1
10
37
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bad13bb65b8e1903b97f57f80077b179.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OFFDoWj6lGlF%7EoJtyNNdnDGqthhRs8S1%7EkLKhD4B8Cn98ev1VArrVc4GQOdOaWVNVSO9Yp2Alt%7E7O6Cc8w4Fnwd9L4kXXNYA-c%7EzpmL64igsdoAV1%7E2zKLXarkBurKRiO0n80Wn1l9o9JyWJ23CKjqzXjdjRgwYnqMkhe-dlgbgVc4SrW9SrLpBpZh7-pBxzT8MFEMLdbE9y87vo96P6wh5nABBjLd38fYOkck841WGy58zl3gWJ1W5joycfW21C1y7bIumclY0XfwOh6Md7Vunert-mAi0WaQPWHV1qAAm2TooG8ojnzXkQjsH%7EdKY%7E19icTj%7ELTfdUslJWRi2o4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
29ff36be7e502b57433456b40d88f817
PDF Text
Text
WILL CHRIST
SAVE US?
AN EXAMINATION OF
THE CLAIMS OF JESUS CHRIST TO BE CONSIDERED
THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Price Sixpence.
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1893.
��M17I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WILL
CHRIST SAVE US?
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1892
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
28
STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�Will Christ Save Us?
----------♦----------
Christian Churches are big firms in the soul-saving business.
The principal of all these firms is a person who is said
to have established the trade nearly nineteen hundred years
ago. Some sceptics have doubted his very existence, but
they are generally held to be obstinately blind or wilfully
captious. Yet in any case it is indisputable that if Jesus
Christ ever lived he died, and though he is declared to
have risen from the dead, he is also said to have ascended
into heaven. He is no longer on earth, except in a theological
or mystical sense. The salvation business is carried on
by his agents, real or fictitious, appointed or self-appointed.
They charge various rates, and issue diverse prospectuses.
It seems impossible that the founder of the business can
authorise such contradictory advertisements or such various
price-lists; nevertheless the many different firms, who all
pretend to be branches of the original house, and sometimes
to be the original house itself, are all busy, and some do
a roaring,, profitable trade.
Soul-saving, as we have said, is the business of all these
Christian establishments or branches. Many people, however,
are doubtful whether they have souls to save, and they are
not the least moral and intelligent members of the human
species. Science is leaving little room for souls in our
economy. Evolution shows a gradual line of development
from the lowest to the highest orders of life, and it is more
and more difficult to see where the soul comes in. The very
Churches, indeed, are beginning to appreciate the growing
indifference on this subject, and are issuing manifestoes
about their intention to save men’s bodies as well as their
�4
Will Christ Save Us?
souls. General Booth himself was obliged to follow this
line when he wanted to raise £100,000 for the promotion
of his scheme of Salvation.
All these Christian establishments or branches profess
to be powerless in themselves. Their strength and efficacy
are derived. They do all things through Christ. It is he
who works in them. They vend salvation medicine, but he
is the patentee. We may therefore set them aside, and deal
with him, his recipe, its virtues, and its testimonials.
We will consider, first, the disease for which he offers
a remedy. He is to save us, but what is it he is to save us
from? We are told it is from sin, and its consequences.
What then is sin ?
If sin is offence against our fellow men, inflicting misery
upon them for our own interest or gratification, or with
holding assistance when we might render it without greater
injury to ourselves, it is hard to see how Christ can save
us from it. Preaching appears to be of little avail. Didactic
morality has always been barren. Many a boy has written
“honesty is the best policy” all down the length of his
copybook, and gone to the playground and sneaked another
boy’s marbles. Have all the billions of sermons fiom the
pulpit had any appreciable effect on the morale of human
society? But culture, wise conditions of life, examples of
actual heroism, flashing utterances from the brooding depths
of genius, an arresting picture, a pregnant poem, a story
of love stronger than death, of virtue stronger than doom;
these have improved and elevated men, and quickened
the springs of goodness in millions of hearts.
Selfishness is the root of much evil. In the natural sense
of the word it is the only sin. But how will Christ save us
from selfishness ? We are told that he gave his life for us
and this should make us kind to our fellows, out of mere
gratitude. He did not die for us, however; every man
has to die for himself. If it be meant that he gave his
�Will Christ Save Us?
5
life as an atonement to God, we reply that such a transaction
is unintelligible. Jurisprudence does not allow one person
to atone for another ; and how can the suffering of innocence
diminish the selfishness of guilt ? Supposing Jesus Christ
to be merely a man, he could n ot bear the sins of the world
upon his own shoulders. Supposing him to be God, does
it not seem farcical for God to atone to himself, satisfy
himself, pay himself, and discharge himself?
Sin, in the form of selfishness, vitiates our nature ;
its consequences afflict our fellow men; and neither the
interior mischief noi’ the exterior evil can be remedied by
theological hocus-pocus.
Setting aside the huge improbabilities of the Crucifixion
story, and treating it as substantially true, it is impossible to
regard Jesus Christ as a real martyr. He died for no prin
ciple. He was not called upon to renounce his convictions.
The slightest exercise of common sense would have saved his
life. His end was rather a suicide than a martyrdom. His
trial and execution are an incomparable tragic picture, which
has made the fortune of Christianity; but if we allow reason
to operate in the midst of terror and compassion, we cannot
fail to perceive that the tragedy involves no ethical lesson or
heroic example.
We are equally disappointed if we turn to the teaching of
Jesus Christ. Nearly all his ethics have a selfish sanction.
Future reward and punishment, the lowest motives to right
conduct, are systematically proffered. Those who forsook
family and property for his sake were to receive a hundred
fold in this life, and a still greater profit in the next life.
“ Great is your reward in heaven ” Was his highest incentive,
except in occasional moments when he was truer to the
natural instincts of sympathy and benevolence. Not in such
teaching is the cure for selfishness, but rather its intensifica
tion. A finer spirit breathed in the Pagan maxim that
“ Virtue is its own reward.”
�6
Will Christ Save Us ?
Christ cannot save us from selfishness, because he appeals
to selfish motives. Still less, if possible, can he save us from
the consequences of selfishness. No man or god can do thatWhat is said is said, what is done is done. The lie, the
slander, the innuendo; the harsh word, the malicious smile,
the savage frown; the fraud, the curse, the blow; these have
passed from effects into causes, and produce misery in ever
widening circles, as the stone dropped into a still lake pro
duces an extending circle of ripple, whose vibrations continue
when lost to the perception of human eyes.
Even if we admit the blamelessness of Christ’s life, for the
sake of argument, without laying stress on many high
qualities that were lacking in his nature, it is impossible to
regard him as our “ great exemplar,” and in that sense as
our Savior. Regarded as God, he is beyond our imitation.
We have not his means, he had not our weakness. If he was
“ tempted as we are, yet without sin,” he was not tempted as
we are. The external solicitation is powerless without the
internal proclivity. Public-houses are the same to drunkards
as teetotallers, yet they alternately attract and repel. On
the other hand, if we regard Jesus as a man, how are we to
imitate him then ? Most of his life-story is miraculous. We
cannot cure the sick, give sight to the blind, hearing to the
deaf, speech to the dumb, or restore dead sons and brothers
to their mothers and sisters. Our powers and duties are
more prosaic. VTe want incentive and guidance as husbands
and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, friends
and citizens: and here the example of Jesus fails us as utteily
as his teaching.
Let us first look at the example and the teaching of Jesus
from the domestic standpoint, which is of incalculable impor
tance.
The unit of the human race is neither the man nor the
woman; it is the family. Here the supplementary natures
of men and women find free scope, as husband and wife, and
�Will Christ Save Us?
7
as parents, whose various functions, alike on the physical
and on the moral side, are equally necessary to the nurture
and education of their offspring. The family, indeed, is the
ark of civilisation, containing the sacred elements of
humanity, and preserving the germ of all social organisation
amidst the worst disasters that flow from the folly and
wickedness of nations or their rulers.
In this respect the example of Jesus is worthless. He
was certainly not remarkable for filial devotion. Of his
relations with his brothers and sisters we know next to
nothing. He was not married, * and was therefore unac
quainted with the duties of a husband and a father. What
ever else his example may be worth, it is entirely valueless
in regard to domestic obligations. Men, and even gods, can
only be an example to us so far as they have been in our
position. Without this qualification their very advice is
apt to provoke laughter or impatience; a truth which is
reflected in the proverb that bachelor’s children are always
well brought up.
The teaching of Jesus, on this point, is as barren as his
example. It is a singular fact, which rarely attracts the
attention of believers, that the domestic ethics of Christianity
are not to be found in the Gospels, but in the epistles of
Saint Paul. Jesus does occasionally condescend to touch the
question of sexuality, which lies at the basis of all our social
life; but on such occasions he is either enigmatic or repulsive.
He appears to have regarded sexual relations in the spirit of
an Essenean. One of his sayings went still farther; it
prompted the great Origen to emasculate himself as a candi
date for the kingdom of heaven. Another fervent disciple
of Jesus in our own age, the great Russian writer, Count
Tolstoi, argues that no true Christian can enter into the
marriage relation. He quotes a number of the sayings of
Jesus in support of his argument. And what is the answer
of the Churches ? Their only answer is silence. They dare
�8
Will Christ Save Us ?
not meet him on this ground. They trust his article will bo
forgotten, and they act on the maxim “ the least said the
soonest mended.”
In a certain sense the virtue of industry is a part of
domestic morality. Although every worker may be regarded
as a cell of the entire social organism, it is not for society
that he primarily labors, but for his own subsistence and
the maintenance of his family. Now Jesus never taught
the virtue of industry. “How could he,” asks Professor
Newman, “ when he kept twelve religious mendicants around
him?” Here again it is to Saint Paul that we must go
for ethical teaching. So far as Jesus can be understood,
he taught a doctrine of special providence which cuts at
the roots of thrift and foresight. “ Take no thought for
the morrow,” and similar maxims, would, if acted upon,
reduce civilised communities to the condition of the lowest
savages, who live from hand to mouth, and feast to-day
and starve to-morrow.
The only escape from this difficulty is to treat such
maxims as mystical, hyperbolic, or allegorical. It is difficult,
however, to regard them in this light, when we remember
the whole drift of Christ’s teaching. We have not a few
isolated texts to deal with, but a whole body of inculcations,
culminating in the advice to a rich young man to sell all
he possessed and give the proceeds to the poor; advice,
indeed, which was universally acted upon by the primitive
Church, if we may trust the narrative in the Acts of the
Apostles.
We may further remark that if Jusus did not mean
precisely what he said in these numerous instances, the
Churches are bound to tell us two things; first, what he
did mean; secondly, why he spoke in a misleading or
perplexing manner. Was it worth while to cloud the path
of salvation with dark sayings ? And if a writer or speaker
does not mean what he says, is it really possible for anyone
�Will Christ Save Us ?
9
to be certain what he does mean ? Unless language is used
with its ordinary significance, every man will interpret it
according to his fancy, and the conception of its meaning
will vary with taste and temperament.
So much for Christ’s example and teaching with respect
to domestic morality. We will now, before examining his
other teaching, briefly consider his claim as “the great
exemplar ” in the more general sense of the words.
Not only is it impossible for us to imitate his miracles;
not only does he afford us no practical example in the
ordinary duties of life; his example in all other respects
is perfectly useless. As a god, we cannot imitate him;
as a man we cannot imitate him either, since it is impossible
to ascertain his real character; and the very fact that he
has been worshipped as a god precludes his serving as a
human model.
Let us elaborate these propositions a little. When a king
is dethroned it is undignified for him to take part in public
affairs. He should retire into private life. In the same way, as
Professor Bain observes, a dethroned God should not set up
as a great man, but retire into the region of poetry and
mythology. “ He who has once been deified,” says Strauss,
“ has irretrievably lost his manhood.” This is the reason
why Unitarianism, despite wealth, learning, and ability
achieves no success amongst the people. It is also the reason
why Christian panegyrists of the character of Jesus indulge
in such hectic eloquence. They must maintain a certain
feverishness; a lapse into cool reason would betray the
hollowness of their cause.
Jesus as a man is one of the most shadowy figures in
history, and his outlines perpetually shift as we read the
gospel narratives. It was this confusing fact which prompted
the following objection of Strauss to regarding the Prophet
of Nazareth as a human model:—
�10
Will Christ Save Us ?
“ I must have a distinct, definite conception of him in whom I am to
believe, whom I am to imitate as an exemplar of moral excellence. A
being of which I can only catch fitful glimpses, which remains obscure to
me in essential respects, may, it is true, interest me as a problem for
scientific investigation, but it must remain ineffectual as regards practical
influence on my life. But a being with distinct features, capable of
affording a definite conception, is only to be found in the Christ of faith,
of legend, and there, of course, only by the votary who is willing to take
into the bargain all the impossibilities, all the contradictions contained in
the picture; the Jesus of history, of science, is only a problem; but a
problem cannot be an object of worship or a pattern'¡by which to shape
our lives.”
Thus the “great exemplar” vanishes in the light of
rationalism; it can only exist in the twilight of faith.
There is, however, a more subtle and plausible aspect of
this “ great exemplar ” fallacy, which imposes on some who
are entirely free from orthodox superstition. It imposed
even on John Stuart Mill. That great man’s essay on Theism
was published after his death by Miss Helen Taylor, who
confesses that it had “ never undergone the repeated exa
mination which it certainly would have passed through
before he would himself have given it to the world,” and that
even its style is “ less polished than that of any other of his
published works.” At the close of this unfortunate essay
there occurs the famous panegyric on Christ. It is an
unusually rhetorical piece of writing for Mill; its statements
betray a great want of information on the subject, and its
reasoning is remarkably loose and inconsequent. Neverthe
less it has been eagerly seized upon by Christian apologists ;
and, as Professor Bain remarks, the inch of concession to the
existing Theology has been stretched into an ell. Mill dis
misses contemptuously the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and
declares that the Prophet of Nazareth “ would probably have
thought such a pretension as blasphemous.” Yet he treats
it as “ a possibility ” that Christ was “ a man charged with a
special, express, and unique commission from God to lead
mankind to truth and virtue.” “ Religion,” he says—meaning
of course Christianity—“ cannot be said to have made a bad
�Will Christ Save Us?
11
choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative
and guide of humanity.” And he adds that even the un
believer would have difficulty in finding “ a better translation
of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete,
than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our
life.”
“ My dear sir,” might the unbeliever reply to Mill, “ your
illustration and argument are alike arbitrary and fantastic.
Profound scholars like Strauss, and patient, well-informed
thinkers like George Eliot, plainly declare (and who can
seriously dispute it?) that the materials for a biography of
Jesus Christ do not exist. The ideal Christ is a creation of
centuries ; nay, the process still continues, each generation of
Christians. adding to, subtracting from, or in some way
modifying the never-finished portrait. The real Christ, if he
ever existed, is lost beyond all hope of recovery; he is buried
under impenetrable mountains of dogma, legend, and
mythology. In vain will you search the New Testament for
any coherent conception of his personality. The protean
figure is ever passing into fresh shapes; a hundred contra
dictory aspects flash upon your baffled vision. The total
impression upon the beholder is, as it were, a composite
photograph, representing types and qualities, but no individu
ality. To make it one’s ideal is only self-delusion. Even if
this objection be waived, and the intelligible personality of
Christ be conceded for the sake of argument, why should a
rational, self-respecting man bind himself to the perpetual
study and emulation of one type of character ? The seeker
for moral beauty, like the seeker for intellectual truth, should
gather honey from every flower that blooms in the garden of
the world. And why should Christ be made the ideal critic
of our actions ? Many a man devotedly loves his mother, or
cherishes her memory. Would it not be a safe rule for him
to act so that the dear dead or living parent would approve
his conduct ? But even this rule, in the wisest and loftiest
�12
Will Christ Save Us ?
estimate, is too personal and limited. It would be better to
act so that every honest man would approve our conduct;
better still, to act so as to secure our own approval. Let
men be true to themselves, let them broaden and deepen
their intellectual light, let them gain what help they can
from the example of great and beautiful lives, let them con
sider the consequences of their deeds; and having acted, let
them practise the benign art of self-reflection, bringing
their conduct before the inner tribunal of a sensitive con
science, whose judgment, if sometimes mistaken, will always
be pure and nearly always decisive. For every man who
takes the trouble to think (and without thinking what avails?)
will always know himself better than he can be known by
others; and thus the verdict of his own conscience is not only
superior to the brawling judgment of the ignorant world
outside him, but even superior to the judgment of the wisest
and best, who can never know exactly his motives, his powers,
and his necessities, or the myriad circumstances of his
position.”
Having seen that Christ is no real exemplar, and that fie
cannot save us from sin in the form of selfishness^ let us now
consider his power to save us from sin in its theological
significance.
The Christian theory is delightfully simple, and at the
same time brutally crude. It is not entirely derived from
the Gospels, but the Epistles are an integral part of the
Christian revelation, and a successful attempt to discard the
inspired authority of Saint Paul would eventually wreck the
entire structure of Christianity.
We must start with Adam, in whom all men sinned, as in
Christ all men are saved, who will be saved. The grand old
gardener, as Tennyson calls this mythical personage, was
created as the father of the human race. He was placed in
the Garden of Eden, and allowed to eat of the fruit of every
�Will Ghrist Save Us
13
tree except one, which was strictly forbidden. He was also
given a wife, who was made from one of his ribs, extracted
while he lay in a deep sleep. These two were the only
inhabitants of the garden, but there came a visitor, called
Satan, a powerful rival of the creator. This subtle and wily
adversary tempted the woman to taste the forbidden fruit;
she yielded, and induced her husband to taste it also. For
this act of disobedience they were expelled from the garden;
they were cursed by -their offended God, and the curse fell
upon all their posterity. Sin had vitiated their once pure
natures, and this vitiation was necessarily transmitted to their
offspring. Thus the whole human race is corrupt; in other
words, full of original sin.
This original sin puts enmity between God and his
creatures. God hates sin and must punish it. Every
sinner, therefore—and all men are sinners—owes God an
infinite debt, not because his sin is infinite, but because he
sins against an infinite being. But finite men can never
pay an infinite debt; therefore they are doomed to eternal
imprisonment in Hell, where the God of infinite justice
and mercy immures and tortures his wicked children.
This theory is set forth by hundreds of Christian divines,
in thousands of treatises, but no one puts it more cleaily
than the once-famous Rev. Charles Simeon in Nine Ser
mons on 1 he Sorrows of the Son of God, preached before
the University of Cambridge.
“ We, by sin, had incurred a debt, which not all' the men on earth, or
angels in heaven, were able to discharge. In consequence of this, we
must all have been consigned over to everlasting perdition if, Jesus had
not engaged on our behalf to satisfy every demand of law and justice.
.... Jesus having thus become our surety, our debt ‘ was exacted of
him, and he was made answerable ’ for it. . . . Hence, when the time
was come, in which Jesus was to fulfil the obligations he had contracted,
he was required to pay the debt of all for whom he had engaged ; and to
pay it to the very utmost farthing. It was by his sufferings that he dis
charged this debt.”
The suffering of Jesus was but for a time, but as an infinite
�14
Will Christ Save Us?
being he suffered infinitely, and hence his death was “ a full,
perfect, and sufiicient propitiation for the sins of the whole
world.
Such is the metaphysical juggling of Christian
dogmatists!
Now if this orthodox scheme of salvation be closely
examined, it will be found to be rotten to its foundation.
Adam never fell, and we are not inheritors of his vitiated
nature, nor participators in his curse. No such persons as
Adam and Eve ever existed. Their very names are not per
sonal but generical. Only modern ignorance or ancient
mythology speaks of the “ first parents ” of mankind. Evolu
tion does not admit the conception of a first man and woman.
The simian progenitors of the human race did not suddenly
develop into the genus homo. They did not wake up one
morning and find themselves men. Their progress was slow
and gradual, precisely like the psychical progress of humanity
since it virtually became such. Nature does not advance by
leaps and bounds, but by infinitesimal changes which only
amount to decisive alterations in vast periods of time. This
is the teaching of modern science, and in the age of Darwinism
the old story of the special creation of man falls into its proper
place, beside the other guesses of ancient ignorance.
If Adam did not fall, because he never existed, there is an
end to the Christian doctrine of original sin. The just and
merciful God, of whom we hear so much, did not curse his
children in the Garden of Eden for violating a prohibition
which had no moral significance; nor did he involve in the
curse the whole of their unborn posterity. The idea is only
mythological. Yet it adumbrates a certain truth. We now
perceive the great law of heredity, which applies in the
mental and moral as well as in the physical world. Children
do inherit something from their parents; not sin, for that is
an act, but tendency, disposition, or whatever name it passes
under. And in all of us there are passions inherited from
our far-off brute ancestors, that do war against our highest
�Will Christ Save Us ?
15
interests. But these passions are not in themselves a curse.
The evil is one of excess, or want of equilibrium, which it is
the business of social and individual culture to rectify. Take
away our passions, volcanic and insurgent as they sometimes
are, and you would reduce us to nonentity. Passion is our
motive power. Let the intellect and conscience employ this
natural force, directing it to the permanent good of each and
all, which in the long run are identical.
The new truth supplants the old error, at the same time
preserving whatever grain of verity it concealed. Only the
most docile and degraded slaves of superstition now believe
the hideous doctrine of original sin as it was preached by our
Puritan forefathers, and is still set forth in the creeds of the
Churches. Generous natures always revolted against it.
Loving mothers, bending over their little ones, never thought
them reeking masses of spiritual corruption. The answering
love in the child’s eye, the clasp of its little fingers, its
appealing helplessness, and its boundless trust, nursed the
holy flame in the mother’s heart, until it grew into a fire of
affection that consumed the evil dogma of birth-sin with
which the priest sought to over-lay her natural instinct.
Stern old Jonathan Edwards, that consummate logician of a
devilish creed, was not deflected from “ God’s truth ” by the
smiles of his children; but it is said that he never quite
convinced their loving mother. The logic of her heart was
better than the logic of his head.
Obliged to dismiss, as we are, the story of the Fall and the
doctrine of Original Sin, what becomes of the Atonement ?
Must it not go with them? Every student of religion
perceives that the doctrine of the Atonement is a last subli
mation of the old theory of Sacrifice. Men were once
slaughtered to appease the wrath of the gods; animals were
substituted for men as civilisation progressed; finally a
compromise was effected in the death of a man-god, whose
blood was a universal atonement.
�16
Will Christ Save Us ?
The savage origin of this central dogma of Christian
theology is betrayed in its nomenclature. “ Without shedding
of blood there is no remission.” “The blood of Christ
cleanseth from all sin.” “ Washed in the blood of the Lamb.”
Such are the flowers of speech in the garden of the Atone
ment. And who that has ever heard it fails to remember the
famous hymn ?—
There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Immanuel’s veins,
And sinners plunged within that flood
Lose all their guilty stains.
This language of the shambles would never be adopted by
civilised people. It comes down to us from ages of barbarism.
We lisp the words before we comprehend their meaning, and
familiarity in after years deadens our sense of horror and
disgust. Only when we break through the mesh of custom
do we realise the shocking nature of the “ holy ” language of
our hereditary faith.
Having once begun to reflect upon it, we soon perceive the
absurdity of the doctrine it expresses. We see it is false,
immoral, and foolish. Punishment is justifiable only as it
aims at the protection of society or the reformation of the
criminal. Having satisfaction out of somebody is simply
vengeance. Jesus Christ, therefore, could not be “ a propitia
tion ” for our sins, unless God were a brutal tyrant, who went
upon the principle of “ so much sin, so much suffering,”
regardless upon whom it was inflicted. Nor could the suffer
ings of Jesus Christ, borne for our sins, even if they appeased
our angry God, either remove the consequences of our illdoing in human society or prevent the inevitable deterioration
of our characters. And when we consider that God the Son,
who makes expiation, is “ of the same substance ” with God the
Father, who exacts it; and that the discharge of this “ debt ”
is like robbing Peter to pay Paul; we lose all control of our
risible muscles, and drown the demented dogma in floods of
laughter.
�Will Christ Save Us?
17
What honest man would be saved by the loss of another ?
It were noble for a friend to offer to die for me; it were base
for me to accept the sacrifice. He who hopes for heaven
through the sufferings of an innocent substitute, is not worth
saving, and scarcely worth damning. People are growing
ashamed of the advice to “ lay it all upon Jesus.” Selfrespecting men and women prefer to bear their own respon
sibilities. It is disreputable to sneak into heaven in the
shadow of Jesus Christ.
According to orthodoxy, Jesus saves us from the wrath of
God, who seems to be in a permanent passion with his
children. To speak plainly, he saves us from hell. But the
belief in future torment is dying out in the light of civilisa
tion and humanity. Men have advanced, and their god must
advance with them. Hell is being recogniseds^as “ the dark
delusion of a dream ” by the most educated, thoughtful, and
humane of our species ; and the progress of this emancipation
may be measured by the desperate efforts of the more astute
clergy to “ limit the eternity of hell’s hot jurisdiction,” or to
explain away a literal hell altogether as a false interpretation
of metaphorical teaching.
Salvation from hell in another fifty or a hundred years will
be universally laughed at, if not forgotten, in all civilised
countries. And the fate of the Devil is no less certain.
“ Deliver us from the evil one ”—as the Lord’s Prayer now
reads in the Revised Version—will only be a monument of
old superstition. The great bogie of the priest is going the
way of the . bogies of the nursery. We do not need to be
saved from Old Nick. Our real peril is in quite another
direction. The suggestions of evil do not come from Satan,
but from our own faulty and ill-regulated natures. Stupidity,
ignorance, sensuality, egotism, and cowardice; these are the
devils against which we must carry on an incessant warfare.
It may of course be plausibly argued that Christ was (and
is) God; that, being so, his ability to save us, here and hereB
�18
Will Christ Save Us?
after, is unquestionable; that, having the power to save us,
he may be presumed to have the desire; that he is the Son
of “ our Father which art in heaven,” and that we may—and
indeed ought to—rely upon his mercy and generosity for our
salvation.
Now there are two fatal defects in this argument. In the
first place, it is not clear that Christ was God; in the second
place, it is not clear that, if he was, he will certainly save us.
The deity of Christ has always been rejected by a more or
less numerous section of professed Christians. Learned
books have been written to prove that the doctrine is incon
sistent with the teaching of Christ and the utterances of the
primitive Church. Even an outsider, who studies Christianity
as he studies Buddhism or Brahminism, sees that the doctrine
of the deity of Christ—or the dogma of God the Son—was
slowly developed as primitive Christianity made its way
among the Gentiles. It required centuries to reach its per
fection in the metaphysical subtleties of the great Creeds,
which are accepted alike by Protestant and Catholic. Peter,
in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks to his countrymen of “ the
man ” Jesus whom they had slain; the god Christ was an
after construction of the Grasco-Oriental mind.
We do not propose, however, to trouble the reader with
laborious proofs of this position. We prefer to leave the
historical ground—at least in the present inquiry—and to
tread the ground of common knowledge and common sense.
Apart from history and metaphysics, for which the popular
mind has neither leisure nor inclination, and in which it is
often as easy for a skilled intelligence to go wrong as to go
right—there are only two ways in which the belief in Christ’s
divinity can be supported. It may be argued that he was not
born, and that he did not live or die, like a mere human
being; and that his supernatural career proves his deity. Or
it may be argued that he taught the world what it did not
know, and could never have discovered for itself.
�Will Christ Save Us?
,19
We will take the second argument first; and in reply w©
have simply to observe that a very slight acquaintance with
the teachings of antiquity will convince us of the truth of
Buckle’s statement, that whoever asserts that Christianity
revealed to mankind truths with which they were previously
unacquainted is guilty either of gross ignorance or of wilful
fraud. The note of absolute originality is lacking in the
utterances of Christ; what he said had been said in other
words before him; and it is inconceivable that God should
come upon earth, and go through all the painful and un
dignified stages of human life, merely to inform his creatures
of what they had already discovered.
Let us now take the first argument—the supernatural career
of Christ. We are told that he was born without a father;
but whoever will read the Gospels critically, without the
slightest reference to any other authority, will see that they
do not contain the first-hand testimony of any valid witness.
If the Gospels were written in the second century (as they
were) they are no evidence at all. If they were written
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they are still no
evidence of the miraculous birth of Jesus; for neither of
those writers was in a position to know the facts. The
only persons who could know anything about the matter
were Joseph and Mary. Joseph himself could only know
he was not the father of Jesus; he could not know who
was, Mary, indeed, knew if there was anything uncommon ;
but she does not appear to have informed any one; in fact,
she is said to have kept all these things hidden in her heart.
How then did the Gospel writers—or rather two of them, for
Mark and John were ignorant or silent—how, we ask, did
they discover the minute details of the annunciation and
miraculous conception ? Joseph and Mary appear to have
kept the secret, if there was one to keep; and during all the
public life of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, not a whisper
transpired of his supernatural birth ; on the contrary, he is
�20
TPzZZ Christ Save Us ?
unsuspectingly referred to as “ the carpenter’s son ” by his
neighbors and fellow citizens.
Were such “ evidence ” as this tendered in a court of law,
it would damnify the case for which it was adduced; and
Catholics are sagacious in reminding the Protestants that the
witness of the Bible is insufficient without the living wit
ness of the Church.
A miraculous birth is necessarily suspicious. The advent
of a Cod should be entirely supernatural. It is not enough
to dispense with a father; he should also dispense with a
mother. Both are alike easy in physiology. But when there
is a mother in the case, it is natural to suppose that there is
a father somewhere.
With regard to the miracles of Christ’s life, however they are
acceptable to faith, they are not acceptable to reason. There
is an utter lack of evidence in their favor—at least of such
evidence as would be admitted in a legal investigation. It
is this fact, indeed, which induces advocates like Cardinal
Newman to lay stress upon the “ antecedent probability ” of
the New Testament miracles; which is only supplying the
deficiency of evidence by the force of prepossession. Even
the Resurrection is unattested. There is no first-hand evi
dence, and the narrative is full of self-contradiction. This is
perceived by Christian apologists, who have abandoned the
old-fashioned argument. They say as little as possible about
the Gospel witnesses. They stake almost everything on Paul,
who is not mentioned in the Gospels, who never saw Jesus in
the flesh, who only saw him in a vision several years after the
Ascension, and whose testimony (if it may be called such)
would be laughed at by any committee of inquiry. They
also argue, in a supplemental way, that the early Christians
believed in the resurrection of Christ. Yes, and they believed
in all the miracles of Paganism. But in any case belief is not
evidence; it is only, at best, a reason for investigation. The
resurrection was a fact or it was not a fact, and the disincli-
�Will Christ Save Us ?
21
nation of Christian writers to face this plain alternative is an
indication of their own misgivings. A counsel does not resort
to subtleties when he has a good case upon the record.
The deity of Christ, therefore, is very far from proved; it
is even far from probable. Faith may cry “ He was God,”
but Reason declares “He was man.” Even, however, if he
were God, it does not follow that he will save us. What he
may do behind the curtain of death is only a conjecture. In
this world it is patent that God only helps those who help
themselves; he also helps them as far as they help them
selves ; that is, he does not help them at all. Prayer is no
longer a hearty request for divine assistance. Christians ask
on Sunday, but they do not expect to receive on Monday.
Their supplication is formal and perfunctory. They know
that it will not deflect the lightning from its path, or turn
the course of the avalanche, or divert the lava’s stream, or
change the line of an explosion, or banish a pestilence, or
bring rain in drought, or draw sunshine for the crops, or
quicken the growth of a single blade of grass, or diminish
by one iota the statistics of human crime.
It is, of course, impossible to prove that Jesus Christ did
not work miracles; nor is it incumbent upon the unbeliever
to attempt such an undertaking. He who asserts must
prove; other persons have only to try his arguments and
weigh his evidence. Is not every prisoner in the dock
presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty? And
should not the career of every being in the form of humanity
be presumed to be natural until it is proved to be super
natural ?'
This much, however, may be safely asserted by the
unbeliever—that whatever miracles were wrought by Jesus
Christ were only useful to his contemporaries; that he does
not posthumously save their successors from pain and
hunger, and disease and death; and that he certainly has
not through the Religion he came to promulgate, and the
7
�22
Will Christ Save Us ?
Church he came to establish—in the least degree succeeded
in saving the world, or any part of it, from evil and mianry
Let us expatiate a little upon each of these assertions; so
that, if they are disputed, they may first be understood.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels, or elsewhere in the
New Testament, that Jesus wrought any miracle on an
extensive scale, except the feeding of some thousands of
people at a religious picnic, by supernaturally multiplying a
few leaves and fishes, so that they served as an ample repast
for the hungry multitude. This was very convenient—for
that particular assembly. But of what service was it after
wards to the rest of mankind ? Has it ever filled out the
pinched cheek of want, put fresh blood in the blue lips of
famine, or new fire in the dull eyes of despair ? Babes have
died at the drained and flaccid breasts of their mothers, and
strong men have withered into shadows, for whom a little of
the miraculous food of Christ would have meant a real and
blessed salvation.
The other alleged miracles of Jesus Christ were entirely
personal. A blind man has his sight restored and a deaf
person his hearing; a dumb man is made to speak, who
might, perhaps, as usefully have remained silent; a cripple
is enabled to walk, a diseased person is healed, a widow’s
dead son and a sister’s dead brother are restored to their
loving embraces. All this was very interesting—at the time;
though it seems to have had a marvellously feeble effect upon
the Jews. But of what interest is it now ? Jesus did, indeed,
promise that his faithful disciples should work miracles
even greater than his own, and for a while they are said to
have done so; but their powers in this direction very
curiously declined as they came into contact with the educated
classes, and except in the most ignorant parts of Catholic
countries it is impossible to find a trace of the miraculous
virtue that was to be the “ sign of them that believed.”
Accordingly, the apologists of Christianity seek refuge in
�Will Christ Save Us 7
23
an arbitrary assertion, and a vague, unsustainable, and irre
futable argument. The arbitrary sssertionis (not in Catholic,
but in Protestant countries) that the miraculous powers of
the disciples of Christ ceased at some time aftei* his Ascen
sion. They do not say when; and it is easy to prove that
the miracles of the Church since the days of Constantine (for
instance) are better substantiated than the miracles of the
primitive ages. Still more extravagant, if possible, is the
argument that, whatever may be said as to individual cases
of miracle, the establishment of Christianity and its perpetual
maintainance is a miracle of miracles, a colossal and perma
nent proof of the ceaseless care of Christ for the salvation
of mankind. Logic, indeed, is powerless against the
assumption of something supernatural behind the Christian
Church—proof and disproof being alike impossible; but so
far as its history can be traced, its growth and progress are
entirely natural, like the growth and progress of Buddhism,
Mohammedanism, or any othei’ system that has arisen within
the historic period.
In any case the Christian Church has not saved the world.
Christianity lives upon the falsification of history in the past,
and irredeemable promises in the future. Its apologists
have systematically blackened the ancient civilisations; they
have taken credit for such improvement in human society as
was inevitable in the progress of two thousand years; and
against the objection that the world is still in a very wretched
condition, they have replied that Christianity has not had
time enough to produce all its beneficial fruits. Give it
another two thousand years, and it will turn the wilderness
into a paradise, and make the desert bloom with roses!
Now no one can give Christianity another two thousand
years; and if prophecy is easy, it is also unprofitable. What
will be will be, at the end of two thousand years as to-morrow,
but none of us will live to see it. Let us, therefore, take a
more practical course. We will take a few broad character
�24
Will Christ Save Us ?
istics of progress, and see what has been the effect of
Christianity upon European civilisation. In other words,
we shall ask whether Christ has saved the world; and the
result will help us to answer—as far as it can be answered—
the further question whether he will save the world.
There is one indispensable condition of all progress—
Liberty of Thought. Truth is the highest interest of man
kind ; it cannot be found unless we are free to search for it,
and even if it were found we could nevei- be sure of it without
examination. And it is impossible to say which of us will
find the next truth that may revolutionise the belief and
practice of society. Wise man was he, wrote Carlyle, who
said that thought should be free at every point of the com
pass. The wider the area of selection the greater the
variety; and he who seems one of the most insignificant of
men may link his name with a great discovery, a splendid
invention, or sublime principle. You cannot tell where your
Arkwright, Watt, or Stephenson will come from; your
Edison may be a street-arab selling newspapers; your
Shakespeare and Burns are born in unknown poor men’s
houses; your philosopher of the century may be unknown,
or half contemptible, until he flashes his truth upon the
minds of the few, who become his apostles to the many;
your social regenerator may live and die despised, or perish
in the prison or on the scaffold, and only earn fame and
gratitude when his ashes cannot be gathered from the
general dust of death.
Let thought be free then; free as the air, free as the
sunshine. Set it no limits. Let its only limit be its power
and opportunity. Let genius contribute its wealth, and
mediocrity its mite, to the treasure-house of humanity.
This priceless freedom of thought has always been hated
by Christianity. No religion has ever equalled it in steady,
relentless oppression. In every age, and in every nation, it
has called unbelief a crime. It has punished honest thinkers
�Will Christ Save Us?
25
with imprisonment, torture, and death; and threatened
them with everlasting hell when beyond the reach of its
malice. It has blessed ignorant faith and damned earnest
inquiry ; it has prejudiced the child and terrorised the man;
it has protected its dogmas with penal laws after usurping
authority in the schools; it has excluded Freethinkers from
universities, parliament, and public offices, when it could
not murder them; and even in the most civilised countries
it still clings to enactments against blasphemy and heresy.
It has fought Science, trampled upon Freethought, and
opposed every step of Progress in the name of God.
Christianity has always lent itself to the arts of pi'iestcraft.
All its ethical teaching—which is scattered, various, and
sometimes self-contradictory—has been overshadowed by its
supernatural elements. There have ever been some, it is
true, who have made a faith for themselves out of the finer
maxims of the Hew Testament, and held it up as the real
Christianity. But these have been only as a few loose stones
lying about a mighty edifice. The great mass of Christians,
in every age, have been under the dominion of priests; a
body of men who, except in very low states of barbarism,
where superstition comes to the aid of such culture as is then
possible, are always in a common conspiracy against the
progress of mankind. Strife for precedence and authority
took place at a very early period in the primitive Church, and
continued until Christendom was a vast hierarchy. Popes,
cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, have lorded it over the
common herd. Even in our own age, when the spirit of
democracy is abroad, the most successful novelty in Christian
organisation—namely, the Salvation Army—is a sheer
tyranny; a fact which shows that Christianity, despite a few
convenient texts paraded by “ advanced ” Christians, is in
natural harmony with the principles of despotism.
It is idle to cite particular texts against this perennial
tendency. We must judge a system by its general spirit»
�26
Will Christ Save Us ?
and its general spirit by its prevalent practice. Even if we
were to admit, for the sake of argument, that there is no
obvious connection between the doctrines of Christianity and
the existence of priestcraft, it would still remain a fact that
the religion of Jesus Christ has been manipulated by priests
for their own advantage, and the robbery and oppression of
the people; and surely a religion which, during eighteen
centuries, has not been able to save itself from this disgrace,
is never likely, either in the immediate or in the remote
future, to effect our salvation.
Everywhere in Europe, America, and Australia, at the
present moment, Priestcraft, in some form or other, directs
the energies of the Christian faith. If they were ever
separate, the two things are now in absolute alliance. Prac
tically, they are one and the same; they stand or fall
together. Do we not see that those who break away from
Churches, swim or drift down the stream of Rationalism ?
Quakerism itself, after two centuries of sturdy protest against
priestcraft, is now dwindling. Christianity arose quite
naturally in a superstitious age, when the old national
religions of the Roman Empire had fallen into discredit, and
the populace was ready to embrace a more universal religion;
but it never could have been upheld in subsequent ages with
out the combined arts of political and ecclesiastical despotism •
the altar supporting the throne, and the throne the altar; and
both exploiting the ignorance and credulity of the people.
Had freedom prevailed, and free scope been allowed to
inquiry, the Church would long ago have perished, with the
whole system of Christian supernaturalism.
After Liberty of Thought comes Education. The one is
necessary to make the other fruitful. And Christianity has
never been a true friend of education. We are often pointed
to the colleges it established in the dark ages; but it made
the darkness of those ages, and it did not establish the
colleges. It simply took possession of them, and made all
�Will Christ Save Us ?
27
permitted learning its subject. Even the study of ancient
literature, which followed the Reformation, was a sheer
accident, at least in religious circles. In order to maintain
their challenge of Rome, the Reformers had to appeal to
antiquity; and thus, as Bacon observed, the “ ancient authors,
both in divinity and humanity, which had long time slept m
libraries, began generally to be read and revolved.” Those
sleeping authors were only roused for the purpose of contention, not from any desire to extract their wisdom for the
welfare of mankind.
Why, indeed, were those ancient authors allowed to sleep
so long in libraries ? Why was the dust of so many centuries
allowed to accumulate upon them P The proper answer to
this question is to be found in an appeal to Christian
Gibbon remarks that the primitive Christians “ despised
all knowledge that was not useful to salvation.” Some of
their leaders, in the second century, were obliged to study
“human wisdom” inorder to reply to their Pagan adversaries; but a great majority were opposed to this policy.
They wished, as Mosheim observes, to “ banish all reasoning
and philosophy out of the confines of the Church.” After
the triumph of Christianity under Constantine it became
unnecessary to oppose the advocates of Paganism by any
other weapons than proscription and imprisonment. From
that moment the darkness crept over the face of Europe.
The Council of Carthage, in the following century, forbade
the reading of Pagan books. “ The bishops,” says Jortin,
“ soon began to relish this advice, and not to trouble their
heads with literature.” Some of the Byzantine emperors,
less bigoted than the Church dignitaries, tried to cherish
learning; but they were defeated by the ecclesiastics, who,
as Mosheim tells us, “ considered all learning, and especially
philosophic learning, as injurious and even destructive to
true piety and godliness.” What wonder that in the fifth
He
HL;,
Ilf
K,
K'.’
E.
Ep
Ef
E
Bsifft,
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
||f,
ft
ft
ft
|&.
ft
ft
lg,
ft,
�28
Will Christ Save Us?
century “learning was almost extinct” and “only a faint
shadow of it remained ” ?
After a dismal lapse of hundreds of years the clouds of
intellectual darkness began to lift from the face of Europe.
Mohammedan learning slowly spread through Christendom.
All the knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, medicine
and philosophy, propagated in Europe from the tenth cen
tury onward,” says Mosheim, “was derived principally
from the schools and books of the Arabians in Italy and
Spain.”
After the Reformation the Jesuits carried on the work of
education among Catholics. Their object was simply to train
promising young men for the service of the Church. And
the same policy obtained in Protestant seminaries. The
clergy and the privileged classes, as far as possible, mono
polised the extant learning. The wealthier middle-class
gradually gained a share of it, but the common people were
left m the outer darkness. Even in the early part of the
present century they were still excluded. The student of
history is aware that the Christian Churches steadily opposed
popular education. English bishops, in the House of Lords,
voted against the first Education Acts; a famous Bishop of
Exeter remarking in debate that the education of the lower
classes would render them proud and discontented, and
unwilling to work for their superiors.
When it was seen that popular education was bound to
come, the Churches resolved to take time by the forelock.
To prevent Secular education they set up schools for Christian
education. And this is still the secret of their interest in
the working of the present Education Acts. Their real
anxiety is about their own dogmas; they care not for educa
tion, but for theology. Church and Dissent fight each other
at School Board elections. The real issue between them is
what sort of religion shall be taught to the children. Were
religion banished from public schools; were State education
�Will Christ Save Us ?
29
made purely secular; parsons and ministers would cease to
display any interest in the matter.
With respect to education, as in the case of every other
element of progress, we shall of course be met with the
hackneyed objection that Christ has not opposed it. The
crim A will be laid to the charge of the Christian priesthood.
Be it so. We must then ask if there is anything in the
teaching of Christ in favor of education. Where is it to
found, even by the fondest partiality? Jesus himself,
in all probability, was but poorly instructed. His disciples
belonged to the ignorant and unlettered classes. Nor is
it likely that he ever conceived the value of any other
education than the reading of the Jewish Scriptures. The
curriculum of the great schools of Greece and Rome would
have astonished him; he might even have regarded it
as a waste of time, or a wicked self-assertion of the human
intellect.
Cardinal Newman has said that Christianity was always a
learned religion. In a certain sense this is true, though
purely accidental. A kind of learning was needed by
Jerome, who translated the Old Testament into Latin;
a higher learning was required when the Greek of the New
Testament became practically a dead tongue; and a still
higher learning when the Bible and the Fathers were
minutely discussed by the opposed schools of Protestant and
Catholic divinity. Giants of such learning arose in this
mighty contest. But it must be admitted that their learning
was entirely subsidiary to theological disputes. We have
already observed that it was confined to the clergy; we
must now add that it was not very profitable, except in
quite an indirect way, to the general civilisation of Europe.
The vital spring of modern civilisation is science; the
study of nature and of human nature. Shakespeare was as
much a scientist as Newton. We must never narrow science
down to the investigation of physical phenomena. Psycho
�30
Will Christ Save Us ?
logy and sociology are as noble and fruitful as astromony
and chemistry. It must be admitted, however, that the
study of physical science gives power and precision to our
study of mental science; accuracy in objective investigation
must, in the main, precede accuracy in subjective investi
gation; and as physics precede biology, so biology must
precede sociology.
The methods and conclusions of physical science are there
fore indispensable, apart altogether from their practical value
in providing the material basis of civilisation. Let us inquire
then, what is the relation of Christianity to this requisite of
all real and durable progress.
We shall pass by the fatuous argument that Christianity is
a friend to science because many eminent men of science have
been Christians. Suffice it to say that they were not pro
duced by Christianity. They were born and reared in
Christian countries, and hence they became Christians. Men
of genius have arisen in all civilisations. They were the
gift of Nature to the human race. Scientists, artists, poets,
historians, and philosophers, were born with genius; they were
taught to be Christians, Mohammedans, Jews, Brahmans, or
Buddhists. Genius belongs to no creed; it belongs to
Humanity.
Should it be argued that the fact of men of science having
been professed Christians shows that there is no real opposi
tion between science and Christianity, we should reply that
this is taking a very narrow view of the situation. The real
questions to be considered are these; first, is there anything
in Christianity calculated to make it hostile to science ;
secondly, has it displayed hostility to science through its
chief teachers and great organisations ?
There is something in Christianity calculated to make it
hostile to science. Its sacred books are defaced by a puerile
cosmogony, and a vast number of physical absurdities ; while
�Will Christ Save Us ?
31
its whole atmosphere, in the New as well as in the Old
Testament, is in the highest degree unscientific.
The Bible gives a false account of the origin of the world ;
a foolish account of the origin of man; a ridiculous account
of the origin of languages. It tells us of a universal flood
which never happened. And all these falsities are bound up
with essential doctrines, such as the fall of man and the
atonement of Christ; withimportant moral teachings andsocial
regulations. It was therefore inevitable that the Church,
deeming itself the divinely appointed guardian of Revelation,
should oppose such sciences as astronomy, geology, and
biology, which could not add to the authority of the
Scripture, but might very easily weaken it. Falsehood
was in possession, and truth was an exile or a prisoner.
Even the science of medicine was hated and oppressed.
It was seen to be in opposition to the New Testament
theory that disease is spirit ual—which is still the current
theory among savages. Medical men saw that disease
is material. Hence the proverb “Among three Doctors
two Atheists.”
Christianity has been called by Cardinal Newman “a
religion supernatural, and almost scenic.” It is miraculous
from beginning to end. Setting aside the extravagances
of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Acts of the
Apostles are replete with prodigies. Scarcely anything
is natural. Not only is the career of Jesus entirely
superhuman; his very disciples suspend the laws of nature
at their pleasure; they miraculously heal the sick and
raise the very dead.
A history so marvellous fed the superstition of the multi
tude, confirmed their credulous habit of mind, and prejudiced
them against a more scientific conception of nature. It also
compelled the Church to oppose the spread of rational inves
tigation. The spirit of science and the spirit of Christianity
were mutually antagonistic. A conflict between them was
�32
Will Christ Save Us ?
inevitable. The natural and the miraculous could not dwell
together in peace. The conquests of the one were necessarily
at the expense of the other. This was instinctively felt by
the Church, which could not help acting as the bitter enemy
of Science.
Accordingly we find that the splendid remains of ancient
science were speedily destroyed. The work of demolition
was almost completed within a century after the conversion
of Constantine. Hypatia was murdered by Christian monks
at Alexandria. The magnificent Museum of that city was
also reduced to ruins, and its superb Library was
burnt to ashes or scattered to the winds. Astronomy,
physics, geography, optics, physiology, botany, and
mechanics were annihilated. Before another century had
elapsed they were utterly forgotten. Oosmas Indicopleustes,
a Christian topographer, gravely taught that the earth was
not round, but a quadrangular plane, enclosed by mountains
on which the sky rests; that night was caused by a northern
mountain intercepting the rays of the sun; that the earth
leans towards the south, so that the Euphrates and Tigris,
which run southward, have a rapid current, while the Nile
has a slow current because it runs uphill!
Science simply ceased to exist in Christendom, and it did
not revive for hundreds of years; not, in fact, until Christian
torches were lit at Mohammedan fire. The light of Alexan
drian science was followed by the long darkness of Christian
superstition. “ Looking at the history of science,” says Dr.
Tylor, “ for eighteen hundred years after this flourishing
time, though some progress was made, it was not what might
have been expected, and on the whole things went wrong.”
Things went wrong. Yes, and Christianity was the principal
cause of the mischief. There is no clearer fact in the course
of human history. And it is equally clear that when Science
reappeared in Europe, after an absence of a thousand years,
the Church once more attacked it with tiger-like ferocity.
�Will Christ Save Us ?
33
Astronomy was the first object of the Church’s wrath. It
gave the lie to the Bible theory of the earth being the
centre of the universe; the sun, moon, and stars merely
existing to give it illumination, or to decorate the sky. It
opened up vistas of time and space in which the Christian
ideas of the universe were lost like drops of water in the ocean.
Farther, by diminishing the relative importance of this
world, it tended to discredit the notion that God was chiefly
occupied with the sins, the repentances, and the destiny of
mankind.
Astronomy came to Christendom from the Mohammedans.
Like other sciences it was unknown in Europe after the
triumph of Christianity, during “the long dead time when
so much was forgotten ”—to use the forcible language of Dr.
Tylor. “ Physical science,” the same writer says, “ might
almost have disappeared [from the world, that is] if it had not
been that while the ancient treasure of knowledge was lost
to Christendom, the Mohammedan philosophers were its
guardians, and even added to its store.” Galileo invented
the pendulum three hundred years ago ; but Dr. Tylor tells
us that “ as a matter of fact, it appears that six centuries
earlier Ebn Yunis and other Moorish astronomers were
already using the pendulum as a time-measurer in their
observations.” According to Professor Draper, the Moham
medan astronomers made catalogues and maps of the stars,
ascertained the size of the earth, determined the obliquity of
the elliptic, published tables of the sun and moon, fixed the
length of the year, and verified the procession of the
equinoxes. “ Meanwhile,” says Draper, “ such waB the
benighted condition of Christendom, such its deplorable
ignorance, that it cared nothing about the matter. Its atten
tion was engrossed by image-worship, transubstantiation, the
merits of the saints, miracles, shrine-cures.”
This indifference lasted till the end of the fifteenth century,
when it was broken by the great navigators, like Columbus
�34
Will Christ Save Us?
De Gama, and Magellan, who settled the true shape of the
earth, practically demonstrated its rotundity, and struck a
death-blow at the old teaching of the Church. Then came
the great astronomers, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, who
completed the work of destruction by restoring the true
theory of the universe.
The treatment of these great men shows us the real spirit
of Christianity. Copernicus was called “ an old fool ” i»y
Martin Luther. His great work On the Revolutions of the
Heavenly Bodies, kept back from publication for thirty-six
years through fear of the consequences, was condemned as
heretical by the Inquisition, and put upon the Index of
prohibited books, his system being denounced as “that
false Pythagorean doctrine utterly contrary to the Holy
Scriptures.”
Galileo invented the telescope, and with it perceived the
phases of Mercury and "Venus, the mountains and valleys of
the moon, and the spots on the sun. He demonstrated the
earth’s orbit and the sun’s revolution on its own axis. A
terrible blow was given to the cosmogony of the Church and
the book of Genesis. Galileo was accused of heresy, blas
phemy, and Atheism. The Inquisition told him his teaching
was “ utterly contrary to the Scriptures.” He was required
to pledge himself to desist from his wickedness. Tor sixteen
years he obeyed. But in 1632—only 260 yearB ago—he
ventured to publish his System of the World. He was again
brought before the Inquisition, and compelled to fall upon his
kneeR and recant the truth of the earth’s movement round
the sun. Then he was thrown into prison, and treated with
great severity. When he died, after ten years of martyrdom,
the Church denied him burial in consecrated ground.
Giordann Bruno, the poet-prophet of the new astronomy,
was imprisoned for seven years, mercilessly tortured, and at
last burnt to ashes on the Field of Flowers at Borne.
It will be said that these persecutions were the work of
�Will Christ Save Us?
35
Catholics. But were the Protestants more friendly to science ?
Martin Luther railed at Copernicus, and John Calvin hunted
Servetus to a fiery death at the stake.
Christianity has now lost its power of opposing science.
But even in the present century it has barked where it cou d
not bite. It was Christian bigotry which made the author of
the Vestiges of Creation conceal his identity; it was orthodox
prepossession which so long prevented Sir Charles Lyell from
admitting the truth of evolution; it was Biblical teaching
which inspired all the pulpit diatribes against Charles Darwin.
Evolution has practically triumphed, but where its evidences
are still imperfect the clergy continue to trade upon the con
jectures of ancient ignorance.
The effect of Christian doctrine upon the lay mind, even in
a high state of development, may be seen in Mr. Gladstone’s
defence of the Bible. His labored absurdities, and unscru
pulous special pleading, show a deep distrust, not only of the
teachings, but of the very spirit of Science.
There is, indeed, an essential opposition between Science
and Christianity. The whole atmosphere of the Bible is
miraculous. Nor is the New Testament any improvement in
this respect upon the Old Testament. It incorporates the
savage theory of disease as the work of evil spirits. Its
stories of demoniacal possession belong to the ages when
madness was treated as a spiritual disorder. The narrative
of Jesus casting devils out of men and sending them into pigs
is an aspect of the same superstition which inspired the
terrible text “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” And
the healing of disease by Paul with magic handkerchiefs, or
by Peter with his Bhadow, goes down to the lowest depths of
credulity.
Net a single sentence is to be found in the New Testament
showing the slightest appreciation of science or philosophy.
It is clear that the writers of those books looked for the
speedy second coming of Christ. Nothing therefore was of
�36
Will Christ Save Us ?
any importance in their eyes except an earnest preparation
for “ the great and terrible day of the Lord.”
This superstition of the Second Advent is not yet extinct
in Christendom. It still retains a hold upon millions of the
most stupid and illiterate; and its strength, after so many
centuries, and amid such hostile influences, enables us to
realise its tremendous power in the early ages of Christianity.
The great majority of Christians are, of course, emanci’
pated from this superstition. They take it for granted that
the earth and the human race will exist for thousands and
perhaps millions of years. They are reconciled to the idea of
mental, moral, and material progress in this world. Never
theless, their inherited instincts, the teaching of their religious
instructors, and the reading of their sacred scriptures, make
the most pious and zealous among them look askance at
Science, even while they are ready to enjoy her benefactions.
They feel that she is the natural enemy of their faith.
The clergy themselves treat science in precisely the same
spirit, only their hatred is sometimes tempered by discretion.
The more ignorant and presumptuous still denounce “ science
falsely so called,” preach against Darwinism, and dread every
new scientific discovery. They share the feeling (in their
small way) of Leibniz, who declared that “ Newton had robbed
the Deity of some of his most excellent attributes, and had
sapped the foundation of natural religion.” They also share
the feeling of those who asserted that the use of chloroform
in cases of confinement was an impious interference with
God’s curse on the daughters of Eve. The better instructed
and more cautious clergy profess a certain respect for science.
But it is a respect of fear. You may tell by their faces, tones,
and gestures, that they detest it while they sing its praises.
They are unable to disguise their real sentiments. When
they are most successful they merely treat Science as the
prodigal son, who has too strong a taste for husks and swine
�Will Christ Save Us ?
37
and is to be coaxed into renting a pew and taking the com
munion.
Let us pause for a moment to see how Science, having
grown to manhood in spite of the murderous hostility of the
Church, has completely subverted the ideas that were the
very foundation of Christianity. The notion that God was
solely concerned with the salvation or perdition of the inhabi
tants of this little planet was connected with, and supported
by, the belief that this world is the centre of the universe,
and that all the other heavenly bodies existed for its
advantage. That belief is for ever annihilated, and with it
the religious conception it countenanced and cherished. The
notion of the world’s antiquity, based upon the Bible
genealogies from Adam to Christ, is dwarfed and made
ridiculous by the discovery that the world has existed for
myriads of ages, and man himself for a period immensely
greater than the orthodox chronology of six thousand years.
But the most terrible blow at the Genesaic theory has been
struck by Darwinism. It is now certain that Adam was not
the first man; nay, that there never was a first man. Man
is not a special creation, but the highest product of a long
process of evolution. The story of the Ball, therefore, is
only a piece of ancient mythology. Man is not a fallen
creature, but a risen organism. He did not degenerate from
a paradisaical condition; he was not cursed by God; he did
not need an atonement. Thus the historic doctrine of Chris
tian salvation is deprived of its basis and meaning. Man did
not die in Adam, and cannot live again in Christ. The
salvation which was proffered to the world was founded upon
a complete misunderstanding of its history, its nature, and
its necessities.
Seeing, then, how fantastic is the religious salvation of
Christianity, let us pursue our inquiry into the character of
its natural salvation. Let us see, that is, in what respect it
�38
Will Christ Save Us ?
has aided or hindered the political and social progress of
Europe.
It has already been shown that Christianity opposed
liberty of thought and the advance of science, and did not
befriend the education of the masses of the people. We shall
now see that its political and social influence has always been
conservative, and never progressive.
Misty-minded sentimentalists affect to regard Jesus Christ
as the most illustrious of democrats. It is difficult, however»
to find the slightest justification of this view. He himself
paid tribute to the Roman tax-gatherer, and taught “ Render
unto Caasar the things which are Csesar’s.” His language to
his disciples was that of a would-be tyrant, as the word was
understood in the vocabulary of the free people of Greece.
He promised them that when he came into his kingdom they
should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel. It was a promise as magnificent, and as empty, as
Don Quixote’s promise of a governorship to Sancho PanzaNevertheless, as we may presume it was made in good faith,
it must be held to indicate something very different from a
republican sentiment.
Simon Peter enjoins us to “ Pear God and honor the King ”
— quite irrespective of his deserts. “ Let every soul,” says
Paul, “ be subject unto the higher powers : for there is no
powei’ but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God.”
He adds that whoever resists any established authority “ shall
receive unto themselves damnation.” According to tradition
this was uttered in the reign of the cruel and detestable
Nero, who would have been a greater scourge than he was if
the Romans had not acted on other maxims than Paul’s, and
forcibly terminated his sanguinary career.
Professor Sewell, who once filled the chair of Moral Philo
sopher at Oxford, in a work of considerable ability, entitled
Christian Politics, quotes many other texts from the New
Testament in corroboration of Paul’s teaching. He then
�Will Christ Save Us?
39
declares that 41 It is idle, and worse than idle, to attempt to
restrict and explain away this positive command. And the
Christian Church has always upheld it in its full extent.
With one uniform unhesitating voice it has proclaimed the
duty of passive obedience.”
There is no disputing Professor Sewell’s dictum on this
point. He spoke as a Churchman, not as a sceptic; he knew
the history of Christianity, and was competent to pronounce
an authoritative judgment.
Gibbon had previously remarked, in his sarcastic way, that
it was this feature of Christianity which attracted the
admiration of Constantine. “ The throne of the emperors,
he wrote, “ would be established on a fixed and permanent
basis if all their subjects, embracing the Christian religion,
should learn to suffer and obey.”
The doctrine of passive obedience is strongly enforced in
the sermon “ Against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion ” at
the end of the Book of Homilies, which, according to the
thirty-fifth Article of the Church of England, is full of “ a
godly and wholesome doctrine,” and is therein appointed “ to
be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and dis
tinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.”
The first rebel, according to this Homily, was Satan him
self, who was expelled from heaven. “We shall find,” it
says, “ in very many and almost infinite places, as well of the
Old Testament as of the New, that kings and princes, as well
the evil as the good, do reign by God’s ordinance, and that
subjects are bounden to obey them.” “ A rebel,” it declares,
“ is worse than the worst prince, and rebellion worse than
the worst government.” And in proof of this doctrine it
cites many passages of scripture, and many illustrations from
Bible history.
The universality of Christian teaching on this subject is
strikingly exhibited in the History of Passive Obedience
Since the lieformation, dated Amsterdam, 1689. It is a rare
�40
Will Christ Save Us?
and curious book, written with energy and great learning.
The author ransacks the theological literature of two cen
turies, and shows that the doctors of all schools, including
the Puritans, upheld the doctrine of passive obedience, and
the absolute unlawfulness, nay, the heinous sin, of rebelling
against any prince, however weak, vicious, cruel, or
despotic.
Christians who have rebelled against tyranny have violated
the teaching of the New Testament. They have acted on the
impulses of their own nature. Oliver Cromwell disobeyed
the injunctions of Peter, Paul and Jesus. John Hampden
was more of a Jew than a Christian, and more of a Roman
than either, when he drew his sword against his king.
Mazzini, Garibaldi, Victor Hugo, and Kossuth, if the Chris
tian scriptures be true, were guilty of insurrection against
the ordinance of God.
George Pox and the Quakers were consistent Christians.
They obeyed the order of Jesus to “ resist not evil.” If they
were smitten on one cheek they turned the other to the
smiter. Count Tolstoi preaches, and as far as possible prac
tises, the same doctrine. Every form of violence, he says, is
inconsistent with the teaching of Christ. Not only the
soldier, but the policeman, is in opposition to the Sermon on
the Mount. Count Tolstoi believes it would be an un
Christian act to kill or injure the wretch he might find
ravishing his wife or slaying his child. Active resistance to
evil must never be offered; passive resistance is all that is
permitted; and the rest must be left to Providence.
To certain minds of a soft, peaceful, and humane disposi
tion this doctrine is attractive. But it would never quell
the world’s tyrannies. Wolves do not care for the pious
bleating of sheep.
Inquiry shows us that political freedom has been systemati
cally opposed by the Christian Church, and always won in
spite of it. The English bishop who once declared in the
�Will Christ Save Us /
41
House of Lords that “ all the people had t>o do with the laws
was to obey them,” voiced the real spirit of Christianity.
Political freedom is, indeed, a very recent phenomenon in
modern society. A hundred years ago it was as unknown
in other parts of Europe as it is to-day in Russia. Czars,
emperors, kings, and aristocracies held the multitude in sub
jection. The people were outside the pale of such constitu
tions as existed. Prussia and Austria were sheer autocracies.
Spain and Italy had less civil freedom than a province of the
Roman Empire. France had no constitution before 1789.
England had a parliament, but the House of Commons was
filled with nominees of the House of Lords. The suffrage
was confined to a handful of citizens. For this reason Shelley
described the House of Commons as a place
Where thieves are sent
Similar thieves to represent.
“ Infidels ” won political liberty for France. Rousseau
was a Deist; Mirabeau, Danton, and many other leading
spirits of the Revolution were Atheists. Christianity is still
on the side of reaction in the land of Voltaire, while Republi
can and Freethinker are almost convertible terms.
“ Infidels ” were the chief fighters for political freedom in
England. Thomas Paine, who wrote the Age of Reason,
was found guilty of treason for penning the Rights of Man.
Bentham was a Freethinker, and probably an Atheist.
James and John Mill were Freethinkers. Shelley, Byron,
Leigh Hunt, Landor, and most of the Chartist leaders were
all tainted with “ infidelity.” Christian leaders were gene
rally on the side of wealth and privilege, while Freethought
leaders were always on the side of the people.
Ebenezer Eliot, the Corn-Law rhymer, exclaimed—
When wilt thou save the People,
0 God of mercies, when ?
Not thrones, 0 Lord, but peoples,
Not kings, 0 God, but men !
This exclamation was uttered eighteen hundred years after
the death of Jesus Christ, in a land which boasted of being
�42
Will Christ Save Us ?
the most Christian on earth. This is itself a proof that
Christ had not saved the people. Their salvation since has
been due to other causes ; chiefly, it must be said, to the
progress of science, which is the great equaliser. Was it not
Buckle who declared that “ the hall of science is the temple
of democracy ” ?
One of the most significant facts in recent history was the
the attempt of the German Emperor to strengthen his power
over his subjects. Feeling that the democratic movement
was threatening his throne, he introduced a Bill in the
Reichstag by his ministers, providing that Christian instruc
tion should be given in the public schools, even when scholars
were children of Freethinkers. Happily the Bill was defeated.
King-deluded ” as Germany is, she has outgrown such
illiberalism. Yet the very fact that the Emperor sought
to Christianise the young more completely, in order that
they might grow up his very obedient slaves, is a striking
proof of the essential antagonism between Christianity and
political freedom.
Christian apologists are often obliged to confess that their
faith has cherished, or certainly countenanced, the super
stition of the divine right of kings ; a superstition that is
even now Btamped on our English coinage, although in a
dead language which makes it less obstrusive. Nor can they
deny that the maxims of free government are rather found
in the writings of the philosophers and historians of Greece
and Rome than in the pages of the New Testament. They
sometimes contend, however, that it is not the object of
Christianity to meddle with political polities ; that its prin
ciples and sentiments enter as a leaven into human life; and
that its influence is to be traced in the gradual improvement
of human society. In other words, Christ saves us individually
and socially, and the outcome of this in the sphere of politics
is left to the ordinary course of things.
�Will Christ Save Us ?
43
Now it is plain to every candid student of history that
Christ has not saved the world from social evils, and equally
plain to the student of philosophy that he is incapable of
doing so. The Civilisation of modern Europe is not the
creation of Christianity, nor has it conformed to Christian
methods. Comparatively speaking, it is a thing of yesterday.
It came in with the dawn of modern Science. We have little
in common with our Christian forefathers of the Middle
Ages, still less with our Christian forefathers of the Dark
Ages. The Grgeco-Roman world, as Mr. Cotter Morison
observes, went down into an abyss after the days of Con
stantine. “ The revival of learning and the Renaissance,” he
says, “ are memorable as the first sturdy breasting by
humanity of the hither slope of the great hollow which lies
between us and the ancient world. The modern man,
reformed and regenerated by knowledge, looks across it, and
recognises on the opposite ridge, in the far-shining cities and
stately porticoes, in the art, politics, and science of antiquity,
many more ties of kinship and sympathy than in the mighty
concave between, wherein dwell his Christian ancestry, in
the dim light of scholasticism and theology.” This truth
was in Shelley’s mind when he wondered how much better
off we might have been if the Christian interregnum had not
occurred, and civilisation had been carried on continuously
from the point reached by the Pagan world.
What a picture is drawn by Professor Draper of the
squalid life of our ancestors only a few hundred years ago.
In Paris and London the houses were of wood daubed with
clay, and thatched with straw or reeds. They had no
windows and few wooden floors. There were no chimneys,
the smoke escaping through a hole in the roof. Drainage
was unknown. A bag of straw served as a bed, and a wooden
log as a pillow. No one washed himself; the very arch
bishops swarmed with vermin, and the stench was drowned
with perfumes. The citizens wore leather garments which
�44
Will Christ Save Us?
lasted for many years. It was a luxury to eat fresh meat
once a week. The streets had neither sewers, pavements,
nor lamps. Slops were emptied out of the chamber shutters
after nightfall, Hlneas Sylvus, afterwards Pope Pius II.,
visited England about 1430. He describes the houses of the
peasantry as built of stones without mortar: the roofs were
of turf, and a stiffened bull’s-hide served for a door. Coarse
vegetable products, including the bark of trees, were the
staple food; bread was quite unknown in some places. Is it
any wonder that famine and pestilence raged periodically ?
In the famine of 1030 human flesh was cooked and sold; in
that of 1258, fifteen thousand people died of hunger in London;
in the plague of 1348 all Europe suffered, and one-third of the
population of France was destroyed. Nor was the moral
prospect a whit superior. “ Men, women, and children,” says
Draper, “ slept in the same apartment; not unfrequently,
domestic animals were their companions; in such a confusion
of the family, it was impossible that modesty or morality
could be maintained.” Sexual licentiousness was so universal
that, on the introduction of the dreadful disease of syphilis
from America, it spread with wonderful rapidity, and infected
all ranks and classes, from the Holy Father Pope Leo X. to
the beggar by the wayside.
For this wretched state of things the only remedy was
knowledge. Science was necessary to alter the environment,
and produce the conditions of a happier and purer life.
Christianity had nothing to offer but charity. This is an
admirable virtue in its proper sphere, but a poor substitute
for independence and self-respect. Charity will go to a
plague-stricken city; it will tend the sick and comfort the
dying. Science will guard the city and drive the plague
from its gates.
Christ has not, therefore, been our social savior any more
than our political savior. The modern (in fact, very recent)
improvement in the general condition of the people, is solely
�Will Christ Save Us ?
45
owing to the conquests of Science. Were our vast accumula
tion of scientific knowledge and appliances to be lost, it is
easy to see that Christianity could not save us from falling
back into a state of barbarism.
It is frequently alleged that Christ has saved the Western
world from the curse of Slavery. This is a most ridiculous
assertion. Slavery has nearly always been under a religious
sanction. There is no instance in the history of the world of
religion having abolished the ownership of men and women
and the traffic in human flesh and blood. The great causes
of emancipation have been economic and material.
His
tory,” says Mr. Finlay, the great historian, “affords its
testimony that neither the doctrines of Christianity, nor the
sentiments of humanity, have ever yet succeeded in extin
guishing slavery, where the soil could be cultivated with
profit by slave-labor. No Christian community of slave
holders has yet voluntarily abolished slavery.” Mr. Finlay’s
assertion is profoundly true, though the fact is disguised to
superficial observers. Slavery was abolished in the West
Indies by England, who compensated the slave-owners. True,
but not until England had completely outgrown her own
slavery of the feudal system. In the United States, also, the
Confederate party of the South tried to maintain slavery,
with the sanction and blessing of the ministers of religion.
The Federalists of the North were against slavery, and they
put it down within the Union, because they had reached a
higher stage of industrial development.
So much for the fact, and now for the theory. What right
has anyone to say that Slavery could be abolished by Chris
tianity ? Christ himself never uttered a word against the
institution. His object was personal piety, and not social
reformation. Not a single Apostle so much as hinted a
dislike of Slavery, though it was condemned by the leading
Stoics as unjust and inhuman. St. Paul sent a runaway slave
�46
Will Christ Save Us ?
back to his master, with words of kindness, bat without one
word against Slavery itself. All the great Christian writers,
from Basil to Bossuet, through a period of thirteen hundred
years, taught that Slavery was a divine institution. It was
defended as such by Christian jurisprudists in the eighteenth
century. Mrs. Beecher Stowe, in America, said that the
Church was notoriously in favor of Slavery. “ Statesmen on
both sides of the question,” she said, “ have laid that down
as a settled fact.” Theodore Parker showed that 80,000
slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists, and
250,000 by Methodists. He declared that if the whole
American Church had “ dropped through the continent and
disappeared altogether, the anti-Slavery cause would have
been further on.” Professor Moses Stuart, the greatest
American divine since Jonathan Edwards, announced that
“ The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor
of slaves and their masters, beyond all question recognise
the existence of slavery.” Mrs. Beecher Stowe, in her Key to
Uncle Tom's Cabin, prints a great number of resolutions in
favor of Slavery as a Bible Christian institution, passed by
all sorts of Churches in the Southern States. One sample of
these precious documents may suffice ; it emanated from the
Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina—
“ Resolved, That slavery has existed from the days of those good old
slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who are now in
the kingdom of heaven), to the time when the apostle Paul sent a runa
way home to his master Philemon, with a Christian and fraternal letter
to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the canon of the
Scriptures ; and that slavery has existed ever since the days of the
apostle, and does now exist.
“ Resolved, That as the relative duties of master and slave are taught
in the Scriptures, in the same manner as those of parent and child, and
husband and wife, the existence of slavery is not opposed to thé will of
G»d ; and whosoever has a conscience too tender to recognise this
relation as lawful, is ‘righteous over much,' is ‘wise above what is
written,’ and has submitted his neck to the yoke cf men, sacrificed his
Christian liberty of conscience, and leaves the infallible word of God for
the fancies and doctrines of men.”
�Will Christ Save Us ?
47
Equally striking facts are cited in the series of Anti
Slavery Tracts, edited by Wilson Armistead, of Leeds, in
1853, and apparently published for the English Quakers.
Pronouncements in favoi’ of Slavery are given from a host of
American ministers. Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, for
instance, was asked, “ What effect had the Bible in doing
away with slavery ?” He replied, “ None whatever.” Mis
sionary, Tract, and Bible Societies, were all abettors of
Slavery. Fred Douglass, the runaway slave, cried out thus
in one of his eloquent speeches: “ They have men-stealers
for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle
plunderers for church-members. The man who wields the
blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on
Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly
Jesus. . . . We have men sold to build churches, women
sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles
for the poor heathen! . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and
the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter
cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious
shouts of his pious master. . . . The dealer gives his blood
stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return,
covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.”
Enough has been said to show that the Bible has been used
as the slaveholder’s manual, that Christianity did not abolish
Slavery, that the institution flourished for centuries under
the sanction of the Christian Church, that Christian divines
blesBed it and approved it with a text wherever it was
possible and profitable, and that it only disappeared in very
recent times under the influence of a higher type of
material civilisation. It Bhould be added, however, that
Slavery has always found an enemy in Freethought. It was
the sceptical Montaigne who first denounced the villainies of
the Spanish Conquest of America; it was the sceptical
Montesquieu who first branded negro slavery as wicked; it
was the sceptical Voltaire who took up the same attitude in
�48
Will Christ Save Us ?
•a later generation; and the first pen couched against Slavery
in America was wielded by the sceptical Thomas Paine. Let
it also be remembered that Christian England was not the
first emancipator of slaves. “The first public act against
slavery,” says Professor Newman, “ came from Republican
France, in the madness of atheistic enthusi&sm.”
Christ has been no savior of the world in respect to the
condition of woman, which is one of the best criteria of
civilisation. The ordinary Christian, seeing polygamy prevail
beyond the borders of Christendom, and monogamy within
them, imagines the difference is due to Christianity; and his
clerical guides, who know better, confirm him in the delusion.
Here again it is obvious that religion only consecrates the
established social order. It sanctions polygamy in the East
and monogamy in the West. Christianity found monogamy
existing, and did not create it. Greeks, Romans, and even
Jews, in spite of the Mosaic law, had become monogamists
by a natural evolution. Polygamy was illegal in the Roman
Empire at the advent of Jesus Christ. Nor did any dis
turbing influence arise from the conversion of the Northern
barbarians, for monogamy existed among the Teutonic tribes,
who held women in high honor and esteem, and allowed them
to participate in the public councils.
Had monogamy not prevailed before the triumph of Chris
tianity, it is difficult to see in what way the new faith would
have established it. There is not a word against polygamy,
as a general custom, from Genesis to Revelation. Jehovah’s
favorites were all polygamists, neither did Christ command
the marriage of one man with one woman. The Mormons
justify polygamy from the Bible, and the United States
government answers them, not by argument, but by penal
legislation. Concubinage is also justified from the Bible.
The more a man is steeped in the Christian Scriptures, his
sexii.,1 and domestic views become the more patriarchal.
�Will Christ Save Us?
49
Christianity, indeed, has been woman’s enemy, and not her
friend. Christ’s own teaching on sexual matters is much
disputed. His language is very largely veiled and enigmatic,
but it gives a strong plausibility to the opinion of Count
Tolstoi, that sexual intercourse is always more or less sinful,
and that no one who desires to be Christlike can think of
marrying. St. Paul’s language is more precise. He plainly
bids men and women to live single; only, if they cannot do
so without fornication, he allows of marriage as a concession
to the weakness of the flesh. Essentially, therefore, he
places the union of men and women on the same ground as
the coupling of beasts. Further, he orders wives to obey
their husbands as absolutely as the Church obeys Christ;
coating the pill with the nauseous reminder that the man
was not made for the woman, but the woman for the man.
Following Christ and Paul, as they understood them, the
Christian fathers lauded virginity to the skies, emphasised
woman’s dependence on man, and treated her with every
conceivable indignity. Their language is often too foul to
transcribe. Let it suffice to say that they were intensely
scriptural in thought and expression. Taking the story of
the Fall as true, they regarded woman as the door of sin and
damnation. Logically, also, they saw in the birth of Christ
from a virgin, a stigma on natural motherhood. Under the
old Jewish law, every woman who brought forth the fruit of
love was “ unclean.” This sentiment survived in the Chris
tian Church. It was deepened by the miraculous birth of
Christ, and strengthened by contact with the great oriental
doctrine of the opposition between matter and spirit; a
doctrine which lies at the root of all asceticism, and is the
key to the sexual morbidity of all the creeds.
These are debateable matters, and it is easy for Christian
rhetoricians to find ways of escape by subtle methods of
interpretation. The Bible becomes in their hands “ a nose
of wax,” as Erasmus said, to be twisted into any shape or
D
�50
Will Christ Save Us ?
direction. Plain matters of fact, however, are not so easily
perverted; and an appeal to history will show that Chris
tianity lowered, instead of raising, the whole status of women.
Principal Donaldson (and it is well to take a clerical
authority) is the author of an important article in the Con
temporary Review for September, 1889, on “ The Position of
Women among the Early Christians.” It is very unflattering
to Christian vanity, and it has been answered by silence.
“ It is a prevalent opinion,” says Principal Donaldson, “ that
woman owes her present high position to Christianity, and
the influences of the Teutonic mind. I used to ¿believe this
opinion, but in the first three centuries I have not been able
to see that Christianity had any favorable effect on the
position of women, but, on the contrary, that it tended to
lower their character and contract the range of their
activity.” He points out that at the dawn of Christianity
women had attained great freedom, power, and influence in
the Homan Empire. “They dined in the company of
men,” he says, “they studied literature and philosophy,
they took part in political movements, they were allowed
to defend their own law cases if they liked, and
they helped their husbands in the government of pro
vinces and the writing of books.” All this was stopped
by Christianity. “ The highest post to which she rose ”
in the Christian Church “ was to be a door-keeper and
a message-woman.” A woman bold enough to teach was in
the eyes of Tertullian a “ wanton.” The duties of a wife were
simple—“ She had to obey her husband, for he was her head,
her lord, and superior; she was to fear him, reverence him,
and please him alone; she had to cultivate silence; she had
to spin and take care of the house, and she ought to stay at
home and attend to her children.”
Sir Henry Maine had previously observed, in his remark
able Ancient Law, that Christianity tended from the first to
narrow the rights and liberties of women. Not Homan juris
�Will Christ Save Us ?
51
prudence, but the Canon Law, was responsible for the dis
abilities on married women that obtained in Europe down
to the present century. The personal liberty conferred on
married women by the middle Roman law, in Sir Henry
Maine’s opinion, was not likely to be restored to them by a
society which preserved “ any tincture of Christian institu
tion.” Married women, however, in every civilised country
are now rising into a position of legal independence; and this
is but a revival of the best Roman law, which prevailed before
the triumph of Christianity.
It must be a remarkable fact, to any thoughtful Christian
who is interested in the great problem of woman’s emancipa
tion, that the most strenuous advocates of her rights during
the past century have belonged to the sceptical camp. The
first striking essay on the subject was written by Condorcet.
It was Mary Wollstonecraft, the wife of William Godwin,
and the mother of Mrs. Shelley, who wrote the first important essay on the subject in England. Shelley himself
was an ardent champion of sexual equality. His poignant
cry, “ Can man be free if woman be a slave ?” expresses the
very essence of the question. Jeremy Bentham, Robert
Owen, and John Stuart Mill, are a few of the names in the
subsequent muster-roll of custodians of the high tradition;
indeed, it is hardly too much to say that Mill’s great essay
on The Subjection of Women marks an epoch in the history
of social progress. Let it be added that the Ereethought
party has steadily upheld the banner of common rights, making
absolutely mo distinction in position or service between men
and women. The Christians are but slowly and timidly
following in the wake of a party they affect to despise.
Descending from the mothers of the race to its criminal
members, who are still a large section of the community, let
us see what Christ or Christianity has done for them; or
rather for the society which they curse and disgrace. The
�52
Will Christ Save Us ?
Christian method of reform is preaching. Sublime, pathetic»
or ridiculous, as you happen to regard it, is the Christian
belief in exhortation. It is a legacy from the pre-scientific
ages. A clergyman mountB a pulpit, informs people that
they ought to be good, tells them that in view of a future
life and a day of judgment honesty is the best policy, and
imagines that he has done a good stroke of work for the
moral elevation of society. How profoundly is he mistaken!
It is not thus that human beings are really acted upon. The
way to empty gaols, said John Ruskin, is to fill schools; and,
although this is a partial and exaggerated statement, as
epigrams are wont to be, it expresses truth enough to show
the utter futility of the common “ spiritual ” recipes for
human salvation.
Let our yearning for social improvement be ever so intense,
it is only by scientific methods that we can do any lasting
good. Social diseases must be studied like bodily diseases,
and the proper remedies discovered and applied. To preach
at sinners, either by the way of promises or threats, is in the
long run, and in a general way, as idle as to preach at
persons who suffer from fever or rheumatics.
“Man,” said D’Holbach, “will always be a mystery for
those who insist on regarding him with the prejudiced eyes
of theology.” “ The dogma of the spirituality of the soul,”
he added, “ has turned morality into a conjectural science,
which does not in the least help us to understand the true
way of acting on men’s motives.” Accordingly, it was not
until the Christian view had largely given place to the
scientific view, in ethics and in jurisprudence, that any
radical reform was possible m the treatment of crime; which
is, by the way, a very different thing from the amelioration
ppisons, with which we associate the name of John Howard.
Criminology is an impossible science while we are under the
dominion of Christian ideas. The criminal is merely endowed
with an extra quantity of original sin, which must be
�Will Christ Save Us ?
53
counteracted by spiritual agencies; indeed, it is still set
forth, in the language of indictments, that the prisoner in
the dock was instigated by the Devil. Madness itself, while
Christianity was dominant, was “ an intolerable exaggeration
of this perversity.” “ It is certainly true as an historical
fact,” says Mr. John Morley, whose words we have jusi
quoted, “ that the rational treatment of insane persons, and
the rational view of certain kinds of crime, were due to men
like Pinel, trained in the materialistic school of the eighteenth
century. And it waB clearly impossible that the great and
humane reforms in this field could have taken place before
the decisive decay of theology.”
Science is indeed far more humane than Christianity. It
does not boast so much about its “ great heart,” but it keeps
its eye upon the problem to be solved. At the present
moment the science of Criminology is almost exclusively in
the hands of materialists, who smile at the notion of “ sin ”
and scorn the idea of “punishment”; regarding crime as
moral insanity, and aiming at its treatment by scientific
methods, without cruelty to the criminal, but rather with
the same constant firmness and gentle skill which we have
learnt to apply to the victims of mental insanity.
The jurisprudence of Christian ages was savage and
scandalous. When madmen were beaten to drive the Devil
out of them, it is no wonder that criminals were treated with
monstrous severity. Torture, for instance, was common and
systematic; it was not only applied to accused persons, but
even to witnesses. “ It is curious to observe, says Mr.
Henry C. Lea, “that Christian communities, where the
truths of the gospel were received with unquestioning
veneration, systematised the administration of torture with
a cold-blooded ferocity unknown to the legislation of the
heathen nations whence they derived it. The careful restric
tions and safeguards, with which the Roman jurisprudence
sought to protect the interests of the accused, contrast
�4
54
Will Christ Save Vs?
strangely with the reckless disregard of every principle of
justice which sullies the criminal procedure of Europe from
the thirteenth to the nineteenth century.” The death
penalty was inflicted with shocking frequency in every part
of Christendom. Until the early years of the present cen
tury it was common, in England, to see men and women
hung in batches, some of them for petty o fiences, such as
stealing goods to the value of five shillings; and when the
great Romilly attempted to reform this ferocious law, he
was opposed by the whole bench of bishops in the House of
Lords. Since then we have witnessed a vast improvement;
not in consequence of Christ’s teaching, or the spirit of
Christianity, but in consequence of the general spread of
science, education, mental liberty, and democracy; or, in
other words, the progress of secular civilisation.
Coincidently with this movement there has been a diminu
tion in the statistics of crime. What could not be effected
by pulpit anathemas and penal cruelty, has been effected by
wiser and nobler agencies. In England, for instance, since
the passing of the Education Act of 1870, the number of
convicted prisoners has largely decreased, despite the con
siderable growth of population; and it is worthy of special
notice that the principal decrease is among the youthful
offenders.
Christian nations are fond of boasting their superior
virtue, yet it is among Christian nations that we find the
worst developments of th& three great vices of gambling,
drink and prostitution. The present Archbishop of Canterbury,
in a volume entitled Christ and His Times, confesses that
“ Intemperance is in far greater rage and ravage ” in England
than it was “ among those Gentiles ” denounced by St. Peter.
His Grace confesses, also, that England is debauching whole
populations of “heathen.” “The earth’s long-sealed dark
continent, stored with her grandest products,” he declares,
�Will Christ Save Us ?
55
“ is being developed for the wealth of the world through the
application of intoxication to its innumerable tribes by
civilised traders and Christian merchants.” With regard to
prostitution His Grace admits that we are in a sorry plight.
“ The streets of London,” the Archbishop says, “ fling temp
tation broadcast before youth and inexperience,” and “ Our
medical authorities speak of a river of poison flowing into the
blood of this nation.”
These are shameful words to come from the highest
dignitary of the richest Church in the world. And the
shame lies in their truth. After eighteen hundred years of
Christianity, it is very questionable, if allowance be made
for mere differences of manners as distinguished from morals,
whether the Christian nations do in practice exhibit a higher
level of morality than many of the “ heathen ” nations. The
general practice of Christian apologists is to single out some
particular virtues in which we have an advantage, to the
neglect of other virtues in which we are distinctly inferior;
and then to bid us plume ourselves on our superiority. But
this special pleading is abashed by such admissions as those
of Archbishop Benson. Christian nations are the greatest
gamblers and drunkards. Christian nations have. almost
a monopoly of prostitution. The vice of Christian cities is as
bad as any recorded of the worst imperial cities of antiquity.
Perhaps the corruption is not so widespread, and it is
covered with a thicker veil of decorum. Some improvement
has no doubt taken place, especially amongst the middle and
upper-lower classes; but some improvement might be
expected in the course of two thousand years. What there
is of it is not enough to establish any great ethical claim on
behalf of Christianity. It has not reformed the world, as a
divine revelation should do ; in other words, Christ has not
saved us morally ; and what he has not done in such a long
past, he is not likely to do in any possible future.
�56
Will Christ Save Us?
Poverty is another curse of Christian countries. From the
point of view of material comfort, there are myriads of our
pauper and semi-pauper population who are far worse off
than the slaves of ancient Greece and Rome. St. Peter
spoke of a suffering population. “ We know of one,” says
Archbishop Benson, “ which can only just exist, hanging on
a sharp edge of illness, hunger, uncleanness physical and
moral, incapacity mental and bodily, in full sight of abund
ance, luxury, and waste.”
Christianity promises many fine blessings to the poor, but
they are only realisable in heaven. Poverty is represented as
a blessing in itself. Jesus seems to have regarded it as a
permanent characteristic of human society, and the Church
has been ready to do everything for poverty except to remove
it. But its abolition is the chief object of modern reform.
Poverty is not a blessing; it is a curse. It is “ an imprison
ment of the mind, a vexation of every worthy spirit,” wrote
Sir Walter Raleigh; nay more, it “provokes a man to do
infamous and detested deeds.” Poverty is one of the chief
secrets of popular abasement. Even in the sphere of
economics, strange as it may sound to the superficial, it is
not low wages that are the cause of poverty, but poverty
that is the cause of low wages. Yes, it is absolutely
indispensable to a civilisation worthy of the name, that
poverty—the want of the necessaries and decencies of lifeshould be exterminated. But there is nothing in the teaching
of Christ, or in the traditions of Christianity, to be helpful
in the accomplishment of this great object; indeed, it would
appear from a study of Christian writings that the poor are
providentially kept in that position as whetstones for the
rich man’s benevolence. The Gospel of Giving has been
preached with incredible vigor and unction, and even now
it is the pride of Churches to act as rich men’s almoners.
But giving, if excellent in crises, is bad as a policy; it pre
supposes folly or injustice, or perhaps both, and it perpetuates
�Will Christ ¡Save Us ?
57
and intensifies the evil it affects to mitigate. The true,
deep, and lasting charity is justice ; and for that the world
has looked to Christianity in vain. It will be a glorious
moment when the poor despise the “ charity” which wealth
flings to them as conscience-money or ransom, when they
acorn the eleemosynary cant of the Churches, when they cry
“ Keep your bounty, and give us our rights.”
Meanwhile it is well to observe the industry with which
the apostles of Christ shun the “blessings” of poverty.
They do not take it themselves, they recommend it to others;
it is good for foreign export, bad for domestic consumption.
Blessed be ye poor ” is the text. The clergy never say
«< Blessed are we poor.” They preach with their tongues in
their cheeks, and an Archbishop is the greatest harlequin of
all. How Christ has saved the world from poverty may be
seen in the fact that, nearly two thousand years after his
advent, an Archbishop is paid £15,000 a year to preach
“ Blessed be ye poor.”
There is nothing in the teaching ascribed to Christ which
indicates that he understood poverty to be a curse, or that he
had the slightest appreciation of its causes or its remedies*
He was a preacher and a pietist, with the usual knowledge of
secular affairs possessed by that description of persons. Wellmeaning he may have been; there is no reason whatever to
dispute it; but good intentions will never, by themselves,
■effect the salvation of mankind.
On one occasion the Prophet of Nazareth gave a counsel of
perfection to a wealthy young man. It was to sell his
property and give the proceeds to the poor. Can anyone
conceive a greater economical absurdity? Most assuredly
we want a better distribution of wealth, but this is not the
method to bring it about. It would simply plunge all who
have anything into the slough of poverty. Such advice is a
counsel of ignorance or despair : of ignorance, if the teacher
thinks it would help the poor; of despair, if he regards
�58
Will Christ Save Us ?
poverty as irremediable, and aims at nothing but an equality
>
of misery.
Christ’s teaching as to poverty, if reduced to practice,
would pauperise and ruin society. Of course it may be
contended—it has been contended—that the advice to sell
out for the benefit of the poor, was solely meant for the
individual to whom it was tendered. But this is inconsistent
with the practice of Christ’s disciples, who must surely have
been in the most favorable position to understand his meaning.
They held all things in common, and those who had posses
sions sold them and paid the price into the common exchequer.
Here again, however, the later disciples of Christ find a
convenient explanation. According to Archbishop Benson,
for example, it was “ no instance of Communism,” but “ au
extraordinary effect to meet a sudden emergency.” Such
are the devices by which it is sought to escape from a
palpable difficulty ! Whenever the plain meaning of Scrip
ture is unpleasant, it is always nullified by artful interpreta
tions. But the slippery exegetes, in this particular instance,
overlook the fact that they are explaining away the only
practical bit of Christ’s teaching with respect to poverty.
They remove a difficulty and leave a blank. And there we
will leave them.
So great is the practical failure of Christianity to save
mankind in this world—so great its failure to save us
from the evils that too often make a hell on earth—that
two distinct lines of apology are pursued by its advocates.
According to the first, it was not the object of Christ to save
us from mere worldly evils; according to the second, we
might have been saved in this very sense of salvation, but we
have obstinately rejected our Redeemer.
As a representative of the first line of apology we select Mr.
Coventry Patmore, who is a Roman Catholic, and a poet of
some distinction. “ Some,” he remarks, “ who do not consider
�Will Christ Save Us ?
59'
that Christianity has proved a failure, do, nevertheless, hold
that it is open to question whether the race, as a race, has been,
much affected by it, and whether the external and visible
evil and good which have come of it do not pretty nearly
balance one another.” Mr. Patmore denies that it was the
main purpose of Christ, or any part of his purpose, that
“ everybody should have plenty to eat and drink, comfortable
houses, and not too much to do.” Neither material nor
moral amelioration was to be expected: on the contrary,
Christ was so far from prophesying “ that the world would
get better and happier for his life, death, and teaching, that
he actually prophesied “ it would become intolerably worse.
“ He tells us,” says Mr. Patmore, “ that the poor will be
always with us, and does not hint disapproval of the institu
tion even of slavery, though he counsels the slave to be
content with his status.” Christ came to save those who.
would, could, or should be saved from their sins, and fitted
for the Kingdom of Heaven. “ It was practically for those
few only that he lived and died,” and, shocking as it may
seem, it is the teaching of the New Testament.
This is clear, emphatic, and straightforward. With such a
defender of Christianity as Mr. Patmore even an Atheist can
have no quarrel. They may salute each other respectfully
across an impassable chasm.
It is not so easy to select a representative of the second
line of apology. The name of such is now Legion. They
tell us that Christ has been blindly misunderstood or wilfully
misrepresented. He was the great, the sublime preacher,
they say, of the doctrine of human brotherhood, which, if
reduced to practice, would make earth a heaven. His Sermon
on the Mount, they add, is the charter of our secular
redemption.
Now if Christ has been misunderstood, or even misrepre
sented, for two thousand years, some at least of the blame
must surely attach to himself. Why did he not expiess
�60
Will Christ Save Us ?
himself with the clearness of a Confucius. a Cicero, a Seneca,
a Marcus Aurelius? We are told that he used oriental
metaphors; true, and metaphors are good adornments, but
bad foundations. Something plain, solid, and satisfying
should form the basis of every structure.
As for the doctrine of human brotherhood, it was taught
before Christ, and after him by moralists who owed nothing
to his influence. Besides, such a doctrine is but a poor
truism or a barren platitude unless it takes a practical shape
in government and society. Louis the Fourteenth would
have allowed that the meanest peasant in France was his
brother in Christ. Such a broad generalisation means any
thing or nothing, according to individual circumstances.
What is wanted is something more precise, something
addressed to the intellect as well as the emotions. What is
the real value of a doctrine of brotherhood which saw nothing
wrong in slavery? What is the worth of it when the agri
cultural laborer and the landlord sit and listen to it in the
same church, and go their several ways afterwards with no
sense of incongruity, the one to slave for a bare pittance, and
the other to live in comparative idleness on the fruits of his
“ brother’s ” labor ?
With regard to the Sermon on the Mount—which, of
course, is no sermon, but a disorderly collection of maxims—
it has well been described as a series of “ pathetic exaggera
tions.” The moment it is discussed as a basis of action,
nearly every sentence has to be explained, qualified, or hedged
in with reservations. “ Resist not evil ” means, resist evil,
but resist it passively. “ Take no thought for the morrow ”
means, take as much thought as is necessary. “ Blessed are
the poor in spirit ” means, blessed are the rich who do not
keep their noses too high in the air. “ Blessed are the
meek ” works out as, blessed are those who stand up for their
rights. The way in which Christian Socialists turn and
twiBt, amplify and contract, explain and obscure this Sermon
�Will Christ Save Us?
61
on the Mount, is a fine illustration of how men will trim and
decorate their gods sooner than discard them altogether,
Morally, it may be “ touching.” Intellectually, it is contemp
tible. In any other cause it would be treated as downright
dishonesty. We are bound to tell these Christian Socialists
—or Social Christians, as some of the species would prefer to
be designated—that they are lacking in subtlety. Archbishop
Magee knew what he was about in declaring that any society
which tried to base itself upon the Sermon on the Mount
would go to ruin in a week. This he knew was indisputable,
except by softs, cranks, or lunatics. But he did not there
fore abandon the Sermon on the Mount. He sheltered it
behind a pretty, convenient theory; namely, that its injunc
tions are meant for the Church, not for the State—for the
individual, not for society—for Christians, not for citizens.
Jeremy Taylor also knew what he was about in declaring
that the clauses of the Sermon on the Mount are not com
mands, but counsels of perfection. Intellectually, this is not
contemptible; it is very clever—whatever else we may think
of it; whereas our Christian Socialists, or Social Christians,
play the confidence trick too clumsily, being as open as a hat
through the whole performance.
From any rational point of view, it is impossible to regard
Jesus Christ as the savior of the world. For a god, his
failure is egregious. His apostles were to go into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature; according to the
last chapter of Mark, those who believed were to be saved, and
those who disbelieved were to be damned. Eighteen centuries
have rolled by, and little more than a quarter of the world’s
inhabitants even profess Christianity. Missionaries are still
laboring to convert the “ heathen,” but the proselytes they
make are not a tithe of those who are lost to the Churches
at home through scepticism or mere indifference. Further,
the “ revelation ” through Christ is so obscure, so compli-
�«2
cated, or so self-contradictory, that Christendom is split up
into a multitude of sects, each declaring itself the only true
custodian of “ the faith once delivered unto the saints.” The
only points on which they are universally agreed, are the
cardinal doctrines of pre-Christians religion. To imagine
such a poor, confused result as the work of a deity, is to sink
gods below the level of men. To bid us regard it as the work
of a being at once omnipotent and omniscient, is to insult
the very meanest intelligence.
Christ is a failure also as a man; though, perhaps, it is
less his fault than his misfortune. The true story of his
life—if, indeed, he ever lived at all—has been buried under
a monstrous mass of myths and legends. The sayings
ascribed to him have given rise to endless disputes and
bitter quarrels, in the course of which blood has flowed like
water and tears have fallen like rain. His very name has
been an instrument of terror and oppression. Priests and
kings, age after age, and century after century, have used it
to delude and despoil the people. The nails of his hands and
feet have been driven into the brains of honest thinkers; the
blood from his wounds has been turned into a poison for the
veins of society. Could he see all the frauds and crimes done
in his name, he would wish it to perish in oblivion.
In no sense has this Galilean saved the world. As a simple
man, and no god, how could he possibly do so ? The world’s
salvation is far too huge a task for any man, let him be ever
so wise and great. It is a task for the soldiers of liberty,
truth, and progress in every age and every land. Why
should millions of men be constantly bending over the tomb
of a single dead young Jew ? Is not the whole world a
sepulchre of poets, artists, philosophers, statesmen, and
heroes? Do not the stars shine like night-lamps over the
slumbers of our mighty dead ? And why confine ourselves
to one little country, one petty nation, and one type of cha
racter ? Kot in Palestine, not in Jewry, not in Christ, shall
�. TP7ZZ Christ Save Us?
63
we find all the elements of human greatness and nobility.
Let us be more catholic than our forefathers. They were
narrowed by a creed; we will be as broad as humanity. It is
a poor, cowardly spirit that dreads the cry of “Lo here!” or
“ Lo there!” The wise, brave man will be curious and eclectic.
He will store the honey of truth, beauty, and goodness from
every flower that blooms in the garden of the world.
�TT
��FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT. By G. W. Foote. Fiftyone selected Essays and Articles. 221pp , cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE GRAND OLD BOOK. A Reply to the Grand Old Man.
By G. W. Foote. An Exhaustive answer to the Bight
Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s “Impregnable Rock of Holy
Scripture.” Is ; bound in cloth. Is. 6d.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Bev. Dr. J.
McCann. Is. Superior edition, in cloth, Is. 6d.
DAB WIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote. 6d.; cloth, Is.
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. 2nd edition,
enlarged, 8d.
Superior edition, cloth. Is. 3d.
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W.Foote. 128pp., Is
COMIC SEBvlONS & OTHER FANTASIAS. By G. W.
Foote. Price, 8d.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
BIBLE HANDBOOK foe FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING.
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Com
plete, paper covers, Is 4d Superior paper, cloth, 2s.
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and
J. M. Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous
Notes, 6d. Superior edition, cloth, Is.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.. 2s. 6d.
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Bound, 7s. 6d.
BIBLE 8TUDIES. By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, 2s. 6d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Ingersoll. Is.; cloth, Is. 6d.
FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins.
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations
by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by
J. M. Wheeler. Is. Superior edition, cloth, 2s.
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach. Is.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED.
By Jeremy Bentham. A trenchant analysis, in Bentham’s
best manner, showing how the Catechism is calculated
to make children hypocrites or fools, if not worse.
With a Biographical Pieface by J. M. Wheeler. Is.
SATIRES & PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
Cloth Is.
Complete Catalogue post free on application.
"THE FREETHINKER,” edited by G. W. Foote.
Published every Thursday, price Twopence.
Robert 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 & 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
Will Christ save us?
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: 63 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Cover subtitle: An examination of the claims of Jesus Christ to be considered the savior of the world. Publisher's series list on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N271
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Jesus Christ
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 (Will Christ save us?), 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
Jesus Christ
NSS
Salvation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/868c92c366b6fa6f79b36ebc7e493dad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c%7EVvhiQGdkC1iMDnM1tt524v3JXZScbT4aKUdvd1W77kZkBoOaOFvfVeT2huKsYmlsrsMjgSeCLpbwlxxOMPbhpFaQAsBgBeaxyeHGZ%7EjexKtOFcljGCy8G0inPQpbt9u9v2AAl-YUuT8gFAs8PiQGRzMJRB6T31nuCzgTwIdoVZGILamZ%7EIasuQouOVyrI8GgzNeEnaMBuwBAvwg5xBVbv5wh1-3IserfKQdbCyCTz1A1BGGqQpPiGKgP1y1Xg-BmAavq2JY4n4aYZogU4Qb4OqAcXmPk8dp%7EGNXf-YP7S%7EZi4uz3mZx6V9PHeZdvo2dfGtTdYFiePuMCoshINEXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1cc90c18a3a6e80f8fbe0921bcd71be2
PDF Text
Text
THE
HALL OF SCIENCE
LIBEL CASE
WITH A
FULL AND TRUE ACCOUNT
OF
‘‘THE
LEEDS
Edited,
ORGIES.”
with Introduction,
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
LONDON:
R. FQRDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE HALL OF SCIENCE
LIBEL CASE.
WITH A
FULL AND TRUE ACCOUNT
OF
“THE
LEEDS
Edited,
OB(GIES.”
with Introduction,
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�4
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
This policy of defamation has been carried on systematic
cally against Secularism by the men (we never knew a woman
amongst them) who claim to be engaged in maintaining
Christian Evidences. It seems their ambition to make
people cease to regret “ the rarity of Christian charity.
They pursued Charles Bradlaugh to the day of his death,
and continued to befoul his character when the charity which
is not Christian usually suggests a tolerant if not a tender
silence. On one occasion he was tempted into a legal
vindication. He prosecuted a fellow who had printed (it
had often been spoken) the lie that he had taken out his
watch, and challenged any God there might be to strike him
dead in five minutes. Bradlaugh won the prosecution, but
he never succeeded in getting his costs, much less the
damages; and as this is an accident one is very liable to in
prosecuting slanderers, a poor man is apt to pause a long
while before resolving on litigation.
One of the persistent charges against Bradlaugh was that
he was responsible for a book called the Elements of Social
Science. He had reviewed it when it was sent to him as
editor of the National Reformer, and recommended it to
social students and reformers on account of its able and
sincere treatment of social problems, although he warned
his readers that he strongly dissented from some of the
writer’s opinions. Now the author of this work expressed
his opinion that the institution of marriage, at least as it
exists in most “ civilised ” countries, is a terrible evil; in
fact, he advocated, forty years ago, pretty much what is now
advocated with much applause by writers like Mrs. Mona
Caird and Mr. Grant Allen. Bradlaugh, however, would
have none of this. Radical as he was, he was in some
respects really old-fashioned. He was tender to children,
chivalrous to women ; and he would listen to no attack on
marriage, which he regarded as their security. Yet, because
he had expressed a qualified approbation of the Elements of
Social Science, these gutter friends of Christian Evidences
took to the practice of saying that he “ recommended it,’’
without any sort of reservation. Some of them went to the
length of calling it the Secularists’ Bible. They would pick
out a few strong sentences from hundreds of pages : one
about the evils of legal marriage, another about the evils of
�INTRODUCTION.
5
celibacy, and perhaps another—very much on the lines of a
famous passage in Lecky—about the social uses of prostitu
tion. Having read these passages to an ignorant, incon
siderate audience, as samples of the whole volume, they
would exclaim, “ Such are the tenets of Secularism ! Such
are the teachings of Bradlaugh
Contradiction had no effect upon these blackguards. They
knew their game, and they played it. Their one object was
to damage Bradlaugh and his party, and they were not con
structed to care about the means they employed for so
laudable an end.
Another device for damaging Bradlaugh, and also the
Secular party, was to circulate absurd—but, alas ! too
greedily swallowed—reports concerning the Hall of Science,
where the Executive of the National Secular Society held
its meetings, and where its President usually lectured when
in London. This building was erected in a small way at first,
with a corrugated iron roof; and although it was subsequently
enlarged and improved, the Christian Evidence lecturers
continued to call it “a cowshed.” They also derived a
peculiar satisfaction from its being, as they said, opposite a
lunatic asylum ; whereas it is really midway—-though on the
opposite side of the street—between the St. Luke’s Asylum
and the Parish Church. They appeared to be always
haunted by the subtle flavor of this brilliant witticism.
There is no necessity to mention all the calumnies that
were circulated against the Hall of Science. Bad as they
were, it was best to treat them with silence, as they were
never specific enough to furnish ground for an action. But
some time after Bradlaugh’s death a Christian Evidence
lecturer of peculiarly reckless brutality ventured upon a
really specific accusation. His actual language will be found
in the Report which follows this Introduction. The sub
stance of it was that, in 1879, during Bradlaugh’s leadership
of the Secular party, there was a class held at the Hall of
Science for teaching boys unnatural vices 1
This abominable accusation was made in a speech at
Leeds by a person named Walton Powell, which speech was
fully reported in a monthly paper called the Anti-Infidel,
owned and edited by W. R. Bradlaugh—a brother (heaven
save the mark !) of the great Bradlaugh. This person, who
�6
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
knew that his elder brother had good reason to despise him,
actually tried to obtain admission to Bradlaugh’s sick-room
just before his death. He was of course repulsed by Brad
laugh’s daughter, and he waxed pathetic over the circum
stance in his journal. Yet it was this “ brother” who first
published this libel of Powell’s—a libel that was calculated
to cover the dead leader of Freethought with infamy.
Directly the libel was brought to my notice I resolved to
take some kind of action against it. I saw it announced
that the debate, in which Powell uttered this filth, was to
be reprinted in the form of a pamphlet. I therefore waited
until the pamphlet was ready, when I had copies of it
purchased. I then appealed to Mr. R. O. Smith, the old
lessee and manager of the Hall of Science, who was clearly
responsible for the conduct of the establishment. If any
such offence had been committed there, he would have been
the person liable to indictment. Mr. Smith, therefore,
agreed to take action jointly with the National Secular Hall
Society (Limited), which had recently acquired from him
the lease of the premises.
Our solicitors advised us against a criminal prosecution.
They also advised us to proceed against the printer and
publisher of the libel. Accordingly a civil action was
entered against them for damages.
After the service of the writ, it was announced in the
Anti-Infidel that when the trial came on the charges in the
libel would be substantiated, and an appeal was made for
funds to expose the “ infidels ” and blast them for ever.
On October 18 (1894) I wrote an article in the Freethinker,.
as President of the National Secular Society, and Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the National Secular Hall
Society (Limited), explaining how the case stood, and
stating when it was likely to come on for trial.
John Snow, the publisher of the libellous pamphlet, pre
tended to feel aggrieved by this article, and cited me to
appear in the Court of Queen’s Bench on Tuesday, October 30,
to face a motion for my committal to prison for contempt
of court. The application was heard by Justices Wright
and Collins, who declined to make any order, and even the
question of costs was to stand over until the main case wasdisposed of.
�INTRODUCTION.
7
Mr. Justice Wright asked for a copy of the original libel.
I did not have it with me, but John Snow’s counsel foolishly
handed it up to the judges. Mr. Justice Wright read it with
a look of disgust, and passed it over to Mr. Justice Collins,
who read it with a similar expression. And then the follow
ing colloquy ensued between the Bench and John Snow’s
counsel:—
. Mr. Justice Wright : Have you read the “original
libel”? Nothing could possibly be worse than the libel.
It is the worst libel I ever read, if you do not justify it.
Mr. Rawlinson : I am sorry your lordship should
say that, because I have not in any way to answer the
case before your lordship.
Mr. Justice Wright : I am not saying you cannot
justify it. What I do say is that, if you cannot justify
or excuse it, it is about as bad as a libel can be. I am
not for one moment saying it is wrong, still there
appears to be a great deal of provocation.
The application for my committal to prison was an
ignominious failure. The judges did not even require to
hear my defence. I suffered a loss of about £20, but I
gained the expression of Mr. Justice Wright’s opinion that
the libel was the worst he had ever read.
The main case was not heard until Monday, February 18,
1895. Mr. Justice Lawrance presided. The senior counsel
on our side was Mr. Lawson Walton, M.P.; the junior
counsel, Mr. Cluer. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Rawlinson
appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Lawson Walton, M.P., our senior counsel, had the
case remarkably well in hand. He is a first-rate speaker,
with a real oratorical faculty. I listened to him as a
connoisseur, and I was delighted. His plea for freedom of
thought and speech for all inquirers, his reprobation of
bigotry, and his censure of the “ charity ” which thinketh all
evil of opponents, were delivered in beautiful language, and
with great force and sincerity. Mr. Murphy, the senior
counsel on the other side, struck me as an excellent brow
beater. There was an absence of “ breeding ” in his whole
manner. He bluntly told Mr. Smith that his opinions were
important in estimating the value of his character. He had
no case, and he knew it. His object was to excite prejudice,
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
and to introduce illegitimate evidence. In this attempt he
was foiled in a masterly manner by Mr. Walton. Finding
the game was up, Mr. Murphy decamped, leaving the poor,
battered case in the hands of his junior, Mr. Rawlinson ; a
gentleman of loose, shambling, but fluent eloquence, with a
great gift for worrying a point, and pressing an obvious
absurdity as though it were a cogent argument. Air.
Rawlinson is of a pious turn of mind. He occasionally
indulges in open-air preaching. I hear that he was very
interested in this case, and that he pleaded for Snow & Co.
gratuitously. If this be true, he has furnished a fresh
illustration of the truth that what is got for nothing is
generally worth it.
Judge Lawrance did not exhibit any particular ability.
What little he did display seemed rather at the service of
the defendants. He never uttered a word in reprobation of
a libel which Mr. Justice Wright said was about the worst
he had ever read. He appeared to regard it as one of those
things which a Christian disputant might be expected to
say in a moment of exaltation. His lordship remarked that
people forgot themselves in politics, for instance, as well as
in religion ; as though it were common, in political con
troversy, to accuse opponents of crimes like the promotion of
unnatural vices! On the whole, his lordship created the
impression that he would not be displeased by a verdict for
the defendants. Of course an English judge is beyond
suspicion of partiality; but, as a matter of fact, Justice
Lawrance, when he sat in the House of Commons, was a
rabid opponent of the late Charles Bradlaugh.
The line of defence adopted by the other side was a
singular exhibition of Christian morality. When the action
was begun, the defendants boasted that they had at last an
opportunity of publicly establishing the vile immorality of
Secularism. They promised their dupes that when the case
was tried the charges in the libel would be “ proved up to
the hilt.” Christian Evidencers went about chuckling. It
was rumored that a whole army of detectives would appear
as witnesses to cover the Atheists with confusion. I heard
all this, and I smiled. It soon came to my knowledge that
the gang of libellers were quarreling amongst themselves.
W. R. Bradlaugh bitterly complained of being led into a trap
�INTRODUCTION.
9
by Powell. There was not a shadow of a shade of evidence
obtainable; the libel was a mere malignant invention.
But it was against the rules of Christian Evidence to confess
an error and offer reparation. The sole desire of the libellers
was to save their own skins. Accordingly they instructed
their counsel to plead that they never meant their accusa
tions to apply to the Hall of Science, but to a hall at Leeds.
This was a policy of desperation. It has been a jest among
Christians for twenty-five years that the Hall of Science is
opposite a lunatic asylum. It is also known to be the head
quarters of the Secular party. Yet, although the place
referred to in the libel was “the headquarters of the
Secularists” and “opposite a lunatic asylum,” these good
Christians, these champions of virtue, these guardians of
morality, set up the monstrously base and lying plea (at the
eleventh hour) that the place referred to was two hundred
miles away in Yorkshire !
It is easy to see what the libellers were depending upon.
Their trust was in the Christian prejudices of the jury.
But the libel was too gross to be countenanced by any dozen
men who had no interest in its circulation. The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £30 damages. The
libellers had also to pay costs, and their total bill amounted
to something like £250.
Thirty pounds was a ridiculous sum as damages. But the
great thing was the Verdict. It was the opening of a new
era. It was the first serious intimation to the baser sort of
Christians that they could no longer count on being able to
libel Secularists with absolute impunity.
Mr. Murphy repeatedly asked why I was not put into the
witness-box. I have to reply that the defendants have only
themselves to thank for my absence. On their own motion,
the National Secular Hall Society was struck out of the
case, as having no real status in the claim for damages.
Had they not taken this step, I should have gone into the
witness-box as the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
As it was, there were witnesses enough without me; and I
was far more useful in close proximity to our solicitor and
counsel during the trial. Certainly I was under no obliga
tion to give Mr. Murphy an additional opportunity of
appealing to the prejudices of the Christians upon the jury.
�10
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
I have not a high opinion of the intelligence of the
promoters of this branded libel on the Hall of Science, but
they are not so imbecile as to expect to be taken seriously in
pretending—at the eleventh hour—that the libel really
referred to a hall at Leeds. The object of the defence, in
this respect, was simply to create prejudice. Our counsel
very properly declined to discuss the Leeds affair, and the
judge should have checked the attempt to introduce it,
instead of allowing it to weigh—not indeed as evidence, but
as an insinuation—with the jury.
What could not be gone into at the trial must be gone
into now. I think it necessary to put the reader in
possession of the real truth about the “Leeds Orgies,”
which the Christian Evidence people have always affected
to regard as a practical demonstration of the “ filthy
immorality” of Secularism.
The Lecture Hall, in North-street, Leeds, was built by a
few persons, mostly Secularists, who formed themselves into
a Company for the purpose. This hall was rented by the
local Secular Society, which met in it every Sunday for
lectures, and some week-nights as well. A flourishing
Secular Sunday School was also held there in the afternoon.
When the Secularists were not using the hall themselves
it was let it in the ordinary way of business, the place being
licensed for music and dancing.
On Friday, August 30, 1878, it was let for a Fancy Dress
Ball. The parties who hired it had engaged it twice
previously, and there had been no cause of complaint. But
the police had warning—or they said so—that the third
gathering was to be a scandalous and obscene affair.
Detectives waited upon Mr. Stead, of the Secular Society,
who looked after the letting. This gentleman was for pre
venting the meeting, but the detectives wanted to go on with
their business, and he promised them every facility for
watching the proceedings. They also waited upon Bancroft,
the hall-keeper, in the hall itself, and told him they wanted
to secrete themselves where they could see without being
seen; but there was no convenience in the building for
such a purpose. However, they came again while the ball
was in progress, and gained admission; and the result was
a prosecution.
�INTRODUCTION.
11
The following report appeared in the weekly supplement
to the Leeds Mercury for September 7, 1878 :—
“ Strange Proceedings in a Lecture Hall.—At the
Leeds Borough Police-court, on Monday, before Mr.
Bruce, the stipendiary magistrate, an elderly man,
named William Pratt, was charged, on a warrant, with
selling beer without a license, and, along with Edwin
Bancroft, was charged with assisting in the manage
ment of a disorderly house. Mr. Ferns prosecuted on
behalf of the Chief Constable; Mr. Alfred Watson
defended Pratt, and Mr. Dunn defended Bancroft. Mr.
Ferns applied for a remand to allow time to get the
necessary evidence, but Mr. Bruce suggested it would be
better to hear one of the witnesses in order to see the
nature of the charge. Detective-Superintendent Ward
then stated that, in consequence of information received,
he, along with Detective-Sergeants Napp and Tinsley
and Detective Eddy, visited the North-street Lecture
Hall about 12.50 on the morning of the first inst. The
door was fastened ; but on making use of the password,
‘Rachel,’ the prisoner Bancroft admitted them. On
proceeding upstairs to the large" hall, they found about
a hundred persons assembled—three women, and the
rest men. About twenty or thirty of the men, however,
were . dressed in female’s clothes. There were two
dressing-rooms—one on each side of the orchestra, and
persons were going into and out of them. A man
named Strong was present in charge of a box containing
spirits—gin and whiskey. Some of the men were only
partially clothed, and one man, who was dancing in the
middle of the room, had only a cloak and a girdle on.
As he danced the cloak flew back and exposed his body.
Whilst dancing, one of the men, dressed as a woman,
purposely fell, and a number of other men threw
themselves upon him whilst on the ground, and
indecent familiarities took place. During the dance
the dancers kissed and conducted themselves indecently
towards each other. The prisoner Pratt was in the
room, the whole of the time, and Bancroft came in
occasionally. Whilst there he saw a large stone bottle,
which would hold about six gallons, and also some
glasses which had contained beer. The person who
held the music license for the hall had been summoned
for .Thursday next, for keeping it open during pro
hibited hours. Upon that evidence Mr. Ferns applied
for a remand. Mr. Dunn said he should not be able to
get his witnesses, for the defence ready that day, so that
he had no objection to the remand. All he asked was
�12
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
that his client (Bancroft) should be admitted to bail on
his own recognisances. Mr. Watson also applied for
bail on behalf of Pratt. Mr. Ferns objected to bail
being granted on the ground that the ‘ particulars of
the case were too monstrous to admit of such a thing.’
The prisoners were accordingly remanded until Thurs
day, bail being refused.—On Thursday the case was
resumed. Mr. Bruce said he was satisfied that what
had taken place was sufficient to bring the room under
the head of. a ‘disorderly house.’ He should order
Pratt to be imprisoned for a month, and should fine
Bancroft 60s., including costs. In passing sentence, Mr.
Bruce said he did not consider Bancroft the main
offender in the case. The main offenders were the
people who chose to let the hall for purposes of a most
lewd and obscene entertainment. The charge against
Naylor was about to be taken, when Mr. West, barrister,
who appeared on behalf of the proprietors of the hall,
stated that .his clients had no knowledge whatever,
directly or indirectly, of the purpose for which the
entertainment was got up. After what had been stated
it was evident that, under the 102nd section of the Act,
the music licenses had been forfeited, and if the Bench
thought so he would bow at once to the decision with
out going again into the evidence. Mr. Bruce con
sidered that, the proceedings which had taken place
were, most improper, and ordered the license to be
forfeited. He also added that, considering the position
Mr. Stead occupied as a member of the Lecture Hall
Company and of the Secular Society, both parties were
equally affected.”
A much longer report appeared in the Leeds Express, and
another in the Leeds Daily News—the latter being written
by a Christian, who spiced his report with what he perhaps
regarded as fair attacks upon the “ infidels,”
Let us see what the “ infidels ” had to do with the matter
The parties who hired the hall were not Secularists. Mr.
Stead, of the Secular Society, would have stopped the
gathering if he had not thought he was furthering the ends
of justice by letting the detectives deal with it in their own
fashion. Bancroft, the doorkeeper, was a Secularist, but he
always denied the allegations of the detectives. After the
first day5s hearing before Stipendiary Bruce, he was actually
refused bail, on the ground that the charges were so
“ horrible.” Two days afterwards he was sentenced to a fine
�INTRODUCTION.
13
of sixty shillings ! There was no evidence against him, but
he was technically liable as doorkeeper. He was fined, just
as he was refused bail (contrary to the spirit and practice of
English law), simply because he was a Secularist.
Stipendiary Bruce, who frequently sneered at Secularism,
remarked that “ the main defendants in the case were the
gentlemen who belonged to the hall, and who let the place
without exercising any supervision, for the purpose of a
lewd and obscene entertainment.” This was merely an
expression of Mr. Bruce’s bigotry. The gentlemen belonging
to the hall did not let it for a lewd and obscene entertain
ment ; they let it for a lawful and reputable purpose; and
it was entirely owing to the policy of the detectives that the
entertainment took place at all.
Mr. Joseph Symes, who was then the resident Secular
lecturer at Leeds, issued a pamphlet on this subject. He
threw doubt upon the detectives’ evidence. It seemed to
him, as it seems to me, a monstrous thing that the detectives
should be in the hall for an hour, witnessing the most
indecent practices, without making a single arrest. They
arrested no one until the next day, and then only Bancroft,
who was not really implicated, and Pratt, who was nominally
the conductor of the ball. Why did they not arrest the real
culprits, the obscene wretches who had been under their eyes
for a whole hour ? The only answer I can think of is this :
Either the detectives grossly exaggerated what they saw,
or they had reasons for not bringing the guilty persons to
justice.
Now, as a matter of fact, many of the persons present at
the ball were young men belonging to well-known Christian
families in the neighborhood. Mr. Bradlaugh had a list of
them in his possession, and he advised the Secular Society at
Leeds to be represented at the trial. The Society, however,
took the view that they had nothing whatever to do with
the case ; they had committed no offence, and they declined
to be mixed up in the matter. Still, it would have been
better if they had taken Mr Bradlaugh’s advice. There
would then have been an exposure that would have covered
the Christians with confusion; whereas the “ dignified ’’
policy they adopted left a door open for a multitude of
misrepresentations.
�14
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Unfortunately the Christian Evidence people were
assisted in their work of calumny by the editor of the
Secular Review. I am very loth to refer to this matter, but,
as the name of this paper occurs in the verbatim report of
the trial, I have no alternative. Mr. Murphy questioned
one of our witnesses as to “ a paragraph in that paper about
the obscenity alleged to have occurred at the Hall of Science
at Leeds.” (There was no hall in Leeds bearing that name.)
The issue referred to was June 26,1886 ; nearly eight years
after the Leeds affair.
Mr. Stewart Ross, the editor of the Secular Review, which
has since changed its title, had a bitter quarrel of his own
with Mr. Bradlaugh ; and, being a man of vehement temper
—which time and experience have no doubt softened—he
chose to maintain that the Leeds “ abominations ” were the
result of Mr. Bradlaugh’s teachings, and allowed himself to
write of “ the unspeakably obscene character of the orgies
of the Leeds Branch of the National Secular Society.” This
is the language of a man in a reckless mood, passionately
bent on injuring his enemy. Its falsehood and absurdity
are obvious in the light of the real facts of the case; and,
judging from the eulogies on Mr. Bradlaugh which Mr. Ross
has penned of late years, it is reasonable to infer that he
regrets the intemperance of this old attack. It must be a
severe punishment to find himself cited as a kind of witness
against the reputation of Freethinkers, to the detriment of
particular persons whom he knows to be as honorable as
himself.
Before I leave this Leeds affair, I will press the following
points upon the reader’s attention: (1) That the parties
who organised that ball, and attended it, had no sort of
connection with the Secular Society ; (2) That the member
who let them the Hall, in the ordinary way of business,
would have stopped the entertainment, had it not been for
the detectives, whom he offered every facility ; (3) That the
real culprits, the men alleged to have been guilty of
abominable practices, were never proceeded against;
(4) That the two men, Pratt and Bancroft, who were
refused bail on the Tuesday because the charge was so
“ horrible,” were on the Thursday sentenced to the petty
punishment of a month’s imprisonment and a fine of sixty
�INTRODUCTION.
15
shillings ; (5) That, if the obscenities related by the police
actually occurred, there must have been some very strong
reason for bringing the case to such a sudden termination ;
(6) That this reason could be no other than a desire to screen
the most guilty parties ; (7) That this desire could only
spring from a certain knowledge that they did not belong to
the Secular party.
Supposing that Bancroft, who was a Secularist, had really
committed an offence as the street-door-keeper, meriting a
fine of sixty shillings—or as much less as the sum would
amount to, after allowing a discount for the fact that a
Christian was punishing a Secularist; what is there, I ask,
in this to justify, or even excuse, a constant attack for
nearly twenty years on the “ morality of Secularism ” ? If I
were in the humor for reprisals, I might remind these
charitable calumniators of Secularism of a certain member
who was expelled the House of Commons for evading
justice; who was accused, not of indecency, but of un
natural crimes, for which he was liable to many years’
penal servitude; who finally surrendered, and was found
guilty and sent to prison. That man was a leading
Christian in the city he represented, and held] Bible^classes
of young men at his residence, where those criminal
intimacies were formed and ripened.
I might pursue this policy of reprisal to a considerable
length, but I will refrain. I have (I hope) exploded for
ever this calumny of the “ Leeds Orgies,” as far at least as
the considerate and impartial are concerned. I have only
to say, in conclusion, that when the character of the Hall of
Science was taken into court its worst enemies had not the
courage to utter a word against it in the witness-box, where
they are liable to cross-examination, and acutely sensible of
the unpleasant consequences of perjury.
April, 1895.
G. W. FOOTE.
�16
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
POSTSCRIPTS.
(1) Mr. R. O. Smith, who was never, I believe, in a witnessbox in his life before this trial, made two little slips in his
evidence, which did not, however, in any way affect its
general tenor and credibility, and were, in fact, quite
unessential. I corrected these slips at the time in the
Freethinker, and I am obliged to do so again in issuing the
verbatim report of the trial in a separate form. Under
cross-examination by a brow-beating counsel, Mr. Smith did
not sufficiently discriminate between inference and know
ledge. He admitted that I had collected funds on his
behalf. What he should have said was, that I had deposited
a certain sum of money with our solicitors, on behalf
of the National Secular Hall Society (Limited), which was
originally one of the plaintiffs in the action. Mr. Smith
also gave an affirmative answer to the question whether
he built the Hall of Science with his own capital.
Subject to qualification—which it was not easy to give on
the spur [of the moment, especially as it did not affect the
main question—this answer is perfectly true. The qualifi
cation is that Mr. Smith was assisted in building the Hall
of Science by a subscription of £1,298, paid over to him by
Mr. Bradlaugh on behalf of the Secular party.
(2) The verbatim report of the trial was made by the wellknown Press Association. I mention this fact to disarm
suspicion and prevent misrepresentation.
G. W. F.
�17
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
On Monday, February 18, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and
a Common Jury, in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice, the case of the National Secular Hall
Society and another v. Snow and another came on for trial.
Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Cluer appeared for
the plaintiffs; and Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Rawlinson
were for the defendants.
Tho officer of the court, by his lordship’s direction,
ordered that all women and children were to leave the
court.
Mr. Cluer said the plaintiff was Robert Owen Smith,
and the defendants were John Snow and Messrs. Cook & Co.
The plaintiff claimed damages for a libel, printed and
published by the defendants. Defendants admitted the
publication, but denied that it in any way referred to the
plaintiff.
Mr. Lawson Walton : Gentlemen of the jury,—As, no
doubt, you have gathered from the announcement just made
by the officer of the court that all women and children are
to leave the court, this is a somewhat painful and distressing
case. Mr. Robert Owen Smith, the plaintiff, has come into
court to meet a libel, published (as he thought and you will
probably have no doubt) of him, possibly in common with
other persons, of a most flagrant kind. The defendants are
the printers and publishers of the paragraph which Mr. Smith
impugns, and they are responsible for having given to the
world one of the most atrocious charges which, perhaps, can
be launched against the character of any individual. The
libel appeared in a publication which professed to be a
report of a public discussion which took place in the city of
Leeds between a Mr. Powell and a Mr. Fisher. The
pamphlet was headed “ Is Secularism Degrading ?’ and it
placed into the mouth of one of the controversialists the
charge of which Mr. Smith complains. It runs thus : “ Now,
sir, in the Hall of Science in the Dancing Academy, the
headquarters of the Secularists, which is built just opposite
a lunatic asylum—(laughter)—they had held meetings—and
B
�18
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
this is vouched for in the daily Standard of August 11,1879
—where they got boys together and taught them the act-of
self-abuse, in order, so they said, to make muscular and
strong the organs of procreation. I am in a mixed audience,
and cannot open my mind freely.” I think, notwithstanding
the mixed audience, that disputant had opened his mind
freely, and had used his tongue with equal freedom. That
charge, of as horrible a course of instruction for the young
as the human mind can conceive, was fixed to a class of
persons, not designated by name, but sufficiently designated
by description to lead every person acquainted with the
facts to come undoubtedly to the conclusion at whom
it was directed. They have had meetings. They have
established a dancing academy, and in that academy
they have given this atrocious and horrible instruction.
The question which arises, and which appears to be
the only question involved in the inquiry, is the identifi
cation of the persons against whom the charge was launched.
Who were the individuals referred to in the expression as
“ they ”? Who was responsible for founding the National Hall
of Secularism which existed in the City of London ? Who had
organised, at the headquarters of Secularism, the meetings
for the purpose of propagating Secularist opinions ? Who
established the Dancing Academy in connection with the
hall, and who organised these classes for the young in which
this horrible doctrine was supposed to be propagated 1
Unfortunately, Mr. Robert Owen Smith has had to come
forward, because, undoubtedly, to every person who is
acquainted with his relationship with this Hall of Secular
ism, and his connection with the classes, there can be no
doubt that, if anybody was responsible, Mr. Smith was
responsible ; and if anybody was to come forward and clear
his charactei* from these odious accusations, that person was
Mr. Smith ; and I will tell you why. Mr. Smith, in the year
1868, purchased the site upon which the Hall of Science, in
Old-street, was built. That was the very year in which Mr.
Brad laugh, perhaps one of the best-known lecturers at the
Hall of Science, first stood for the borough of Northampton.
Mr. Smith built the hall with his own capital, and conducted
it at his own expense. The lecturers were paid by him, and
any receipts from them were received by Mr. Smith, and
were applied by him to meeting the expense of the venture.
Mr. Bradlaugh, Mrs. Besant, and various other persons of
Secularist opinions, lectured from week to week at the Hall
of Science; and, after a while, Mr. Smith established in
connection with it a Club and Institute. Classes were
opened for the instruction of the young, entertainments
were given of a special character, and among other classes
was one for teaching dancing. Mr. Smith organised these
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
19
classes, superintended them, and some of them he actually
conducted himself. Under his supervision the art of dancing
was taught to young people by dancing masters whom he
employed, and I hold in my hand the public bills which were
issued, and the tickets which were issued : and on the face
of them Mr. Smith was publicly described as the Secretary
and Manager of the hall, and of all the undertakings and
classes held in connection with it. Therefore, the Hall of
Science which was referred to in the paragraph owed its
origin to Mr. Smith’s enterprise, to his capital, and its
operations to his supervision and personal management.
Therefore, if it is suggested that, at that Hall of Science,
practices which outrage human nature took place at classes
actually superintended by Mr. Smith himself, the person who
came forward to meet an accusation of that sort, and the only
person against whom it can be levelled, and popularly regarded
as such, is Mr. Smith, the plaintiff in this action. When this
paragraph appeared a letter was written to the defendants,
who had given it to the world, and to the defendants alone.
The obscure libeller and slanderer, who said what he had to
say in some obscure hall in a provincial town, is a compara
tively unimportant person, and the slander was a com
paratively unimportant matter. But here, in the City of
London, under their own names, the two defendants, as
publisher and printer, gave to this slander the prominency
of print, and the currency of a pamphlet scattered broad
cast over the whole country. Mr. Smith therefore wrote to
these two defendants, and called upon them for some expla
nation and retractation of this horrible accusation. They met
that appeal with absolute silence. Neither of them deigned
to answer the letter which was written to them. Absolute
silence on the part of both of these defendants. But some
third person, who had not originally uttered the slander,
and to whom no letter was written, voluntarily put himself
into the breach, and made himself responsible for the charge.
Mr. Smith had, under advice, sought to hold the two defen
dants—the printer and publisher of this pamphlet—as
primarily answerable ; and it was from them alone he was
determined to have some retractation, as public as the original
charge was which had been made. Unfortunately, the
matter does not rest there. This accusation was not met by
silence, but it was met by persistent repetition ; and I shall
be able to show you that another publication, which was
issued by one or both of the defendants, and which describes
itself as the Anti-Infidel, made an appeal for subscriptions
trom the credulous public—who, I suppose, are willing to
Relieve any foul thing, in their wealth of charity, of any
body who does not share their own religious opinions. An
appeal was made for contributions—for the purpose of
�20
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
retracting ? No ; but for the purpose of proving the charge
up to the hilt; and in this publication an assurance is made
that the charge is going to be proved up to the hilt. What
is their course now ? They originally start by bluster, and
they now meet us in this Court of Justice with the cowardice
of the person who would make such a charge, and then say
that they will prove it to be true. Now, do they say it is
true ? Do they use the subscriptions raised by the credulous
public for the purpose of proving it is true ? No ! The
appeal, I presume, resulted in the flow of the money they
desired ; and, having obtained these funds, they put them
into their pocket, and come into court, and try and back out
of it, and escape their responsibility for having made it
and the defence, and the only defence, that they have put
upon the record is this : It is true it was said—we don’t say
whether it is true or false ; but we certainly say we did not
say it of Smith. I doubt not that you will deal with such a
defence in the way that it merits. If they did not say it of
Mr. Smith, of whom did they say it ? If they did not speak
of the person who organised the classes, and who personally
superintended them, then who was the man responsible for
this outrage ? Why did they not care to take the first
chance of exonerating him, and repudiating the suggestion
that he was the person referred to. Instead of meeting the
challenge, they tell the world, when Mr. Smith is suing
them, that they are going to prove the truth of the charge
up to the hilt. The defence has only to be set out for you to
grasp the true situation, that there is, and can be, no answer
to the action. Why are the defendants here if all this
could not be proved, as they did not suggest it could ?'
Why, if it cannot be seriously denied that Mr. Smith is
seriously reflected upon, are the defendants here in a public
court of justice to resist the accusation ? I think you may
guess. They are here because they think there are persons
so steeped in religious prejudice that they will believe to be
true any gross accusation made against persons who do not
share their views, and because they think that, on the jury,
there may be a man so biassed by his religious opinions that
he cannot do justice to a fellow citizen who does not happen
to share his opinions. I hope they will be defeated by your
verdict, and that you will show that spirit of justice which
shines among the highest virtues. On behalf of Mr. Smith,
I ask you by this action to clear his character from a stain
cast upon him for which there is no sort of justification;
a stain on a long record of an honorable life, and to give him
the only reparation which the law allows for such an injury.
Mr. Robert Owen Smith, the plaintiff, then went into the
witness-box and made affirmation, giving his address as
81 Ridge-road, Hornsey. He was examined by Mr. Cluer.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
21
In 1868 did you take a lease of the premises on which the
Hall of Science in Old-street is built ?—I did.
Did you yourself have the building erected there ?—I did.
And paid for it ?—Yes.
What position did you hold from 1868 to 1892 with
reference to the Hall1?—I was the leaseholder and proprietor.
I was also secretary and manager of the Club and Institute,
which was established by myself, up to 1881. Through illhealth I gave up the secretaryship and management, and
was the treasurer of the Club j and I was the sole proprietor
and organiser of the lectures given there.
Was the Hall of Science the headquarters of the
Secularist party 1—It was ; and their council meetings were
held there.
Is it an annual meeting you refer to ?—No ; monthly.
And they meet there regularly *?—-Regularly.
Were there lectures delivered at the hall ?—Yes; every
Sunday evening, and sometimes Sunday mornings and week
nights.
Who arranged the lectures ?—I did.
Did you pay the lecturers 1—I did.
Had you control over the hall and the meetings that took
place there ?—I had.
And did you personally attend to it during the years from
1868 to 1892—I did.
When was it that you started a series of dancing classes
there ?—In 1869.
Would you look at this 1 Is that an advertisement of the
dancing classes 1—Yes.
Was that inserted by your authority 1—It was ; and my
name is at the bottom of it.
The Judge : What is the book ?—It is the North London
College and School Guide.
Mr. Cluer : Is it a fact that every day in the week there
Was dancing carried on under your superintendence ?—There
was.
Did you personally supervise those classes and see to
them 1-—I did.
For how many years did you personally look after them ?—
From 1872 to 1881.
At that time did you actually yourself give dancing
lessons with assistance ?—I did.
Was any instruction given there during that time without
your supervision *?—There was no instruction given there
that I was not responsible for. I did not give instructions
in science, because I was not a duly-qualified teacher. All
the classes held there I was responsible for, and for every
thing that took place in the building. Science classes were
taught by Dr. Aveling.
�22
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Were there classes in which the pupils were examined
by a Government department ?—In connection with South
Kensington.
And examinations were held on the subjects taught in the
science classes of the subjects prescribed by the South
Kensington school ?—They were.
And lectures delivered by responsible, qualified persons 1—
Yes.
I believe the Rev. Stewart Headlam was one of the
lecturers ?—Yes ; he has given lectures there, and he was a
member of the Science Classes Committee, who were
responsible for the teaching. The authorities at South
Kensington insist on having a committee on which there
must be one clergyman. I was also on the Committee.
With reference to the club, did you establish a club and
institute ?—I did.
Were you daily on the premises 1—Daily.
That was your business, you had no other ?—Yes.
What date was it that the club was established ?—1870.
Were you a member of the club yourself?—I was
secretary and manager.
Did you see yourself what went on from time to time
among members of the club ?—I did.
Will you just look at this copy of the libellous pamphlet,
A Secularism Degrading ? Will you tell me, with regard to
the paragraph in question, first, was the name of the
building in Old-street the Hall of Science ?—It was.
Had you there a dancing academy?—I had.
Is St. Luke’s Lunatic Asylum nearly opposite your place
in Old-street ?—Yes.
Your place is on the South side, and that is on the
North ?—Yes.
Before you saw that pamphlet, had you ever heard of any
such report, as is there vouched, in any paper called the
Daily Standard or any other paper ?—Never.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : What is the Daily Standard 2
Mr. Cluer : There is no such paper, I believe. (To the
witness). Is there a word of truth in the suggestion that
is made in this libel ?—There is not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Murphy, Q.C. : This pamphlet
purposes to be a debate between Mr. Walton Powell and
Mr. Greaves Fisher. Is that so ?—Yes.
And the preface seems to be in these words : “In October
last Mr. Walton Powell, President of the Liverpool Branch
of the National Anti-Infidel League, conducted a crusade in
Leeds ; and as the debate, of which the following pages
contain a report, arose out of that discussion, it is now
published in the belief that it will excite thought on matters
of importance to society, and enable readers to answer for
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
23
themselves the question, 1 Is Secularism Degrading ?’ ” and
that appears to be signed by W. R. Bradlaugh, President of
the Anti-Infidel League. Is there such a person as W. R.
Bradlaugh ?—There is.
The next thing we find is this : A reporter’s certificate,
dated January 1894, certifying that it is a correct transcript
of the debate between Walton Powell and Greevz Fisher, at
St. James’s Hall, Leeds, October 17, 1892, signed by two
reporters. Then there is the debaters’ certificate as to
accuracy, signed by Mr. Powell and Mr. Fisher. Then
follows what purports to be a verbatim report of this debate,
as it is called. When first did you hear of this pamphlet ?—
I cannot tell the exact date.
Shortly after it took place ?—Yes.
And you knew the name of Powell, who used these words,
and you knew the name of Bradlaugh too ?—-I knew of
Bradlaugh, but not Powell.
Did you make any complaint of the publication at the
time ?—I did not.
Although it was published in the papers. Have you made
any complaint to Mr. Powell, the utterer of these words ?—
I have not.
The debate took place at Leeds ?—Yes.
Had there been, to your knowledge, in the year 1878, a
great scandal about some immoral proceedings at a hall in
Leeds ?—I heard something.
Very disgusting proceedings had taken place there ?—I
don’t know.
Did not you ascertain that 1 Was it not a matter of dis
cussion, to your knowledge, of this trial that took place in
1878 ?—There was a trial.
And evidence was given of very disgusting proceedings
at a hall there 1—I was not aware of it.
Do you seriously say that you did not know the trial was
with reference to certain obscenities at a hall in Leeds ?—-I
was under the impression that it was for disorderly conduct;
but I did not read the trial.
And had never heard it discussed?—I had heard that
proceedings were taken.
And that evidence was given of disgusting conduct in the
hall ?—No.
You say that ? Think ! You never heard it alleged that
evidence was given of disgusting proceedings in a hall
between boys and young men. Have you ever heard of
it? I beg for a distinct answer to a plain question.—I
have not.
Do you know Mr. Foote ?—I do.
Has it been discussed in his presence and in yours ?—I
don’t know.
�24
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Come, do yourself justice in this matter. Do you say
you never it heard alleged that evidence was given of dis
gusting conduct in the hall in the year 1878?—I am not
aware of any of the proceedings in relation to the matter.
I am not asking whether you are aware ; my question is
whether you heard it discussed.—Not to my knowledge.
How can you have heard it if it was not to your know
ledge ?—I will say no more than that.
Do you persist in saying you never heard the matter
discussed?—I don’t remember on any occasion it was dis
cussed, in my presence, with Mr. Foote.
With anyone ?—Or with anyone.
You never heard of it before ?—I have heard of the pro
ceedings.
Have you heard it suggested before that evidence was
given of disgusting proceedings in the hall at Leeds ?—I
have said I believe it was for disorderly conduct, but I
really don’t know any more about the matter.
Have, you never heard until this moment ?—I have heard
that evidence was given.
Never heard it suggested ?—No.
Have you not seen the report in the public paper of what
occurred there ?—No, I have not.
Have you never seen the report ?—No, I have not.
Did you ever hear of a place called the Secular Hall,
Leeds ?—I have heard of a hall at Leeds used for Secular
purposes and lectures.
Lectures in connection with gentlemen of your opinions ?
—Yes.
And owned and leased by gentlemen connected with them ?
—I have no knowledge who was the owner.
Well, leased by persons of your opinions ?—I believe so.
Did you hear there was a prosecution about something
that occurred there ?—I did hear there was a prosecution in
connection with proceedings held at that hall. I do not
know whether the proceedings were against the persons who
leased it, or against other persons.
Did you never hear of this charge ?
Mr. Walton : I object. My friend is referring to a matter
extremely remote, because we are dealing with a hall speci
fically described; and now he is travelling to some other
matters in another part of the country. The witness has
already said he saw no report relative to that prosecution.
My friend is not entitled to suggest that such a report did
appear, unless he can .prove it by his witnesses. He is not
entitled to hold by this witness that there was a report after
the witness has said he did not see it.
Mr. Murphy : I disagree entirely with my friend. My
friend says the article here points to his hall. I say,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
25
Nothing of the sort. The debate was carried on at the
Secular Hall at Leeds, which is another hall entirely. I am
going to put to the witness-----Mr. Walton : My friend is not entitled to read a docu
ment with the object of suggesting to the jury certain facts
(of course that is his object), after witness has said no such
paper was ever seen by him.
Mr. Justice Lawrance: Yes; but he may put it to
him.
Mr. Walton : The opening out of a newspaper is a way to
suggest facts which he is not entitled to prove. I think it
is most irregular. If the witness says he did not see these
reports, that is the end of it.
Mr. Murphy (to witness) : Have you not been present
when the report of these trials has been discussed 1 —I may
have been present when the matter was talked about.
The report of this trial ?—No.
Never in 1878 ?—No; I don’t know the date. I have never
been present when the report of the trial was discussed.
Nor about what was reported to have occurred then ?—I
have said before that I have heard this matter talked about.
Have you never heard it suggested that disgraceful pro
ceedings took place there 1—No, I have not.
Do you read the Secular Review sometimes ?—No ; I have
seen it.
Did you ever see the passage speaking of the unspeakable,
obscene character of the orgies seen in the Leeds Branch of
the National Secular Society ?—No. You are speaking from
the Secular Review ?
Yes. You have never taken pains to ascertain what took
place at Leeds ?—No.
We have heard something about subscriptions. Have you
and Mr._ Foote been applying for subscriptions in support of
this action ?—I have not.
Has Mr. Foote, with your knowledge ?—Yes; on my
behalf.
Was it with your authority that this passage was written:
“ The London Hall of Science, for instance, has been the
constant object of calumny. It is said to be opposite a
lunatic asylum, though it is not. It is really midway
between the church and the asylum, and on the opposite
side of the road. The position is a good one, as it gives us
an opportunity of intercepting persons whose wits may
be disordered by the House of God”?—No, not on my
authority.
Is the Freethinker one of your party’s papers?—Yes, it
represents the Society’s views, but it is Mr. Foote’s paper.
It was one of the papers in which you advertised for
subscriptions to conduct this trial ?—Yes.
�26
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
And on the 15th April it contained the passage I have
just read ?—Yes.
Without any protest from you ?—Yes.
And the same number contained an appeal for subscrip
tions ?—Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Murphy : I did not read the whole of the quotation,
to do Mr. Foote justice: “It gives us an opportunity of
intercepting persons whose wits may be disordered by the
House of God before their arrival at the house of imbeciles.”
Mr. Walton : I submit my friend is not entitled to read
this, unless he has called evidence to connect it with the
plaintiff. Mr. Smith says it was not issued by his autho
rity.
Mr. Murphy : I entirely disagree. The witness has said
this paper was issued for the purpose of obtaining subscrip
tions for this trial, and was issued by the Society.
Mr. Smith : No, not by the Society.
Mr. Walton : That does not make the witness responsible
for the language Mr. Foote may have used. The paper was
not issued by the plaintiff, and it does not belong to the
Society.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I do not understand it.
Mr. Walton : The witness went on to say it was not the
property of the Society, but belonged to Mr. Foote, and
that it only represented the views of the Society.
Mr. Murphy : He saw the article, and used the paper to
collect subscriptions.
Mr. Walton : My friend is not entitled to use this. The
article is published by some other person without being
submitted to Mr. Smith. It is true it contained an appeal
for subscriptions, but that does not make _ Mr. Smith
responsible for the language used in it. Until my friend
shows that Mr. Smith authorised the publication of the
article he cannot be held responsible.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I understood him to say he
saw it.
Mr. Walton : Yes, after it was published.
Mr. Murphy : He saw it, and used it for the purpose of
obtaining subscriptions.
Mr. Smith : I did not use it to get subscriptions..
Mr. Walton : I think it was in October that this appeal
for subscriptions went out ?
Mr. Murphy : No; you are wrong.
Mr. Walton : Well, they are Mr. Foote’s views, and not
Mr. Smith’s. The whole object of my friend is. to prejudice
this gentleman. If he says, I have not published it, it is
clear my friend can’t use it.
Mr. Murphy : The whole object is to make this gentleman
responsible for their opinions.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
27
Mr. Walton : My friend must prove that Mr. Smith
published this article.
Mr. Murphy (reading): “ The solicitor is instructed to
accept no offer of compromise. The case must be determined
in court, where all the circumstances can be clearly under
stood ”—was that with your consent ?—No, it was not.
Was this with your consent: “There happens to be a man
of reckless scurrility—”
Mr. Walton : I object to this. He cannot produce this
till he has shown Mr. Smith is responsible for the publi
cation.
Mr. Murphy : I am going to ask him if he authorised
this.
Mr. Walton : But before you can read the passage you
must first show the witness published it. You are not
entitled to get the advantage of reading the passage,
and then ask the witness was that published with his
authority. If it is his publication, you must first show the
witness was responsible for it, instead of taking it as the
foundation of your question. The witness said he never
saw it before it was published. It was not published by
him, but was published by Mr. Foote.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I did not know he said he did
not see them before they were published.
Mr. Smith : I had not seen these things before they were
published, my lord.
Mr. Murphy : Did you see them after they were pub
lished?—Yes.
Did you afterwards agree with Mr. Foote that he should
write in the same Freethinker and invite subscriptions for
this case ?—-I did not agree with him in anything. He did
not consult me.
Did you know he was doing it 1—I did not know until the
articles and paragraphs appeared ; but I knew he was going
to solicit subscriptions in the Freethinker.
And you thought it right that he should do this ?—I could
not help myself. It is his own paper.
You left him to write what he thought proper, and to ask
subscriptions for your case?—Yes ; of course he would write
what he thought proper.
I will put the matter in another way. Does this passage
represent your opinions ? “ It is said to be opposite a
lunatic asylum, though it is not. It is really midway
between the church and the asylum on the opposite side of
the road. The position is a good one, since it gives the
opportunity to intercept persons whose wits may be dis
ordered by the House of God before they arrive at their
destination in the house of imbeciles.” Does that represent
your opinions ?—Are my opinions under discussion ?
�28
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Yes ; your character is at stake.—My character ?
Does that represent your opinions?—They are not my
opinions.
You are not shocked by them?—No, I am not shocked.
(Laughter.) Abuse is given on both sides in this question.
That was in the course of the debate, was it not ?—I was
not at the debate.
You have read it ?—I have read it.
You have not applied to Mr. Powell, or to Mr. Bradlaugh,
I understand ?—No.
Here is a book called The Elements of Social Science. Are
you familiar with it ?—Yes.
Is it sold by your Society ?—Yes ; by members, not by the
Society.
I see in the book the passage : “ Prostitution is a valuable
substitute until we have reached a better state of things, by
banishing the marriage laws.” Are those your opinions ?—
No.
But it is one of your books, which you sell 1—No, it is not
sold by the Society. It is sold only by members of the
Society.
Is it sold at a shop over which your Society has control ?
—No ; our Society has no control over any shop.
Is it sold at the hall ?—Yes.
By the Society of which you are a committee-man ?—
Yes.
Is this a passage from that book : “ The laws of exercise,
and the health of the reproductive organs and emotions,
depend on their having sufficient means of normal exercise :
and the want of this tends to produce diseases in men and
women ” ?—I have read that.
Is that one of the books you sell ?—It is one of the books
sold.
Have you seen advertisements of this pamphlet ?—I have
not.
Ke-examined by Mr. Walton: Have you any connection
with either the printing or the publication of this work,
The Elements of Social Science 1—No ; all the books we sell
we do not approve of. We do not approve of every doctrine.
We sell books containing all sorts of doctrine ; but it does
not follow we approve of them.
You do not hold yourself responsible for the opinions of
every professor of Freethought ?—Certainly not.
Freethought means freedom of thought on the part of
every member of society ?—Yes.
And this book my friend has referred to, which is written
by a doctor of medicine, has on its frontispiece this quota
tion from J. S. Mill: “ The diseases of society cannot be
prevented or cured without being spoken of in plain lan
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
29
guage.” How many years has that book been before the
world ?—I have known it for thirty years.
Has any effort been made to suppress this book as im
moral or illegal ?—Not so far as I know. I do not agree
with the writer of the book.
But he is entitled to his own opinions ?—Certainly.
And the law allows him to sell the book ?—Yes, but they
are not my opinions.
Have you ever made any charges of immoral misconduct
or any accusation of that kind against your opponents 1—I
have not. I am not in the habit of making charges.
It is now suggested that this pamphlet had reference not
to what took place at the Hall of Science in London, but at
the hall in Leeds. Have you ever, till this moment, heard
the suggestion ?—No, I was not aware that there was a Hall
of Science in Leeds. I do not think there is a hall called
the Hall of Science there.
Did you instruct your solicitors to write to the defendant
before the action commenced ?—Yes.
Mr. Murphy : The only one I know of is the one issuing
the writ.
Mr. Walton : In answer to that letter, or at any time
during this action, have you ever heard it suggested by
anybody that the Hall of Science here mentioned was the
hall in Leeds ?—I have not. I am informed there is no Hall
of Science in Leeds.
Is there any other headquarters of Secularism except
that with which you and the late Mr. Bradlaugh were
connected ?—No.
Is there any other Hall of Science opposite a lunatic
asylum 1—No.
Is there any Hall of Science in the kingdom to which this
description can apply except your own ?—No ; it has been
specially spoken of as being opposite a lunatic asylum. It
is some twenty-five years since I first heard the expression.
Have you any sort of connection with what has been
described as the Hall of Secularism at Leeds ?—No; and I
am not aware of what goes on there.
Or any responsibility for what happens there ?—No.
You are told fifteen . years ago there was a prosecution of
some persons at Leeds, in connection with the hall. Do you
know anything about it ? Have you ever heard it suggested
that that prosecution referred to disgusting conduct in the
nature of that imputed ?—I never knew any of the facts. I
knew there was a prosecution there, but I did not know the
facts connected with it.
Do you happen to know if the prosecution was with
drawn ?—I do not know how it terminated.
�30
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Suppose there had been a conviction, would you have
expected to hear of it ?
Mr. Murphy : You may have expected a good many things.
Mr. Walton : Did you ever hear of anybody being con
victed in connection with it 1—No, I did not.
By Mr. Murphy : Have you seen the advertisement of
this .pamphlet in the Torch, under the head of “The Leeds
Orgies. Full account of the Abominable Proceedings in
the Leeds Secular Hall. Demoralising Result of Secular
Teaching ” ?—I never saw the Torch, and never heard of it.
Mr. Walton : The date is significant. It is February 1,
1895, and the writ was issued April, 1894.
Miss Edith Vance was the next witness. She made an
affirmation, and was then examined by Mr. Cluer.
Are you the secretary of the National Secular Society 1—
I am.
Did you, on April 14, go to the defendant Snow’s place of
business 1—I did.
Five days after the writ in this action 1—Yes.
Did you purchase there, from his place of business, a copy
of the publication of this libel ?—Yes.
Mr. Murphy : I have nothing to ask the witness.
Mr. Robert Forder, examined by Mr. Cluer: Have you
known the plaintiff since 1868 ?—I have.
Have you constantly been at the Hall of Science yourself
from that time ?—From 1868 to 1870 there was a break, but I
came back in 1871. I became committee man in 1873, and I
was elected paid secretary.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : We don’t want all this history.
Mr. Cluer : In 1873 you were a committee man ?—Yes.
From that time had you an intimate connection with the
hall 1—Yes.
Was Mr. Smith there ?—Yes, as a rule, every night.
Who was the person responsible for the meetings, lectures,
and classes that went on there ?—Mr. Robert Owen Smith.
Did you know that science and art classes went on
there ?—Yes ; I was secretary of them.
Did Mr. Smith supervise what went on at the Hall 1—Yes.
Was he known among Secularists generally as the
manager ?—Yes, of the hall. We hired the hall for the
science and art classes of him.
Was he known generally as the person who conducted the
dancing academy there ?—Yes.
By Mr. Murphy : Who were you who hired the hall 1—
The Society engaged the hall every Sunday.
Were you your own manager ?—No; Mr. Smith managed
them all.
He was the lessor of the hall and manager of it ?—Yes ;
on Sundays.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
31
It was only on Sundays you held it 1—Yes ; but we were
entitled to it on Good Fridays, Christmas Days, and every
Sunday, and generally also on Wednesday evenings.
He managed the dancing ?—Yes ; with lady assistants.
Mr. Charles Watts, examined by Mr. Cluer : Have you
for many years known the Hall of Science ?—Yes; and
Mr. Smith in connection with it.
Who was responsible for the conduct of the classes ?—Mr.
Smith.
He would be regarded as responsible for the conduct of
the classes of the Dancing Academy and for the Society’s
meetings held there ?—Just so.
By Mr. Murphy : What did you say you were 1—I am a
journalist and lecturer.
Lecturer for any particular body ?—No.
A general lecturer ?—Yes.
What connection, if any, have you with the Hall of
Science ?—I was on the committee.
How long have you been so 1—Since my return from
America, about two years ago. Formerly I was there for
ten or twelve years.
Where were you in 1879 ?—In London.
It is suggested you were in America ?—No; I went to
America in 1884.
Then you were in London at the time of the Leeds trial ?
—Yes.
Did you hear of the trial 1—Yes, I heard of it.
Mr. Walton : I object to this. This cannot be relevant
to the question of damages—what he may have heard about
the Leeds trial—until my friend is in a position to make the
evidence at the Leeds trial pertinent to this matter.
Mr. Murphy : I really don’t know what the meaning of
this objection is. The question is whether these words
uttered in the reports pointed to something in London. All
the surrounding circumstances must be taken into account,
in order to see what the words meant. One of these things
was whether there was a trial at Leeds immediately before,
and what occurred at it. My friend assumes that this
relates to the Hall of Science in London. My case is that it
does not.
Examination continued: You have heard of the trial at
Leeds ?—Yes.
Did you hear evidence was given there of abominable
bractices ?—I did not.
Never heard it suggested till to-day ?—Never.
Dp you know a paper called the Secular Review 2—I have
not read it lately, I used to.
Were you not editor of it ?—I was.
Tn what year1?—Up to 1883.
�32
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
And not after that ?—Not after that.
Had you a kindly interest in it after that ?—No, no interest
directly, kindly or unkindly.
On June 26, 1886, will you undertake to say you did not
see a paragraph in that paper about the obscenity alleged to
have occurred at the Hall of Science at Leeds ?—In 1886 I
was in America.
Was it never discussed in your presence 1—-Never.
There are many of these Halls of Science in different parts
of England, are there not ?—I only know of two; one in
London, and one in Sheffield.
One in Leeds ?—No, that is not a Hall of Science; it is
never known by that name.
So far as you know ?—That is all I can say.
Mr. Walton : I put in a paper called the Anti-Infidel of
May, 1894. It is printed by the defendant Cook, and is
published by the other defendant, J. Snow & Co. The letter
appears on the first page of the paper. The passage I rely
upon is the last paragraph in the first column [stating that
when the case came into court the libel would be proved
up to the hilt].
Mr. Murphy insisted the whole article should be read.
Mr. Walton thereupon read the whole of the letter, and
upon concluding said that was the plaintiffs case. The
Court then rose for luncheon.
After the luncheon interval Mr. Murphy proceeded to
open the case for the defence. He said : That the state
ment which is contained in this paragraph is untrue I am
not here to dispute. My client does not pretend to justify
it. It was set out in this book as having been stated
publicly at this debate—about that there can be no sort of
doubt •, but to say that it was true at present is a thing my
clients have not said, and do not say. That they are legally
responsible I do not also dispute. One is the publisher and
the other the printer of the pamphlet. The publisher’s
position in this particular matter seems to be this. He
allows his name to be used as the publisher of the pamphlet,
and he gets a commission, which, in this particular instance,
if the number which had been sent to him had all been
sold, would have produced the magnificent remuneration of
16s., and in respect of that matter he stands his trial for libel.
The printer, on the other hand, has had his remuneration for
printing the pamphlet, and I think you will find it is not of
an extravagant character. The one was employed to print,
and the other to publish, by Mr. Bradlaugh, whose name has
been mentioned ; and it has been known to the plaintiff and
to the committee of this National Secular Hall Society ever
since the time of the discussion, when Mr. Powell was th#
�33
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
person who uttered these words, subsequently that Mr,
Bradlaugh was the person who authorised their publication
in the shape which they are at present. For reasons best
known to himself, the plaintiff, who is most anxious to
vindicate his character, which he says has been assailed, but
which I deny, has passed by the man who used the words
and the man who authorised their publication, and has come
upon the printer and publisher, neither of whom, it will be
proved, ever had any idea that there was any libel
contained in the words at all, much less that the
plaintiff was the person designated by them. It is
a lawful course for a man to take ; whether it is a just or a
fair one is another question. It has been said that the
plaintiff came into court without the slightest idea that
there could be any question that the Hall of Science in
London was not the one designated by Mr. Powell when he
spoke at Leeds. Do you believe it ? Do you believe that
these gentlemen, one and all, have come up here and told
you the full truth as to whether or not they ever heard of a
disgusting trial at Leeds in the year 1878 ? What do you
think, of the way in which the plaintiff answered my
questions? Had he answered them in a straightforward
way ? Do you think you got his whole mind ? Do you
think he told you all he knew about the trial ? Do
you think he ever heard.it suggested there was a scandal
attached to the proceedings of 1878 which came before
the public, and published in the newspapers of the
time in reference to the occurrences in the Hall of
Science, or the hall connected wibh the Association, what
ever it might have been called, in the year 1878 ? You are
men of. the world. I could not force them to say more than
they did ; but was the impression left on your minds that
they were telling the whole truth about the matter?
Judge for yourselves. The. President of the Society (Mr.
Foote) is, for aught I know, in court, sitting in front of my
learned friend. Does he know nothing about it ? Why was
not he called ? His name has been frequently mentioned,
and he is the person who was employed to collect subscrip
tions in support of the action. Where is he ? He is a
gentleman whose opinions on the subject of the proximity
of the lunatic asylum to the place of worship you have
just heard would be valuable. Where is Mr. Foote ? Does
he know too much about the Hall of Science, or the
hall at North-street, Leeds, about which it is suggested
this trial took place ? Do you think this discussion
has been going on all the time without any inquiry
being made by the authorities as to what took place
at the trial ? Gentlemen, don’t believe it for a moment.
Bring your own good sense to bear on the matter, and then
C
�34
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
you will be in a position to see whether the article points
to anything that occurred in London, as distinguished from
what occurred in Leeds. The pamphlet purports to give an
account of a public discussion, not in London, but in Leeds,
between two advocates of the two systems. The subject
was whether or not Secularism was degrading, and you
won’t expect me to attempt to justify the course of that
debate upon the one side or upon the other. If there are
people who think that the cause of religion, upon the one
hand or upon the other hand, is advanced by discussions of
the character you have heard, let them have their opinions.
You won’t get me to express an opinion favourable to the
one or to the other. What I have got to do is to defend my client
as best I can against the proceedings in this libel action, which
neither of them ever contemplated or intended. They
may be legally responsible, and, in one sense, may be
morally responsible _ in not having read this article and
pamphlet, and inquired what was referred to, and justify
the statements made before they published them; but as
regards any feeling in the mind of either of them, either
against the National Secular Association or against Mr.
Smith, before the end of the case you will be satisfied, I
am certain, that they had no malice of any sort or kind. Of
Mr. Smith I believe they never heard until this action, and
certainly it is a very strange thing that it should be in the
year 1895 that Mr. Smith should emerge from his com
parative obscurity in order to fight the battle of this Secular
Association. When this action was commenced, it began as
one would have expected. It was an action brought by
the National Secular Hall Association, Limited, and another.
That another was Mr. Smith, but the real plaintiffs in the
matter were the Association. It was found, as the action
went on, that they had no locus standi in the matter, and
their names were struck out, so that they had to fall back
on the “ another.” Mr. Smith nobody had heard of until
this matter was brought to its present shape. What is the
answer to this case ? It is this. It is made on behalf of my
client, who knew nothing about the facts. That the debate
at Leeds took place in reference to matters that were
familiar to the audience, we have proved. They all knew
about the trial of 1878. Somebody has got the name of the
Daily Standard in, showing the muddle that Mr. Powell
must have got into. He was obviously referring to the
Leeds Daily News, which did contain a report of the trial—
a trial which disclosed, if the evidence was to be believed,
the existence of obscenity and filthy practices in this hall, and
which was disclosed in the course of the prosecution. It was
a prosecution against licensed premises, and the license was
opposed by the police ; and it was the subject of discussion,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
35
not merely in Leeds, but all over the country. Perhaps that
is the reason why we do not see Mr. Foote. He is a journalist,
and is familiar with the subject of Secularist literature, and
would know how far discussion went at Leeds. He is
not called, and you can draw your own inference. I have
been wondering to see whether they would call witnesses to
say : “ We have read this article. We know Leeds, and we
know London: and, when we read the article, we saw at
once that Mr. Smith was the person pointed to.” No such
person is called, and you are left in the dark. Every
attempt has been made to exclude me from throwing any
light on what took place in 1878, in order that you might be
invited to take a leap in the dark, and find a verdict for
the plaintiff. I shall ask you to keep your judgment
open, and say whether or not it is more probable that
the people were talking in Leeds to a Leeds audience,
and were referring to matters that took place at the North
street Hall, Leeds, and not in London. That is the main
question, and the one upon which I propose to address you.
I shall lay before you, as one of the surrounding circum
stances in the case, the papers from the British Museum
containing an account of the trial. I shall also lay before
you such papers referring to the Leeds scandal in order to
enable you to form a judgment as to whether the speech of
this gentleman pointed to the plaintiff. No doubt it is a
very convenient matter for the proprietors of the Hall of
Science to come here and obtain a cheap popularity, with
the assistance of other people’s money, by bringing an action
of this sort; and, if it ever becomes a question of damages,
I beg you will remember some of the views expressed by
the champion of this hall, and say what damages ought
to be awarded to persons of such a character. People
who sell such a book in their own hall as the one
that I have read passages from to you, admitted by the
plaintiff to be part of the current literature of this sect—
what title have they to come and ask for damages, even if
they are unjustly assailed 1 Let them sue Mr. Bradlaugh or
Mr. Powell, the people who are responsiblej but don’t let
them go and make victims of the printer and publisher,
even though, perhaps, they ought to have exercised some
supervision, even although the name of Smith was not
known to them at the time, and they never anticipated, for
a single moment, the feelings of him or his friends could be
affected by the paragraph in question.
Mr. Graves was then called. He said he was an officer of
the British Museum, and produced from their custody a file
of the Leeds Daily News.
Mr. Walton : I take your Lordship’s opinion whether it
�36
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
is admissible evidence to produce the file of a newspaper.
I do not see on what issue this has bearing.
The Judge : I understand Mr. Murphy’s case is that this
matter had reference only to what took place in 1878.
Mr. Walton : My friend says that the Hall of Science
referred to is the Hall of Science so called at Leeds. That
is the first proposition, and that is evidence which can be
proved by calling persons who will describe the situation of
this hall in Leeds, and tell us how it is known ; but it can
not be proved by producing the file of a newspaper.
The Judge : This witness only produces a file of the
paper. The use made of it after is a different thing.
Mr. Walton : I object to the file going in at all as
evidence.
The Judge : This is the paper which I suppose Mr.
Murphy means is referred to as the Daily Standard.
Mr. Walton : Of course London should be Leeds, and
Daily Standard should be Daily News. His friend could
not put in the Daily News, and say it was meant instead of
the Daily Standard.
Mr. Murphy : The view I present is this. The question
for the jury is : Has the plaintiff made out that the pamphlet
refers to the London Hall of Science, and to the orgies
there ? I propose to prove, not the facts of what occurred
in the Hall of Science at Leeds, but that it was a matter of
discussion amongst newpapers at the time referred to in the
pamphlet; that there had been in the hall at Leeds orgies
of a scandalous description. That will enable the jury to
decide one way or the other.
Mr. Walton : My learned friend is trying to draw a
herring across the scent. When the question as to whether
the Hall of Science described here as the headquarters of
the Secularists, and the situation in which it is in reference
to a well-known public institution, is the London hall, how
could his learned friend propose to show, not that it was
an accurate description of the Hall of Science at Leeds, but
that certain proceedings, which he does not propose to
prove, took place in another institution, which is not this
institution, and to which this description does not apply ? I
submit we have nothing to do with any proceedings except
those in the Hall of Science, which corresponds to the
description.
The Judge : This took place in October, 1892. Was he
clearly referring to something which took place in 1879 ?
Mr. Walton : At a place indicated. If his learned friend
could prove that the place indicated was not the place I
have referred to, let him do so.
The Judge : It may be that the paper is not sufficient
proof.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
37
Mr. Walton : That is my objection. The production of
the paper is evidence of nothing, and I submit is irrelevant.
The contents of the paper are not proved, and can have no
bearing on the inquiry. I object to its production.
The Judge : Well, I think the paper had better go in now.
What use is made of it is a different matter.
Mr. Murphy : I may as well meet the matter now. I have
got no witnesses from Leeds, but I press the paper upon
these grounds. It would have been open for me to have
proved that during the meeting someone called out: “ Oh,
■ you are referring to the hall at Leeds.” That would be
evidence to satisfy the jury that the speaker was referring
to what took place in Leeds. In the same way, publication
of the paper is known to the audience that was being
addressed at Leeds.
Mr. Justice Lawrance: That is a long way from pro
ducing the paper, saying you put everything in it in.
Mr. Murphy : I don’t put it in as evidence of what
occurred there, but as evidence of what the speaker was
speaking about. The paper shows there is a scandal at Leeds.
Mr. Walton : Let him call Mr. Powell, and ask him what
he was referring to.
Mr. Murphy : My friend is inviting me to call a person
whom he won’t bring an action against. I decline to do it.
I propose to read an account of a trial in 1878, dated
September 6, 1878.
Mr. Walton : The paper referred to in the libel is
August 11, 1879.
Mr. Murphy : I am quite aware they were wrong dates,
wrong names, and wrong towns.
Mr. Walton : I ask your Lordship to rule that it is not
evidence.
The Judge : I think not.
.Mr. Murphy : I tender it as containing an account of a
trial in which obscenity took place at the Hall.
Mr.. Walton : My friend is not entitled to use that
description,, because I don’t agree with him. There is no
suggestion in this report to which the term “obscenity”
can. apply. He is not entitled to describe an article which
he is seeking to prove, bearing on the case.
The Judge (to Mr. Walton) : Your people knew nothing
about it, except that there was a charge of disorderly
conduct.
Mr. Walton : They do deny that they ever heard the
conduct was obscene.
Mr. Murphy : Your lordship rejects it.
The Judge : Yes.
Mr. Murphy : I ask your lordship to take a note of the
objection.
�38
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Mr. Rawlinson (to witness): Do you also produce another
Leeds paper ?
Mr. Murphy : You need not go through the form. I have
another witness on another paper, but the objection will be
the same.
Mr. John Snow, one of the defendants, was then examined
by Mr. Rawlinson. He said he was a publisher and book
seller, carrying on business in Ivy Lane, London. His name
appeared on the pamphlet.
As a matter of fact, what connection had you with the
production of the pamphlet?—I am merely agent for the
sale of the pamphlet.
That is a common practice in your trade, I think ?—It is.
You receive so many copies from the printers, and sell
them and account to the proprietors ?—Yes.
On what terms do you receive them ?—I sell them at a.
commission of 5 per cent.
That is all the connection you had with the production
of these pamphlets ?—Yes.
Before this action was brought had you ever heard of
Mr. Smith ?—Never heard of his name before.
I need hardly ask you whether you had any feeling of any
sort against him ?—None.
You knew that this pamphlet was a reproduction of what
had already been published in some other paper?—-Yes.
It also appears that it is a verbatim report of what
occurred at Leeds ?—Yes, certainly.
So far as you were concerned, had you any knowledge at
all even of the existence of this paragraph in the middle
°f the pamphlet?—Not until I received a letter from the
plaintiffs’ solicitor.
The Judge : What is the date of that ?
Mr. Rawlinson : 6th April, 1894. (To witness) In that
letter there was no indication to you as to what part of the
pamphlet was complained of ?—None whatever.
And no suggestion that Mr. Smith was in any way con
nected with the Hall of Science, which it now appears he is
connected with ?—No.
And at that time had you any idea of what was com
plained of in the pamphlet?—None.
Now since this action was brought have you, through
your solicitor, collected a large number of different papers,
Secular or otherwise, having reference to the conduct of
Secular halls at Leeds ?—Yes.
Amongst others have you received a copy of a review
called the Secular Review ?
Mr. Walton : How is this evidence, passages which may
have appeared in other contemporaneous papers ?
Mr. Rawlinson : In this way. The question here is
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
39
whether or not the audience who heard this remark would
apply it to the Leeds or London hall. I venture to sub
mit it is evidence of a discussion which appeared in the
Secular papers published by people who held the same line
of thought, to show, as a matter of common notoriety, it
was a subject which had been under discussion between
Christian and Secular debaters shortly before the time of
the speech complained of. I propose to bring a large
number of papers to show the Leeds question had been
discussed, and it was a matter of public interest at the time,
and therefore to ask the jury to hold that when the speaker
referred to a hall, speaking at Leeds, he referred to a hall
in Leeds, and not in London.
Mr. Walton : It is a very simple issue. The question is
whether Mr. Powell said this having reference to a building
in Leeds. That could be proved by calling persons who
heard it and the person who spoke it, and proved by giving
a description of the building in Leeds, which would answer
the description given in this article. It is not proved by
throwing in a large armful of newspapers and saying, If you
look at them you will see the speech discussed.
Mr. Rawlinson : I propose to show that the speech on
conduct at Leeds was the subject of public discussion.
The Judge : You don’t find in the pamphlet that it was a
subject of discussion.
Mr. Rawlinson : Up to that time it was an important
subject of discussion ; and in the pamphlet itself it was also
the subject of discussion.
Mr. Walton : Your lordship has already ruled upon that
point.
The Judge : You cannot put papers forward as evidence
of what took place in Leeds. There is surely another way
of getting it.
Mr. Rawlinson : I don’t care what took place at Leeds.
The Judge : You have got a faint denial from the plaintiff
of having heard that some scandal had taken place at Leeds.
Had not you better be content *?
Mr. Rawlinson : I am showing that this subject was
under discussion between the parties during all these years,
and that it was referred to by these gentlemen on that
occasion. That is the line of my argument. Of course it is
a very loose description on page 29 of the pamphlet. In
other parts of the pamphlet the matter is put more
accurately. I don’t know that I can put it any further than
"that.
The Judge : You have got the pamphlet there, and if you
can find a case in that, so much the better.
Mr. Rawlinson : Then I will deal with the pamphlet, and
I shall hope to alter your lordship’s mind, to a certain
�40
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
extent, so as to show what I mean. I submit I am entitled
to prove what he was referring to.
Mr. Walton : He describes it, not as having happened at
a Hall of Science, but at the North-street Hall, Leeds ; but
that was in his first speech.
Mr. Rawlinson : I submit it is the same subject.
The Judge : Then you are met with the same difficulty.
If you can call somebody who is able to tell us what
happened, all very well; but at present it is like asking to
put in a copy of the Times, and saying you are not going to
call any witnesses, asking me to believe everything in it.
Mr. Rawlinson : If it was a subject of ordinary interest,
I should be entitled to read articles in publications which
appear to show that it was an article of public interest.
Here I am asking your lordship to allow me to read a matter
which must have been known to the Secularists at the time.
The Judge. : Already you have got proved by the plaintiff
that something had taken place at Leeds, and that the
matter had been discussed in his presence. You have got
that. Mr. Smith says himself he was present when the
report of the trial was discussed.
Mr. Rawlinson : I was wishing to tell your lordship what
the nature of the scandal was.
Witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Walton.
. I understand, Mr. Snow, you publish numerous publica
tions of this class 1—Yes.
Do you publish a paper called the Anti-Infidel 2—I do.
With your name upon the face of it ?—Yes.
And I think you were the first in the pages of the Anti
Infidel to give this discussion to the world ?—The proprietor,
Mr. Bradlaugh, was.
I am speaking of you as publisher. You published it
under .your name; is that so 1—The discussion was pub
lished in the Anti-Infidel.
Do I.understand you to tell the jury you published that
discussion in. the newspaper, without troubling yourself to
read it ?—I did not read it.
The Judge : What had Mr. Bradlaugh to do with it ?—He
is the editor and proprietor.
Mr. Walton : What is the circulation of the Anti-Infidel 2
—I sell about 2,000.
I did not ask you what you sold.—I only receive it from
Mr. Bradlaugh on sale.
How many copies pass through the press ?—I don’t know.
I am not the printer.
You have no idea?—No.
Not the remotest ?—No.
The Judge: You did not print the pamphlet, I under
stand ?—No.
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
41
The Judge : It was sent to you to sell, the same as the
Anti-Infidel was ?—Yes, on the same terms.
Mr. Walton : It appeared in pamphlet form, with your
name on frontispiece ?—Yes.
Do you regard yourself as responsible for what appears
under your name as publisher ?—No.
Mr. Rawlinson : That is a legal question which your
lordship may have to decide later.
The Judge : If he does regard himself as liable, and he is
not legally so, it won’t hurt him to say he is.
Mr. Walton : You tell that to the jury. You issue a
pamphlet with your name on the front, and you do not
consider yourself responsible for having given it to the
world ?—I am responsible for the copies I sell, of course.
Are you responsible for allowing your name as publisher
to appear on the document for its contents ?—Responsible
for the name appearing.
Before you allowed your name to appear on this, do I
understand you did not trouble to read it ?—I did not see
it before it was put on.
Your attention was called to it by the solicitor later ?—
It was.
That was a serious letter 1—It was.
Did it complain that this pamphlet contained a serious
libel both upon Mr. Smith as the manager of the Hall of
Science, and upon the National Secular Hall Society,
Limited ?—I don’t think the letter did.
Let me read it; perhaps you did not read it ?—I did
read it.
Mr. Walton (reading) : “ I have received instructions
from the National Secular Hall Society, Limited, and from
Mr. Owen Smith, the late manager of the Hall of Science, to
commence an action against you and the printer for certain
defamatory libels.” Did you, after you got the letter, take
the trouble to read the document ?—I did.
Did you come across the passage in question ?—I did not
notice it particularly when I received the letter.
When did you first notice it ?—On the receipt of the
writ.
Did you answer the letter 1—No, because I thought I had
better see the proprietor of the pamphlet first.
When you did read the passage, did you think it a very
shocking libel on somebody I thought it was a libel on the
Hall of Science.
In London ?—Well, I did not know where it was.
Do you really tell the jury that ?—I do.
. You are the publisher of the Anti-Infidel and similar
literature, and did not know where it was 1—No ; I had
never seen it.
�42
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Did you. know it was in London 1—I knew there was one
in London.
-Did you know it was the one in London that was suing
you ?—I did not suppose anything about it.
Did you say you did not form any opinion ?—No.
Did you think it was any other Hall of Science in
London I—I did not know.
You did not know which it was 1—No.
And you did not trouble to inquire ?—I went to see Mr.
Bradlaugh.
Did you ascertain from him that it was any other ball
than the one in London that was referred to ?—No.
You thought, then, it was the Hall of Science in London 1—
I thought it might be.
And was no other 1—Well, I knew of the hall in Leeds.
Did you think that the one referred to?—I thought it
quite possible ?
You swear that ?—I do.
Then you thought it did not refer to the plaintiffs?—I
thought not.
When you were served with a writ ?—Yes.
That you swear ?—Yes.
Then, having pome to the conclusion that this did not
refer to the plaintiffs at all, did you write and tell them
so?—No.
Why not ?—Because I saw Mr. Bradlaugh.
I am not speaking of what you said to Mr. Bradlaugh, but
of what you said, to these gentlemen complaining of the
libel ?—I said nothing.
Why not ?—Because I did not know him. (Laughter.)
You think that is a serious answer ?—I do.
.And you tell the jury you thought it did not refer to
him ?—I put the matter in the hands of my solicitor.
I see. Did you continue to publish the Anti-Infidel after
the action had begun ?—Certainly.
Did you happen to have been publishing it in May and
June, 1894?—Yes.
In May and June, 1894, you were strongly of opinion that
this did not refer to the plaintiffs who were suing you ?—
I cannot say what happened in May and June. This was
in April.
Did you change your opinion before May, 1894, as to whom
the libel referred to ?—No.
Then you thought it did not refer to the plaintiffs ?—I
thought so.
Will you tell the. jury, if you did not think the action
referred to the plaintiffs, how you came, in May, 1894, to
publish a letter containing this passage : “ The fact that Mr.
G. W. Foote can only bring forward one solitary paragraph
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
on which he thinks it even possible to base an action is a
tacit admission on his part that every other charge con
cerning the filthy and immoral literature issued from the
Secular press, and the vile conduct and practices of
Secularists themselves, has been proved up to the hilt.
When the case comes before the court the evidence lacking
in the involved paragraph will be forthcoming, and then the
charges will be proved up to the hilt”? How came you, if
you thought in May, 1894, that this paragraph did not refer
to the plaintiffs at all, to publish a statement that you were
going to prove the charges up to the hilt ?—Mr. Bradlaugh
wrote that; I did not.
You published it. Do you mean to say you did not read
that ?—No ; I don’t mean to say so.
And do you mean to tell the jury you allowed these
gentlemen to come into court under the impression that the
libel referred to them, without having in any way sought to
correct that opinion ? You know now, perfectly well, it refers
to them ? It was only my opinion.
Have you any doubt about it ?—Oh yes.
Do you suggest there is no Hall of Science in London ?—
No, there was one.
In 1879 ?—I cannot say what year.
Did you ever hear of a Hall of Science in Leeds, so-called ?
—Yes.
The National Secular Hall is referred to in this libel. Is
there any Hall of Science in Leeds the headquarters of the
Society ?—-I don’t know.
Can you suggest any Hall of Science in the United
Kingdom which can be described as the headquarters of the
Secularists, except that managed by Mr. Smith ?—I cannot
suggest any.
Or any situated, as that is near a lunatic asylum ?—I don’t
know where it is situated.
Inasmuch as this Hall of Science is a Hall of Science in
London, and inasmuch, therefore, as Mr. Smith manages it
and conducts it, you now understand that the passage
refers to him ?—He says it does.
Have you any doubt ?—Oh yes.
If what he says is true, it must ? —Yes.
Have you offered any retractation or apology yourself ?—
No, I have not.
Are you indemnified in respect of damages and costs ?—
Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Rawlinson : My learned friend has
asked you about the Hall of Science in Leeds in 1878. Did
you know when it was shut up ?—I can’t say from my own
knowledge.
Only from what you have read ?—Yes.
�44
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
The Judge : Is it shut up 1— It is, I believe.
Mr. Walton : There is no such building, and never was.
Mr. Rawlinson : There was a Secular Hall.
Mr. Walton : There is this hall in North-street, Leeds :
but it has not this description. It was not called the Hall
of (Science. I am instructed that that is a malicious and
malignant fabrication.
Mr. Rawlinson : The (Secular Hall was the one I asked about.
You cam if desired, tell what has become of the hall in Leeds?
Mr. Walton : M.y friend is not entitled to that.
The Judge : You are both knocking vour heads against a
brick wall. One of you refers to the Secular Hall, and the
other to the Hall of Science.
Mr. Rawlinson : I was only going to ask the date.
The Judge : Mr. Walton says there is no Hall of Science
at Leeds.
Mr. Cook, the second defendant, was then called, and said
he was the printer of this pamphlet.
Were you instructed to print it in the ordinary course of
your business ?—Yes.
At the time you printed it did you know of this paragraph,
the subject-matter of this action, being in at all ?—I did not.
It was printed as a reprint of what had been in the Anti
Infidel 1—Yes.
And that was a copy of a report of a meeting held at
Leeds?—Yes.
You never heard of Mr. Smith before this action ?—No.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walton : Are you indemnified
too, are you in that happy position ?—Yes.
Damages and costs ?—I don’t know.
Which ?—I don’t know.
Both ?—I don’t know.
Which do you think ? (Laughter.)
The Judge : Have not you got what you want, Mr. Walton ?
Mr. Walton : I think so.
Mr. Rawlinson then addressed the jury for the defence.
He said : I shall detain you a very short time in summing
up the evidence laid before you. The point which my
learned leader, Mr. Murphy, made when he addressed you is
one which I think is certainly worthy of your consideration.
The main question for you is, Was this remark, which was
made by Mr. Powell, reasonably to be understood , as
referring to the London Hall of (Science, or was it referring
to a Secular hall in Leeds, about which scandals had arisen.
And a prosecution had taken place shortly before the date
referred to in the pamphlet ? I do call your attention most
carefully to this. As appears from the pamphlet, these two
disputants, Mr. Powell and Mr. Fisher, made alternate
speeches. Mr. Powell first made a speech, and Mr. Fisher
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
45
replies at some length. Mr. Powell again replies on him,
and so the combat is carried on. In his first speech Mr.
Powell opened the case against Secularism in great detail,
and in that opening, one very short part of which I shall
read to you, he deals in detail with the charges of disgusting
conduct against the National Secular Hall at Leeds. There
is not the slightest doubt as to what he is referring. When
he refers to the “rotten proceedings” at the National
Secular Hall, he is obviously referring to the scandal which
was well known to his audience, because he does not go into
detail. Mr. Fisher then makes a speech of some length, and
then Mr. Powell has the reply upon him, and it is in the
second speech that this paragraph occurs. If it was meant
to have referred to the London hall, you would have found
it set out in his first speech. As it is, you find it in the
second speech, which is a continuance merely of his first
speech. He puts his case in his first speech, and details
very shortly the proceedings which occurred before the
Leeds magistrates, and then goes on to the Elements of
Social Science. In his second speech he again refers, as I
submit, to the Leeds Hall in the paragraph complained of,
then reverts to the Elements of Social Science. My friend
very properly objects when I want to put in the Leeds
Daily News, because it is not the Daily Standard, so I cannot
show you to what this libel refers. It is spoken by a man
who is summing up his case replying to Fisher. He has
identified the hall before in detail, and he sums it up,
saying : “ If you doubt me, look at the Daily Standard of
August 11, ’79.” There is no such paper, and so you are
asked to take the words verbatim, and say, if you take the
man as having spoken exactly what he knew, you cannot
have the slightest doubt it applied to the National Secular
Hall in London, and it was impossible to apply them to the
hall in Leeds. The point I wish to make here is this : Mr.
Fisher, one of the disputants, was a member of the Council
of the National Secular Society. He went down to speak
as representing the Secular Society to that extent. He was
a member of the committee, fighting their side of the case.
After this remark had been made he had a reply, and he
made full use of his opportunity and entered fully into the
reply. If he had thought it applied to the London hall,
would not he have replied at once and said : “ What a
scandalous lie you have told 1 There has never been a sugges
tion against the London Hall of Science. There has never
been a suggestion that the Hall of Science allowed unnatural
offences to take place in their hall ” 1 He was in Leeds ; he was
present there carrying on the dispute. If he thought it
meant London and not Leeds, would he not have answered
it ? Of course he would; but he does not, because he knows
�46
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
perfectly well it has been referred to properly in the first
speech, and he knew what was being referred to—the hall at
Leeds. If he had, the answer would have been : “We know
the class of thing that went on there ; we know what came
out before the magistrates.” I am entitled to use that as a
fair argument here. My learned friend has suggested that
I ought to call Mr. Powell. As a matter of fact, we cannot
call him to help us in this matter. He is not helping us ;
but why does not my learned friend call Greaves Fisher, the
member of the National Secular Society who took part in
the debate, and who did not answer the charge. He must
have known perfectly well to what hall it referred, and the
whole facts ot the case. Why is he not called ? My friend
comes down here and defends, with the ardor which is
perfectly right, the idea that anything could be meant
about Leeds instead of London. Why does he not call Mr.
Fisher to come and say, “ I knew he meant the Leeds hall ”?
Remember that my friend has opened the case saying they
had no idea of the case they had to meet. The defence, in
this matter, was put in on June 4, 1894, and that defence
was this : “ They admit that the words set out in the
complaint were printed and published by them ; but they
deny that the said words had any reference to the plaintiff,
either in reference to the position as alleged, or at all.”
Could you expect a clearer denial than that ? We have said
from the beginning that this does not refer to the plaintiff
at all. Greaves Fisher must have known it never referred
to them, and he did not reply on it. It was not until it was
printed by Cook and published by Mr. Snow that the action
was brought against us. My friend has made a very strong
point about why we did not answer that solicitor’s letter
more fully before the action was brought. Can he suggest
any sort of answer we could have made 1 We know that
Mr. Powell had not been attacked in the matter; that no
action had been brought against him. He had spoken the
words complained of, and could have been attacked. They
knew we had done it at the request of Mr. Bradlaugh, the
proprietor of the Anti-Infidel. We are the first to get the
solicitor’s letter. What possible answer could have been
sent to that 1 A great point has been made that no answer
was made to it; but what sort of reply was there to a
solicitor’s letter of that kind 1 Does it request an apology
or withdrawal ? Does it tell us what part of the pamphlet
of forty pages was complained of 1 Never a word suggested
as to what the libel complained of was. Never a suggestion
it was that passage subsequently taken out and put in the
statement of claim. Never a suggestion that it applied to
Mr. Smith as manager of the hall. The answer is obvious :
we cannot, because we don’t know what part we are
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
47
attacked about. The letter does not ask for an apology or
withdrawal, but simply says : “ I wish to have the address
of solicitors to accept service on your behalf, and if you do
not send it I will serve you personally with a writ.” I can
only say that my friend must be consciously hard driven
when he had to come to such a complaint against the
defendant in this case. Directly he puts in his defence he
says : “ I admit I published the words, but they do not
refer to you, either in your position as manager of the hall
or refer to you in any way.” What more can my friend wish
for than that ? Have we had a chance from beginning to
end of more clearly expressing our case than we have to-day,
and in our defence 1 Now, I have put the simple facts before
you. I don’t think anything the plaintiff has done here will
make you think he is entitled to large damages in this
matter. Do you think his character has been seriously
affected? They all knew the attack was made in Leeds, and
the whole subject of the controversy was in Leeds ; and do
they mean to say the plaintiff was damaged at all, looking
at all the circumstances ? Further than that, are there any
matters in the conduct of the defendants which make you
think they ought to pay larger damages than they ought to
if they are wrong 1 Both the defendants knew nothing at
all about the libel before it was put in print. They were
very negligent, and possibly they ought to have read, it
before they put it in. But I say there is nothing which
defendants have done which should lead you in any way to
unduly press the case against them. The last topic of pre
judice is this: They have been indemnified; and, it is
suggested, by Mr. Bradlaugh, on whose behalf they were
published. If you think that is a topic which you ought to
take into account, by all means do so. But the main question
is : Did the audience who heard the statements, and the
persons who read them, not know perfectly well from the
context, and from the fact that Fisher did not reply in any
way to the charge—must they not have known that the
real sting of the libel was against the Leeds hall, and had no
reference to the London hall, still less to Mr. Smith, whom
nobody ever heard of ? (To the Judge) : I do not know
whether I ought to have taken the point as regards the
question whether the publisher is liable. As Mr. Snow was
merely a conduit pipe for the selling of the book, under a
case which I will hand up, he would not therefore be liable,
as he was in the position of a mere news-vendor. Where a
publisher publishes, it is another thing; but here the evi
dence is that he simply received copies from the printer, to
sell on commission.
The Judge : His name is put on them as publisher.
Mr. Rawlinson : But that is only a custom of the trade.
�48
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
He certainly sold them on commission. If necessary, I will
put the point before your lordship later.
Mr. Walton then addressed the jury on behalf of the
plaintiff. He said : I am not surprised that my learned
friend has not more than once in the course of his speech
referred to three persons who are before you in this litiga
tion ; and, before I advert to one or two material obser
vations which, it occurs to me, I ought, on behalf of the
plaintiff, to make, I think it would not be inadvisable to ask
ourselves for a moment, Who is Mr. Smith 1 who are these
two gentlemen in the position of defendants ? Mr. Smith
and his connection with the Hall of Science, referred to in
this libel, has been made abundantly clear. My learned
friend has had the opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Smith;
and, with that opportunity, with the large license which the
law gives him—with the little scruple which has charac
terised my learned friend’s method in using that license,
which you have witnessed—he has completely failed to dis
credit and disparage Mr. Smith : but my learned friend has
had no instructions to suggest that Mr. Smith has not been
a man of eminent respectability and of unimpeachable cha
racter, and who has borne himself honestly and honorably
in all relations of life. It is perfectly true that Mr. Smith
has what some of us would regard as a misfortune—not
those religious opinions which many of us hold. But, except
the fact that his religious opinions differ from those of the
majority of us, there is no kind of suggestion that Mr. Smith
is not moral and trustworthy in every relation of life. Mr.
Smith has been connected with this building called the Hall
of Science in a very intimate way. He helped to found it;
and within those walls men of the most eminent character,
men who lectured in the cause of Freethought, have lec
tured ; men who, although they have suffered for . their
opinions, won the respect of the British people. These men
here have had the opportunity—which I trust every man
may be afforded—in the light of day of expressing freely, to
the people who thought them worth hearing, the views which
they entertained. And it turns out further that Mr. Smith,
through a long course of years, endeavored to make the Hall
of Science a centre of education and instruction. He con
nected it with the Art and Science Classes of South Ken
sington. He had associated with him a clergyman of very
free opinions, but of the very highest character—the Rev.
Stewart Headlam, who was a member of the committee,
and co-operated with him. He had, in addition, enter
tainments for the amusement of the young people who
were members of his Society, and whose parents were
connected with the movement; and in this way it is
obvious that, in the actual conduct of these very
�49
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
classes, the foundation, of the dancing academy, admis
sion to which was by ticket, the regulation of these pro
ceedings, the supervision, and the mode in which it was
conducted, Mr. Smith is regarded by his own people—by
the Secularists throughout the country—as a respectable
person. Mr. Watts, only told us what is obvious. He said :
“ I regard Mr. Smith as responsible in this matter.” Mr.
Smith of himself says : “ I am responsible. I was actually
present at these instructions, and actually superintended
these very classes. . A state of things such as that indicated
would have been impossible without my knowledge, and
could not have occurred without my authority ” ; ana there
fore Mr. Smith, with the long years of respectable character
which he is bearing, comes face to face with these honorable
and moral and honest men, who hold Freethought in relation
to religion. Mr. Smith is compelled to come into court, and
to challenge from them some sort of substantiation for this
monstrous attack levelled against him. It is essential that
Mr. Smith leaves this court to-day with your verdict, with
damages marking your sense of the attack made against
him, and his right to invite an expression of opinion against
him. Who are the defendants ? They have been put into the
box, and, if they had to pay these damages and costs, I could
understand why my learned friend should call them, and make
an appeal, ad misericordiam that you should take into
consideration their own negligence and own general
respectability in awarding that sum ; but why they should
be put forward when they are not the real defendants, and
when the verdict will not involve them in any damages,
when they are merely show defendants for the spirits that
are stabbing in the dark, wreaking their malignity in the
dark, and were not put into the box, gentlemen, it is very
difficult to understand. Of course Mr. Cook is only the
printer, and of course Mr. Snow is only the publisher, and
your verdict will be a verdict against them. But through
Cook and Snow you are hitting those men who, for aught I
know, have been sitting, here within sound of my voice, and
who have put. in motion the printing press which gave
currency to this malignant attaek, and who dare not answer
for it and submit themselves to cross-examination. After
Snow and Cook have told us they will not be affected by
your verdict, you need give very little consideration to the
sort of appeal which my learned friend has addressed to
you. Even though they are the defendants, I fail to see
how they can ask for any consideration in the matter of this
action. Mr. Powell, the obscure person who goes from
Liverpool and vanishes into the obscurity from which he
emanated, might have been made a defendant in this action
What would have been said then ? They would have said
D
�50
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
that what Mr. Powell stated he said in the heat of the
moment, and it was an excess of zeal; and, therefore, he
made a statement which, in calm moments, he would regret.
It is these defendants who have given prominence to the
libel. They have put it into the hands of every person
interested in the matter throughout the kingdom, and they
have professed to refer to a paper called the Daily Standard,
which most men would understand referred to one of the
most influential London papers. The defendants, who care
lessly printed and carelessly published a document such as this,
are not in a position to ask for any consideration from the jury
when they have to do justice to the unfortunate man who
may have been injured by the publication for which they
are responsible. Now, let me consider for a moment how
my learned friend, on behalf of the defendants, has sought
to meet the case. I do not wonder at the line he has taken.
I think I proved a true prophet in my opening. I ventured
to predict what the real defence to the action was, and
what the real tactics were which Mr. Murphy was instructed,
on behalf of these persons, to pursue ; and I do not wonder
he tried to induce you to disregard the motive of justice,
which is, perhaps, as sacred as any other motive in
human nature, to disregard the motive of justice, because
you disapprove of the opinions of the man who asks you
for the justice of your verdict. My learned friend produces
this book called The Elements of Social Science, and reads
pages from it, and from the work of another Freethought
writer; and he said to Mr. Smith, Are these the opinions
of Freethought writers? are they your opinions? My
learned friend knew perfectly well they are not the opinions
of Mr..Smith, and he said so at once. He said : I am a
Freethinker, and belong to the school which says that
every man is entitled to speak and think freely on those
subjects, and these are the opinions of honest men published
in the light of day. It challenges the interference of society
and the interference of the police, and neither society nor
the police have interposed in any way to stop the dissemina
tion of these books. We may dispute them and think them
in error ; but every person thinks differently. Here is a
book which for forty years has been on public sale, being
sold up and down the kingdom, dealing with matters of
great importance, and it has never been challenged by any
public authority, charged with the administration of the law
in the matter. Mr. Smith says it is perfectly true it is sold
on a bookstall which is licensed to a bookseller by the
person who owns the Hall of Science in Old-street ; but he
is entitled to sell any books he likes. If they ought not to
be sold, the police can interfere; but we simply let the man
the bookstall, and he sells what books he likes, and Mr.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
51
Smith says it would be an impertinence to come forward
and attempt to revise his list and proceed to make out an
index of certain books which I, Mr. Smith, in the exercise of
my superior wisdom, will not allow him to sell. That is an
affair between the owner of the book shop and the police.
And this book has laid on this bookstall for thirty or forty
years without any sort of challenge. It is the kind of line
by which my learned friend hopes to disparage Mr. Smith
in your estimation. I think all of us draw a strong line
between opinion and moral conduct. My learned friend
would be the last man to say this was a country in which
opinion ought not to be as free as air. There was a time
when those who professed different religious opinions had
no tolerance, even in courts of law, or in society; but, for
tunately, the time has come when every man is entitled to
express his views freely ; and just as we give freedom to
men for religious opinion, so we allow freedom to other
opinions, conscious that the forces of orthodoxy are stronger
than the forces of error; and therefore we need have no
fear of error. Against Mr. Smith’s moral conduct, and the
character of all the men associated with him, there is not a
suggestion in this case ; and yet this libel is not a libel of
his opinions, but of his conduct, because it alleges a con
dition of things which makes the best feelings of one’s
nature rise in revolt. It is not that he taught these lads
Freethought : that he taught them to disregard the Divine
Being ; that he gave them nis views about the future state ;
that he expounded the tenets of Secularism ; but it is that
he taught practices which can only be mentioned in order to
be scouted in every society of human beings. It is not a
matter of religion, depending on orthodoxy or heterodoxy
•of religious opinions : but it is a matter of ordinary common
decency, in connection with which this libel has been pub
lished. What is the sort of defence which has been put
forward ? First we have what I may describe as the illegiti
mate defence; then we have the legitimate defence. The
illegitimate defence I described, while my learned friend was
cross-examining, as drawing a herring across the scent; and
it has been admirably illustrated by the tactics in this case.
We have had to deal with what occurred, in the year 1879,
in connection with the Hall of Science in London ; but my
learned friend has sought to divert the whole of our atten
tion to what occurred at a different place and at a different
time ; to what occurred, not in London, but in Leeds ; not at
the Hall of Science, but at the North-street Hall in Leeds;
and my learned friend has suggested, in what is the most
dangerous and the most illegitimate mode conceivable in a
court of justice—he has suggested that these proceedings
were in relation to obscene and improper conduct. The sug
�52
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
gestion is absolutely false. There is not a tittle of evidence
to support it. The only evidence is that given by Mr. Smith
himself. He said he heard that certain proceedings had
been taken against a place in North-street, Leeds ; but what
those proceedings were Mr. Smith had never heard. He
never heard until this moment that they spoke of obscene
conduct, or that the nature of the conduct was obscene;
and, so far as Mr. Smith is aware, that prosecution was
withdrawn. He never heard of a conviction as in fact having
taken place, and Mr. Murphy would have been the first one
to prove it.
Mr. Rawlinson : You ought not to say there was no
conviction.
Mr. Walton : I say it was a charge of disorderly conductMy learned friend is a lawyer, and knows that if, a publican
allows dancing to take place in his house, he can be charged
with keeping a disorderly house; and the prosecution
against the Jockey Club at this moment is for disorderly
conduct. My learned friend ought to be the last to make
cheap capital out of the facts, because he knows perfectly
well that, if you allow proceedings to take place on premises
and you are not properly licensed, you are charged with
allowing disorderly conduct to take place if you allow the
public to take part.
Mr. Rawlinson : The proceedings were not against a.
licensed house.
Mr. Walton : I quite understand my learned friend’s
restlessness—(laughter)—and his anxiety to make up a case
which cannot be proved by evidence of what took place.
Where is the conviction—where is it ? In the imagination of
those who instruct my learned friend, in whom they have
succeeded in infusing some of the spirit which seems to have
characterised the proceedings on their part. Nothing would
have been easier than to have called the police who laid the
prosecution. Nothing could have been easier than to have
put in the conviction; but we are told, and that is the whole
evidence you are told by Mr. Smith, that the prosecution
took place; but, so far as he knows, no conviction occurred,,
and if it occurred he would have been the first to hear of it.
I say this effort to draw this question into a trial of what
happened at Leeds, in another place, and for which other
persons are responsible, is done in order to confuse your
minds as to the real issue. That is the illegitimate defence,,
and, like all illegitimate defences, tries to establish itself by
illegitimate means; and my learned friend, instead of
bringing witnesses from Leeds to prove the facts,,
comes here with an armful of newspapers. A more
irrelevant and and fruitless inquiry I cannot imagine-
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
53
These papers, some of which have been raked up from
the cellars of the British Museum, he wants to scatter
around, and create a confusion as to what we have to try.
I am perfectly certain if any witnesses came up from Leeds
we should have listened to them with the greatest respect;
but, as there is no substance in this sort of suggestion, they
have endeavored to infuse into these proceedings an animus
which can only have been introduced to confuse your minds.
What is the real defence ? It is that this was not spoken of
the Hall of Science in London at all, but spoken of the Ha,11
of Science in Leeds. In the first place, that defence would
have been established by calling two or three witnesses. It
would have been established by calling the speaker of this at
the discussion, who would have told us what hall he was
referring to, and by calling the people to whom he was
speaking; but, instead of calling them, they leave you to
imagine that this description applies to a hall in Leeds. If
you look at it, there is no Hall of Science in Leeds at all.
The only Hall of Science out of London is the one at Sheffield.
It is.true the Secularists have a hall at Leeds, but they don’t
call it the Hall of Science. But this is referred to as the
headquarters of the Secularists, which is in Old-street.
Then you have a reference to a newspaper called the Daily
Standard, which is not produced, but the Leeds Daily News
is attempted to be set. up as the one meant. Such efforts are
only the sort of devices which we expect from persons
having a hopeless case. Now how is this case met,
because that is the real question for your consideration 1
It is obvious they knew perfectly well (both Snow and
Cook) the very serious nature of this libel. The solicitor’s
letter has been read, and when that letter was received I
should have thought that one course—and only one course—
could be pursued by honorable men anxious not to do
injustice to anyone. Honorable men in a matter of this
kind would be most anxious not to do an injustice to people
against whom a prejudice was entertained, because there are
some men of whom, if you say a foul thing it does not matter,
because, no one believes it; but if a man happens to be a
Secularist, there are a great many evil-minded men who will
believe it. And the defendants knew this was being said of
persons who were Secularists. If they were anxious to act
honorably, they would have been the first to repudiate the
libel and make reparation. Mr. Snow said he thought it did
not refer to the plaintiff. Why did not he write so at once
and say they were mistaken, withdraw it, and offer an
apology. 1 Because he had those behind him, those who had
indemnified him, and were putting him forward to bring
this into court to satisfy their fanatical prejudice,
^instead of that, Mr. Snow published a letter, signed under
�54
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
the name of the man he represented, and those who were
supporting him in the matter, which contains this passage :
“ When the case comes into court we will not say, 1 It is not
true what it was I said about you ’; we will not say, ‘ It is a
mistake,’ and ask the jury to give as little damages as they
can, because we are poor printers and publishers. Not that
sort of defence at all. But, when it comes before the court,
the evidence lacking will be forthcoming, and that charge,
like others, will be proved up to the hilt.” So that we get,
until the last moment, when they are anxious to save their
skins—we get the language of bluster. “It is true. Take
us into court, and we will prove it. You did give this
instruction. You (the plaintiff) are responsible for the Hall
of Science, where it took place. We shall prove it, and
publish it to the world; and kind friends will come forward
with their subscriptions, and we will fight under the flag of
truth.” Now, instead of fighting under the flag of truth,
they are skulking and crawling away, and making piteous
appeals to the jury. I should have had some respect if they
had stuck to their guns, and, having got the public money,
had tried to prove their case, and failed. But, having got it
under this brave profession, the courage oozes and the bravery
vanishes, and they now say : “We are poor publishers and
printers. Let us off, because we are only agents.” I ask
you to give Mr. Smith such a verdict as will enable him to
still hold up his head, so that those who may be connected
with this matter will have no ground for saying there was
one tittle of evidence of the monstrous and barbarous charge
made against him. (Subdued applause.)
Mr. Justice Lawrance, who was very indistinctly heard,
in summing up, said : Gentlemen of the jury, the question
you will have to consider is, how far the defendants have
made out that which they say is an answer to the case—viz.,
that this matter had no reference to the plaintiff’s place at
all; that it was not known to the man who uttered the
slander first—Mr. Powell. Smith was not known to him,
and he was not known to Mr. Cook or to Mr. Snow, the
other defendant, the publisher and printer of the libel; and
it is said that the transactions had no reference to the Hall
of Science in London at all. A great many considerations
have been imported into this case, necessarily from the very
nature of the case. All I can suggest is, that you should do
the best you can in the matter, and not allow whatever
feelings you may have on one side or the other to interfere
with you in the discharge of your duty. Look at it just as
you would at an ordinary case. The matter is a very
simple one. Smith, the plaintiff, is the manager and
treasurer and organiser of lectures, etc., at the Hall of
Science in London, and he held that position till, I think,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
55
1892, when it was turned into a Limited Company. (To Mr.
Walton) What position does he hold now ?
Mr. Walton, Q.C. : He is a director of the Company,
and that is why the action by the Company was discontinued,
because the Company were not the proprietors of the hall at
the date referred to. The action was originally brought by
the Company, but when it was seen that the Company were
not the proprietors of the hall in 1879, the action was
discontinued.
Mr. Justice Lawbance : Now, Mr. Smith says it was his
duty to carry on the business of this Company, and to do so
he had lectures and science classes, and was generally
responsible for the management of the hall. The debate
took place in October, 1893, and the plaintiff says he heard
of it soon afterwards, and made no complaint against Mr.
Powell, who said there had been a great scandal at Leeds.
He also said he had heard of the trial in 1878, but he did not
read it, and did not know what the evidence was. He says
he knew Mr. Foote, but never heard the matter discussed in
his presence, and he had not seen the report of the debate.
He says he did not know who owned the Secular Hall at
Leeds ; but he seemed to say he had heard the report of the
trial discussed. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Murphy has asked you
to say that Mr. Smith’s answers were not satisfactory on that
point, and that he was not clear in giving a distinct denial
to the statement; but that the fact was he knew exactly
what had taken place at Leeds. On that point you must
judge by your own conclusions from the evidence given
before you. With regard to the suggestion that the defen
dant has been indemnified of the costs of this action, the
plaintiff also seems to have been getting up money for the
costs of the trial; so there is not much to be said on either
side, because “ what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for
the gander.” (Laughter.) It appears that both of them
were getting up public funds for the trial. No point has
been made that plaintiff was not responsible for the manage
ment of the Hall; and Mr. Charles Watts said he was
on the Committee, and always looked upon Mr. Smith
as the responsible person of the Company. Then a copy
of the Anti-Infidd was put in, in which portions of
the letter from Mr. W. R. Bradlaugh were printed, and on
this it is said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the points
taken by Mr. Bradlaugh there were that, if this case went
on, the charges made in the libel would be proved. Well,
that was said to depend on what was the defence in the
action ; and I may have a word more to say about Mr.
Bradlaugh’s position, and the letters written by him in the
case, because he is the person responsible for them and the
person making profit out of it as the owner of the Anti
�56
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Infidel. Therefore, he is one of the persons who would be
primarily responsible and liable for any injury the plaintiff
might have sustained. Well, Mr. Murphy’s case is shortly
this : That the observations made by Mr. Powell at Leeds
reference to what had taken place at Leeds, and that
Mr. Powell, like a great, many other public speakers, not
only in matters of religion, but in other matters which we
every
—say Pities, for instance—(a laugh)—
Mr. Powell was like a good many more people who used
extremely strong language, and had gone a great deal
further than they were entitled to go, or would have gone
in their calmer moments. There can be no doubt at all
about that ; and it is said here that what Mr. Powell had
done was to mix up two or three things, and what he really
intended to convey was that what he was saying had
reference to the scandal that took place in Leeds in 1878.
That there had been a scandal at that time there can be no
doubt from the evidence of the plaintiff himself. Mr. Walton
is quite right in saying he. won’t permit anybody to say that
it was so of the Hall of Science, because there is no evidence
about that. . There had been something in the shape of a
prosecution in Leeds, which may have been for only keeping
a disorderly house—we are left in doubt; but there had
been something—a prosecution which was of interest to
Secularists generally, because the plaintiff said the matter
had been talked about before him, and Mr. Watts remembers
the Leeds trial. But I suppose we shall never know the real
truth about the Leeds trial. That being the state of things,
let me. read you the parts of the pamphlet relied on by the
plaintiff. It is said the Hall of Science was not the proper
name, and that it should have been the Secular Hall,
and therefore it could not refer to the London hall. It
was said by the plaintiff: “ The dancing academy must refer
to me because there is no proof that there was a dancing
academy at Leeds ”; and then he relies on the fact of its
being near a lunatic asylum, thus completing the identifica
tion. These, things are said by the plaintiff to point—and
can only point—to the Hall of Science in London. It is
said by the defendant that the date 1879 was wrong, and
was intended, for 1878 ; that it was wrong to call it the Hall
of Science ; it should have been the Secular Hall in North
street, Leeds, and that the Daily Standard should be the
Daily News. All that is said to be a mistake made by the
speaker in the heat of debate, and what he really meant was
the hall in Leeds; and the reference to 1879 was a reference
to what had already taken place in 1878 in regard to the
hall at Leeds, and not to the London hall. It is to be noticed
that Mr. Powell was a Liverpool man; he was said to be
an obscure Liverpool man, who had emerged from there, had
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
57
spoken, and had retired again. Mr. Fisher was a Leeds
man; and Mr. Powell, I observe, talks about certain books
sold by Kingfisher of Leeds, and in one discussion Fisher
acknowledges he is the person who sold the books referred
to. Then he goes on to make the charge complained of.
The question you have got to decide is whether that really
had reference to the place in London, or whether it had
reference—badly expressed by a man in the heat of debate
—to the proceedings which had taken place in Leeds, and
was intended and taken to be understood by those who
heard him to have reference to the Leeds hall only.
Mr. Walton : May I say, so far as the libel is concerned,
would not the question be whether persons reading this
pamphlet would not take it to refer to the London hall 1
The Judge : Quite true. It is not what was spoken at
Leeds. The question is this: Without knowing anything
further, would anybody taking up this book, and reading
what was said there—and you have heard the most that can
be said, and the best way it can be put for the defendants—
the question is whether a person taking that up would apply
it to the Hall of Science in London, and so apply it to the
person—namely, the plaintiff—who was responsible for the
manner in which that business was carried on. Mr. Murphy
produced a paper which is not the Daily Standard, but is
the Leeds Daily News; but of course he cannot go any
further than that. Mr. Snow then comes, and it turns out
that the contents of the pamphlet had been published week
by week, so far as I can gather, in the Anti-Infidel; and
therefore it must have been going on for some time between
October and January. It is dated January, 1894.
Mr. Rawlinson : The pamphlet was not published until
March, I am told.
The Judge : There is the whole of the evidence upon the
one side and the other. There are only one or two other
considerations. We have heard a great deal why Mr. Powell
has not been called on one side, and Mr. Fisher on the other.
You always have, in cases of this kind, complaints by learned
counsel on each side. They have each got complaints, and
I suppose the answer to them really is—Mr. Walton does
not hesitate to say : “ I have nothing to do with Mr. Powell.
He is not worth powder and shot, and I am not going against
him.” I do not know what your view is; but, when
you are considering the position, one would have thought
Jhere was some reason why Mr. Bradlaugh should not have
been made a party to the case. It may be that they think
he is not worth going for. I don’t know. He is the owner
of the pamphlet and of the Anti-Infidel, and he was the
person who was going to take any profits, and when you
cannot get the man who is going to profit by the libel then
�58
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
you generally go for the printer and publisher. There may
be some reason, but no reason has been forthcoming, as to
why Mr. Bradlaugh should not be made a party to this suit.
Mr. Bradlaugh was the person who, if any profit was to be
made, would be entitled to it. But the writ reached the
printer, who, I do not suppose, ever takes the trouble to see
what he is printing; and the publisher, who only had a
certain number of copies sent to him, having no control over
the matter at all. But for some reason, best known to the
plaintiff, Mr. Bradlaugh was not included. He seems to
have been one of the principal parties concerned. There
are the whole facts. The question is, Did these words refer,
or would they reasonably be taken by anybody reading the
pamphlet to refer, to the plaintiff, or do you think that the
defendants’ case is made out that they referred, and ought
enly to be taken to refer to, the case at Leeds and the Leeds
hall ? . If you find they refer to the plaintiff, then comes the
question of damages. That is a matter for you entirely to
deal with. The libel, no doubt, is a serious one. The action
is brought against two men, who are, as far as they are
concerned—if there is any injury to the plaintiff—are not
nearly so much concerned with the matter as the parties
who get a profit by it, and who have been let go—viz.,
the man who spoke the words and the man who was the
owner of the pamphlet. That may make a difference to you
when you come to consider the amount of damages to which
the plaintiff is entitled. It is for you to say whether you
find for the plaintiff or defendant. If for the plaintiff, what
damages do you think he is entitled to ?
The jury retired at 4.30, and, after a deliberation of threequarters of an hour, came into court and gave a verdict for
the plaintiff, with £30 damages.
On Tuesday, February 19, Mr. Lawrence Walton, Q.C.,
who. appeared for the plaintiff, said, in the case of the
National. Secular Society and another versus Snow and
another, in which the jury, the day previously, found for the
plaintiff, he had now to apply that judgment be entered in
accordance with the finding of the jury.
Mr. Justice Lawrance assented, and judgment was
entered accordingly.
�Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d., post free,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
Hundreds of exact References to Standard Authorities. No pains spared
to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable
Indictment of Christianity.
Chapters :—1, Christ to Constantine; 2, Constantine to Hypatia; 3,
Monkery; 4, Pious Forgeries ; 5, Pious Frauds ; 6, Rise of the Papacy ;
7, Crimes of the Popes ; 8, Persecution of the Jews; 9, The Crusades.
“ 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
opponents of Christianity.”—0. Bradlatoh, in 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.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aae
(U.S.A.).
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Price Is. 6d.; superior edition, superfine paper, cloth, 2s., post free,
The Bible Handbook
FOR FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING CHRISTIANS.
BY
G. W. FOOTE
and
W. P. BALL.
Sold also in separate parts as follows :—
1?—Bible Contradictions. The contradictions are printed in
parallel columns. 4d.
2. —Bible Absurdities.
All the chief absurdities from
Genesis to Revelation, conveniently and strikingly arranged, with
appropriate headlines, giving the point of each absurdity in a
sentence. 4d.
3. —Bible Atrocities. Containing all the godly wickedness
from Genesis to Revelation.
line for easy reference. 4d.
Each infamy has a separate head
4. —Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities, Broken
Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. 4d.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�221 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
(FIRST SERIES)
BY
G.
W.
FOOTE.
Contents/—
| Judgment Day
The Logic of Persecu
Huxley’s Mistake
tion
The Gospel of Free- Luther and the Devil
thought
Bible English
On Ridicule
Living by Faith
Who are the Blasphe Victor Hugo
mers ?
Walt Whitman
Christianity and Com Desecrating a Church
mon Sense
Tennyson and the Bible
The Lord of Lords
Christ’s Old Coat
Consecrating the
Christ’s Coat, No. 2
Colors Scotched, Not Slain
Christmas in Holloway God-Making
Gaol
God and the Weather
Who Killed Christ ?
Miracles
Did Jesus Ascend?
A Real Miracle
The Rising Son
Jesus on Women
St. Paul’s Veracity
Paul on Women
No Faith with Heretics Mother’s Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Old Nick
Fire !! !
Sky Pilots
Devil Dodgers
Fighting Spooks
Damned Sinners
Where is Hell ?
Spurgeon and Hell
Shelley’s Atheism
Long Faces
Our Father
Wait Till You Die
Dead Theology
Mr. Gladstone on Devils
Is Spurgeon in Heaven ?
God in Japan
Stanley on Providence
Gone to God
Thank God
Price Is., post free,
SATIRES AND PROFANITIES
BY
JAMES THOMSON (B.V.)
(Author of “ The City of Dreadful Night ”).
Contents:—The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm (Jehovah, Son,
and Co.)—The Devil in the Church of England—Religion in the Rocky
Mountains—Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles—A Commission of
Inquiry on Royalty—A Bible Lesson on Monarchy—The One Thing
Needful.
“ 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
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�302 pp., superior paper, bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
[Second Series]
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Contents :—
Luscious Piety
The Jewish Sabbath
God’s Day
Professor Stokes ,on Im
mortality
Paul Bert
Converting a Corpse
Bradlaugh’s Ghost
Christ and Brotherhood
The Sons of God
Melchizedek
S’w’elp me God
Infidel Homes
Are Atheists Cruel ?
Are Atheists Wicked ?
Rain Doctors
Pious Puerilities
“ Thus Saith the Lord ”
Believe or be Damned
Christian Charity
Religion and Money
Clotted Bosh
Lord Bacon on Atheism
Christianity & Slavery' Down Among the Dead
Christ Up to Date
Men
Secularism and Chris Smirching a Hero
tianity
Kit Marlowe and Jesus
Altar and Throne
Christ
Martin Luther
Jehovah the Ripper
The Praise of Folly
The Parson’s Living
A Lost Soul
Wage
Happy in Hell
Did Bradlaugh Back
The Act of God
slide ?
Heir Hardie on Christ Frederic Harrison on
Blessed be ye Poor
Atheism
Converted Infidels
Save the Bible !
Mrs. Booth’s Ghost
Forgive and Forget
Talmage on the Bible The Star of Bethlehem
Mrs. Besant on Death The Great Ghost
and After
Atheism and the French
Revolution
The Poets and Liberal
Theology
Pigottism
Christianity and Labor Jesus at the Derby
Dueling
Atheist Murderers
A Religion for Eunuchs
An Easter Egg for
Christians
Rose-Water Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G, W«
Foote. Is.
Miscellaneous Theological Works. Is.
Complete Theological Works.
(Including the Age of
Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political
Biography by J. M. Wheeleb. Is. ; bound in cloth, 2s.
London : R.'Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Price Is.; bound in cloth, Is. <5d. post free,
THE GRAND OLD BOOK.
A REPLY TO THE GRAND OLD MAN
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
An Exhaustive Answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s
“ Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.”
Contents :—Preface—Preliminary View—The Creation Story—The
Fall of Man—The Psalms—The Mosaic Legislation—Corroborations of
Scripture—Gladstone and Huxley—Modern Scepticism.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Price Is.
Superior edition for Subscribers, bound, numbered, and
signed, 2s.
VOLTAIRE :
HIS
LIFE AND
WORKS.
WITH SOME SELECTIONS FROM HIS WRITINGS.
By G. W. Foote
and
J. M. Wheeler.
“ The English people ought to know Voltaire, an admirer and lover of
their nation, better than they do, and this lively shilling pamphlet will
give them a good deal of information as to his life and work.”—Literary
World.
“ A lucid and interesting sketch of the great French philosopher. We
strongly recommend it to all who want to know what the influence was
which Voltaire exercised.”—Weekly Times and Echo.
“Those of the new generation who desire to know more of a man with
whose writings their fathers were intimate should consult this little
shilling volume.”—Reynolds's Newspaper.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Price Is. 6d., post free,
ESSAYS IN RATIONALISM.
BY
CHARLES ROBERT NEWMAN
(Atheist Brother of Cardinal Newman).
With Preface by G. J. Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch
by J. M. Wheeler.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
�Price 2d., by post 2|d.,
AN ESSAY ON SUICIDE.
BY
DAVID HUME.
With an Historical and Critical Introduction by
G. W. Foote.
London : Robert Forotcr, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
A CHAPTER FROM
Strauss’s Original “Life of Jesus.”
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
G. W. FOOTE.
(A Most Thorough Analysis and Exposure of the Gospel
Story by a Master Hand.)
Price Sixpence.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Handsomely bound in cloth, post free 7s. 6d.,
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY
OF
FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
BY
J. M. WHEELER.
“ The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Freethought 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.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E C.
�Colonel Ingersoll’s
Great New Lecture
ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE
Price Sixpence.
132 pp., price Is.; bound in cloth, Is. 6d., post free,
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
The only Complete Edition published in England.
Accurate as Colenso, and Fascinating as
a
Novel.
Now Ready, Price Twopence,
IS
SUICIDE
A
SIN?
By COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Together with the Reply of Monsignor Ducey.
Price Twopence,
LAST WORDS ON SUICIDE
A Reply to the Critics of “ Is Suicide a Sin ?”
By ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�IF
£
1
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Hall of Science libel case. With a full and true account of "The Leeds Orgies", edited, with introduction, by G. W. Foote
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] (ed)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 58, [6] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. A libel suit against John Snow and Messrs. Cook & Co. by Robert Owen Smith and the National Secular Society. Snow and Cook & Co. were sued for publishing a pamphlet entitled, 'Is secularism degrading?' (from a speech by Christian Evidence lecturer Walton Powell), that charged that the Hall of Science where the National Secular Society held its meetings was used for a class in which boys were taught "self-abuse". Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N244
Subject
The topic of the resource
Freedom of the press
Libel
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 Hall of Science libel case. With a full and true account of "The Leeds Orgies", edited, with introduction, by G. W. Foote), 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
Hall of Science
National Secular Society
NSS
Secularism
Trials (Libel)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b887f8e969a9066a9b1b5189c6264b31.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KvqFr0-C3Cmnubx2pvYTsE9eOB7wkwZUXJiEzsZwXBAdnA9O3wsNex7-1pTiMrPeu-5WmSmq6KvhyVuVAP8xl-gUUlEosYVEj8nJLjqyk3LplY6YKK%7E8AVX7SpLrnYmcS8FezXcHxDGJgz1oTsxaAgEtwOXI8dSke15YYC-UaE-PCAdsiehMgbODMR-462CHAQXFaz1G2gVzwxNxqR-hX1HwtiZyrm%7Ev9ReALOlYq8o69uVJ%7EkSgh0bks1zfRZ7w4hnF%7EGL-%7ESElwNLJaB6N5ULaE44NnmuNVTIuhJ9ZAy6VicdLcdY6nURjQIrLBQFNuXEP7EsCJ28e97HznDYXrA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
14058cbcda4e66009054f6a8e1c3e996
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
OUTLINE
AN
EVOLUTIONARY
ETHICS
BY
C.
COHEN.
Vice-President National Secular Society.
PUBLISHED
BY
R. FORDER,
28,
STONECUTTER STREET.
LONDON, E.C.
1896.
�PREFACE.
The object of the present essay is disclosed in the title;
it is that of presenting, in as few words as possible, an
outline of a System of Ethics based upon the doctrine of
Evolution.
Accordingly, I have avoided entering into a
discussion of the value of any of the special virtues—to do
so would require a volume, not a pamphlet—being content
with putting forward what I conceive to be the essential
principles of a Science of Ethics, leaving it for those who
are interested, to pursue the subject further. There is,
therefore, no attempt at completeness in this essay ; it is
meant as an outline, and an introduction, nothing more.
Nor is there in any sense, a claim of originality on behalf
of the ideas suggested ; that, again, has not been my object.
I doubt whether there is a single original idea throughout
the whole. I have simply aimed at putting in a small
compass, and in plain language, conclusions that are at pre
sent locked up in bulky and expensive volumes, which
the average individual has neither time nor opportunity
to consult or study 'systematically.
Students of Mr.
Herbert Spencer’s Works, Mr. Leslie Stephen’s “ Science
of Ethics,” and Mr. Henry Sidgwick’s “ Methods of Ethics,”
will recognise readily how much I am indebted to these
writers.
‘
Where direct quotations occur, I have named the
sources from which they are drawn ; to have particularized
my indebtedness further would have meant more notes
than text. My one object has been to place the subject
in a brief, clear, and convincing light; if I have succeeded
in doing that, I am quite content.
�B2J347
I.—Introductory.
In endeavouring to carry out the oracular utterance :
*' Man know thyself,” there is no branch of study at once
so interesting and so important, as that which relates to
■conduct. At bottom, all our social, religious, and political
■questions find their supreme justification or condemna
tion in their influence upon human behaviour. A question
that had no reference to conduct, one that could not
possibly influence it for better or worse, might interest
the mere spinner of words, but to the earnest thinker
■or sober reformer, it would be valueless. It is true that
the seeker after knowledge has not always an ethical end
as the conscious object of his studies ; he—to use a com
mon phrase—“ seeks knowledge for its own sake ; ” but
it is clear, on reflection, that the only reason why increased
knowledge should be regarded as of value, is, that it will
enable us to better adjust our actions to the varying
circumstances of life. The fears often expressed, lest
some new theory of knowledge should weaken the force
■of accepted moral precepts, is, again, a tacit admission of
“ the sovereignty of ethics; ” and, when genuine, may
be regarded with a certain amount of favour. Even un
willingness to depart from old forms and customs, when
not pushed too far is good ; a querulous dissatisfaction,
with existing conditions being quite as foolish as a slavish
adherence to obsolete customs.
But customs and ideas, be they ever so firmly rooted,
reach, eventually, a stage when they are either summarily
dismissed, or are called upon to show decisive proof of
their title to our respect and obedience. This fate, which
sooner or later overtakes all institutions has in our own
day beset ethics; and at the great bar of human reason,
our ethical codes and teachers are called upon to show
reason why we should still follow their lead. In the
region of morals, as elsewhere, old lights are fading and
new ones are beginning to dawn ; and, perhaps, the
fading of the old lights would be matter for unalloyed
gratification, were it not that while many have lost faith in
the old teaching, they have not yet advanced sufficiently to
have a sincere trust in the new.
Much of this want of confidence in such guides as
�4
modern science has furnished us with, is doubtless due to
the inability of many to accustom their minds to funda
mentally different conceptions from those in which they
were nurtured; but much also is due to the unnecessary
obscurity of writers upon ethical subjects. May I venture
to say—and I say it with all becoming humility—that a
number of needless difficulties have been allowed to encum
ber the subject of morals. Writers have approached the
subject with such an amount of religious and transcen
dental prejudice; have dwelt so strongly upon the
sacredness, the sublimity and the difficulty of the subject,
that their method has served to create difficulties that
have no right to exist. Plainly, if we are going to make
any real headway, we must sweep away all this rhetorical
and metaphysical fog, and deal with human conduct in.
the same careful and unimpassioned manner that we deal
with the subject matter of any of the sciences.
That this subject has its special difficulties, none will
deny—the complexity of the factors renders this inevit
able—but these difficulties need not be increased by the
discussion of a number of casuistical questions that have
scarce an existence in real life ; nor need they blind us to
the fact that a science of human conduct is both necessary
and possible. Human actions are among the facts of
existence ; their causes and results—when they can be
ascertained—are constant, and they must, therefore, be
collected, arranged, and studied, in precisely the same
way that the geologist or chemist deals with the facts
that come within the scope of his respective department
of knowledge.
But before ethics could assume anything like a thoroughly
scientific form, it was essential that many other branches
of knowledge—particularly physiology and psychology—
should be fairly well developed ; and the shortcomings of
earlier systems may be partly attributed to the incom
pleteness of the necessary data. A scientific system of
ethics can only be constructed upon data furnished by a,
number of other sciences ; and this necessary knowledge
has only been forthcoming within very recent times.
But where facts were wanting, fancy filled the gap, and
theories of morals were propounded which satisfied
without enlightening, and darkened that which they pre
tended to explain.
�5
The great weakness of all theological and meta
physical systems of morals, is, that they take man as
he is, without reference to his past history or evol
ution, and proceed to frame rules for his future
guidance. The result is just 5frhat might be expected.
It is precisely what would happen to a man who set him
self to write a description of the British constitution,
without any reference to the history of its gradual
•development : certain features would be misunderstood,
others under or over rated, while many would be left out
of sight altogether. The only way to understand what is,
is to find out how it became so; and this rule is as true
of moral ideas as it is of social institutions and national
customs.
It is in this direction, in emphasising the
importance of the element of time in our speculations
concerning the universe, that Evolution has left its clearest
impress upon modern thought.
Until very recently,
writers—with rare exceptions—were agreed in taking the
order of the universe as fixed from the beginning. Crea
tion being thus taken for granted, there remained merely
a constitution to discover ; and all enquiries as to how
this constitution reached its present condition were looked
upon as beside the mark, or were met by the dogma. “ and
God said, let there be —” Gradually, however, first in one
department, then in another, there grew up the idea of
development, and instead of the present condition of things
being regarded as having come into existence fully formed
the conception of its gradual formation, through vast
periods of time began to gain ground. As philosophers
regarded the physical universe, so they regarded man’s
moral nature. No matter how widely moralists differed,
they were in substantial agreement thus far—they all
viewed the moral nature of man as being constant, as
having been always as it is ; and from this hypotheti
cally constant human nature, proceeded to elaborate their
ethical theories—with much satisfaction to themselves, if
not with benefit to others. As a matter of fact, however,
human nature is as variable as the conditions amid which
it exists—or even more so—while our moral instincts,
appetites, and aversions, which were taken as primary
endowments of the race, in the light of more correct
knowledge, are seen to be the results of slowly acquired
experiences stretching over thousands of generations. As
�6
I have said, it is in this direction that the influence of
Evolutionary thought is mo9t apparent. What others
took for granted, we now find it necessary to explain —
the problem from being—“ given certain instincts what isour reason for calling them moral ? ” has expanded intoHow have the moral feelings come into existence, what
is their nature, and how far should their authority
extend ? ”
It is these questions that I purpose attempting to>
answer in the following pages.
II.—The Meaning of Morality.
The business of the following essay, be it repeated, is a
study of conduct from a purely scientific standpoint;
that is, to establish a rational foundation for moral actions,
and a reasonable motive for their performance, apart from
all religious or supernatural considerations. To the
student of ethics there are two sources from which may
be drawn those facts upon which moral rules or laws are
based. The first is the study of all those mental states to
which praise or blame may be attached. The subjective
view of ethics has hitherto claimed by far the larger share
of attention, at times utterly excluding any other aspect of
the subject; and whatever good might have resulted from
a close examination of mental states, has been frustrated
owing to its neglect of an equally important division of
ethics, namely, the study of conduct from the objective and.
historic side. It is this aspect of the scientific treatment
of ethics that is brought into prominence by the doctrineof evolution. Its main features are comparative and histor
ical ; it embraces a study of customs as affected by race and
age, and even the actions of all animals whose conduct
exhibits any marked degree of conscious forethought. The
importance of this branch of study can hardly be exagger
ated : introspection unchecked by objective verification is.
responsible for most of the errors that abound in philoso
phical writings; while the historical and objective
method has thrown as much light upon mental and moral
problems in fifty years, as had been shed by the intro
spective method in as many generations. Following Mr.
Herbert Spencer, we may define the subject matter of
ethics as “the conscious adjustment of acts to ends;”’
and the object of ethics the statement of such rules as
�7
will lead to the realisation of the welfare of those for
whose benefit such rules are devised.
The main questions that ethical systems are called upon
to answer are :—What is morality ? Why are some
actions classed as moral and others as immoral ? How
did our moral instincts and feelings come into existence ?
and, What are the conditions of their preservation and
improvement ?
In the discussion of all questions such as these,
much time is saved, and much confusion avoided, by
setting out with a clear idea of the meanings of the
cardinal terms in use. All things that we seek to avoid
or possess, whether they be actual objects or states of con
sciousness, fall under one of two heads : they are either
good or bad. Health, riches, friendship, are classed as
good ; disease, poverty, enmity, are classed as bad. We
speak of a good horse, a good knife, a good house, or the
reverse. Upon what ground is this division drawn ? In
virtue of what common quality possessed by these differ
ent objects is the above classification made ? Clearly it
is not because of any intrinsic quality possessed by them.
Considered by themselves they would be neither good
nor bad A knife viewed without regard to the purpose
of cutting, or as an object exhibiting skilled workmanship,
would be subject to neither praise nor censure. An
action that neither helped nor hindered self or fellows,
would awaken no feelings of approbation or disappro
bation. It is only in relation to some end that we have
in view that an object becomes either good or bad, or an
action moral or immoral. Further, an object that may be
classed as good in relation to one end, would be classed
as bad in relation to another. A horse that would be
valuable for deciding a wager as to speed, would be of
little use for the purpose of ploughing a field.
As
Professor Clifford pointed out, the fundamental trait that
determines goodness is efficiency—the capability of an
object or an action for reaching a desired end. A thing
must be good for something or for someone ; a knife for
cutting, a horse for carrying or drawing, a house for
shelter; fresh air, pure water, good food, because they
promote a healthy physique ; and each will be classed as
possessing a greater degree of goodness as it reaches the
desired end in a more effectual manner. A good action,
�8
may, therefore, be defined as one which attains the end
desired with the least expenditure of time and energy.
A further distinction needs to be pointed out between the
terms good and moral ; for in the light of the above
definition, the two terms are by no means always synony
mous, although they may be so in special cases. A man
who so adjusted his actions as to commit a burglary in
the most expeditious manner, might be rightly spoken of
as a good burglar, but no one, I opine, would speak of
him as a moral one. Nevertheless, an action becomes
moral for the same reason that an action becomes good,
that is, in view of a certain result to be attained, although
in this case certain ulterior considerations are involved.
Now, in examining all those actions classed as moral,
I find them to be either socially or individually bene
ficial, while those actions classed as immoral are injurious
either to the individual or to society ; while actions which
neither injure nor help are classed as indifferent.
Even
in the case of those actions that are performed instinc
tively, the justification for their existence or practice is
always to be found in reasons arising from their social or
individual utility. Analyse carefully the highest and
most complex moral action, and it will be found in its
ultimate origin to be an act of self or social preservation.
Press home the enquiry why the feeling of moral obliga
tion should be encouraged, and the answer will be the
same. This fundamental significance of the terms used,
is frequently veiled under such phrases as Duty, Perfec
tion, Virtue, etc. Thus Immanuel Kant declares that
“ No act is good unless done from a sense of duty.” But
why should we act from a sense of duty ? What reason
is there for following its dictates ?
Clearly a sense of
duty is only to be encouraged or its dictates obeyed
because it leads to some desired result; there must be
some reason why a sense of duty is to be acted upon,
rather than ignored, and in the very nature of the case
that reason can only be found in the direction indicated.
Nor can we on reflection and in the light of modern
science, think of moral actions as having any other origin
or justification than their tendency to promote the well
being of society. Given a race of animals with a
particular set of surroundings, and the problem before it
will be “ How to maintain a constant harmony between
�9
the species and its medium ; how the former shall adjust
its movements in such a manner as to ward off all
aggressive forces, both conscious and unconscious, to
rear its young and preserve that modifiability of actions
requisite to meet the needs of a changing environment ;
without which death rapidly ensues.” This is the problem
of life stated in its plainest terms; a problem which
presses upon savage and civilised alike, and one with
which we are all constantly engaged. It may be said that
we are all engaged in playing the same game—the game
of life —and ethics may be spoken of as the rules of the
game that we are always learning but never thoroughly
master. The one condition of existence for all life, from
lowest to highest, is that certain definite lines of conduct
—determined by the surrounding conditions—shall be
pursued ; and just as any invention, be it steam engine,
printing press, or machine gun, is the result of a long
series of adjustments and readjustments reaching over
many generations, so our present ability to maintain our
lives in the face of a host of disturbing forces, is the
result of a long series of adjustments and re-adjustments,
conscious and unconscious, dating back to the dawn of
life upon the globe. Self-preservation is the fundamental
cause of the beginnings of morality, and only as the
sphere of self becomes extended so as to embrace others
does conduct assume a more altruistic character. At
beginning these adjustments by means of which life is
preserved are brought about unconsciously, natural selec
tion weeding out all whose conduct is of an undesirable
or life-diminishing character; but with the growth of
intelligence and the conscious recognition of the nature of
those forces by which life is moulded, these unconscious
adaptations are superseded—or rather have superadded to
them—conscious ones. It is this conscious recognition of
the nature of these forces by which life is maintained,
and of the reason for pursuing certain courses of conduct,
that is the distinguishing feature of human society.
Human morality seeks to effect consciously what has
hitherto been brought about slowly and unconsciously.
It aims at this, but at more than this; for a system of
ethics not only seeks to preserve life, but to intensify it,
to increase its length and add to its beauties. It declares
not only what is, or what may be, but what ought to be.
�10
Moral principles or laws, therefore, consist in the main in
furnishing a reason for those courses of conduct which
experience has demonstrated to be beneficial, and the
acquisition of which have been accentuated by the struggle
for existence.
In this case, however, progress is effected much more
rapidly than where the evolution is unconscious, while
the ability to discern more clearly the remote effects of
our actions renders that progress more certain and perma
nent. We maintain ourselves, we rear our young, and lay
up the means of future happiness in virtue of the
presence of a particular set of instincts or the formulation
of a number of rules which experience has demonstrated
to be beneficial.
It is a detailed account of these actions
and the reason for their existence that constitutes our
moral code. Long before moral principles are formulated
society conforms to them. Custom exists before law;
indeed, a large part of law is only custom recognised and
stereotyped; the law, so to speak, does but give the
reason for the custom, and by the very exigences of exis
tence such customs as are elevated into laws must be
those that have helped to preserve the race, otherwise
there would be a speedy end to both law and law-makers.
As, therefore, in the course of evolution only the societies
can continue to exist whose actions serve, on the whole, to
bring them into harmony with their environment, and as
it will be these actions the value of which will afterwards
come to be recognised and their performances enforced
by law, there is brought about an identification of moral
rules with life preserving actions from the outset, and
this identification tends to become still closer as society
advances. The impulses that urge men to action cannot
be, in the main, anti-social or society would cease to exist.
In the last resort, as will be made clear later, a man will do
that which yields him the most satisfaction, and unless
there is some sort of identity between what is pleasant
and what is beneficial, animate existence would soon
cease to be. Morality can, then, from the scientific stand
point, have no other meaning except that of a general
term for all those preservative instincts and actions by
means of which an individual establishes definite and har
monious relations between himself and fellows, and wards
off all those aggressive forces that threaten his existence.
�11
We have now, I think, reached a clear conception of
what is meant by a “ Moral Action.” A moral action is.
one that adds to the “ fitness” of society; makes life fuller
and longer; adds to the fulness of life by nobility of
action, and to its duration by length of years. An.
immoral action is one that detracts from the “ fitness ” of
society, and renders it less capable of responding to the
demands of its environment. The only rational meaning:
that can be attached to the phrase “a good man,” is that
of one whose actions comply with the above conditions ;
and his conduct will become more or less immoral as it
approaches to or falls away from this ideal.
III.—The Moral Standard.
Although I have but little doubt that the majority of
people would on reflection yield a general assent to the
considerations set forth above, yet, it may be complained,
that they are too vague. To say that moral actions are such
as promote life, it may further be said, is hardly to tell us
what such actions are, or to provide us with a rational
rule of action, since our verdict as to whether an action is
moral or immoral must clearly depend upon our view as
to what the end of life is. The man who holds that all
pleasure is sinful, and that mortification of the flesh is the
only way to gain eternal happiness, will necessarily pass
a very different judgment upon actions from the one
who holds that all happiness that is not purchased at the
expense of another’s misery is legitimate and desirable.
The justice of the above complaint must be admitted ; it
remains, therefore, to push our enquiries a step further.
Ethical Methods, in common with other systems, pass
through three main stages—Authoritative, critical, and
constructive. The first is a period when moral precepts
are accepted on the bare authority of Priest or Chieftain.
In this stage all commands have an equal value, little or
no discrimination is exercised, and all acts of disobedience
meet with the most severe punishment.
*
The second
period represents a season of upheaval occasioned either
by the growing intelligence of men perceiving the faults or
shortcomings of the current teaching, or a healthy revolt
against the exercise of unfettered authority. And then,
*As in the Bible where picking up sticks upon the Sabbath merits
the same punishment as murder.
�12
finally, there ensues a constructive stage, when an attempt
is made to place conduct upon a rational foundation.
It is not very easy to point out the line of demarcation
between the different stages, nor is it unusual to find
them existing side by side, but they are stages that can be
■observed by a careful student with a tolerable amount of
■ease. And in this latter stage the difficulty is, not so
much the formulation of moral precepts, as furnishing
the reason for them. The great question here is, not so
much “ How shall I be moral,’’ as—“ Why should I be
moral,” it is this question we have now to answer.
All Ethical systems are compelled to take some
standard as ultimately determining the rightness or
wrongness of conduct, and we may roughly divide all
these systems into three groups—two of which regard the
moral sense as innate, and the third as derivative. These
three groups are, (1) Theological systems which take the
will of deity as supplying the necessary standard, (2)
Intuitional which holds the doctrine of an innate moral
sense that is in its origin independent of experience, and
professes to judge actions independent of results, (3)
*
Utilitarian, which estimates conduct by observing the
results of actions upon self and fellows, and holds that
■our present stock of moral sentiments have been acquired
by experience both individual and racial.
Concerning the first of these schools—the theological—
its weakness must be apparent to all who have given any
serious attention to the subject. For, setting on one side
the difficulty of ascertaining what the will of deity is, and
the further difficulty that from the religious world there
■comes in answer to moral problems replies as numerous
as the believers themselves, it is plain that the expressed
will of deity cannot alter the morality of an action to the
slightest extent. It does not follow that spoiling the
Egyptians is a moral transaction because God com
manded it, nor are we justified in burning witches or
stoning heretics because their death sentence is contained
in the bible. It would be but a poor excuse after commit
* We have used the term “Intuitional” to denote the method which
recognises rightness as a quality belonging to actions independently of their
conduciveness to any ulterior end. The term implies that the presence of
the quality is ascertained by simply looking at the actions themselves
-without considering their consequences.—Sidgwick, “ Methods of Ethics”
bk. I. c. viii, sec. i.
�13
ting a crime to plead that God commanded it. The
reply to all such excuses would be, “ crime is crime no
matter who commanded it ; wrong actions must be
reprobated, the wrong doer corrected, or society would
fall to pieces,” and such a decision would have the sup
port of all rational men and women. A belief that my
actions are ordered by God can only guarantee my honesty
as a believer in deity in carrying them out, but can in no
way warrant their morality.
Further, those who claim that the will of God as ex
pressed in a revelation or discovered by a study of nature,
furnishes a ground of distinction between right and
wrong, overlook the fact that all such positions are self
contradictory, inasmuch as they assume a tacit recognition
at the outset of the very thing they set out to discover—
they all imply the existence of a standard of right and
wrong to which God’s acts conform. To speak of biblical
precepts as good implies that they harmonize with our
ideas of what goodness is ; to say that God is good and
that his actions are righteous, implies, in the same manner,
a conformity between his actions and some recognised
standard. Either that, or it is a meaningless use of terms
to speak of God’s actions as good, and at the same time
claim that it is his actions alone which determine what
goodness is. In short, all such terms as good and bad,
moral and immoral, take for granted the existence of some
standard of goodness discoverable by human reason, and
from which such terms derive their authority. This much
appears to me clear:—either actions classed respectively as
moral and immoral have certain definite effects upon our
lives or they have not. If they have, then their effects remain
the same with or without religious considerations; and
granting the possession of an ordinary amount of common
sense, it will always be possible to build up a code of
morals from the observed consequences of actions. If
actions have no definite effects upon our lives, then those
who believe that our only reason for calling an action
moral or immoral lies in the will of God, given in revela
tion or expressed in the human consciousness, are com
mitted to the startling proposition that theft, murder and
adultery would never have been recognised as immoral
had these commands not have been in existence. This
last alternative is rather too ridiculous to merit serious
�14
disproof. In brief, neither the theologian nor, as we shall
see later, the intuitionist can avoid assuming at the outset
■of their investigations all that he seeks to reach as a con
clusion. The very phrases both are compelled to use have
no validity unless there exist principles of morality derived
from experience—and this thay are constantly seeking to
disprove.
Nor do the advocates of a dim religious sense mani
fest in the human mind, fare any better than those who
hold the cruder form of the same doctrine. The strength
•of their position is apparent only ; due to the vagueness
of language rather than the logical force of their ideas.
Dr. Martineau—who may be taken as one of the best
representatives of the religious world upon this subject—
declares that if there be no supernatural authority for
morals, “ nothing remains but to declare the sense of
responsibility a mere delusion, the fiduciary aspect of
life must disappear; there is no trust committed to us,
no eye to watch, no account to render ; we have but to
settle terms with our neighbours and all will be well.
Purity within, faithfulness when alone, harmony and
depth in the secret affections, are guarded by no caution
ary presence, and aided by no sacred sympathy ; it may
be happy for us if we keep them, but if we mar them it
is our own affair, and there is none to reproach us and
put us to shame.”* To all of which one may say that
that conduct can hardly be called moral which needs the
constant supervision of an eternal “cautionary presence”
to ensure its rectitude
To refrain from wrong-doing
because of the presence of an “ all-seeing eye,” whether
its possessor be a supernatural power or a mundane
policeman can hardly entitle one to be called
virtuous ; and society would be in a poor way indeed did
right conduct rest upon no firmer foundation than this.
A man so restrained may not be such a direct danger to
society as he would otherwise be, but he is far from being
a desirable type of character. Surely purity, faithfulness
to wife, children and friends, honesty in our dealings,
truthfulness in our speech, and confidence in our fellows,
are not such poor, forlorn things as to be without some
inherent personal recommendation ?
Indeed, Dr.
* “ A Study of Religions,” II. p. 40.
�15
Martineau himself is a splendid disproof of his own
position, for if there is one thing certain about a man of
his type, it is that the absence of religious beliefs would
influence his conduct but little for the worse, while it might
even give more breadth to his sympathies and character.
True morality finds its incentives in the effects of actions
upon self and fellows, and not in fears inspired by either
god or devil. As Mr. Spencer has said, “ The truly moral
deterrent from murder is not constituted by a represen
tation of hanging as a consequence, or by a representation
of tortures in hell as a consequence, or by a representation
of the horror or hatred excited in fellow men, but by a
representation of the necessary natural results — the
infliction of death agony upon the victim, the destruc
tion of all his possibilities of happiness, the entailed
suffering to his belongings.
Neither the thought of
imprisonment, nor of divine anger, nor of social disgrace,
is that which constitutes the check on theft, but the
thought of injury to the person robbed, joined with a
vague consciousness of the general evils caused by a
disregard of proprietory rights .... Throughout, then,
the moral motive differs from the motives it is associated
with in this ; that instead of being constituted by repre
sentations of incidental, collateral, non-necessary conse
quences of acts, it is constituted by representations of
consequences which the acts naturally produce.”* Of all
moral sanctions the religious sanction is the most delusive
and unsatisfactory. Changing as human nature changes,
reflecting here benevolence and there cruelty, sanctioning
all crimes at the same time that it countenances much
that is virtuous, it is an authority that people have
appealed to in all ages to justify every action that human
nature is capable of committing. Surely a sanction which
justifies at the same time the religion of the Thug and
the benevolence of the humanitarian must be an eminently
fallacious one ? And yet we are warned that the removal
of the religious sanction will weaken, if it does not destroy,
morality! I do not believe it.
Conduct can gain no
permanent help from a false belief, and no permanent
strength from a lie ; and had the energies of our religious
teachers been devoted to impressing upon the people
“ Data of Ethics,” sec. 45.
�16
under their control the natural sanction of morality they
might have been kept moral without a sham of a priest
hood, or the perpetuation of superstitious beliefs that are
a stain upon our civilisation. But we have been taught
for so long that religion alone could furnish a reason for
right living, that now that time has set its heavy hand upon
religious creeds and death is claiming them for its own,
many honestly fear that there will be a corresponding
moral deterioration. Yet of this much we may be certain,
so long as men continue to live together morality
can never die ; so long as suffering exists or injustice
is done, there will not be wanting ;those who will
burn to release the one and redress the other.
Nay, rather will the value of life and of conduct
during life be enhanced by stripping it of all false fears
and groundless fancies. Whatever else is proven false
this life remains certain ; if it is shown that we share the
mortality of the brute we need not share its life, and we
may at least make as much of the earth we are now in
possession of as the heaven we may never enter. As
George Eliot says, “ If everything else is doubtful, this
suffering that I can help is certain ; if the glory of the
cross is an illusion, the sorrow is only the truer.
While
the strength is in my arm I will stretch it out to the
fainting ; while the light visits my eyes they shall seek
the forsaken.”*
The intuitional theory of morals while displaying
fewer errors than the scheme of the theological
school, yet presents a fundamental and insurmountable
difficulty. With the general question as to the nature
and authority of conscience, we shall deal more fully
when we come to treat of the “ Moral Sense.” The
question at issue between the intuitionist and the upholder
of the doctrine of evolution is, not the present existence
in man of a sense of right or wrong, but whether that
sense is an original endowment of the species or has been
derived from experience. According to this school ight
*
and wrong are known as such in virtue of a divinely
implanted sense or faculty = soul or conscience; we
recognise the virtue of an action as we recognise the
presence of a colour, because we possess a special sense
* “ Eomola.”
�17
fitted for the task ; and it is impossible to furnish any
other reason why it should be so. Right and wrong are
immediately perceived by the mind as such, and there is
an end of the matter. .A plain and obvious comment
upon this position is that the intuitions of men are
neither uniform nor infallible in their judgments.
Instead of finding, as the intuitional theory of morals
would lead us to expect, that moral judgments are every
where the same, we find them differing with race, age,
and even individuals. The only thing common to the
moral sense is that of passing judgment, or making a
selection of certain actions, and this much is altogether
inadequate for the purpose of the intuitionist. The
moral sense of one man leads him to murder his enemy ;
that of another to feed him ; in one age the moral sense
decrees that polygamy, death for heresy, witch burning,
and trial by combat are legitimate proceedings, and in
another age brands them as immoral. Obviously, if our
intuitions are to be regarded as trustworthy guides, there
is no reason why we should adopt one set of intuitions
more than another. All must be equally valuable or the
theory breaks down at the outset. If, however, we pro
nounce in favour of the intuitions of the cultured European
and against that of the savage, it must be because of a com
parison of the consequences of the different intuitions
upon human welfare ; and in this case the authority of
the moral sense as an arbitrary law-giver disappears.
If
the moral sense be ultimate, then our duty is to follow
its dictates. Any questioning of what the moral sense
decides to be right involves an appeal to some larger fact,
or to some objective guide. To arbitrarily select one
intuition out of many and label that and that only as good
is simply to set up another god in place of the one
dethroned. All moral growth implies the fallibility of
our intuitions, since such growth can only proceed by
correcting and educating our primary ethical impulses.
There is one point, however, which seems to have escaped
the notice of intuitionists, and that is, that the existence of
their own writings is a direct disproof of the truth of
their position. For if all men possessed such a faculty as it
is claimed they possess, its existence should be sufficiently
obvious as to command the assent of all; there could
exist no such questioning of the fact as to necessitate the
�18
existence of the proof offered. No man ever yet needed
to write a volume to prove that the sun gave light, or
that men experience feelings of pleasure and pain, and an
intuition that is co.extensive with humanity, which is not
reducible to experience, and which is the very ground
work of our moral judgments should be so obvious as to
be independent of all proof. The mere fact of it being
called into question is sufficient disproof of its existence.
But, as already said, the diversities of moral judgments
are fatal to the hypothesis. Press the intuitionist with the
question why he should prefer the intuition of one man
to that of another, and he is compelled to forsake his
original position and justify his selection upon the grounds
of the beneficial effects of one and the injurious effects
of the other; thus constituting experience as the final
court of appeal. The conclusion is, then, that neither the
theologian nor the intuitionist can avoid taking into con
sideration the effects of action in the formation of moral
judgments ; both of them when pressed are compelled to
fall back upon something outside their system to support
it; neither can justify himself without making an appeal
to that experience, which according to his hypothesis
is unnecessary and untrustworthy.
Turning now to the last of the three schools named—the
utilitarian—let us see if we can derive from it a satisfactory
standard of right and wrong. Practically the question has
already been answered in our examination of “the meaning
of morality,” where it was determined that moral actions
were such as led to an increase of life in length of days
and nobility of action ; but as this may be thought too
vague it becomes necessary to frame some more detailed
expression.
The essence of Utilitarianism may be stated in a sen
tence it asserts that “ actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is in
tended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness
pain and the privation of pleasure. ” Act so as to ensure
*
the happiness of all around you, may be said to be the
one great precept of Utilitarianism. According to this
doctrine all things become of value only in so far as they
minister to the production of happiness, while the end of
*J. S. Mil), “ Utilitarianism ” p. 9.
�19
action is always the production of an agreeable or pleas
urable state of consciousness. The correctness of this
position admits of ample demonstration. Indeed, the
fact that happiness is the end contemplated by all is so
plain as to scarcely need proof, were it not that the means
to this end have by long association come to stand in con
sciousness as ends in themselves.
Yet a very little
analysis will show that each of the prudential or benevo
lent virtues must find their ultimate justification in their
tendency to increase happiness. As Mill says: “The
clearest proof that the table is here is that I see it ; and
the clearest proof that happiness is the end of action is
that all men desire it.” Upon every hand we are brought
face to face with the truth of this statement. It matters
little whether we take the honest man or the thief ; the
drunkard in his cups or the reformer in his study,
the one object that they have in common will be
found to be the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of
pain. The difference between men does not consist in
the fact that the motives urging them to action are gener
ically different, they are not; the difference consists
rather in the kind of happiness sought after or the means
adopted to obtain it. As will presently be made clear,
feeling induces action at all timesand under all conditions.
The immediate cause of conduct is the desire to bring
into existence a pleasant state of consciousness or to subdue
a painful one—although there is plainly much diversity
in the pleasures sought after. The biological reason for
this pursuit of pleasure will be seen later ; but that the
tendency of actions to produce happiness is our sole reason
for classing them as good will be seen by imagining the
contrary to be the case. Suppose, to quote Mr. Spencer,
“ that gashes and bruises caused agreeable sensations, and
brought in their train increased power of doing work and
receiving enjoyment; should we regard assault in the
same manner as at present; or, suppose that self-mutila
tion, say by cutting off a hand, was both intrinsically
pleasant and furthered performance of the processes by
which personal welfare and the welfare of dependents is
achieved ; should we hold as now that deliberate injury
done to one’s own body is to be reprobated ; or again,
suppose that picking a man’s pocket excited in him joyful
emotions by brightening his prospects; would that theft
�20
be counted among crimes, as in existing law books and
moral codes ? In these extreme cases, no one can deny
that what we call the badness of actions is ascribed to
them solely for the reason that they entail pain, immediate
or remote, and would not be so ascribed did they entail
pleasure.”*
The difference between a selfish and an unselfish action
is not that in the latter case the feeling itself is absent—
this is never the case—the difference is that in a selfish
action a man’s happiness is in things confined to himself,
while in an unselfish action his happiness embraces the
happiness of others likewise. Does a man give away his
last shilling to one poorer than himself ; it is because he
escapes the greater pain of witnessing distress and not
relieving it. Does the martyr go to the stake in vindica
tion of his belief ?
It is because to hide those beliefs, to
profess a belief which he did not enjtertain, to play the
hypocrite and escape persecution by an act of smug con
formity, would be far more unbearable than any torment
that intolerence could inflict.
Whatever man does he acts so as to avoid a pain and
gain a pleasure ; and the function of the ethical teacher is
to train men to perform only those actions which eventu
ally produce the greatest and most healthful pleasures.
And let it not be imagined for a moment that in thus
reducing the distinction, between good and bad, to the
simpler elements of pleasure and pain, that we have
thereby destroyed all distinction between them. Far
from it. The perfume of the rose and the evil smell of
asafcetida remain as distinct as ever, even though we
reduce both to the vibrations of particles; and we shall
not cease to care for one and dislike the other on that
account. And so long as a distinction is felt between a
pleasurable and a painful sensation, so long will the
difference between good and bad remain clear and distinct;
it is a distinction that cannot disappear so long as life
exists.
A complete moral code is but a complete statement of
actions that are of benefit to self and society in terms of
pleasure and pain ; and, therefore, until we can cease to
distinguish between the two sets of feelings we can never
* “Data or Ethics,” sec. 2.
�21
cease to know the grounds of morality and to find a
sound basis for its sanctions.
Every individual then acts so as to avoid a pain or
cultivate a pleasure. A state of happiness to be realised
at some time and at some place, is an inexpugnable ele
ment in all estimates of conduct; is the end to which all
men are striving, no matter how they may differ in their
methods of achieving it. Unfortunately, such considera
tions, as have been pointed out. are disguised under such
phrases as “ Perfection,” “ Blessedness,” &c. And yet, to
quote Mr. Spencer once again, “ If it (Blessedness) is a
state of consciousness at all, it is necessarily one of three
states—painful, indifferent, or pleasurable,” and as no
one, I presume, will say that it is either of the first two,
we are driven to the conclusion, that after all, “ Blessed
ness ” is but another name for happiness.
Or take as an illustration of the same principle, a plea that
is sometimes put forward on behalf of self-denial, which,
it is urged, contravenes the principle of utility. It is
claimed that that conduct is highest which involves self
sacrifice. But, clearly, self-sacrifice, as self-sacrifice, has
little or nothing to commend it. The man who denied
himself all comfort, who continually “mortified the
flesh,” without benefiting any one by so doing, would be
regarded by all sane thinking people as little better than
a lunatic. The only possible justification f or self-sacrifice
is that the happiness of self in some future condition of
existence, or the happiness of society in the present, will
be rendered greater thereby. Even the fanatical religionist
indulging in acts of self-torture, is doing so in the full
belief that his conduct will bring him greater happiness
hereafter. So that once more we are brought back to the
same position, viz., that no individual can avoid taking
happiness in some form as the motive for and sanction of
his conduct.
Here, then, upon the widest possible review of human
conduct, we are warranted in asserting that the ultimate
criterion of the morality of an action is its tendency to
produce pleasurable states of consciousness. To speak of
an action as good or bad apart from the effect it produces
upon human life, is as absurd as to speak of colour apart
from the sense of sight. An action becomes good because
of its relation to a human consciousness, and apart from
�22
this relation its goodness disappears. As Spinoza says—
“We do not desire a thing because it is good, we call it
good because we desire it.”
This, then, is our test of the morality of an action—
will it result in a balance of painful feelings ? Then it
is bad. Will it produce a surplus of pleasurable ones ?
Then it is good,
But although, in ultimate analysis, to desire a thingand call it good, or the performance of an action
and call it moral, is merely another way of saying the
same thing, it by no means follows that all desires are to
be gratified merely because they exist. Nothing is plainer
than that the gratification of many desires would lead to
anything but beneficial results. Our desires need at all
times to be watched, controlled and educated. It is in
this direction that reason plays its part in the determin
ation of conduct.
Its function is, by the perception and
calculation of the consequences of actions, to so train the
feelings as to lead us eventually to gratify only such,
desires as will ultimately lead to individual and social
happiness.
And not only is it clear on analysis that the avoidance
of a painful state of consciousness or the pursuit of an
agreeable one, is the underlying motive for all our actions,
but it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. An
ethical relation between ourselves and an object can never
be established by simple perception ; nor is perception
ever the immediate cause of action.
The immediate
cause of action is, as I have already said, feeling ; that is,
we associate pleasurable or painful feelings with an
object perceived, and shape our conduct in accordance
with past experience.
*
No abstract conception of life
and its duties could ever give rise to action, were
not such conduct closely associated with pleasant or
* May we not justly affirm, as we clearly perceive, that the intellectual
life does not supply the motive or impulse to action ; that the understand
ing or reason is not the cause of our outward actions, but that the desiresare? Our most effective energies spring from our most urgent needs. . .
The desire is the fundamental expression of the individual’s character. . ►.
In fact the power of the understanding is reflective and inhibitory,
being exhibited rather in the hindrance of passion-prompted action, and in
the guidance of our impulses, than in the instigation of conduct; its office
in the individual, as in the race is, as Comte systematically and emphati
cally pointed out, not to impart the habitual impulsion but deliberative.
—Maudesley, “ Physiology of Mind,” p. 357.
�23
painful feelings—as escaping censure, personal approba
tion or disapprobation, direct personal reward or punish
ment, or the admiration of our neighbours. We may
put the case briefly as follows : Every action consciously
performed aims at calling into existence a particular state
of consciousness. States of consciousness, so far as they
are the subjects of ethical judgments, are of two kinds—
agreeable and disagreeable, or pleasant and painful. The
former we desire to maintain, the latter to destroy. By
experience pleasurable feelings have become associated
with a particular object or the performance of a particular
action, and the possession of the object or the performance
of the action is the means by which such agreeable sensa
tions are revived It is upon this principle only that the
past can serve as a guide in the present; although the
past can never induce action, the future alone can do
this. Our conduct is necessarily based upon the belief
that the future will resemble the past, and that actions
which resulted in happiness in the past will have the
same effect in the future. If, then, the motive resulting
in action is the wish to revive and return some state of
consciousness, and if all states of consciousness are either
painful or pleasurable, and if it is further admitted that
pleasurable states are sought after and painful ones
avoided, then it becomes clear that the ideal state is one
in which pleasurable states only are experienced ; or, as
it is briefly described, a state of happiness.
And now having reached the conclusion that the pro
duction of a pleasurable feeling is the end of all our
actions, the question remaining to be answered is, “ why
should happiness be the end of action, what is it that
constitutes happiness, and what justification for the
pursuit of happiness is there to be found in a study of
the laws of life ? ”
Here we may be met with the remark that happiness is
an extremely variable factor, that it varies at different
times and with different individuals ; the happiness of the
drunkard or the debauchee is quite as real as the happi. ness of the philosopher, and therefore upon what grounds
do we class one as bad and the other as good ? The
drunkard may say, “ my conduct yields me pleasure,
while to imitate yours would prove extremely irksome
and painful, and therefore I prefer to keep on my present
�24
course in spite of all that may be said concerning other
sources of happiness, the beauty of which I am unable to
appreciate.” In what way, then, the evolutionist may be
asked, can we prove the drunkard to be in the wrong ?
This objection, although a fairly common one, yet repre
sents an entire misunderstanding of the utilitarian position.
Certainly pleasures of a special kind accompany such
actions as those named, for, as I have shown, conduct
must always be produced by feeling, and feeling always
aims at the one end ; but it is not by taking into con
sideration the immediate effects of actions only and
ignoring the remote ones that any sound conclusions
can be reached, this can only be done by combining both,
and when it is shown, and it will not be disputed, that
the immediate pleasures of the drunkard carry with them
as final results a long train of miseries in the shape of
ruined homes, shattered constitutions, and general social
evils, we have shown that these actions are not such as
produce ultimate happiness, and therefore have no valid
claim to the title of good.
But waiving the discussion of such objections as these,
the problem facing us is, “granting that the end of action
is as stated, in what way can we identify what is with
what ought to be ; or how can it be shown that actions
which rightly viewed yield happiness and actions that
preserve life are. either identical or tend to become so ? ”
This question, it is clear, can only be thoroughly answered
by determining the physiological and psychological con
ditions of happiness.
The incentives to action, it has been shown, is the desire
to call into existence, or to drive out of being a particular
state of consciousness. All changes in consciousness are
brought about either by sensations directly experienced,
or by the remembrance of sensations previously ex
perienced. We receive sensations by means of what are
called faculties—including under that term both organ
and function. Of a certain number of possible sensations
some are pleasant, others are unpleasant; the former we
seek, the latter we shun; and the desire to revise the
agreeable states of feeling is the immediate motive for all
our actions. A pleasurable feeling, then, results from the
*
* To say that we seek the revival of a disagreeable feeling would be a
contradiction in terms.
�25
exercise of our energies in a particular direction ; the ques
tion is, in what direction ? It is in answering this question
that Mr. Spencer has made one of his most important con
tributions to ethical science, and thereby placed the utilitar
ian theory of morals upon a thoroughly scientific footing.
Clearly, the indiscriminate exercise of our faculties, or
the promiscuous gratification of our desires, will not lead
to ultimate happiness. Apart from the existence in our
selves of desires which being either of a morbid character,
or survivals from times when the conditions of life were
different, and the gratification of which would therefore be
looked upon as anything but desirable ; even the exercise
of what may be termed legitimate desires needs to be care
fully watched and regulated. Indeed a large part of
wrong doing results, not from the existence of a faculty,
but from its misdirection; an intemperate gratification
of desires that, rightly directed, would yield but good.
No one, for example, would condemn the desire of people
to “ make a name,” a perfectly legitimate and even laud
able aspiration ; yet, owing to the method adopted, there
are few desires that lead to greater wrong doing.
Again, over indulgence in any pursuit, as in over eating,
over studying, or over indulgence in physical exercise, is
likely to lead to extremely injurious results. And equally
significant are the pains—cravings—that result from too
little exercise in any of these directions. If, therefore,
conduct that approaches either extreme leads to painful
results, the implication is that a pleasurable state of
consciousness is the accompaniment of actions that lie
midway between the two. But actions that leave behind
naught but a diffused feeling of pleasure, imply that the
body has received just that amount of exercise necessary
to maintain it in a state of well being, and are, therefore,
healthful actions; or in other words, pleasure—using that
term in the sense given to it above—will result from the
exercise of each organ of the body up to that point
necessary to maintain the entire organism in a healthy
condition. Concerning the quantity of exercise required
no hard and fast rule can be laid down, it will differ with
each individual, and even with the same individual at
different times, the amount of exercise necessary to keep
one man in a state of health would kill another, and vice
versa.
�26
Thus, from a biological standpoint we may define
happiness as a state of consciousness resulting from the
exercise of every organ of the body and faculty of the mind,
up to that point requisite to secure the well being of the
entire organism; and from the psychological side, the
gratification of all such desires as lead to this result. Now
if this be admitted as true, it follows that pleasure
producing actions and pain-producing actions are, in the
long run the equivalents of life preserving and life
destroying actions respectively ; that as Spencer says,
“ Every pleasure raises the tide of life ; and every pain
lowers the tide of life,’’ or as Professor Bain has it—“ States
of pleasure are connected with an increase, and states of
pain with an abatement of some, or all, of the vital
functions ; ” * and therefore to say .that the tendency of an
action to produce happiness is the ultimate test of its
morality, is simply saying in effect that that conduct is
moral which leads to a lengthening and broadening of
life.
And not only is this the conclusion reached by an
examination of animal life as it now is, but it is a con
clusion logically deducible from the hypothesis of
evolution and the laws of life in general. The connection
between pain and death, and happiness and life, is too
deeply grounded in general language and thought not to
have some foundation in fact. The general accuracy of
this connection is witnessed by all physiologists and
medical men, the latter of whom readily recognise how
importantian element is cheerfulness in a patient’s recovery,
while the former demonstrates that pain lowers and
pleasure raises the general level of life.
And upon no other condition could life have developed
upon the earth. As has been pointed out, actioii springs
directly from feeling and seeks to obtain pleasure either
immediately or remotely ; therefore, unless the pleasures
pursued are such as will preserve life the result is
extinction.
Imagine for example that life-destroying
actions produced pleasurable sensations—that is a state of
consciousness that animals sought to bring into existence
and retain—that bodily wounds, impure foods, and
exhausting pursuits generally, yielded nothing but
pleasure, and would, therefore, be performed eagerly,
* “ Senses and the Intellect,” p. 283.
�27
it is obvious that such a state of things would cause a
rapid disappearance of life altogether. Illustrations of
this may be readily found in individual instances, for
example, opium eaters or excessive drinkers, but it is
clear that such habits could not maintain themselves for
long upon a general scale. Something of the same thing
may even be seen in the case of lower races, that, coming
in contact with European culture and finding pleasure in
the performance of actions suitable to their past life but
unsuitable to their present one, have become extinct.
Thus, as Mr. Spencer puts it. “ At the very outset, life is
maintained by persistence in acts which conduce to it,
and desistence from acts which impede it; and whenever
sentiency makes its appearance as an accompaniment, its
forms must be such that in the one case the produced,
feeling is of a kind that will be sought—pleasure, and in
the other case is of a kind that will be shunned—pain.” *
And again, “ Those races of beings only can have survived
in which, on the average, agreeable or desired feelings
went along with activities conducive to the maintenance
of life, while disagreeable and habitually-avoided feelings
went along with activities directly or indirectly destruc
tive of life; and there must have been, other things being
equal, the most numerous and long-continued survivals
among races in which these adjustments of feelings to
actions were the best, tending ever to bring about perfect
adjustment.” f The answer, therefore, to the question,
“Why should we pursue happiness ? ” is, that we cannot
do otherwise and live. Pursuit of happiness, properly
understood, means conformity to those conditions that
render a continued and healthful life possible. The final
and ultimate reason for performing any action is that a
special desire exists urging me to do so, and the reason
for the existence of that desire must be sought for in
deeper ground than consciousness—which is relatively a
late product in biologic evolution. It is to be found in
those laws of life to which all living beings must conform,
and to which natural selection, by weeding out all of a
contrary disposition, secures an intrinsic or organic com
pliance. Morality is evidenced in action before it is
explained in thought ; its justification, the causes of its
* “ Data of Ethics.”, sec. 33.
+ “ Principles of Psychology,” Vol. i. sec. 128.
�28
growth, and the nature of its authority, are to be found
in the natural conditions of existence, and depends no
more upon the presence of a mysterious self-realising ego
than upon a conception of God furnished by current or
future theologies. It is a false and ruinous antithesis
that places virtue and happiness as two things distinct
from each other.
Virtue has no meaning other than
can be expressed in terms of pleasure ; as Spinoza said,
“ Happiness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself.”
The utilitarian formula that actions are right which
promote pleasure, and wrong which promote pain receives,
therefore, the fullest possible justification from an ex
amination of the laws of life. Highet authority than that
can no system have.
The various steps of the above argument may now be
recapitulated.
(1) Conduct is always immediately dependent upon
feeling.
(2) The immediate object will be to invite agreeable,
and obviate or modify disagreeable states of consciousness.
(3) Therefore, unless there is a general agreement
between conduct that preserves life and conduct that
produces agreeable feelings, the race must die out; while
life will increase in length and breadth as that general
agreement becomes explicit and complete.
(4) But in the course of evolution the inevitable result
is the weeding out of all such organisms as pursue life
destroying acts with pleasure, and there is thus produced
a gradual identification between the performance of life
preserving actions and the production of agreeable states
■of consciousness
It is in supplying us with these generalisations that the
•doctrine of evolution has placed morality upon a perfectly
secure and impregnable foundation, and ethics upon the
same level as other departments of scientific knowledge.
It makes morality incumbent upon the individual and
society alike by showing its identity with those processes
that make life worth living. That at present many find
pleasure in the performance of actions that lower the tide
of life, does not militate against the truth of the doctrine
.stated above. We are in a transitional state, partly
military and partly industrial, we have clinging to us
many traces of the savagery, from which we are just
�29
emerging, and there is necessarily a conflict between
many of our inherited instincts and present ideals. But
there can be little doubt that this conflict between what is
and what should be will decrease as the course of
evolution proceeds ; until becoming weaker by disuse,
the lower and undesirable instincts shall have finally
disappeared. Meanwhile a scientific ethic should do
precisely what a law of astronomy or of biology does—
describe what takes place and explain how it takes place.
Astronomical and biological laws give nothing new, they
merely formulate in comprehensible terms what takes
place in their separate departments. The function of a
science of ethics is, similarly, to describe accurately the
actions of men and why and how such actions take place ;
to trace the causes of morality, to formulate the con
ditions and nature of perfect conduct, and leave such
rules to be put into operation as rapidly as wisdom may
devise or circumstances permit.
IV.—The Nature and Authority of Conscience.
It may be asked, “ If the foregoing account of the
nature of morality is admitted to be correct, what becomes
of the authority of conscience ? Is it merely a name, or is
it, as the ordinary man believes, a divinely implanted
faculty enabling one to distinguish finally and decisively
between a right and a wrong action ? ‘ Ordinary experi
ence,’ it may further be said, ‘ shows that men do not
determine the rightness or wrongness of actions by any
mathematical calculation as to the pains or pleasures
resulting from them, but rather by a direct appeal to
conscience, and when conscience declares in favor of or
against a particular course of conduct there is no more to
be said upon the matter.
“ Upon this hypothesis man does right for pretty much
the same reason that a dog ‘ delights to bark and bite,’
because ‘ ’tis his nature to.’
Now, there is in the presentation of the case a certain
amount of truth, but it is entangled with a much larger
amount of error. For example, no one denies the exis
tence in man of a moral sense now ; all our language pre
supposes its existence. Neither is it denied that men are
swayed by the dictates of what is called ‘ Conscience.’
As Mill says:—‘The ultimate sanction of all morality is a
�30
subjective feeling in our minds.” A man will act as his
conscience directs, and provided that he has fulfilled
certain preliminary conditions, we hold that he is right in
doing so. The phrase—‘A conscientious man ’ has quite
as definite a meaning to the Utilitarian as to the Intuit
ionist. It is in the carrying out of these preliminary
conditions—i.e. instructing, checking, and improving our
conscience, comparing its deliverance with the deliverance
of that of others—upon which the dispute mainly turns.
The question really at issue is not the existence of a
moral sense, but whether this moral sense is always trust
worthy in its decisions ; whether it does not need to be
constantly checked and corrected ; and whether instead
of beiug a single indecomposable faculty it may not be
resolved into simpler parts, as a chemical compound is
shown to be made up of a number of simpler elements ?
This is substantially the whole of the matter in dispute
between the evolutionist and the intuitionist. The latter
regards the moral sense as innate and virtually indepen
dent of experience ; the former asserts that it has been
built up from much simpler feelings acquired during the
development of the race, and that examination proves
that, just as a single nerve centre is composed of clusters
of ganglia, which are again composed of fibres and cells,
so the apparently simple moral sense is really a highly
complex process, due to the gradual accumulation of the
experiences of simpler sensations acquired during ages of
past evolution. It would, indeed, be quite possible to
take successively all the vices and virtues upon which our
present moral sense passes a rapid and decisive verdict,
and show how gradually each feeling of approval and
disapproval has been built up. There is, for example,
no action upon which the moral sense of the cultured
European passes such a ready condemnation as the taking
of life. And yet it is quite certain that this special feeling
of aversion is a- comparitively late product in human
evolution. With many of the lower races the wrongness
of taking human life is confined almost entirely to the
family—and not always there; but within the tribe
personal vengeance is permitted, and even when that is
disallowed by public opinion the murder of the member
of another tribe only serves to exalt the murderer in the
eyes of his fellows. In the dark ages a man’s life was
�31
valued in an inverse ratio to his social importance, and
the church drew up a scale of punishments in accordance
with that estimate, murder of an ecclesiastic being
punished by torture and death, that of a serf by a fine of
a few pence. Even in modern civilised Europe, hundreds
or thousands of lives may be shed to satisfy political
passion or national vanity ; and only in the higher types
of the race is there a lively and constant repugnance to
the taking of life, whether if friend or foe. Indeed, the
fact that moral sense is acquired and not innate appears
on reflection, to be so plain as to cause some little surprise
that the opposite opinion should ever have been seriously
entertained for any length of time.
But apart from the historical aspect of the subject,
what we are more directly concerned with here is the
nature of those conditions which have resulted in the
growth of conscience. It would take too long to discuss
fully the nature of consciousness—even if it were not a
matter of psychology rather than of ethics—but we may
put the matter briefly in the following manner :—
Reflex action is of two kinds ; the first, irritability, is
due to the simple excitation of a piece of living matter,
and is shared by all living tissue wherever it may be
found. In virtue of this quality the organism responds
to certain stimuli and shrinks from others; and it is
plain that unless the stimuli to which the organism
responds are such as are beneficial the result will be death.
The second class of reflex actions is that in which actions
have become instinctive by frequent repetition. It is a
matter of common observation that any action frequently
performed tends to become organic, or instinctive : that
is, a purposive action is preceded by certain molecular
rearrangements in the fibres and cells, and centres of the
brain ; a repetition of the action means a repetition of the
disturbance; and by the frequent recurrence of such
rearrangements there is set up a line of least resistance
along which the nervous energy flows, with the final
result of a modification of nerve tissue, and the existence
of a structure which in response to a certain stimulus acts
automatically in a particular manner. “ The order of
events/’ says Maudesley, is presumably in this wise :
by virtue of its fundamental adaptive property as
organic matter, nerve-element responds to environing
�32
relations by definite action ; this action, when repeated
determines structure ; and thus by degrees new structure,
or—what it really is—a new organ is formed, which
embodies in its substance and displays in its function
the countless generalisations, so to speak, or ingredients
of experience, which it has gained from past and contri
butes to present stimulation,” * Now the mental side of
this physical acquirement expresses itself in the principle
known as the association of ideas. When in the course
of experience a certain set of ideas is constantly occurring
in the same order, the revival of any one of the term
will bring about a revival of the remainder of the series.
As illustrative of this we may note how when any par
ticular object is presented to the mind, as for example an
orange, the mind calls up the associated sensations of
taste and smell, neither of which is immediately presented
to it; and there may even be present the idea of certain
injurious or beneficial effects following the easing of the
fruit. Here it is evident the secondary sensations are
revived because they have always accompanied the primary
one, and it is clear that the mind has gone over a chain of
causes and effects, although we may not be conscious—
indeed we seldom are—of all the steps intervening
between the first and last term of the series. But to any
one who pays attention to the working of the mind it is
obvious that this power of rapid summing-up has been
acquired very gradually, and that what the mind now
does rapidly and decisively, it once did slowly and
hesitatingly; just as the firm steps of the man are pre
ceded by the faltering steps of the child, or the rapid
adding up of columns of figures by the trained accountant
becomes a long and wearisome process in the hands of
the amateur.
Now the verdict passed upon action by the moral sense
is merely another illustration of the same general principle.
Just as we have learned to associate a certain number of
qualities with an object the moment it is perceived, so we
have acquired by experience, individual or social,
the habit of associating a balance of pleasures or pains
with a particular action or course of conduct, even when
an entirely opposite conclusion is immediately presented
to the mind. Apart from certain actions which give rise
♦“Physiology
of
Mikd,” p. 397.
�33
to painful or pleasurable feelings as long as their effects
endure, experience has shown that certain actions while
directly painful are ultimately pleasurable, while others
immediately pleasurable are ultimately painful. This
experience has been repeated so frequently that the desire
attaching to the end has become transferred to the means :
as in the case of a man who begins by loving money because
of its purchasing power, and ends by loving it for itself,
the means to an end becomes thus all in all. Thus, the
means and the end become jammed together, so to speak,
in thought, and the mind having in view the after results
of an action, passes an instantaneous judgment upon it.
A trained biologist will draw from a very few facts a
conclusion which is by no means apparent to the untrained
mind ; long experience has familiarised him with the
process, and the conclusion suggests itself immediately to
the mind ; and one might as well postulate an innate
biological sense to account for the one process as postulate
an innate moral sense to account for the other.
The existence of a moral sense in man is simply an
illustration of the physiological law that functions slowly
acquired and painfully performed become registered in a
modified nerve structure, and are handed on from
generation to generation to be performed automatically or
to take their place as moral instincts.
Two things have prevented people seeing this clearly,
first, the problem has been treated as being purely psycho
logical, and, secondly, moral qualities have been viewed
as innate instead of acquired, and the question of develop
ment consequently ignored. Both of these causes have
helped to confuse rather than to clear. Underlying all
mental phenomena there is and must be a corresponding
physical structure; and it is only by carrying our
enquiries further and studying this physical structure
that we may hope to understand those mental qualities,
feelings, or emotions to which it gives rise, and, secondly,
it is not by contemplating the moral instincts of man as
they are to-day that we can hope to understand them.
This can be done only by reducing them to their simpler
elements and carefully studying the causes and conditions
of their origin and development. And when we analyse
the contents of our moral judgments, we find precisely
what the hypothesis of evolution would lead us to expect,
�34
namely, the majority of such actions as it sanctions are
found in the light of sober reason to be conducive to
individual and social welfare, while such as it condemns
are of a directly opposite character.
The decisions of the moral judgment are thus neither
more nor less than verdicts upon conduct expressed by
the summed-up experience of the race; and although such
judgments carry with them undoubted authority in virtue
of their origin, they, nevertheless need to be constantly
watched over and corrected when necessary. For, granting
that a certain presumption exists in favour of a verdict
passed by “ conscience,”—since it argues the possession of
a mental habit acquired by experience, and which would
never have been acquired had not such conduct as led to
its formation been once useful,—such verdicts cannot be
admitted to be final; for nothing is of commoner occur
rence than to find that habits and customs that are useful
at one stage of human development are dangerous at
others.
All that the existence of a moral instinct can prove
beyond doubt is that it was once useful, whether it is
useful now or not is a matter to be decided by ordinary
experience and common sense. A function owes its
value to its relation to a particular environment, and
therefore can only retain its worth so long as the condi
tions of life remain unchanged ; any alteration in the
condition of existence must involve a corresponding
change in the value of a function or in that cluster of
moral tendencies classed under the general name of
“ conscience.” While, therefore, conscience may urge us
to take action in a particular direction, it cannot give us
any guarantee that we are acting rightly. All that we can
be certain of is the existence of a feeling prompting a
particular action, and with that our certainty ends. To
discover whether the dictates of conscience are morally
justifiable we need to appeal to a higher court. The voice
of conscience is, as experience daily shows, neither uni
form nor infallible in its decrees ; its decisions vary not
only with time, place, and individual, but even with the
same individual at different times and under different con
ditions. In brief “acting up to one’s conscience,” to
use a common phrase, is indicative of honesty only,
not of correctness, it can mean merely that we
�35
are acting in accordance with certain feelings of
approbation or disapprobation that have been called
into existence during the evolution of the race and by
the early moral training of the individual. Nothing
is plainer than that the conscience needs correction
and admits of improvement; the fact of moral growth
implies as much, and this alone should be sufficient to
prove that conscience is an acquired and not an original
activity.
That conscience represents the stored up and consoli
dated experiences of preceding generations, subject of
course to the early training of the individual, there can
be little doubt. Given living tissue capable of responding
to certain stimuli and shrinking from others, and we
have the raw material of morality; for the only tissue
that can continue to exist will be such as responds to
stimuli favourable to its existence and shrinks from such
as are unfavourable. The reverse of this it is impossible
to conceive. Once the conditions under which life
persists becomes fairly understood, and the above con
clusion becomes almost a necessity of thought. There is
thus secured from the outset a general harmony between
actions instinctively performed and life-preserving ones;
and natural selection by preserving the lives of those
animals whose actions serve to establish the closest
harmony between themselves and their environment
serves to accentuate the formation of such habits as
render the performance of life-preserving actions certain
and instinctive. This feeling of moral approbation is, as
I have already said, not the only example of the principle
here emphasised, viz. : that separate and successive
acquisitions become so blended together as to form an
apparently single faculty. It is exemplified alike in the
skilled mathematician and the trained mechanic, and is,
indeed, co-extensive with the world of sentient life.
From monad to man progress has meant the acquisition
of such habits—physical, mental, and moral, Our moral
equally with our intellectual faculties have been built up
gradually during the course of human development. We
each start life with a certain mental and moral capital
that comes to us as a heritage from the past. Functions
that took generations to acquire are found as parts of our
structure, and their exercise has become an organic
�36
necessity.
Frequent repetition has converted certain
actions into habits ; physiologically these habits imply the
existence of a modified nerve structure demanding their
performance ; while mentally and morally such structures
and functions express themselves in the much debated
and misunderstood, moral sense.
V.—Society and the Individual.
In the foregoing pages morality has been dealt with
almost exclusively from the standpoint of the individual;
I have purposely omitted certain factors that aid moral
development in order that fundamental ethical principles
might not be obscured. I have shown the groundwork
of morality to lie in the very constitution of organic
matter; and that rules of ethics are merely generalized
statements of those courses of conduct which serve to
establish a harmony between organism and environment,
or, in other words, to maintain life.
Yet it must be evident to the student that one very im
portant factor—the social factor—must be considered if
our system is to btf complete. The influence of society in
developing morality must, it is plain, be considerable ;
for although the reason for right conduct, and the motives
that lead to it, must ultimately be found in the nature of
the individual, yet, if we seek for a full explanation of
the individual’s character, we must be referred back again
to the structure of that society of which he is a part. For
at bottom, the only reason why each individual should
possess a certain number of moral qualities of a particular
character, is that he belongs to a society that has developed
along special lines. The individual, as he is to-day, is a
product of the race, and would no more be what he is
apart from social organization, than society could be what
it is apart from the individuals that compose it. Each
quality or action is good or bad in virtue of its adaptation
or non-adaptation to an environment ; and to speak of
goodness or badness apart from such relations is to use
words that are void of all meaning. From whence do
such words as “honest,” “justice,” “duty,” Ac., derive
their significance if not from the relations existing between
the individual and his fellows ? Place a man upon a
desert island, and what becomes of ariy of these qualities ?
All moral conduct requires a medium ; in this case society
�37
is the medium in which morality lives and breathes ; and
it could no more continue without it than a bird could fly
without the atmosphere. The proof of this is seen in the
fact that any disturbance in the social structure involves a
corresponding change in the relationships of men and
women. All periods of change, religious or social, have
influenced for better or worse existing ethical institutions
and ideas, and few will doubt that should any great econ
omic change occur to-day there would ensue a speedy
re-arrangement of moral ideals.
*
It is therefore in the structure and development of the
social organism that we must seek for an explanation of
existing moral principles ; by this method only can we
understand how it is possible to obtain from a race of
beings, each of which is primarily moral by the instinct
of self-preservation, a social morality.
The general
manner in which this result has been attained has been
already indicated, but it remains to trace out the process
in greater detail.
In his profoundly suggestive book, “ Physics and
Politics,’’ Bagshot has pointed out that the great problem
early society had to face was, “ how to bend men to the
social yoke,” to domesticate him in short. Man untrained
and savage needed to have his energies checked, his im
pulses educated, and the whole of his nature practically
transformed before he could become either social or ethical.
A number of forces, natural, religious, social and political,
have contributed to bring about the desired result; and
although they overlap one another, still it is easy to deter
mine their position and approximate value.
Not to reckon with the possession of certain fundamental
life-preserving instincts, which are an inevitable product
■of the struggle for existence, and which must be the
common property of all sentient being, the struggle
against natural forces must early have driven men into
the adoption of additional life-preserving courses of con
duct. The conduct that furthered a fuller life may not
have been consciously adopted, but from the fact that all
who did not adopt it would disappear, its performance
would be rendered tolerably certain. Further, even were
not social organisation a heritage from man’s animal
* The fact of a movement of change proceeding from an ethical impulse
in no way affects this statement.
�38
ancestors, the struggle against nature would soon havedriven man into co-operation with his fellows. The
advantages of combination are too great not to give those
who are more amenable to the restraints of social life a
tremendous advantage over such as are not. The cohesion
and discipline of a tribe would be of far-greater importance
in the primitive than in the modern state. Natural selec
tion would, therefore, work along the lines of favouring
the preservation of the more social type of character. In
a tribe where some of its members showed but little in
clination to work with their fellows or submit to the
discipline laid down, such individuals would be weeded
out by a dual process. They would fall easy victims to
the tribal enemies, and the type would be discouraged by
public opinion. They would thus leave few or no des
cendants to perpetuate their qualities ; and by this dual
process of elimination the type would tend to die out,
and there would be gradually formed in its place one that
to some extent regarded individual and general welfare
as being inextricably blended. But this living together
necessarily implies the existence and cultivation of certain
sentiments and virtues that are not purely self-regarding.
If people are to live together and work together, there
must of necessity be some sense of duty, justice, confi
dence and kindness, let it be in ever so rudimentary a.
form; but these virtues must be present, or society disin
tegrates. Without confidence there could be no combina
tion, and without justice combination would be useless.
But the great thing in the first stage is to get the indi
vidual to obey the voice of the tribe and submit to its
judgments; and so long as a quality brings this end about
it is of service. It is in this direction that the fear of
natural forces, represented by early religions, and fear of
the chief as the representative of the gods on earth, have
played their part in domesticating man. The chief and
the priest both dictated and enforced certain lines of
conduct; where the conduct enjoined gave the tribe an
advantage over its competitors, it flourished ; where the
conduct enforced was of an opposite character, it was
either altered or the race went under in the struggle. So
that here again there would be brought about an identifi
cation of habitual and life-preserving conduct. The
discipline thus enforced was stern, the after results were
�39
disastrous, but it was useful then ; and, as Bagehot says,
“ Progress would not have been the rarity it is if the early
food had not been the late poison.”
Mr. Francis Galton has shown that a want of self*
reliance has been of great benefit to many species of
animals, inasmuch as it led to their presenting a united front
to an enemy that could not have been successfully resisted
by any other means; and undoubtedly, as he proceeds to
argue, a too great tendency to break away from custom
and initiate movements on one’s own responsibility, would
at the outset destroy whatever social life existed. Of
course these coercive forces by means of which man is
first domesticated, are not altogether consciously directed
or invented ; it cannot be said that any man invented a
custom, although it may be said humanity invented them.
Custom among savage races will grow out of the most
trifling circumstances or coincidences. Many customs
rise up and die out, and eventually out of a multitude
that are tried only a few survive; pretty much as out of
a number of seeds that may be scattered only those strike
root that find themselves amid favourable conditions.
The first step, then, in the growth of the state and
morality, is for each individual to recognise that living
with others implies that all his impulses shall not be
gratified promiscuously ; that it is wrong to go against the
expressed opinion of the tribe, or, better still, that his
interests are in some mysterious manner vitally connected
with the interests of the whole. This is secured, primarily, by the operation of natural selection, later by
conscious innovation ; the sphere of self unconsciously
extends until it takes in the whole of which the individual
is but a part. But apart even from those influences which
serve to foster moral feelings, the existence of family life
gives us a very definite point from which to commence
our investigations. It has been made pretty clear by
numerous investigators that the genesis of the state is to be
found in the family. From that it passes by natural
growth through the patriarchal and tribal stages to the
nation ; and therefore one must seek in the structure of the
family for the beginnings of much that is afterwards
expressed in the tribe.
*" Human Faculty,” pp. 70-79.
�40
The young human being has a longer period of infancy
and helplessness than any other animal. For several years
its existence, and consequently the existence of the species,
is dependent upon the unselfish feelings of others.
*
The family is, therefore, a much more powerful influence
in the moulding of the human character, than it is with
other animals, and it is consequently in the family that we
must look for the first clear outline of the social virtues.
Most of the virtues that are not purely self-regarding will,
I imagine, be found to have had their origin in this source.
Here must first have found clear expression the virtues of
forbearance, kindness, and a certain rough sense of justice.
The sense of justice is however very slight, being little
more than the arbitrary dictates of the head of the family,
a condition of things that lingers even when the family
has blossomed into the tribe. Still the main point to be
noted is that it is in the family that the individual is first
brought into constant relationship with creatures similar
to himself ; these others constitute a part, a very important
part of his environment, and he is necessarily compelled to
adjust his actions accordingly. It has been shown above
that “ Goodness ” consists essentially in a relation—the
maintenance of a balance between an organism and its
environment. Whether that environment be organic or
inorganic the principle remains the same, although in the
former case the influence of the environment is clearer and
more direct. As, however, in the family the surroundings
of each unit is partly made up of similar units, and,
further, as the medium of each is tolerably uniform,
adjustment will involve here (1) development along pretty
similar lines, and (2) adjustment in such a manner, that
the welfare of all the units becomes in some measure bound
up with and identical with that of each. Each one is
affected in somewhat similar manner by the same
influence, and the presence of pain in any member of the
family gives rise to similar representative feelings in self.
In this circumstance we find the beginning of sympathy
which plays such a large part in evolved conduct, and
which consists essentially in the process sketched above.
The next expansion of self occurs when the family
* I adopt the conventional terms here, but the precise meaning to be
attached to the words “Selfish” and “ Unselfish,” will be considered
later.
�41
developes into the tribe or state. Here the relations of
man become more varied, the interests wider; and the
constant clashing of interests renders necessary the
framing of laws for the general guidance. What had
already taken place in the family now takes place in the
state, a re-adjustment must be effected in order to establish
a more satisfactory relation between the individual and
the new environment. In particular, the ideas of justice
and duty must undergo a great expansion and elevation.
But even here the demands of right conduct are strictly
limited to the tribe; duties and obligations have no
reference to outsiders. Very plainly is this shown in the
Bible, “ Thou shalt not steal ” did not mean the Israelites
were not to “ spoil the Egyptians,” nor “ Thou shalt not
bear false witness ” mean that they were to be truthful to
their enemies; nor did the command “ Thou shalt not
commit murder” prevent the Jews putting to death the
people whose lands they had invaded. Virtue here was
purely local. It was not until a much later stage of human
development, when the tribe had grown into the state,
and the expansion of the state had given rise to a com
munity of nations with a oneness of interest running
through all, that the idea of virtue as binding alike upon
all was finally reached ; although we have still lingering
much of the tribal element in that narrow patriotism
which finds expression in the maxim, “ My country, right
or wrong.”
In the history of Rome we can trace these various stages
with tolerable clearness. One can watch Rome developing
from the patriarchal stage to the tribal, thence to the
nation, and finally to the world-wide Empire with its far
reaching consequences. At each of these stages we can
discern a corresponding development in moral ideals.
Confined at first to the tribe, morality grew until it
absorbed the nation ; and finally its universal dominion
involved as a necessity rules of ethics that should press
with equal force upon all, and which expressed itself
generally in the doctrine of human brotherhood. As
Lecky says, “ The doctrine of the universal brotherhood
of mankind was the manifest expression of those social
and political changes which reduced the whole civilised
globe to one great empire, threw open to the most distant
tribes the right of Roman citizenship, and subverted all
�42
those class distinctions around which moral theories had
been formed.” *
It is by such natural and gradual steps as those outlined
above that morality has developed. Its rise is upon
precisely the same level as that of the arts and sciences.
Given living tissue and the struggle for existence, and a
moral code of some sort is the inevitable result. Just as
inventions grew out of individual needs, so morality grew
out of social necessities. One feature in the process of
development is clear, and that is that the expansion of
moral theories, and their purification, has at each step
been dependent upon an expansion of the organic
environment. As this grew wider and more intricate
there was necessitated a re-adjustment of moral ideas.
Feelings that at first applied only to the family were
afterwards extended to the tribe, then to the nation, and
lastly, as a recognition of a oneness of interest indepen
dent of nationality began to dawn upon the human
reason, to the whole of humanity.
I have endeavoured to make this process of develop
ment as plain as possible by keeping clear of many con
siderations which, while bearing upon the subject, were not
altogether essential to its proper consideration. Yet, it is
obvious, that if the above outline be admitted as sub
stantially correct, the relation of the individual and society
is put in a new light; it is no longer the attributes of a
number of independent objects that we have to deal with,
but the qualities of an organism; and hence will result
very important modifications in the use of terms and in
the structure of our moral ideals.
In the first place the arbitrary division hitherto drawn
between self-regarding and social acts can no longer be
maintained, or at least not without serious modification.
The distinction usually drawn between self-regarding and
social conduct, although valuable enough for working
purposes, cannot be an ultimate distinction. It can mean
no more at bottom than the division of mind into emotion,
volition, and thought. Man’s moral, mental, and physical
nature forms a unity, and all divisions that may be made
are divisions erected to suit our conveniences and not such
as exist in nature. As the individual is an integral portion
Hist. European Morals. Ed. 1892. I. 340.
�43
of society, is indeed a product of social activity, his actions
have necessarily a double aspect, his fitness as an individual
determines his value in the social structure, and con
versely the perfection of the structure has a vital bearing
upon his own value ; and therefore although we may fix
our minds upon one portion of his conduct to the exclusion
of the other, such a state of things no more exists in
reality than the Euclidean line without breadth, or a point
without magnitude.
But it does not follow that because the distinction
usually drawn between the two classes of actions is
inaccurate that there is, therefore, no such thing as
gratifying individual preference at the cost of injury to
others. That is by no means the case. The important
thing is having a correct understanding of the sense- in
which the terms are used.
It has, I think, been made clear that however it may be
disguised the main end of the action is always the pursuit
of pleasure or the avoidance of pain; and therefore,
unless we choose to confuse ourselves with what Bentham
called “ question begging epithets,” it is plain that a man
can only desire the well-being of others in so far as their
happiness becomes in some manner bound up with his
own.
This result is brought about by two methods :
directly, by the growth of the sympathetic feelings which
makes the sight of suffering painful, and indirectly
through the desire of the good opinion and friendship of
those with whom we are living. Sympathy, although not
so important as many have imagined it to be, is yet an
extremely potent factor in moral evolution. Indeed, sym
pathy, which may be defined as the process of presenting
to the mind the pleasures and pains endured by others,
and making them our own, so to speak, is involved in the
very nature of knowledge and in the structure of society.
Social life is impossible, bearing in mind our fundamental
maxim, unless animals find some amount of pleasure in
the mere fact of being together. Were it otherwise there
would be disunion. This simpler form of sympathy
quickly gives rise to other forms of a much more complex
character. Beside the general circumstance that creatures
living amid the same general set of conditions come to
have nearly identical feelings aroused by similar stimuli,
it is obvious that a large part of the value of gregarious
�44
ness will depend upon the ability of certain individuals
to arouse by their actions feelings of a desired kind in
others. A member of a herd of animals scenting a special
danger, excites by its actions sympathetic feelings on the
part of the other members, thus enabling them to prepare
for defence in a similar manner. Otherwise the warning
that is given on the approach of danger would be of little
or no value. Thus, the development of a society involves
a capacity of entering into the pleasures and pains of
others ; and this power is further heightened by those
social sanctions which prescribe and enforce certain lines
of conduct—sanctions which are much more powerful in
primitive societies than in modern ones, owing to the
smaller individuality of its members.
The distinction, therefore, between a selfish and an
unselfish act is not that in the latter case egoistic feelings
have no place; this would be impossible ; it is simply
that in the evolution of society a transfusion of the
egoistic feelings occurs owing to which their distinctive
features are lost, pretty much as the special properties of
a number of elements are lost when merged into a
chemical compound. In the conflict of mutual self
regarding interests a number of re-adjustments and
compromises occur, until the result assumes a different
character from that presented by the individual elements.
The discussion about egoism and altruism has, as a result
of ignoring these considerations, been largely a barren one.
It is impossible to live for others unless one lives for self,
it is equally impossible to live wisely for self and ignore
duties to others. Therefore, as Maudesley says, “It is
not by eradication but by a wise direction of egoistic
passions, not by annihilation but by utilisation of them, that
progress in social culture takes place ; and one can only
wonder at the absurdly unpractical way in which
theologians have declaimed against them, contemning and
condemning them, as though it were a man’s first duty to
root them clean out of his nature, and as though it were
their earnest aim to have a chastity of impotence, a
morality of emasculation.” *
A second and no less important consideration is one that
has been already pointed out generally, namely, that a
* “Body and Will” p. 167.
�45
science of ethics can only reach safe generalisations by
taking into consideration the social structure of which the
individual is a part. To separate man from society and then
hope to understand his moral nature, is like attempting
to determine the function of a leg or an arm without
reference to the body. Such qualities as duty and justice
are, as I have said, purely social, and therefore the reason
for their existence cannot be found in the nature of the
individual considered apart from his fellows, any more
than the movements of the earth could be understood
apart from the influence of the rest of our planetary sys
tem. Indeed, a great many of the objections commonly
urged against a scientfic system of ethics will be found to
be based upon this short-sighted view of the matter ; and
thus as Mr. Stephens has pointed out, must lead to error
and confusion.
That man is a social animal is a statement frequently
made and easily illustrated, although few of those who use
the phrase have apparently considered all that is involved
in the dictum. Yet in that sentence lies the key to the
whole problem. As G. A. Lewes says, “ The distinguishing
feature of human psychology is that to the three great
factors, organism, external medium and heredity, it adds a
fourth, namely, relation to a social medium, with its product
the general mind.”* It is this “ fourth factor ” which gives
rise to a purely human morality and psychology, and so
speak, lifts the individual out of himself and merges him
in a larger whole.f From the first moment of his birth
man is dependent upon the activities of others for ninetenths of those things that render life endurable, and the
feelings engendered in the course of evolution bear an
obvious relation to this dependence. The love of offspring,
regard for the feelings of others, readiness to act in
unison with others, all form part of those conditions that
make the perpetuation of the specieS possible ; and conse
quently without such instincts and sentiments the
individual as he now exists would be an impossibility.
And in such cases where these sentiments were absent—the
+ To live for self is as scientifically and ethically absurd as to live for
others. The true ethic consists in giving to self-regarding and other re
garding claims their due weight, while at the same time demonstrating
their interdependence.
* “ Study
of
Psychology.”
�46
love of offspring for example—these individuals would
leave few behind to perpetuate their qualities, and the type
would thus tend to disappear. On the other hand, the
kindly disposed person, the sympathetic, or such as come
up to the tribal ideal of excellence, would be held up for
imitation and respect; and thus by a dual process of
weeding out anti-social specimens, and by cultivating
social ones, the development of a higher type would
proceed. Indeed, we can scarcely conceive the cause of
evolution to have been otherwise. Natural selection
works by favouring the possessors of such qualities as
establish a more perfect balance between organism and
environment, and in developing customs and instincts
the course of social evolution has been to bring out and
cultivate such as were favourable to the welfare of social
structure and repress those of a contrary character. Each
of the social virtues may have its rise traced in this
manner, by showing how it has contributed to individual
and social development.
*
The tendency of natural
selection in preserving those communities in which the
members are most at one in feeling and action is to bring
about not merely an ideal, but an actual identification of
individual and social welfare, and this in such a manner
that each one finds the fullest expression of his own wel
fare in the combined happiness of all around him.
This truth, that man might properly be regarded as a
cell in the “ social tissue,” was recognised in a vague and
rather fanciful manner long ago ; t but it is owing to the
unparalleled scientific activity of the last half century that
this conception of man has been placed upon a solid
foundation, and a scientific view of human life and conduct
made possible. We now see that the phrase “social
organism ” or “ social tissue” is something more than a
mere figure of speech, that it expresses a fundamental fact
and one that must be constantly borne in mind in the
consideration of social problems. What, indeed, is society
or the social medium but a part of the individual ? One’s
whole being, intellectual and moral, is composed of
* A very interesting inquiry might here be opened concerning the
influence upon the general character of leading or much admired
individuals.
+ Plato, Republic, book v. 462.
�47
innumerable relations between it and others. My nature
has been and is being so continually moulded by this social
medium that my pleasures and pains have become indis
solubly connected with the pleasures and pains of others
to such an extent that I could no more be happy in
a society where misery was general than 1 could travel in
comfort or indulge in the pleasures of art, science, or
literature, apart from the activities of those around me.
The mere fact of being brought up in a society so
identifies all our ideas and customs with that society as to
defy their separation from it. This is well illustrated in
the case of young men and women who are brought up
within the pale of a particular church. They become part
of its organisation, they identify themselves with it, and its
losses and gains become their own. If all this is witnessed
in a single generation, how much more powerful must the
co-operate feeling become when society has been constantly
developing along the same lines for countless generations
with its sanctions enforced by organic necessity ? The
process must obviously result in the direction above
indicated, that of bringing about a union of individual
desires and actions with social well-being; while the
growing intelligence of man, by perceiving the reason and
value of this mutual dependence of the unit and society,
must be constantly taking steps to strengthen the union
and increase its efficiency.
Here, then, w have reached a conclusion, or at least to
e
*
go further would involve a lengthy discussion of matters
into which we have no desire to enter. But if the fore
going reasoning be sound, we have reached a point from
which the reader will be enabled to lay down a clear and
satisfactory theory of morals such as will place the
subject upon the same level as any of the arts and
sciences.
The principles involved in the preceding pages may be
briefly summarised as follows :—
(1) Maintenance of life depends upon the establish
ment and continuance of a definite set of actions between
the organism and its environment.
(2) In the ceaseless struggle for existence this is
secured by the preservation of all those animals whose
�48
habits and capabilities best equips them to meet the
demands of their environment, natural selection thus
the
*
accentuating
value of all variations in this direction.
(3) As all conduct has as its immediate object the pur
suit of pleasurable, and the avoidance of painful feelings,
and as life is only possible on the condition that pleasur
able and beneficial actions shall roughly correspond,
there is set up a general and growing agreement between
pleasure-producing and life-preserving conduct.
(4) As experience widens and intelligence develops,
those actions that make for a higher life become more
certain and easy of attainment; while the pleasures
formerly attached to the end of action become transferred
to the means, these becoming an end in themselves.
(5) The conditions of life bearing upon all with a
certain amount of uniformity, and therefore demanding
a like uniformity of action, leads to a gradual modification
of nerve structure and the creation of corresponding
general sentiments, which, handed on and increased from
generation to generation, express themselves in our exist
ing moral sense.
(6) The moral sense, therefore, while possessing a
certain authority in virtue of its origin, needs to be con, tinually tested and corrected in accordance with the
requirements of the age.
(7) All progress involves the specialisation and integra
tion of the various parts of the organism, individual and
social. By the operation of this principle there is
brought about an identification of individual and general
interests ; inasmuch as each one finds his own happiness
constantly dependent upon the happiness of others, and
that a full expression of his own nature is only to be
realised in social activity.
Frcm all of which we, may conclude that:—
“ The rule of life drawn from the practice and opinions
of mankind corrects and improves itself continually, till
at last it determines entirely for virtue and excludes all
kinds and degrees of vice.
*
For, if it be correct to say
Hartley, “Observations on Man,” II. p. 214.
�49
that the moral formula is the expression of right relations
between man and the world, then it follows that the pres
sure urging man to the performance of right actions—i.e.,
actions serving to broaden and perpetuate life—must on
the whole be more permanent than those impelling him
to the performance of wrong ones. This, it will be
observed, is merely making the broad and indisputable
statement that evolution tends to maintain life.
The course of evolution is therefore upon the side of
morality. By the operation of the struggle for existence
we can see how “ the wicked are cut off from the earth ; ”
and the more righteous live on and perpetuate the species.
Right conduct is one of the conditions of existence, and
is as much the outcome of natural and discoverable laws
as any of the sciences to which we owe so much. What
has prevented it assuming a like positive character has
been the extreme complexity of the factors joined to the
want of a proper method. Here, again, we are deeply
indebted to the doctrine of evolution for having thrown
a flood of light upon the subject, and making tolerably
clear what was before exceedingly obscure. Under its
guidance we see the beginnings of morality low down in
the animal world in the mere instinct of self-preservation,
and its highest expression in the sympathetic and kindred
feelings of men living in society. And between these
two extremes there are no gaps ; it is an unbroken
sequence right through. As I have said, the process has
practically assumed the shape of an expansion of self,
from the individual to the family, from the family to the
state, and from the state to the whole of humanity.
Morality thus rises at length above the caprice of the
individual or the laws of nations, and stands a law
giver in its own right and in virtue of its own inherent
majesty. That which was a matter of blind instinct
at the outset, and later of arbitrary authority, becomes
in the end a matter of conscious perception pressing upon
all alike with the authority of natural law.
The outlook, then, to the rationalist is a perfectly
hopeful one. From the vantage ground afforded him by
modern science he can see that a constant purification of
conduct is part of the natural order of things, and
although in a universe of change one can hardly picture
�50
a time when there will cease to be a conflict between
good and bad motives, yet the whole course of evolution
warrants us in looking forward with confidence to a time
when the development of the permanently moral qualities,
or of such powers as serve to keep men moral, will be
sufficient to hold the immoral and anti-social tendencies
in stern and complete subjection ; for however much the
forms of morality may change with time and place, that
in virtue of which right conduct gains its name, must
ever remain the same.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An outline of evolutionary ethics
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 50 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Written when Cohen was Vice-President of the National Secular Society. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N162
Subject
The topic of the resource
Evolution
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An outline of evolutionary ethics), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Ethics
Evolution
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/024420c311acf3656f760e651e0e5459.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U9%7ExYBh6CLElTrfLzeE37wQ89ZKYqgfzmj74saMGtcM-AZhzETuNv82Hbk-p6sRwcoaJazOlN7Gl6W7iSf49PiZtkEp4-rfFNthPbs1iq3HtpkIBWa79qTzhW2TSioeUcvNX4Oj23reLYHDA5UMADdfVyFNfhwU47Rzy7ggrjF2ft8z7CGPya34e-X5EX42WNLx1i-H0YDMLq29kruqUZdQstnzg9MoSp7SMAEWVVWJkxNNmxSjwB0-pkBvYV-K4FJ3jJ%7ERh05K9yJar8Qzw-YJ%7EdaEDuiM1uzsMxIG-sL9vjXWBc6r-F0DHDgclA0rvs4QdCMDE-WnyTZtd4lw5tw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
09773b6c539ee13b2c9f1294e2471680
PDF Text
Text
NATld^AL SECULAR SOCIETY
FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH
A LECTURE
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1896
��THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
I.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
One of the foundation stones of our faith is the Old Testa
ment. If that book is not true, if its authors were unaided
men, if it contains blunders and falsehoods, then that stone
crumbles to dust.
The geologists demonstrated that the author of Genesis
was mistaken as to the age of the world, and that the story
of the universe having been created in six days, about six
thousand years ago, could not be true.
The theologians then took the ground that the “ days ”
spoken of in Genesis wrere periods of time, epochs, six
“ long whiles,” and that the work of creation might have
been commenced millions of years ago.
The change of days into epochs was considered by the
believers of the Bible as a great triumph over the hosts of
infidelity. The fact that Jehovah had ordered the Jews to
keep the Sabbath, giving as a reason that he had made the
world in six days and rested on the seventh, did not interfere
with the acceptance of the “ epoch ” theory.
But there is still another question. How long has man
been upon the earth ?
According to the Bible, Adam was certainly the first man,
and in his case the epoch theory cannot change the account.
The Bible gives the age at which Adam died, and gives the
generations to the flood—then to Abraham, and so on, and
shows that from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ
it was about four thousand and four years.
�4
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the sacred Scriptures, man has been on this
earth five thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine years, and
no more.
Is this true ?
Geologists have divided a few years of the world’s history
into periods, reaching from the azoic rocks to the soil of our
time. With most of these periods they associate certain
forms of life, so that it is known that the lowest forms of life
belonged with the earliest periods, and the higher with the
more recent. It is also known that certain forms of life
existed in Europe many ages ago, and that many thousands,
of years ago these forms disappeared.
For instance, it is well established that at one time there
lived in Europe, and in the British Islands, some of the
most gigantic mammals, the mammoth, the woolly-haired
rhinoceros, the Irish elk, elephants, and other forms that
have in those countries become extinct. Geologists say that
many thousands of years have passed since these animals
ceased to inhabit those countries.
It was during the Drift Period that these forms of life
existed in Europe and England, and that must have been
hundreds of thousands of years ago.
In caves, once inhabited by men, have been'"found
implements of flint and the bones of these extinct animals.
With the flint tools man had split the bones of these beasts
that he might secure the marrow for food.
Many such caves and hundreds of such tools, and of such
bones, have been found. And we now know that in the
Drift Period man was the companion of these extinct
monsters.
It is therefore certain that many, many thousands of years
before Adam lived, men, women, and children inhabited the
earth.
It is certain that the account in the Bible of the creation
of the first man is a mistake. It is certain that the inspired
writers knew nothing about the origin of man.
Let me give you another fact :—
The Egyptians were astronomers. A few years ago
representations of the stars were found on the walls of an
old temple, and it was discovered by calculating backward
that the stars did occupy the exact positions as represented
about seven hundred and fifty years before Christ. After
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
5
wards another representation of the stars was found, and,
by calculating in the same way, it was found that the stars
did occupy the exact positions about three thousand eight
hundred years before Christ.
According to the Bible, the first man was created four
thousand and four years before Christ. If this is true, then
Egypt was founded, its language formed, its arts cultivated,
its astronomical discoveries made and recorded about two
hundred years after the creation of the first man.
In other words, Adam was two or three hundred years
old when the Egyptian astronomers made these representa
tions.
Nothing can be more absurd.
Again I say that the writers of the Bible were mistaken.
How do I know ?
According to that same Bible, there was a flood some
fifteen or sixteen hundred years after Adam was created
that destroyed the entire human race with the exception of
eight persons; and, according to the Bible, the Egyptians
descended from one of the sons of Noah. How, then, did
the Egyptians represent the stars in the position they
occupied twelve hundred years before the Flood ?
No one pretends that Egypt existed as a nation before the
Flood. Yet the astronomical representations found must
have been made more than a thousand years before the
world was drowned.
There is another mistake in the Bible.
According to that book, the sun was made after the earth
was created.
Is this true ?
Did the earth exist before the sun ?
The men of science are believers in the exact opposite.
They believe that the earth is a child of the sun—that the
earth, as well as the other planets belonging to our constel
lation, came from the sun.
The writers of the Bible were mistaken.
There is another point :—
According to the Bible, Jehovah made the world in six
days, and the work done each day is described. What did
Jehovah do on the second day?
This is the record :—
“ And God said : Let there be a firmament in the midst
�6
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament. And it was so, and God called the firmament
heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second
day.”
The writer of this believed in a solid firmament—the
floor of Jehovah’s house. He believed that the waters had
been divided, and that the rain came from above the
firmament. He did not understand the fact of evapora
tion—did not know that the rain came from the water on
the earth.
Now, we know that there is no firmament, and we know
that the waters are not divided by a firmament. Conse
quently we know that, according to the Bible, Jehovah did
nothing on the second day. He must have rested on Tues
day. This being so, we ought to have two Sundays a week.
Can we rely on the historical parts of the Bible ?
Seventy souls went down into Egypt, and in two hundred
and fifteen years increased to three millions. They could
not have doubled more than four times a century. Say
nine times in two hundred and fifteen years.
This makes thirty-five thousand eight hundred and forty
(35,840), instead of three millions.
Can we believe the accounts of the battles ?
Take one instance:—
Jereboam had an army of eight hundred thousand men,
Abijah of four hundred thousand. They fought. The
Lord was on Abijah’s side, and he killed five hundred
thousand of Jereboam’s men.
All these soldiers were Jews—all lived in Palestine, a
poor, miserable little country about one-quarter as large as
the State of New York. Yet one million two hundred
thousand soldiers were put in the field. This required a
population in the country of ten or twelve millions. Of
course this is absurd. Palestine in its palmiest days could
not have supported two millions of people.
The soil is poor.
If the Bible is inspired, is it true ?
We are told by this inspired book of the gold and silver
collected by King David for the temple—the temple after
wards completed by the virtuous Solomon.
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7
According to the blessed Bible, David collected about
two thousand million dollars in silver, and five thousand
million dollars in gold, making a total of seven thousand
million dollars.
Is this true ?
There is in the Bank of France at the present time (1895)
nearly six hundred million dollars, and, so far as we know,
it is the greatest amount that was ever gathered together.
All the gold now known, coined and in bullion, does not
amount to much more than the sum collected by David.
Seven thousand millions. Where did David get this
gold? The Jews had no commerce. They owned no
ships. They had no great factories, they produced nothing
for other countries. There were no gold or silver mines in
Palestine. Where, then, was this gold, this silver found ?
I will tell you: In the imagination of a writer who had
more patriotism than intelligence, and who wrote, not for
the sake of truth, but for the glory of the Jews.
Is it possible that David collected nearly eight thousand
tons of gold—that he by economy got together about sixty
thousand tons of silver, making a total of gold and silver of
sixty-eight thousand tons ?
The average freight car carries about fifteen tons—David’s
gold and silver would load about four thousand five hundred
and thirty-three cars, making a train about thirty-two miles
in length. And all this for the temple at Jerusalem, a
building ninety feet long and forty-five feet high and thirty
wide, to which was attached a porch thirty feet wide, ninety
feet long, and one hundred and eighty feet high.
Probably the architect was inspired.
Is there a sensible man in the world who believes that
David collected seven thousand million dollars worth of
gold or silver ?
There is hardly five thousand million dollars of gold now
used as money in the whole world. Think of the millions
taken from the mines of California, Australia, and Africa
during the present century, and yet the total scarcely
exceeds the amount collected by King David more than a
thousand years before the birth of Christ. Evidently the
inspired historian made a mistake.
It required a little imagination and a few ciphers to
change seven million dollars or seven hundred thousand
�8
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH,
dollars into seven thousand million dollars. Drop four
ciphers, and the story becomes fairly reasonable.
The Old Testament must be thrown aside. It is no
longer a foundation. It has crumbled.
II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
But we have the New Testament, the sequel of the Old, in
which Christians find the fulfilment of prophecies made by
inspired Jews.
The New Testament vouches for the truth, the inspiration
of the Old; and if the Old is false, the New cannot be true.
In the New Testament we find all that we know about
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
It is claimed that the writers were divinely inspired, and.
that all they wrote is true.
Let us see if these writers agree.
Certainly there should be no difference about the birth of
Christ. From the Christian’s point of view, nothing could
have been of greater importance than that event.
Matthew says : “ Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of Judea, in the days of Herod the King, behold there came
wise men from the East to Jerusalem.
“ Saying, where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for
we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship
him.”
Matthew does not tell us who these wise men were, from
what country they came, to what race they belonged. He
did not even know their names.
We are also informed that when Herod heard these
things he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; that
he gathered the chief priests and asked of them where
Christ should be born, and they told him that he was to be
born in Bethlehem.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
9
Then Herod called the wise men and asked them when
the star appeared, and told them to go to Bethlehem and
report to him.
When they left Herod, the star again appeared, and went
before them until it stood over the place where the child
was.
When they came to the child they worshipped him—
gave him gifts, and, being warned by God in a dream, they
went back to their own country without calling on Herod.
Then the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
dream, and told him to take Mary and the child into
Egypt for fear of Herod.
So Joseph took Mary and the child to Egypt, and
remained there until the death of Herod.
Then Herod, finding that he was mocked by the wise
men, “ sent forth and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old
and under.”
After the death of Herod, an angel again appeared in
a dream to Joseph, and told him to take mother and child
and go back to Palestine.
So he went back and dwelt in Nazareth.
Is this story true? Must we believe in the star and the
wise men ? Who were these wise men ? From what
country did they come ? What interest had they in the
birth of the King of the Jews ? What became of them and
their star ?
Of course I know that the Holy Catholic Church has in
her keeping the three skulls that belonged to these wise men;
but I do not know where the Church obtained these relics,
nor exactly how their genuineness has been established.
Must we believe that Herod murdered the babes of
Bethlehem ?
Is it not wonderful that the enemies of Herod did not
charge him with this horror ? Is it not marvellous that
Mark and Luke and John forgot to mention this most
heartless of massacres ?
Luke also gives an account of the birth of Christ. He
says that there went out a decree from Csesar Augustus that
all the world should be taxed; that this was when Cyrenius
was governor of Syria; that, in accordance with this decree,
Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed ; that at
�IO
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
that place Christ was born and laid in a manger. He also
says that shepherds in the neighborhood were told of the
birth by an angel, with whom was a multitude of the
heavenly host; that these shepherds visited Mary and the
child, and told others what they had seen and heard.
He tells us that after eight days the child was named
Jesus; that forty days after his birth he was taken by
Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem ; and that, after they had
performed all things according to the law, they returned to
Nazareth. Luke also says that the child grew and waxed
strong in spirit, and that his parents went every year to
Jerusalem.
Do the accounts in Matthew and Luke agree ? Can both
accounts be true ?
Luke never heard of the star, and Matthew knew nothing
of the heavenly host. Luke never heard of the wise men,
nor Matthew of the shepherds. Luke knew nothing of the
hatred of Herod, the murder of the babes, or the flight into
Egypt. According to Matthew, Joseph, warned by an angel,
took Mary and the child and fled into Egypt. According
to Luke, they all went to Jerusalem, and from there back to
Nazareth.
Both of these accounts cannot be true. Will some Chris
tian scholar tell us which to believe ?
When was Christ born ?
Luke says that it took place when Cyrenius was governor.
Here is another mistake. Cyrenius was not appointed
governor until after the death of Herod, and the taxing
could not have taken place until ten years after the alleged
birth of Christ.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth,
and for the purpose of getting them to Bethlehem, so that
the child could be born in the right place, the taxing under
Cyrenius was used; but the writer, being “inspired,” made
a mistake of about ten years as to the time of the taxing and
of the birth.
Matthew says nothing about the date of the birth, except
that he was born when Herod was king. It is now known
that Herod had been dead ten years before the taxing under
Cyrenius. So, if Luke tells the truth, Joseph, being warned
by an angel, fled from the hatred of Herod ten years after
Herod was dead. If Matthew and Luke are both right,
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
11
Christ was taken to Egypt ten years before he was born, and
Herod killed the babes ten years after he was dead.
Will some Christian scholar have the goodness to harmonise
these “ inspired ” accounts ?
There is another thing.
Matthew and Luke both try to show that Christ was of the
blood of David, that he was a descendant of that virtuous king.
As both of these writers were inspired, and as both
received their information from God, they ought to agree.
According to Matthew, there were between David and
Jesus twenty-seven generations, and he gives all the names.
According to Luke, there were between David and Jesus
forty-two generations, and he gives all the names.
In these genealogies—both inspired—there is a difference
between David and Jesus, a difference of some fourteen or
fifteen generations.
Besides, the names of all the ancestors are different, with
two exceptions.
Matthew says that Joseph’s father was Jacob. Luke says
that Heli was Joseph’s father.
Both of these genealogies cannot be true, and the proba
bility is that both are false.
There is not in all the pulpits ingenuity enough to har
monise these ignorant and stupid contradictions.
There are many curious mistakes in the words attributed
to Christ.
We are told in Matthew (chapter xxiii., verse 35) that
Christ said :
“ That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar.”
It is certain that these words were not spoken by Christ.
He could not by any possibility have known that the blood
of Zacharias had been shed. As a matter of fact, Zacharias
was killed by the Jews, during the siege of Jerusalem by
Titus, and this siege took place seventy-one years after the
birth of Christ, thirty-eight years after he was dead.
There is still another mistake.
Zacharias was not the son of Barachias—no such
Zacharias was killed. The Zacharias that was slain was
the son of Barueh.
�12
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
But we must not expect the “ inspired ” to be accurate.
Matthew says that at the time of the crucifixion—“ the
graves were opened, and that many bodies of the saints
which slept arose and came out of their graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto
many.”
According to this, the graves were opened at the time of
the crucifixion, but the dead did not arise and come out
until after the resurrection of Christ.
They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and
wait for Christ to rise first.
To whom did these saints appear ? What became of
them ? Did they slip back into their graves and commit
suicide?
Is it not wonderful that Mark, Luke, and John never
heard of these saints ?
What kind of saints were they ? Certainly they were not
Christian saints.
So, the inspired writers do not agree in regard to Judas.
Certainly the inspired writers ought to have known what
happened to Judas, the betrayer. Matthew, being duly
“ inspired,” says that when Judas saw that Jesus had been
condemned, he repented and took back the money to the
chief priests and elders, saying that he had sinned in
betraying the innocent blood. They said to him : “ What
is that to us? See thou to that.” Then Judas threw down
the pieces of silver and went and hanged himself.
The chief priests then took the pieces of silver and bought
the potter’s field to bury strangers in, and it is called the
field of blood.
We are told in Acts of the Apostles that Peter stood
up in the midst of the disciples and said : “ Now this man
(Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity—and,
falling headlong, he burst asunder and all his bowels gushed
out—that field is called the field of blood.”
Matthew says Judas repented and gave back the money.
Peter says that he bought a field with the money.
Matthew says that Judas hanged himself. Peter says
that he fell down and burst asunder. Which of these
accounts is true ?
Besides, it is hard to see why Christians hate, loathe, and
despise Judas. According to their scheme of salvation, it
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
13
was absolutely necessary that Christ should be killed—
necessary that he should be betrayed; and, had it not been
for Judas, all the world, including Christ’s mother, and
the part of Christ that was human, would have gone to
hell.
Yet, according to the New Testament, Christ did not
know that one of his disciples was to betray him.
Jesus, when on his way to Jerusalem for the last time,
said, speaking to the twelve disciples, Judas being present,
that they, the disciples, should thereafter sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Yet, more than a year before this journey, John says that
Christ said, speaking to the twelve disciples : “ Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ?” And John
adds : “ He spake of Judas Iscariot, for it was he that
should betray him.”
Why did Christ, a year afterwards, tell Judas that he
should sit on a throne and judge one of the tribes of
Israel?
There is still another trouble.
Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection appeared to
the twelve disciples. According to Paul, Jesus appeared to
Judas with the rest.
Certainly Paul had not heard the story of the betrayal.
Why did Christ select Judas as one of his disciples,
knowing that he would betray him ? Did he desire to be
betrayed ? Was it his intention to be put to death ?
Why did he fail to defend himself before Pilate?
According to the accounts, Pilate wanted to save him.
Did Christ wish to be convicted?
The Christians are compelled to say that Christ intended
to be sacrificed—that he selected Judas with that end in
view, and that he refused to defend himself because he
desired to be crucified. All this is in accordance with the
horrible idea that without the shedding of blood there is no
remission of sin.
�14
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
III.
JEHOVAH.
God the Father.
The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the God of the
Christians.
He it was who created the universe, who made all
substance, all force, all life, from nothing. He it is who
has governed and still governs the world. He has established
and destroyed empires and kingdoms, despotisms and
republics. He has enslaved and liberated the sons of men.
He has caused the sun to rise on the good and on the evil,
and his rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
This shows his goodness.
He has caused his volcanoes to devour the good and the
bad, his cyclones to wreck and rend the generous and the
cruel, . his floods to drown the loving and the hateful, his
lightning to kill the virtuous and the vicious, his famines to
starve the innocent and criminal, and his plagues to destroy
the wise and good, the ignorant and wicked. He has
allowed his enemies to imprison, to torture, and to kill his
friends. He has permitted blasphemers to flay his wor
shippers alive, to dislocate their joints upon racks, and to
burn them at the stake. He has allowed men to enslave
their brothers, and to sell babes from the breasts of
mothers.
This shows his impartiality.
The pious negro who commenced his prayer, “ O thou
great and unscrupulous God,” was nearer right than he knew.
Ministers ask : Is it possible for God to forgive man ?
And when I think of what has been suffered—of the
centuries of agony and tears, I ask : Is it possible for man
to forgive God ?
How do Christians prove the existence of their God ?
Is it possible to think of an infinite being ? Does the word
God correspond with any image in the mind ? Does the
word God stand for what we know, or for what we do not
know?
�JEHOVAH.
15
Is not this unthinkable God a guess, an inference ?
Can we think of a being without form, without body,
without parts, without passions ? Why should we speak of
a being without body as of the masculine gender?
Why should the Bible speak of this God as a man—of
his walking in the garden in the cool of the evening—of
his talking, hearing, and smelling? If he has no passions,
why is he spoken of as jealous, revengeful, angry, pleased,
and loving?
In the Bible, God is spoken of as a person in the form
of man, journeying from place to place, as having a home,
and occupying a throne. These ideas have been abandoned,
and now the Christian’s God is the infinite, the incompre
hensible, the formless, bodiless, and passionless.
Of the existence of such a being there can be, in the
nature of things, no evidence.
Confronted with the universe, with fields of space sown
thick with stars, with all there is of life, the wise man, being
asked the origin and destiny of all, replies : “ I do not
know. These questions are beyond the powers of my
mind.” The wise man is thoughtful and modest. He
clings to facts. Beyond his intellectual horizon he does
not pretend to see. He does not mistake hope for evidence,
or desire for demonstration. He is honest. He neither
deceives himself nor others.
The theologian arrives at the unthinkable, the incon
ceivable, and he calls this God.
The scientist arrives
at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and calls it the
Unknown.
The theologian insists that his inconceivable governs the
world ; that it, or he, or they, can be influenced by prayers
and ceremonies; that it, or he, or they, punishes and
rewards; that it, or he, or they, has priests and temples.
The scientist insists that the Unknown is not changed, so
far as he knows, by prayers of people or priests. He admits
that he does not know whether the Unknown is good or
bad—whether he, or it, wants; or whether he, or it, is worthy
of worship. He does not say that the Unknown is God,
that it created substance and force, life and thought. He
simply says that of the Unknown he knows nothing.
.Why should Christians insist that a God of infinite
wisdom, goodness, and power governs the world ?
�16
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
Why did he allow millions of his children to be enslaved ?
Why did he allow millions of mothers to be robbed of their
babes ? Why has he allowed injustice to triumph ? Why
has he permitted the innocent to be imprisoned, and the
good to be burned ? Why has he withheld his rain and
starved millions of the children of men ? Why has he
allowed the volcanoes to destroy, the earthquakes to devour,
and the tempest to wreck and rend ?
IV.
THE TRINITY.
The New Testament informs us that Christ was the son of
Joseph and the son of God, and that Mary was his mother.
How is it established that Christ was the son of God ?
It is said that Joseph was told so in a dream by an angel.
But Joseph wrote nothing on that subject—said nothing,
so far as we know. Mary wrote nothing, said nothing.
The angel that appeared to Joseph, or that informed
Joseph, said nothing to anybody else. Neither has the
Holy Ghost, the supposed father, ever said or written one
word. We have received no information from the parties
who could have known anything on the subject. We get
all our facts from those who could not have known.
How is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the
father of Christ ?
Who knows that such a being as the Holy Ghost ever
existed ?
How was it possible for Mary to know anything about
the Holy Ghost ?
How could Joseph know that he had been visited by an
angel in a dream ?
Could he know that the visitor was an angel ? It all
occurred in a dream, and poor Joseph was asleep. What is
the testimony of one who was asleep worth ?
�THE TRINITY.
17
All the evidence we have is, that somebody who wrote
part of the New Testament says that the Holy Ghost was
the father of Christ, and that somebody who wrote another
part of the New Testament says that Joseph was the father
of Christ.
Matthew and Luke give the genealogy, and both show
that Christ was the son of Joseph.
The “ Incarnation ” has to be believed without evidence.
There is no way in which it can be established. It is
beyond the reach and realm of reason. It defies observa
tion, and is independent of experience.
It is claimed not only that Christ was the Son of God,
but that he was, and is, God.
Was he God before he was born ? Was the body of
Mary the dwelling place of God ?
What evidence have we that Christ was God ?'
Somebody has said that Christ claimed that God was his
father, and that he and his father were one. We do not
know who this somebody was, and do not know from whom
he received his information.
Somebody who was “ inspired ” has said that Christ was
of the blood of David through his father, Joseph.
This is all the evidence we have.
Can we believe that God, the creator of the universe,
learned the trade of a carpenter in Palestine—that he
gathered a few disciples about him, and, after teaching for
about three years, suffered himself to be crucified by a few
ignorant and pious Jews ?
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the
Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the
third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his
own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither
father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the
father, but existed before he was begotten—just the same
before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the
father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the
Father and Son before he proceeded—that is to say, before
he existed ; but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son
God, and the Holy Ghost God, and that these three Gods
make one God.
�18
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
According to the celestial multiplication table, once one
is three, and three times one is one; and, according to
heavenly subtraction, if wjs take two from three, three are
left. The addition is equally peculiar : if we add two to
one, we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and
the other t,wo. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be,
more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the
Trinity.
How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity ?
Is it possible for a human being, who has been born but
once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of, three
beings each of whom is equal to the three ?
Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and
think of that one as half human and all God, and think of
the third as having proceeded from the other two, and
then think of all three as one. Think that, after the father
begot the son, the father was still alone; and after the
Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the
father was still alone—because there never was, and never
will be, but one God.
At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing
more can be said except “Let us pray.”
V.
THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
In the New Testament we find the teachings and sayings
of Christ. If we say that the book is inspired, then we
must admit that Christ really said all the things attributed
to him by the various writers. If the book is inspired, we
must accept it all. We have no right to reject the contra
dictory and absurd, and accept the reasonable and good.
We must take it all just as it is.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
19
My own observation has led me to believe that men are
generally consistent in their theories and inconsistent in
their lives.
So I think that Christ in his utterances was true to his
theory, to his philosophy.
If I find in the Testament sayings of a contradictory
character, I conclude that some of those sayings were never
uttered by him. The sayings that are, in my judgment, in
accordance with what I believe to have been his philosophy,
I accept, and the others I throw away.
There are some of his sayings which show him to have
been a devout Jew; others that he wished to destroy
Judaism ; others showing that he held all people except the
Jews in contempt, and that he wished to save no others;
others showing that he wished to convert the world; still
others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying, and
loving ; others that he was revengeful and malicious; others
that he was an ascetic, holding all human ties in utter con
tempt.
The following passages show that Christ was a devout
Jew
“Swear not, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne,
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem,
for it is his holy city.”
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
“For after all these things [clothing, food, and drink]
do the Gentiles seek.”
So, when he cured a leper, he said : “ Go thy way, show
thyself unto the priest, and offer the gift that Moses com
manded.”
Jesus sent his disciples forth, saying: “ Go not into the
way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.”
A woman came out of Canaan and cried to Jesus :
“ Have mercy on me, my daughter is sorely vexed with a
devil ” ; but he would not answer. Then the disciples
asked him to send her away, and he said: “ I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Then the woman worshipped him and said: “Lord help
me.” But he answered and said : “ It is not meet to take
�20
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
the children’s bread and cast it unto dogs.” Yet for her
faith he cured her child.
So, when the young man asked him what he must do to
be saved, he said: “ Keep the commandments.”
Christ said: “The scribesand the Pharisees sit in Moses’
seat; all, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do.”
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for
one tittle of the law to fail.
Christ went into the temple and cast out them that sold
and bought there, and said: “It is written, my house is
the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
thieves.”
“We know what we worship, for salvation is of the
Jews.”
Certainly all these passages were written by persons who
regarded Christ as the Messiah.
Many of the sayings attributed to Christ show that he
was an ascetic, that he cared nothing for kindred, nothing
for father and mother, nothing for brothers or sisters, and
nothing for the pleasures of life.
Christ said to a man: “ Follow me.” The man said :
“ Let me go and bury my father.” Christ answered : “ Let
the dead bury the dead.” Another said: “ I will follow
thee, but first let me go and bid them farewell which are at
home.”
Jesus said : “No man having put his hand to the plough,
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven. If
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend
thee, cut it off.”
One said unto him: “ Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” And he
answered: “ Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
Then he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples and
said: “Behold my mother and my brethren.”
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren
or sisters, or father or mother, or children, or lands, for my
name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold and shall inherit
everlasting life.”
“ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me.”
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
21
Christ, it seems, had a philosophy.
He believed that God was a loving father, that he would
take care of his children, that they need do nothing except
to rely implicitly on God.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you and persecute you.
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or what
ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.
* * * For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have
need of all these things.
Ask and it shall be given you. Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. If ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you. The very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Christ seemed to rely absolutely on the protection of God
until the darkness of death gathered about him, and then
he cried: “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken
me ?”
While there are many passages in the New Testament
showing Christ to have been forgiving and tender, there are
many others showing that he was exactly the opposite.
What must have been the spirit of one who said: “ I am
come to send fire on the earth. Suppose ye that I am
come to give peace on earth ? I tell you, nay, but rather
division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one
house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son
against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law against her
daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her motherin-law ” ?
“ If any man come to me and hate not his father and
mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
“ But those mine enemies, which would not that I should
reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.”
This passage built dungeons and lighted fagots.
“ Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the
devil and his angels.”
�22
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
“ I came not to bring peace, but a sword.
All these sayings could not have been uttered by the
same person. They are inconsistent with each other. Love
does not speak the words of hatred.
The real philan
thropist does not despise all nations but his own. The
teacher of universal forgiveness cannot believe in eternal
torture.
From the interpolations, legends, accretions, mistakes,
and falsehoods in the New Testament is it possible to free
the actual man? Clad in mist and myth, hidden by the
draperies of gods, deformed, indistinct as faces in clouds,
is it possible to find and recognise the features, the natural
face of the actual Christ?
For many centuries our fathers closed their eyes to the
contradictions and inconsistencies of the Testament, and in
spite of their reason harmonised the interpolations and
mistakes.
This is no longer possible. The contradictions are too
many, too glaring. There are contradictions of fact, not
only, but of philosophy, of theory.
The accounts of the trial, the crucifixion, and ascension
of Christ do not agree. They are full of mistakes and
contradictions.
According to one account, Christ ascended the day of
or the day after his resurrection. According to another,
he remained forty days after rising from the dead. Accord
ing to one account, he was seen after his resurrection only
by a few women and his disciples. According to another,
he was seen by the women, by his disciples on several
occasions, and by hundreds of others.
According to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, Christ remained
for the most part in the country, seldom going to Jerusalem.
According to John, he remained mostly in Jerusalem, going
occasionally into the country, and then generally to avoid
his enemies.
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christ taught
that if you would forgive others God would forgive you.
According to John, Christ said that the only way to get to
heaven was to believe on him and be born again.
These contradictions are gross and palpable, and demon
strate that the New Testament is not inspired, and that
many of its statements must be false.
�THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST.
23
If we wish to save the character of Christ, many of the
passages must be thrown away.
We must discard the miracles, or admit that he was insane
or an impostor. We must discard the passages that breathe
the spirit of hatred and revenge, or admit that he was malevo
lent.
If Matthew was mistaken about the genealogy of Christ,
about the wise men, the star, the flight into Egypt, and the
massacre of the babes by Herod, then he may have been
mistaken in many passages that he put in the mouth of
Christ.
The same may be said in regard to Mark, Luke, and
John.
The Church must admit that the writers of the New
Testament were uninspired men—that they made many
mistakes—that they accepted impossible legends as historical
facts—that they were ignorant and superstitious—that they
put malevolent, stupid, insane, and unworthy words in the
mouth of Christ, described him as the worker of impossible
miracles, and in many ways stained and belittled his char
acter.
The best that can be said about Christ is, that nearly
nineteen centuries ago he was born in the land of Palestine,
in a country without wealth, without commerce, in the midst
of a people who knew nothing of the greater world—a people
enslaved, crushed by the mighty power of Rome. That
this babe, this child of poverty and want, grew to manhood
without education, knowing nothing of art or science, and
at about the age of thirty began wandering about the hills
and hamlets of his native land, discussing with priests,
talking with the poor and sorrowful, writing nothing, but
leaving his words in the memory or forgetfulness of those to
whom he spoke.
That he attacked the religion of his time because it was
cruel. That this excited the hatred of those in power, and
that Christ was arrested, tried, and crucified.
For many centuries this great Peasant of Palestine has
been worshipped as God.
Millions and millions have given their lives to his service.
The wealth of the world was lavished on his shrines. His
name carried consolation to the diseased and dying. His
name dispelled the darkness of death, and filled the dungeon
�24
the foundations of faith.
with light. His name gave courage to the martyr, and in
the midst of fire, with shrivelling lips, the sufferer uttered it
again and again. The outcasts, the deserted, the fallen,
felt that Christ was their friend, felt that he knew their
sorrows and pitied their sufferings.
The poor mother, holding her dead babe in her arms,
lovingly whispered his name. His gospel has been carried
by millions to all parts of the globe, and his story has been
told by the self-denying and faithful to countless thousands
of the sons of men. In his name have been preached
charity, forgiveness, and love.
He it was who, according to the faith, brought immortality
to light, and many millions have entered the valley of the
shadow with their hands in his.
All this is true; and if it were all, how beautiful, how
touching, how glorious, it would be 1 But it is not all.
There is another side.
In his name millions and millions of men and women
have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed. In his name
millions and millions have been enslaved. In his name
the thinkers, the investigators, have been branded as
criminals, and his followers have shed the blood of the
wisest and best. In his name the progress of many nations
was stayed for a thousand years. In his gospel was found
the dogma of eternal pain, and his words added an infinite
horror to death. His gospel filled the world with hatred
and revenge; made intellectual honesty a crime; made
happiness here the road to hell; denounced love as base
and bestial; canonised credulity; crowned bigotry, and
destroyed the liberty of man.
It would have been far better had the New Testament
never been written—far better had the theological Christ
never lived. Had the writers of the Testament been re
garded as uninspired; had Christ been thought of only as a
man ; had the good been accepted, and the absurd, the
impossible, and the revengeful thrown away, mankind would
have escaped the wars, the tortures, the scaffolds, the
dungeons, the agony and tears, the crimes and sorrows of
a thousand years.
�THE
SCHEME.
25
VI.
THE “SCHEME.”
We have also the scheme of redemption.
According to this “ scheme,” by the sin of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden, human nature became evil,
corrupt, and depraved. It became impossible for human
beings to keep, in all things, the law of God. In spite of
this, God allowed the people to live and multiply for some
fifteen hundred years; and then, on account of their
wickedness, drowned them all, with the exception of eight
persons.
The nature of these eight persons was evil, corrupt, and
depraved ; and, in the nature of things, their children would
be cursed with the same nature. Yet God gave them
another trial, knowing exactly what the result would be. A
few of these wretches he selected, and made them objects
of his love and care ; the rest of the world he gave to indiffer
ence and neglect. To civilise the people he had chosen,
he assisted them in conquering and killing their neighbors,
and gave them the assistance of priests and inspired pro
phets. For their preservation and punishment he wrought
countless miracles, gave them many laws, and a great deal
of advice. He taught them to sacrifice oxen, sheep, and
doves, to the end that their sins might be forgiven. The
idea was inculcated that there was a certain relation between
the sin and the sacrifice—the greater the sin, the greater
the sacrifice. He also taught the savagery that without
the shedding of blood there was no remission of sin.
In spite of all his efforts, the people grew gradually worse.
They would not, they could not, keep his laws.
A sacrifice had to be made for the sins of the people.
The sins were too great to be washed out by the blood of
animals or men. It became necessary for God himself to
be sacrificed. All mankind were under the curse of
the law. Either all the world must be lost, or God must
die.
�26
THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
In only one way could the guilty be justified, and that
was by the death, the sacrifice, of the innocent. And the
innocent being sacrificed must be great enough to atone
for the world. There was but one such being—God.
Thereupon God took upon himself flesh, was born into
the world—was known as Christ—was murdered, sacrificed
by the Jews, and became an atonement for the sins of the
human race.
This is the scheme of Redemption—the atonement.
It is impossible to conceive of anything more utterly
absurd.
A man steals, and then sacrifices a dove, or gives a lamb
to a priest. His crime remains the same. He need not
kill something. Let him give back the thing stolen, and in
future live an honest life.
A man slanders his neighbor, and then kills an ox. What
has that to do with the slander ? Let him take back his
slander, make all the reparation that he can, and let the ox
alone.
There is no sense in sacrifice, never was, and never
will be.
Make restitution, reparation, undo the wrong, and you
need shed no blood.
A good law, one springing from the nature of things,
cannot demand, and cannot accept, and cannot be satisfied
with, the punishment or the agony of the innocent. A
god could not accept his own sufferings in justification of
the guilty. This is a complete subversion of all ideas of
justice and morality. A god could not make a law for
man, then suffer in the place of the man who had violated
it, and say that the law had been carried out and the penalty
duly enforced. A man has committed murder, has been
tried, convicted, and condemned to death. Another man
goes to the governor and says that he is willing to die in
place of the murderer. The governor says : “ All right, I
accept your offer; a murder has been committed, somebody
must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law.”
But that is not the law. The law says, not that somebody
shall be hanged, but that the murderer shall suffer death.
Even if the governor should die in the place of the
criminal, it would be no better. There would be two
murders instead of one; two innocent men killed—one by
�BELIEF.
27
the first murderer, and one by the State—and the real
murderer free.
This Christians call “satisfyin the law.”
VII.
BELIEF.
We are told that all who believe in this scheme of redemp
tion and have faith in the redeemer will be rewarded with
eternal joy. Some think that men can be saved by faith
without works, and some think that faith and works are
both essential; but all agree that without faith there is no
salvation. If you repent and believe on Jesus Christ, then
his goodness will be imparted to you, and the penalty of the
law, so far as you are concerned, will be satisfied by the
sufferings of Christ.
You may repent and reform, you may make restitution,
you may practise all the virtues ; but without this belief
in Christ the gates of heaven will be shut against you for ever.
Where is this heaven ? The Christians do not know.
Does the Christian go there at death, or must he wait for
the general resurrection ?
They do not know.
The Testament teaches that the bodies of the dead are to
be raised. Where are their souls in the meantime ? They
do not know.
Can the dead be raised ? The atoms composing their
bodies enter into new combinations, into new forms, into
wheat and corn, into the flesh of animals, and into the
bodies of other men. Where one man dies, and some of
his atoms pass into the body of another man, and he
dies, to whom will these atoms belong in the day of
resurrection ?
�THE FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH.
If Christianity were only stupid and unscientific, if its
God were ignorant and kind, if it promised eternal joy to
believers, and if the believers practised the forgiveness they
teach, for one, I should let the faith alone.
But there is another side to Christianity. It is not only
stupid, but malicious. It is not only unscientific, but it is
heartless. Its God is not only ignorant, but infinitely cruel.
It not only promises the faithful an eternal reward, but
declares that nearly all of the children of men, imprisoned
in the dungeons of God, will suffer eternal pain. This is
the savagery of Christianity. This is why I hate its unthink
able God, its impossible Christ, its inspired lies, and its
selfish, heartless heaven.
,
Christians believe in infinite torture, in eternal pain.
Eternal pain 1
All the meanness of which the heart of man is capable is
in that one word—Hell.
That word is a den, a cave, in which crawl the slimy
reptiles of revenge.
That word certifies to the savagery of primitive man.
That word is the depth, the dungeon, the abyss, from
which civilised man has emerged.
That word is the disgrace, the shame, the infamy of our
revealed religion.
That word fills all the future with the shrieks of the
damned.
That word brutalises the New Testament, changes the
Sermon on the Mount to hypocrisy and cant, and pollutes
and hardens the very heart of Christ.
That word adds an infinite horror to death, and makes
the cradle as terrible as the coffin.
That word is the assassin of joy, the mocking murderer
of hope. That word extinguishes the light of life and wraps
the world in gloom.- That word drives reason from his
throne, and gives the crown to madness.
That word drove pity from the hearts of men, stained
countless swords with blood, lighted fagots, forged chains,
built dungeons, erected scaffolds, and filled the world with
poverty and pain.
That word is a coiled serpent in the mother’s breast, that
lifts its fanged head and hisses in her ear : “ Your child
will be the fuel of eternal fire.”
�CONCLUSION.
29
That word blots from the firmament the star of hope, and
leaves the heavens black.
That word makes the Christian’s God an eternal torturer,
an everlasting inquisitor—an infinite wild beast.
This is the Christian prophecy of the eternal future :—
No hope in hell.
No pity in heaven.
No mercy in the heart of God.
VIII.
CONCLUSION.
The Old Testament is absurd, ignorant, and cruel; the
New Testament is a mingling of the false and true—it is
good and bad.
The Jehovah of the Jews is an impossible monster. The
Trinity absurd and idiotic. Christ is a myth or a man.
The fall of man is contradicted by every fact concerning
human history that we know. The scheme of redemption,
through the atonement, is immoral and senseless. Hell
was imagined by revenge, and the orthodox heaven is the
selfish dream of heartless serfs and slaves. The founda
tions of the faith have crumbled and faded away. They
were miracles, mistakes, and myths, ignorant and untrue,
absurd, impossible, immoral, unnatural, cruel, childish,
savage. Beneath the gaze of the scientist they vanished;
confronted by facts, they disappeared. The orthodox
religion of our day has no foundation in truth. Beneath
the superstructure can be found no fact.
Some may ask : “ Are you trying to take our religion
away ?”
I answer No ; superstition is not religion. Belief with
out evidence is not religion. Faith without facts is not
religion.
�3°
THE FOUNDATIONS OF BELIEF.
To love justice ; to long for the right; to love mercy; to
pity the suffering; to assist the weak; to forget wrongs and
remember benefits; to love the truth; to be sincere; to
utter honest words ; to love liberty ; to wage relentless war
against slavery in all its forms ; to love wife and child and
friend; to make a happy home ; to love the beautiful in
art, in nature; to cultivate the mind ; to be familiar with
the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble
deeds of all the world; to cultivate courage and cheerful
ness ; to make others happy; to fill life with the splendor
of generous acts, the warmth of loving words ; to discard
error; to destroy prejudice; to receive new truths with
gladness ; to cultivate hope; to see the calm beyond the
storm, the dawn beyond the night; to do the best that can
be done, and then to be resigned—this is the religion of
reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and
heart.
But, says the prejudiced priest, the malicious minister:
“You take away a future life.”
I am not trying to destroy another world, but I am
endeavoring to prevent the theologians from destroying
this.
If we are immortal, it is a fact in nature, and that fact
does not depend on Bibles or Christs, on priests or creeds.
The hope of another life was in the heart long before the
“ sacred books ” were written, and will remain there long
after all the “ sacred books ” are known to be the work of
savage and superstitious men. Hope is the consolation of
the world.
The wanderers hope for home. Hope builds the house
and plants the flowers and fills the air with song.
The sick and suffering hope for health. Hope gives
them health, and paints the roses in their cheeks.
The lonely, the forsaken, hope for love. Hope brings
the lover to their arms. They feel the kisses on their eager
lips.
The poor in tenements and huts, in spite of rags and
hunger, hope for wealth. Hope fills their thin and trembling
hands with gold.
The dying hopes that death is but another birth, and Love
leans above the pallid face and whispers : “ We shall meet
again.”
�CONCLUSION
31
Hope is the consolation of the world.
Let us hope that, if there be a God, he is wise and good.
Let us hope that, if there be another life, it will bring
peace and joy to all the children of men.
And let us hope that this poor earth on which we live
may be a perfect world, a world without a crime, without a
tear.
London : Printed by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll
Some Mistakes
ok Moses.
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso,
and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d.
Defence of Freethought.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
6d.
The Gods. 6d.
The Holy Bible. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
4d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman.
3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas
Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
True Religion. 2d.
The Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Why am I an Agnostic?
Part I. 2d.
am I an Agnostic?
Part II. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to
Dr. Field. 2d
God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration.
A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Ooudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Household of Faith.
2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
The Clergy and Common
Sense. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce. 2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Live Topics. Id.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Repairing the Idols. Id.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
' Creeds & Spirituality. Id
Why
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition.
Biography by J. M. WHEELER.
Miscellaneous Theological Works,
The Age of Reason.
Foote.
is.
New edition, with Preface by G. W.
Is.
Complete Theological Works.
Reason.)
With a Political
Is.; bound in cloth, 2s.
(Including the Age of
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The foundations of faith : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover. No. 24b in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N347
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The foundations of faith : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f703a8f0d6bfc49346d87ff7c112f14e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NG5ZeeE6l2gVS8laPdUQpY2EEmIEUx2HJdKP0wIzWmlf6whJrw0LUKu8hk48SmIeHnqXnronIGS8%7EaOrEEugnhwo3-PxoKywfGNYscGwaqzbMP00Y80sH1bdoijmgPNO4MC9%7EaZ64n3ZUhr4cs3lgZBDu6MLCq1GY4AOpdsbDP7mm7GtbfBsY7SAkI%7E06wITubOGLt0l2HWh8FcgHexd40XUldFItsMwr8T-TSCeeHclrES1IGgbHuDMz0Ti0mvWcpsH76VcvUMAOEwcSWLZBc6PDEFGP-Z5IaRaxGAQgOM530RLeBq-cIIQ0o%7E1a4XIHDp8W424nsT2A0cASi0w7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44e21873fc9ed7920cfa9552ebe1fd61
PDF Text
Text
I,
¥
NATIONALSECULAR society
INGERSOLLISM
DEFENDED AGAINST
ARCHDEACON FARRAR.
G. W. FOOTE.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 23 STONECUTTER STREET, E.0.
1892.
�i
�£ 2-4-^ O
INGERSOLLISM AND DR. FARRAR.
What a swarm of Christian apologists flutter round Colonel
Ingersoll 1 He is a perfect nobody; he has no learning, and
no brains to speak of; nothing he says is new, and it has all
been answered before; in brief, he is a smart pretender, a
showy shallow-pate, and every sensible Christian should
leave him alone. But somehow they cannot leave him alone
He requires no answer, but they will answer him. He is
not worth a thought, but they shower their articles upon
him. Meanwhile the Colonel smiles that great, genial smile
of his, and never loses his temper for a minute. He knows
his own strength, and the strength of his cause, and he knows
the meaning of all this pious blague.
Judge Black tilted at Ingersoll, and would not try a
second round. Then came Dr. Field, then Mr. Gladstone,
then Cardinal Manning, then Dr. Abbott and some smaller
fry, and now comes Archdeacon Farrar with “A Few Words
on Colonel Ingersoll ” in the North American Review. Dr.
Farrar is a prolix gentleman, with a style like a dictionary
with the diarrhoea, and his “few words” extend to fifteen
pages. All he has to say could have been put into a third of
the space. On Mr. Gladstone’s admission, Colonel Ingersoll
“ writes with a rare and enviable brilliancy.” Archdeacon
Farrar writes effeminately, with a vehemence that simulates
strength, and a glare that apes magnificence. He revels in
big adjectives and grandiose sentences, and is a striking
specimen of literary flatulence.
This is not a complimentary description, but the Arch
deacon has invited it. To prove the invitation we quote his
opening sentence. “ Although the views of Colonel Inger
soll,” he says, “ lie immeasurably apart from my own, he will
not find in this paper a word of invective or discourtesy.”
�( 4: )
Now this sentence is loose in style and false in statement.
“ Although ” implies that invective and discourtesy might
well be expected by anyone who differs from Dr. Farrar.
“Immeasurably” is nonsense, for Colonel Ingersoll and Dr.
Farrar both have definite views, and the difference between
them is easily ascertained. “ Discourtesy,” at least, is infe
licitous. Dr. Farrar speaks of Colonel Ingersoll’s “ enormous
arrogance of assumption ” ; of his looking down “ from the
whole height of his own inferiority ”; of thousands of intel
lects that, compared with his, are “ as Dhawalaghari to a
molehill.” Here is “ courtesy ” for you I But this is not all.
With his customary extravagance of language, the Arch
deacon speaks of “ those myriads of students of Holy Writ,
who probably know ten thousand times more of the Scriptures
than Colonel Ingersoll.” What delightful good breeding!
It seems that the Christians have so long enjoyed the right
of “ immeasurably ” abusing Freethinkers, that they fancy
themselves quite polite when they are impudent enough to
invite a kicking.
Let us now see what Dr. Farrar’s “ few words ” amount to.
He accuses Ingersoll of asserting] instead of arguing, of
indulging in “ the unlimited enunciation of immense gene
ralities,” of “ tossing aside the deepest and most permanent
convictions of mankind as though they were too absurd even
to need an answer,” and generally of putting forth arguments
which have been killed by the theologians, and really ought
to feel that they are dead, and to get decently buried. Dr.
Farrar evidently regards Ingersoll aS a sceptical Banquo
who indecently haunts the supper-room of the theological
Macbeth.
But when he condescends to details the Archdeacon cuts a
sorry figure. He takes some of Ingersoll’s “ immense gene
ralities ” and tries to explode them, with shocking results to
himself. Here is number one.
I. The same rules or laws of probability must govern in
religious questions as in others.
This would have been regarded by the great Bishop Butler
as an axiom. But Dr. Farrar is not a Bishop Butler, so he
calls it “ an exceedingly dubious and disputable assertion.”
Revelation appeals to man’s spirit, and - Colonel Ingersoll
�ignores that “ sphere of being.” He is therefore like a blind
man arguing about colors, or a deaf man arguing about
music. In other words, Dr. Farrar cannot prove the truth of
his religion. He knows it intuitively, by means of a high
faculty which Ingersoll does not possess, or only in an
atrophied state. But this piece of fatuous impudence is far
from convincing. Besides, Dr. Farrar is shrewd enough to
see that the sceptic may reply, “ Very well, then, what is the
use of your talking to me ?” Consequently he falls back
upon the contention that the evidences of Christianity are
“ largely historical.” But instead of adducing these evi
dences, and firmly defending them, he flies back immediately
to his special faculty. “ Men of science tell us,” he says,
“ that there are ultra-violet rays of light invisible to the
naked eye. Supposing that such rays can never be made
apprehensible to our individual senses, are we therefore
justified in a categorical denial that such rays exist ?’*
Certainly not. Those ultra-violet rays of light can be
demonstrated. They are apprehensible, though not to the
naked eye. The analogy, therefore, is perfectly fallacious.
Nor would anyone but a hopelessly incapable logician have
adduced such a mat a propos illustration. Dr. Farrar is
affirming the existence of a spiritual faculty as common as
sight, and whose absence is as rare as blindness, and he
adduces an instance of a fact which is only known to
specialists.
II. There is no subject—and can be none—concerning
which any human being is obliged to believe without evi
dence.
This proposition of Ingersoll’s is indisputable. Dr. Farrar
allows its truth'. But he says it “ insinuates that Christianity
is believed without evidence, and this is “ outrageous and
historically absurd.” We will not discuss “ outrageous,” but
we venture to say that “ historically absurd ” is a great
absurdity. Nothing is clearer than that the mass of man
kind, whether Christian or heathen, do believe without
evidence. Their religion is simply a matter of education,
and their faith depends on the geographical accident of their
birth. Dr. Farrar may deny this, but every man of sense
knows it is true.
�( 6 )
We will not follow Dr. Farrar’s tali talk about “ the divine
beauty of Christianity,” the “unparalleled and transcendent
loveliness ” of Christ, and the “proved adaptation ” (heaven
save the mark!) of Christianity “ to the needs of every branch
of the human race.” All this is professional verbiage. It is
like the cry of “ fresh fish!” in the streets, and is perfectly
useless in discussion with Freethinkers.
III. Neither is there any intelligent being who can, by any
possibility, be flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity.
Dr. Farrar cannot deny this, but again he complains of
insinuation. What right has Colonel Ingersoll to stigmatise
as ignorant credulity “ that inspired, inspiring,” etc., etc. ?
IV. The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands
the Old and New T estaments will cease to be an orthodox
Christian.
Dr. Farrar flies into a passion over this proposition, though
the Catholic Church has always acted upon it, and tried to
keep the Bible out of the people’s hands. He also flies off on
the question of “ what is an orthodox Christian ?” Colonel
Ingersoll, he says, would probably include under the word
orthodox “ a great many views which many Christians have
held, but which are in no sense a part of Christian faith, nor
in any way essential to it.” But who constituted Dr. Farrar
the supreme authority on this question ? Colonel Ingersoll
judges for himself. He follows the sensible plan of taking
the Bible as the Christian’s standard. After that he takes
the accepted and published doctrines of the great Christian
Churches. He is not bound to discuss the particular views
of Dr. Farrar. Indeed, it is ludicrous that at this time of
day, nearly two thousand yearB after Christ, *a discussion on
Christianity should be stopped to settle what Christianity is.
V. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any
country without fear and without prejudice will not and cannot
be a believer.
Ingersoll’s opinion may be unpalatable to Christians,
though they would endorse it with regard to every religion
but their own. His language, however, is perfectly courteous.
Having to convey such an opinion, he could not have chosen
less irritating words. But this moderation is lost on Dr.
�( 7 )
Farrar, who bursts into a characteristic storm of sound and
fury.
“ Argal, every believer in. any religion is either an incompetent idiot
[did you ever know a competent idiot?] or a coward with a dash of pre
judice ! If Colonel Ingersoll really takes in the meaning implied in his
own words [really!], I should think that he would have [grammar!!]
recoiled before the exorbitant and unparalleled hardihood of thus brand
ing with fatuity, with craven timidity, or with indolent inability to
resist a bias, the majority of mankind, as well as the brightest of human
intellects. Surely no human being can be taken in by the show of self
confidence involved in such assertions as this ! It is as useless to combat
their unsupported obstreperousness as it is to argue with a man who
bawls out a proposition in very loud tones [could he bawl in soft tones ?]
and thumps the table to emphasise his own infallibility. We have but to
glance at the luminous path in the firmament of human greatness to see
thousands of names of men whose intellect was, in comparison with the
Colonel’s, as Dhawalaghari to a molehill, who have yet studied each his
own form of religion with infinitely [infinitely ?] greater power than he
has done, and have set to their seal that God is true.”
Hallelujah! But after all this sputter the question remains
where it was. Dr. Farrar is too fond of “words, words,
words,” and like Gratiano he can “ talk an infinite deal of
nothing.” He would do well to study Ingersoll for a month
or two, and prune the nauseous luxuriance of his own style.
Dr. Farrar gives a curious list of these gentlemen -who have
given God a certificate. It includes Charlemagne, who had
such a fine notion of “ evidence ” that he offered the Saxons
the choice of baptism or instant death, and so converted them
at the rate of twenty thousand a day. It includes Shake
speare, whose irreligion is a byword among the commentators.
It also includes Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, two highlyfeed dignitaries of the Church. Among the scientific names
is that of Faraday, who “ had the Christian faith of a child,”
which is a very happy description, foi’ Faraday deliberately
refused to submit his faith to any test of reason. Dr. Farrar
mentions Darwin, Huxley and Tyndall as “ exceptions.” But
they cease to be exceptions when the names of Haeckel,
Buchner, Clifford, Maudsley, Galton, and a score of others
are added. Among the poets, Tennyson and Browning may
be called believers, but Swinburne, Morris, and Meredith are
not; and in France the foremost living poet, Leconte de
Lisle, is a pronounced Atheist. Sir William Hamilton was a
�( 8 )
believer, but John Stuart Mill was not. Dr. Gardiner, the
historian of England, is a believer, but Grote, the greater
historian of Greece, was an Atheist. After all, however, this
bandying of big names is perfectly idle. Propositions must
ultimately rest on their evidence. What is the use of discus
sion if we are not to judge for ourselves ?
Not only does Dr. Farrar give us a scratch list of eminent
believers—as though every creed and every form of scep
ticism did not boast its eminent men—but he gives another
list of assailants of Christianity, and declares that it has
survived their attacks, as it will survive every assault that
can be made upon it. It survived “ the flashing wit of
Lucian,” which, by the way, never flashed upon the ignorant
dupes who were gathered into the early Christian fold. It
survived “the haughty mysticism of Porphyry.” Yes, but
how ? By burning his books, and decreeing the penalty of
death against everyone who should be found in possession of
his damnable writings. It survived “ the battering eloquence
and keen criticism of Celsus.” Yes, but how ? By destroying
■his writings, so that not a single copy remained, and all that
can be known of them is the extracts quoted in the answer
of Origen. Then there are Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, Voltaire, Diderot, Strauss and Renan
—and “ what have they effected ?”
This is what they have effected. They have broken the
spirit of intolerance, and made it possible for honest thinkers
to express their opinions. They have crippled the power of
priests, tamed their pride, and compelled them to argue with
heretics instead of robbing and murdering them. They have
leavened Christian superstition with human reason, and made
educated Christians ashamed of the grosser aspects of their
faith. They have driven Dr. Farrar himself to juggle with
the words of Scripture in order to get rid of the infamous
doctrine of everlasting torture. They have compelled the
apologists of Christianity to alter their theory of Inspiration,
to discriminate between better and worse in the Bible, and to
practise all kinds of subtle Bhifts in order to patch up a
hollow treaty between religion and science. They have
loosened the Church’s grasp on the mind of the child, and
very largely secularised both private and public life, which
�were once under the domination of priestcraft. They have
made millions of Freethinkers in Christendom, shaken the
faith of the very worshippers in their pews, and helped to
create that ever growing indifference to religion, which is a
theme of wailing at Church Congresses, and bids fair to
absorb all the sects of theology, as the desert absorbs water
or the ocean a fleet of sinking ships.
What have they effected ? Dr. Farrar’s article furnishes
an answer. Fifty years ago what dignitary of the Church
would have replied to an “ infidel ” except with anathemas
and the terrors of the law ? Now the proudest of them rush
to cross swords with Colonel Ingersoll, and, although they
do it with a wry face, they shake hands with him before
beginning the combat. Fifty years ago what “ infidel,” if he
openly avowed his infidelity, had the remotest chance of
occupying any public post? Now Mr. John Morley is Mr.
Gladstone’s first lieutenant, and Mr. Bradlaugh himself was
marked out as a member of the next Liberal administration.
All this may be “ nothing ” to Dr. Farrar, but it is much to
Freethinkers, and they need not argue who has the best
reason to be satisfied.
Dr. Farrar proceeds to tackle Ingersoll’s agnosticism. In
doing so he explains why he introduces the word “ infidel.”
He does not desire “ to create an unfair prejudice.” Why
then does he use the word at all ? Certainly he is incorrect
in saying that “ the word has always been understood to
mean one who does not believe in the existence of God.”
“ Infidel ” was first used by the Christians as a name for the
Mohammedans. It was afterwards applied to the unbelievers
at home. The Deists of last century were called infidels. Vol
taire and Thomas Paine are arch-infidels, and both believed
in the existence of God. Johnson defines “ infidel ” as “ an
unbeliever, a miscreant, a pagan ; one who rejects Chris
tianity.” Bailey as “ a Heathen, or one who believes nothing
of the Christian religion.” A similar definition is given
in Richardson’s great dictionary. It is clear that Dr. Farrar’s
etymology is no improvement on his manners. He covers a
bad fault with a worse excuse. We are ready, however, to
make allowance for him. His mind is naturally loose, and
he is rather the slave than the master of his words. In the
�( 10 )
very next paragraph he says that “ our beliefs are surrounded
by immense and innumerable perplexities,” forgetting that
if they are immense they cannot be innumerable, and if they
are innumerable they cannot be immense.
Ingersoll’s arguments against theology are reduced by Dr.
Farrar under four heads : “ first, the difficulty of conceiving
the nature of God; secondly, the existence of evil; thirdly,
the impossibility of miracles; and fourthly, the asserted
errors and imperfections of the Bible.”
“ Is it possible,” asks Ingersoll, “ for the human mind to
conceive of an infinite personality ?” Dr. Farrar replies,
“ Why, certainly it is ; for human minds innumerable have
done so.” But have they? Dr. Farrar knows they have not.
He knows they cannot. Otherwise he would not argue that
we are bound to believe in the existence of things which are
inconceivable.
“ Can the human mind imagine a beginningless being ?”
asks Ingersoll. Dr. Farrar evades the question. He gives
us another dissertation on conceivability. He asks whether
Ingersoll believes “ there is such a thing as space,” and
presently calls it “ an entity.” We venture to say that Inger
soll believes in nothing of the kind. You may call space “ a
thing,” but it is only indefinite extension, as time is indefinite
succession. The metaphysical difficulty arises when we try
to use the word infinite in a positive sense. Then we are
brought face to face with antinomies because we are trying
to transcend the limits of our faculties. Still, it is absurd to
affirm that “ space is quite as impossible to conceive as God.”
We know extension by experience, and increasing it ad
infinitum is rather an exercise in transcendent geometry
than in practical reason. But what experience have we of
God ? Is it not easier to conceive that to be unlimited of
which we have knowledge than that of which we have no
knowledge at all ? And if God be considered as a personality
—without which he is not God—is it possible to combine in
finitude and personality in the same conception ? Dr. Farrar
affirms that it is. We say it is not, and we appeal to the
judgment of every man who will try to think accurately.
With regard to the existence of evil, all Dr. Farrar can
say is that it is a mystery. Now a mystery, in theology, is
�( u )
simply a contradiction between fact and theory, and arguing
from mystery is only justifying a particular contradiction by
a general contradiction. Dr. Farrar must also be exceedingly
simple to imagine that it is any reply to Ingersoll to appeal
to St. Paul. Nor is it permissible to argue from the assumed
“ restoration of all things ” which is to take place in the
future, unless conjecture and argument are the same thing,
in which case it is idle to discuss at all, for every time the
Christian is beaten he has only to start a fresh assumption.
It is foolish, likewise, to complain that the argument from
evil is an old one, and that there is “ nothing new in the
reiterated objection,” for there is nothing new in the reiter
ated reply, and the objection remains unanswered. The
Catholic theologian would address Dr. Farrar in the same
futile fashion. He would reply to objections against Transubstantiation, for instance, that they are musty with age
and have been answered again and again.
Dr. Farrar finally sees he has a pool’ case and resigns the
argument. After trying to explain away a great deal of the
world’s evil by saying it is “ transitory,” which is question
able; or “phantasmal,” which is a mockery; he ends by
throwing up the sponge altogether. He admits he has “ no
compact logical solution of the problem,” and cries out in
despair that the theologians “ are not called upon to construct
theodicaaas.” But that is precisely what they are called upon
to do, and if they cannot do it they should have the modesty
to be silent. It is their function to “ justify the ways of God
to men.” Let them perform it, or confess they cannot, and
retire from their pretentious business.
But we must be just to Dr. Farrar. He does supply two
arguments, not for God’s goodness, but for God’s existence.
The first is “ the starry heavens above.” Did they come by
chance ?■—as though God and chance were the only possible
alternatives, or as though chance were anything but contin
gency arising from human ignorance!
“ The starry heavens above.” “ It is all very well, gentlemen, but who
made these?’ asked the young Napoleon, pointing to the stars of heaven,
as he sat with the French savans on the deck of the vessel which was
carrying him to Egypt, after they had proved to their satisfaction that
there is no Grod. To most minds it is a question finally decisive.
�(12)
Colonel Ingersoll must smile at this childish logic. No
doubt to most minds it is finally decisive. Who made the
world or the stars? is a pertinent question to those who have
been taught that they were made. It is an idle question to
anyone with a moderate acquaintance with astronomy. On
that subject the French savans were better informed than
Napoleon.
Dr. Farrar is erroneous in supposing that the Atheist or
Agnostic is bound to “ account for the existence of matter
and force.” Accounting for them can only mean explaining
how they began, and the Atheist or Agnostic is not aware
that they had a beginning. The “ source of life ” is a question
that biology must solve. Until it does, the “ infidel ” waits
for information. No light is shed upon the problem by
supernatural explanations. Still less is the “infidel” called
upon to account for “ the freedom of the will.”' He knows of
no such freedom as Dr. Farrar means by this phrase. As
for “ the obvious design which runs through the whole of
nature,” it is so obvious that Charles Darwin wrote, “ the
longer I live the less I can see proof of design.”
The second of the two things that are “ ample to prove
the being of a God ” is “ the moral law within.” Dr. Farrar
asserts that Conscience “ is the voice of God within us.”
But assertion is not proof. Colonel Ingersoll would reply
that Conscience is the voice of human experience. No student
of evolution would admit Dr. Farrar’s assertion. The origin
and development of morality are seen by evolutionists to be
perfectly natural. It is futile to make assertions which your
opponent contradicts. Argument must rest upon admitted
facts. Dr. Farrar strikes an attitude, makes dogmatic state
ments, draws out the conclusion he has put into them, and
calls that discussion. He has yet to learn the rudiments of
debate. The methods of the pulpit may do for a pious
romance called the Life of Christ, but they are out of place
in a discussion with Colonel Ingersoll.
Misled by his fondness for preaching, Dr. Farrai* has for
gotten two of the four heads under which he reduced Colonel
Ingersoll’s arguments. He says nothing about “ the impos
sibility of miracles ” or “ the errors and imperfections of the
Bible.” But these are the very points that demanded his
�( 13 )
attention. The existence of God, and the problem of evil,
belong to what is called Natural Religion. Dr. Farrai’ is A
champion of Revealed Religion. He is not a Deist but a
Christian. He should therefore have defended the Bible.
His omission to do so may be owing to prudence or negli
gence. He has given us fifteen pages of “ A Few Words on
Colonel Ingersoll.” We should rejoice to see a “ Fewer Words
on Dr. Farrar ”
ARCHDEACON FARRAR’S SEVEN SILLY
QUESTIONS.
“ Archdeacon Farrar’s Seven Questions ” is the title of
a paragraph in the current number of The Young Man,
a paper which is proving the certitude of Christian truth,
after nearly two thousand years of preaching, by carrying
on a symposium on “What is it to be a Christian?” We
have interpolated the word “ Silly,” which is quite accurate,
and for which we owe Dr. Farrar no apology, since he
does not shrink from applying the description of “ stupendous
nonsense ” to the belief of his opponents.
Our method of criticism shall be honest. We shall give
the whole of the paragraph, and then answer the seven
silly questions seriatim.
“If you meet with an Atheist, do not let him entangle you into
the discussion of side issues. As to many points which he raisesyou must make the Rabbi’s answer: ‘I do not know.’ But ask him
these seven questions : 1. Ask him, What did matter come from ? Can
a dead thing create itself ? 2. Ask him, Where did motion come from ?
3. Ask him, Where life came from save the finger tip of Omnipotence ?
4. Ask him, Whence came the exquisite order and design in nature?
If one told you that millions of printers’ types should fortuitously
shape themselves into the divine comedy of Dante, or the plays of
Shakespeare, would you not think him a madman ? 5. Ask him, Whence
�( 14 )
came consciousness ? 6. Ask him, Who gave you free will ? 7. Ask
him, Whence came conscience ? He who says there is no God, in
the face of these questions, talks simply stupendous nonsense.”
These questions, be it observed, are put with great
deliberation. With regard to many points, not one o"
which is specified, Dr. Farrar admits that he can only
say “ I do not know.” But on these particular points
he is cocksure. His mind is not troubled with a scintillation
of doubt. He has no hesitation in saying that those who
differ from him are guilty of “ stupendous nonsense.” It
is a matter for regret, however, that he did not answer
the questions himself. By so doing he would have saved
Christian young men the trouble of hunting up an Atheist,
good at answering queries, in order to get the conundrums
solved; while, as the case now stands, the Christian young
men may go on for ever with a search as weary as that
of Diogenes, unless they happen to light on this number
of the Freethinker.
First (a) Question (we leave out “ Silly ” to avoid
repetition) : What did matter come from 7—First prove
that matter ever came, and we will then discuss what (or
where) it came from. Matter exists, and for all that anyone
knows to the contrary, it always existed. Its beginning
to be and its ceasing to be are alike inconceivable. The
question is like the old catch query, “ When did you leave
off beating your father ? ” the proper answer to which is,
“ When did I begin to beat my father ? ”
First (6) Question: Can a dead .thing create itself?—
The question is paradoxical. “Create itself” is a selfcontradiction. Creation, however defined, is an act, and
an act implies an actor. To create, a thing must first exist;
and self-creation is therefore an absurdity. The question
is consequently meaningless.
Second Question : Where did motion come from ?—Another
nonsensical question. Motion does not “come” as a special
change. Motion is universal and incessant. Molecular
movement is constantly going on even in what appear stable
masses. The presumption is that this was always so in the
past, and will be always so in the future.
Third Question : Where did life come from save the finger
�( "15 )
*
U,„
tip of Omnipotence ?—Why not the big toe of Omnipotence ?
Life is not an entity, but a condition. Its coming from any
where is therefore nonsensical. A living thing might “ come,”
because its position in space can be changed. Then arise
fresh difficulties. Can any man conceive the finger of an
infinite being, or form a mental picture of life, as a some
thing, flowing from the tip of that finger ? The question of
the origin of life pertains to the science of biology. When
biology answers it, as it has answered other perplexed ques
tions, Dr. Farrar will be enlightened. Meanwhile his
ignorance is no excuse for his dogmatism.
Fourth (a) Question : Whence came the exquisite order and
design in nature?—This is tautology. Design in nature
includes order in nature. And the question invites a Scotch
reply. Is there design in nature? No one disputes that
there is adaptation, but this is explained by Natural Selection.
The fit, that is the adapted, survives. But the unfit is produced in greater abundance than the fit. Theologians look
at the result and blink the process. Darwin, who studied
both, said, “ Where one would most expect design, namely,
in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think the less
I can see proof of design.” Dr. Farrar must catch his hare
before he cooks it. He must prove design before he requires
the Atheist to explain it. Perhaps he will begin with idiots,
cripples, deaf mutes, fleas, bugs, lice, eczema, cancers, tumors,
and tapeworms.
Fourth (6) Question: Could millions of printers' types
fortuitously shape themselves into the works of Dante or
Shakespeare ?—No, nor even into the works of Dr. Farrar.
But who evei’ said they could? Why not ask Atheists
whether the moon could be made of green cheese? Dr.
Farrar is no doubt alluding to what is called Chance. But
Atheists do not recognise chance as a cause. Chance is
contingency, and contingency is ignorance. The term
denotes a condition of our minds, not an operation of external
nature.
Fifth Question : Whence came consciousness ?—This is a
very silly or a very fraudulent question. Putting the
problem in this way insinuates a theological answer. Con
sciousness, like life, is not an entity, and did not come from
�( 16 )
anywhere. The only proper question is, What is tw\J
of consciousness ? This is an extremely difficult and in
problem. It will be solved, if at all, by the Darwi/s of
physio-psychology, not by the Farrars of the pulpit. The
worthy Archdeacon and the Christian young men must wait
until their betters have explained the development of con
sciousness. The supposition that they understand it is simply
ludicrous. Nor is any theory to be built on the bog of their
ignorance.
Sixth Question : Who gave you free will ?—Ay, who ? Has
man a free will, in the metaphysical sense of the words?
Martin Luther replied in the negative. He would have
laughed, or snorted, at Dr. Farrar’s question. Atheists are
all with Martin Luther on this point; although, of course,
they reject his theory that Clod and theDevjl are always con
tending for the rulership of the human will. They hold that
the will is determined by natural causes, like everything else
in the universe. To ask an Atheist, therefore, who gave him
free will, is asking him who gave him what he does not possess.
Seventh Question : Whence came conscience ?—This, agaim
is stupidly expressed. Conscience did not “ come ” from any
where. Further, before the Atheist answers Dr. Farrar’s
question, even in an amended form, he requires a definition.
What is meant by Conscience ? If it means the perception of
right and wrong, it is an intellectual faculty, which varies m
individuals and societies, some having greater discrimination
than others. If it means the recognition of distinct, settled
categories of right and wrong, it depends on social and
religious training. In a high state of civilisation these
categories approximate to the laws of social welfare and
disease; in a low state of civilisation they are fantastic and
fearfully distorted by superstition. There is hardly a single
vice that has not been practised as a virtue under a religious
sanction. Finally, if conscience means the feeling of obliga
tion, the sense of “ I ought,” it is a product of social evolu
tion. It is necessarily generated among gregarious beings,
and 'in the course of time Natural Selection weeds out the
individuals in whom it is lacking or deficient. Social types
of feeling survive, and the‘anti-social perish. And this is the
whole “ mystery ” of conscience.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Ingersollism defended against Archdeacon Farrar
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: 16 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Reply to Archdeacon Farrar's article A few words on Colonel Ingersoll, published in the North American Review. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N246
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Ingersollism defended against Archdeacon Farrar), 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
Frederick William Farrar
NSS
Robert Green Ingersoll
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/800fc040e22b699c8089dfc59e0bace9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WRLubWIz-TDz8XzZImyP75p%7EQ4j0oGQVY0t6-TSFNyq2mP%7EDOmHI9bS6kRRYjziF6ljaCo8zn2FYue4wI9ysEOQLT41fYIKt7QpcGDLg5avhhCSfvIBdNlGNHxE7cJZbuk9v-oQ-Hfyaf-JQlQfYJ3AXpoLb17-dKJDW9pKDIVjKR12d0xzcXj3VE0Za-PQfoY-pXE5gtkAWjnwu-zOOK0WINChYV7Mydaa9UgoXMaaJLRbrCV0IRtre26cpYuSm40304nbHEgLya8UndyoTqGcjxdUal%7Ehcu%7E2KLEpGZEVq9peZRYQVWdxkH3J%7E7r-8lkwID5amcv7xam4W-drmpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3cc2425044d0a6626c12de58fa51760d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SEOULS SOCIETY
DO I BLASPHEME?
AN ORATION
>
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
B. FOBDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1893.
�Do I Blaspheme ?
Ladies and Gentlemen,—Nothing can be more
certain than that no human being can by any possi
bility control his thought. We are in this world—we
see, we hear, we feel, we taste; and everything in
nature makes an impression upon the brain, and that
wonderful something enthroned there, with these
materials, weaves what we call thought, and the brain
can no more help thinking than the heart can help
beating. The blood pursues its old accustomed round
without our will. The heart beats without asking leave
of us, and the brain thinks in spite of all we can do.
This being true, no human being can justly be held
responsible for his thought, any more than for the
beating of his heart, any more than for the course pur
sued by the blood, any more than for his breathing the
air. And yet, for thousands of years, thought has
been held to be a crime, and thousands and millions
have threatened us with eternal fire if we give to others
the product of our brain I Each brain, in my judg
ment, is a field where nature sows the seed of thought,
and thought is the crop that man reaps, and it certainly
cannot be a crime to gather it; it certainly cannot be
crime to tell it, which simply amounts to the right to
sell your crop or exchange your product for the product
of another man’s brain. That is all it is. Most brains
—at least some—are rather poor fields, and the orthodox
�( 5 )
the sea, was better than prayers, better than the
influence of priests; and that you had better have a
good captain on board, attending to business, than
thousands of priests ashore praying.
We also found that we could cure some diseases, and
just as soon as we found that we could cure disease we
dismissed the priest. We have left him out now of all
of them, except it may be cholera and small-pox.
When visited by a plague some people get frightened
enough to go back to the old idea—to go back to the
priest—and the priest says, “ It has been sent as a
punishment.” Well, sensible people began to look
about; they saw that the good died as readily as the
bad; they saw that disease would attack the dimpled
child in the cradle and allow the murderer to go un
punished ; and so they began to think, in time, that
it was not sent as a punishment; that it was a natural
result; and thus the priest has stepped out of medicine.
In agriculture we need him no longer; he has nothing
to do with the crops. All the clergymen in this world
can never get one drop of rain out of the sky; and all
the clergymen in the civilised world cannot save one
human life. They tried it. Oh, but they say, “We
do not expect a direct answer to prayer ; it is the reflex
action we are after.” It is like a man endeavoring to
lift himself up by the straps of his boots ; he will never
do it, but he will get a great deal of useful exercise.
The missionary goes to some pagan land and there finds
a man praying to a god of stone, and it excites the
wrath of the good man. I ask you to-night, does not
that god answer prayer just as well as ours? Does he
not cause rain ? Does he not delay frost ? Does he
not snatch the ones that we love from the grasp of
death, precisely the same as others ? Is not the reflex
action as wholesome in his case as in ours ? Yet we
have ministers that are still engaged in that business.
They tell us that they have been “ called ”; that they
do not go into their profession as other people do, but
�( 7 )
take from the world the solace of orthodox Christi
anity ? ” What is that solace ? Let us he honest.
What is it ? If the Christian religion be true, thegrandest, greatest, noblest of the world are now in
hell, and the narrowest and meanest are now in
heaven. Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science,, the
most learned man of the most learned nation—with a
mind grand enough to grasp not simply this globe, but
this constellation—a man who shed light upon the
whole earth, a man who honored human nature, and
who won all his victories upon the field of thought—
that man, pure and upright, noble beyond description,
if Christianity be true, is in hell this moment. That
is what they call “solace,” “tidings of great joy.”
La Place, who read the heavens like an open book, who
enlarged the horizon of human thought, is there too,
Beethoven, master of melody and harmony, who added
to the joy of human life, and who has borne upon the
wings of harmony and melody millions of spirits to the
heights of joy, with his heart still filled with melody—
he is in hell to-day. Robert Burns, poet of love and
liberty, from whose heart like a spring gurgling and
running down the highways have come poems that have
filled the world with music and added lustre to human
love—that man who, in four lines, gave all the philo
sophy of human life; he is there with the rest.
Charles Dickens, whose genius will be a perpetual
shield, saving thousands and millions of children from
blows; who did more to make us tender with children
than any other writer that ever touched a pen—he is
there with the rest, according to our Christian reli
gion. A little while ago there died in this country a
philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, a man of the
loftiest ideal, a perfect model of integrity, whose mind
was like a placid lake and reflected truths like stars.
If the Christian religion be true, he is in perdition
to-night. And yet he sowed the seeds of thought, and
raised the whole world intellectually to a high plane.
�()
greatest woman the English-speaking people ever pro
duced ; she is with the rest. And this doctrine is called
“ glad tidings of great joy.”
Who are in heaven ? How could there be much "of
a heaven without the men I have named, the great men
who have endeavored to make the world grander; such
men as Voltaire, such men as Diderot, such men as the
•encyclopedists, such men as Hume, such men as Bruno,
such men as Thomas Paine ? If Christianity is true,
that man who spent his life in breaking chains is now
wearing the chains of God; that man who wished to
break down the prison walls of tyranny is now in the
prison of the most merciful Christ. It wrill not do. I
can hardly express to you to-night my contempt for
such a doctrine; and if it be true, I make my choice
to-day, and I prefer hell.
Who is in heaven? John Calvin I John Knox!
Jonathan Edwards ! Torquemada !—the builders of
dungeons; the men who have obstructed the march of
the human race. These are the men who are in
heaven; and who else ? Those who never had brain
enough to harbor a doubt. And they ask me : “ How
can you be wicked enough to attack the Christian
religion ?”
“ Oh,” but they say, “ God will never forgive you if
you attack the orthodox religion.” Now, when I read
the history of this world, and when I think of my
fellow men; when I think of the millions living in
poverty, and when I know that in the very air we
Breathe and the sunlight that visits our homes there
lurks an assassin ready to take our lives, and even when
we believe we are in the fulness of health and joy, they
are undermining us with their contagion—when I know
that we are surrounded by all these evils, and when I
think what man has suffered, I do not wonder if God
can forgive man, but I do often ask myself, “ Can man
forgive God?”
There is another thing. Some of these ministers—
�(11)
ing at the map. What is blasphemy ? It is what the
mistake says about the fact. It is what last year’s leaf
says about this year’s bud. It is the last cry of the
defeated priest. Blasphemy is the little breastwork
behind which hypocrisy hides; behind which mental
impotency feels safe. There is no blasphemy but the
open avowal of your honest thought, and he who
speaks as he thinks blasphemes.
What is the next thing? That I have had the
hardihood—it doesn’t take much—to attack the
sacred Scriptures. I have simply given my opinion.
And yet they tell me that the book is holy—that you
can make rags, make pulp, put ink on it, bind it in
leather, and make something holy. The Catholics have
a man for a Pope ; the Protestants have a book. The
Catholics have the best of it. If they elect an idiot
he will not last for ever, but it is impossible for us to
get rid of the barbarisms in our book. The Catholics
said, “We will not let the common people read the
Bible.” That was right. If it is necessary to believe
it in order to get to heaven, no man should run the risk
. of reading it. To allow a man to read the Bible on
such conditions was to set a trap for his soul. The
right way is never to open it, and when you get to the
day of judgment, and they ask you if you believe it,
say, “ Yes, I have never read it.” The Protestant gives
the book to a poor man and says, “ Read it, you are at
liberty to read.” “ Well, suppose I don’t believe it
when I get through?” “ Then you will be damned.”
No man should be allowed to read it on these conditions.
And yet Protestants have done that infinitely cruel
thing. If I thought it was necessary to believe it I
would say, never read another line in it, but just believe
it and stick to it. And yet these people really think
that there is something miraculous about that book.
They regard it as a fetish—a kind of amulet—a some
thing charmed, that will keep off evil spirits, or bad
luck; stop bullets, or do a thousand handy things for
�( 13 )
potence is simply all-powerful, and what good would
strength do with nothing ? The weakest man ever born
could lift as much nothing as God. And he could do
as much with it after he got it lifted. And yet a
doctor of divinity tells me that this world was made of
omnipotence.
And right here let me say that I find even in the
mind of this clergyman the seeds of infidelity. He is
trying to explain things. That is a bad symptom. The
greater the miracle the greater the reward for believing
it. God cannot afford to reward a man for believing
anything reasonable. Why, even the scribes and
Pharisees would believe a reasonable thing. Do you
suppose God is to crown you with eternal joy, and give
you a musical instrument for believing something when
the evidence is clear? No, sir ! The larger the miracle
the more the faith. And let me advise ministers of
Chicago, and of this country, never to explain a miracle.
A miracle cannot be explained. If you succeed in
explaining it, the miracle is gone. If you fail, you are
gone I My advice to the clergy is, use assertion; just
say, “ it is so,” and the larger the miracle the greater
the glory reaped in believing it. And yet this man is
trying to explain, pretending that God had some raw
material of some kind on hand.
And then I objected to the fact that he didn't make
the sun until the fourth day, and that, consequently,
the grass could not have grown ; could not have thrown
its mantle of green over the shoulders of the hill, and
that the trees could not blossom and cast their shade
upon the sod without some sunshine. And what does
this man say ? Why, that the rocks, when they crys
tallised, emitted light—even enough to raise a crop by.
And he says, “ Vegetation must have depended on the
glare of volcanoes in the moon.” What do you think
would be the fate of agriculture depending on “ the
glare of volcanoes in the moon ” ? Then he says “ the
aurora borealis.” Why, you couldn’t raise cucumbers
�( 15 )
us believe that the infinite God of the universe made
the worm that was at the root of Jonah’s vine on
purpose to vex Jonah. Great business I
The theologians admit that David and Solomon didmany bad things, but they say the wrath of God pur
sued them, and they were punished for their crimes.
And yet David is said to have been “ a man after God’s
own heart,” and if you will read the twenty-eighth
chapter of first Chronicles you will find that David
died full of years and honors. So I find in the great
book of prophecy, concerning Solomon: “ He shall
reign in peace and quietness, he shall be my son, and I
will be his father, and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom for ever.” Was that true ? Does that look
like “ being pursued by the wrath of God ? ”
It won’t do. But they say God couln’t do away
with slavery suddenly, nor with polygamy all at once;
that he had to do it gradually, that if he had told these
Jews you mustn’t have slaves, and one man that he
must have one wife, and one wife that she must have
one husband, he would have lost the control over them
notwithstanding all the miraculous power he had dis
played. . Is it not wonderful that, when they did all
these miracles, nobody paid any attention to them?
Isn’t it wonderful that, in Egypt, when he performed
these wonders, when the waters were turned into
blood, when all the people were smitten with disease
and covered with horrible animals, isn’t it wonderful
that it had no influence on them ? Do you know why
all these miracles didn’t affect the Egyptians ? They
were there at the time. Isn’t it wonderful, too, that
the Jews who had been brought from bondage, had
followed cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, who
had been miraculously fed, and for whose benefit
water had leaped from the rocks and followed them up
and down hill through all their journeyings, isn’t it
wonderful when they had seen the earth opened and
their companions swallowed, when they had seen God
�( 17 )
foundling hospital, “ Home for Religious Liberty 1”
It won’t do.
, ,
, .
What is the next thing I have said 1 1 have taken
the ground, and I take it again to-day, that the Bible
has only words of humiliation for women. 1 he Bible
treats woman as the slave, the serf, of man, and
wherever that book is believed in thoroughly woman is
a slave. It is the infidelity in the Church that gives
her what liberty she has to-day. Oh, but says the
gentleman, think of the heroines of the Bible. How
could a book be opposed to woman which has pictured
such heroines ? IVell, that is a good argument.
® s
answer it. Who are the heroines ? The first is Esther.
Who was she 1 Esther is a very peculiar book, and
the story is about this :—Ahasuerus was a king.
is
wife’s name was Vashti. She didn t please him. He
divorced her and advertised for another. A gentleman
by the name of Mordecai had a good-looking niece, and
he took her to market. Her name was Esther. 1
don’t feel like reading the whole of the second chapter,
giving the details of the mode of selection. It is suffi
cient to say she was selected. After a time there was a
gentleman by the name of Haman, who, I should think,
was the cabinet, according to the story. And this man
Mordecai began to put on considerable style because
his niece was the king’s wife, and he would not bow,
and he would not rise, or he would not meet this gentle
man with marks of distinguished consideration, so he
made up his mind to have Mordecai hanged, lhen
they got out an order to kill the Jews, and Esther went
to see the king. In these days they believed in the
Bismarckian style of government-all power came from
the king, not from the people, and if anybody went to
see the king without an invitation, and he failed to
hold out his sceptre to him, the person was killed, just
to preserve the dignity of the monarch. When Esther
arrived he held out the sceptre, and thereupon she
induced him to rescind the order for killing the Jews,
l
�.(19)
comes from the tomb, and I think that sometimes there
must be some mistake about it, because when he came
to die again thousands of people would say, “ Why,
he knows all about it.” Would it not be noted?
Would it not be noted if a man had two funerals?
You know it is a very rare thing for a man to have
two funerals.
Now, then, these are all the heroines they bring
forward to show you how much they thought of woman
in that day. In the days of the Old Testament they
did not even tell us when the mother of us all (Eve)
died, nor where she is buried, nor anything about it.
They do not even tell us where the mother of Christ
sleeps, nor when she did. Never is she spoken of after
the morning of the resurrection. He who descended
from the cross went not to see her; and the son had no
word for the broken-hearted mother.
The story is not true. I believe Christ was a great
and good man, but he had nothing about him miraculous
except the courage to tell what he thought about the
religion of his day. The New Testament, in relating
what occurred between Christ and his mother, mentions
three instances. Once, when they thought he had been
lost in Jerusalem, when he said to them, “Wist ye not
that I must be about my father’s business ?” Next, at
the marriage of Cana, when he said to his mother,
“ Woman, what have I to do with thee ?”—words
which he never said; and again from the cross, “Mother,
behold thy son”; and to the disciple, “Behold thy
mother!”
J
So of Mary Magdalene. In some respects there is
no character in the New Testament that so appeals to
us as one who truly loved Christ. She was first at the
sepulchre ; and yet when he meets her, after the resur
rection, he had for her the comfort only of the chilling
words, “ Touch me not?” I don’t believe it. There
were thousand of heroic women then, there are thou
sands of heroic women now. Think of women who
�(21 )
good in the neighborhood where she resides. I have
never had any other opinion. I was endeavoring to
show that we are now to have an aristocracy of brain
and heart—that is all; and 1 said, speaking of Louis
Napoleon, that he was not satisfied with simply being
an emperor, and having a little crown on his head, but
wanted to prove that he had something in his head, so
he wrote the life of Julius Cossar, and that made him
a member of the French Academy; and speaking of
King William, upon whose head had been poured the
divine petroleum of authority, I asked how he would,
like to ^change brains with Haeckel, the philosopher.
Then I went over to England, and said, “ Queen Vic
toria wears the garments of power given her by blind
fortune, by eyeless chance, whilst George Eliot is
arrayed in robes of glory woven in the loom of her own
genius.” Thereupon I am charged with disparaging a
woman. And this priest, in order to get even with me,
digs open the grave of George Eliot and endeavors to
stain her unresisting dust. He calls her an adulteress
—the vilest word in the languages of men, and he
does it because she hated the Presbyterian creed;
because she, according to his definition, was an Atheist;
because she lived without faith and died without fear;
because she grandly bore the taunts and slanders of the
Christian world. George Eliot carried tenderly in her
heart the faults and frailties of her race. She saw the
highway of eternal right through all the winding paths
where folly vainly plucks with thorn-pierced hands the
fading flowers of selfish joy; and whatever you may
think, or I may think, of the one mistake in all her sad
and loving life, I know and feel that in the court where
her conscience sat as judge, she stood acquitted pure
as light and stainless as a star. George Eliot has
joined the choir invisible, whose music is the gladness
of this world, and her wondrous lines, her touching
poems, will be read hundreds of years after every
sermon in which a priest has sought to stain her name
�( 23 )
should say, “ That can’t be; the Herald has the largest
circulation of any paper in the world.”
Three hundred millions of Christians, and here are
the nations that prove the truth of Christianity—
Russia, 80,000,000 of Christians, I am willing to admit
it, a country without freedom of speech, without
freedom of press, a country in which every mouth is a
bastile and every tongue a prisoner for life, a country
in which assassins are the best men in it. They call
that Christian. Girls sixteen years of age, for having
spoken in favor of human liberty, are now working in
Siberian mines. That is a Christian country. Only a
little while ago a man shot at the Emperor twice. The
Emperor was protected by his armor. The man was
convicted, and they asked him if he wished religious
consolation. “ No.” “ Do you believe in a God ?”
“ If there was a God there would be no Russia.”
Sixteen millions of Christians in Spain; Spain, that
never touched a shore except as a robber ; Spain, that
took the gold and silver of the New World and used
it as an engine of oppression in the old; a country in
which cruelty was worship and murder was prayer, a
country where flourished the Inquisition. I admit that
Spain is a Christian country. If you don’t believe it
I do. Read the history of Holland, read the history of
South America, read the history of Mexico—a chapter
of cruelty beyond the power of language to express.
I admit that Spain is orthodox. If you go there you
will find the man wh© robs you and who asks God to
forgive you, both Christians! Spain is a country
where infidelity has not made much headway, but
where we see now a little dawn of a brighter day,
where such men as Castelar and others, who begin to
see that one school-house is equal to three cathedrals,
and one teacher worth all the priests. Italy is another
Christian nation, with 28,000,000 of Christians. In
Italy lives “ the only authorised agent ” of God—the
Pope. For hundreds of years Italy was the beggar of
�( 25 )
Pagan; it is human. Our fathers retired all the gods
from politics. Our fathers laid down the doctrine that
the right to govern comes, not from the clouds, but from
the consent to be governed. Our fathers knew that •
if they put an infinite God into the Constitution there
would be no room left for the people. Our fathers
used the language of Lincoln, and they made a govern
ment of the people, for the people, by the people.
This is not a Christian country. A gentleman, in one
of my lectures, interrupted me to ask, “ How about
Delaware ?” I replied : There was a man in Washing
ton, some twenty or thirty years ago, who came there
and said he was a Revolutionary soldier and wanted
a pension. He was so bent and bowed over that the
wind blew his shoe-strings into his eyes. They asked
him how old he was, and he said fifty years. “ Why,
good man, you can’t get a pension, because the war
was over before you were born. You mustn’t fool us.”
“ Well,” said he, “ I’ll tell you the truth; I lived sixty
years in Delaware, but 1 never count those years, and
hope God won’t.” And these Christian nations which
have been brought forward as the witnesses of the
truth of the Scriptures, owe 25,000,000,000 dols.,
which represents Christian war, Christian swords,
Christian cannon, Christian shot, and Christian shell.
The sum is so great that the imagination is dazed in
its contemplation. That is the result of loving your
neighbor as yourself.
The next great argument brought forward by these
gentlemen is the persecution of the Jews. We are
told in the nineteenth century that God has the Jews
persecuted simply for the purpose of establishing the
authenticity of the Scriptures, and that every Jewish
home burned in Russia throws light on the gospel, and
every violated Jewish maiden is another instance that
God still takes an interest in the holy Scriptures. That
is their doctrine. They are “ fulfilling prophecy.”
The Christian grasps the Jew, strips him, robs him,
�( 27 )
cerity of the martyr, and the barbarity of his persecutors.
That is all it proves. But you must remember that this
gentleman who believes in this doctrine is a Presbyterian,
and why should a Presbyterian object ? After a few
hundred years of burning he expects to enjoy the
eternal auto-da-fe of hell—an auto-da-fe that will
be presided over by God and his angels, and
they will be expected to applaud. He is a Presby
terian ; and what is that ? It is the worst religion of
this earth. I admit that thousands and millions of
Presbyterians are good people—no man ever being half
so bad as his creed. I am not attacking them. I am
attacking their creed. I am attacking what this
religion calls “ Glad tidings of great joy.” And accord
ing to these “ tidings,” hundreds of billions and billions
of years ago our fate was irrevocably and for ever
fixed; and God, in the secret counsels of his own in
scrutable will, made up his mind whom he would save
and whom he would damn. When thinking of that
God I always think of a mistake of a Methodist
minister during the war. He commenced the prayer—
and never did one more appropriate for the Presby
terian or Methodist God go up—“ O, thou great and
unscrupulous God.” This Presbyterian believes that
billions of years before that baby in the cradle—that
little dimpled child basking in the light of a mother’s
smile—w’as born, God had made up' his mind to damn
it; and when Talmage looks at one of those children
who will probably be damned he is cheerful about it;
he enjoys it. That is Presbyterianism—that God made
man and damned him for his own glory. If there is
such a God I hate him with every drop of my blood;
and if there is a heaven it must be where he is not.
Now think of that doctrine I Only a little while ago
there was a ship from Liverpool out eighty days with
the rudder washed away: for ten days nothing to eat
—nothing but bare decks and hunger ; and the captain
took a revolver in his hand, put it to his brain and said,
�(29 )
The Bible is not inspired. Ministers know nothing
about another world. They don’t know. I am satis
fied there is no world of eternal pain. If there is a
world of joy, so much the better. I have never put
out the faintest star of human hope that ever trembled
in the night of life. All I can say is, there was a time
when I was not: after that I was ; now I am. And it
is just as probable that I will live again as it was that
I could have lived before I did.
But they say to me, “ If we let the churches go,
what will be left ? ” The world will still be here.
Men and women will be here. The page of history
will be here. The walls of the world will be adorned
with art, the niches rich with sculpture; music will be
here, and all there is of life and joy. And there will be
homes here and the fireside, and there will be a common
hope without a common fear. Love will be here, and
love is the only bow on life’s dark cloud. Love was the
first to dream immortality. Love is the morning and
the evening star. It shines upon the cradle; it sheds
its radiance upon the peaceful tomb. Love is the mother
of melody, for music is its voice. Love is the builder of
every home, the kindler of every fire upon every hearth.
Love is the enchanter, the magician that changes
worthless things to joy, and makes right royal kings
and queens of common clay. Love is the perfume of
that wondrous flower, the heart. Without that sacred
passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts, and
with it earth is heaven, and we are gods.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
16
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
". 0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. 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
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE
...
...
0 3
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
" 0 3
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
..
0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
... o 2
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?
” o 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
.
0 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
o 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
0 1
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
0 ,
LIVE TOPICS
...
”■ 0 j
REAL BLASPHEMY
..’
0 1
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
..
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
”* 0 1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
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 & 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
Do I blaspheme? an oration
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: 29 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 76b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N341
G5788
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 (Do I blaspheme? an oration), 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
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e4143934c957822b6e4787a76ff8b640.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aWA4qZ9k1thQaOu1J4M9baEeNwnyNaFNdiEtHWI8KWuCHsnjTSGcY8uFC5rc4v%7EUpsDjCyI6pZp4osenVUUFSb5A1eNKWVw9GIahQLYhsi1MK5sxB2Sn1Mpdyfy9nKBYts5S7PAI35u2aOZOQJ6CYN7iFcDv2Jw-%7Enwpr7ZrOh6DiheIGqK0g94VpEDHLIZID4jgAWhRoRJqtitdtmctrD1lXlr6aNN6JniTsYN2fo124lJ-PUUp8OvoToiKXvIDM--YskS8-8v7D6bByLCp9znV2Pm0NhaoEIzwSM4B5yc6Xuhmgs4HPREEZviI1L%7ENWQkfapj%7EeJbgVl2ITqLhSg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
99d43b758acc90c6c18b7c0cb1f1a9f0
PDF Text
Text
PRICE
PART 5.
FREETHOUBHT
AND
Secular Songs
COMPILED BY
J. M. WHEELER.
J,
Xonöon :
R. FORDER,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
Freethought Readings
AND
Secular Songs.
COMPILED BY
J.
M.
WHEELER.
London:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�LONDON :
A. BONNER, PRINTER, 34 BOUVERIE STREET,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
�i
I
I
��SECULAR SONGS.
193
WISDOM.
------------
C.M.
Happy the man whose cautious steps
Still keep the golden mean ;
Whose life, to wisdom’s rules conform’d
Preserves a conscience clean.
Not of himself too highly thinks,
Nor acts the boaster’s part;
His modest tongue the language speaks
Spontaneous from his heart.
Not in low scandal’s arts he deals,
For truth dwells in his breast;
With grief he sees his neighbors’ faults,
And thinks and hopes the best.
To sect or party his large soul
Disdains to be confin’d ;
He loves the good of every name
’Mong all the human kind.
STAND UP FOR FREEDOM.
Air—Sankey’s Solos, No. 15.
Stand up ! Stand up for freedom,
Ye soldiers of Freethought;
Raise high the noble banner,
’Neath which our fathers fought.
From victory unto victory—
The people we will lead,
Till every wrong is righted
And Justice reigns indeed.
Stand up ! Stand up for freedom
Against the fierce array
Of Ignorance and Bigotry,
Which strive the Truth to slay.
o
�194
SECULAR SONGS.
No frowning gods fill us with awe,
Our minds are free as air ;
The terrors of the Christian law,
For freedom’s cause we dare.
Stand up ! Stand up for freedom,
Till we remove the stain
Of the blood of noble martyrs,
Whom Bigotry has slain ;
Till kings and priests shall lose the power
Our leaders to consign
To scaffold, or to dungeon tower,
Or dark Siberian mine.
Stand up ! Stand up for freedom,
’Tis the noblest cause to serve ;
The music of our onward march,
Our arts and arms shall nerve 1
To raise Truth’s spotless banner,
And keep it still unfurled—
Emblazoned with the hallowed names
Of the saviours of the world.
Stand up ! Stand up for freedom,
We know our cause is just;
And clothed in Reason’s armor,
We smile at every thrust,
Which Falsehood aims against the life
Of our humanity;
And onward press thro’ all the strife,
Till all mankind are free.
REAL
LOSS.
Something is lost when your possessions perish,
When fortune pitiless for ever frowns,
But still a dream of better days you cherish,
Of days which fortune, changed, with rapture crowns.
�SECULAR SONGS.
I95
How much is lost when tarnished is your glory,
When you are cursed by a dishonored name ?
But combat, bear, and toil, you live in story ;
Atonement gains a new unsullied fame.
All, all, is lost, when noble valor leaves you,
When craven terrors bring profound despair,
Nothing on earth more gladdens now or grieves you :
Then seek the grave, your home is only there.
True life is in true courage; sternly, boldly,
The true man welcomes grand the dreadest doom ;
Fiery in his heroic deeds, he coldly
And unrepining sinks into the tomb.
After Gothe, by W. Maccall.
BETTER
RUB
THAN
RUST.
Idler ! why lie down to die ?
Better rub than rust;
Hark ! the lark sings in the sky—
“ Die when die thou must 1
Day is waking, leaves are shaking,
Better rub than rust.”
In the grave there’s sleep enough—
“ Better rub than rust;
Death, perhaps, is hunger-proof,
Die when die thou must;
Men are mowing, breezes blowing,
Better rub than rust.”
He who will not work shall want;
Nought for nought is just—
Won’t do, must do, when he can’t;
“ Better rub than rust.
Bees are flying, sloth is dying,
Better rub than rust.”
E. Elliott.
�SECULAR SONGS.
ig6
COURAGEThe world was ne’er improved
By timid, fearful men ;
Nor mighty wrongs removed
By slavish tongue or pen.
Our noble sires of old
Were dauntless and were brave ,
Their hearts to truth not cold,
Dared prison-cell and grave.
They suffered for the right,
They won the martyr-crown,
They fought the noble fight,
Tfey braved the priesthood s frow .
Help on what they began.
And strive for objects great,
Let us their errors shun,
Their virtues imitate.
the
better
E. L..
creed.
lH-theeSCl:fXB-eZdght. instead
Mother, O where is t is
Is it richly endowed, and upheld by
state,
An
a nt- rulers are monkish knaves,
Whose despot ruler
wretched slaves ?
And the priest-ridden people wretched
CanitbefcoIntheha1WiheVaticanan?
That truth and science^are^^
�197
•SECULAR SONGS.
Is it nearer home, when on Sabbath days
The hearers yawn while the minister prays,
Or nod assent while he dares to tell
That honest sceptics are doomed to hell ?
Is it truth, they teach, dear mother, say,
From the Protestant pulpits on Sabbath day ?
Not so, not so, my child.
Eye would not see it, could they prevent,
Ear would not hear with their consent,
The little band still struggles away,
Waiting the dawn of a brighter day ;
When the hoary fabric of error shall fall
Then shall flourish the Freethought Hall.
It is there, it is there, my child.
J. Wilson.
HEAVEN
ON
EARTH.
When kings are forgotten and priests are no more,
When royal and righteous mean truth at the core,
When work stands for worship, and worship is worth,
The kingdom of heaven will come on the earth.
When valor is noble, when toil is secure,
When hope may be cheerful, and sacrifice sure,
When service shrinks not from its glorious girth,
The kingdom of heaven will come on the earth,
When honor means duty, when duty is known,
When faith dwells no more in her closet alone,
When conscience to consequent action gives birth,
The kingdom of heaven will come on the earth.
When love liketh wisdom, and worshippeth right,
When peace kisseth him who has fought the good fight,
When virtue is mother of beauty and worth,
The kingdom of heaven will come on the earth.
W. J. Linton.
�SECULAR SONGS.
VICTORY.
Work can never miss its wages,
One wide song rings through the ages
“ Ever loss true gain presages.”
Not alone that flowers are blowing
Over graves; that bread is growing
In warm tears from heaven flowing.
Let the conquerer blush for winning
Little worth his conquest sinning:
They who lose are so beginning.
Through the years one chorus ringeth
The death-chant the martyr singeth
Is the root whence vidtory springeth.
Ever through the book of ages
The same echoes close the pages :
“ Ever loss true gain presages.”
W. J. Linton.
THE
TRUE
EDEN.
All before us lies the way:
Give the past unto the wind :
All before us is the day :
Night and darkness are behind.
Not where long-past ages sleep
Seek we Eden’s golden trees ;
In the future, folded deep,
Are its mystic harmonies.
Eden, with its angels bold,
Trees, and flowers, and coolest sea,
Is less an ancient story told
Than a glowing prophecy.
�I99
SECULAR SONGS.
In the spirit’s perfect air,
In the passions tame and kind,
Innocence from selfish care,
The true Eden shall we find.
It is coming, it shall come
To the patient and the striving;
To the quiet heart at home
Thinking wise, and faithful living.
When the soul to sin hath died,
True and beautiful and sound;
Then all earth is sanctified
Up springs Paradise around.
Emerson.
TRUTH.
--------
8's.
A conscious fortitude sustains
The heart of him who guile disdains;
Firm as a rock his faith he builds,
Which to no storm or tempest yields:
He builds on truth, whence ev’ry joy
Is lasting, free from all alloy.
Shall servile imitation’s smile,
Us of this fortitude beguile;
And, led by custom, visions prize,
While truth seems little in our eyes ?
It must not be; vain dreams begone !
Oh ! give us truth, and truth alone.
’Tis truth from error purifies,
While vice but borrows error’s guise,
With dazzling show to lure the sight,
And make what’s wrong seem what is right;
But truth and virtue seek no aid,
Both best in native worth array’d.
z
�200
SECULAR SONGS.
THE DAWN OF FREETHOUGHT.
•------------
L.M.
A glorious day at length is breaking,
When Freethought shall triumphant reign;
The world from slumber is awaking-,y
o
In error ne’er to sleep again.
The gloomy night of Superstition
Flies before the approaching day :
Religious fraud and imposition
Can our minds no longer sway.
As the hazy mists of morning
Fly before the sun’s bright beams,
So let Truth, our path adorning,
Scatter all those foolish dreams.
Though long by priestly lore confounded,
Let us seek a better way,
And with joy and peace surrounded,
Hail with triumph Freedom’s day.
Anon.
TRUTH.
------ *-----
All nature speaks ! let men give ear,
And stand erect, attentive, free;
The voice of nature they shall hear,
The works of nature they shall see.
Behold the stars with sparkling light,
And planets which in order move ;
They mount in ether’s tow’ring height,
And raise our thoughts to orbs above.
The glorious sun, whose gentle beams
Enliven all things here below,
And lucid moon, with paler gleams,
Does nature’s power in grandeur show.
L. M.
�201
SECULAR SONGS.
Survey the whole capacious earth,
The sea and land, rocks, hills, and plains;
The power of nature gave them birth,
And by one law the whole maintains.
Behold the trees in verdure rise,
What beauty shines in all their leaves !
Behold the birds that mount the skies,
And fish that fill the mighty seas:
In them is seen the matchless power,
From which all living beings came;
Then let us all the truth adore,
And bow before her mighty name.
EDUCATION.
There is in every human heart
Some not completely barren part,
Where seeds of love and truth might grow,
And flowers of generous virtue blow ;
To plant, to watch, to water there,
This be our duty, this our care.
And sweet it is the growth to .trace
Of worth, of intellect, of grace,
In bosoms where our labors first
Bid the young seed-time burst,
And lead it on from hour to hour
To ripen into perfect flower.
The heart of man’s a soil which breeds
Or sweetest flowers or vilest weeds :
Flowers, lovely as the morning’s light :
Weeds, deadly as the aconite ;
Just as his heart is trained to bear
The poisonous weed or flow’ret fair.
Bowring.
�202
SECULAR SONGS.
THE NEW
BORN
LIGHT.
L.M.
-------------
The day is here, the dawn of hope,
The light of some new life supreme,
For which in sadness we did grope,
Of which in gladness we did dream.
Clear reason, steadfast love and faith,
In greater deeds and purer joy—
These take the misery from death,
These all our mocking doubts destroy.
We lose the fear which once enthralled,
We hold the hope which once we lost;
Our souls no longer move appalled
O’er some dark ocean, tempest-tost.
But alway with the new-born light,
And alway toward the far-off peace,
With faith in truth and trust in right,
Move onward till their flight shall cease.
PRESENT
TIME.
-------------
C. M. D.
[From “ Gems of Moral Song,'* by permission of
Mr. F. Pitman, London.]
There’s no time like the present time,
The future is not ours,
If we would make our lives sublime,
Improve the present hours.
For oh, how little can we tell
What future hours may bring,
So if we use the present well,
Our past will bear no sting.
There’s no time like the present time,
The deeds we do to-day
May make our memories sublime
When we have passed away;
�203,
SECULAR SONGS.
The present is the time to build
The structure of our past;
Let every stone and tile be made,
Of thoughts and deeds to last.
There’s no time like the present time,
For doing kindly deeds,
And gathering in a generous store
To serve our future needs;
To-day we write a page of life
The future shall unfold ;
But let there be no tale of strife,
No dross among the gold.
NEW
YEAR’S
EVE.
-----Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky;
The flying cloud, the frosty light;
The year is dying in the night;
Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.
L.M.
Ring out the old, ring in the new,
Ring, happy bells, across the snow;
The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.
Ring out the grief that saps the mind
For those that here we see no more;
Ring out the feud of rich and poor,
Ring in redress for all mankind.
Ring out the slowly dying cause,
And ancient forms of party strife;
Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws.
Ring out false pride in place and blood,
The civic slander and the spite,
Ring in the love of truth and right,
Ring in the common love of good.
Tennysonl
*
�204
SECULAR SONGS.
EARTHLY
PARADISE.
Tell me not of climes celestial,
Mansions furnished in the skies,
Whither souls from earth disjointed,
Shall take airy wing and rise.
Tell me not of endless pleasures,
For a life of toil and pain, '
When awak’ning from death’s slumber,
Men shall rise and live again.
Sure this earth, a hell sufficient,
Might a paradise be made,
Were not keeping it so wretched
A commodity in trade.
Dream no longer, wake to action,
And bid grief give place to mirth ;
Let each man be deemed a brother—
Make a heaven upon earth.
THE
VOICE
AND
PEN.
Oh ! the Orator’s voice is a mighty power,
As it echoes from shore to shore,
And the fearless pen has more sway o’er men,
Than the murderous cannon’s roar !
What bursts the chain far over the main,
And brightens the captives den ?
Tis the fearless pen and the voice of power,
Hurrah ! for the Voice and Pen !
<
Hurrah!
Hurrah for the Voice and Pen !
The tyrant knaves who deny Man’s rights,
And the cowards who blanch with fear,
�SECULAR SONGS.
Exclaim with glee—“ No arms have ye,
Nor cannon, nor sword, nor spear,
Your hills are ours, with our forts and towers
We are masters of mount and glen.”
Tyrants beware ! for the arms we bear
Are the Voice and the fearless Pen!
Oh ! these are the swords with which we fight,
The arms in which we trust;
Which no tyrant hand will dare to brand
Which time cannot dim or rust.
When these we bore we triumphed before,
With these we’ll triumph again,
And the world will say no power can stay
The Voice and the fearless Pen !
TRUTH.
■------------
L. M.
Be error known on earth no more,
But truth displayed from shore to shore,
Till men of every land shall see,
That it alone shall make them free.
Truth makes our way both clear and bright,
As sunbeams from the source of light ;
Its glorious rays will never fail,
But will through endless time prevail.
Through earth its glory be displayed,
As one bright day without a shade,
Where all may in its beauty find
Love, to improve the human mind.
Hail, Truth ! our friend, assist our cause ;
Inspire our hearts, teach us thy laws ;
From ignorance our minds set free,
Let wisdom our instructor be.
�2o6
SECULAR SONGS.
NOBILITY.
True worth is in being, not seeming—
In doing, each day that goes by,
Some little good—not in the dreaming
Of great things to do by and by ;
For whatever men say in blindness,
And spite of the fancies of youth,
There’s nothing so kingly as kindness,
And nothing so royal as truth.
We get back our mete as we measure—
We cannot do wrong and feel right,
Nor can we give pain and gain pleasure,
For justice avenges each slight.
The air for the wing of the sparrow.
The bush for the robin and wren,
But always the path that is narrow
And straight for the children of men.
’Tis not in the pages of story
The heart of its ills to beguile,
Though he who makes courtship to Glory
Gives all that he hath for her smile ;
For when from her heights he hath won her
Alas ! it is only to prove
That nothing’s so sacred as honor,
And nothing so loyal as love!
We cannot make bargains for blisses,
Nor catch them like fishes in nets;
And sometimes the thing our life misses
Helps more than the thing which it gets ;
For good lieth not in pursuing,
Nor gaining of great nor of small,
¿But just in the doing, and doing
As we would be done by, is all.
�SECULAR SONGS.
2G7
Through envy, through malice, and hating,
Against the world early and late,
No jot of our courage abating,
Our part is to work and to wait.
And slight is the sting of his troubles
Whose winnings are less than his worth ;
For he who is honest is noble,
Whatever his fortune or birth.
Alice Cary.
THE
TRUE
PATRIOT.
Is there a thought can fill the human mind,
More pure, more vast, more generous, more refined,
Than that which guides the enlightened patriot’s toil ?
Not he whose view is bounded by his soul—
Not he whose narrow heart can only shrine
The land—the people that he calleth mine;
Not he who to set up that land on high,
Will make whole nations bleed, whole nations die ;
Not he who calling that land’s rights his pride,
Tramples the rights of all the earth beside—
No ! He it is, the just, the generous soul
Who owneth brotherhood with either pole,
Stretches from realm to realm his spacious mind,
And guards the weal of all the human kind,
Holds Freedom’s banner o’er the earth unfurled,
And stands the guardian patriot of a world !
TRUTH.
Think truly, and thy thoughts
Shall the world’s famine feed ;
Speak truly, and each word of thine
Shall be a fruitful seed ;
Live truly, and thy life shall be
A great and noble creed.
�2o8
SECULAR SONGS.
HUMANITY.
Hush the loud cannon’s roar,
The frantic warrior's call !
Why should the earth be drenched with gore,
Are we not brothers all ?
Want, from the wretch depart,
Chains, from the captive fall!
Sweet Mercy, melt the oppressor’s heart;
Sufferers are brothers all.
Churches and sedts, strike down
Each mean partition-wall!
Let Love each harsher feeling drown ;
For men are brothers all.
Let Love and Truth alone
Hold human hearts in thrall,
That Heaven its work at length may own,
And men be brothers all.
J. Johns.
HUMBLE
INFLUENCE.
a little streamlet flow
Along a peaceful vale :
A thread of silver, soft and slow,
It wandered down the vale;
Just to do good it seemed to move,
Directed by the hand of love.
I
saw
The valley smiled in living green;
A tree, which near it gave
From noontide heat a friendly screen,
Drank from its limpid wave.
The swallow brushed it with his wing,
And followed its meandering.
�SECULAR SONGS.
209
But not alone to plant and bird
That little stream was known;
Its gentle murmur far was heard,
A friend’s familiar tone !
It glided by the cotter’s door,
It bless’d the labor of the poor.
And would that I could thus be found,
While travelling life’s brief way,
A humble friend to all around,
Where’er my footsteps stray;
Like that pure stream with tranquil breast,
Like it, still blessing, and still blest.
Stoddart.
A BRAVE
HEART.
Let the world scorn, Fortune make jest of me,
Fling its worst venom to sully my name,
Mock and deride, or flout and despise me,
Thousands of others have known just the same.
Now ’tis for me, now p’rhaps some other wight [Repeat].
Surely will feel all its sting and its smart.
So the world wags, so the world wags,
Well, let it please itself; well, let it please itself—
Fortune will come, if you bear a stout heart 1 [Repeat.]
Let the world scorn, I’ll be no sychophant,
Creeping and crawling to woo its false smile,
Bowing and cringing to sinister influence,
Seeking reward thro’ some treacherous wile.
No ! not for me, spite of adversity
[Repeat.]
Mid life’s stern fray I’ll yet bear my part,
Helping myself, helping myself,
And my neighbour if needing it, my neighbour
if needing it,
Fortune will come, only bear a stout heart I
[Repeat.]
Charles J. Rowe.
Music by Godfrey Marks, from E. Donajowski, 1 Little Marlborough
Street, W.
5
�21.0
SECULAR SONGS.
BE
UP
AND
DOING.
Long hath the world in darkness lain,
And languished long in grief and pain;
And still the night broods sad and drear,
And still men sigh in want and fear.
When shall this darkness pass away,
When shall the night be turned to day ?
And when shall want and sorrow cease
And all be calm and joy and peace ?
’Tis vain to seek for help from prayer,
For work alone relieves from care;
In vain, in vain, men look above
For what must spring from human love.
To us, to us, the power is given
To soothe the souls with anguish riven :
To banish want and vice and woe,
And make a heaven on earth below.
HOPE.
Hope, though slow she be, and late,
Yet outruns swift time and fate ;
And aforehand loves to be
With most remote futurity.
Hope is comfort in distress,
Hope is in misfortune bliss,
Hope, in sorrow, is delight,
Hope is day in darkest night.
Hope casts anchor upward, where
Storms durst never domineer;
Trust; and Hope will welcome thee
From storms to full security.
Beaumont.
�SECULAR SONGS.
2II
CHARITY.
Let us all help one another,
And a heart of kindness show,
As down time’s stream, my brother!
In the boat of Life we row ;
For when rough may be the weather,
And the skies are overcast,
If we only pull together
We shall brave the storm at last!
Let us all help one another,
In the springtide’s sunny ray,
And the bonds of friendship, brother 1
Strengthen still from day to day ;
When there’s bright hope of the morrow,
Hollow hearts will fawn and cling,
But when comes the night of sorrow,
Only true ones comfort bring!
G. L. Banks.
AGE
THE
OF
REASON.
-------------
S.M.
Dark superstition’s veil
No more men’s eyes shall blind;
But truth unsullied will display
Her charms to all mankind.
Then shall the time arrive,
The long expected time,
When peace, good-will, and social love
Will reign in every clime.
On parent knees, a naked new-born child,
Weeping thou sat’st while all around thee smiled;
So live that, sinking in thy long last sleep,
Calm thou mayst smile while all around thee weep.
i’wiiiPTO
‘
Sir W. Jones, 1746-1794.
p2
�212
SECULAR SONGS.
AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP.
The bud will soon become a flower,
The flower become a seed;
Then seize, O youth, the present hour,
Of that thou hast most need.
Do thy best always, do it now,—
For in the present time,
As in the furrows of a plough
Fall seeds of good or crime.
The sun and rain will ripen fast
Each seed that thou hast sown;
And every act and word at last
By its own fruit be known.
And soon the harvest of thy toil
Rejoicing thou shalt reap ;
Or o’er thy wild neglected soil
Go forth in shame to weep.
Jones Very (1813-1880).
PSALM
OF
LIFE.
--------
8.7.8.7.
Tell me not in mournful numbers,
“ Life is but an empty dream ! ”
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow.,
Is our destined end or way ;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Finds us farther than to-day.
Art is long, and time is fleeting,
And our hearts, tho’ stout and brave,
Still like muffled drums are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.
�SECULAR SONGS.
213
In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of life,
Be not like dumb driven cattle,
Be a hero in the strife.
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime ;
And departing leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time.
Footprints that perhaps another
Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate ;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.
H. W. Longfellow (1807-82).
FLOWERS OR THORNS !
We must not hope to be mowers,
And to gather the ripe gold ears,
Until we have first been sowers,
And water’d the furrows with tears.
It is not just as we take it—
This mystical world of ours :
Life’s field will yield, as we make it,
A harvest of thorns or flowers 1
A. Cary.
Blest be the man who gives us peace,
Who bids the trumpet hush its horrid clang ;
And, every vigor from the work of death
To grateful industry converting, makes
The city flourish and the country smile !
J. Thomson, 1700-1748.
�214
SECULAR SONGS.
“ VANITY.”
Through wildwood valleys roaming,
A maiden by my side,
I vowed to love her evermore,
My beautiful, my bride.
“ All is vanity, vanity,”
A wise man said to me,
I pressed my true love’s yielding hand,
And answered, frank and free.
“ If this be vanity, who’d be wise,
Vanity let it be.”
I sat with boon companions,
We quaffed the joyous wine,
We drank to worth with three times three,
To love with nine times nine.
“ All is vanity, vanity,”
Said wisdom, scorning me,
We filled our goblets once again,
And sang with hearty glee.
“ If this be vanity, Hip, Hurrah,
Vanity let it be.”
Chas. Mackay.
HAPPINESS
WITHIN.
It surely is a wasted heart
It is a wasted mind,
That seeks not in the inner world
Its happiness to find:
For happiness is like the bird
That broods above its nest
And finds beneath its folded wings
Life’s dearest and its best.
Letitia E. Landon, 1802-1838.
�215
SECULAR SONGS.
REASON.
Joy to the world the light is come,
The only lawful king ;
Let every heart prepare it room,
And moral nature sing.
Joy to the earth ! now reason reigns;
Let men their songs employ ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains,
Repeat the sounding joy.
No more let superstition grow,
No thorns infest the ground ;
This light will make its blessings flow
To earth’s remotest bound.
SCATTER
SEEDS
OF
KINDNESS.
Let us gather up the sunbeams
Lying all around our path ;
Let us keep the wheat and roses,
Casting out the thorns and chaff;
Let us find our sweetest comfort
In the blessings of to-day,
With a patient hand removing
All the briers from the way.
Then scatter seeds of kindness,
Then scatter seeds of kindness,
Then scatter seeds of kindness,
For our reaping by-and-by.
Strange we never prize the music
Till the sweet-voiced bird has flown !
Strange that we should slighc the violets
Till the lovely flowers are gone!
�2l6
SECULAR SONGS.
Strange that summer skies and sunshine
Never seem one-half so fair,
As when winter’s snowy pinions
Shake the white down in the air.
Then scatter, etc.
If we knew the baby fingers,
Pressed upon the window-pane,
Would be cold and stiff to-morrow:—
Never trouble us again—
Would the bright eyes of our darling
Catch the frown upon our brow ?
Would the prints of rosy fingers
Vex us then as they do now ?
Then scatter, etc.
Ah ! those little ice-cold fingers,
How they point our memories back
To the hasty words and actions
Strewn along our backward track !
How those little hands remind us,
As in snowy grace they lie,
Not to scatter thorns—but roses,
For our reaping by-and-by.
Then scatter, etc.
HOME
SWEET
HOME.
’Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam,
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.
A charm from the skies seems to hallow us there,
Which seek through the world, is ne’er met with elsewhere.
Home! home ! sweet, sweet home !
There’s no place like home! there’s no place like home !
An exile from home splendor dazzles in vain—
Oh ! give me my lowly thatch’d cottage again ;
The birds singing gaily, that came at my call;
Give me them, witn the peace of mind, dearer than all.
Home, home, ere.
H. Payne.
�SECULAR SONGS.
WORDS AND ACTS OF KINDNESS.
Little words of kindness,
How they cheer the heart1
What a world of gladness
Will a smile impart !
How a gentle accent
Calms the troubled soul,
When the waves of passion
O’er it wildly roll !
Little acts of kindness,
Nothing do they cost;
Yet, when they are wanting,
Life’s best charm is lost.
Little acts of kindness,
Richest gems of earth,
Though they seem but trifles,
Priceless is their worth.
IT CAN’T BE ALWAYS SUNSHINE.
It can’t be always sunshine,
For, since the world was made,
By turns has man been walking
In sunshine and in shade.
Then why should care oppress us,
When clouds obscure the day ?
Through ev’ry doubt and danger,
We’ve hope to lead the way !
There’s sunlight in the distance,
Wherever we may be,
Which they who are in earnest
Can never fail to see.
It can't be always sunshine :
Should we the gloom despise ?
217
�2l8
SECULAR SONGS.
If we saw not our errors,
We never should be wise.
The race crowns not the fleetest,
Nor vict’ry oft the strong ;
And truth can only triumph
By grappling with the wrong.
Then onward for the future,
Nor heed the present gloom ;
When wintry clouds o’ershade us,
We know the rose will bloom.
It can’t be always sunshine :
Look back to history’s page,
And think upon the darkness
Of many a by-gone age,
The light is round us breaking,
But we must do our part
To clear the weeds of error,
From every canker’d heart.
And still we must remember,
When doubts our task assail,
Though ’tis not always sunshine, ~
That light and truth prevail.
J. E. Carpenter^
“ HAPPY DAY.”
All in love with one another !
What a world this world would be !
Each so kind to every other !
How 'twould seem one scarce can see.
For in caverns dark and dreary,
Jealousy is deeply hid ;
Forced Labour, worn and weary,
Sleeps, his rusting chains amid.
Anxious Fear, and all the Terrors,
Banished ever from the earth,
�SECULAR SONGS.
219
Followed off by stupid Errors,
Seen no more in all its girth.
Suffering with pallid features,
Sorrow with sad eyes of woe,
Can no longer press earth’s creatures
Down to earth, back-burdened so.
Faces bright and voices cheery,
Joy the sunny hours away,
Show in contrast to the teary
Lives before this happy day
Honest, just, and good, and truthful
Lives with beauty are aglow.
Work is sweet, for souls are youthful—
And all because man wills it so.
B. Arnetta.,
LOVE.
If love with other graces reign,
The mind is truly blest;
For love, the noblest of the train,
Aids and exalts the rest.
She suffers long with patient eye,
Her kindness still will last'
She lets the present injury die,
And soon forgets the past.
1
Meekness and peace her bosom fill,
From wrath and malice pure ;
She hopes, believes, and thinks no ill,
And all things will endure.
With pitying heart and willing hand,
The needy she supplies ;
And, if her enemy demand
Her help, she ne’er denies.
�220
SECULAR SONGS.
BENEVOLENCE.
Bless’d is the man whose soft’ning heart
Feels for his neighbor’s pain ;
To whom the supplicating eye
Is never raised in vain.
With generous zeal he flies to help
The stranger in distress;
And mourns the wrongs which from his aid
Admit not of redress.
He lends a kind supporting arm
To ev’ry child of grief;
His secret bounty largely flows,
And yields a prompt relief.
To gentle offices of love
His feet are never slow ;
He views, through mercy’s melting eye,
A brother in a foe.
BE
TRUE.
Be true, be true ! whate’er beside
Of wit, or wealth, or rank be thine;
Unless with simple truth allied
The gold that glitters in thy mine
Is but dross—the brass of pride
Or vainer tinsel—made to shine.
Be true, be true! to nerve your arm
For any good ye wish to do;
To save yourselves from sin and harm,
And win all honors, old and new;
To work in hearts as with a charm,
The maxim is, Be true, be true.
�SECULAR SONGS.
KIND
WORDS.
Deal gently with the erring one,
You may not know the power
With which the first temptation came
In some unguarded hour.
You may not know how earnestly
He struggled, or how well,
Until the hour of weakness came,
And sadly thus he fell.
Speak gently to the erring one !
O do not thou forget,
However deeply stained by sin,
He is thy brother yet.
Speak gently to the erring one,
For is it not enough
That peace and innocence are gone,
Without thy censure rough ?
O, sure it is a weary lot
That sin-crushed heart to bear,
And they who have a happier lot
May well their chidings spare.
KINDNESS.
Air—“ Won’t You Buy My Pretty Flowers.”
There’s a charm too often wanted,
There’s a power not understood ;
Seeds spring upward as they’re planted,
Or for evil, or for good !
We forget that charm beguiling
Which the voice of sorrow drowns;
Smiles can oft elicit smiling !
Frowning can engender frowns.
221
�22-2
SECULAR SONGS.
There s a temper quick in sowing
Care and grief and discontent!
Ever first and last in showing
More in words than language meant:
Ever restless in its nature
Until sorrows set their seal
On each pale and fretful feature,
And the hidden depths reveal.
If a smile engender smiling,
' If a frown produce a frown,
If our lips—the truth defiling—
Can the rose of life cast down 1
Let us learn, ere grief hath bound us,
Useless anger to forego ;
And bring smiles like flowers around us
From which other smiles may grow.
C. Swain.
I ASK NOT FOR HIS LINEAGE.
Air—“Tara’s Halls.”
--------
not for his lineage,
I ask not for his name,
If manliness be in his heart,
He noble birth may claim :
I care not though of this world’s wealth
But slender be his part,
If “yes”, you answer when I ask,
“ Hath he a noble heart ? ”
I
ask
I ask not from what land he came,
Or where his youth was nursed,
If pure the stream, it matters not
The spot from whence it burst:
The palace or the hovel low
Where first his life began,
I seek not of, but answer this,
“ Is he an honest man ? ”
c. M.
�223
SE0ULAR SONGS.
WHAT MAKES A NOBLEMAN?
Air—“Partant pour la Syrie.”
I deem the man a nobleman, who acts a noble part,
Who shows alike by word and deed he hath a true man’s
heart;
Who Eves not for himself alone, nor joins the selfish few,
But prizes more than all things else, the good that he can
do.
I deem the man a nobleman, who stands up for the right,
And in the work of charity finds pleasure and delight;
Who bears the stamp of manliness upon his open brow,
And never yet was known to do an action mean and low.
I deem the man a nobleman, who strives to aid the weak,
And sooner than revenge a wrong, would kind forgiveness
speak;
Who sees a brother in all men, from peasant unto king,
Yet would not crush the meanest worm, nor harm the weakest
thing.
I deem the man ahiobleman—yea, noblest of his kind,
Who shows by moral excellence his purity of mind,
Who lives alike, through good and ill, the firm unflinching
man,
Who loves the cause of brotherhood, and aids it all he can.
HOPE.
Air—“ In a Cottage Near a Wood.”
(Song.)
Hard is now the constant woe,
Bitter is the long despair,
Casting doubt on all we know,
Blotting out our visions fair,
Weakly strain we after truth,
Slowly mount we toward the good,
Searching long in gloom and ruth
For the soul’s sustaining food.
�224
SECULAR SONGS.
Man’s immortal task is great,
Greatly must it be achieved ;
And his doom is still to wait,
Hoping still, though still deceived.
Hoping for the greater day,
Hoping for the larger light,—
Day that shall endure for aye,
Light that yieldeth not to might.
OUR
ANSWER.
Thou say’st it will never be,
This unity and love ;
This peace, this joy without alloy,
Till one comes from above.
Thou say’st alack ! and then, alas !
You weep, and groan, and pray;
But we begin to sow the grass,
And later comes the hay.
Thou say’st, ah 1 we remember, lord,
Thy mercy and thy love ;
We worship thee and trust to see
Thy Regent from above.
O lord his coming hasten—speed—
O haste his advent. Pray 1
But we will work till darkness lead
To dawning of the day.
Thou say’st, “ Poor sinner fear not thee,
Thy faith will bear thee through ;
Thy murders, thefts, forgiven be,
A crown, a throne for you.
Thou say’st that we may join them there
For ‘ god ’ is good and just ” ;
But we will stay, contented, where
Those are we love and trust.
�SECULAR SONGS.
'1
225
Thou say’st our work is work in vain,
Our hope, our trust in man ;
That sin and strife, and grief and pain,
Are borne till heaven’s ban
Is lifted, and his majesty
May move the upas root;
But we will watch and trim the tree
Until the time for fruit.
Thou say’st, “ Poor sinner see the fold
And enter it in peace ;
And wear a crown of gems and gold,
Eternity thy lease.
And those who trust in ‘ god ’ may play
On harps with golden strings ”—
But we have love and joy to-day,
We want no crown—no wings.
We’ll work and watch, and onward go,
No fear, no dread can stay
Our loving hearts and hands, although
We may not win to-day.
The morn is nigh ; we see afar
The daybreak glimmer bright;
Ah, see ! behold ! that morning star
Foretells the coming light.
Edgar T. Benton.
GENTLE
WORDS.
Air—-“Tara’s Halls’’.
-------------
C. M. D.
Roses in the summer-time
Are beautiful to me,
And glorious are the many stars
That glimmer on the sea :
But gentle words, and loving hearts,
And hands to clasp my own,
Are better than the fairest flowers,
Or stars that ever shone.
p
�226
SECULAR SONGS.
The sun may warm the grass to life,
The dew the drooping flower,
And eyes grow bright and watch the light
Of Autumn’s opening hour :
But words that breathe of tenderness,
And smiles we know are true,
Are'warmer than the summer-time,
And brighter than the dew.
It is not much the world can give
With all its subtle art,
And gold and gems are noi the things
To satisfy the heart ;
But oh ! if those who cluster round
The sunny home and hearth,
Have gentle words and loving smiles,
How beautiful is earth.
BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.
Air—“ Ring the Bell, Watchman
------ii’s.
Be kind to each other, through weal and through woe,
For sorrows are many for hearts here below;
The storms of this life beat around us in vain,
If kindness controls us in pleasure and pain.
Be kind to each other in sorrow and grief,
’Tis sympathy only can give us relief;
Dividing our sorrow but lessens our pain—
Be kind to each other—affliction is vain.
Be kind to each other when sickness has come,
Let nothing but smiles ever dwell in your home ;
Encourage and succour, and soothe the distress’d,
Be kind to each other, and thou shalt be bless’d.
Be kind to each other through life to its close,
And when thou art freed from its pleasures and woes,
Though absent, thy friends in their hearts shall enshrine,
The mem’ry of deeds which like beacons shall shine.
�227
SECULAR SONGS.
FRIENDSHIP.
Air—“ Auld Lang Syne”. [From “ Hymns of Life ”, published
by Thomas Laurie, London.]
-------c. M. D.
The kindest, most endearing thing
That human hearts can woo ;
The fount whence truest blessings spring,
And richest comforts too ;
A priceless gem irradiate
With beams of love divine :
A refuge from the storms of fate,
When suns no longer shine.
Its language is a kindly word
Proceeding from the heart:
Its smiles a ready balm afford
To those who deeply smart.
It scatters flow’rs in every state,
And weaves a charm for all;
But often leaves the rich and great
At cottage doors to call.
Give me the friend that varies not—
Or else no friend at all—
Who owns me in my straw-thatched cot,
As in my marble hall;
Who’ll chide me when I do amiss,
And praise when praise is- due ;
And help me on in righteousness,
And be for ever true.
FUNERAL
HYMN.
•Calmly, calmly lay him down !
He hath fought a noble fight,
He hath battled for the right;
He hath won the fadeless crown!
p2
�228
SECULAR SONGS.
Memories, all too bright for tears,
Crowd around us from the past;
He was faithful to the last—
Faithful through long toilsome years.
All that makes for human good,
Freedom, righteousness, and truth—
These, the objects of his youth,
Unto age he still pursued.
Kind and gentle was his soul,
Yet it glowed with glorious might;
Filling clouded minds with light,
Making wounded spirits whole.
Dying, he can never die !
To the dust his dust we give ;
In our hearts his heart shall live ;
Moving, guiding, working aye.
W. Gaskell.
T O-M O R R O W.
High hopes that burned like stars sublime
Go down the heavens of freedom,
And true hearts perish in the time
We bitterliest need them.
But never sit we down and say,
There’s nothing left but sorrow ;
We walk the wilderness to-day,
The promised land to-morrow.
Our hearts brood o’er the past, our eyes
With smiling futures glisten ;
Lo! now its dawn bursts up the skies—
Lean out your souls and listen.
The earth rolls Freedom’s radiant way,
And ripens with our sorrow ;
And ’tis the martyrdom to-day
Brings victory to-morrow.
�229
SECULAR SONGS.
’Tis weary watching wave by wave,
And yet the tide heaves onward;
We climb like corals, grave by grave,
And beat a pathway sunward.
We’re beaten back in many a fray,
Yet newer strength we borrow ;
And where our vanguard rests to-day
Our rear shall rest to-morrow.
Through all the long, dark night of years
The people’s cry ascended ;
The earth was wet with blood and tears
Ere their weak suffering ended.
The few shall not forever sway,
The many toil in sorrow ;
The bars of hell are strong to-day,
But right shall rule to-morrow.
Gerald Massey.
JUDGE
NOT
A
MAN.
Judge not a man by the cost of his clothing,
Unheeding the life-path that he may pursue,
Or oft you’ll admire a heart that needs loathing,
And fail to give honor where honor is due.
The palm may be hard and the fingers stiff-jointed,
The coat may be tattered, the cheek worn with tears,
But greater than kings are labor’s anointed;
You can’t judge a man by the coat that he wears.
You can’t judge a man by the coat that he wears,
You can’t judge a man by the coat that he wears!
For greater than kings are labor’s anointed;
You can’t judge a man by the coat that he wears.
Give me the man, as a friend and a neighbour,
Who toils at the loom, at the spade, or the plough ;
Who wins his diploma of manhood by labor,
And purchases wealth by the sweat of his brow.
�230
SECULAR SONGS.
Why should the broadcloth alone be respected ?
The man be despised who in fustian appears ?
There are many that have their limbs unprotected_
Then why judge a man by the coat that he wears ?
Judge of a man by the work he is doing—■
Speak of a man as his actions demand !
W atch well the life that each is pursuing,
And let the most worthy be chief of the land.
That man shall be found ’midst the close ranks of labor,
Be known by the work that his industry rears;
His chiefdom, when won, shall be dear to his neighbour—
We’ll honor the man ! whatever he wears.
John Bedford Leno.
TRIUMPH OF FRATERNITY.
'Tis coming up the steep of time,
And this old world is growing brighter;
We may not see its dawn sublime,
Yet high hopes make the heart throb lighter..
We may be sleeping in the ground
When it awakes the world in wonder ;
But we have felt it gathering round,
And heard its voice in living thunder—
’Tis coming ! yes, ’tis coming !
’Tis coming now, the glorious time
Foretold by seers and sung in story :
For which, when thinking was a crime,
Souls leapt to heaven from scaffolds gory 1
They passed, nor see the work they wrought;
Now the crown’d hopes of centuries blossom I.
But the live lightning of their thought
And daring deeds doth pulse earth’s bosom—
’Tis coming! yes, ’tis coming!
�SECULAR SONGS.
231
Creeds, empires, systems rot with age,
But the great people’s ever youthful!
And it shall write the future’s page
To our humanity more truthful!
The gnarliest heart hath tender chords,
To waken at the name of “brother,”
And time comes when brain-scorpion words
We shall not speak to sting each other.
’Tis coming ! yes, ’tis coming !
Ay, it must come ! The tyrant’s throne
Is crumbling, with our hot tears rusted :
The sword earth’s mighty ones have leant on
Is cankered, with our heart’s blood crusted,
Room ! for the men of mind make way !
Ye robber rulers, pause no longer,
The world rolls on, the light grows stronger—
The people’s advent coming !
Gerald Massey.
SECULARISM.
Sing with joy, for a good time is dawning upon us,
The fire has been kindled, long may it be fanned;
Then farewell to all falsehood, deceit, and imposture,
When Secularism shall spread o’er the land.
Then farewell to the clergy, and State aid to priestcraft;
Farewell all whose mansions are built on the sand ;
On the firm rock of truth man shall build in the future,
When Secularism shall spread o’er the land.
Then farewell to the ermines, the gowns, and the candles,
The meaningless mummeries that none understand ;
Theology’s corpse shall be buried unmourned for,
When Secularism shall spread o’er the land.
�232
SECULAR
SONGS.
Farewell, war and murder, farewell inquisitions,
Religions of hate that mankind shall not stand ;
Insure your lives, oh, ye strife-making creeds for
When Secularism shall spread o’er the land.
Then all hail to the true, to the just, and the honest,
The kind loving heart and the welcoming hand,
And closely-kmt love through our country, the wide world,
When Secularism shall spread o’er the land.
D. A. Andrade.
MORAL
WORTH.
the man who scorns to be,
To name or sect, a slave;
Whose heart is like the' sunshine—free—
Free as the ocean wave ;
Who, when he sees oppression, wrong,
Speaks out in thunder tones;
Who feels with truth that he is strong
To grapple e’en with thrones.
I
love
I love the man who scorns to do
An action mean or low ;
Who will a nobler course pursue,
To stranger, friend, or foe;
Who seeks for justice, good to gain,
Is merciful and kind ;
Who will not cause a needless pain
In body or in mind.
�I
INDEX
OF
READINGS.
A Clerical Performance
..
A Fable ..
..
A Kind of Preac.bg E. Fawcett
A Recusant
..
7Ao*sa*
A Wish ..
..
M. Arnold
Abou Ben Adhem and the
Angel ..
..
L. Htmi
Address to the Unco Guid
..
R. Burns
An Atheist’s Thoughts H’. P. Ball
Aquinas’s Prayer for the Devil
W. M. W. Call
Atheist, The Dying ..
..
At the Church ..
R. M. IF.
85
103
71
133
137
Ghost Story
..
..
,.
Giordano Bruno ..
God Willing
.. J, M. Peacock
Gold
..
..
T. Hood
Grease the Fat Sow J. B. Leno
FAGS.
9a
5
118
29
104
15
88
Holy Willie’s Prayer 2?. Burns
Honor
..
.. Wordsworth
Hymn to Death ..
P, Greg
72
75
69
Be Content
.. T. Maguire
Beldagon Church Ernest Jones
Beyond the Grave A. P. Martin
Blind Men and Elephant
..
J. G. Saxe
Bruno (Giordano)
Swinburne
Burial Service Austin Holyoake
28
34
91
7
FAGS
127
78
12
59
5
141
Careless Gods ..
W. Forster
54
Christian Superstition Emeritus 121
Clear the Way ..
C. Mackay 122
Confucius, A Saying of Schiller
11
Course of Time .. Shakespeare
98
Cremation v. Corruption
..
76
C. C. Dick
Crucifixion of Manhood
..
29
G. Barlow
Death
..
.. Shakespeare
Death, Hymn to ..
P. Greg
Death, Pomp of ..
V. Lee
Deathward Ways P. B. Marston
Death of the Devil
Beranger
Devil Went a Fishing ..
..
Dying Atheist ..
...
..
25
69
136
136
16
14
I2
Euthanasia
.. E. W. Gosse
Everlasting Memorial .. Bonar
98
106
Fable
....
Emerson 103
Fortitude ..
.. W.E. Henley 112
Funeral Hymn .. W. J. Linton 140
Icarus
..
..
G. Bruno
5
Iconoclast
.. C. T. Rooke
92
If ..
“ Boston Investigator"
53
Immortality
.. 2?. 21. Horne 112
In Memory of Charles Brad
laugh ..
.. G. Anderson 124
Lay MeLow "All the YearRound”
Let us all be Unhappy on Sun
day
..
.. Lord Heaves
Life
..
.. E.T. Benton
138
24
30
Mimnermus in Church
..
99
TP. J. Cory
Miracles ..
Walt Whitman 107
Mr. Save-His-Soul-Alive-O ! ..
9
J. Thomson
Mr. Smith
..
..
,. 60
Natural Piety ..
Nebuchadonozar
Never Despair ..
Wordsworth 97
Patroclus 54
..
.. 103
On the Portrait of Miss Peel ..
J. M. Robertson
Orthodoxy
..
W. Blake
Outlook ..
..
E. Fawcett
Ozymandias of Egypt .. Shelley
134
70
9
32
Patience, or the Ale in the Par
son’s Cellar
..
..
..
66
Persian Epicurns.. Omar Khayyan 21
Persuasion
..
Ben Jonson 105
Prophecy of the Galilean's De
thronement ..
..
.. 101
Religion ..
..
.. Shelley
83
�234
_
INDEX OF READINGS.
r
Song of the Sabbatarian
..
Sonnet
..
..J .A. Symonds
Strange Story of Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram
..
T. Paine
Superstition
..
S. Rogers
Suppressed Poem
R. Burns
Tardy Retribution M. J. Savage
Three Chinese Sects ..
..
Three Voices
Norman Britton
The Aristocrat’s Dream
..
The Babe ..
.. Sir W. Jones
The Church Christ E. Fawcett
The Contrast
.. Ex-Ritualist
The Devil is Dead
W. Denton
The Doubter
..
E. Fawcett
The Eclipse of the Gods
..
C. Bright
The Equality of Death J. Shirley
The Fountain
.. J. R. Lowell
The Free Spirit .. G. Chapman
The Hours
.. H. Martineau
The Iconoclast .. R.F.Tooke
The Law of Death
J. Hay
rALrü..
87
go
79
133
115
15
8
33
124
121
135
120
nj
125
139
132
58
68
91
49
T
Ji
•
rACrE..
1 he Lord s Loving Kindness ..
26
F. Felt
The Noble Nature
B. Jonson
52
The Papist and the Jew T. Paine 113,
The Perfect Crowning Sleep .. iooJ. L. Warren
The Priest and Jack Ass
.. 102
The World and I
T. Paine
69
The Universe Void W. B. Scott
20Time’s Remedy ..
..
..
48
To the Front
.. W. S. Landor
65.
T ribute to Bruno G.E. Macdonald
30
True Nobility ..
..
..
82
Beaumont and Fletcher
Two Careers Ella Wheeler Wilcox
51
Vision of the Goos
S. Britton
Voltaire and Gibbon
Byron
108
97
Waiting ..
J. Burroughs
What is God ? A lien Davenport
When Womanhood Awakes ..
5. Wixon
125.
82.
17
�INDEX
OF
SONGS.
PAGE
PAGE.
..
161,
C. Swain
..
Reap
V. Jones
A Brave Heart
.. C. J. Rowe
Aspirations of Youth
7. Montgomery
..
A New Faith
211
162
200
166, 183,
Benevolence
Be Kind to Each Other
Better Rub than Rust E. Elliott
..
Be True ..
..
Be Up and Doing
220
226
T95
220
210
Age of Reason
Aladdin’s Lamp ..
All Nature Speaks
As ye Sow, so shall ye
212
209
178
170
.. G . L. Banks
211
R. Nicoll
Earth’s Heroes ..
..
•.
Earthly Paradise
Education
Sir J. Bowring
Eternity of Nature W. C. Sturoc
154
204
201
166
Charity
..
Flowers or Thorns
Freedom ..
Friendship
Funeral Hymn ..
Gentle Words
Good Will to All
212
174, 191
227
TP.GasÄ^ 227
..
..
..
225
190
B. Arnetta
Happy Day
Happiness Within L. E. Landon
H. Payne
Home, Sweet Home
J. Lawson
Honest Doubt
C. Mackay
Hope of the World
..
210,
Hope
..
172,
Humanity
Stoddart
Humble Influence
218
214
216
188
155
223
207
208
Incitement to Perseverance
Clough
It Can’t be Always Sunshine
J. E. Carpenter
151
217
Judge Not a Man
John Bedford Leno
229
Kind Words
Kindness ..
221
201
..
..
Laws of Nature ..
R. Nicholl
Learn to Labor ..
Liberty
175
T. Fownes
Life is Onward ..
Light
..
F. W. Bourdillon
Live by Nature’s Laws ..
..
Live for Something
..............
Love
..
Love at Home
165
149
iSS
192
160
164
167
219
T5&
G. TV. Fox
Marriage ..
..
Moral Worth
..
My Freedom
My Task .. L. S. Guggenberger
176
232
168
176
••
Nature
..
Never Say Fail ..
C. K. Laporte
New Version
Tennyson
New Year’s Eve ..
..
N oble Purpose ..
Alice Cary
Nobility ..
181
161
157
203
185
20&
E. T. Benton
224
..
Longfellow
186.
202
212
Our Answer
Present Joys
Present Time
Psalm of Life
Real Loss..
Reason
Religion ..
Maccall
..
194
. 215
179
Scatter Seeds of Kindness
215
149
Science and Superstition
Secularism
D . A. A ndrade 231
Secularism (Aims of)
E. Ring 184
Service of Man E . B. Harrison 172
Speak Gently
G. TP. Hangford 163
Stand Up for Freedom ..
193
The
The
The
The
Actual
..
H. Reese
Better Land
S. Johnson
City of Man
Dawn of Freethought
164
17&
171
200
�236
INDEX OF SONGS.
The Freeman’s Resolution
W. Denton
The Happy Life Sir H. Wotton
The Ladder of Life Longfellow
The Living to the Dead
C. W. Beckett
The Newborn Light
The Pride of Worth
Burns
The True Eden ..
Emerson
The True Freeman
Lowell
The True Patriot
The Voice and the Pen
The World and the World
C. G. Leland
This Life is What we Make it..
PAGE.
147
159
165
158
202
150
198
T74
207
204
148
154
Tis Time ..
..
..
..
To-morrow
. .Gerald Massey
Triumph of Fraternity
Gerald Massey
True Worth
..
..
..
Truth
..
189, 199, 200, 205,
148
228
Vanity
Victory
214
198
..
C. Mackay
W. J. Linton
Wheat and Tares L. Houghton
Wisdom ..
..
..
..
Words and Acts of Kindness ..
Work
..........................
180,
230
222
207
173
193
217
189
�INDEX
FIRST
OF
PAGE.
A conscious fortitude sustains..
A glorious day at length is
breaking
..
..
..
A glory gilds the ample page ..
All are architects of Fate
..
All before us lies the way
..
All in love with one another ..
All Nature speaks! let man give
ear
..
..
..
..
All things good for good unite..
As ships becalmed at eve that lay
A storm sped over sea and land
Augustine well and truly said ..
Base oppressors, leave your
slumbers
..
..
••
Be error known on earth no
more
..
..
..
••
Be kind to each other ..
..
Be true, be true! whate’er
beside ..
..
..
••
Better to know the truth that
maketh free ..
..
••
Blest be the man who gives us
peace ..
..
..
..
Blest is the man whose generous
heart ..
..
..
..
199
200
177
183
198
218
200
160
180
187
165
182
203
226
220
*53
213
166
Calmly, calmly, lay him down! 227
City of Man! how broad and
fair
.......................................... 171
Dark superstition’s veil..
..
Deal gently with the erring one
211
221
Earth of man the bounteous
mother.......................................... 152
Freedom’s charms alike engage
From Greenland’s icy mountains
191
157
Goodwill to all the watchword be 190
Great source of being! fount of
life
..
..
••
• • 181
Happy the man whose cautious
steps ..
..
..
• • 193
LINES.
PAGE.
Happy they who are not weary
Hard is now the constant woe..
High hopes that burned like
stars sublime ..
Higher, higher, will we climb ..
Hope, though slow she be and
late
How happy is he born and
taught ..
Hush the loud cannon’s roar ..
185
223
I ask not for his lineage
I deem that man a nobleman ..
Idler ! why lie down to die
If all the world must see the
world
I love the man who scorns to be
If love with other graces reign..
I hear thee speak of a better
creed
I saw a little streamlet flow
Is there a thought can fill the
human mind ? ..
Is there for honest poverty
It can’t be always sunshine
It surely is a wasted heart
222
169
195
228
178
210
159
208
148
232
219
196
208
207
150
217
214
Joy to the world the light is
come
215
Judge not a man by the cost of
229
his clothing
Keep striving! ’tis wiser
..
161
Let exiled Reason be restored .. 161
Let’s oft’ner talk of noble deeds 154
Let superstition be destroyed .. 170
Let the world scorn, Fortune
make jest of me
..
.. 209
Let us all help one another
.. 211
Let us gather up the sunbeams 215
Life is onward—-use it ..
.. 192
Life may change, but it may fly
not
.......................................... 175
Little words of kindness
.. 217
Live for something; be not idle 167
Lo ! here hath been dawning .. 159
�INDEX TO FIRST LINES.
Lo! when we wade the tangled
wood ••
••
..
.. 160
Long hath the world in darkness
iain
••
••
...
.. 210
Man is his own star
..
.. 175
May every year but draw more
near
..
..
..
.. %55
May I possess an honest heart 183
Men ! whose boast it is that ye 174
Mid pleasures and palaces though
we may roam ..
..
.. 2i6
Now for all new day is dawning
172
O dumb forgotten ones ..
.. 158
Oh had I but Aladdin’s lamp .. 162
Oh the orator’s voice is a mighty
Power.......................................... 204
O joy 1 at last my mind is free 168
O thou fair Truth, for thee alone
we seek ..
..
..
,e
Our sister and our brother
.. 176
Praise to the martyrs
..
..
186
Ring out, wild bells, to the wild
sky .................................................. 203
Roses in the summer time
.. 225
Say not the struggle nought
availeth
..
..
..
Sing with joy, for a good time
is dawning upon us ..
.. 231
Something is lost
..
..
So should we live that every
Speak gently, it is better far ’163
Stand up ! stand up for freedom 193
Superstition, deeply rooted
.. 149
Tell me not in mournful numbers 212
Tell me not of climes celestial 204
The bud will soon become a
flower ..
..
..
.. 2I2
The day is here, the dawn of
hope
..
.;
..
.. 202
rpi
i
PAGE,
lhe kindest, most endearing
thing.......................................... 227
The laws of Nature, they are
sure........................................... 165
The night has a thousand eyes 160
1 here are brighter things in this
world than gold
..
.. ^7
There is a song now singing .. 178
There is beauty all around
.. 156
There’s a charm too often wasted 221
There’s a song the rills are
singing.......................................... 68
There’s no time like the present
time
..................................... ......
Think not that martyrs die in
vain
.......................................... 149
Think truly, and thy thoughts 207
Thou, Nature, grandest theme
of all
.. _
........................... l66
Thou sayest it will never be .. 224
Through wild wood-valleys
roaming
..........................214
’Tis coming up the steep of time 230
’Tis time that kings were taught
to know..
..
..
.. ^8
To all earth’s blessings ..
.. 164
To Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love 172
True worth is in being, not seem
ing
.......................................... 206
Truth and goodness
..
.. 179
Truth is great and must prevail 191
We all must work with head or
hand
..
.,
,,
#
1-73
We must not hope to be mowers 213
Were once this maxim deeply
iix’d
••
..
..
.. 189
What, with this fenced human
mind.......................................... I?6
When kings are forgotten and .
priests are no more ..
.. 197
Why should the man of honest
doubt ? ..
..
..
.. j88
Why should we ever seek to
know ? ..
..
..
.. j64
Work can never miss its wages 198
Work, for the night is coming.. 189
Work ! it is thy highest mission 180
��il
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Freethought readings and secular songs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wheeler, J. M. (Joseph Mazzini) [1850-1898]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 238 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Separate indexes of readings, songs and first lines. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1396
N688
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Freethought readings and secular songs), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
NSS
Poetry
Secularism
Songs
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/82438be37458e492f1072edbb1d7a306.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Hsa9jUhCHlffwOzszyvmEqHVWCDx5vZimvWUKJEZwp2Z8Ip1k%7Ehs3wQh3mUN2gG%7Ewtx4-liFYW4LlPXc%7EnhhfCkloN00dwNxulZysNi6Wr9t8Vxj1jl561xmVw-tGB4eao2Birj-qWCVgX5MIdf3nXhodW%7E5fWOxaoI1cywjOW2YZxb6l3nwi7g6kQMUPOpoE9i8BdLJYzD1sjll33Kz3g5T%7EddQm4P8a3YEr5POxmWhXMhD6r2V1U2sQClK8qMs7RMzbi7tuJyHHRf%7EF%7Egf0DQeVDmmbof4rI4aked4FFp8VywPPjJNYFZBfEiKziAI3y08g5fm7hbbf21tc5tYmg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
379ec7de8336a874defe9a6e4923fe6a
PDF Text
Text
If the Devil should die, voould God make another ?
■ H. > :
fh •
A LECTURE
y
BY
ROBERT 0. INGERSOLL.
1
’I'
London : '
F R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER-STREET, E.C.
Price Sixpence.
�,
i.-K
�mis
THE DEVIL.
If the Devil should die, would God make another?
A LECTURE
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
London :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER-STREET, E.C.
1899.
��„TOOSWinoaSTVHOUVN
THE DEVIL.
I.
IF THE DEVIL SHOULD DIE, WOULD GOD MAKE
ANOTHER ?
A little while ago I delivered a lecture on “ Super
stition,” in which, among other things, I said that the
Christian world could not deny the existence of the
Devil ; that the Devil was really the keystone of the
arch, and that to take him away was to destroy the
entire system.
A great many clergymen answered or criticised this
statement. Some of these ministers avowed their belief
in the existence of his Satanic Majesty, while others
actually denied his existence ; but some, without stating
their own position, said that others believed, not in the
existence of a personal devil, but in the personification
of evil, and that all references to the Devil in the Scrip
tures could be explained on the hypothesis that the
Devil thus alluded to was simply a personification of
evil.
When I read these answers I thought of this line
from Heine : “ Christ rode on an ass, but now asses
ride on Christ.”
�4
THE DEVIL.
Now, the questions are, first, whether the Devil does
really exist; second, whether the sacred Scriptures
teach the existence of the Devil and of unclean spirits ;
and, third, whether this belief in devils is a necessary
part of what is known as “ orthodox Christianity.”
Now, where did the idea that a Devil exists come
from ? How was it produced ?
Fear is an artist—a sculptor—a painter. All tribes
and nations, having suffered, having been the sport and
prey of natural phenomena, having been struck by light
ning, poisoned by weeds, overwhelmed by volcanoes,
destroyed by earthquakes, believed in the existence of a
Devil, who was the king—the ruler—of innumerable
smaller devils, and all these devils have been from time
immemorial regarded as the enemies of men.
Along the banks of the Ganges wandered the Asuras,
the most powerful of evil spirits. Their business was
to war against the Devas—that is to say, the gods—and at the same time against human beings. There,
too, were the ogres, the Jakshas, and many others who
killed and devoured human beings.
The Persians turned this around, and with them the
Asuras were good and the Devas bad. Ormuzd was
the good (the god), Ahriman the evil (the devil), and
between the god and the devil was waged a perpetual
war. Some of the Persians thought that the evil would
finally triumph, but others insisted that the good would
be the victor.
In Egypt the devil was Set—or, as usually called,
Typhon—and the good god was Osiris. Set and his
legions fought against Osiris and against the human
race.
�THE DEVIL.
5
Among the Greeks the Titans were the enemies of
the gods. Ate was the spirit that tempted, and such
was her power that at one time she tempted and misled
the god of gods, even Zeus himself.
These ideas about gods and devils often changed,
because in the days of Socrates a demon was not a
devil, but a guardian angel.
We obtain our Devil from the Jews, and they got him
from Babylon. The Jews cultivated the science of
Demonology, and at one time it was believed that there
were nine kinds of demons : Beelzebub, prince of the
false gods of the other nations ; the Pythian Apollo,
prince of liars ; Belial, prince of mischief-makers ;
Asmodeus, prince of revengeful devils; Satan, prince of
witches and magicians ; Meresin, prince of aerial devils,
who caused thunderstorms and plagues ; Abaddon, who
caused wars, tumults, and combustions ; Diabolus, who
drives to despair; and Mammon, prince of the tempters.
It was believed that demons and sorcerers frequently
came together and held what were called “Sabbats”;
that is to say, orgies. It was also known that sorcerers
and witches had marks on their bodies that had been
imprinted by the Devil.
Of course these devils were all made by the people,
and in these devils we find the prejudices of their makers.
The Europeans always represent their devils as black,
while the Africans believed that theirs were white.
So it was believed that people by the aid of the Devil
could assume any shape that they wished. Witches
and wizards were changed into wolves, dogs, cats, and
serpents. This change to animal form was exceedingly
common.
�6
THE DEVIL.
Within two years, between 1598 and 1600, in one
district of France, the district of Jura, more than six
hundred men and women were tried and convicted
before one judge of having changed themselves into
wolves, and all were put to death.
This is only one instance. There are thousands.
There is no time to give the history of this belief in
devils. It has been universal. The consequences have
been terrible beyond the imagination. Millions and
millions of men, women, and children, of fathers and
mothers, have been sacrificed upon the altar of this
ignorant and idiotic belief.
Of course, the Christians of to-day do not believe that
the devils of the Hindus, Egyptians, Persians, or Baby
lonians existed. They think that those nations created
their own devils, precisely the same as they did their own
gods. But the Christians of to-day admit that for many
centuries Christians did believe in the existence of
countless devils; that the Fathers of the Church
believed as sincerely in the Devil and his demons as
in God and his angels ; that they were just as sure
about hell as heaven.
I admit that people did the best they could to accoun
for what they saw, for what they experienced. I admit
that the devils as well as the gods were naturally pro
duced—the effect of nature upon the human brain. The
cause of phenomena filled our ancestors not only with
wonder, but with terror. The miraculous, the super
natural, was not only believed in, but was always
expected.
A man walking in the woods at night—just a glim
mering of the moon—everything uncertain and shadowy
�THE DEVIL.
—sees a monstrous .form.
One arm is raised.
7
His
blood grows cold, his hair lifts. In the gloom he sees
the eyes of an ogre—eyes that flame with malice. He
feels that the something is approaching. He turns, and
with a cry of horror takes to his heels. He is afraid to
look back. Spent, out of breath, shaking with fear, he
reaches his hut and falls at the door. When he regains
consciousness, he tells his story, and, of course, the
children believe. When they become men and women
they tell father’s story of having seen the Devil to their
children, and so the children and grandchildren not only
believe, but think they know, that their father their
grandfather—actually saw a devil.
An old woman sitting by the fire at night a storm
raging without—hears the mournful sough of the wind.
To her it becomes a voice. Her imagination is touched,
and the voice seems to utter words. Out of these words
she constructs a message or a warning from the unseen
world. If the words are good, she has heard an angel,
if they are threatening and malicious, she has heard a
devil. She tells this to her children, and they believe.
They say that mother’s religion is good enough for
them. A girl suffering from hysteria falls into a trance
—has visions of the infernal world. The priest sprinkles
holy water on her pallid face, saying : “ She hath a
devil.” A man utters a terrible cry; falls to the ground;
foam and blood issue from his mouth ; his limbs are
convulsed. The spectators say : “ This is the Devil s
work.”
Through all the ages people have mistaken dreams
and visions of fear for realities. To them the insane
were inspired; epileptics were possessed by devils ;
�8
THE DEVIL.
apoplexy was the work of an unclean spirit. For many
centuries people believed that they had actually seen the
malicious phantoms of the night, and so thorough was
this belief—so vivid—that they made pictures of them.
They knew how they looked. They drew and chiselled
their hoofs, their horns—all their malicious deformities.
Now, I admit that all these monsters were naturally
produced.
The people believed that hell was their
native land ; that the Devil was a king, and that he and
his imps waged war against the children of men.
Curiously enough, some of these devils were made out
of degraded gods, and, naturally enough, many devils
were made out of the gods of other nations. So that,
frequently, the gods of one people were the devils of
another.
In nature these are opposing forces. Some of the
forces work for what man calls good ; some for what
he calls evil. Back of these forces our ancestors put
will, intelligence, and design. They could not believe
that the good and evil came from the same being. So
back of the good they put God ; back of the evil, the
Devil.
�II.
THE ATLAS OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE DEVIL.
The religion known as “Christianity” was invented
by God himself to repair in part the wreck and ruin that
had resulted from the Devil’s work.
Take the Devil from the scheme of salvation—from
the atonement—from the dogma of eternal pain—and
the foundation is gone.
The Devil is the keystone of the arch.
He inflicted the wounds that Christ came to heal. He
corrupted the human race.
The question now is : Does the Old Testament teach
the existence of the Devil ?
If the Old Testament teaches anything, it does teach
the existence of the Devil, of Satan, of the Serpent, ot
the enemy of God and man, the deceiver of men and
women.
Those who believe the Scriptures are compelled to
say that this Devil was created by God, and that God
knew when he created him just what he would do, the
exact measure of his success ; knew that he would be
a successful rival ; knew that he would deceive and
corrupt the children of men ; knew that, by reason of
this Devil, countless millions of human beings would
suffer eternal torment in the prison of pain. And this
God also knew, when he created the Devil, that he,
�IO
THE DEVIL.
God, would be compelled to leave his throne, to be born
a babe in Palestine, and to suffer a cruel death. All
this he knew when he created the Devil. Why did he
create him ?
It is no answer to say that this Devil was once an
angel of light and fell from his high estate because he
was free. God knew what he would do with his freedom
when he made him and gave him liberty of action, and,
as a matter of fact, must have made him with the inten
tion that he should rebel; that he should fall; that he
should become a devil; that he should tempt and corrupt
the father and mother of the human race; that he should
make hell a necessity, and that, in consequence of his
creation, countless millions of the children of men would
suffer eternal pain. Why did he create him ?
Admit that God is infinitely wise. Has he ingenuity
enough to frame an excuse for the creation of the
Devil ?
Does the Old Testament teach the existence of a real,
living Devil ?
The first account of this being is found in Genesis,
and in that account he is called the “Serpent.” He is
declared to have been more subtle than any beast of the
field.
According to the account, this Serpent had a
conversation with Eve, the first woman. We are not
told in what language they conversed, or how they
understood each other, as this was the first time they
had met. Where did Eve get her language ? Where
did the Serpent get his ? Of course, such questions are
impudent, but, at the same time, they are natural.
The result of this conversation was that Eve ate the
forbidden fruit and induced Adam to do the same. This
�THE DEVIL.
ir
is what is called the “ Fall,” and for this they were
expelled from the Garden of Eden.
On account of this, God cursed the earth with weeds
and thorns and brambles, cursed man with toil, made
woman a slave, and cursed maternity with pain and
sorrow.
How men, good men, can worship this God ; how
women, good women, can love this Jehovah, is beyond
my imagination.
In addition to the other curses the Serpent was cursed
—-condemned to crawl on his belly and to eat dust. We
do not know by what means, before that time, he moved
from place to place, whether he walked or flew ; neither
do we know on what food he lived ; all we know is that
after that time he crawled and lived on dust. Jehovah
told him that this he should do all the days of his life.
It would seem from this that the Serpent was not at
that time immortal ; that there was somewhere in the
future a milepost at which the life of this Serpent
stopped. Whether he is living yet or not, I am not
certain.
It will not do to say that this is allegory, or a poem,
because this proves too much. If the Serpent did not
in fact exist, how do we know that Adam and Eve
existed? Is all that is said about God allegory and
poetic, or mythical ? Is the whole account, after all, an
ignorant dream ?
Neither will it do to say that the Devil—the Serpent
—-was a personification of evil. Do personifications of
evil talk ? Can a personification of evil crawl on its
belly? Can a personification of evil eat dust? If we
say that the Devil was a personification of evil, are we
�12
THE DEVIL.
not at the same time compelled to say that Jehovah was
a personification of good ; that the Garden of Eden was
the personification of a place, and that the whole story
is a personification of something that did not happen ?
Maybe that Adam and Eve were not driven out of the
Garden ; they may have suffered only the personifica
tion of exile. And maybe the cherubim placed at the
gate of Eden, with flaming swords, were only personi
fications of policemen.
There is no escape. If the Old Testament is true, the
Devil does exist, and it is impossible to explain him
away without at the same time explaining God away.
So there are many references to devils, and spirits of
divination and of evil, which I have not the time to call
attention to ; but, in the Book of Job, Satan, the Devil,
has a conversation with God. It is this Devil that
brings the sorrows and losses on the upright man. It
is this Devil that raises the storm that wrecks the homes
of Job’s children. It is this Devil that kills the children
of Job. Take this Devil from that book, and all mean
ing, plot, and purpose fade away.
Is it possible to say that the Devil in Job was only a
personification of evil ?
In Chronicles we are told that Satan provoked David
to number Israel. For this act of David, caused by the
Devil, God did not smite the Devil, did not punish
David, but he killed 70,000 poor innocent Jews, who
had done nothing but stand up and be counted.
Was this Devil who tempted David a personifica
tion of evil, or was Jehovah a personification of the
devilish ?
In Zachariah we are told that Joshua stood before the
�THE DEVIL.
13
angel of the Lord, and that Satan stood at his right
hand to resist him, and that the Lord rebuked Satan.
If words convey any meaning, the Old Testament
teaches the existence of the Devil.
All the passages about witches and those having
familiar spirits were born of a belief in the Devil.
When a man who loved Jehovah wanted revenge on his
enemy, he fell on his holy knees, and from a heart full
of religion he cried : “ Let Satan stand at his right
hand.”
�III.
TAKE THE DEVIL FROM THE DRAMA OF CHRISTIANITY
AND THE PLOT IS GONE.
The next question is : Does the New Testament teach
the existence of the Devil ?
As a matter of fact, the New Testament is far more
explicit than the Old. The Jews, believing that Jehovah
was God, had very little business for a devil. Jehovah
was wicked enough and malicious enough to take the
Devil’s place.
The first reference in the New Testament to the Devil
is in the fourth chapter of Matthew. We are told that
Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted of the Devil.
It seems that he was not led by the Devil into the
wilderness, but by the Spirit ; that the Spirit and the
Devil were acting together in a kind of pious con
spiracy.
In the wilderness Jesus fasted forty days, and then
the Devil asked him to turn stones into bread. The
Devil also took him to Jerusalem and set him on a
pinnacle of the temple, and tried to induce him to leap
to the earth. The Devil also took him to the top of a
mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world,
,and offered them all to him in exchange for his worship.
�THE DEVIL.
i5
Jesus refused. The Devil went away, and angels came
and ministered to Christ.
Now, the question is : Did the author of this account
believe in the existence of the Devil, or did he regard
this Devil as a personification of evil, and did he intend
that his account should be understood as an allegory,
or as a poem, or as a myth ?
Was Jesus tempted ? If he was tempted, who tempted
him? Did anybody offer him the kingdoms of the
world ?
Did the writer of the account try to convey to the
reader the thought that Christ was tempted by the
Devil ?
If Christ was not tempted by the Devil, then the
temptation was born in his own heart. If that be true,
can it be said that he was divine ? If these adders,
these vipers, were coiled in his bosom, was he the son
of God? Was he pure ?
In the same chapter we are told that Christ healed
“ those which were possessed of devils, and those which
were lunatic, and those that had the palsy.”
From this it is evident that a distinction was made
between those possessed with devils and those whose
minds were affected and those who were afflicted with
diseases.
We are told that at the same time, a good way off,
many swine were feeding, and that the devils besought
Christ, saying: “ If thou cast us out, suffer us to go
away into the herd of swine.” And he said unto them :
“ Go.”
Is it possible that personifications of evil would desire
to enter the bodies of swine, and is it possible that it
�i6
THE DEVIL.
was necessary for them to have the consent of Christ
before they could enter the swine? The question
naturally arises : How did they enter into the body of
the man ? Did they do that without Christ’s consent,
and is it a fact that Christ protects swine and neglects
human beings ? Can personifications have desires ?
In the ninth chapter of Matthew there was a dumb
man brought to Jesus, possessed.with a devil. Jesus
cast out the devil, and the dumb man spake.
Did a personification of evil prevent the dumb man
from talking ? Did it in some way paralyze his organs
of speech ? Could it have done this had it only been a
personification of evil ?
In the tenth chapter Jesus gives his twelve disciples
power to cast out unclean spirits. What were unclean
spirits supposed to be ? Did they really exist ? Were
they shadows, impersonations, allegories?
When Jesus sent his disciples forth on the great
mission to convert the world, among other things he
told them to heal the sick, to raise the dead, and to
cast out devils. Here a distinction is made between
the sick and those who were possessed by evil spirits.
Now, what did Christ mean by devils?
In the twelfth chapter we are told of a very remark
able case. There was brought unto Jesus one possessed
with a devil, blind and dumb, and Jesus healed him.
The blind and dumb both spake and saw. There
upon the Pharisees said : “ This fellow doth not cast
out devils^ but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.”
Jesus answered by saying : “ Every kingdom divided
against itself is brought to desolation. If Satan cast
out Satan, he is divided against himself.”
�THE DEVIL.
17
Why did not Christ tell the Pharisees that he did not
cast out devils—only personifications of evil ; and that
with these personifications Beelzebub had nothing to
do ?
Another question : Did the Pharisees believe in the
existence of devils, or had they the personification
idea ?
At the same time Christ said : “ If I cast out devils
by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is
come unto you.”
If he meant anything by these words, he certainly
intended to convey the idea that what he did demon
strated the superiority of God over the Devil.
Did Christ believe in the existence of the Devil ?
In the fifteenth chapter is the account of the woman
of Canaan who cried unto Jesus, saying : “ Have mercy
on me, O Lord, thou son of David. My daughter is
sorely vexed with a devil.” On account of her faith
Christ made the daughter whole.
In the sixteenth chapter a man brought his son to
Jesus. The boy was a lunatic, sore vexed, oftentimes
falling in the fire and water. The disciples had tried to
cure him and had failed. Jesus rebuked the devil, and
the devil departed out of him, and the boy was cured.
Was the devil in this case a personification of evil ?
The disciples then asked Jesus why they could not
cast that devil out. Jesus told them that it was
because of their unbelief, and then added : “ Howbeit
this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
From this it would seem that some personifications
were easier to expel than others.
The first chapter of Mark throws a little light on the
�18
THE DEVIL.
story of the temptation of Christ. Matthew tells us
that Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilder
ness to be tempted of the Devil. In Mark we are
told who this Spirit was :—
“And straightway coming up out of the water he
saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove
descending upon him.
“ And there came a voice from heaven, saying:
‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’
“And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the
wilderness.”
Why the Holy Ghost should hand Christ over to the
tender mercies of the Devil is not explained. And it is
all the more wonderful when we remember that the
Holy Ghost was the third person in the Trinity and
Christ the second, and that this Holy Ghost was, in
fact, God, and that Christ also was, in fact, God, so
that God led God into the wilderness to be tempted of
the Devil.
We are told that Christ was in the wilderness forty
days tempted of Satan, and was with the wild beasts,
and that the angels ministered unto him.
Were these angels real angels, or were they personi
fications of good, of comfort ?
So we see that the same Spirit that came out of
heaven, the same Spirit that said “This is my beloved
son,” drove Christ into the wilderness to be tempted of
Satan.
Was this Devil a real being? Was this Spirit who
claimed to be the father of Christ a real being, or was
he a personification ? Are the heavens a real place ?
Are they a personification ? Did the wild beasts live,
�THE DEVIL.
i9
and did the angels minister unto Christ ? In other
words, is the story true, or is it poetry, or metaphor,
or mistake, or falsehood ?
It might be asked : Why did God wish to be tempted
by the Devil ? Was God ambitious to obtain a victory
over Satan ? Was Satan foolish enough to think that
he could mislead God, and is it possible that the Devil
offered to give the world as a bribe to its creator and
owner, knowing at the same time that Christ was the
creator and owner, and also knowing that he (Christ)
knew that he (the Devil) knew that he (Christ) was the
creator and owner ?
Is not the whole story absurdly idiotic ? The Devil
knew that Christ was God, and knew that Christ knew
that the tempter was the Devil.
It may be asked how I know that the Devil knew
that Christ was God. My answer is found in the same
chapter. There is an account of what a devil said to
Christ
“ Let us alone. What have we to do with thee, thou
Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I
know thee. Thou art the holy one of God.”
Certainly, if the little devils knew this, the Devil him
self must have had like information. Jesus rebuked
this devil and said to him : “ Hold thy peace, and come
out of him.” And when the unclean spirit had torn
him and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
So we are told that Jesus cast out many devils, and
suffered not the devils to speak because they knew him.
So it is said in the third chapter that “ unclean spirits,
when they saw him, fell down before him and cried,
.saying : ‘ Thou art the son of God.’ ”
�20
THE DEVIL.
In the fifth chapter is an account of casting out the
devils that went into the swine, and we are told that
“ all the devils besought him saying : ‘ Send us into the
swine.’ And Jesus gave them leave.”
Again I ask : Was it necessary for the devils to get
the permission of Christ before they could enter swine ?
Again I ask : By whose permission did they enter into
the man ?
Could personifications of evil enter a herd of swine,
or could personifications of evil make a bargain with
Christ ?
In the sixth chapter we are told that the disciples
“ cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that
were sick.” Here, again, the distinction is made
between those possessed by devils and those afflicted
by disease. It will not do to say that the devils were
diseases or personifications.
In the seventh chapter a Greek woman, w'hose
daughter was possessed by a devil, besought Christ
to cast this devil out. At last Christ said : “ The devil
is gone out of thy daughter.”
In the ninth chapter one of the multitude said unto
Christ: “ I have brought unto thee my son which hath
a dumb spirit. I spoke unto thy disciples that they
should cast him out, and they could not.”
So they brought this boy before Christ, and when
the boy saw him the spirit tare him, and he fell on the
ground and “wallowed, foaming.”
Christ asked the father : “ How long is it ago since
this came unto him ?” And he answered : “ Of a child,
and ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the
waters to destroy him.”
�THE DEVIL.
21
Then Christ said : “ Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I
charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into
him.”
“ And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came
out of him ; and he was as one dead ; insomuch that
many said : ‘ He is dead.’ ”
Then the disciples asked Jesus why they could not
cast them out, and Jesus said : “This kind can come
forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting.”
Is there any doubt about the belief of the man who
wrote this account ? Is there any allegory, or poetry,
or myth in this story ? The devil, in this case, was not
an ordinary, every-day devil. He was dumb and deaf;
it was no use to order him out, because he could not
hear. The only way was to pray and fast.
Is there such a thing as a dumb and deaf devil ? If
so, the devils must be organized. They must have ears
and organs of speech,and they must be dumb because
there is something the matter with the apparatus of
speaking, and they must be deaf because something is
the matter with their ears. It would seem from this
that they are not simply spiritual beings, but organized
on a physical basis. Now, we know that the ears do
not hear. It is the brain that hears. So these devils
must have brains—that is to say, they must have been
what we call “ organized beings.”
Now, it is hardly possible that personifications of evil
are dumb or deaf. That is to say, that they have
physical imperfections.
In the same chapter John tells Christ that he saw
one casting out devils in Christ’s name who did not
follow with them, and Jesus said : “ Forbid him not.”
�22
THE DEVIL.
By this he seemed to admit that some one, not a
follower of his, was casting out devils in his name,
and he was willing that he should go on, because, as
he said: “For there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of
me.”
In the fourth chapter of Luke the story of the tempta
tion of Christ by the Devil is again told with a few
additions. All the writers, having been inspired, did
not remember exactly the same things.
Luke tells us that the Devil said unto Christ, having
shown him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment
of time : “ All this power will I give thee and the glory
of them, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomso
ever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me, all shall
be thine.”
We are also told that when the Devil had ended all
the temptation he departed from him for a season. The
date of his return is not given.
In the same chapter we are told that a man in the
synagogue had a “spirit of an unclean devil.” This
devil recognized Jesus, and admitted that he was the
Holy One of God.
As a matter of fact, the Apostles seemed to have
relied upon the evidence of devils to substantiate the
divinity of their Lord.
Jesus said to this devil: “ Hold thy peace and come
out of him.” And the devil, after throwing the man
down, came out.
In the forty-first verse of the same chapter it is said :
“And devils also came out of many, crying out and
saying : ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of God.’ ”
�THE DEVIL.
23
It is also said that Christ rebuked them and suffered
them not to speak, for they knew that he was Christ.
Now, it will not do to say that these devils were
diseases, because diseases could not talk, and diseases
would not recognize Christ as the Son of God. After
all, epilepsy is not a theologian. I admit that lunacy
comes nearer.
In the eighth chapter is told again the story of the
devils and the swine. In this account Jesus asked the
devil his name, and the devil replied “ Legion.”
In the ninth chapter is told the story of the devil
that the disciples could not cast out, but was cast out
by Christ, and in the thirteenth chapter it is said that
the Pharisees came to Jesus, telling him to go away,
because Herod would kill him, and Jesus said unto
these Pharisees : “ Go ye, and tell that fox, behold, I
cast out devils.”
What did he mean by this ? Did he mean that he
cured diseases? No. Because in the same sentence
he says, “And I do cures to-day,” making a distinction
between devils and diseases.
In the twenty-second chapter an account of the
betrayal of Christ by Judas is given in these words :
“Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot, being of
the number of the twelve.”
“ And he went his way and communed with the chief
priests and captains how he might betray him unto
them.
“ And they were glad, and covenanted to give him
money.”
According to Christ, the little devils knew that he was
the Son of God. Certainly, then, Satan, king of all the
�24
THE DEVIL.
fiends, knew that Christ was divine. And he not only
knew that, but he knew all about the scheme of salva
tion. He knew that Christ wished to make an atone
ment of blood by the sacrifice of himself.
According to Christian theologians, the Devil has
always done his utmost to gain possession of the souls
of men. At the time he entered into Judas, persuading
him to betray Christ, he knew that if Christ was
betrayed he would be crucified, and that he would make
an atonement for all believers, and that, as a result,
he, the Devil, would lose all the souls that Christ
gained.
What interest had the Devil in defeating himself?
If he could have prevented the betrayal, then Christ
would not have been crucified. No atonement would
have been made, and the whole world would have gone
to hell. The success of the Devil would have been
complete. But, according to this story, the Devil out
witted himself.
How thankful we should be to his Satanic Majesty.
He opened for us the gates of paradise and made it
possible for us to obtain eternal life. Without Satan,
without Judas, not a single human being could have
become an angel of light. All would have been wing
less devils in the prison of flame. In Jerusalem, to the
extent of his power, Satan repaired the wreck and ruin
he had wrought in the Garden of Eden.
Certainly the writers of the New Testament believed
in the existence of the Devil.
In the eighth chapter it is said that out of Mary
Magdalene were cast seven devils. To me Mary
Magdalene is the most beautiful character in the New
�THE DEVIL.
25
Testament. She is the one true disciple. In the
darkness of the crucifixion she lingered near.
She
was the first at the sepulchre. Defeat, disaster, dis
grace, could not conquer her love. And yet, according
to the account, when she met the risen Christ he said :
“ Touch me not. ” This was the reward of her infinite
devotion.
In the Gospel of John we are told that John the
Baptist said that he saw the Spirit descending from
heaven like a dove, and that it abode upon Christ.
But in the Gospel of John nothing is said about the
Spirit driving Christ into the wilderness to be tempted
by the Devil. Possibly John never heard of that, or
forgot it, or did not believe it. But in the thirteenth
chapter I find this :
“ And supper being ended, the Devil having now put
into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray
him.”.......
In John there are no accounts of the casting out of
devils by Christ or his apostles. On that subject there
is no word. Possibly John had his doubts.
In the fifth chapter of Acts we are told that the
people brought the sick and those which were vexed
with unclean spirits to the apostles, and the apostles
healed them. Here, again, there is made a clear dis
tinction between the sick and those possessed by
devils. And in the eighth chapter we are told that
“ unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of
them.”
In the thirteenth chapter Paul calls Elymas the
child of the Devil, and in the sixteenth chapter an
account is given of “ a damsel possessed with a spirit
�26
THE DEVIL.
of divination, who brought her masters much gain by
soothsaying.”
Paul and Silas, it would seem, cast out this spirit,
and by reason of that suffered great persecution.
In the nineteenth chapter certain vagabond Jews
pronounced over those who had evil spirits the name
of Jesus, and the evil spirits answered : “Jesus I know,
and Paul I know ; but who are ye ?”
“ And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on
them, so that they fled naked and wounded.”
Paul, writing to the Corinthians, in the eighth chapter
says :
“ I would not that ye should have fellowship with
devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the
cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s
table and the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord
to jealousy ?”
In the eleventh chapter he says that long hair is the
glory of woman, but that she ought to keep her head
covered because of the angels.
In those intellectual days people believed in what
were called the Incubi and the Succubi. The Incubi
were male angels and the Succubi were female angels,
and, according to the belief of that time, nothing so
attracted the Incubi as the beautiful hair of women,
and for this reason Paul said that women should keep
their heads covered. Paul calls the Devil the “ prince
of the power of the air.”
So in Jude we are told “that Michael, the archangel,
when contending with the devil he disputed about the
body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing
accusation, but said : ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’ ”
�THE DEVIL.
27
Was this devil with whom Michael contended a
personification of evil, or a poem, or a myth ?
In First Peter we are told to be sober, vigilant,
“ because your adversary, the Devil, as a roaring lion,
walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
Are people devoured by personifications or myths ?
Has an allegory an appetite, or is a poem a cannibal ?
So in Ephesians we are warned not to give place to
the Devil, and in the same book we are told : “ Put on
the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand
against the wiles of the Devil.”
And in Hebrews it is said that “ him that had the
power of death—that is, the Devil”; showing that the
Devil has the power of death.
And in James it is said that if we resist the Devil he
will flee from us ; and in First John we are told that he
that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the reason that
the Devil sinneth from the beginning ; and we are also
told that “ for this purpose was the Son of God mani
fested, that he may destroy the works of the Devil.
No Devil—no Christ.
In Revelation, the insanest of all
following : “And there was war in
and his angels fought against the
dragon fought and his angels.
“And prevailed not ; neither was
books, I find the
heaven. Michael
dragon, and the
their place found
any more in heaven.
“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent,
called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole
world : he was cast out into the earth, and his angels
were cast out with him.
“ Therefore, rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell
�28
THE DEVIL.
in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of
the sea ; for the Devil is come down unto you, having
great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a
short time.”
From this it would appear that the Devil once lived
in heaven, raised a rebellion, was defeated and cast
out; and the inspired writer congratulates the angels
that they are rid of him, and commiserates us that we
have him.
In the twentieth chapter of Revelation is the fol
lowing :—
“And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having
the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his
hand.
“And he laid hold on the dragon—that old serpent,
which is the Devil and Satan—and bound him a thou
sand years.
“And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him
up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the
nations no more till the thousand years should be ful
filled ; and after he must be loosed a little season.”
It is hard to understand how one could be confined
in a pit without a bottom, and how a chain of iron could
hold one in eternal fire, or what use there would be to
lock a bottomless pit; but these are questions probably
suggested by the Devil.
We are further told that “when the thousand years
are expired Satan shall be loosed out of his prison.”
“And the Devil was cast jinto the lake of fire and
brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are,
and shall be tormented day’and night forever.”
In the light of the passages that I have read we can
�THE DEVIL.
29
clearly see what the writers of the New Testament
believed. About this there can be no honest difference.
If the Gospels teach the existence of God—of Christ they teach the existence of the Devil. If the Devil
does not exist—if little devils do not enter the bodies
of men—the New Testament may be inspired, but it is
not true.
The early Christians proved that Christ was divine
because he cast out devils. The evidence they offered
was more absurd than the statement they sought to
prove. They were like the old man who said that he
saw a grindstone floating down the river. Someone
said that a grindstone would not float. “Ah,” said
the old man, “ but the one I saw had an iron crank
in it.”
Of course, I do not blame the authors of the Gospels.
They lived in a superstitious age, at a time when
Rumor was the historian, when Gossip corrected the
“proof,” and when everything w’as believed except the
facts.
The Apostles, like their fellows, believed in miracles
and magic. Credulity was regarded as a virtue.
The Rev. Mr. Parkhurst denounces the Apostles as
worthless cravens. Certainly I do not agree with him.
I think that they were good men. I do not believe that
any one of them ever tried to reform Jerusalem on the
Parkhurst plan. I admit that they honestly believed in
devils—that they were credulous and superstitious.
There is one story in the New Testament that illus
trates my meaning.
In the fifth chapter of John is the following :—
“Now, there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a
�30
THE DEVIL.
pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue ‘ Bethesda,
having five porches.
“ In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk—of
blind, halt, withered—waiting for the moving of the water.
“ For an angel went down at a certain season into
the pool and troubled the water : whosoever then first
after the troubling of the water stepped in was made
whole of whatsoever disease he had.
“And a certain man was there which had an infirmity
thirty and eight years.
“When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had
been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him :
‘ Wilt thou be made whole ?’
“ The impotent man answered him : ‘ Sir, I have no
man when the water is troubled to put me into the
pool ; but while I am coming another steppeth down
before me.’
“Jesus saith unto him : ‘Rise, take up thy bed and
walk. ’
“ And immediately the man was made whole and took
up his bed and walked.”
Does any sensible human being now believe this
story? Was the water of Bethesda troubled by an
angel ? Where did the angel come from ? Where
do angels live ? Did the angel put medicine in the
water—just enough to cure one ? Did he put in
different medicines for different diseases, or did he
have a medicine, like those that are patented now,
that cured all diseases just the same ?
Was the water troubled by an angel ? Possibly what
apostles and theologians call an angel a scientist knows
as carbonic acid gas.
�THE DEVIL.
3i
John does not say that the people thought the water
was troubled by an angel, but he states it as a fact.
And he tells us, also, as a fact, that the first invalid
that got in the water after it had been troubled was
cured of what disease he had.
What is the evidence of John worth ?
Again, I say that if the Devil does not exist, the
Gospels are not inspired. If devils do not exist,
Christ was either honestly mistaken, insane, or an
impostor.
t
If devils do not exist, the Fall of Man is a mistake
and the Atonement an absurdity. If devils do not exist,
hell becomes only a dream of revenge.
Beneath the structure called “ Christianity ” are
four cornerstones—the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and
Devil.
�IV.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHURCH.
The Devil was Forced to Father the Failures of God.
All the fathers of the Church believed in devils.
All the saints won their crowns by overcoming devils.
All the popes and cardinals, bishops and priests,
believed in devils. Most of their time was occupied in
fighting devils. The whole Catholic world, from the
lowest layman to the highest priest, believed in devils.
They proved the existence of'devils by the New Testa
ment. They knew that these devils were citizens of
hell. They knew that Satan was their king. They
knew that hell was made for the Devil and his angels.
The founders of all the Protestant churches—the
makers of all the orthodox creeds—all the leading
Protestant theologians, from Luther to the president
of Princeton College—were, and are, firm believers in
the Devil. All the great commentators believed in
the Devil as firmly as they did in God.
Under the “ Scheme of Salvation ” the Devil was a
necessity. Somebody had to be responsible for the
thorns and thistles, for the cruelties and crimes.
Somebody had to father the mistakes of God. The
Devil was the scapegoat of Jehovah.
For hundreds of years good, honest, zealous Chris
tians contended against the Devil. They fought him
�THE DEVIL.
33
day and night, and the thought that they had beaten
him gave to their dying lips the smile of victory.
For centuries the Church taught that the natural
man was totally depraved ; that he was by nature a
child of the Devil, and that new-born babes were
tenanted by unclean spirits.
As late as the middle of the sixteenth century every
infant that was baptized was, by that ceremony, freed
from a devil. When the holy water was applied the
priest said : “ I command thee, thou unclean spirit, in
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, that thou come out and depart from this infant,
whom our Lord Jesus Christ has vouchsafed to call to
his holy baptism, to be made a member of his body,
and of his holy congregation.”
At that time the fathers—the theologians, the com
mentators—agreed that unbaptized children, including
those that were born dead, went to hell.
And these same fathers—theologians and commen
tators—said : “ God is love.”
These babes were pure as Pity’s tears, innocent as
their mother’s loving smiles, and yet the makers of our
creeds believed and taught that leering, unclean fiends
inhabited their dimpled flesh.
O, the unsearchable
riches of Christianity !
For many centuries the Church filled the world with
devils—with malicious spirits that caused storm and
tempest, disease, accident, and death—that filled the
night with visions of despair; with prophecies that
drove the dreamers mad. These devils assumed a
thousand forms—countless disguises in their efforts to
capture souls and destroy the Church. They deceived
�34
THE DEVIL.
sometimes the wisest and the best; made priests forget
their vows. They melted virtue’s snow in passion’s
fire, and in cunning ways entrapped and smirched the
innocent and good. These devils gave witches and
wizards their supernatural powers, and told them the
secrets of the future.
Millions of men and women were destroyed because
they had sold themselves to the Devil.
At that time Christians really believed the New
Testament. They knew it was the inspired word of
God, and, so believing, so knowing—as they thought—
they became insane.
No man has genius enough to describe the agonies
that have been inflicted on innocent men and women
because of this absurd belief. How it darkened the
mind, hardened the heart, and poisoned life ! It made
the Universe a madhouse presided over by an insane
God.
Think ! Why would a merciful God allow his
children to be the victims of devils ? Why would a
decent God allow his worshippers to believe in devils,
and by reason of that belief to persecute, torture, and
burn their fellow-men ?
Christians did not ask these questions.
They
believed the Bible ; they had confidence in the words of
Christ.
�V.
PERSONIFICATIONS OF EVIL.
The Orthodox Ostrich Thrusts His Head into the Sand.
Many of the clergy are now ashamed to say that they
believe in devils. The belief has become ignorant and
vulgar. They are ashamed of the lake of fire and
brimstone. It is too savage.
At the same time they do not wish to give up the
inspiration of the Bible. They give new meanings to
the inspired words. Now they say that devils were
only personifications of evil.
If the devils were only personifications of evil, what
were the angels ? Was the angel who told Joseph who
the father of Christ was, a personification ? Was the
Holy Ghost only the personification of a father? Was
the angel who told Joseph that Herod was dead a per
sonification of news ?
Were the angels who rolled away the stone and sat
clothed in shining garments in the empty sepulchre of
Christ a couple of personifications ?
Were all the
angels described in the Old Testament imaginary
shadows—bodily personifications ?
If the angels of
the Bible are real angels, the devils are real devils.
Let us be honest with ourselves and each other, and
give to the Bible its natural, obvious meaning. Let us
�36
THE DEVIL.
admit that the writers believed what they wrote. If
we believe that they were mistaken, let us have the
honesty and courage to say so. Certainly we have no
right to change or avoid their meaning, or to dis
honestly correct their mistakes. Timid preachers sully
their own souls when they change what the writers of
the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables,
poems, and myths.
It is impossible for any man who believes in the inspi
ration of the Bible to explain away the Devil.
If the Bible is true, the Devil exists. There is no
escape from this.
If the Devil does not exist, the Bible is not true.
There is no escape from this.
I admit that the Devil of the Bible is an impossible
contradiction ; an impossible being.
This Devil is the enemy of God, and God is his.
Now, why should this Devil, in another world, torment
sinners, who are his friends, to please God, his enemy ?
If the Devil is a personification, so is hell and the
lake of fire and brimstone. All these horrors fade into
allegories—into ignorant lies.
Any clergyman who can read the Bible, and then say
that devils are personifications of evil, is himself a per
sonification of stupidity or hypocrisy.
�VI.
Does any intelligent man now, whose brain has not
been deformed by superstition, believe in the existence
of the Devil ? What evidence have we that he exists ?
Where does this Devil live ? What does he do for a
livelihood ? What does he eat ? If he does not eat, he
cannot think. He cannot think without the expen
diture of force. He cannot create force ; he must
borrow it—that is to say, he must eat. How does he
move from place to place ? Does he walk or does he
fly, or has he invented some machine ? What object
has he in life ? What idea of success ? This Devil,
according to the Bible, knows that he is to be defeated ;
knows that the end is absolute and eternal failure;
knows that every step he takes leads to the infinite
catastrophe. Why does he act as he does ?
Our fathers thought that everything in this world
came from some other realm ; that all ideas of right
and wrong came from above ; that conscience dropped
from the clouds ; that the darkness was filled with imps
from perdition, and the day with angels from heaven ;
that souls had been breathed into man by Jehovah.
What there is in this world that lives and breathes
was produced here. Life was not imported. Mind is
not an exotic. Of this planet man is a native. This
world is his mother. The maker did not descend from
the heavens. The maker was, and is, here. Matter
�38
THE DEVIL.
and force, in their countless forms, affinities, and repul
sions, produced the living, breathing world.
How can we account for devils ? Is it possible that
they creep into the bodies of men and swine ? Do they
stay in the stomach or brain, in the heart or liver ?
Are these devils immortal, or do they multiply and
die? Were they all created at the same time, or did
they spring from a single pair ? If they are subject to
death, what becomes of them after death ? Do they go
to some other world, are they annihilated, or can they
get to heaven by believing on Christ ?
In the brain of science the devils have never lived.
There you will find no goblins, ghosts, wraiths, or imps
—no witches, spooks, or sorcerers. There the super
natural does not exist. No man of sense in the whole
world believes in devils, any more than he does in
mermaids, vampires, gorgons, hydras, naiads, dryads,
nymphs, fairies, or the anthropophagi—any more than he
does in the Fountain of Youth, the Philosopher’s Stone,
Perpetual Motion, or Fiat Money.
There is the same difference between religion and
science that there is between a madhouse and a univer
sity—between a fortune-teller and a mathematician—between emotion and philosophy—between guess and
demonstration.
The devils have gone, and with them they have taken
the miracles of Christ. They have carried away our
Lord. They have taken away the inspiration of the
Bible, and we are left in the darkness of nature without
the consolation of hell.
But let me ask the clergy a few questions :—
How did your Devil, who was at one time an angel
�THE DEVIL.
39
of light, come to sin? There was no other devil to
tempt him. He was in perfectly good society—in the
company of God—of the Trinity. All of his associates
were perfect. How did he fall? He knew that God
was infinite, and yet he waged war against him, and
induced about a third of the angels to volunteer. He
knew that he could not succeed ; knew that he would
be defeated and cast out; knew that he was fighting
for failure.
Why was God so unpopular ?
Why were the angels
so bad ?
According to the Christians, these angels were spirits.
They had never been corrupted by flesh—by the passion
of love. Why were they so wicked ?
Why did God create those angels, knowing that they
would rebel ? Why did he deliberately sow the seeds
of discord in heaven, knowing that he would cast them
into the lake of eternal fire—knowing that for them
he would create the eternal prison, whose dungeons
would echo forever the sobs and shrieks of endless
pain ?
How foolish is infinite wisdom I
How malicious is mercy 1
How revengeful is boundless love 1
Again, I say that no sensible man in all the world
believes in devils.
Why does God allow these devils to enjoy themselves
at the expense of his ignorant children ? Why does he
allow them to leave their prison ? Does he give them
furloughs or tickets-of-leave ?
Does he want his children misled and corrupted so
that he can have the pleasure of damning their souls ?
�VII.
THE MAN OF STRAW.
Some of the preachers who have answered me say
that I am fighting a man of straw.
I am fighting the supernatural—the dogma of in
spiration—the belief in devils—the atonement, salva
tion by faith—the forgiveness of sins, and the savagery
of eternal pain. I am fighting the absurd, the mon
strous, the cruel.
The ministers pretend that they have advanced—
that they do not believe the things that I attack. In
this they are not honest.
Who is the “ man of straw ” ?
The man of straw is their master. In every ortho
dox pulpit stands this man of straw—stands beside the
preacher—stands with a club, called a “creed,” in his
upraised hand. The shadow of this club falls athwart
the open Bible—falls upon the preacher’s brain, darkens
the light of his reason, and compels him to betray
himself.
The man of straw rules every sectarian school and
college—every orthodox church.
He is the censor
who passes on every sermon. Now and then some
minister puts a little sense in his discourse—tries to
take a forward step. Down comes the club, and the
man of straw demands an explanation—a retraction.
�THE DEVIL.
4i
If the minister takes it back—good. If he does not,
he is brought to book. The man of straw put the
plaster of silence on the lips of Professor Briggs, and
he was forced to leave the Church or remain dumb.
The man of straw closed the mouth of Professor
Smith, and he has not opened it since.
The man of straw would not allow the Presbyterian
creed to be changed.
The man of straw took Father McGlynn by the
collar, forced him to his knees, made him take back his'
words and ask forgiveness for having been abused.
The man of straw pitched Professor Swing out of
the pulpit, and drove the Rev. Mr. Thomas from the
Methodist Church.
Let me tell the orthodox ministers that they are
trying to cover their retreat.
You have given up the geology and astronomy of
the Bible.
You have admitted that its history is
untrue. You are retreating still. You are giving
up the dogma of inspiration ; you have your doubts
about the Flood and Babel; you have given up the
witches and wizards ; you are beginning to throw
away the miraculous ; you have killed the little devils,
and in a little while you will murder the Devil him
self.
In a few years you will take the Bible for what it
is worth. The good and true will be treasured in the
heart; the foolish, the infamous, will be thrown away.
The man of straw will then be dead.
Of course, the real old petrified, orthodox Christian
will cling to the Devil.
He expects to have all of his
sins charged to the Devil, and at the same time he will
�42
THE DEVIL.
be credited with all the virtues of Christ. Upon this
showing on the books, upon this balance, he will be
entitled to his halo and harp. What a glorious, what
aji equitable, transaction 1 The sorcerer Superstition
changes debt to credit. He waves his wand, and he
who deserves the tortures of hell receives an eternal
reward.
But if a man lacks faith the scheme is exactly
reversed. While in one case a soul is rewarded for
the virtues of another, in the other case a soul is
damned for the sins of another. This is justice when
it blossoms in mercy.
Beyond this idiocy cannot go.
�VIII.
KEEP THE DEVILS OUT OF CHILDREN.
William Kingdon Clifford, one of the greatest men
of this century, said : “ If there is one lesson that
history forces upon us in every page, it is this :—Keep
your children away from the priest, or he will make
them the enemies of mankind.”
In every orthodox Sunday-school children are taught
to believe in devils.
Every little brain becomes a
menagerie, filled with wild beasts from hell.
The
imagination is polluted with the deformed, the mon
strous, and malicious. To fill the minds of children
with leering fiends—with mocking devils—is one of
the meanest and basest of crimes.
In these pious
prisons—these divine dungeons—-these Protestant and
Catholic inquisitions—children are tortured with these
cruel lies. Here they are taught that to really think is
wicked ; that to express your honest thought is blas
phemy ; and that to live a free and joyous life, depend
ing on fact instead of faith, is the sin against the Holy
Ghost.
Children thus taught—thus corrupted and deformed—
become the enemies of investigation—of progress. They
are no longer true to themselves. They have lost the
veracity of the soul. In the language of Professor
Clifford, “ they are the enemies of the human race.”
�44
'
THE DEVIL.
So I say to all fathers and mothers: Keep your children
away from priests ; away from orthodox Sunday-schools ;
away from the slaves of superstition.
They will teach them to believe in the Devil ; in hell ;
in the prison of God ; in the eternal dungeon, where the
souls of men are to suffer for ever. These frightful
things are a part of Christianity. Take these lies from
the creed, and the whole scheme falls into shapeless ruin.
This dogma of hell is the infinite of savagery—-the dream
of insane revenge. It makes God a wild beast—an
infinite hyena. It makes Christ as merciless as the
fangs of a viper. Save poor children from the pollution
ot this horror. Protect them from this infinite lie.
�IX.
CONCLUSION-
I admit that there are many good and beautiful
passages in the Old and New Testament; that from
the lips of Christ dropped many pearls of kindness—
of love. Every verse that is true and tender I treasure
in my heart. Every thought, behind which is the
tear of pity, I appreciate and love. But I cannot
accept it all. Many utterances attributed to Christ
shock my brain and heart.
They are absurd and
cruel.
Take from the New Testament the infinite savagery,
the shoreless malevolence of eternal pain, the absurdity
of salvation by faith, the ignorant belief in the exist
ence of devils, the immorality and cruelty of the Atone
ment, the doctrine of non-resistance that denies to
virtue the right of self-defence, and how glorious it
would be to know that the remainder is true ! Com
pared with this knowledge, how everything else
in nature would shrink and shrivel! What ecstasy
it would be to know that God exists ; that he
is our father, and that he loves and cares for the chil
dren of men I To know that all the paths that human
beings travel, turn and wind as they may, lead to the
�46
THE DEVIL.
gates of stainless peace 1 How the heart would thrill
and throb to know that Christ was the conqueror of
Death ; that at his grave the all-devouring monster was
baffled and beaten forever ; that from that moment the
tomb became the door that opens on eternal life I To
know this would change all sorrow into gladness.
Poverty, failure, disaster, defeat, power, place, and
wealth would become meaningless sounds. To take
your babe upon your knee and say : “ Mine, and mine
forever !” What joy ! To clasp the woman you love
in your arms, and to know that she is yours, and for
ever—yours though suns darken and constellations
vanish ! This is enough : To know that the loved and
dead are not lost; that they still live and love and wait
for you. To know that Christ dispelled the darkness
of death and filled the grave with eternal light. To
know this would be all that the heart could bear.
Beyond this joy cannot go. Beyond this there is no
place for hope.
How beautiful, how enchanting, Death would be !
How we would long to see his fleshless skull ! What
rays of glory would stream from his sightless sockets,
and how the heart would long for the touch of his
stilling hand ! The shroud would become a robe of
glory, the funeral procession a harvest home, and the
grave would mark the end of sorrow, the beginning of
eternal joy.
And yet it were better far that all this should be
false than that all of the New Testament should be
true.
It is far better to have no heaven than to have
heaven and hell ; better to have no God than God
�THE DEVIL.
47
and Devil ; better to rest in eternal sleep than to be
an angel and know that the ones you love are suffer
ing eternal pain ; better to live a free and loving life—
a life that ends forever at the grave—than to be an
immortal slave.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Devil : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 47 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: No. 17b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1899
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N338
Subject
The topic of the resource
Devil
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 Devil : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Devil-Christianity
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7910f259dd601cedf0a793babeab7e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=wP7so6AuRN88FntpT6pSOcEM02HexVtILQRVh6vvFBdPtDvMIVggoVTgXVNl0E5mNnvRA%7EMQwAm97dekvoPWjqqQgNj%7E3hR4kNPXbahjwjM2PhHH4KqRg0bu3L-FE284a-YuEdyzexTYNKvZC01CqdpYgQAARD9oAHGYnM42nJ8IDPIwwspsYFjARfQO20f-rWgOh--nuU9RC%7EMmZqPvK-v5SFZpSqmN55fiX9o6w1aM-JaLeXavAhzpCza%7Eec1btUZa1GaZkHWXwne%7EOtI72eXTBCoU6zaWXcm6mNzEizHDmqDtwj2GglvHRSohyvLJKszr75f63QAd3kT-MnnpXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce6a71b3edd1c356642b41a3a5e4fa8a
PDF Text
Text
HA-nONALSECULARSOCffiTV
“THERE WAS WAR
IN HEAVEN.”
jlnfiòtl Sermon
Delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society
BY
ROBERT FORDER.
, ‘ And there was war in Heaven : Michael and his angels
plight against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his
mg els.”—Rev. xii. 7.
ONE
PENNY,
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1887.
�28, S-ton4.cu-W^c S-tre-^t, S.S.
�r \ \
*l Mib ifjere was Mar in tjcaucn.”
(Bev. xii. 7.)
"Friends,—The text that has just been read cannot
"but bring forcibly to your minds the picture of the ter
rible affray in the celestial regions, which may indeed be
described as “ the cause of all our woe.” To ascribe the
entry of sin and misery into the1 world as due to our first
parents eating fruit that was forbidden them by Jehovah
is obviously a mistake, for the vanquished leader of the
rebel host was only continuing the strife in another
portion of the victor’s dominions, when-Ae persuaded’
poor Eve that that apple was both pleasant to the eye, -agreeable to the taste, and requisite to give the know
ledge that she then lacked. The fall, therefore, was a
defeat of Jehovah, and an effect of the war being trans
ferred to the new-made earth, to which Satan had been
so unceremoniously hurled.
But where, when, and how did this unbloody war
begin? Do your priests tell you? Is it explained in
your catechisms or made clear in your creeds ? Do any
of the ministers of the Gospel ever venture to fix a date?
No. It is left to the preachers of the gospel of freethought . to faithfully set before their friends. the time '
when this conflict began and the causes that led to the
outbreak of hostilities. God’s holy word, aided by one
of his. faithful servants, John Milton by name, shall be
requisitioned into our service, with an occasional aid
from more profane but equally well-informed sources, so
determined are we that the whole truth shall be fully set
forth. ’
.............
. .
�Jehovah, then, once upon a time alone with his
three selves, made out of what they alone know, a,
company of beings generally known as archangels,
seraphs, cherubim, and the rank and file known as
angels. When this was is not known. But as Jahveh
is the only “ eternal,” it must have been after his devel
opment. These seem to have been all male, as none of
the gentle sex are mentioned. Some impious mortals
have not hesitated to name their children after t]u?
highest of these beings, for Michael, Gabriel, and.
Raphael are by no means uncommon amongst Irishmen,
and Jews. If it is any consolation to my lady hearers,
I may at once cheer them with the welcome news that,
unlike many of the wars that have desolated the earth,
the cause of this one was' not woman. And women
ought to be glad when, together with this testimony as
to the non-existence of feminine aboriginal angels, there
is the negative evidence of the whole of the Bible that no
women have got there, coupled with the undeniable
assertion of St. John the Divine that “ there was silence
in heaven about the space of half an hour ” (Rev. viii. 1).
Bor this wise provision Milton even compliments Jahveh,
but he almost upbraids him for giving Satan such an
opportunity by making a woman upon earth. Hear
him :—
“ O, why did God,
Creator wise, that peopled heaven
With spirits masculine, create at last
This novelty on earth, this fair defect
Of Nature, and not fill the world at once
With men as angels without feminine!
Or find some other way to generate
Mankind ?”
But the divine John had, we are told, a termagant wife,
and this must be his excuse for his impious and ungallant
thought.
The archangels, then, were named, and among them
was Lucifer. Jahveh, who certainly could not have
*
foreseen the consequences that resulted from the creation,
of this being, must have made him imperfect, for ho
sooner or later showed signs of having a will of his own,
growing at last into open rebellion against his Maker.
But let us pause here, and ask, from our experience of
�(5)
similar events amongst us, whether there must not have
Jbeen a reason for this insubordination ? Rebellion is
'always brought about by the tyranny of rulers or the
'ambition of rivals. .Which was it, think you, that
actuated Lucifer ? Is it possible to imagine that abuses
had crept into the imperial government ? Were services
-required of a degrading and unworthy character? Or
Hid his highness the Devil fancy he could boss the con
cern with a view to the greatest happiness of the greatest
number? Was his employment that apportioned after
wards to the four-headed beasts, and which is vividly
depicted for us by the other John in his Revelation,
who rest not day and night saying, Holy, Holy, Holy,”
“before the great white throne ? This occupation would
certainly after a time become tedious, and there would
be some excuse for trying to bring such antics to a close.
Or had Satan charge of the stables of the heavenly
toenagerie, and did he ask for a change of duties and get
■refused? No one knows. But he rebelled ; and we find
from the fact of his following being numerous that a
"Spirit of dissatisfaction must have been prevalent among
the angels also. Here let me quote, with approval, a
remark from the article “ Satan” in Smith’s Bible Dic
tionary : “ We cannot, of course, conceive that anything
essentially and originally evil was created by God.”
Therefore it follows that circumstances over which
Jahveh had no control led up to a feeling in myriads of
his angels that things were getting very bad there, and
that radical reform was necessary. Lucifer unfurled the
banner of revolt, and
“ Hoping by treason foul to get
Into the great Jehovah’s seat;
And drawing in by wiles and snares
■Angels of all sorts unawares,”
............. ■ >
< ’
wept into the fight in earnest. Here Holy Scripture fails
Ils when we ask for particulars. We know nothing as to
the beginning of hostilities—who sent the declaration of
war; whether either side was equally well armed ;
whether the commissariat had been properly attended
to ; and whether adequate preparation had been made
for the nursing of the sick and the wounded. But Mil
ton assists us here; for ammunition appears to ba.vetutt,
short on the Imperial side, and Michael’s followers
.
�“ From their foundations loosening to and fro
O' ■ ' They plucked the seated hills with all their load.”
’’
‘These they hurled at the rebel hosts, and terror was
naturally excited in their breasts when they saw coming
thick upon them
.
&
“ The bottom of the mountains upward turned.”
But Nick was not to be outdone by Mick at this game
and, giving the order, “ Up, lads, and at ’em ! ” to his
■Captains, they,
“ In imitation, to like arms
Betake them, and the neighboring hills uptore i
So hills amid the air encountered hills,
Hurled to and fro with jaculation dire I
That underground they fought in dismal shade.”
£
,
"What carnage ! And heaven is a holy place, my friends >
there no sin or sorrow can enter; there all is joy and love’
Is it ? . Ask your Christian teachers for a guarantee thatwar will not occur there again. Look at the danger
into which you are needlessly running by going there,
now that it is the home of most of the scoundrels
that have desolated the earth ; of atrocious murderers—
wretches who have been assured by priests, while on the
very point of being "jerked to Jesus,” that they were
going straight to glory ! There is infinitely more pro
bability of a row there now than there was when all the
inhabitants of the celestial regions were aboriginals, and
had not incurred the risk of being corrupted by the miscreants that have gone there during the last six thousand
years.
But to the field again. Besides this Brobdignagiaq.
ammunition, cutlery was brought into use, although it is
difficult to understand how immortal beings could slash
and maim one another. Yet so it was, for
“ The girding sword with discontinuous wound,
Passed through him, but the ethereal substance closed, 7
Not long divisible.----- Yet soon he healed.”
• This peculiar action of “ ethereal substance ” prompted
Cobbett to remark : “I am abused for my notions of
Milton and Shakespeare ; but why abuse me ? 1 If there?be persons who are delighted with the idea of an angef
being split down the middle, and of the two halves com-
�(f)
ing (slap !) together again, intestines and’ all, they
surely let me pass without abuse for not haying sb re
*
fined a taste.”
;
The conflict raged for a long time, with varying for?
tune, Satan displaying generalship not unworthy of a>
Wellington or a Napoleon. Milton even seems proud of
his prowess and gallantry, for thus he . sings his valor in
the fray:—'
.
D,
r
, .
’
-:
“ ........................ ... down they fell
'
By thousands, angel on archangel rolled.
‘
..................... Satan beheld their flight,
And to his mates thus in derision called :
‘ O, friends, why come not on these victors proud ?
Erewhile they fierce were coming.’”
;
, •»
•'
.;
, J
But all great battles must come to an end; and so»
Jahveh finished this bloodless struggle by pursuing Satan:
.
“ With terrors and with furies to the bounds
<;
And crystal wall of heaven, which, opening wide,
c- Rolled inward, and a spacious gap disclosed.
.
4,., . Into the wasteful deep eternal wrath
Burnt after them to the bottomless pit.
’ .
Nine days they fell.”
•' J
?
:
' • - .
Here Milton’s genius seems to. have deserted him, for,’
if the pit was bottomless, they would still be tumbling,
and Satan would be powerless. But the other John aversthat they were cast out into the earth, though this state
ment is curiously contradicted by Christian theologians,
who have invented a hell in which to preserve him. This,
assertion may seem to Christians present to be a very,
reckless one indeed ; but it is the opinion of the writer Of
the article “ Hell,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, a
view that we may fairly take to be that of all’ the eminenttheologians who contributed to that important biblicalcyclopaedia. Hear what Hell is. “ This is the word,'
generally and unfortunately used by our translators tb>
render the Hebrew Sheol. It would, perhaps, .have beenbetter to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it
always by ‘ the grave,’ or ‘ the pit.’............. .The Hebrew
ideas respecting Sheol were of a vague description. Gen
erally speaking, the Hebrews regarded the grave as the
*
end of all sentient and intelligent existence.” It may bet
*
Urged that Jesus often used, the words hell and hellfire ;>
hut we must not allow the ignorance? of! a poor Jew, see
?
*
�/
(8)
Ing that there Js no evidence that he understood a word
of Hebrew, to influence us on this question. His reported
passionate and revengeful speeches, in which those words
'occur, were probably invented' by artful priests in the
Second or third century of our era. Besides, the Revised
Version has generally substituted Sheol for “ Hell ” in
the Old Testament ; and Hellophiles are sadly distressed
in consequence.
Satan, then, was hurled from heaven to earth; «.nd
here we may now expect to find him. It would be nnfa.ir
to charge him with that artful trick of chousing Jahveh
in Eden, but for the fact that orthodox Christians iden
tify him with the serpent. Of this there is no evidence
whatever, and the view cannot be supported by a single
Sentence from the Hebrew books. We first find him and
Michael “at it again,” contending about the body of
Moses (Jude 9), but whether for a dissecting room or in
the interest of rival undertakers “ no one knoweth unto
this day. Certain it is, however, that Mick showed due
and proper respect to his whilom confrere, and subsequent
antagonist, as he dared not bring a railing accusation
against him, but simply said at the end of the conflict:
“ The Lord rebuke thee.” Certain it is, therefore, that
Satan secured the body of Holy Moses, either for an
hospital or for some professional Mr. Mould, Round
three for Satan.
Pursuing our inquiries about this time, we find that
Nick, having entered into a kind of treaty of peace with
Jahveh, again became on friendly terms with his rival.
“ There was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among
them” (Job i. 6). Of course he did; what was to prevent
him? “Ha! how do, Sate?” said Jahveh. “ All right,
old boy; how are things up here?” replied Nick. “Very
quiet indeed; scarcely any addition to our circle,” says
Jahveh, “ since you sent most souls another way by that
Eden escapade of yours, old man.” “ No recriminations,
let byegones be byegones!” sharply replied the Old One,
a reply which brought Jahveh back to the novelty of the
situation. “Where have you been lately, Satan? ” said the
elder Old One in his blandest tone; to which the younger
Old One answered: “ Oh, only having a run up and
down the earth.” “ And how are matters generally in
�(9)
that neighborhood,” queried the Omniscient, “ and by
the bye, do you ever get as far as Uz?”* “ Oh, yes, I
have a country house there, and generally spend a part
of the autumn in the locality.” “ Do you know a big pot
down there named Job ? ’’ “ Know him well, as well as
I know you. Saw his missus home from a party the
other night—Job, who keeps good hours, having gone
home early.”
“What’s your opinion of the old chap, Satan—tell us
the truth now? I consider him to be a right good sort, in
fact there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an
upright man.” “Is he?” said Satan; “you don’t know
him as well as I do. See what you have done for him,
made his fortune for him, blessed him with a large
family, enabled him to become prime minister of his
country, and protected him on every hand. Take these
advantages from him, and he’ll repudiate you at once.”
“ I don’t believe it; but I know, Satan, you’re a man
of your word. Promise me you won’t hurt the old
fellow, and you may try the experiment of depriving him
of all his property, knocking his house down about his
ears, and you can even go so far as to smite his sons and
daughters; but don’t meddle with Job, and respect his
missus.” “ That’s a bargain, Jahveh; you may trust me
to keep my word respecting Job, and nothing wTould
induce me to harm his missus. Ta, ta! ”
Now, if the story in the Book of Job be true (and we
must assume that it is), Satan went straight from
Heaven to Uz, and played the devil with poor Job in
real earnest. The Sabeans carried off all his oxen and
donkeys, the Chaldeans stole his camels, and, probably,
in order that nothing should be left, God himself lent a
helping hand in this work of destruction by dropping
down fire from Heaven on the poor sheep, being rewarded,
no doubt, by “ a sweet savour ” of which we know from
holy writ that he was' exceedingly fond. In this general
destruction, my friends, do not forget that the whole of
Job’s servants, with the exception of three or four, were
Either burnt to death by God or murdered by those bands
. * Only Jahveh and Nick knew this country. “ Whether the
name of Uz'survived to classical times is uncertain.”—Die. of the
Bible.
'
�that, fell, on his. flocks; and,, to complete this- hellish.
Satan-Jahveh experiment, a hurricane was sent which
wrecked the house of Job’s eldest son, in which were
gathered Job’s other sons, and daughters, all of whom
met with a violent death. O■•! friends, it was a dreadful
thing to fall under the notice of the living God; but,
fortunately for humanity, he is dead now, or gone, on a,
journey, or is asleep. Amid all this carnage and des
truction it is satisfactory to. state of Satan that he was
a man of his word; he faithfully kept the promise he.
made to Jahveh not to harm Job. Bound four for Satan»
Satan returned, to Heaven on the next Levée day, pre
sumably to report progress, for the conversation is a
repetition of the former interview, Jahveh again asking
Nick what was his opinion of Job. If the Devil’s
character has not been grossly misrepresented, his
Christian enemies have credited him with being possessed
of craft, cunning, and deceitfulness to such a degree
that even saints have for a time been deceived by him.
We may, therefore, assume that Nick took in the sitúa-,
tion at once, laid his plans accordingly, and reasoned
thus: “I have with very little difficulty got round my
old enemy, and have bamboozled him by blarney sufficient
to allow me to go and punish, with his permission (al
though I could have done it without), one of his most
obsequious followers ; and if I. only humor him a little
*
more, I have no doubt I can get round him and obtain
his permission to go and torment old Job with small-póx,
fever, or blotches. . I will therefore tempt him.” So
Satan acted; poor old Jahveh fell into the trap, not;
without some suspicion, however, that Nick was diddling
him, for he pathetically reproached Satan with having
“ movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.’’
“Skin for skin,” said Nick, “all that aman hath will
he give for his life. Put forth thine hand now, and touch'
his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee- to thyface.” The historian of the transaction has suppressed1
the remainder of the conversation, but let us try and
fill up the hiatus. Jahveh exclaimed : “I don’t believe
it.” “ Try him,” said Satan, “ and see if I don’t know^
him better than you do.” “ Well, Sate, “ replied Jabyqh,
** most honorably have. you .kept your word in conducting
the last mission; make me a solemn promise bn your
�’<11)
yvord as a devil that you won’t take his- life from him,
and a further experiment shall be tried.” “ I will swear
it, if you doubt me,” began Nick ; but he was instantly
stopped by Jahveh exclaiming : “ No—no oath; I myself
sware one once to Abraham and have been unable to*
perform it. Your word is sufficient.” Here the inspired,
chronicler comes. again to our aid. “Behold, he is in
thine hand; but spare his life.” Off went the old onn
to Uz, “ and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of
his foot to his crown.” You will notice, my friends, how
‘clearly every fact is stated in this holy book; you cannot
possibly mistake the character of these boils. They
were sore boils ; boils that were not sore were none of
Satan’s production.
Poor Job seems to have had a sour-tempered wife, like=
Milton, for, instead of at once making him some strong,
linseed-meal poultices, or looking him up a box of Hollo
way’s'ointment, she began reproaching him, Job getting,
out of her way by going out and lying down on the dust
heap in the back-yard, scraping his boils with a piece of
a broken tea-cup. There’s a spectacle, my friends L
there’s an incentive to be good ! What an awful example,
of serving Jahveh faithfully 1 Beware of him, shun him.
as you would the----- boils. But in order that theremay be no doubt whatever of the truth of this event,
the narrative relates that-Job had three friends ; and soaccurate is the book in small matters, as well as great,
that it descends to telling their names. There was.
Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar“
the Naamathite; but where these countries were the:
Devil only knows. These three men began comforting,
poor Job by tearing up their coats and throwing dirt om
their heads—actions which by no stretch of the imagina?
tion can be considered as cures for boils ; they finished,,
however, by sitting down on the ground by Job’s midden
“ for seven days and seven nights, and none spake a.
word to him.” Tins round must certainly be given tothe Devil. Score : Devil four, God one.
You will have noticed that after Satan’s repulse hewas cast out into the earth, and all his angels were castout with him ; and the history in Job certainly corrobo—
•See Genesis, xxvi—3.
�■Tates this, for it speaks of him walking up and down in
it then. Subsequently we find him playing pranks with
¿David, tempting him to take a census of his kingdom —
*
a little eccentricity indulged in by us every decade in
Great Britain and Ireland, just to show that we are still
faithful to the Prince of this world, and respect his coun■sel and follow his advice. True, a few devoted followers
■of Jahveh the younger indignantly protested against this
-device when it was first adopted; but they were met
with scorn and derision in Parliament and in the press.
Satan again triumphed, and the result of his victory in
this bout has been of immense advantage to his subjects
here. Jahveh waxed angry with David for taking that
first census, and, possibly being afraid to engage in open
¿hostilities with Satan, resolved to punish the old Jewish
¿king. So he sent to David a certain fortune-teller, named
Gad, with a message of a most engaging nature. “I,
.■Jahveh, am determined to be revenged for this your action in following the advice of Satan: choose, therefore,
how you will be punished. You can have three years of
famine,, or three months in flight before your enemies, or
I will gird my angel Michael with one of my best Dam
ascus blades, and he shall have three days’ sport among
your people.” David, feeling assured that Satan would
stand by him, chose the last alternative, and Jahveh’s
-deputy went at it with a pestilence, and smote 23,333J
•persons per day for three days—70,000 in all. Not a
bad three days’ work, was it ? Consider, too, how just
naid moral it was—killing the people for being counted,
-and sparing the king who counted them, and Satan who
“ moved ” the king thereto. It is only fair to say that
-another writer in this blessed book declares that it was
Jahveh himself who “ moved ” David to number his sub
jects ; but that is manifestly impossible, as it would
make of Jahveh a fool as well as a murderer. Besides,
"the writer shows his ignorance of the details of the affair
■by making the three years’ famine into seven. It is
possible to believe that three are equal to one; but to
/require assent to the proposition that three are equiva
lent to seven is rather too much—even for the faithful. .
Satan and his angels are more frequently met with in
* I Chron. xxi. 1.
�( 13 ) ;
later times.- When Jesus was led up by the spirit into-y
the wilderness, it was on purpose to be tempted by the ,
Devil. On another occasion we find some of Satan’s,
angels taking up their abode inside the body or bodies of
a man or men (for Matthew and Mark relate the story ■
differently as to the number; and, while one lays the
scene in Gergesha, the other is positive that it was at
Gedara). In this affair we learn that the devils knew <
Jesus although they were inside the man, and begged of ■
Jesus, if he evicted them, to permit them to take up their.
residence inside two thousand pigs that were in the neigh- ,
borhood. This being conceded, the pigs—doubtless won- •
dering what the devil was the matter with them—ram
headlong “ down a steep place into the sea,” and were-'
drowned. The news of this destruction of these Jews’
pigs brought the people out of the city, and they very
naturally “besought him that he would depart out of •
their coasts.”
This is not the only story told of devils in God’s Word.
Jesus, in choosing his twelve apostles, admitted that one.
of them was a devil; and, in another place, we have this,
apostle identified, when Jesus says to Peter: “ Get thee,
behind me, Satan.” In those authentic productions of
the early Christian writers we have numerous instances,
of the trouble caused by devils to the Christian Church.
Some of these veracious writers descend to particulars f
and thus enable us to estimate their power in this fight.
Hear St. Cyprian : “They (the devils) insinuate them
selves into the bodies of men, raise terrors in the mind,,
distortions in the limbs, break the constitution, and bring
on diseases—yet, adjured by us in the name of the true
God, they presently yield, confess, and are forced to quit
the bodies which they possessed.” This work of exor
cism went on for more than a thousand years, the Church
drawing up a form of prayer to drive devils out of dwell
ings—an operation which took seven days to perform.
The whole of this office has been preserved by Bourne in
his Antiquities, and I will cite a pertinent remark of
Brand, another antiquary, in introducing it in his work :
“ Here follows the tedious process for the expulsion of
Daemons, who, it should seem, have not easily been
ferretted out of their quarters, if one may judge of their
unwillingness to depart by the prolixity of the subsequent
�removal-warrant, which I suppose the Romish clerical
bailiffs were not at the trouble of serving for nothing.”
Rather Montfaucon has recorded, in his Journey, an in
stance of how these devils vexed the faithful in later
times. In the Church of St. Maria del Popolo, at Rome,
ie found an altar bearing upon it an inscription in the
Latin tongue, which his English translator renders thus:
'“This altar, solemnly erected by Pope Paschal II., in
"this place, upon a Divine Inspiration, by which he soon
<lrove out the tall Devils who, sitting on the Nut Tree,
cruelly insulted the people as they passed by, was, by
the authority of Pope Urban VIII., removed to the higher
place,, where you now see it, in the year of our Lord;
1527.” To-day it is not uncommon, among people that
are very religious and very ignorant, to believe in the
raising and laying of the Devil. I know that in Norfolk '
it is a widespread form of this Bible superstition, and the
charms employed to remove the Evil. One are many and'
quaint. Saying the Lord’s Prayer backwards, whilst.
walking round the parish church, is one of these ; but a
much easier method is to be found in the Jewish records.
Eor the use of those who may at any time be troubled
by having the Devil in their houses, we will relate how
he was got rid pf. There was a young man named Toby,'
who fell dn love with a young lady named Sara, and,
like most young men under similar circumstances, he ‘
proposed marriage to her. The girl was young and ;
pretty, and she had been married to seven men, all of
whom went to bed on their wedding-night well and
strong, but all were found dead beside her the next
morning. The Devil was in love with her, and was de- '
termined that no one but he should be her spouse.
When Toby discovered this he was not quite so anxious
to make her his wife. However, one evening he went
down to the river Tigris to wash himself, when a fish '
jumped up and sought to devour him. No doubt it was
Jonah’s whale on the rampage again ; but Toby eluded
it. Looking round he saw the angel Raphael, who
shouted: “Toby, put in your hand and pull out that;
fish.” A fish that is about to swallow you is the sort of .
fish to pull out with your hand. Toby did so. Then
Raphael gave instructions to Toby to take out the heart,
liver and gall, and put them away safely. The fish' was1'
�015 )
¿ext cooked and eaten for supper by Toby and the angel,
after which they both jogged on together to Ecbatane.
Here we may remark that whenever the angels came
down to. earth they were noted for indulging in a goodSquare meal; in Abraham’s time roast veal was the billOf fare ; in this it is roast fish. Perhaps up above they
are restricted to manna, and are glad of a change when:
Put visiting. On the way, the angel assured the young man
that he could now safely marry the girl, but the fate ofher seven husbands troubled, poor Toby. He, however,,
being assured by the angel, went to the girl, proposed,
and was accepted. Raphael gave him instructions how
to “ lay ” the Devil, and after they had supped, they
brought the girl to Toby’s bedroom ; he made a fire in it
and put the heart and liver of the fish on it “ and made
a smoke therewith.” You may take it for granted that
if he had kept those organs of that fish long he would,
have made a stink also ; and this is borne out by the
statement of the writer, who says : “ The which smell,
when the evil spirit had smelled, he fled into the utter-,
most parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.” So you
see, my friends, that if you should be troubled by Satan,
leave holy water,.prayers, and signs of the cross alone—
give him a dose of ^stinking fish!
There was war in Heaven; but let us again remark
that it was only discovered by the last writer in the
Bible. Similar tales were prevalent with nearly all the
peoples from most remote antiquity. In the Persian,
Etruscan, Indian, Egyptian, and Assyrian cosmogonies
this story is variously related, and there has recently
Been unearthed what are known as the Chaldean
creation tablets, which have been translated by the late
George Smith. In editing a popular History of Baby- ■
Ionia, written by Mr. Smith, the Rev. A. H. Sayce, an
Oxford professor, says : “ Connected with these creation,
tablets are others which describe the fall of man,
brought about by the tempter, the great dragon Tiamatu
(Tehamtu), or the ‘ Deep,’' as well as another series
which recounts the war of Merodach, the sun-god, with
Tiamatu and her allies. This- war reminds us of the1*
Biblical passage (Rev. xii. 7), in which it says there wash
war in heaven.” (History of Babylonia from the Monu
ments, p. 53.) ' Remind us, good heavens ! remind us of
�( U )
what ? Why, that the early Christians cribbed from the
old, hated Babylonian sun-myths their pretended origin,
of the Devil, and-foisted it on a credulous and ignorant
people as a revelation from God. ’ .
Such, then, is the origin of this story, which has
been of enormous advantage to priests in all times, but
which is now laughed at and derided by the wisest and.'
best of men. Let us all do our best to exorcise this
wretched superstition from earth—by logic, if you like,,
by reasoning, if you will, but, more potent than either of
these, by ridictile and laughter, as adopted by us
to-night.
Tilly » DE VII/S t PULPIT.
Forty-six Discourses by the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A.
734 pages, cloth, 2/- (postage 6d.)
For delivering two of these Discourses the author was
indicted for Blasphemy, and sentenced, on July 4, 1831,
to two years’ imprisonment, to pay a fine of £200, and to
find two sureties for £250 each for five years.
THE TRUE SOURCE OF CHRISTIANITY;
OR, A VOICE FROM THE GANGES.
By AN
INDIAN
OFFICER.
IN PAPER COVERS, Is.; CLOTH, Is. 6d. POST FREE
Frauds and Follies of the
Christian Fathers.
By JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER. Price Threepence.
BSF The icorks of Voltaire, Paine, Volney, Holyoake,
Bradlaugh, Besant, Foote, Ingersoll, and other Free
thinkers, always in stock. Orders to the amount of one
shilling sent post free.
R. Forder, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
"There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Forder, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Text taken from Rev. xii. 7 'And there was war in heaven...'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N274
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work ("There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible. N.T. Revelation
NSS
Original Sin
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/804f591076f7e6ca2951e72d33de4270.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=rMVmzouSPayo0JGbgEbXoWmodcbiK7nm8%7EeMu4A2OTi4MJONhE7Bza8rzplZDgoFpCPFWJkUnz9B4p5dHQ56HZhVV1s1M84fjZeDsAoFDRRFoxkh-OrZ7eJ4hR3PfkNBzE-YZRfkw%7EqNavnUrxJT1a0prZxN03jAPEKfryaSwSDBsF-8KIgrERYV7CnPCUMlRYtZE5DiNzX5lQ9mLqqXH-oXNkA7vyLi9akGknj69V0VMPXmr4NRc0cyHbvKyQiBmOvH8ZaRUvor7dS6O89lPm2oxcoRTiWW5HpKIvd2BfnpOV-x1pdZz14I%7E%7E4tdaOJZc48reJh7ReRe80f%7EyqlRw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7ed861832e96e540ae783f525ef7fdf5
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
SKULLS.
A LECTURE
BY
COLONEL ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1893.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY G. W. EOOTE,
AT 14 CLEWNWELL GREEN, E.C.
�SKULLS.
Man advances just in the proportion that he mingles his
thoughts with his labor—just in the proportion that he
takes advantage of the forces of nature ; just in proportion
as he loses superstition and gains confidence in himself.
Man advances as he ceases to fear the gods and learns to
love his fellow men. It is all, in my judgment, a question
of intellectual development. Tell me the religion of any
man and I will tell you the degree he marks on the intel
lectual thermometer of the world. It is a simple question
of brain. Those among us who are the nearest barbarian
have a barbarian religion. Those who are nearest civilisa
tion have the least superstition. It is, I say, a simple
question of brain, and I want in the first place to lay the
foundation to prove that assertion.
A little while ago I saw models of nearly everything
that man has made. I saw models of all the water craft,
from the rude dug-out in which floated a naked savage—
one of our ancestors—a naked savage, with teeth twice as
long as his forehead was high, with a spoonful of brains
in the back of his orthodox head—I saw models of all the
water craft of the world, from that dug-out up to a manof-war, that carries a hundred guns and miles of’ canvas ;
from that dug-out to the steamship that turns its brave
prow from the port of New York, with a compass like a
conscience, crossing three thousand miles of billows with
out missing a throb or beat of its mighty iron heart from
shore to shore. And I saw at the same time the paintings
of the world, from the rude daub of yellow mud to the
landscapes that enrich palaces and adorn houses of what
were once called the common people.
�(4 )
I saw also their sculpture, from the rude god with four
legs, a half-dozen arms, several noses, and two or three
rows of ears, and one little contemptible brainless head,
up to the figures of to-day,—-to the marbles that genius
has clad in such a personality that it seems almost impu
dent to touch them without an introduction.
I saw their books—written upon the skins of wild
beasts—upon shoulder-blades of sheep-books written
upon leaves, upon bark, up to the splendid volumes that
enrich the libraries of our day. When I speak of
libraries, I think of the remark of Plato : li A house that
has a library in it has a soul.”
I saw at the same time the offensive weapons that man
has made, from a club, such as was grasped by the same
savage, when he crawled from his den in the ground and
hunted a snake for his dinner, from that club to the
boomerang, to the sword, to the cross-bow, to the blunder
buss, to the flint-lock, to the cap-lock, to the needle-gun,
up to a cannon cast by Krupp, capable of hurling a ball
weighing two thousand pounds through eighteen inches
of solid steel.
I saw, too, the armor from the shell of a turtle that one
of our brave ancestors lashed upon his breast when he
went to fight for his country ; the skin of a porcupine,
dried with the quills on, which this same savage pulled
over his orthodox head, up to the skirts of mail that were
worn in the middle ages, that laughed at the edge of the
sword and defied the point of the spear, up to a monitor
clad in complete steel.
.
.
And I say orthodox not only in the matter of religion,
but in everything. Whoever has quit growing, he is
orthodox, whether in art, politics, religion, philosophy—
no matter what. Whoever thinks he has found it all out,
he is orthodox.
■ x. x
Orthodox is that which rots, and heresy is that which
grows for ever. Orthodoxy is the night of the past, full
of the darkness of superstition, and heresy is the eternal
coming day, the light of which strikes the grand fore
heads of the intellectual pioneers of the world. I saw
their implements of agriculture, from the plough made
of a crooked stick, attached to the horn of an ox by some
twisted straw, with which our ancestors scraped the earth,
�(5)
and from that to the agricultural implements of this
generation, that make it possible for a man to cultivate
the soil without being an ignoramus.
In the old time there was but one crop ; and when the
rain did not come in answer to the prayer of hypocrites,
a famine came and people fell upon their knees. At that
time they were full of superstition. They were frightened
all the time for fear that some god would be enraged at
his poor, helpless, feeble and starving children. But now,
instead of depending upon one crop, they have several,
and if there is not rain enough for one there may be
enough for another. And if the frost kill all, we have
railroads and steamships enough to bring what we need
•from some other part of the world. Since man has found
out something about agriculture, the gods have retired
from the business of producing famines.
I saw at the same time their musical instruments, from
the tom-tom—that is, a hoop with a couple of strings of
raw-hide drawn across it—from that tom-tom, up to the
instruments we have to-day, that makes the common air
blossom with melody, and I said to myself there is a
regular advancement.
I saw at the same time a row of human skulls, from the
lowest skull that has been found—Neanderthal skulls—
skulls from Central Africa, skulls from the bushmen of
Australia, skulls from the farthest isles of the Pacific sea
up to the best skulls of the last generation—and I noticed
that there was the same difference between those skulls
that there was between the products of those skulls, and
I said to myself, “ After all it is a simple question of intel
lectual development.” There was the same difference
between those skulls, the lowest and highest skulls, that
there was between the dug-out and the man-of-war and
the steamship, between the club and the Krupp gun,
between the yellow daub and the landscape, between the
tom-tom and an opera by Verdi.
The first and lowest skull in this row was the den .in
which crawled the base and meaner instincts of mankind,
and the last was a temple in which dwelt joy, liberty
and love.
And I said to myself it is all a question of intellectual
development. Man has advanced just as he has mingled
4
�(6)
his thought with his labor. As he has grown he has
taken advantages of the forces of nature—first of the
moving wind, then falling water, and finally of steam.
From one step to another he has obtained better houses,
better clothes and better books, and he has done it by
holding out every incentive to the ingenious to produce
them. The world has said, give us better clubs and guns
and cannons with which to kill our fellow Christians.
And whoever will give us better weapons and better
music, and better houses to live in, we will robe him in
wealth, crown him in honor, and render his name death
less. Every incentive was held out to every human being
to improve these things, and that is the reason we have
advanced in all mechanical arts. But that gentleman in
the dug-out not only had his ideas about politics,
mechanics and agriculture, he had ideas also about
religion. His idea about politics was “right makes
might.” It will be thousands of years, maybe, before
mankind will believe in the saying that “ right makes
might.”
He had his religion. That low skull was a devil
factory. He believed in hell, and the belief was a conso
lation to him ; he could see the waves of God’s wrath
dashing against the rocks of dark damnation. He could
see tossing in the white caps the faces of women, and
stretching above the crest the dimpled hands of children •
and he regarded these things as the justice and mercy of
God. And all to-day who believe in the eternal punish
ment are the barbarians of the nineteenth century. That
man believed in a devil, too, that had a long tail termi
nating with a fiery dart, that had wings like a bat—a devil
that had a cheerful habit of breathing brimstone, that
had a cloven foot, such as some orthodox clergymen seem
to think I have. And there has not been a patentable
improvement made upon the Devil in all the years
since.
The moment you drive the Devil out of theology, there
is nothing left worth speaking of. The moment they drop
the Devil, away goes atonement. The moment they kill
the Devil, their whole scheme of salvation has lost its
interest for mankind. You must keep the Devil and you
must keep hell. You must keep the Devil, because with
�( 7 )
no Devil no priest is necessary. Now, all I ask is, that
the same privilege, to improve upon his religion as upon
his dug-out, and that is what I am going to do, the best I
can. No matter what church you belong to, or what
church belongs to us. Let us be honor bright and
fair.
I want to ask you. Suppose the king, if there be one,
and the priest, if there was one at that time, had told
these gentlemen in the dug-out, “ That dug-out is the
best boat that can ever be built by man ; the pattern of
that came from on high, from the great God of storm and
flood ; and any man who says that he can improve it by
putting a stick in the middle of it and a rag on the stick,
is an infidel, and shall be burned at the stake,” what in
your judgment—honor bright—would have been the
effect upon the circumnavigation of the globe ?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, if
there was one—and I presume there was a priest, because
it was a very ignorant age—suppose this king and priest
had said, “ That tom-tom is the most beautiful instrument
which any man can conceive; that is the kind of
music they have in heaven ; an angel sitting upon the
edge of a glorified cloud, golden in the setting sun,
playing upon the tom-tom, became so enraptured, so
entranced with her own music, that in a kind of ecstacy
she dropped it—that is how we obtained it and any man
who says it can be improved by putting a back and front
to it, and four strings, and a bridge, and getting a bow
of hair with resin, is a blaspheming wretch, and shall die
the death,”—I ask you what effect that would have had
upon music ? If the course had been pursued, would the
human ears, in your judgment, ever have been nnriched
with the divine symphonies of Beethoven ?
Suppose the king, if there was one, and the priest, had
said, “ That a crooked stick is the best plough that can be
invented ; the pattern of that plough was given to a pious
farmer in an exceedingly holy dream, and that twisted
straw is the ne plus ultra of all twisted things, and any
man who says he can make an improvement upon that
plough is an atheist ” ; what in your judgment would have
been the effect upon the science of agriculture ?
�Now, all I ask is the same privilege to improve upon
his religion as upon his mechanical arts. Why don’t we
go back to that period to get the telegraph ? Because they
were barbarians And shall we go to barbarians to get
our religion? What is religion? Religion simply em
braces the duty of man to man. Religion is simply the
science of human duty and the duty of man to man—
that is what it is. It is the highest science of all. And
all other sciences are as nothing, except as they contribute
to the happiness of man The science of religion is the
highest of all, embracing all others And shall we go to
the barbarians to learn the science of sciences ? The
nineteenth century knows more about religion than all
the centuries dead. There is more real charity in the
world to day than ever before ; there is more thought
to-day than ever before. Woman is glorified to-day as
she never was before in the history of the world. There
are more happy families now than ever before ; more
children treated as though they were tender blossoms
than as though they were brutes than in any other time
or nation.
Religion is simply a duty a man owes to man ; and
when you fall upon your knees and pray for some
thing you know not of, you neither benefit the one you
pray for nor yourself. One ounce of restitution is worth
a million of repentances anywhere, and a man will get
along faster by helping himself a minute than by praying
ten years for somebody to help him. Suppose you were
coming along the street, and found a party of men and
women on their knees praying to a bank, and you asked
them, “ Have any of you borrowed money of this bank ?”
;t No, but our fathers, they, too, prayed to this bank.”
« Did they ever get any ?” “ No, not that we heard of.”
I would tell them to get up. It is easier to earn it and
far more manly.
Now, in the old times of which I have spoken, they
said, “We can make all men think alike.” All the
mechanical ingenuity of this earth cannot make two
clocks run alike, and how are we going to make millions
of people of different quantities and qualities and amount
of brain, clad in this living robe of passionate flesh, how
are you going to make millions of them think alike ? If
�the infinite God, if there is one, who made us, wished us
to think alike, why did he give a spoonful
J5™”
to one man and a bushel to another ? Why is it tbat
we have all degrees of humanity, r
think
the genius if it was intended that all should thin
llike ? I say our fathers concluded they would do
to by force I and I used to read in books how they
persecuted mankind, and, do you know I never^appreeiated it I did not. I read it, but it did not burn itsei ,
as it were, into my very soul. What infamies had been
committed in the name of religion! And I never t r y
appreciated it until, a little while ago I^aw flw iron
arguments our fathers used to use. I tell you the reason
we are through that is because we kav^®‘te5 comTiSelour fathers had. Since that day. we have become intel
lectually developed, and there
“or® yi'en in oto
more real good sense in the world to-nay than in other
Periods of its history. And that is the reason we have
more liberty ; that is the reason we have more kmd-
11 But I say I saw these iron arguments our fathers used to
use. I saw there the thumbscrew-two ^noc^°° \ g
nieces of iron, armed on the inner surface with protu
berances to prevent their dipping-and when some me
denied the efficacy of baptism, or maybe, said
1 do not
believe that the whale ever swallowed a man to keep
him from drowning,” then they put these ^ttle P16^^
iron upon his thumbs, and there was a screw at each end,
and then in the name of love and forgiveness they began
screwing these pieces of iron together. A great many
men, when they commenced, would say, I recan .
expect I would have been one of them. I would have
said “ Now you just stop that; I will admit anything on
earth that you want, I will admit toe is one God or a
million, one hell or a billion; suit yourselves, but stop
that ” But I want to say, the thumbscrew having go
of the way, I am going to have my say.
There was now and then some man who would
Judas Iscariot to his own soul; there was now and th
a man willing to die for his conviction, and if it we
not for such men we would be savages
*
not been for a few brave and heroic souls in every age
�( 10 )
dancing around a dried snake fe?teh Ind I to niuht
thank every good and noble man who stood unto
bXvOedn°SitiT and hatred »d death for mat he
believed to be right. And then they screwed this than, h
dungeon wVe™ toT^00^’‘^^him
"P°nrt^
cfmmttted wL to’slv6 whhytoa‘he
m”6 he had
eheeks, •<! do not bel^eSoA^aT
men” Think O? p4u“s’?ment
of the children of
• x k °*
And I saw there, at the same timp
which yXUv”ean’retd8d
“ 8Cara«er’s daughter,” of
ratchets to prevent slipping. Over each windlass went
doctrfieTf ShoVD“n ’T’ f°r instance> denied the
aoctnne of the Trinity—a doctrine it is necessarv tn
von6 don?t °htvy°Ut g6‘ ‘u heaTCU’ but> thank the Lord,
denied that toZeer "nderstand it—this man merely
?!£ that th ee tlmes one was one> or maybe he denied
that there was ever any son in the world exactly as“Td
as his father, or that there was a boy eternally older than
is mother-then they put that man on the rack. Nobody
has ever been persecuted for calling God bad-it hal
saXibtfS±£Ui'JFST g.°Od'
1 stand
“
veL bld
|h‘S a bell’ God (1S ? fiendthat is
instil ui?nn« nf
7 ?
trymg to fear do™ the
institutions of. public virtue. But let me tell you one
thing. There is no reformation in fear. You can scare a
man so that he won’t do it sometimes, but I will swear
�(11)
you can’t scare him so bad that he won’t want to
Then thev put this man on the rack, and priests began
turning these levers, and kept turning until the ankles,
the hips, the shoulders, the elbows, the wrists, and all the
joints of the victim were dislocated, and he was wet witn
agony, and standing by was a physician to feel his pulse.
What for! To save his life? Yes. In mercy? No.
But in order that they might have the pleasure of racking
him once more. And this was the Christian spirit. This
was done in the name of civilisation, . in the name of
religion, and all the wretches who did it died in peace.
There is not an orthodox preacher in the city that has not
a respect for every one of them. As, for instance, tor
John Calvin, who was a murderer, and nothing but a
murderer—who would have disgraced an ordinary
gallows by being hanged upon it. These men when they
came to die were not frightened. God did not send any
devils into their death rooms to make mouths at them.
He reserved them for Voltaire, who brought religious
liberty to France. He reserved them for Thomas Paine,
who did more for liberty than all the churches. But all
the inquisitors died with the white hands of peace folde
over the breast of piety. And when they died the room
was filled with the rustle of the wings of angels, waiting
to bear the wretches to heaven.
_
For two hundred years the Christians of the United
States deliberately turned the cross of Christ into a
whipping-post. Christians bred hounds to catch other
Christians. Let me show you what the Bible has done
for mankind. “ Servants, be obedient to your masters.
The only word coming from the sweet heaven was,
« Servants, obey your masters.” Frederick Douglas told
me he had lectured upon the subject of freedom twenty
years before he was permitted to set his foot in a church.
I tell you the world has not been fit to live in for twentyfive years. Then all the people used to cringe and crawl
to preachers. Mr. Buckle, in his history of civilisation,
shows that men were even struck dead for speaking
impolitely to a priest. God would not stand it. See how
they used to crawl before cardinals, bishops and popes.
It is not so now. Before wealth they bowed to the
�( 12 )
abjectearth’ aUd iU the presence of titles they became
All this is slowly but surely changing. We no
longer bow to men simply because they are rich Our
fathers worshipped the golden calf. The worst you say
ot an American now is he worships the gold of the calf.
liiVen the calf is beginning to see this distinction. The
time will come when, no matter how much money a man
has, he will not be respected unless he is using it for the
benefit of his fellow men. It will soon be here. It no
longer satisfies the ambition of a great man to be king or
emperor. The last Napoleon was not satisfied with
being the Emperor of the French. He was not satisfied
with having a circlet of gold about his head. He wanted
some evidence that he had something of value within his
head. So he wrote Julius Csesar, that he might become a
member of the French Academy. The emperors, the
kings, the popes, no longer tower above their fellows
Compare, for instance, King William and Helmholtz.’
lhe king is one of the anointed of the Most High, as
they say—one upon whose head has been poured the
divine petroleum of authority. Compare this king with
Helmholtz, who towers an intellectual Colossus above the
crowned mediocrity. Compare George Eliot with Queen
v ictoria. The Queen is clothed in garments given her by
blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while George
Eliot wears robes of glory woven in the looms of her own
genius.
And so it is the world over. The time is ooming when
a man will be rated at his real worth, and that by his
brain and heart. . We care nothing now about an officer
unless he fills his place. No matter if he is president ;
if he rattles in the place nobody cares anything about
him. I might give you instances in point, but I won’t.
The world is getting better and grander and nobler
every day.
I believe in marriage. If there is any heaven upon
earth, it is in the family by the fireside, and the family
is a unit of government. Without the family relation is
tender, pure and true, civilisation is impossible. Ladies,
the ornaments you wear upon your persons to-night are
but the souvenirs of your mother’s bondage. The chains
�( 13 )
around your nocks, and the bracelet/’jXf have been
from iron into
devilment m it by
trouble into the world. I cion t
■woman brought all t
,
live in a world full of
care if she did. I would rather live
R-n beaven
trouble with
woman -1 S’in a book an account, of
with nobody but men.
j have taken pains
the creation of the world.
And why do I say
to say was not written.byany ^d-^And
So? Because I can
.
Several ministers m
Because it is full of Barbarism
me_notably those
this city have undertake
4-v,prnqpives I want to ask
who don’t believe the B^le themsdves. ^1
these men one ^mg.
that answers me, and
minister in the city of Ghica^
, b tt r answer me
those who have answered me^had bet^
again—I want them
nious tricks—I want
evasion—without resor ing>
tbat the Eternal God of
them to say whether t
.
of polygamy. Say it
this universe
uphdd Hi
thal ^ing a
square and fair. Don t be»m
Qn
prejudices
peculiar time, and that God
S answer that queso£ those old fellows I ^‘‘wMoh they haven’t done,
tion, and to answer it squarely,
worship ever sanction
Did this God, which you P^nd to worship, e
the institution
human slavery^
Don’t slide around it. Don t oeg
Mogeg waS. stick
bad man I am, nor what a goo
that aIlowed a man
to the text. Do you Believe ? G°
worsbip SUch an
to be sold from his^cbll?£r®u do, tell your congregation
infinite monster ? And it you a ,
Let every
whether you are not at'’ha™.
wbether he believes
minister who answers me g
little dimpled
God commanded his general to tall the M
babe in the “adie Let him a
u or
those were very Bad time .
wbetber to hate
not, and then your_ p P
Tell them whether that
S Tn° war captur^ young"maidens and turned them
�( H )
sOwerettOc-i^e„fOldi6ra! a“d then ask the ™ “d the
sweet gills of your congregation to get down on their
Antwer11, n°-shiPtha “finite fiend that did that thing,
is Xt'
/a" iG°d 1 a'.V talkin« about> au<i if that
nndp? kG d dld’.Please fell your congregation what
done Don’tM? alrcumstances, the Devil would have
on
7°ur people that is a poem. Don’t tell
:
neonlPe°h1tuhat-?S-pictorial- That won’t do. Tell your
you to To
"
M trTO °r falSe' That is what 1
In this book I have read about God’s making the world
“aki°nnTo?an- That “ a11 he intended
make. The
making of woman was a second thought, though I am
This’&>d nTT'that’ “ a 716’ see°nd thoughts are best.
I,
m?de t
and Pu‘ Um inl" a public park,
then he foTd1 h T u°tlOed that the man got lonesome ;
have hto£m»kllle han ’tiad® a mistake, and that he would
nave to make somebody to keep him company. But
having used up all the nothing he originally used in
a mannfo^T0rld and
he had Vtake part of
a man to start a woman with. So he caused a deep sleep
to fall on this man. Now, understand me, I do not say
the Sun p 1S rU • ‘ ^er the Sleep had falleu on this mal
the Supreme Being took a rib, or, as the French would call
and TUt«et’
hlT’ and from th.at he made a woman ;
amount “,wdling
s,Year’ takina into account the
th^
? d quality of the raw material used, this was
world10^ magnificeut j°b ever accomplished in this
toYhe’m^ he/?t the Tman don® she was bought
man, not to see how she liked him, but to
’“Lh°w he like5 hJr- He liked fien and th“y started
housekeeping, and they were told of certain things thev
dtb aU^f-°ne thing they could not d<>-and of
course they did it. I would have done it in fifteen
minutes, and I know it. There wouldn’t have been an
apple on that tree half an hour from date, and the limbs
could have been full of clubs. And then they Xe
to^en^h1 °f ftEe park and extra policemen were put on
menepH
? T get?ng back- And then trouble comjueuced, and we have been at it ever since. Nearly all of
religions in this world account for the existence of
�( 15 )
evil by Buch a ^7 »
written last was the origin ,
.
was written
written first was copied from the on
last. But I would advise you al
^“^housand
^rlaimsbldgreyatad“"to°be mistaken in dates
‘toIn theS°othe™ntthe Supreme Brahma made up Mb
mind “make the world and a. mang and a woman He
made the world, and he made the
on According
woman, and put them on the
fM°“nd o£ wbieh
to the account it was the most beaut
1
flower9
man can conceive
were
solrrangeTth” when the wind swept through fromevery
tree was a thousand -Bohandxarp*
“^J^urtship,
courtship, with the nightingale Binging and 1
shin ng and flowers blooming, and they fell inJove.
Imagine that courtship! No prospective fahers.or
mothers-in-law; no prying and gossipmg
to
Mb°dyt her^:S A W-rfthe
nightingale singing its song of joy and P™J0S
the thorn already touched its heart. ^h y
pemain
by the Supreme Brahma, and he said to hem. Rema
here; you must never leave this island. Well,after a
little while the man—and his name was
be’lieve I’ll
woman’s name was Heva—said to Heva,
lnnlr about a little.” He wanted to go west. He wen
the western extremity of the island,
^aim
little narrow neck of land connecting it with the ma
land and the Devil, who is always playing.pranks, with
us produced a mirage, and when he looked over to the
�( 16 )
mainland, such hills and vales, such dells and dales such
mountains crowned with snow, such cataracts clad in’bows
Hevl -Thl116 ST there’that ke went back and told
,, a ' . The country over there is a thousand times better
than this ; let us emigrate.” She, like every o th mwoman
that ever lived, said : “Let well enough alone we h^ve
all we want ; let us stay here.” But he said •’ “ No W
™.go.” So. she followed him, and when they efm’e to
this narrow neck of land, he took her on his back "ke a
gentleman, and carried her over. But the moment thev
tgb°Af0J.e-r th6y heard ? Crash’ and looking back, discovered
t this narrow neck of land had fallen into the sea. The
mirage had disappeared and there were naught but rocks
and sand and then, the Supreme Brahma cursed them
bo* to the lowest hell. Then it was thaUhe man spok"
and I have liked him ever since for it—“ Curse meLut
urse not her ; it was not her fault, it was mine.” That’s
BrahmadsaMm“ni w'll^ 7W0?d Witk The S'>preme
.oranma said . I will save her, but not thee.” And then
spoke out of her fulness of love, out of a heart in
which there wus love enough to make all her daughters
rich in holy affection, and said : “ If thou will not^pare
I SeTm ’^eTher
;qT d° nOt Wi8h t0 live wi^out him.
1 i tJii ■
TheU thr SuPre.me Brahma said—and I have
and kirn ever since I read it—“ I will spare you both
and watch over you and your children for ever.” Honor
1S
m>t the better and grander story ? And in
that same book I find this : “ Man is strength, woman is
beauty ; man is courage, woman is love. When the one
man loves the one woman, and the woman loves the one
man, the very angels leave heaven and come and sit in
that house and sing for jvj. ” In the same book this •
joy.
u
Blessed is that man and beloved of all the gods who is
a,fraid of no man and of whom no man is afraid.” Masn? charact®r •' A missionary certainly ought to talk
to. that man And I find this: “Never will I accent
private individual salvation, but rather will I stay and
work and strive and suffer until every soul from everv
star has.been brought home to God.” Compare that with
rlstlan 77 exPe°ts to goto heaven while the world
So Tt0 ™ etornaI Md “"ending hell,
bo I say that religion lays all the crime and troubles of
�this world at the beautiful feet of women, And then th'e:
Church has the impudence to say that it has exalted
woman.
I believe that marriage is a perfect partnership;
that woman has every right that man has—and one more
T K f ngkt fco be Protected.
Above all men in the world
1 hate a stingy man-a man that will make his wife begformoney.
What did you do with the dollar I gave
you last week ? And what are you going to do with this ?”
it is vile No gentleman will ever be satisfied with the
love ot a beggar and a slave—no gentleman will ever be
satisfied except with the love of an equal. What kind of
their mother9?a m&n 6Xpect to have with a beggar for
A man cannot be so poor but that he can be
generous, and if you have only one dollar in the world
and you have got to spend it, spend it like a lord—spend
it as though it was a dry leaf, and you the owner of unbounded forests-spend it as though you had a wilderness
of your own. That s the way to spend it. I had rather
be a beggar and spend my last dollar like a king, than be
?o W >nd Spe.nd my money like a beggar. If it has to
go let it go And this is my advice to the poor. For von
S^d^d bS S°! P°°r that What you d0 y°u can’t do
a
grand and manly way. I hate a cross man. What right
has a man to assassinate the joy of life ? When you go
,yoa ought to go like a ray of light—so that it will,
and in 61burfJ out
the doors and windows
the, darkness- Some men think their
th
brams kave been in a turmoil ; they have been
th 'klng about wko wiii be aiderman from the fifth ward •
aue^tion7 h 6en tbillkinS about politics ; great and mighty
bouih?rnlhave^een enga°iaS their minds; they have
sevfnfiVS C6ntS °r Six’ and want to sel1 ifc for
be^nUnknn°tL?he intedect1ual strain that must have
else in ?hp 1
man, and when he gets home everybody
who bn?
fmUSt 10°k °ut for his comfort. A woman
or two nf°thy aken care of five or six children and one
t'n the
hem S1.ck’ kas been nursing them and singing
work of tU trying? make °ne yard of cloth do the
work of two, she, of course, is fresh and fine and ready
�( 18 )
to wait upon this gentleman—the head of the family—
thI was'reading the other day of an apparatus invented
for the ejectment of gentlemen who subsist upon free
lunches. It is so arranged that when the fellow gets both
hands into the victuals, a large hand descends upon him,
jams his hat over his eyes-he is seized, turned towards
the door, and just in the nick of time an immense boot
comes from the other side, kicks him in italics, sends him
out over the side-walk and sends him rolling in the
gutter. I never hear of such a man—a boss—that 1 don t
feel as though that machine ought to be brought into
requisition for his benefit.
Love is the only thing that will pay ten. per. cent., of
interest on the outlay. Love is the only thing m which
the height of extravagance is the last degree of economy.
It is the only thing, I tell you. Joy is wealth Love is
the legal tender of the soul, and you need not be rich to
be happy. We have all been raised on success m this
country—always been talked with about being successful,
and have never thought ourselves very rich unless we
were the possessors of some magnificent mansion, and
unless our names have been between the putrid. lips o
rumor we could not be happy. Every boy is striving to
beThis and be that. I' tell you the happy man is the
successful man. The man that has been the emperor of
one good heart, and that heart embrace all his, has been a
success. If another has been the emperor of . the round
world, and has never loved and been loved, his life is a
fai“won’t do. Let ns teach onr children the other way,
that the happy man is the successful man, and he who is
a happy man is the one who always tries to make someOUItlsSnot necessary to be rich in order to be happy. It
is only necessary to be in love. Thousands of men go to
college and get a certificate that they have an education,
andThat certificate is in Latin, and they stop studying
and in two years to save their lives they couldn t read
Ceit is mostly^30 in marrying. They stop c0*rtl“g
they get married. They think we have won her and that
�»
( 19 )
is enough. Ah ! the difference before and after! Howwell they looked! How bright their eyes ! How light
" their steps, and how full they were of generosity and
laughter!
I tell you a man should consider himself in good
luck if a woman loves him when he is doing his
level best. Good luck ! Good luck ! And then, do you
know, I like to think that love is eternal ; that if you
really love the woman for her sake you will love her no
matter what she may do ; that if she really loves you for
your sake, the same ; that love does not look at altera
tions ; through the wrinkles of time, through the mask
o years, if you really loved her, you will always see the
race you loved and won. And I like to think of it. If a
man loves a woman she does not even grow old to him
and the woman who loves a man does not see that he
grows old. He is not decrepit to her ; he is not tremulous •
ii1S
’*
is not bowed- Siie always sees the same
gallant fellow that won her hand and heart. I like to
hmk of it in that way, and as Shakespeare says, “ Let
time reach with his sickle as far as ever he can ; although
he can reach ruddy cheeks and ripe lips and flashing
eyes, he cannot quite reach love.” I like to think of it
We wiH go down the hill of life together and enter the
shadow one with the other, and as we go down we mav
JtearK91® nPP}e of
laughter of our grandchildren, and
the birds, and spring, and youth and love will sing once
more upon the leafless branches of the tree of age. I love
to think of it in that way—absolute equals, happy, happy
and free all our own.
When your child confesses to you that it has committed
a fault, take that child in your arms, and let it feel your
°®at/?ainst its heart’ and raise y°hr childrenin the
sunhght of love, and they will be sunbeams to you along
the pathway of life. Abolish the club and the whip from
house because, if the civilised use a whip, the ignorant
and brutal will use a club, and they will use it because
you use a whip. When I was a boy there was one day
in each week too good for a child to be happy in. In
’
these good old times Sunday commenced when the sun
went down on Saturday night, and closed when the sun
went down on the Sunday night. We commenced
�( 20 )
Saturday to get a good ready. And when the sun went
down on Saturday night there was a gloom deeper than
midnight that fell upon the house. You could not crack
hickory nuts then. And if you were caught chewing
gum it was only another evidence of the total depravity
of the human heart. Well, after a while we got to bed
sadly and sorrowfully, after having heard heaven thanked
that we were not all in hell. And I sometimes used to
wonder how the mercy of God lasted as long as it did
because I recollected that on several occasions I had not
been at school when I was supposed to be there. Why 1
was not burnt to a crisp was a mystery to me. 1 he next
morning we got up and we got ready for church all
And when we got there the minister was up in
the pulpit about twenty feet high—and he commenced at
Genesis about the fall of man, and he went on to about
twenty-thirdly ; then he struck the second application.
And when he struck the application I knew he was about
half way through. And then he went on to. show the
scheme how the Lord was satisfied with punishing the
wrong man. Nobody but a god would have thought of
that ingenious way. Well, when we got through that,
then came the catechism—the chief end of man. Then
my turn came, and we sat along in a. little bench where
our feet did not come within fifteen inches of the floor,
and the dear old minister used to ask us, ‘‘Boys, do you
know that you all ought to be in hell ? And we answered
up as cheerfully as we could under circumstances, Yes,
sir.” “ Well, boys, do you know that you would go to
hell if you died in your sins?” And we said, “Yes,
S1 And then came the great test. “ Boys ’’—I can’t get the
tone, you know. And do you know this is how the
preachers get the bronchitis. You never heard of an
auctioneer getting the bronchitis, nor a second mate on
a steamboat-never. What gives it to the mmis^rs
talking solemnly when they don t feel that way, and
has the same influence on the organs of speech that it
would have upon the cords of the calves, of your le?sit
walk on your tiptoes—and so I call bronchitis ‘ parsonitis.
And if the ministers would all tell exactly what they
�( 21 )
think they would all get well, but keeping back a
part of the truth is what gives them, bronchitis. Well
the old man—the dear old minister—used to try and show
us how long we would be in hell if we should locate
there. But to finish the other. The grand test question
was:
u
“ Boys, if it was God’s will that you should go to hell
would you be willing to go ?”
.
Httle liar said’ “ Yes’ sir” Then in order
to tell how long we would stay there, he used to say •
buppose once m a Dillion ages a bird should come from
a far distant clime and carry off in its bill one little grain
of sand, the time would finally come when the last grain
of sand would be carried away. Do you understand?"
■
“ Boys’ by that time it would not be sun-up
in hell.
<
.Wh.ere did that doctrine of hell come from ? I
will tell you, from that fellow in the dug-out Where
did he get it? It was a souvenir from the wild beasts.
Yes, I tell you he got it from the wild beasts, from the
glittering eye of the serpent, from the coiling, twisting
snakes, with their fanged mouths ; and it came from the
bark, growl and howl of wild beasts; it was born
of a laugh of the hyena, and begot from the
depraved chatter of malicious apes. And I despise
it with every drop of my blood and defy it
If
there is any God in this universe who will damn
his children for an expression of an honest thought
I wish to go to hell. I would rather go there than go to
heaven and keep the company of God that would thus
damn his children. Oh, is it not an infamous doctrine
to teach that to little children, to put a shadow in the
heart of a child, to fill the insane asylums with that
miserable, infamous lie. I see now and then a little girl
—a, dear little darling, with a face like the light, and eyes
-I0T-’.P
Wossom, and I think, “ is it possible that
that little girl will ever grow up to be a Presbyterian ?”
Is it possible, my goodness, that that flower will finally
believe m the five points of Calvinism or in the eternal
damnation of man? Is it possible that that little fairy
will finally believe that she could be happy in heaven
k
�( 22 )
with her baby in hell ? Think of it. Think of it. And
that is the Christian religion.
We cry out against the Indian mother that throws the
child into the Ganges to be devoured by the alligator or
crocodile, but that is joy in comparison with the Christian
mother’s hope, that she may be in salvation while her
brave boy is in hell. I tell you I want to kick the
doctrine about hell—I want to kick it out every time I
go by it. I want to get Americans in this country placed
so they will be ashamed to preach it. I want to get the
congregations so that they won’t listen to it. We cannot
divide the world off into saints and sinners in that
way.
There is a little girl, fair as a flower, and she grows up
until she is 12, 13 or 14 years old. Are you going to
damn her in the 15th, 16th or 17th year, when the arrow
from Cupid’s bow touches her heart and she is glorified
—are you going to damn her now ? She marries and
loves, and holds in her arms a beautiful child Are you
going to damn her now ? When are you going to damn
her ? Because she has listened to some Methodist
minister, and after all that flood of light failed to believe ?
Are you going to damn her then ? I tell you God cannot
afford to damn such a woman. A woman in the State of
Indiana, forty or fifty years ago, who carded the wool and
made rolls and spun them, and made the cloth and cut
out the clothes for the children, and nursed them, and
sat up with them nights, and gave them medicine, and
held them in her arms and wept over them cried for
joy, wept for fear, and finally raised ten or eleven good
men and women with the ruddy glow of health upon
their cheeks, and would have died for any one of them
any moment of her life, and finally she, bowed with age,
and bent with care and labor, dies, and at the moment
the magical touch of death is upon her face, she looks as
if she never had had a care, and her children burying
her, cover her face with tears. Do you tell me God can
afford to damn that kind of a woman? . If there is any
God, sitting above him, in infinite serenity, we have the
figure of justice. Even a God must do justice ; and
any form of superstition that destroys justice is
infamous.
�Just think of teaching that doctrine to little children ! A
little child would go into the garden, and there would be
a little tree laden with blossoms, and the little fellow
would lean against it, and there would be a bird on one
of the boughs, singing and swinging, and thinking about
iour little speckled eyes warmed by the breast of its
mate singing and swinging, and the music in happy
waves rippling out of the tiny throat, and the flowers
blossoming, the air filled with perfume, and the great
white clouds floating in the sky, and the little boy would
lean up against that tree and think about hell and the
worm tha,t never dies. Oh, the idea there can beany day
too good for a child to be happy in 1
Well, after we got over the Catechism, then came the
sermon in the afternoon, and it was exactly like the one
J*1? Jorenoon> except the other end to. Then we
started for home—a solemn march, “ not a soldier dis
charged his farewell shot ”—and when we got home, if
we had been real good boys, we used to be taken up to
the cemetery to cheer us up, and it always did cheer me
those sunken graves, those leaning stones, those gloomy
epitaphs covered with the moss of years, always cheered
me. When I looked at them I said : “Well, this kind
of thing cant last always.” Then we came back home,
and we had books to read, which were very eloquent and
amusing. We had Josephus, and the History of the
Waldenses,^ Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Baxter’s Saint's
Best, and Jenkyn on the Atonement. I used to read
a good deal of pleasure, and I often thought
that the Atonement would have to be very broad in its
provisions to cover the case of a man that would write
such a book for the boys. Then I would look to see how
the sun was getting on, and sometimes I thought it had
struck from pure cussedness. Then I would go back and
try Jenkyn again. Well, but it had to go down, and
when the last rim of light sank below the horizon, off
would go out hats, and we would give three cheers for
liberty once again.
y??
t make slaves of your children on Sunday.
1 k®Kd.eaTthat there 1S any God who hates t0 hear a child
laugh . Let your children play games on Sunday. Here
is a poor man that hasn’t money enough to go to a big
�(24)
church, and. he has too much independence to go to a
little church that the big church built for charity. He
don’t want to slide into heaven that way. I tell you
don’t come to church, but go to the woods and take your
family and a lunch with you, and sit down upon the old
log, and let the children gather flowers and hear the
leaves whispering poems like memories of long ago, and
when the sun is about going down kissing the summits of
far hills, go home with your hearts filled with throbs of
joy. There is more recreation and joy in that than going
to a dry goods box with a steeple on it, and hearing a
man tell you that, your chances are about ninety-nine to
one for being eternally damned.
Let us make this
Sunday a day of splendid pleasure, not to excess, but to
everything that makes a man purer and grander and
nobler.
.
I would like to see now something like this :
Instead of so many churches, a vast cathedral that would
hold twenty or thirty thousands of people, and I would
like to see an opera produced in it that would make the
souls of men have higher, and grander and nobler aims.
I would like to see the walls covered with pictures and
niches rich with statuary ; I would like to see something
put there that you could see in this world now, and I do
not believe in sacrificing the present to the futuie ; I do
not believe in drinking skimmed milk here with the
promise of butter beyond the clouds. Space or time
cannot be holy any more than a vacuum can be pious.
Not a bit, not a bit; and no day can be so holy but what
the laugh of a child will make it holier still.
Strike with hands of fire, oh weird musician, thy harp,
strung with Apollo’s golden hair I Fill the vast cathedral
aisles with symphonies sweet and dim, deft toucher of
the organ’s keys; blow, bugler, blow, until thy silvei
notes do touch and kiss the moonlight waves, and charm
the lovers wandering ’mid the vineclad hills. But know,
your sweetest strains are discords all compared with
childhood’s happy laugh-the laugh that fills the eyes
with light and every heart with joy 1 0, rippling river of
laughter, thou art the blessed boundary line between the
beasts and men, and every wayward wave of thine doth
drown some fretful fiend of care. 0, laughter, rose
�lipped daughter of Joy, there are dimples enough in thy
cheeks to catch and hold and glorify all the rears of
grief.
Don’t plant your children in long, straight rows like
posts. Let them have light and air, and let them grow
beautiful as palms. When I was a little boy, children
went to bed when they were not sleepy, and always got
up when they were. I would like to see that changed,
but they say we are too poor, some of us, to do it. Well,
all right. It is as easy to wake a child with a kiss as with
a blow; with kindness as with a curse. And another
thing—let the children eat what they want to. Let them
commence at whichever end of the dinner they desire.
That is my doctrine. They know what they want much
better than you do. Nature is a great deal smarter than
you ever were. All the advance that has been made
in the science of medicine has been made by the reck
lessness of patients. I can recollect when they wouldn’t
give a man water to a fever—not a drop. Now and then
some fellow would get so thirsty he would say, “Well,
I’ll die anyway, so I’ll drink it”; and thereupon he
would drink a gallon of water, and thereupon he would
burst into a generous perspiration, and get well—and the
next morning when the doctor would come to see him
they would tell him about the man drinking the water,
and he would say, “ How much ?” “ Well, he swallowed
two pitchers full.” “ Is he alive ?” “ Yes. ’ So they
would go into the room and the doctor would feel his
pulse and ask him: “Did you drink two pitchers of
water ?” “ Yes.” “ My God '. what a constitution you
have got.”
I tell you there is something splendid in man that will
not always mind. Why, if we had done as the kings
told us five hundred years ago we would all have been
slaves. If we had done as the priests told us we would
all have been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told
us we would have been dead. We have been saved by
disobedience. We are saved by that splendid thing called
Independence, and I want to see more of it day after day,
and I want to see children raised so they will have it.
That is my doctrine. Give the children a chance. Be
perfectly honor bright with them, and they will be your
�ywwj'in ifcm
j
( 26 )
friends when you are old. Don’t try to teach them some
thing they can never learn. Don’t insist upon their
pursuing some calling they have no sort of faculty for.
Don’t make that poor girl play ten years on a piano when
she has no ear for music, and when she has practised
until she can play “ Bonaparte crossing the Alps,” and
you can’t tell after she has played it whether he ever got
across or not. Men are oaks, women are vines, children
are flowers, and if there is any heaven in this world it is
the family. It is where the wife loves the husband and
the husband loves the wife, and where the dimpled arms
of children are about the neck of both. That is heaven
if there is any ; and I do not want any better heaven in
another world than that, and if in another world I cannot
live with the ones I loved here then I would rather not
be there. I would rather resign.
Well, my friends, I have some excuses to make for the
race to which I belong. In the first place, this world is
not very well adapted to raising good men and women.
It is three times better adapted to the cultivation of
fish than of people. There is one little narrow belt
running zigzag around the world in which men and women
of genius can be raised, and that is all. It is with man
as it is with vegetation. In the valley you find the oak
and the elm tossing their branches defiantly to the storm,
and as you advance up the mountain side the hemlock,
the pine, the birch, the spruce, the fir, and finally you
come to little dwarfed trees, that look like other trees seen
through a telescope reversed—every limb twisted as
though through pain—getting a scanty subsistence from
the ^miserly crevices of the rocks. You go on and on,
until at last the highest crag is freckled with a kind of
moss, and vegetation ends. You might as well try to raise
oaks and elms where the mosses grow as to raise great
men and women where their surroundings are unfavor
able. You must have the proper climate and soil.
There never has been a man or woman of genius from
the southern hemisphere, because the Lord didn’t allow
the right climate to fall upon the land. It falls upon the
water. There never was such civilisation except where
there has been snow, and an ordinary decent winter.
You can’t have civilisation without it. Where man needs
�( 27 )
0.0 bedclothes but clouds, revolution is the normal con
dition of such a people. It is the winter that gives us
the home, it is the winter that gives us the fireside and
the family relation and all the beautiful flowers of love
that adorn that relation. Civilisation, liberty, justice,
charity and intellectual advancement are all flowers that
bloom in the drifted snow. You can’t have them any
where else, and that is the reason we of the north are
eivilised, and that is the reason that civilisation has always
been with winter. That is the reason that philosophy
has been here, and, in spite of all our superstitions, we
have advanced beyond some of the other races, because
we have had this assistance of nature, that drove us into
the family relation, that made us prudent: that made us
lay up at one time for another season of the year. So
there is one excuse for my race. I have got another. I
think we came up from the lower animals. I am not
dead sure of it, but I think so. When I first read about
it, I didn’t like it. My heart was filled with sympathy
for those people who have nothing to be proud of except
ancestors. I thought how terrible this will be upon the
nobility of the whole world. Think of their being forced
to trace their ancestry back to the Duke Ourang-Outang
or to the Princess Chimpanzee. After thinking it all
over I came to the conclusion that I liked that doctrine.
1 became convinced in spite of myself. I read about
rudimentary bones and muscles. I was told that every
body had rudimentary muscles extending from the ear
into the cheek. I asked : “ What are they ?” I was told :
“ They are the remains of muscles ; that they become
rudimentary from lack of use.” They went into
bankruptcy, they are the muscles with which your
ancestors used to flap their ears. Well, at first I
was greatly astonished, and afterwards I was more
astonished to find that they had become rudimen
tary.
How do you account for John Calvin unless we
came up from the lower animals ? How can you
account for a man that would use the extremes of
torture unless that you admit that there is in man the
elements of a snake, of a vulture, a hyena and a jackal ?
How can you account for religious creeds of to-day ?
�( 28 )
How can you account for that infamous doctrine of hell,
except with an animal origin ? How can you account
for your conception of a God that would sell women and
babes into slavery ?
Well, I thought that thing over and I began to like it
after a while, and I said : “ It is not so much difference
who my father was or who his son is.” And I finally
said 1 would rather belong to a race that commenced
with the skull-less vertebrates in the dim Laurentian seas,
that wriggled without knowing why they wriggled,
swimming without knowing where they were going, that
come along up by degrees through millions of ages
through all that crawls, and swims, and floats, and runs,
and growls, and barks, and howls, until it struck this
fellow in the dug-out. And then that fellow in the
dug-out getting a little grander and each one below
calling everyone above him a heretic, calling everyone
who had made a little advance an Infidel or Atheist, and
finally the heads getting a little higher and coming up a
little grander and more splendidly, and finally produced
Shakespeare, who harvested all the fields of dramatic
thought and from whose day until now there have been
none but gleaners of chaff and straw. Shakespeare was
an intellectual ocean whose waves touched all the shores
of human thought, within which were all tides and
currents and pulses, upon which lay all the lights and
shadows, and over which brooded all the calms and swept
all the storms and tempest of which the human soul is
capable. I would rather belong to that race that com
menced with that skull-less vertebrate; that produced
Shakespeare, a race that has before it an infinite future,
with the angels of progress leaning from the far horizon,
beckoning men forward and upward for ever. I would
rather belong to that race than to have descended from a
perfect pair upon which the Lord has lost money every
moment from that day to this.
Now, my crime has been this : I have insisted that the
Bible is not the word of God. I have insisted that we
should not whip our children. I have insisted that we
should treat our wives as loving equals. I have denied
that God—if there is any God—ever upheld polygamy
and slavery. I have denied that God ever told his
�( 29 )
generals to kill innocent babes and tear and rip open
women with, the sword of war. I have denied that, and
for that I have been assailed by the clergy of the United
States.
��WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
, 2
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
•••
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 ...
...
J *
ROME OR REASON? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
... 0 3
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE
...
...
•• ■ " 3
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
• ••
••• 2 °
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
...
... 0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
••• J *
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
...
...
- ® *
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
...
••• 2 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
... 0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
- 2 !
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
•" 2 !
GOD AND THE STATE
...
...
••• J* *
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
...
*" 2 ?
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
... 0 2
ART AND MORALITY
...
...
— 0 f
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
...
... 0 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
...
"nt
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
...
••• « J
LIVE TOPICS
...
...
...
••• 2 J
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
...
— 2 J
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
.......................................... 2 J
MYTH AND MIRACLE
...
...
••• 0 1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.O.
�Flowers of Freethought.
By
Old Nick
Fire!! I
Sky Pilots
Devil Dodgers
Fighting Spooks
Damned Sinners
Where is Hell P
Spurgeon and Hell
Is Spurgeon in
Heaven ?
God in Japan
Stanley on Provi
dence
Gone to God
Thank God
Judgment Day
Shelley’s Atheism
Long Faces
Our Father
Wait Till You Die
Dead Theology
G.
W.
FOOTE.
CONTENTS.
Mr. Gladstone on
Devils
Huxley’s Mistake
The Gospel of Freethought
On Ridicule
Who are the Blas
phemers ?
Christianity and
Common Sense
The Lord of Lords
Consecrating the
Colors
Ohrismas in Hollo
way Gaol
Who Killed Christ ?
Did Jesus Ascend ?
The Rising Son ?
St. Paul’s Veracity
No Faith with Here
tics
The Logic of Perse
cution
Luther and the Devil
Bible English
Living by Faith
Victor Hugo
Desecrating a
Church
Walt Whitman
Tennyson and the
Bible
Christ’s Old Coat
Christ’s Coat, No. 2
Scotched, Not Slain
God-Making
God and the Weather
Miracles
A Real Miracle
Mua on Women.
Paul on Women
Mother’s Religion
Bound in Cloth, Price 2s. 6d.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.O.
BIBLE STUDIES.
AN ESSAY ON PHALLIC WOESHIP,
AND OTHER CURIOUS RITES AND CUSTOMS. 7
By J. M. WHEELER.
Contents: Phallic Worship Among the Jews—Circumcision
—Moses at the Inn—The Brazen Serpent—Religion and Magic
Toboos—Blood Rites—Scape Goats—Trial by Ordeal—Bible
Witchcraft Saul’s Spiritualist Seance—Sacrifices—Passover
—The Evolution of Jahveh—Joshua and the Sun—Hebrew
Prophets Old Testament Marriage—Song of Solomon—Sacred
Seven.
2/5 Superior paper, Illustrated, bound in cloth. 2/6
ROBERT FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, 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 & 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
Skulls : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 27, [2] p. ; 20 p.
Notes: No. 68b in Stein checklist. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N395
G5100
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Skulls : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
NSS