manner; but when you speak of “ marks and notes ” of the Bible, without telling what they are, or giving the slightest hint as to how they may be recognised, you are only darkening the obscurity you pretend to enlighten. Your real drift is not to be discovered in your defini­ tions, but in your incidental remarks. You say the Bible “ reveals another Order, a Kingdom of Heaven, a view of human nature and of human destiny which lies quite beyond our ken.” Its writers are inspired “as revealers of God, of God’s purposes, of God’s methods.” The whole book is inspired because “by F �74: Letters to the Clergy. reading it and studying it we find our way to God, we find His will for us, and we find out how we can conform ourselves to His will.” Does it not occur to you that the Mohammedans can say the same of the Koran, the Brahmins of the Vedas, the Buddhists of their many Scriptures, and even the Mormons and the Jezreelites of Joe Smith's gold tablets and James White's flying roll? Is it not a fact that, taking the world as a whole, people find their “ way to God ” through the Bibles of their native lands? Is it not a matter of training and habit? Can it be said that so many as one in a thousand ever forsake the Scriptures of their fathers’ faith for the Scriptures of another creed ? If you had been born and bred in Turkey, would you not have defended the Koran by the same specious arguments as you now employ in defence of the Bible ? I cannot help saying that you treat the Bible as a fetish. Y ou are ready to admit that the tales of its manufacture are very questionable ; you are willing to paint it afresh, and put it in a new light; but you will not abandon the idol, and trust to your own reason and conscience for guidance. You allow, for instance, that Paul was not the author of several epistles that bear his name. One of his disciples “ would not hesitate to veil his own hand under the form of a letter from his master,” and “ what we call forgery he would call modesty.” But this does not interfere with the inspiration of such documents; there they are in the Blessed Book, a precious possession for ever! Pardon me for holding that you are mistaken. I do not believe your view will commend itself to the common sense of mankind. Paul was believed to have been miraculously converted, and selected to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. That belief gave a stamp of authority to his writings. But if it is proved that he never wrote many of the documents bearing his name, they will inevitably lose that stamp of authority, and come to be regarded as the writings of unknown �Inspiration. 75 and irresponsible imitators. Nay, more, the whole Bible will suffer from such exposure. A few chambers may remain intact, but the rest of the edifice will be in ruins. What is really left in your theory of Inspiration ? You concede that the Bible writers were fallible, that they made gross mistakes in science and history, and even blasphemed the Deity in their pitiable ignorance. In what department then were they inspired? I deduce your answer from a remark on the Epistles to the Galatians, which displays “ inspired dealing with ethical questions.’’’ You assert that Paul’s ideas had not “ their genesis in the character or training of the writer,” and “ can only be explained by referring them to the Eternal Mind itself.” Here then is your last plank. The Bible is ethically inspired. You cling to Bible morality as your rock of ages in the weltering sea of discussion. But the event may prove you are trusting to a' treacherous support. Modern criticism is not inclined to respect your last refuge. It points to the moral crudities of the Bible, which, on your own admission, make “ a very pretty picture ” when they are collected together. But that is not all. Were a similar collection made of all its best teachings, its loftiest appeals and its wisest apophthegms, every item could be amply paralleled in the profane writings of antiquity; and some elements of morality could be found in those writings which are wanting in your Bible. Whoever asserts that the Bible contains any ethical teaching at once new and true, is an ignoramus or an impostor. Whoever, there­ fore, asserts that the morality of the Bible is inspired, occupies a position which, if he were wise, he would never seek to justify by reason, but would only vin­ dicate faith. �Letters to the Clergy. 76 THE CREDENTIALS OF THE GOSPEL. TO THE REV. PROFESSOR JOSEPH AGAR BEET. Sir,— I purpose to criticise your Fernley Lecture delivered at Sheffield on the fifth of August, entitled “ The Credentials of the Gospel: a Statement of the Reason of the Christian Hope.” I understand the Lecture is to he amplified into a volume, and supported with an army of references. But, as it stands, it contains the whole of your argument, and a concise statement is preferable to a diffuse one as a basis of discussion. It affords less opportunity for deviating into side-issues, or getting lost in a crowd of authorities. Your lecture purports “ to test the firm and broad foundation on which rests the Chistian hope.” It is characteristic of the present state of religious con­ troversy that you say nothing as to the Christian fear. The doctrine of Hell is gradually disappearing. Heaven is promised to believers, and in the words of Hamlet “the rest is silence.’"’ I have no doubt that this com­ promise will be serviceable for some time. But it cannot be permanent. Heaven and Hell are logical correlatives. They are like the Siamese twins. Destroy the one, and the other may linger for awhile, but its doom is sealed. Hope and fear move forward together. They are inseparably linked, and both are extinguished by knowledge. Where we are certain, we do not conjecture ; but where there is incertitude, the imagination will play in all directions. “ Our investigation,” you premise, “ shall be on methods scientific and philosophical.’"’ I do not con­ sider you have kept your promise. It is not scientific to reiterate dogmas; it is not philosophic to ignore �The Credentials of the Gospel. 77 replies, as the hunted ostrich ignores its pursuers. You do not “ test ” the foundation of your faith. You merely give a ground-plan of the building. You affirm that “ the foundation and root and source of all religion ” is “ the inborn moral sense.” The metaphor is mixed, and the assertion is false. Nothing is more certain than that religion and morality are of separate origin and have no necessary connexion. Such connexion as they have is formed gradually. It is conspicuous in high civilisations, but almost imperceptible in the lowest stages of culture. “ Many religions of the lower races,” as Tylor says, “ have little to do with moral conduct?’ The gods of an American or African savage “ may require him to do his duty towards them,” but “ it does not follow that they should concern themselves with his doing duty to his neighbor.” A robber, a brute, or even a murderer is not necessarily hateful to the gods; in fact, suih a man is often a great medicine-man or priest. Among the lower moral strata of our European population, two classes noted for piety are brigands and prostitutes. Religion, as the practical recog­ nition of invisible powers, is most prevalent among savages and barbarians. In this sense modern Europe is less religious than mediseval Europe, and the countries which are most saturated with religion are the most ignorant and degraded. The more progress men make in mental and moral culture the less does religion over­ shadow their lives. Ethical science emerges as reli­ gious influence declines, and in the words of Lecky, “ the formation of a moral philosophy is usually the first step in the decadence of religions.” The association of religion with morality is, indeed, an inevitable concession of the dogmatic to the useful. While self-preservation is the first law of nature, every­ thing must yield to the necessities of personal and social life. Natural selection weeds out the most superstitious in the struggle for existence. The main current of religion must accommodate itself to the �78 Letters to the Olergy. average conditions of contemporary civilisation. Appa­ rently it is religion that dictates, but in reality it obeys, just as the laws in a constitutional monarchy are enacted by Parliament though executed in the name of the Crown. Religion conforms to what it cannot avert, and finally, after a long succession of changes, it descends to the position of a servant of its old subject, whose interests it pretends to safeguard, just as the monarchy ends by posing as the bulwark of the people’s liberties. By this time it has lost its once imperial tones, it speaks in apologetic accents, and instead of commanding earth in the name of heaven, it proffers itself as an occult assistant of secular interests. When we are told that religion is a powerful aid to morality, we are also reminded that morality occupies the seat of sovereignty. With regard to our “ inborn moral sense/’ I admit its reality, as I admit the reality of our musical sense or our mathematical sense. But I deny its being “ inborn ” except as inherited. It is a product of evolution, like all the rest of our faculties, and it has all degrees of development, from the incipiency of the congenital criminal to the relative perfection of the true philanthropist. I am occupying no novel position. Giants . of thought, such as Darwin and Spencer, to say nothing of older writers, have laboriously constructed it, and I do no more than take advantage of their labors. While the books of such men are in the hands of edu­ cated readers, it is idle, nay ludicrous, to go on assert­ ing the old doctrines as though they were unchallenged. It is undignified, no less than futile, to sit upon the shore and ignore the flowing tide. Mrs. Partington herself, sweeping back the Atlantic with her broom, was less absurd; for her exertions were heroic, and she kept on the safe side of the waves without beating a sudden and ignominious retreat. You begin the real argument of your lecture by appealing to our “ moral judgments/’ which “ differ in �The Credentials of the G-ospel. 79 kind and differ infinitely from all others?’ You assert that this difference “ is revealed by the different emotions worked in us by a great calamity and a great crime.” This is very vague language. What is it that makes us regard calamities and crimes differently? Is it not a question of agency? We feel no resent­ ment against a flood or a fire. Why? Because they are insensitive, and unamenable to motives. Men, on the other hand,- are amenable to motives, and their wrong-doing excites resentment; first, in those they directly injure; and, secondly, in society at large. I do not mean that the feeling is a simple one. It in­ cludes hatred—which is only an intense form of dislike — fear, wounded self-love, a sense of disturbance, and, in many cases, though not in all, an imaginative per­ ception of danger to the community. So much for the feeling. The judgment is entirely different. It is purely intellectual. Some cases are perfectly obvious. The “ extreme cases ” you refer to are as easy of decision as whether water is good to drink or bread to eat. But the vaster multitude of intermediate cases call for great exercise of the mental powers. This is the reason why many persons of excellent dispositions are so often p.erverse in their moral judgments Even your moral judgment is defective, or you would not instance as “ a villain of very deep dye” a man who has “deliberately, and without provocation, killed his mother.” I should say that a man who murders his mother, without provocation, is not a villain, but a lunatic. “ These confident judgments,” you say, “ imply an infallible standard of comparison.” What is an in­ fallible standard ? I do not understand the adjective. A standard is simply a standard. It may be applied with all degrees of efficiency. A foot-rule is a foot­ rule. One man uses it well, and another ill; one will take the dimensions of a room with reasonable accu­ racy, and another make exasperating blunders. '£he �80 Letters to the Clergy. “infallibility” must be in the application of the standard. Your confusion on this subject is such that I feel no surprise at your silence as to the standard itself. You do not say what it is. You call it infallible, but that is no information. You speak of “ an eternal law of right,” and of the “ voice ” within us. But the voice is, in my opinion, only the echo of our own sentiments ; while the “ eternal law of right” may mean anything or nothing until it is explained. Words like eternal and infallible do not enlighten me. I want to know what is your “ law of right.” That is an indispensable preliminary. When you tell me that the moral judgment is “ universal,” I must deny the proposition if it means that “ all men everywhere know that treachery, lying, theft, adultery and murder are condemned by a law which speaks with an unerring voice of indisputable authority.” The Hindu Thug deems it right to murder, and the Thugs of your Church, in former ages, thought it a pious duty to slay heretics and infidels. Adultery among women is held to be wrong in most countries, but millions of savages would laugh at you if you told them that adultery among men was either a crime or a vice. Theft and treachery are wrong within the tribe or association, but frequently a virtue if practised on outsiders. Lying is only a vice within the same limits. These statements are indis­ putable, and I understand why you shun such witnesses as “ modern travellers or missionaries.” The breath of a single one of them would shatter the very basis of your argument. In a certain sense, however, I agree with your statement that “ to the mysterious tribunal within appeals all external teaching, moral or religious.” The only thing I object to is the epithet of “ mysteri­ ous.” For the rest, your statement bears out my contention that morality is primary, and not secondary to religion. Our reason is the proper judge of �The Credentials of the Gospel. 81 Revelation on the intellectual side, and our moral sense its judge on the ethical side. But this makes a clean sweep of every system which is based on faith. “ The teaching of Jesus,” you say, “is no excep­ tion.” I agree with you. But do you see the logical result of this admission ? If my moral sense is the judge of his teaching, in what sense can that teaching be called divine ? If it be divine, my moral sense must be diviner still. And if I have a faculty which is able to sit in judgment on his teaching, I have a faculty which would, in the course of time, enable me to discover all that is best in it without his assistance. “We wait with intense interest,” you say, “ to hear the verdict and sentence on the gospel of Christ pronounced by this unerring judge.” The attitude would do you credit if it were not assumed. The fact is, you are not waiting. You and your co-religionists never did wait. You were brought up as Christians because you were born in a Christian country, just as you would have been brought up as Mohammedans if you had been born in Turkey. You did not make up your minds ; they were made up for you. Education and authority have determined your creed. You were prejudiced in favor of Christianity. You took sides before you were able to judge. And you can only say that you are waiting for a verdict on Christianity in the sense in which an advocate is waiting for the decision of the judge and jury. How little you are waiting is seen from your very next sentence. You declare that “The judgment is decisive.” But you do not say whose judgement. You affirm that “ The moral teaching of the New Testa­ ment commends itself at once and irresistibly to our moral sense as right and good.” Whose is our moral sense ? I presume you mean the moral sense of Christians. And why do you confuse “ the teaching of Jesus” with “the moral teaching of the New Testa­ ment ?” Does not the second half of the Bible con­ tain the teaching of Peter, James, John, Paul, and �82 Letters to the Clergy. several unknown writers, as well as the teaching of Jesus Christ ? Finally, how does the moral teaching of the New Testament commend itself at once and irresistibly to our moral sense, when thousands of books and articles have been written by honest and able men and women to show that Christian morality is often imperfect.and sometimes pernicious1? You are obviously addressing Christians, and Chris­ tians only, when you assert that “ every moral excel­ lence ” is “ but a feature ” in the “portrait’’ of Jesus Christ. This is not a view which commends itself to Freethinkers, nor does it seem to commend itself to the Buddhists and Confucians among whom your missionaries labor. Unfortunately you do not enter into details. Your panegyric is general, and I can only raise a general objection. That the Jesus of the Gospels was a bad man is not often maintained, nor is it likely that his biographers would depict him as such, seeing he was the object of their adoration. But there are many degrees between badness and perfection, and Jesus does not reach the ideal height. Many elements of greatness were lacking in his character. The fact is, no man that ever lived was perfect. It is a false hero-worship which refuses to see most obvious failings. And the arbitrary veneration of a single ideal must have the effect of narrowing our sympathies and aspirations. You tell me “ The Carpenter declares that he alone knows God.” It is an assertion easily made, impossible of proof, and impossible of refutation. You also say that he makes other “unheard-of assumptions,” yet calls himself “ meek and lowly of heart,” and “ strange to say, we feel that these words are true.” Now “ strange to say ” I do not feel that the words are true. I cannot see the meekness of his denouncing those he could not convince; or the meekness of his extravagant railing against his religious rivals in the capital; or the meekness of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem amid the seditious plaudits of a fickle and fanatical mob. �The Credentials of the Gospel. 83 That “ we see him possessing infinite power” and “ infinite resources,” is belied by his inability to work wonders in certain cities because of their unbelief (Matt, xiii., 58). Did he not also feel that virtue had gone out of him when he was touched by a diseased woman ? Do you mean that “ infinite power ” could feel the loss of energy ? And do you think it was a being of “infinite power” who cried out “ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ? ” Such a dream as the Gospel life of Jesus you say was “ never dreamed before or since,” Indeed ! Are you unacquainted with the life of Buddha ? Did he not renounce the splendors of a royal court for a beggar’s robes ? Did he not wander as a poor mendicant through the land he might have ruled as king ? Did he not practise every form of self-sacrifice 1 Do not the stories describe him as giving up everything for the love of others, even yielding himself to be eaten by a tigress, out of pity for the emaciated creature and her famished cubs ? How beautiful is this in com­ parison with the callous exclamation of St. Paul— “ Doth God care for oxen ? ” As “ a dream ” the life of Buddha is, in my judgment, more pathetic and inspiring than the life of Jesus. I pass from your panegyric on Jesus to your doctrine of sin. You say that the vision of Jesus “brings to light our own deep pollution.'” Do you think that language of this kind is true or useful ? It is the historic language of your creed, I allow, but the modern mind is turning from it with disgust. Dwelling upon our moral infirmities is no more wholesome than dwelling upon our physical ailments. The man who made a public display of his ulcers, or made them the theme of his conversation, W’ould be regarded as a nuisance; but the man who makes a public exhibition of his moral maladies, and talks about his “ deep pollution,” is regarded as a promising candidate for heaven. I protest against this morbid spiritualism. It does not strengthen, it enervates us ; �84 » Letters to the Clergy. and too frequently it leaves more nastiness than it finds. Evolution shows us a better method of culture. Our vices are not diminished by studying them; they perish of inanition through the exercise of our virtues. Our welfare lies, not in exploring our defects, but in practising our powers. The clergy have always cried up original sin, and dwelt on our “ deep pollution.” The medical quack behaves in the same way. His object is to make us feel desperately ill, that we may fly to him for relief. The deeper our sense of “ corruption,” the greater the power of the priest. He battens, like a parasite, on the decadent side of our nature. He trades on our misery and our fears, allowing us as much hope as keeps us alive to patronise his nostrums. You dilate on our sense of sin, our apprehension of future punishment, and our expectation of future reward. Your philosophy is very lofty in its pretensions, but very grovelling it its essence. You deny that virtue is its own reward, or vice its own punishment. Where, you ask, is the punishment of the successful rogue ; where is the reward of the martyred hero ? There must be a future retribution to balance the account. Beyond the grave “ there is absolute recompense.” Such is your teaching, and it involves a gross assumption as to “ the future,” and a sad misreading of human nature. How do you know that the next life, if there be one, will exactly rectify the injustices of this life? If there be a governor of the universe, the presumption is that the polity of this w'orld is a fair sample of his methods. Analogy would lead us to believe that what goes on here will be continued elsewhere. On the other hand, your crude jurisprudence would create as many evils as it rectified. The supposition is infantile that men may be divided into two classes, the good and the bad, the sheep and the goats. We are all of us mixtures. Human character is more diversified than the ever- �The Credentials of the Gospel. 85 changing aspects of the external world. The best man has his failings, and the worst his redeeming qualities. A perfect adjustment, therefore, of consequence to conduct in a future life, would necessitate not one, but a million heavens and hells, each of them nicely varied and graduated for their appropriate inmates. Even then the balance would be fatally vitiated by the eternal rectification of temporary disorders. In short, the idea of “ absolute recompense ” in a future life is a childish dream, which is seen to be grotesque the moment we try to realise its details. Do you not see, also, that the “ absolute recompense ” you promise on the other side of death turns morality into huckstering 1 On this principle, virtue is only shrewd calculation, and vice a foolish mistake. The main-spring of your ethic is personal profit. You look with disdain on the utilitarian, but his philosophy is infinitely superior to yours. He makes happiness the goal of effort, but not the mere happiness of the individual actor. The welfare of society is his criterion of right and wrong. His standard is not personal but universal. In the presence of self-sacrifice for the good of others he is not embarrassed by your difficulties. He is not staggered, as you are, by “ the case of a man who has lost his life by doing a noble action.” I have said, and I repeat, that you misread human nature. Can you imagine a great dramatist depicting a hero on youi' principles? Were the dying hero to exclaim “ I have done right, I have lost my reward, but God will give it me in heaven,” he would at once alienate our sympathies. We should feel that he had been actuated by false motives, and our interest would vanish with the confession of his selfishness. Do you imagine that an Atheist soldier would shun the post of danger any more than his Christian com­ rade ? Would a regiment of Freethinkers fight less gallantly than a regiment of priests ? Did the three hundred Spartans die in the pass of Thermopylae for �86 » ) i Letters to the Clergy. patriotism or for reward ? Did they lay down their lives less cheerfully because they had no thought of “ future recompense’’ ? Do you seriously suppose that an Atheist fireman would not do his duty amid the flame and smoke"? Would he hesitate to save the lives of women and children because he had no hope of heaven ? Fortunately we act upon our impulses, and not upon the momentary calculations of expediency. Our social instincts are not at the mercy of the schools. They have been developed in us by ages of evolution, and they strengthen as civilisation advances. Self­ sacrifice is an expression of sympathy, and sympathy is independent of religion. I will do the martyrs of your faith more justice than to suppose they were always animated by the hope of heaven; and, on the other hand, I trust you will concede that the martyrs of my faith have shown equal courage with your own. Vanini and Bruno died at the stake, without hope of a “ future recompense.” And have you not heard of Milliere, who bared his breast to the bullets of the Versailles troops, and fell upon the church steps with the cry of Vive L’Humanite upon his lips "? The pivot of your scheme, however, is rather fear of punishment than hope of reward. You illustrate the line of the Roman poet that all religion began in terror. You say we “ cannot throw off the dark foreboding that sin will be followed by punishment/’ that “ we are compelled to believe that retribution awaits us elsewhere/’ that “forebodings of punish­ ment ” trouble us as we approach “ the dark river of death/’ and that “ we dread the penalty of our sins.” I am tempted to remind you of Carlyle’s grim remark on Ignatius Loyola. When this “ saint ” was laid low by “ the Cookery-shop and the Bordel,” he felt he was an awful sinner, but he recovered his health, and his puriency took the new form of Jesuitism. His sick repentance was only a shrinking from future punishment. “ Had he been a good and brave man,” says Carlyle, “ he should have consented at that point �The Credentials of the Gospel. 87 to be damned—as was clear to him that he deserved to be.” So I am inclined to say to any man who feels he ought to be damned—“ Go and be damned, and take it quietly.” Such manliness, however, is not found in Christian sinners. They want pardon, or “ deliverance from the future penalty of past sins.” But “the moral law knows nothing of pardon,” and the result would be “ despair ” if it were not for “ the Gospel of Christ,” which “ comes to us with a voice of mercy.” A sweet and easy Gospel indeed! It is preached from our pulpits, but set at naught in our criminal courts. How selfish is this Gospel! Surely when a man has done wrong his first thought should not be for himself, but for the victims of his wrong-doing. But on this matter you are silent. You point him to a way of escape, while he leaves the real burden of his sins behind him. Is this a gospel of strength or a gospel of weakness “? For my part, I prefer the philosophy of old Omar Khayyam. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. I admit this is not a gospel for knaves and weaklings It is a gospel for brave and honest men. Conduct and consequence are inseparable in this world. The bond cannot be brdken. Any system that teaches otherwise is false and pernicious. According to your philosophy, Christ not only saves 4ftom the future penalty of past sins, but also from the power of present sin. It is possible that you believe this, but what evidence is there to prove it ? It is clearly impossible to examine the lives of individuals, or to penetrate the secret recesses of personal character. We are able, however, to judge of a general influence by average results, and an appeal to statistics does not show us that Christians are morally superior to unbelievers. I defy you to adduce a single reason for �88 Letters to the Clergy. believing that they are so. When I was imprisoned for bringing your religion into “ disbelief and con­ tempt,” I found it was taken for granted that every criminal belonged to some form of faith. There were a few Jews, many Catholics, and more Protestants. Their religion was stated on the cards affixed to their cell-doors, mine being accurately described as “ None.” A chapel was maintained for their devotions, and a clergyman to physic their souls. Surely, then, you will not maintain that unbelievers fill our gaols, or populate them even in proportion to their numbers. Nor can it be maintained that they neglect their share of positive duty. They recognise the law of “ thou shalt ” as well as the law of “ thou shalt not.” You will find them conspicuous in every advanced move­ ment ; not, perhaps, in soup, blanket, and coal societies, which only skin and film the ulcerous sore, but in those radical associations whose object is rather justice than charity, and the prevention of evil rather than its mitigation. It is idle to tell me that the “ wonderful fitness ” of Christianity as a moral gospel has been “ tested by thousands of men and women.” The advocates of Buddhism, Brahminism, or Mohammedanism might make a similar assertion. The “ fitness ” in every case is the result of training. What men are “ fitted ” to is fitted to them. Had you been born and bred outside the pale of Christendom, you would have appreciated the “ wonderful fitness ” of some other faith. Thus far I do not see that you have established the credentials of your creed. I will now follow you through the remainder of your argument. You erect a number of dogmas on the basis of our ignorance of the origin of life and the evolution of mind. But this is entirely illegitimate. We are not entitled to reason from our ignorance. Every argu­ ment must be based on what we know. And while science is seeking a solution of new problems, I would remind you that its solution of old problems was always �The Credentials of the Gospel. 89 in opposition to religious dogmas. The clergy have always been wrong, and the presumption is that they are still wrong. I would also observe that the doc­ trines of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul prevailed for thousands of years before Chris­ tianity was born, and are therefore no part of the speciality of your faith. You are more to the point in asserting that “ one religion”—to wit, your own—“'occupies a place of unique superiority.” Yet the statement is somewhat vague. I understand “unique,” and I understand “ superiority,” but I cannot put them together as adjective and substantive. What is unique is not superior, and what is superior is not unique. You assert that “ all Christian nations stand im­ measurably above all others.” Do you include Abyssinia in “ all Christian nations,” and if not, why not1? Or do you regard it as “immeasurably above” Ceylon in morals or China in civilisation ? What, also, do you mean by asserting that “ in spite of tlieir many wars, the Christian nations of the world form, in a very real sense, a political brotherhood ” ? Where is the political brotherhood between France and Germany, or England and Russia? Is it not a fact that nine-tenths, at least, of the quarrels in the world are between Christian nations? Have not Christian nations carried the art of war to its highest develop­ ment ? Do they not manufacture all the rifles, all the cannon, and all the gunpowder, as well as all the rum, brandy, gin, and whiskey? You yourself admit that “ No army has the slightest hope of victory unless armed with the weapons and directed by the strategy of Christian nations.” You add triumphantly that “ The sword has passed into the hands of those nations who recognise the unique majesty of the lowly Nazarene.” This is the only part of your lecture with which I have the honor to agree. I would remark, however, that the military power of Christendom has nothing G e �90 Letters to the Clergy. whatever to do with Christianity. Where were the “ weapons 33 and the “ strategy33 of your faith when it vainly hurled crusade after crusade, for three centuries, against the infidel Saracens ? Where were the “ weapons 33 and the “ strategy ” of your faith in the seventh and eighth centuries, when the successors of Mohammed swept Christianity out of Asia and Africa ? Did not the Cross go down before the Crescent on a thousand battle-fields ? And what has turned the tables ? What has put the power of the sword into the hands of Christian nations ? Is it not that Science which the Church fought tooth and nail, with the vigilance of a sleuth-hound and the ferocity of a tiger? Without Science, the British troops would not have slaughtered the Soudanese. Without science, England would have established no empire in India; without science, the Anglo-Saxon race would never have colonised the world. Had Christianity succeeded in strangling Science, as she furiously endeavored, Europe would still be plunged in barbarism, and would have to hold its own against the hordes of Asia and Africa by sheer physical valor. It is well that civilisation gives us the means of defending it. It is well that Europe is for ever safe from the incursions of outer barbarians. But how strange the eulogy of our military prowess sounds from the lips of one who “ recognises the unique majesty of the lowly Nazarene.” Did he not declare that whoso took the sword should perish by the sword ? Did he not teach the sinfulness of resisting evil ? Did he not command his disciples to present their cheeks humbly to the smiter ? Are you not glorifying Science instead of Christianity ? Are you not riding roughshod over the plainest teachings of your master ? How will you present yourself at the Day of Judgment before the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount ? With respect to Art, you assert that it “owns, the supremacy of Christ.” You remark that “ Non­ Christian nations contribute nothing to our galleries of �The Credentials of the Gospel. 91 painting and sculpture, or to the world's treasury of music/' The grain of truth in these statements is simply this, that Europe leads the world’s culture. But it did this before Christianity appeared, and the explanation is not religious but physical. Christianity has not given the Abyssinians any ascendancy. It will not give it to converted negroes or South Sea islanders. The question of superiority is simply one of race and climate. Given the Caucasian, with his large and complex brain, and his superior facial angle, and he is bound to lead the march of progress. Science, literature, and art are not the product of Christianity ; they are the product of the Caucasian brain. This was true before Christianity appeared, and it will be true when Christianity has vanished. Your remarks on the impermanence of ancient civili­ sation, as compared with the modern, are simply amazing. Dating from the time of Charlemagne, which is a very liberal concession, we find modern Europe to be about eleven hundred years old; and during a large portion of that period it is only by courtesy that the West can be called civilised. The existence of Rome, under the Republic and the Empire, was nearly as prolonged, and the older civilisation of Egypt stretched back into the deepest mists of antiquity. It is true that Greece had but a brief career of glory, for she fell under the mightier sway of Rome. She was not conquered, however; or, if she was, she avenged herself. She liberalised her ostensible conquerors, and bequeathed the bases of our modern civilisation. Dig where you will, you come to Greece at last. Your very New Testament is written in Greek, and it was the Grecian mind that gave Chris­ tianity all its fecund power. It is perfectly true that Christianity arose in an age of decadence, and its doctrines and ethics savor of its origin. But there is, as I have already urged, no mystery in the remarkable progress of Europe after the long night of the Dark Ages. You say that �Letters to the Clergy. “ this phenomenon ”—the advance of Christian countries—“ demands explanation.” I assert that the explanation has been given. Modern civilisation arose among the same race, and in the same part of the world, as that in which the immediately preceding civilisation had flourished. The Renaissance itself began in the very country which had been the seat of the Roman empire. Your assertion, therefore, that “ of the pre-eminence of the Christian nations, no explanation can hr. found except in their Christianity is a piece of baseless dogmatism. Why the Turks have stagnated and decayed, while the Hungarians have advanced and improved, is a more complicated problem than you seem to imagine. If Christianity made all the difference, I ask you why Christianity did not civilise Abyssinia? There are political and climatic differences of the highest im­ portance, as will be admitted by every student of history and ethnology. With respect to Christianity itself, I know not. why you should say that it “arose suddenly.” It is in­ disputable that Jesus Christ—if he existed was born in a particular year; but that is the only element of “suddenness” in the history of your faith. Many influences besides that of the Prophet of Nazareth contributed to the formation of Christianity. This is such a commonplace of criticism that I will not con­ descend to ai'gue it. Your religion is as much a product of evolution as any othei’ system with which we are acquainted. That Christianity “ overspread the mightiest empire in the world” is undoubtedly true. It had converts in all parts of the Roman empire. But they scarcely numbered a twentieth of the population when it was made the state religion by Constantine. From that moment, it was not persuasion that made converts, but wholesale bribery and persecution. Proscription, fine, imprisonment, and murder, were the agencies by which the triumph of Christianity was completely secured. �The Credentials of the Gospel. 93 You assert that Christianity is “ now spreading to the ends of the earth.” I deny it. The Christian populations outside Europe are descended from European emigrants. The extension is merely physical. What impression have you made on the heathen populations of Asia and Africa ? Is not the failure of your missions a byeword 1 . Nor can I follow your assertion that “ The entire history of man affords no example of personal influence, and of devotion to and confidence in a person, which can for a moment be compared to the influence exerted by, and the devotion paid to, Jesus of Nazareth.” You are only speaking as a Christian to Christians. The names of Mohammed and Buddha are a sufficient refutation of your statement. I am astounded at your assertion that “ Paul’s firm belief of the Gospel reveals the deep impression made upon him by the personality of Jesus.” Is there the slightest evidence that Paul ever saw or heard Jesus ? Did he not despise and persecute his followers'? Was he not converted by a miracle or a sunstroke ? And is it not a fact that the Jesus of Paul’s epistles is far more a doctrine than a person ? I appeal to every­ one who has read his epistles apart from the four Gospels. Paul did, indeed, declare that Jesus had risen from the dead. But what is his testimony worth ? Do not his statements in Corinthians flatly contradict the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ? Did he not disbelieve the Resurrection on its intrinsic evidence ? Is not the fact apparent from his persecution of its believers before his strange experience near Damascus ? Does he not place this “ appearance ” of Jesus on a level with his appearances to the eleven ? And is not his testimony vitiated by this hopeless confusion of the subjective and the objective ? Ci Was the dead body of Christ raised to life1?” you ask ; and you add that “ upon this matter of historic fact depend the highest hopes of man.” If you believe �94 Letters to the Clergy. this, as I have no doubt you do, it is natural that you should make a little evidence go a very long way. You make no attempt to prove the Resurrection. You simply ask the sceptic “ How do you account for this and that if he did not rise V’ And the this and that are not facts of ordinary history, buty»ar£ of your own records. You ask the sceptic to explain the “ belief ” in the Resurrection. How do you explain the belief of the Mormons in Joe Smith’s gold tablets ? Mr, Froude tells us of Julius Caesar that “the enthusiasm of the multitude refused to believe that he was dead. He was supposed to have ascended into heaven, not in adulatory metaphor, but in literal and prosaic fact.” How do you explain that ? You say that the story of Christas resurrection was “ accepted by thousands of Jews.” The statement is founded on your own dubious records, written long after the time. But if it be true it proves nothing, unless the Jews were men of unconquerable incredulity, whereas they were grossly superstitious. If Jesus did rise from the dead, the great wonder is that all the Jews did not believe it. “It must be admitted,” says Diderot, “ that the Jews were a wonderful people; everywhere one has seen peoples deluded by a single false miracle, and Jesus Christ was unable to impress the Jews with an infinity of true ones.” The incre­ dulity of the Jews is a greater miracle than thq Resurrection. What you have to say about the dead body of Jesus shows a great want of historic perspective. How can it be affirmed that “ the most powerful party in Jerusalem had the strongest motive ” for disproving the story of the resurrection ? They had put Jesus out of the way, his disciples were a mere handful of insignificant men, and what did it matter if they talked about his having risen from the dead ? It was a harmless craze, and the priestly party had other matters to attend to. That they were “ exposed to a deadly peril ” is a wild assumption, utterly at variance �The Credentials of the Gospel. 95 with what is known of the very slight spread of Christianity among the Jews. Had it spread like a wildfire, and become threatening, and had the priests been publicly challenged to produce the dead body, there would be something in their silence. But nothing of the sort happened. Even if it had, and if after the lapse of months or years the sepulchre had been found empty, the priests might justly have answered that the body had not been buried by them, but by one of Jesus’s disciples, and that the disappear­ ance of a corpse, in such circumstances, was anything but miraculous. Still more absurd, if possible, is your plea that the disciples would not have shown such courage in pro­ pagating a delusion. The strength of a conviction is no proof of its validity. History shows us that men have displayed the most heroic courage in defending falsehood and imposture. Self-sacrifice proves a man to be in earnest, but does not prove him to be in the right. You say that the Resurrection “ has held captive many of the most intelligent and cultured of men, and now for many centuries nearly all the best of men.” You forget that these meu have been trained to believe it. VVith the exception of Paul, whose conversion, as I have said, was due to a miracle or a sunstroke, how many “ intelligent and cultured ” men accepted the Resurrection in the primitive ages ? Is it not a fact that Christianity spread among the poor, the lowly and the illiterate ? Is it not aiso a fact, as Gibbon observes, that the illustrious Pagans of that period considered the Christians “ only as obstinate and perverse enthusiasts, who exacted an implicit submis­ sion to their mysterious doctrines, without Jbeing able to produce a single argument that could engage the attention of men of sense and learning ” “? Passing to the question of miracles in general, you admit that “miracles do not happen,” but you deny the right of anyone to say that they never did. �96 Letters to the Clergy. Theoretically you may be correct, but practically you are wrong. Men cannot help reading the past by the present, and if miracles do not happen now the inevitable presumption is that they never did happen. Against this presumption you must bring an overwhelming array of evidence in favor of any particular miracle, and such an array of evidence is never produced. To talk about the “mysteries of nature is nothing but jugglery. If we cannot, at present, explain the origin of life, we" know what kind of evidence is requisite to justify us in believing that a man rose from the dead. And assuredly you will never impress a man of ordinary culture by telling him that when he lifts a weight he “ defies the law of gravitation?"’ If the Resurrection be a delusion, you remark that a delusion has saved the world. ” To prove this extra­ ordinary . paradox, you paint in dark tints the “corruption” of the Roman empire, and in light tints the morality of Christendom. Does it not occur to you that some progress might be expected in two thousand years ? Is it fair, is it rational, to point to the im­ proved morality of this sceptical age, and cry “ Behold the fruits of eighteen centuries of Christianity ? ” Turn to Mr. Cotter Morison’s book on The Service of Man, and read his chapter on “ Morality in the Ages of Faith.” Take the case of France alone, and see the effect of Christianity on private and public life. “ The court of the later Valois/’ says Mr. Morison, “ is painted for us by the garrulous Brantome; and one fails to see how it differed, except for the worse, from the court of Caligula or Commodus."” The same writer puts the whole question at issue in a few sentences. “Do we find, as a matter of fact, that the Ages of Faith were distinguished by a high morality ? Were they superior in this respect to the present age, which is nearly on all hands ac­ knowledged not to be an age of Faith ? The answer must be in the negative. Taking them broadly, the Ages of Faith were emphatically ages of crime, of gross and scandalous wickedness, of cruelty, and, in a word, of immorality. And it �The Credentials of the Gospel. 97 is noteworthy that, in proportion as we recede backward from the present age and return into the Ages of Faith, we find that the crime and the sin become denser and blacker.” The present age is the most unbelieving and the most moral the world has ever seen. All you can reply is that 44 anti-Christian teachers have themselves been trained in a moral and intellectual atmosphere formed by many centuries of Christian influences.” This hardly applies to John Stuart Mill, for instance, who was trained without any religion by his sceptical father. Besides, it is a two-edged argument. Sup­ pose 1 were to say that Christians are kept in check by secular and social opinion. Suppose I were to say that if it were not for the secular civilisation of our age they would return, via, the Salvation Army, to the primitive rites and doctrines of their faith, and show, in anarchy and barbarism, the unadulterated fruit of the Christian tree. If you have established the 44 Credentials of the Gospels,” you have only done so to the satisfaction of believers. You regard your 44 proof ” as 44 complete,” and I have no doubt it is as complete as you can make it. But I am very much deceived if it succeeds in convincing a single unbeliever. Let me, in conclusion, say a few words on your 44 precious possessions.” You have 44 faith in Christ and victory over sin.” Your faith in Christ is a sub­ jective phenomenon and can neither be proved nor disputed ; but your victory over sin will hardly bear the test of examination. I fail to see that Christians are morally superior to Freethinkers, and I defy you to prove that they are so. On the other hand, you hear 44 a voice from beyond the grave ” promising 44 to all who believe it immortal life,” and you cannot doubt 44 these glad tidings of great joy.” I presume this is the language of “the larger hope,” which dwells as little as possible upon hell and as much as possible upon heaven. But, for my part, I do not believe that such a sentimental compromise can be permanent. �98 Letters to the Clergy. I have read the New Testament for myself, and I am satisfied that its heaven and hell must stand or fall together. Consequently I cannot accept your “ glad tidings of great joy/’ which seem to me “ sad tidings of great grief.33 I cannot believe your creed, nor do I need its consolations, and I rejoice to be free from its great horror of eternal torment. I am content to follow my reason and obey my conscience. I may fail in both, for who but a pharisee is perfect ? But I still look calmly to the end. Should death be an everlasting sleep, I shall know no sorrow or regret. Should it be the entrance to a new life, I shall expect more sense and justice from God or Nature than I see in the dogmas of your faith. MIRACLES. * TO THE REV. BROWNLOW MAITLAND M.A. Sir,— I have purchased and very carefully read your little volume on “ Miracles 33 in the “ Helps to Belief” series. I cannot say that you have in any way helped my belief; though, perhaps, you may reply that I have no belief to be assisted. On the contrary, I feel more deeply than ever the hopelessness of a cause which has to be defended by subtle shifts and elaborate special pleading. What a difference between your plea for Miracles and the simple, manly, straightforward argu­ ment of Paley! I am well aware that the great Archdeacon showed a little of the wisdom of the serpent in his skilful illustrations, and that he sometimes pressed his evidence unduly. But his argument is on �Miracles. 99 the whole an honest one. . He appealed to reason and experience, and admitted that, in the last resort,, miracles, like everything else, must rest upon adequate evidence. Your treatise, however, is essentially an appeal against reason to faith. Your argument is almost entirely a, priori, and can therefore have no weight except with those who are already convinced. You devote nearly ninety-three pages to your point of view, to the antecedent objections to miracles, and to the presumption in their favor—all of which Paley dismisses with admirable brevity ; and you devote only twenty pages to the direct evidence for the Christian miracles. You give us a large and imposing portico to a small and beggarly house. Three-fourths of your time is employed in drugging the reader’s intelligence, so that when he approaches the real question at issue he may be easily deceived. With what contemptuous laughter would a legal advocate be treated, who should spend a whole day in opening his case, and devote an hour or two to the examination of his witnesses ! Yet this is piecisely the offence of which you are guilty. I am confident that if you conducted your case in this way before any tribunal, however loosely constituted, you would be severely reprimanded for wasting the time of the court, and peremptorily summoned to come to the point. As though anticipating such a criticism, you assert in your Preface that “ the case on behalf of the Christian miracles is considerably simplified by declining to defend them on the ground chosen by the sceptic/’ No doubt, sir; and the case would be still more simplified by declining to defend them at all. It would be simple and easy to assume the good old orthodox attitude of the days when sceptics were not to be reasoned with, but silenced by the resources of Christian charity. Why not declare at once that Christianity is a divine religion, from battlement to basement; that whosoever believes it will be saved, and whosoever disbelieves it will be damned ; that to defend �100 Letters to the Clergy. it is absurd, seeing that God will take care of his own; and that the cavils of the sceptic only proceed from his corrupt and sinful heart ? But if you cannot take up this attitude, you are bound to meet the sceptic, ay, and on the very ground he chooses; for if you are defending the holy garrison, instead of leaving the task to its divine master, you have no choice but to repel attacks at the very points where they are made. Nothing could be more ludicrous than rushing off to the opposite side, brandishing your weapons with immortal courage, and declaring that, whatever may be going on else­ where, the citadel at this point is absolutely invulner­ able. If I cared for the honor of your church I might also remind you that it is better to face the enemy than to show him your rear. He will not spare you on account of your cowardice, and if you must fall you should at least fall with dignity. Declining to meet the sceptic on his own ground, you affirm that the miracles of Christianity are “ lifted out of the mechanical into the moral sphere.” What is this but saying that they are lifted out of the sphere of reason into the sphere of faith ? Your object seems to be to reverse the natural order of things. Instead of proving the foundations to be solid, and afterwards examining the superstructure, you expatiate on the wonderful character of the edifice and argue that it largely guarantees the solidity of the basis,. Permit me to say it does nothing of the sort, and to add that no amount of declamation from the windows will prevent the building from tumbling down. How important is the question of Miracles, and how absurd to treat it with subterfuge, like the ostrich who buries his head to save his body from the hunters! Your own words may be cited against yourself. After pointing out that Christianity is “ from beginning to end supernatural,” you declare that “ the only possible alternatives are—a miraculous Christianity, or no Christianity at all.” Reject the miraculous, you say, and i( the entire Christian revelation would disappear �Miracles. 101 with it. No Christ would in that case he left to us. The man Jesus might remain ; but the Son of the Father would have vanished, and the Gospel would have shrunk into a fable. Christianity, thus deprived of its cohesion, would fall to pieces, and become num­ bered with the wrecks of worn-out beliefs.” True and forcible words! I heartily agree with you, and I am surprised at your making so feeble a defence for the very life of your faith. It is not my purpose to follow your remarks on the peculiar solemnity and importance of the Christian miracles. The argument is sentimental, and its force depends on temperament and training. You are able to see some subtle moral lesson in the cursing of a barren fig-tree, and I dare say you would find it in the cursing of a barren woman. You are able to discern a lofty spiritual meaning in the trick of turning water into -wine, or the production of half-crowns from the mouth of a fish. But such things impress me very differently. I regard them as childish stories, and marvel at their appearance in a pretended revelation from God. You may draw convenient distinctions between Christian and other miracles, but I can see none. You smile at the prodigies of Paganism, and you allow that no possible testimony could make the miracles of Catholicism credible. I extend the same consideration to the miracles of your faith. The scientific mind places all miracles ip the same category, and the historic mind views them as inevitable marks of inferior stages of culture. There is no necessity, either, to expatiate on the existence of God and his moral governorship of the universe; or on the doctrine of free-will, which you curiously regard as indispensable to a belief in the miraculous, as though Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards had never lived or written. Whatever a miracle may be on its theo­ retical side, on its practical side it is a matter of fact. �102 Letters to the Clergy. What is the use of an elaborate abstract argument to prove that a prisoner stole a watch ? What would be thought of a prosecuting counsel whose whole discourse was a disquisition on human frailty ? The question at issue is—Did the prisoner steal a particular watch at a particular time and place ?—and this must be decided by evidence. So with regard to the alleged resurrection of a man from the dead, or his birth without the agency of a human father. If such an event occurred, it must have been at a particular time and place, and in particular circumstances; and the fact must be established before we ’are entitled to discuss the theories of its explanation. You admit, yourself, in one of your intervals of lucid common sense, that “ The question whether it has ever occurred cannot be decided in the negative, any more than in the affirmative, by theoretical considerations, but must be solved by a patient sifting of evidence.” Do you not see that this admission condemns the whole plan of your book? Have you not devoted five-sixths of your space to “ theoretical considerations,” and only one-sixth to the “ patient sifting of evidence ” ? All you have to say about the antecedent prob­ ability or improbability of miracles amounts to this, that no one is entitled to say that miracles cannot happen. But why such a painful demonstration of a truism ? Neither Hume, Mill, nor Huxley, asserts the impossibility of miracles. They simply regard them as highly improbable, and you appear to be of the same opinion- “ Of course,” you assert, “ the general experience creates a presumption against the miraculous —a presumption so great as to necessitate a most rigorous scrutinity of the evidence, before an alleged miracle can make good its claim on our belief.” With this statement I concur; my only complaint is that you do not appear to possess the slightest conception of what is involved in the “ rigorous scrutiny of evidence.” Whoever admits that miracles are possiblef&oes so on the ground that anything is possible. I am not �Miracles. 103 prepared to denv the possible existence of a planet made of green cheese. I am ready to believe that a man is able to jump over a moon. All I require, before I believe in such prodigies, is the production of proof. And who will venture to dispute the justice of such a condition ? Modesty forbids me to ask more, and common sense forbids me to ask less. You will see, then, that I am quite insensible to the reproach that good men are the readiest to receive the Christian miracles. No doubt the Brahmin and the Buddhist would address you in the same vein. You will allow me to smile at your statement that “ the real touchstone was the doctrine,” and at your implication that the disciples of Jesus were the best men in all Palestine, while the rest of the population, who declined to follow him, were either “ careless or worldly” or “ thoroughly selfish and corrupt.” The story of Gamaliel, in the fifth chapter of the Acts, should alone have caused you to hesitate at perpetrating a wholesale libel on the countrymen of your Master. It seems as though the Christian apologist were under the imperative necessity of balancing his exaggerated praise of Jesus with the most unscrupulous defamation of unbelievers. I must also be permitted to smile at your reference to “the self-satisfied and sensuous sceptic.” Jesus forbade his disciples to indulge in the moral attitude of “ I am holier than thou,” but it is a peculiarity of Christians to neglect all the sensible teachings of their Savior. Ncr can I maintain a serious face on reading your description of Christianity as “ standing before us with the unmistakable marks on its brow of super­ natural energy, and filling the world with fruits which the natural stock of humanity could never by itself have borne.” What are “unmistakable signs” of “ supernatural energy,” and why are they visible on “ the brow ” ? I should also like to know whether you reckon among the supernatural “ fruits ” of Christianity such articles as racks, thumb-screws, wheels, and red- �104 Letters to the Clergy. hot iron boots ; and such phenomena as persecution, proscription, religious wars, and holy massacres. I will pass in a moment to your “ direct evidence of the Christian miracles.” But, before I do so, I wish to point out that you have forgotten to deal with, or even to mention, some of the principal antecedent objections to the miraculous. And yet, at least on one occasion, they lay right in your path. Speaking of the unbelieving Jews, who attributed the miracles of Christ to the power of Beelzebub, or were provoked by them into a passionate hatred, you say that “ To all of these alike the miracles were real, according to the testimony of the Gospels.” Surely the reflection must have occurred to you, while you were writing thissentence, that it was not the custom, in those ages, to dispute any body of miracles. Every religion, every sect, had its special supply; and the question at issue was, not which were real, but which were superior. Satanic, as well as divine, miracles are recognised in both the Old and the New Testament. Nor did the primitive Christians, or even the Fathers, ever dream of denying the miracles of Paganism. They ascribed them to the agency of demons, and simply vaunted their own as manifestations of the true God. It is beyond question, therefore, that the belief in miracles —good, bad, or indifferent—was then universal; and extravagant stories derived from an age of such abounding credulity, and gross ignorance of the laws of nature, are antecedently improbable. I would also observe that all the New Testament miracles, from the Incarnation to the Ascension, and from the first prodigy of Peter to the last prodigy of Paul, were believed and related by Jews, a race of men famous for their super­ stition, and laughed at on that account by the Boman satirists. To accept a supernatural story on their testimony would be like going to the madhouse for a jury and to the gaol for a judge. Not only have all religions had their miracles, but the miracles of all religions diminish and finally dis­ �Miracles. 105 appear in the light of science and civilisation. Then we behold the spectacle of a people laughing at the miracles of to-day, and staking their faith on the miracles of yesterday. Distance lends enchantment to the view. But only for a time. In the long run men will argue that miracles do not happen, and therefore they never did. The student of human culture will see the miraculous in its true perspective, and under­ stand the laws of its birth, development and decay; but the ordinary man, who lives and thinks in the present, will always use it to interpret the past and the future. What happens, did happen; what happens, will happen. Such is his logic, and in the main it is sound. But whether sound or unsound, it cannot be shaken by sermons or apologies. You say there is a God. Let it be admitted for the sake of argument. The question then arises, why did he work miracles in the past ? The answei' is, to prove and convince ; that is, to prove the doctrine and convince the spectator. But does not the same necessity for the miracles still exist? Is not the doctrine more doubted, and even rejected, than ever ? Are not the leading minds, in science and philosophy, outside the fold of faith ? Are not the Darwins, Mills, Huxleys, and Spencers as influential as the twelve apostles? Why then are no miracles wrought to convince them ? You can only reply that the Age of Miracles is past. Yes, and the Age of Reason has come. I now come to the only pertinent chapter in your little volume. Even there, however, you cannot refrain from your besetting sin. In the very first paragraph you seek to prejudice the reader’s mind in favor of what you desire him to believe. You remark that the miracles of Christianity are “ sufficiently probable to be believed on such testimony as in other serious matters would carry conviction with it.” The phrase is an artful one, and does credit to your subtlety. You insinuate that miracles are to be judged of like �106 Letters to the Glergy. “other serious matters,” as though there were no degrees in seriousness, as though the testimony that would convict a man of petty theft would suffice to prove that he raised the dead. Surely you must be aware that the more wonderful an allegation is, the more rigorous is the evidence which is required to substantiate it. Suppose, for instance, it were alleged that a dead man had come to life again. Would not the evidence of such an extraordinary occurrence need to be, not only “ adequate ” but overwhelming, before any sensible man would believe it 1 The testimony of persons who saw him die, and who witnessed his being placed in a tomb, would not suffice. Men have some­ times been thought dead, a doctor has given a certificate, the undertaker has made the coffin, and the “ corpse ” has revived. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to have positive proof that the man was really dead. On this point the evidence of ordinary observers is utterly worthless. “ Even medical evidence,” as Huxley says, “ unless the physician is a person of unusual knowledge and skill, may have little more value. Unless careful thermometric observation proves that the temperature has sunk below a certain point; unless the cadaveric stiffening of the muscles has become well established; all the ordinary signs of death may be fallacious.” Now I ask you seriously—for these are “ serious matters ”—whether any miracle of the New Testament was ever subjected to such a scrutiny. According to Hume, there is no miracle in human history which is supported by the amount and kind of evidence that would be requisite to establish it. No one has ever refuted this assertion, and I challenge you to refute it if you can. Set aside the prodigies of other faiths, and take your pick of the miracles of Christianity. Select the Resurrection if you will, and see whether you can produce as much evidence as would gain you a serious hearing in any court of law. What is your “ direct evidence ” of the Christian miracles ? You begin by passing over the Gospels, on �Miracles. 107 account of “ the partial obscurity which is alleged by critics of the modern sceptical school to envelope the date and authorship of these records/’ You select the four “ authentic ” epistles of St. Paul as “ documents over which no manner of doubt hangs ;” and upon these writings of a man who was not an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, who hardly refers to any miracle whatever except the Resurrection, and who, with respect to this one, flatly contradicts the Gospels and the Acts—you base the colossal edifice of Christian supernaturalism ! Supposing there is any truth in the Acts, it is incontestable that St. Paul disbelieved the Resur­ rection on its merits. He regarded the followers of Jesus with hatred and contempt. And how was his conversion effected ? You audaciously assert that “ he was won over to it [Christianity] by irresistible evidence of its truth.” But what is the fact? His conversion occurred on the road to Damascus. And how ? Did he sit down and say to himself “ Paul, vou had better think the matter over; this Jesus may be God, his miracles may be real, his Resurrection a fact, and his disciples the witnesses of truth; ponder the evidence once more, and carefully, before you proceed with your persecutions ” ? Did he calmly review the whole case, and rise with a conviction that he had been deceived ? Nothing of the sort. The “ irresistible ” something which turned the current of his life was not the weight of evidence or the power of argument. It was apparently a miracle or a sunstroke ; whatever it was, it was not an operation of reason. To assert, therefore, that he was won over to Christianity by “ the irresistible evidence of its truth,” is to fly in the face of your own records, and to presume too openly on the mental negligence of your readers. St. Paul’s scepticism before this physical convulsion is neglected in your argument. You simply dwell on his subsequent belief. But is this ingenuous ? You describe him as a man of “ powerful intellect.” How �108 Letters to the Clergy. was it, then, that his powerful intellect led him to believe that Christianity was false ? Setting aside the miracle, which you cannot assume, as miracles are the question in dispute, what single scrap of fresh evidence was presented to his mind during the rapid process of his conversion? The evidences of the Resurrection remained the same throughout. Before the shock, his unbiassed mind regarded it as fabulous; after the shock, he regarded it as true. But which of these mental states is of the most importance to an unpre­ judiced inquirer ? Assuredly, if you were not arguing in favor of your prepossessions, you would allow that the Resurrection was more damaged by St. Paul’s early scepticism than benefited by his later belief. In any case, St. Paul was not an eye-witness of the Resurrection, and the testimony of eye-witnesses is indispensable. For the rest, I have only to remark that you are ill-advised in claiming those “ five hundred of the brethren,” many of whom were known to St. Paul as having “ seen Jesus alive after his death and burial.” The statement is absolutely inconsistent with the Gospels, and especially with the Acts, where we are told (I., 15) that the total number of the brethren, after the Ascension, was only “ about an hundred and twenty.” You cannot expect to take advantage of a point on which your own witnesses flatly contradict each other. There seems no limit, however, to the assumption of Christian apologists. You not only claim those five hundred brethren, but actually parade them as “ hun­ dreds of persons who knew Jesus personally, and went forth at the risk of their lives to testify of his Resur­ rection,” and this in connection with a graphic picture of the sufferings of the early Christians I Again I complain of your disingenuousness. The Christians of the first century must not be credited with the mar­ tyrdoms of the second century. With the single exception of Stephen, who lost his life in a religious tumult, as thousands have done since, 1 defy you to �Miracles. 109 prove that a single witness of the Resurrection, or a single disciple of Jesus Christ, suffered martyrdom. Upon this point the apologists of your faith have systematically deceived theii' readers. If we reject the fantastic legends of the travels, achievements, and deaths of the twelve apostles, we are compelled to doubt with Gibbon “whether any of those persons who had been witnesses to the miracles of Christ were permitted, beyond the bounds of Palestine, to seal with their blood the truth of their testimony” Your own records prove that the first Christians found the Roman tribunals an assured refuge against their Jewish perse­ cutors. Not until the reign of Nero (a.d. 64), more than thirty years after the Resurrection, did the Christians fall under the stroke of cruelty; and, as Gibbon is persuaded, the “ effect, as well as the cause, of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of Rome.” The martyr-witnesses of the Resurrection, therefore, are the mere offspring of imposture and credulity. The fact is, you cannot produce the testimony of a single eye-witness, good, bad, or indifferent. You are unable to trace the Gospels beyond a period “ early in the second century,” and, although you refer to c< a pre-existing narrative,” you are unable to tell us what it was, or indeed to assure us that there were not a dozen. Such documents, if they ever existed, which I admit is probable, are irretrievably lost. The four Gospels remain. Two of these do not profess to be the account of eye-witnesses, and the other two— Matthew and John—cannot be so in the light of your argument. You appear to think that the early Christian writers could not be “ weak-minded enthusiasts, open to hallucinations, or carried away by marvellous stories which had no foundation in facts.” But why not ? Why should they, and they only, be exempt from the common frailty of their age When cultivated Greeks and Romans were deluded by fables, and a grave �■110 Letters to the Clergy. Roman historian could relate a public miracle of the emperor Vespasian, is it conceivable that the ignorant and superstitious Galileans should be superior to such weakness? You are ready to ascribe the ecclesiastical miracles to “ignorance, superstition, or craft.” But such miracles were unhesitatingly accepted by the very Christian writers you must appeal to in support of the antiquity of your Gospels. Miracles did not cease with the apostles, but continued without interruption. Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and St. Augustine, all declared that miracles were wrought in their ages. You believe they were all mistaken, and I believe that the first Christians were all mistaken. Honesty is quite consistent with delusion. History shows us that the best men have been deceived. That the Gospels are “ free from any marks of con­ scious embellishment ” I will not now dispute. Men who honestly believe in miracles will relate them as matters of fact. The supernatural is only “ dished up ” when belief is waning. Simple-minded believers, in former ages, were satisfied with the Gospels; but in this age of refined credulity the Gospels have to be manipulated by theological cooks. Hence the pon­ derous Lives of Christ that are constantly streaming from the press. You conclude by remarking with regard to miracles that “since the establishment of Christianity, they have, as we believe, ceased to be wrought.” By roe, of course, you mean Protestants; excluding the Catholics, who form the majority of Christians, and who believe that a stream of miracles has flowed through the history of their Church. But although you hold that miracles have ceased, you hint at the possibility of their resumption. Should some “ terrible anti-Christian power ” arise to persecute Christianity, and “ muster the forces of earth and hell to crush it out of existence/'’ you venture to hope that God will “ bare his arm ” and come forth to “ avenge his own �Miracles. Ill elect.” For my part, I smile alike at your fears and hopes. Unbelief will not persecute youi’ Church, but give it fair play, and let it live or die. You need be under no apprehension of Freethought imitating the vile example of Christianity. But, whatever happens, I do not think you will be assisted by miracles. They do not occur in an age of Science and Board Schools. What Schopenhauei’ said of religions is particularly true of miracles—they require darkness to shine in. Science is daily revealing to us the most marvellous truths, which dwarf the wonders of theology into insignificance. Instead of raising one man from the dead it saves millions of lives ; instead of curing one blind man with clay ointment it places ophthalmic hospitals at the service of a myriad sufferers; instead of feeding a casual crowd, once in a millenium, by the supernatural multiplication of loaves and fishes, it enables us to carry on a gigantic system of commerce, which sustains multitudes who would otherwise be unable to exist; instead of smiting a rock, and calling forth a spring for a single thirsty crowd, it brings a regular supply of water, year after year, to the great cities of our modern civilisation ; instead of enabling one man to walk the waves in a tempest, it constructs gigantic ocean steamers that ride the wildest storms, and convey their passengers with comfort and safety across the trackless ocean. Truth is greater than fiction, and science is mightier than miracle. �112 Letters to the Clergy. PRAYER. TO THE REV. T. TEIGNMOUTH SHORE, M.A. Chaplain-in-ordinary to the Queen. Sir,— Having read your little volume on Prayer in the “ Helps to Belief ” series, I venture to address some remarks to you upon it. I have read several other volumes in this series without finding my faith assisted: on the contrary, I have only wondered that such flimsy arguments and paltry evasions could be put forward by men of reputation in the Christian Church. My wonder diminishes, however, when I reflect that men did not become Christians by reason, but by early training. Their faith is not a conviction, but a prejudice ; and the least plausible answer to objections is sufficient to preserve a belief which reposes on authority instead of evidence. It was remarked by Carlyle, in his essay on Diderot, that the usual “ evidences ” of Theism never did, and never ought to, convince any Atheist. The fact is, creeds are taught first, and “ evidences ” manufactured afterwards; s» that they are not the proofs but the excuses of faith. I do not deny, therefore, that your volume may help the belief of an otiose believer, who has heard that there are objections to his creed, and is satisfied to see some kind of printed rejoinder, in order to assure himself that the ministers of religion are looking after his faith. It will doubtless quiet his apprehensions, and enable him to sleep in peace, while the sentinels are watching at the gates. But I am perfectly positive you will allay no single doubt in the mind of any thinking Christian. Such a person, I am confident, will be tempted to exclaim, “ If this is all that can be said in reply to sceptical objections, I had better at �Prayer. ,113 once regard my faith as untenable, and cry like the Israelite of old—Ichabod, the glory is departed.” According to your Preface, you have made “ an attempt to put simply and plainly the answer which may be given to the most ordinary difficulties which are urged regarding Prayer/-’ I admit that you have put the answers simply, but you have not put them plainly. You have involved them in a great deal of preaching, as though your purpose were rather exhorta­ tion than discussion ; and, like the other writers in thia series, you contrive to leave the real point at issue until the last chapter, where you treat it with a very discreet, if not judicious brevity. You insist, at the outset, on the necessity of defini­ tion, and ask the pertinent question—What is prayer ? But instead of answering it at once, you occupy a dozen pages in talking loosely upon the subject. When you condescend to define, you say that Prayer is “ the intercourse of the spirit of the child with the Father of Spirits; it is the submission of the human will to the Divine.” In a later part of the volume you observe that you are not called upon to “ explain or to defend parodies of Prayer offered up to travesties of God,” but merely the “ reasonableness of Christian Prayer to the God whom Christians worship.” I venture to assert that your definition is the parody, and that what you call the parody is the true doctrine of prayer. It is true that, with the progress of science and civilisation every religious doctrine becomes attenuated, until at length it becomes a vague sentiment, and finally disappears. But while Prayer has any real existence it will always savor of its origin. Prayer is not the submission of the human to the divine will. That is worship. Prayer is a petition. It is an appeal to God, who, as Jeremy Taylor says, loves to be held in a sweet constraint. The man who prays asks for something. He may do it as crudely as the converted heathen, in Tylor’s Primitive Culture, who, on being asked by the missionary to come to morning prayers, �114 Letters to the Clergy. replied, “ Thank you, I don’t want anything just now?’ Or he may do it as superfinely as a Queen’s chaplain. But, however he does it, his prayer will be found to contain a request for something, that would not arrive in the ordinary course of nature. Even in the Lord’s Prayer, between two thick slices of flattery, is sandwiched a petition for daily bread; and when I open the Prayer Book of your Church I find prayers for rain and sunshine, for calm weather at sea, for good harvests, for recovery from sickness, and for grace, wisdom, and understanding ” for “ all the nobility,” who certainly need it without ever appearing to obtain it. What is all this but an appeal to God’s goodness, and an attempt to influence his will ? You admit this yourself in a subsequent chapter, and therefore your definition is as childish in substance as it is childish in expression. Your definition having broken down, I must follow you as closely as your tortuous course will permit. You innocently observe that the efficacy of Prayer must depend on our conception of God. If he answers prayer, it is reasonable to pray ; if he does not it is unreasonable. Exactly I If a shop sells bread, it is reasonable to go there to purchase it; if not it is unreasonable. But the question is—does the shop sell bread ? And that, you will observe, is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. When you assert that the efficacy of Prayer must only be discussed in relation to “the idea of God” which is expressed in “ the doctrine of the Church,” you are begging the question most flagrantly. A child might see through such a shallow artifice. Still more absurd, if possible, is your later assertion that “ Christianity as a whole is the true explanation and the strongest defence _ of the doctrine of Christian Prayer.” “ Admit the truth of Christianity,” you say, “ and Prayer is perfectly intelligible.” Of course it is. Swallow the whole box, and you will certainly have any particular pill. Prayer is an integral part of �Prayer. 115 Christianity, and telling me that if I admit Christianity I accept Prayer, is informing me of a very obvious truism. You can hardly regard this as an argument, and its use implies a gross contempt for the in of your readers. Although your definition of Prayer is a lamentable failure, you continue more or less in the spirit which inspired it. You assert that “true Prayer cannot flourish in an atmosphere of probability; it must breathe the air of clear and certain confidence. Only those can really pray who believe absolutely that every true prayer is heard and answered by God.-” This is a most convenient theory for the theologians. If the prayer be not answered, they can always reply that it was not a true prayer—whatever that may be —or that the supplicator’s faith was not absolute., Nay, I observe that you go to a still greater length of precaution. You assert that “ No is quite as much an answer as Tes.” If we obtain what we pray for we are answered; if we do not obtain it we are also answered. What a beautiful theory ! How blandly the theologian plays the innocent game of “ Heads we win, and tails you lose.’’’ Your theory is quite incapable of proof or disproof ; argument is useless on the one side or the other; it can only be left to the indignation of ^honesty and the derision of common sense. You say that desire and faith are the essential ele­ ments of Prayer. But such a truism does not require the elaboration you give it. You might as well dilate ■on the gastronomic truth that a good appetite is an •essential element of a good dinner. Forgetting that God is omniscient, or taking a ■singular view of that attribute, you say that we do well to remind him of our wants, but our prayers must be general and not particular. We shall show our modesty by desiring him to oblige us, without stipulating how he is to do it. We must leave that to him, for our knowledge of how anything is to be accomplished in �116 Letters to the Clergy. the “ varied and complex conditions of life” is “ partial and fragmentary,” while he is able to see and foresee everything. “ Thus, in regard to the legitimate ambitions of worldly life, we may (subject to limitations, already and yet to be stated), feel fully justified in praying for our own needs or those of others; though to pray without reserve for any particular promotion, or any definite success as the means of accomplishing it, would scarcely be in harmony with the time spirit of Prayer.” It would therefore be quite right for an ambitious Christian to say to God “please push me on,’-’ but very improper to say, “ please give me this post.” But I think you will find, on reflection, that the human mind thinks by particulars, and that it is impossible to dissociate the idea of advancement from the steps that must be taken to gain it. If my house were on fire, and my child in an upper room, which could not be approached by the staircase; if I were to plant a ladder against the wall, and saw that I must pass a window through which flame and smoke were belching; do you mean that it would be a true prayer if I said “ Let me mount to the top and descend in safety /’ but a false prayer if I said “ Let me pass and re-pass that terrible window ’’’ ? Your fine distinction seems to me perfectly chimerical. To an omniscient mind every chain of causation, whether extending through a day or a lifetime, is equally finite; and if there be any presumption in the case, it is as great if I ask for a prosperous life as if I ask for a particular blessing. It is true that if God exist he has a superior knowledge of means, but it is also true that he has a superior judgment of ends; and whether I ask for the end or the means, I am acting with equal simplicity. To tell an omniscient God of my wants is childish. Can it be more than childish to ask him for a particular favor ? Prayer necessarily proceeds upon the assumption that man can influence the will of God, and you prove �Prater. 117 this by your serpentine efforts to evade it. You draw impossible distinctions between God’s ultimate and immediate will. You talk of his unchanging purpose, yet you speak of exciting his emotions of tenderness, mercy, and love; as though, in the words of Ladv Macbeth, we could screw him to the sticking place! Such words as “ plead,” “ appeal,” “ beseech,” and “ implore,” are unintelligible, except as exciting emotion and influencing volition. Nor can I follow your assertion that it would be “ a mockery ” to ask God that the sun may not rise to-morrow, in order to mitigate a scorching heat. This was not the belief of the chosen people, who recorded the stoppage of the sun, in order that they might slaughter their enemies. It is idle to say “ we know it is God’s will that the sun shall rise to-morrow.” We know nothing of the kind, I admit we have a very good reason for believing it will rise to-morrow, but we have as good—because it is the very same—reason for believing that every law of nature will be in perfect operation, without violation, suspension, or accident. When you say that “ we do not know in the least whether it may be God’s will that a hurricane should die down at a particular moment,” and present this as a reason why we should pray for divine help in the crisis of a storm, you are only saying that meteorology is not as well understood as astronomy. There was a time when Christians prayed against an eclipse. Why ? Because they did not understand its causes. They still pray, though with diminishing heartiness, against bad weather. Why? Because they do not understand its causes. When they do understand its causes, they will cease praying against it, and confine their supplications to what is still con­ tingent. Now contingency is nothing but ignorance. When a coin is tossed into the air, men will bet on its falling “ heads or tails.” But the uncertainty is only in their . minds, for the fall of the coin was absolutely deter­ �118 Letters to the Clergy. mined on its leaving the tosser’s fingers. Similarly next week’s weather, or next year’s harvest, is deter­ mined already, only we do not possess the knowledge that would enable us to foresee it. When we come to the infinitely varied phenomena of human society, we are only able to perceive a few broad sweeps of ten­ dency. All the rest is uncertain to us, though certain enough in itself; and it is this mighty realm of con­ tingency that you shrewdly mark out as the future preserve of Prayer. “ I maintain,” you say, “ that in the regulation and variation of these conditions by the human will and choice there is a very wide margin for what I may call contingency.” This is perfectly true ; but if contin­ gency only means ignorance, and the consequent incapacity of prevision, it is obvious that you are reduced to the extremity of praying in the dark. Where light obtains, you find we have nothing to do but submit to the obvious will of God, or, in other words, to the necessity of Nature. The last quotation introduces a new factor—the human will. You appear to regard this as an indepen­ dent force, whereas it is the decisive action of a number of concurrent forces. This is an operation you do not appear to understand. You assert that “ a child holding a stone in its hand is to a very real and recognisable degree modifying the results of the action of gravity itself.” Did you ever know of gravity acting by itself1 The child no more modifies ? the action ot gravity by holding up the stone, than would a ledge upon which it had fallen. The law of gravity is acting with unerring precision all the time, as you will find by weighing the child, first with the stone in his hand, and then without it. The difference is the weight of the stone, and the weight of the stone is the action of gravity. You shrink from the cruder notions of prayer, although you ultimately find yourself bound to defend them, and maintain that God answers prayer �Prayer. m by controlling “ the physical world indirectly, through his action upon human thought and will.” According to this theory, when Smith prays for anything, he is asking God to influence Jones, Brown and Robinson. Instead of desiring the forces of nature to be directed towards his benefit, he is requesting that his fellow creatures may be shuffled into a more favorable com­ bination ; and as J ones, Brown, and Robinson are praying at the same time for the reshuffling of Smith, your doctrine terminates in a universal shuffle, and human society becomes a mere transformation-scene under the presiding genius of Prayer. Having reduced the world to this condition, you easily perceive whatever you desire. “We may then/’ you declare, “ pray for the recovery of a patient, and if God guides the physician’s genius to a true appre­ ciation of the nature and the proper remedy for the cure of the disease, we may consider the cure so effected in every true and reasonable sense a direct answer to our Prayer.” You call this “ true and reasonable.” I call it hocus-pocus. You are a Queen’s chaplain, and a great deal more dexterous than the simpleminded Peculiar People, but I have a far higher opinion of their honesty. I suspect, if the patient were your wife or child, you would leave as little as possible to the Lord. You would call in a skilful physician, who required but a modicum of divine superintendence and leave your poorer brethren, who can only afford the services of an inferior practioner, to experience the utmost efficacy of your celestial nostrum. Instead of skulking behind ambiguous illustrations, I invite you to take a simple one, and see whether it confirms or contradicts your theory. Let us go to the Prayer Book of your Church, which is a volume that binds you as a clergyman. In the “ Forms of Prayer to be Used at Sea” I find a special prayer against storms, containing the following ejaculation : “ O send thy word of command to rebuke the raging winds and the roaring sea; that we, being delivered �120 Letters to the Clergy. from this distress, may live to serve thee, and to glorify thy name all the days of our life.” Let me ask you to explain how God’s acting upon the physical world indirectly, through his action upon human thought and will,” is likely to make a storm subside. It seems to me that human volition cannot break or bend a single law of nature, and that human thought has no effect on the weather. The only way to save a ship in a storm is to handle her well, and throw overboard a few gallons of oil, which can be done by Atheists as well as by Christians. Super­ stition says that the will of God can control the winds and waves by some mysterious process. The doctrine is, of course, unintelligible, but you have undertaken to teach it. Yet you did not undertake to explain or defend it, and you are ill advised in attempting to do either. Your safest course is to say “ God does still storms in answer to prayer, but I do not know how he does it.” Not only does your theory of God’s control of the physical world by human agency break down, but you connect it with a metaphysical theory which has been repudiated by the greatest doctors of your own faith. Your argument stands or falls with the doctrine of Free Will. You perceive unchanging law in the external world, but you declare that the internal world of man’s nature is “ another department where God governs, not by Law, but through the freedom of the human Will.” I will not now discuss Free Will. There is no need to do so. You are defending Prayer as a Christian, and are not entitled to assume what many of the greatest Christians have denied. A’theoryof Christian prayer which would necessarily be rejected by Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards ; a theory which flies in the face of the plainest teaching of Saint Paul; a theory which is explicitly condemned by the tenth and seventeenth Articles of your own Church; such a theory, I say, is totally inadmissible �Prayer. 121 unless you prove it in opposition to these preponderant authorities ; and as you make no attempt to prove it, but simply postulate it as though it were a Christian axiom, I am justified in declining to accept it as a basis of discussion. The only question which is worth discussing, after all, is this—Does God answer Prayer ? Or, in other words—Is Prayer answered ? Now this is a question of objective fact, for I have contended, and you tacitly admit, that every one who prays asks for some­ thing that would not happen in the ordinary course of nature. It is idle to say that the lives of praying men prove the efficacy of prayer. You your­ self furnish the answer to this sophism, before attempting a singularly feeble reply. It is downright folly to assert that “ Christianity as a whole is the true explanation, and the strongest defence of Chris­ tian Prayer,” for that is assuming everything at first, and proving it afterwards in detail by means of the general assumption. The question is not whether God might, could, would, or should answer Prayer, but, in yom? own words, Does he do so ? Now the only way to answer this question is to appeal to evi­ dence. It has been proposed by Professor Tyndall, on the suggestion, I believe, of Sir Henry Thompson, that an experiment should be made in some hospital, by especially praying for the patients in one ward, and seeing whether it affords a greater percentage of cures. Such a proposal is alarming to the professors of mystery; for all religions die of being found out, and experiment is fatal to their pretensions. Accordingly you declare that this “ so-called experiment would, as a matter of religion, be a blasphemy,” and that “ Prayer made under such conditions could not have in it the essentials of Prayer.” But of course you carefully refrain from suggesting an experiment which would conform to the true conditions, and which would, at the same time, be a real experiment. Nor do you explain why God should regard as “ blasphemy ” an i �122 Letters to the Clergy. endeavor to ascertain the truth or falsity of a doctrine taught by priests. It is only religion that cries “ blasphemy I ” in the presence of investigation. Professor Tyndall did not propose that Atheists or unbelievers should pray for the patients in his special ward. His proposal was that they should be prayed for especially by every Christian congregation. Why should you regard this as “ blasphemy ” ? Is not this very thing allowed by your Prayer Book? In the “ Collect or Prayer for all conditions of men, to be used at such times when the Litany is not appointed to be said/-’ I find these words:—“ Finally, we com­ mend to thy fatherly goodness all those who are any ways afflicted, or distressed, in mind, body, or estate; [especially those for whom our prayers are desired}.” And a marginal note to this clause orders :—“ This to be said when any desire the Prayers of the Congre­ gation.” It would seem, therefore, that the Church itself commits the “ blasphemy ” of offering special prayers for individuals, and is hardly entitled to cry “ blasphemy 1” against others who propose to do the same. While waiting for your experiment, I look abroad in the world, and find no practical recognition of the efficacy of Prayer. No Life Assurance Company would calculate a sovereign's life policy on the ground that her subjects asked God to “ grant her in health and wealth long to live.” No Fire Insurance Company would grant a policy on a House of Prayer unless a lightning conductor were run up to prevent the Deity from making mistakes in a thunderstorm. Underwriters never think of asking whether the captain prays or swears, or whether he carries rum or missionaries. And when the Peculiar People use prayer, without mixing it with medicine, they are browbeaten by Christian coroners and jurymen. Let me advise you, sir, before you write again on this subject to read Mr. Francis Galton's article on Prayer in the Fortnightly Review for August, 1872. This keen, �Prayer. 123 scientific writer points out that in all the medical literature of modern Europe he has been unable to discover “ any instance in which a medical man of any repute has attributed recovery to the influence of prayer.” Yet they are always on the watch for sanative agencies, and if they do not strive to obtain the healing influence of prayer for their patients •“ it is not because their attention has never been awakened to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary, that although they have heard it insisted on from childhood upwards, they are unable to detect its influence.” Mr. Galton finds a way, too, of dexterously passing your wing and attacking you in the rear. Granted that the future is uncertain—that is, unforeseeable— there is still no uncertainty about the past. What has been has been; and although God, as you suggest, might frown upon and frustrate an attempt to make him the subject of a scientific experiment, not even Omnipotence can undo the past, and we may investigate it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer has been efficacious. Pursuing this line of inquiry, by the aid of historical and statistical tables, Mr. Galton discovers no trace of Prayer as an efficient cause. For instance, it is presumable that pious parents pray for their unborn offspring; as a still-birth is usually regarded as a misfortune, and baptism is thought so necessary to salvation that the Catholic Church provides in extreme cases for the baptism of the child in the womb. Yet Mr. Galton found, on analysis, that the lists in the Times and the Record showed exactly the same proportion of still-births to the total number of deaths. And this is only one of a dozen illustrations of the absolute nullity of your theological specific. You give only two answers to Prayer, and they are extremely ancient. Nay more, they are selected from the Bible I 0 sancta simylicitas ! Moses prayed to see “ the good land beyond Jordan,” and died without seeing it; but fifteen hundred years or so afterwards �124 Letters to the Clergy. he saw it from “ the summit of Tabor ” when Christ was transfigured. What a precious “ help to belief I ” Paul also prayed God to remove his “thorn in the flesh”—whatever that was; and, although the thorn was not removed, God “ gave the grace to bear it.” Well, if there be a God, let us hope he will give us grace to bear the logic of theologians. Pardon me, sir, for citing another answer to Prayer; no more apocryphal than your instances, and more recent and refreshing. In a Western State of America—you see the story is not two thousand years old—there was a long and unprecedented drought. All the farmers were in despair, for if rain did not soon fall there would be no crop in the locality. The Baptists therefore resolved to hold a Prayer Convention. Delegates assembled from all the churches and prayed lustily for rain. After two hours’ wrestling with God they received a telegram from a town with a large annual rainfall. It ran thus—“ Stop praying at once, we are flooded out.” Pardon me, also, for citing another answer to Prayer. The great Johnstown reservoir—a lake three miles by one—burst in the early summer of 1889, and devastated a populous valley, sweeping away houses, factories, and churches, and drowning ten thousand people. When the deluge had done its awful work, one bereaved woman was found near a muddy pool looking for her loved ones. On the rescuers approaching her she cried, “ They are all gone. O, Heaven, be merciful to them! My husband and my seven dear little children all swept away, and I am left alone.” Her terrible story is best told in her own words, as reported in the papers at the time. “We were driven by the awful floods into a garret, but the water followed us there inch by inch. It kept rising until our heads were crushing against the roof. It would have been death to remain; so I raised the window and placed my darlings, one by one, on some driftwood, trusting them to Providence. As I liberated the last one, my little boy, he looked at me and said, ‘ Mamma, you have always told me that �Prayer. 125 the Lord would care for me ! Will he look after me now ?’ I saw him drift away with his loving face turned towards me, and in the midst of my prayer for his deliverance he passed from my sight for ever. The next moment the roof crashed in, and I floated outside to be rescued fifteen hours later. If I could only find one of my darlings I could bow to the will of God, but they are all gone. I have lost everything on earth now but my life, and I shall return to my old Virginia home and lay me down for my last great sleep.” That poor woman taught her darling a lie. She did not think so; she took it on trust from the priest, who taught it as a trade. The worth of the doctrine might have been read on the boy’s dead face and the mother’s bleeding heart. Let me presume a little further on your patience. You will remember, perhaps, that the Prince of Wales was once stricken with gastric fever. Prayers were offered up for him daily, and the newspaper articles were nothing but sermons. But secular means were not neglected. The prince was tended by skilful nurses and the most eminent doctors. With their assistance, and the aid of a good constitution, he recovered. But the clergy insisted that his recovery was due to prayer. Accordingly a national Thanks­ giving Service was held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. God was duly thanked, but the doctors were not forgotten. One of them was knighted, and all were handsomely rewarded. Probably you would claim the Prince of Wales as a living proof of the efficacy of Prayer. But before you boast of it let us see what happened in America. President Garfield was shot by a pious assassin. Week after week Science fought with Death over his sick bed, and the awful struggle was watched by a trembling world. “ O God, let him live! ” prayed millions in church and chapel. “ O God, spare him, my husband, my darling ! ” cried the agonised wife. But his life ebbed slowly away amidst a nation’s prayers for his recovery. �126 Letters to the Clergy. If God saved the Prince of Wales, why did he not save President Garfield ? Is he a respecter of persons after all ? Oi' does he love Monarchies and hate Republics ? You are bound to give some answer ; for what sensible man will let you prove the efficacy of prayer by counting the hits and neglecting the misses ? And I defy you to give any answer without confuting your doctrine or dishonoring your God. • In the little sermon with which you conclude, you picture Christ standing “ amid the surging, weeping throng of agonised humanity ”—all created by the God of love—and hearing their cries for help from “ sin.” But is it not a fact that all the alleged miracles of Christ were physical ? Where in the whole of the Gospels, did he make a single bad man good? “I have chosen you twelve,” he said ; “ and one of you is a devil.” He had, therefore, in Judas a fine subject for one of his “ spiritual ” miracles. But did he work it? No, the “devil” betrayed him, and Judas has been cursed by Christians ever since. Pursuing the same idea, in an earlier part of your volume, you assert that “if Prayer, and answers to Prayer, are sometimes concerned with material and physical matters, it is only in connection with spiritual and moral conditions.” If you mean that miracles are always wrought in connection with religion, you are only uttering a barren truism ; but if you mean that Prayer is never answered for the merely temporal welfare of men, you are flying in the face of the Bible and the Prayer Book; and I must add that such a trick of special-pleading is a curious commentary on the airs the clergy give themselves as the divinely called servants of “ the God of truth.” Let us take the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, to say nothing of the many material answers to prayer in the Old Testament. Does it not contain a distinct request for “ daily bread ” ? And what is there spiritual or moral in this petition ? Is it not merely the voice of self-preservation, a cry from the stomach, a plea from �Prayer. 127 the animal nature? And is it not in strict conformity with the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, where we are told to take no thought for the morrow, what we shall eat or what we shall drink, but to leave all such things to^the care of God ? Prayer, in its beginning, was purely material. In the higher religions of civilised and moralised nations other characteristics are found. The deity is besought to diminish social evils, to redress wongs, to punish the wicked, and to increase righteousness. But just as the anthropoid in developing his brain did not lose his stomach, so the loftier developments of Prayer overlay without destroying this primitive stock. In its earlier stage, as Tylor says, it was “ unethical.” Look at this prayer, offered bj the head of a family in the Samoan Islands, when tha^ibation of ava was poured out at the evening meal. “ Here is ava for you, O Gods I Look kindly towards this family : let it prosper and increase ; and let us all be kept in health. Let our plantations be productive : let food grow; and may there be abundance of food for us, your creatures. Here is ava for you, our war gods !' Let there be a strong and numerous people for you in this land.” So the Gold Coast negro prays, “ God, give me to-day rice and yams, gold and agries, give me slaves, riches, and health, and that I may be brisk and swift.” Here is a* Vedic prayer—“What, Indra, has not yet been given by thee, Lightning-hurler, all good things bring us hither with both hands . . . with mighty riches fill me, with .wealth of cattle, for thou art great.” This is a Moslem prayer—“ O, Allah I make this town to be safe and secure, and blessed with wealth and plenty.” So your Church Service bids 'the congregation pray on behalf of the Queen, “ grant her in health and wealth long to live.” And so the Lord’s Prayer sums up all these material petitions in one compendious phrase— “ Give us this day our daily bread.” “ Throughout the rituals of Christendom,” as Tylor observes, “ stand an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle �128 Letters to the Clergy. from savage tiAes—that the weather -may be adjusted to our local needs, that we may have the victory over all our enemies, that life and* health and wealth and happiness may be ours?’ Your Prayer Book contains special forms of prayer against storms at sea, against sickness, for rain, for fine weather, and similiar mercies. What have these to do with “spiritual and moral conditions?” They are all bodily or material, and have nothing to do with “ the soul?’ That you are well aware of them goes without saying, for, as a clergyman of the Church of England, you must have uttered them frequently; and the Prayer Book is not so large a volume that a minister might plead ignorance of its contents. Your own ritual is thus a clear and flagrant proof that supplications are made to God for material blessings, quite independently of any other reMlts. Obviously, then, to assert that Prayer, even in Christian circles, is always connected with spiritual and moral conditions, is quite unwarrantable; and especially so on the part of a clergymen of the Church of England. Here I take leave of your volume. You have not “helped” my “belief.” You have said nothing to convince a doubter of the efficacy of Prayer. But you have shown me, once more, that Christianity has in its service a number of intelligent, accomplished, and well-paid men, who juggle and chop straw for a living. If I prayed at all, I would pray that they might despise the wretched business, and earn even a scantier allowance of bread in a more honest avocation. ��� 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 &amp; 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 Letters to the clergy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: vi, [7]-128 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Replies to material published by several bishops and theologians. First published in The Freethinker. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N252 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy 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 (Letters to the clergy), 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