1 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/87fd9714814352553f7f953d2df788dc.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Mir4f%7EBG8rEp7DzauC6M5BcRVNrBjstrUb2Wa2DxUVrBpjTyeTxgAZgzKElNsDqX3o%7EKpsHaqmFTQseOPXqws4VcGZw%7E6Jbk4iKFexvFEgAzFCQplAxIkjNL7WGKAyhfZJOmDtSCqd0lZPusMSR-UGhwgUVRVr7ny5mXWK2CQGNPnYXFWNFKV%7E5Ow0Qvy-FAgdF8JBuhIqBtlk%7EvB9d3K8X4PRrizkO1jadRkBeeV8ulnPuSWlnvknA1HvPSq3mKgmn-oVh5AoOulLUiHdFiYa%7E%7EmkuqGVy1Fx5rCtiZ6JSYYAtv9-JTrwEx1avvo3pYIGlnF3LpoqtE1VUt-MqPeg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 173a2645c331f3345564730fa21bc66f PDF Text Text r NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY T IF j Christianity AND x J Agnosticism A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, V-' Agnostic; London. Price Twopence Bradford : Printedjlnd Published by J. W. Gott, 2, Union Street. �List of Books for Sale by J. W. GOTT 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel—Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace: An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth) ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza: Ethics of Marriage ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to be happy tho’ married Professor Huxley’s—Lectures and Essays Edward Clodd's The Pioneers ot Evolution ... Samuel Laing’s Modern Science and Modern Thought ... Matthew Arnold’s—Literature and Dogma .. Herbert Spencer’s—/Education ■Grant Alien’s—The Evolution of the Idea of God ... Professor Haeckel’s—The Riddle of the Universe ... Samuel Laing’s—Human Origins ........................... < ■Cotter Morrison’s—The Service of Man Professor Tyndall’s—Lectures and Essays Charles Darwin’s—The Origin of Species ... ............... Emerson’s—Addresses and Essays (a Selection) John Stuart Mill’s—On Liberty ....................................... Edward Clodd’s—The Story of Creation ........................... Sir Leslie Stephen’s—An Agnostic Apology........................... Ernest Renan’s—The Life of Jesus....................................... Elements of Social Science (latest edition) ... �. g2-\8! U Christianity AND > * Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London* George, philanthropist. 1824. Anderson was a self-made man »ho prospered in business and very generously supported advanced movements. He was a personal friend of Bradlaugh, Holyoake, and Watts, and one of the bunders of the Rationalist Press Associaj .on. The first issue of cheap reprints by ).ie Association was made possible by a fenerous gift from him of £2,000. He ive with equal liberality to hospitals and bher charitable institutions. D. Aug 12 915. ’ IAA < ck'el*, tA/uj, . ANDEKSON, E. to Mr. Anderson, in ng his church. Mr. hristian, and, thinking apy of his first letter, nation; hence followed on suggested that it Ejected; therefore, his term “ Clergyman ” yman’s letters which localities that might —K. E. Watts. �r— , * J r 4 1 w •I List of Books for Sale by J. W. GOTT. 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel — Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) ... ... ... ... ... Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) ... J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... ... ... .■ Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t * Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... ... ... ... Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century ... ... . ...1 ... ... ... ... Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace: An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions ... ... ... ... ... ... 9 Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... ... ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) ... Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth)... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold... ... R. ... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza; Ethics of Marriage ... ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to be happy tho’ married ............... ... Professor Huxley’s—Lecturesand Essays ... .3 ... Edward Clodd's The Pioneers ot Evolution ... ... ... Samuel Laing’s Modern Sci6n< Matthew Arnold’s—Literature Herbert Spencer’s—Education Grant Allen’s—The Evolution Professor Haeckel’s—The Ridd Samuel Laing’s—Human Origi Cotter Morrison’s—The Service Professor Tyndall’s—Lectures-a Charles Darwin’s—The Origin Emerson’s—Addresses and Esss John Stuart Mill’s—On Liberty Edward Clodd’s—The Story of Sir Leslie Stephen’s—An Agno Ernest Renan’s—The Life of Je Elements of Social Science (late 4 0 10 o 6 o 6 10 10 0 i 3 0-3 0 3 03 o 6 2 o 10 o 4 6 10 O o 6 o 6 4 �Christianity AND Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London. plaNatok y no te. ^»rSa'sJ£pU^i”o^n‘1 i^;'> Mr. Anderson, i„ Anderson declined, statin? that prov‘nS his church. Mr Je correspondence would end there kenT* Chrislian’ and> thinking Soon, however, he received a seco S ° ?°P? of his first l^erT the correspondence. . commur»cation; hence followed should be‘^rtHshed,'the reverend rentle'"'1"'5,?" s“«Kted that it sn£tSad<,teSS »™«e6d, InTlhJ were merdy°omp!’m?Syn£ ^ve betrayed his letters which �List of Books for Sale by J, W. GOTT. 2, UNION ST., BRADFORD Madame Sophie Leppel — Pamphlets on Health without Drugs (Complete) ............ Dr. Allinson—A book for Married Women. (Scarce) ... J. R. Holmes—Theory and Practice of Neo-Malthusianism May’s—Practical Methods for Curing all Diseases ... ■ ... May’s Comprehensive Cookery Book... ... ... ... Allan Laidlaw’s—Sexual Love: What it Is and What it Isn’t Debate between H. Percy Ward and Will Phillips— Secularism v. Spiritualism ... ... ... ... •Glyde’s—Liberal and Tory Hypocrisy during the 19th Century ... ... x .S ... ... ... ... -Glyde’s—Britain’s Disgrace; An Urgent Plea for Old Age Pensions ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Seklew’s—Liberty Luminants (Malfew Seklew sold 600 copies at one meeting) ... ... ... ... ... Paine’s—Age of Reason. (Marvellously cheap edition) ... Paine’s—Rights of Man. (Bound in cloth)... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Tokology. (A book for Women only) Over 100,000 sold... ... ... ... Mrs. Stockham’s—Karrezza; Ethics-of Marriage ... ... Dr. Foote’s—Home Cyclopedia. (Tells how to behappy tho* married M ... ... Professor Huxley’s—Lectures and Essays ... Ed’ Sar Ma He: -Gre Pre Sai Co Pre Ch Eijr Jo* Ed Sii Er El 4 0 10 o 6 o 6 1 o 1 o o 3 O 3 o 3 o 3 06 2 o 10 o 4 6 10 o 0 6 �Christianity AND Agnosticism. A Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London. Price Twopence. Printed Bradford : and Published by J. W. Gott, 2, Union Street. �I' > W_ ■ ' aBF/ Ijk i- EXPLANATORY NOTE. A Minister of the Church in Scotland wrote to Mr. Anderson, in London, for a subscription towards improving his church. Mr. Anderson declined, stating that he was not a Christian, and, thinking the correspondence would end there, kept no copy of his first letter? Soon, however, he received a second communication; hence followed the correspondence. * When, towards- the close of it, Mr. Anderson suggested that it should be published, the reverend gentleman objected ; therefore, his name and address have been omitted, and the term “ Clergyman ” substituted 1 One or two short paragraphs in the Clergyman’s letters which were merely complimentary, and which named localities that might have betrayed his identity, have been withheld.—K. E. Watts. �Christianity and Agnosticism. A Correspondence. I. Dear Sir,— Your note in reply to my appeal for funds for church building I have received. I thank you for your frank statement, and for the leaflet you kindly sent, with neither of which I agree. I admit that everyone is entitled to have his own views on religion as well as on other matters. I know that many men have difficulty in connection with Christianity, but certainly your opinions’have at least the merit of being somewhat novel, if “ to compete ” against the foreigner is the one vocation of a British subject. There may be some truth in what you say from your point of view, though I think few will agree with you that Christianity makes a man less capable to compete honourably with foreigners or any others. I regret I had not the pleasure of seeing you when in London. I know you are liberal towards other objects, and generous in giving for charitable purposes, and I believe, though you may not be aware of it, that you owe much of that kindly disposition to the fact of the influence of Christianity upon you. You gave up Christ­ ianity forty years ago ; you cannot therefore be young. If you believe in a future state, I trust the religion you profess gives you some comfort. I am quite satisfied with Christianity. 1 try to walk in the light, leaving alone unknown things. May I ask you to read again the Sermon on the Mount ? (Matthew’s Gospel, chapter v.) Pardon me for troubling you with this letter. Yours faithfully, Clergyman. �11. Dear Sir,— Yours of the 25th inst. received. I am sending you a book called Force and Matter, which treats of such doctrines as I believe in. You can return it to me any time within a year, and if you wish to acquaint yourself further with the views that are accepted by the intelligent portion of mankind, read Huxley’s Essays, and Darwin’s and Laing’s works, all of which I am willing to lend you if you care to read them. I reject your eternal hell doctrine as an infinite cruelty. I also reject your virgin-box# son as being contrary to all experience. It is only a re-hash of similar stories from religions older than Christianity. I reject your Hell and Heaven stories because they teach that which is contrary to all knowledge and to nature’s laws. I love my fellow-creatures, and I wish that all would-be mentors would not confuse young minds with those imperfect doctrines which often perplex them and render them unfit for the business of life, but would teach them something of this worl(^, instead. I know that Christianity is less aggressive than it was three hundred years ago, but that is only because it is less powerful. The doctrines are the same, and human nature is the same ; but science is taking the place of Christianity, and society is more humane. George Anderson. III. Dear Sir,— I am much obliged to you for your letter, and Force and Matter, which I will read. I have read Huxley’s Essays and some of Darwin’s works, but would like to read them again when I have time, so shall be pleased to accept your kind offer. It seems to me that one of your great difficulties is belief in the so-called “ miraculous.” I am sure you believe in Christ as an historical personage ; you cannot help doing so if you accept history at all. You must also acknowledge that no religion has produced such moral 4 �and intellectual results as the Christian religion has. How do you account for that fact if Christianity is a delusion ? I suppose that a man of intellect like yourself will acknowledge that some of the greatest men in thisrcountry accept Christianity. The best scientific men of the present day admit that the spiritual is of greater force than matter. Science is advancing. The discovery may yet be made that there is a higher law which covers the sphere of the miraculous, so that what you regard as contrary to law may be in accord with it. There is much to be said for the questions you raised in your last note, but men of science are still making advances. They acknowledge that there are numberless questions in the domain of matter that they cannot understand—how many more in that of mind or spirit ? May I ask you to read Dr. A. B. Bruce’s Apologetics (published by R. & R. Clark ?) I am sorry I have not got the book, and I cannot afford to buy it. You can, and I think it only fair that, if I read the books you recommend, you should read those that I suggest. Kindly let me have your'views after you have read the Apologetics. Yours truly, Clergyman. IV. Dear Sir,— I quite deserve to be rebuked for my writing. I shall do what you desire when reading Force and Matter. The book I recommended for your perusal is Apologetics, or Christianity Defensively Stated, by A. B. Bruce, D.D. (publishers, R. and R. Clark, Edinburgh). Thanks for “ Caledonian Society Report.” I send you by this post for your acceptance a course of lectures pub­ lished by me some years ago. They do not bear upon the subject in which we are both interested at present, but, if you have nothing special to do, you might look into them. I think they will at least entertain you, if they fail to convince. 5 �After you have read the leaflet inside vol. i.—viz., the review of the book—may I ask you to send it back to me in enclosed stamped envelope, as I have only one or two copies left, and I wish to keep them by me ? Yours faithfully, Clergyman. V. Dear Sir,— I brought home your book of lectures last night, opened it about eight o’clock, and finished it at five minutes to three this morning ; and, were I to write a folio, ■ I could not give a stronger testimony to the enjoyment I derived from its perusal. It tells once more the old story how Christians prosecute, and I think their actions are the logical outcome of their doctrines. “ He that believeth not shall be damned.” “ For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Hence to skin a man, or to burn him to death, is as nothing to eternal hell fire. In this country, in the present enlightened age, we are tolerably certain to die with our skins on ; but that is only because science, has humanised the people, and I hope it will continue the process until there is liberty for one and all to speak their honest thoughts : then we may expect greater progress, and much increased happiness for mankind. I would like your book to be read by every Scotchman, for it gives in a condensed form facts that one could otherwise only gather after an extensive course of reading. It also shows the pluck of Scotchmen, and thfcjr determination to persevere until they obtain their rights. I was a lad in Scotland in ’43, and remember the “ non­ intrusion ” agitation ; and as the English are now in a worse position than the Scotch were then, I think that the mental superiority of the Scotch over the English must be admitted. Yours, George Anderson. 6 �VI. Dear Sir,— Thanks for your note just received with leaflet returned. I am pleased that you propose to read my book. I read your lecture, for which accept my thanks. I consider it excellent, and quite enjoyed and profited by it. I agree thoroughly with what you say as to the efforts men should put forth to acquire knowledge. It is unwise in my opinion, to be too dogmatic on any question unless one is as sure as of the axioms of mathematics, for so much is yet to be known. I therefore guard myself against speaking too strongly either for or against Christianity, as there are many things that now seem impossible which by fuller knowledge, we may come to understand. My wife read your lecture with great pleasure. Pardon * me for stating it, but she said: He must be a good Christian who wrote that- lecture.” Yours faithfully, Clergyman. Dear Sir,— I am glad you enjoyed the reading of my lectures. You appear to appreciate the Scotch intellect and persever­ ance. How do you account for these ? I gather from your re­ marks that you think the superstition of Christianity retards intellectual progress. There are no people in the world so superstitious as the Scotch in this respect. Does it not strike you as strange that their religion does not dwarf their intellect ? It seems odd that such superstitious people should be so far advanced in learning and in all the sciences, and should be able to hold their own in competing with the foreigner. I have read your reply to Cardinal Manning with great interest. It bears a second reading. Your arguments are very fresh, and from your point of view unanswerable. I am reading Force and Matter. It is a. remarkable book. The laws of natural philosophy are clearly put. One of the things insisted on is, that matter is eternal. Will you kindly define to me what is meant by “ eternal ?” 7 �You do not seem to believe in anything that is not in aceord with “knowledge” and “experience.” If you insist that matter is eternal, then you must regard that quality as knowable, or in accord with experience ; if not, you believe in a thing that is not knowledge. ' You accept “ eternal ” as something you cannot understand, yet you believe in it, and you say there is that something in matter. Is it not as easy to believe in something eternal outside matter ? Is it not as easy to believe in the existence of God apart from matter ? If you believe in a being you cannot define, why not in a soul ? But if you say that the so-called soul is matter, then the soul is eternal too, and, the brain being eternal, may it not in another and similar form have possession of its present sensations of pain and pleasure ? You appear to me to believe in a kind of material soul. Well, what matters it whether it is material or not ? If it is eternal, and can consequently carry with it out of the world all its sensations, may not the brain be transformed into something else than mere earth and grass ? We have not yet discovered all the forces and combinations into which matter can be changed. It seems to me that the difficulty4 which puzzles most people gathers around the word “ eternal.” We have not solved the problem by evading this. Yours truly, Clergyman. VIII. My Dear Sir,— I am very much obliged for your great kindness in sending me the two periodicals, also the volume by Mr. Gould. I am anxious to read every book that gives useful information, and I shall read these as soon as my time will permit. I have nearly finished Force and Matter, and I agree with the premises laid down. They are full of natural philosophy and science, with much of which I am familiar. I do not, however, always agree with the conclusions of the writer. I have stated already my difficulty with regard to the conception of “ eternity.” Materialists trace things up to 8 �that point. They tell us that matter is eternal; they believe that, and yet they also say that they cannot believe what is not in accord with knowledge and experience. Is. eternity in accord with knowledge and experience ? If then, they say “ no,” and yet believe in it, why not believe in God ? and why have so great a difficulty in believing in the existence of a soul, which none of the senses can discover ? Are we justified in thinking that all that exists is discoverable by our few senses ? If matter and mind are identical, and if matter is eternal, does not that agree with the view ot the immortality of the soul ? I am not concerned whether that which I call soul, and you call matter, is matter or not, if it is eternal, and may, as far as we can see, retain all its powers under different conditions. I shall read with pleasure the book you sent me. May I ask you to read Anti-Theistic Theories, by Professor Flint (Baird Lectures, 1877 ; Blackwood & Sons, publishers) ? I am sorry I cannot send it to you, but it is not my own. My wife is interested in your book, and especially in yourself; she insists upon me expressing her wish to have your portrait, if convenient for you to send it. I have marked some parts of Force and Matter, but at present I am so occupied with my own work that I have little time for private reading, and I am not much inclined to controversy, I am a firm believer in the Christian faith, and in the person of Christ and his teaching. There are many things in connection with Christianity that I differ from, many of its doctrines that I do not accept; but I would never think of staking the whole question on small issues, and I entirely disagree with you in giving any importance to such trifling advertisements as you were kind enough to send me. In my opinion, the large question of the Christian faith and its power ought not to be judged on small issues. Please read M. Janet’s reply to Force and Matter. With kind regards, I am, yours sincerely, Clergyman. �IX. -*Dear Sir,— Yours of yesterday in reference to reading books just to hand. If any one asked me to read a book on new discoveries in arithmetic, based on the assertion that 3 + 3 = io, or 3 x 3 = io, I would not waste my time by doing so ; I certainly would not buy the book. That is my position in regard to Christianity. It makes statements which I disbelieve, and it gives no proof of their veracity. You know fairly well my tone of mind. If you can loan me, if only for a week or two, any book that you think I ought to read, 1 will gladly look into it on the strength of your recommendation. Herewith I send you a Christian book which the Roman Catholics put into the hands of children. It is called A Sight of Hell. I view such teachings with horror and disgust, for they frighten the little ones, stunt the growth of their intellect, and fill our asylums with idiots. Yours, George Anderson. Dear Sir,— In your letter of January 25th you write that you cannot understand why I think that Christianity makes us less able to compete with foreigners in business. I will explain. Continental boys are not dosed daily with religion in schools, as British boys are. Dogma, miracles, and mystery do not occupy their time ; hence, on leaving school they know more of what is required in this world than our boys do, and their minds are not confused by divergent ideas incapable of proof, and which all their knowledge of this life and its duties contradicts. As the terrors of an everlasting hell form part of the belief of our boys, they become mental cowards, and are afraid to think. This dwarfs their intellect, and makes them less able to compete with boys more secularly trained. But please note, I do not confine these remarks to your Church. All religious teaching has the same effect in certain degrees. You think that my liberality towards “ other objects ” is due to the influence of Christianity upon me. iQ �I cannot agree with you upon this point. If I assist a man or an object, it is always for the purpose of increasing comfort, or furthering progress in human affairs. I never do so as a bribe to heaven to save my soul, nor to escape the eternal miseries of your hell. You hope the religion I profess gives me comfort. I know of no religion that I consider good enough, so I don’t profess any. I thank you for your kind hope, how­ ever, and wish to state that I feel very comfortable except in this, that I would that more were of my opinions. I see so much misery amidst so much luxury that I would like to increase the latter, and, if the former must exist at all, to see at least a more equal division. I find beautiful and grand ideas in most religions, but they are all blended with the preposterous. The Hindoos had their Trinity of Brahma, Siva and Vishnu before Christians adopted the idea. Think of the Hindoos’ glorious wide-flowing river of sacred water (the Ganges) and compare it with the small vessel of holy water used by the Christians. At the last eclipse of the sun the Hindoos thought it was the end of the world ; they rushed into the sacred water, that they might be floated into eternity on its holy bosom. We laugh at this, yet we tell them of men carried up into the air in chariots of fire. Which is the more absurd ? Religions also teach morality, but morality is not reli­ gion—that is ethics, and the ethical part of Christianity which is good was previously taught in China, and some moral precepts that have since been added are wholly unworkable, such as “ Give all you have to the poor ”—a kindly-meant sentiment, which, if acted upon, would dis­ organize society and ruin any one who attempted it, for no doubt his relations would take steps to have him housed in a lunatic asylum. A subsequent letter of yours I hope to reply to in a day or two. I wish, however, you would again read my reply to Cardinal Manning, for I feel you have not gathered a clear idea of my philosophy of matter and its attributes Yours, George Anderson. i i �XI. My Dear Sir,— I sent you yesterday a copy of Dr. Bruce’s Apologetics, which I borrowed. You can keep it for a month. I am sure you will give the book a fair reading. Thanks for ltttle book received, A Sight of Hell. I quite agree with you that it is a scandal to have such literature put into the hands of youth ; but in religion, as in business, there is too much fraud. That does not, however, detract from what is valuable, honest, and true in both. My wife thanks you very much for your portrait. We are both delighted with it, and trust it will be a long time before we shall have to add the omitted date on the back. It is a pity that London is so far away. I would like so much to have a talk with you ; letters are of so little use. If you are travelling in the summer time, would you not like a tour through the Highlands ? We would be so pleased to have you with us here ; and you would, I am sure, enjoy the beautiful scenery. I shall send you another book when you have read Bruce’s. Yours faithfully, j ' Clergyman. < , XII. Dear Sir,— I must apologize for my delay in answering your letters, but I hope to make good my leeway. Your letter of February 18th I now reply to. You ask how I account for the intellect of the Scotch and their knowledge of the sciences, although they were so very religious. I account for it thus : they lived in a comparatively poor country, with a harsh climate, which compelled them to consider ways and means more seriously than if they had lived in Southern Italy, for instance. They had also a rich neighbour, who tried to enslave them and thrust its religion upon them, all of which tended to develop their thinking faculties. The Scotch undertook the education of every girl and boy one hundred years before other nationalities, and it has been within that period that their scientific progress has expanded. They had also cheap coal and iron ; without these prosperity would have been T2 z �difficult. Moreover, they have never hesitated to leave the land of their birth, when they thought that by 'so doing they could improve their worldly position. These are all secular agencies, and to me they account for the progress of the Scotch people, in spite of superstitious teaching. My own case was similar. I had heard of London, and I longed to see it. I accepted a contract that would occupy two or three months, fully intending to return ; but during those months I changed my mind and remained, and my experience has justified my decision. There may be, too, something in the fact that the breed is considerably intermixed—a condition of things to which I believe Scottish lasses have no objection. You ask me for a definition of “ eternal.” We have now arrived at an important point where we should clearly understand each other, and I feel from some of your questions that you do not comprehend my position. By “ eternal ” I mean that which will continue without end— vide the Christian hell as recorded in Scripture, 'and as applied to matter—that which ever has been, and ever will be. I cannot prove either proposition, but my knowledge of matter dictates this inference : We see matter changing in form—never any lost, never any coming into existence “ out of nothing.” Hence I look on it as without beginning or end, just as if I were riding on a circular railway, and, after passing the same fixed objects many times I would conclude that it had no end, but was a circle. I think the assumption is as rational in the one case as in the other, although only in the case of the railway could I get down and prove it. Those who object to the eternity of matter say : “ Oh, no ; matter was created.” I reply : “ My friend, I do not understand ‘ creation,’ never having seen the process. Please explain.” I am then referred to very old books, written thousands of years ago, and to the general assent of mankind. I respond that I don’t want to be told by books—I could write a book stating the contrary. I don’t believe all I read even in modern books, still less in doubtful ones, written in an ignorant age by no one knows whom. Besides, old books which I have read give quite different accounts of both creation and creator. Some say that the world is flat like a plate, so that,'if you �reached the edge, you might fall off. Others say it is borne on the back of a turtle, but they do not suggest what the turtle rests on. So old books are to me wholly unsatisfactory. The remainder of your letter refers to “soul” and “ matter,” which I will reply to anon. Will you again read my reply to Cardinal Mantling, commencing at page 8, so that you may not quote views I do not hold ? Bruce’s book to hand with thanks. Yours, George Anderson. XIII. Dear Sir,— The conclusion of your letter of February r8th contains several arguments re God, soul, and eternity, which are not based upon anything I have written. Permit me to again explain. I believe matter to be etefttal for reasons already given, but I do not believe “ matter ” to be one thing and “ eternal ” another. Eternal is only an attiibute. Attributes have no physical existence. I have said that which is called soul is an attribute of brain, but I have not said that brain, as brain, is eternal, although as matter it is. Matter is ever changing, forming new compounds in which its previous character is lost, although the matter is not. Your fire poker, a piece of bright iron, if left to the influences of damp and air, becomes resolved into an oxide of iron, having no resemblance to a poker. Strike the poker against the tongs, and you have a musical sound which in the condition of an oxide does not exist. You might call the sound the soul of the poker, but I call it an attribute only ; and attributes vary with the condition of matter, the latter being the only existence. Yours, George Anderson. �XIV. Dear Sir,— Replying to yours of January 31st, as to whether Christ was an historical character, I am not strong upon that point either pro or con. The Hindoos had their trinity before the alleged time of Christ, and the stories of both religions have many similarities—indeed, “ trinity ” is a common conception—good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; length, breadth, and thickness when measuring solid bodies, etc. Critics are agreed that our Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, cannot be traced beyond the middle of the second century of our era. During these one hundred and fifty years there is no doubt there were many who aspired to be religious leaders, and, as there were no printing presses at this period, what these mentors might have said would become a matter of legend only. Whoever wrote those books merely voiced the opinion of the times, and, as they contain many statements that would only be laughed at if 4pld of events of to-day, I am most strongly inclined to consider them fabulous. I have more certainty as to the existence of Julius Cresar, the Roman Governor, than of Jesus Christ. However this may be, I consider it of small account. We should judge writings by what they contain, not by the authorship— submitting all to the test of reason. You write that I must acknowledge that no religion has produced such moral and intellectual results as Christianity. I am not aware that man is now more moral than in past ages. To my mind, the scoundrelism of the present exceeds anything in the past. Take up any leading newspaper, and what does it contain ? Reports of bubble companies being floated, regardless of whom they rob, and in a year or two coming to a disastrous end ; officers of friendly societies decamping with the cash ; solicitors struck off the rolls through misapplication of the funds of their clients ; pious Jabez Balfour absconding with the hard-earned savings of the poorest bank depositors, deceiving the poor dupes by his church-going hypocrisy ; 15 / �the drunkenness, wife beating, seduction of children, spread of infectious disease, avaricious grasping after fortune without toiling honestly for it, quarrels of nations in their efforts to outwit each other for possession of territory to which they have no right, and from which they intend, should success crown their efforts, to shut out the rest of mankind. Oh, no, pray banish that oft-told fable from your mind ; it is not true. Intellectual advancement I admit, but that has been in spite of Christianity, which exerted all its power against mental progress, even perse­ cuting its pioneers. From the time of Constantine, the chief Christian shop has been cruel to all but its own customers; even the sects that have sprung from its false roots have persecuted each other, and continue to do so indirectly. No shopkeeper would succeed in a country town, however good the quality and reasonable the price of his wares, if it were known that he did not attend some conventicle. The intellectuality of this age is due to the greater knowledge of nature that pervades it—that makes it more human while less religious; consequently the burning of witches, warlocks, and even unbelievers, is not permitted, and the Church endeavours to trim its sails to the modern breeze. The creation was not accomplished in six of our days ; we have misunderstood Scripture. It means six long periods of time ; “ a thousand years are to the Lord as one day.” This paltry subterfuge is used to delay the downfall of the nonsense formerly preached from Genesis. If the shades of Galileo, Darwin, and many others of that ilk, can look down and read our thoughts of to-day, how they must rejoice at the change their writings have effected, and at the fact that we now enthrone them after having displaced Moses and the Prophets. Yours, George Anderson. j6 �XV. Dear Sir, * ' , Excuse me for not thanking you earlier for your kind attention in sendihg me Gould and Darwin. I have read vol. i. of former with interest. Thanks also very much for box of pens—a kindly hint to write better. I will try to do so. I have been very busy of late, and have had no spare moments. Referring to yours of March 9th, you say rightly that you cannot prove the eternity of matter. You cannot prove an existence without beginning and without ending ; but you believe in it. My contention is this : It is impossible for our finite minds to understand what is meant by a thing being eternal—matter, for example ; but we have the power to believe it. Now, if you believe a thing you cannot understand, that you have no knowledge of by the senses, why not believe in the existence we call God ? To me, it seems as easy to believe in the existence of God as in the eternity of matter. I have tried again and again to understand a thing without a beginning or an ending, and I have failed. Can you grasp it ? I therefore say, it is as easy for me to believe in the existence of God and his eternity, although I never saw him, as it is for you to believe in the eternity of matter. Knowledge and experience teach us that everything is done by some force, some energy You ask : Who made God ? I cannot tell, but I can more easily believe in a Supreme being of intelligence than I can in matter, which you say has no beginning, but possesses the qualities or powers necessary to develop itself with such perfection as we perceive in the human frame and in the physical universe. I have once more carefully read your reply to Cardinal Manning. I agree with most of what you say. The arguments you use do not shake my faith in the future existence of our intelligence, whether that be through the mere condition of matter, or of the separate existence of the soul or mind. I am quite of opinion that science and T7 �religion will become more and more reconciled, and that Maie.r.lists and Spiritualists will modify their views, and to see eye to eye as to the existence of a supreme, intelligent, and heneficient Being, who is behind and before all things. We are babes in knowledge, but after we leave the body, or if you prefer it, when this material man has had his personality changed by death, we shall know far more than we do'now. I quite understand what you mean by soul or mind as a mere attribute of matter; but we do not know all the circumstances which may go to create that condition. There may be something better in store for us than to be transformed into gases, or into grass or herbage to feed animal life. I find it quite impossible to conceive that a powerful mind like your own should evaporate into insignificance of this description. I do not agree with your view of religion retarding intellectual progress. As a matter of fact and history, Christianity has done more to advance education and the sciences than any other faith, and history knows that our school people owe more to religion for their education than to any other cause. Every one knows that the Scotch Reformation has been the revival of learning, as it was the awakening of the intellect. I know I shall not induce you, by any arguments I may advance, to become a Christian. There are many things I cannot understand, but Christianity has for me a power that nothing else possesses, to cause me to live the best possible life for myself and for the good of others, and gives more satisfaction with regard to the great future. I daresay you will smile at my simplicity when I tell you that I am praying to the eternal God to lead you to believe in Jesus Christ. I have no doubt the Scotch mother to whom you owe so much has often prayed for you, and taught you from the Bible, which you seem to know so well. I have a great desire to see you, for I believe that there is much good and kindness in your nature, and far more of the spirit of Christ than in many who profess to be his followers. I am led to understand that you have a son in charge of your office. Pardon me, J8 �if I say that I am curious to know whether you train him in the same views as you hold yourself. You think it strange that I should wish to have your life prolonged. For one thing, I think that we should wish good and useful lives to be extended. Then I wish to see you—that is a selfish motive, you will ay ; and, thirdly, I would like to know where you are going, before I would wish you to depart. , What a curious thing matter must be that it can act, think, will, and be happy. What a pity it does not develop more rapidly, that we might have a longer time to study by living longer. It is scarcely worth while for us to come into existence to have it end and become a blank so soon, as far as mind or intellect is concerned. I am afraid I have trespassed too much upon your time in inflicting such a long letter upon you. I trust you enjoyed your holiday in Ireland, and that you have returned home full of vigour in body and mind. Yours truly, Clergyman. XVI. Dear Sir,— Yours of April ist received. I think we waste time over the word “ eternal,” of which you ask my definition. I take the dictionary meaning—without beginning or end. That meaning I apply to matter, but not to its attributes, which are ever changing, while matter remains in one form or another. You say, I believe in the eternity of matter, although I cannot prove it. I do so because it is more logical. Matter is : we take cognizance of it by all our senses. It is ever with us ; we cannot divest ourselves of it even in imagination ; we cannot put a particle of it out of, or bring into, existence ; and as we have never seen an instance of what is called “creation,” it is more logical to think that it has ever been than that there was a time 19 �when it was not. You assert that it is as easy to believe in the existence of God as in the eternity of matter. Here you place an adjective and a noun on an equality. I have never treated the term “ eternal ” otherwise than as an ad­ jective. If you had said, “ It is as easy for me to believe in the existence of God as for you to believe in the exist. ence of matter,” I would have asked you for some of your proofs. You say you have ever failed to think of a thing without beginning or ending. Then your everlasting God has no existence, and you must accept Materialism as a consistent belief. Still, you maintain that you can easily believe in a Supreme Being of intelligence, but you have , no evidence of intelligence, supreme or moderate, except as an animal attribute. The dog, the horse, the man,, are all intelligent in various degrees, the better educated they are, the more intelligent they become ; but intelligence is not a thing—it is only an attribute applicable to animals and to matter • and although we have had thousands of doctrines over hundreds of years, we have no instance of the continuance of intelligence after the dissolution of the material body. After impressing upon me the fact that it is as easy for you to believe in the existence of God and his eternity as it is for me to believe in the eternity of matter (the noun and the adjective again on equal ground), you say that knowledge and experience teach us that everything is done by some force—some energy. I agree with this remark, and now apply it to the following one. You have never seen God, but I have seen and handled matter. Is it your ■belief that your God is material—hence his force and energy ? But this is not the common belief, for it is written that he has neither body, parts, nor passions. This is as concise a description of “ nothing ” as I have read ; yet by the same authority he is represented as kind, revengeful, and personal. He showed himself to Moses. He has prepared a heaven for a few, and a hell for the many. One would only expect such inconsistent statements to emanate from a lunatic asylum, but they are all in the Gospel, hence the world is mostly mad. You tell me that you believe in the future existence of the soul or mind— 20 �you should first prove its present existence before you launch it into futurity. However, give me your evidence, for I would like to believe it, as life is sweet. You have a willing pupil, who will not trouble you to ransack the writings of the ancients. A few references to current examples will suffice. You are of opinion that religion and science will be­ come more reconciled. So am I. I ha\e seen consider­ able approachment in my time. Religion has joined science as to the form of the earth. Religion, at least outside Italy, does not believe that Etna and Vesuvius are two of the mouths of hell. Religion and science in Europe and America generally agree that our globe has existed for hundreds of thousands of years instead of six or seven thousand. Although this is a money-making age, and many things are now possible that were not a few hundred years ago, you would find it very difficult to en­ gage a carpenter or mason who would contract on proper conditions to supply you with a ladder, or any other means, by which you could climb into heaven. Astronomy says it is too far away. Telescopes have been brought into use, and earnest students have looked miles upon miles into space, and have only found stars, stars, stars with no glimpse of heaven to reward their search. Oh ! yes, we are approximating. Our present judges do not believe in witches, and to burn them on account of their opinions is quite beyond the pale of possibility. Superstition cannot fly at our throats as it once did; science has clipped its wings. It is now kept in the background, except on rare occasions, such as when we allowed an English Bishop to unveil the statue of Darwin in the Natural History Museum. Of course, superstition some­ times makes itself heard yet, as it did recently in Rome, when a Catholic wrote a book entitled Happiness in Hell, which the chief representatives of Jesus Christ in Rome and elsewhere said no good Catholic must read. I read the book on what I considered the Pope’s recommendation, as doubtless thousands of others did; and I daresay the Pope’s interdict was considered by the author a good advertisement. 21 �I had intended to write more, but I must close for the present. Your other points are only side issues, which I may return to when I have time. Yours, George Anderson. XVIJ. Dear Sir,— In continuation of my letter of April 9th, I note that you say it is a matter of fact and history that Christianity has done more to advance education and science than any other faith. I agree with you in this, for I do not know that any of the faiths have ever advanced science, while I do know that Christianity has retarded it. Christians (socalled) have advanced science, not, however, as Christians, but as scientific men. Christianity has been so ferocious and so powerful that men of science, who had no ambition to become martyrs, have used it as a mantle. Christians have acted as if all unbelievers were so through mere perversity, and not through honest conviction ; and, as all who do not believe will be damned, they have cut short the life of the unbeliever, and all for the glory of God and the saving of their own miserable souls. But a better knowledge of human capacities has taught us that belief is not to be obtained at will or by force, that disbelief is quite as honest as belief, and in consequence we have become more humane. This humanity has not been brought about by Christianity, but in spite of it; and this better understanding of the nature of man has been accomplished by unbelievers. And to the believer what does Christianity offer ? An eternity of idleness, save for playing on a harp and singing the praises of the Lord. What a puerile conception of the Author of the universe it is, that he should be pleased to hear for ever ringing in his ears the praises of moths like us. I have been seated in my garden, when a cloud of gnats were hovering round my head, and have wondered if I would be happier if I knew they were praising me. No. I would say : “You fools, mind your own affairs; make 22 �each other happy ; I can get along perfectly well without you.” But why should your God punish me because I disbelieve the absurd stories I am told about him ? I have never, so far as I know, injured him. I have never spoken an unkind word to him or of him. I don’t trouble him with my little wants and sorrows. I don’t even ask any favours of him. I have helped many sufferers who have not been as fortunate as I have been. I don’t pray for them—that is easily done. I accept nature as it is organised, and choose what I consider its better parts, for I see nothing perfect. Then why should I be damned ? I cannot believe that a God of Justice would act so brutally. He would rather say : “ Come in ; give him a harp, Peter.” I would reply : “ Thank you, but I am on my way to the Mohammedan paradise ; I like that better. There is something to be done there—beautiful gardens, sweet smelling flowers, luscious fruits, noble people, and, above all, no torments. You reign there too. Au revoir.” No. the Christian Conception of heaven is poor indeed. The whole scheme has been built on human pride and the wish to enslave mankind.. We praise and bow down to the land-lords and all the big-wigs, and they employ preachers to teach obedience to the masses, who raise their daily bread. It is very sad, and I pity the preachers, who know better, as many of them must do. I am told hell is not so prominent in sermons as it was even 'in my young days, when I saw young women brought out and laid upon the grass fainting from the effects of mission sermons in the Highlands. We are advancing, and I earnestly hope that the clergy will preach ethics, and gradually draw people to believe that every bad thought, every bad action, brings suffering, seen or hidden, and a conscience smitten with remorse. I advocate no sudden overthrow of Christianity; it has hitherto been the one guide, and we can only slowly provide a substitute ; but do not bring your sons up to the Church, for it is a decaying institution. In a subsequent letter I may describe how I brought up my family, with not one of whom have I ever had the least trouble. Yours, GeorgeJAnderson. 23 �XVIII. My Dear Sir, I apologise for my long silence. I have been away through the Highlands for some time examining schools in religious instruction, and I have also changed my residence. This has kept me very busy, and my corres­ pondence has been neglected. I send you per same post Darwin’s Voyage. I have read it with very great interest, and I shall be pleased to have his Descent of Man. Many thanks for Mr. Roman’s letter. I should like to keep it, but will return it if you desire. 1 have read and re-read it. There is much in it from which I dissent—for example, his view of the history of Moses ; but there is also much that indicates honest thought. I like his closing remarks immensely, viz. : “ Rather keep on doubting and living a life in preparation for that happier state, even though we may be disappointed.” Such belief is a powerful lever in civil government. I am sure you will appreciate that good advice, and I trust from the bottom of my heart you will give due weight to it. Though I have neglected writing to you, you are very often in my thoughts, and I am really interested in you. 1 cannot think that you yourself believe that “ with death it means eternal end,” as your aged friend says. You think much. I am inclined to believe too much. There are in nature thousands of things we cannot understand, but which we believe. Why not act on the same principle in religion ? Our very existence is an unfathomable mystery, and we must be content with knowing only in part. I here is, to my mind, no way of combatting the beneficial influence of Christianity. It has done more good to the human race than any other religion ; as a civilising influence no one can gainsay its paramount place. No doubt it has many blemishes, and has been in many ways hurried into superstition; but that must be allowed, because of the slow progress that man makes towards the higher life. I think no one can read the sayings of our Lord, such as the “ Sermon on the Mount,” without feeling that there is something divine in them. No man could utter such words, and live such a life as 24 �Jesus is represented to have lived, without supernatural power. Excuse my running wild in these lines. I must now close. I trust you are well. I have had no paper nor any remarks for a long time. I should have also said that I am busy with my new church. I believe in my work, and, because I do, 1 give myself wholly to it, and feel satisfied that I am doing the right thing. With kindest regards, '7, . Yours sincerely, Clergyman. XIX. Dear Sir,— Your silence has been so long that I was wondering whether you had decided to discontinue the correspon­ dence ; but you give a sufficient reason. Darwin’s Cruise arrived a few days ago, and I sent you his Origin of Species—his Descent of Man is lent out at present. I am not prepared to endorse all his doctrines—I am not sufficiently educated to do so; but, so far as I have read his works, I think his arguments are most reasonable. The Bible touches on many of the same points as he does, but in such an unsatisfactory manner that I reject it as the production of ignorant men of an ignorant age. The wonder is that in these more enlightened and humane times people are not ashamed of it, with its barbarous cruelties and indecencies, instead of holding it sacred. Nothing proves more strongly the lasting effects of impres­ sions made in early youth, for I feel that you would not dare to read many parts of it from your pulpit. You and I differ entirely as to the civilizing character of Christianity. Its history proves its influence to have been pernicious. While it had power it persecuted, burnt, and murdered all who differed from it. Spain is the most Christian country in Eurjpe, and the most backward; and its amusements are the most vicious—for instance, its bull-fights where delicate, high-born women attend on a Sunday afternoon to see an 25 �old horse disembowelled by an artifically enraged bull, while the eyes of the horse are covered that it may not see the bull’s approach. “ It is only an old horse.” Poor creature ! Poor ill-used help to man ! Read the American history of Spain; how she robbed, tortured, and enslaved the Aborigines, until, after years of cruelty, most of them died, and then she imported slaves from other lands to do her work. She even brought Columbus home a prisoner because he did not send her enough precious things to satisfy her greed, and he, poor man, died without redress. You can find all this in Robertson’s Histories. And the Christian Pope of the day gave America to the Portuguese and the Spaniards, think of the impudence of the man. He knew no more of America before its discovery by Columbus than a Scotch jackdaw, yet he gave it to them. Why ? Because they were Christian supporters. . Christianity is not so bad to-day as it was then, but that is because it lacks the power. Secular and scientific knowledge have drawn her fangs, but the spirit of persecu­ tion is so strong in her that Roman Catholics, members of the Church of England, and Presbyterians now persecute each other, within the law, all struggling to grasp the “loaves and fishes.” And this persecution is in accordance with its principles. “ What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? ” What indeed ? What is earthly profit against eternal damnation? And Christians think that disbelief is mere perversity, and criminal persecution a virtue, if by it they can save souls. Your order has much to answer for to mankind for preach­ ing such abominable doctrines. But do not suppose I lay all the blame to Christianity ; certainly not. In the first place, it is due to the selfish nature of man ; and, secondly, to the dreadful doctrines he has been taught. Scientific men never damn those who differ from them ; they investi­ gate further, and the result is progress. I presume you have read Livy’s History of Rome. The people then were more religious than they are now; they never entered upon anything of consequence without first consulting the gods (this was previous to Christianity). The result was 26 �continuous wars and robberies, such as your own Bible stamps with approval. You ask me to believe ; but believe what ? Something that soipeone else says, of which he can give no proof, which is contrary to my own judgement, and which all my experience contradicts. Take the matter of eternal life. I should not mind—in fact, would prefer—that it could be proved,on the same principle that I wish to live to-morrow, and would not object if that to-morrow were to go on indefinitely; and, if such is the order of our being, it will be so whether I believe it or not, and in that case I trust I may be better employed than I should be in the monotonous eternity that Christians hold out. I prefer the teachings of the Koran, which are more in accordance with human nature. You mention Mr. Roman’s letter, and ask to keep it. You may do so. There is an essential difference between Mr. Roman and myself. My disbelief is on a philosophical basis; his evidently is not. He has doubts; I have none, and he thinks he will do what good he can and chance it. Had he been brought up in India or China, he would most likely have acted on the same principle, and have been a Hindoo or a Buddhist. I look on all religious systems as deceptions which close the book of that- nature I love, but do not worship, for it is not perfect, and sometimes performs its work in anything but a satisfactory manner. The efficacy of prayer I hold to be nil, save to tranquilize the mind of the one who indulges in the process. He who prays and does not act is a fool. The doctrine of the power of prayer has been upheld by your Church. (See Combe’s Constitution of Man, people’s edition, page 93.) The best thing you can preach is morality. Children should be taught the rudi­ ments of science, something of their own anatomy and physiology, something of their own skin and the duty of keeping it clean, something of the love of animals includ­ ing man, something of the love of truth, of help to the unfortunate, of tolerance, of sobriety in all things, of the history of man all over the world—his defects should be pointed out, and religious teaching should be banished 27 �until the children can judge of it for themselves—then you would make clever men and women, able to compete successfully in the battle of life, for we do not lack capacity. As it is, other nations who are more rationally taught are supplanting us in our previous specialities, and, unless we send our manufactures abroad, as a nation we cannot live. I have sent you Ingersoll’s Mistakes of Moses, which I think will interest you. I should like to have your opinion as to the facts contained therein. Yours, George Anderson. XX. Dear Sir,— I send you the Literary Guide for July, and have marked five articles which I would like you to read. Should you take exception to any of them, mark the portions, tear them off, and post them Jto me, that we may exchange views. • You will find views in the Guide similar to those I have expressed in my letters to you, and which are, in my opinion, such as will, in the fulness of time, rule the world of thought, and take the place of those unproveable, absurd, and contradictory notions that were hatched in the days of ignorance, dividing mankind into hostile camps, in which they fought to their mutual destruction. Dr. Wallace, M.P. for Edinburgh, stated in Parliament last week that we shall come to secular education in our schools. This has long been my opinion, but the Churches know that, unless they can secure the young child before he can think on what he is taught, he will never accept their teachings about the unknowable. Yours, George Anderson. 28 �XXL My Dear’Sir,— I am much obliged for your kind wishes, and especially for your offer to send Science Primers for the use of our young people. I have five Sabbath schools in connection’ with my church. I should like to read a copy of them first, although, believing you to be an honourable man, I quite accept what you say that there is nothing in them pro or con on religion, so please send me a few to begin with I am never afraid of scientific knowledge. The articles in the Literary Guide, which you so kindly sent, I have read, and with much I agree. I shall, after another perusal, return some of them marked as you wish. There are two things upon which, in my opinion, you are unduly severe. First, “Christianity.” I think you emphasize too much the superstition and cruelty associated with the religion of Christ. They are no more the fault of Christianity than the nonsense that has so often been associated with science is the fault of science as such. Christianity, as a system, has its side of evolution. It had to fight its way against the tyranny and superstition of Rome for centuries. I am surprised that one who knows history as well as you do can fail to see and acknowledge that Christianity has done more to elevate woman, to civilize man, and to cultivate the human intellect than any other system or creed. I do not think it is fair to insinu­ ate that pure Materialists have been the only or chief pro­ moters of scientific research. I presume you will allow that some of the best scientists of all ages acknowledge the Christian faith, and admit that there is no real antagonism between science and Christianity in its enlightened form. If you will excuse me for saying so, I am of opinion that you take too narrow a view of Christianity, and do not give it sufficient credit for the good results it has produc­ ed in the world. 29 �The other point on which I specially differ from you is this : I think you make too much of science. You appear to me to suppose that all difficulties must be solved by science alone. There are numberless obstacles that can be raised along the lines that you have so often and so well discussed. But do we not meet with as many and as great ones on other lines ? That matter should have in itself the power, skill, intelligence, and wisdom which are dis­ played in the universe, and in the human body and mind, is to me a greater difficulty to believe than that there is a Supreme Being. I suppose that you would find it as im­ possible to intelligently conceive of matter arranging itself with such consummate skill, such perfect balance and accur­ acy,without any mind or any power behind it, as you would find it to believe in the existence of the soul. Why should you take it for granted that science has made sufficient dis­ coveries within the last quarter of a century to justify you in overthrowing the view of the Christian faith maintained by such great minds in the past and present ages ? Is it fair to take it for granted that science has discovered all that can be discovered ? May not science prove yet more •clearly than it has done that-there is no inconsistency be­ tween belief in God and the tnost advanced scientific facts. I cannot really make out whether you believe in a Supreme Being at all, or in the existence of the soul or mind as distinct from the body, or as being at least capable of ex­ isting apart from the present material body. From some •of your statements I am sorry to be disposed to think that you have no faith in these. You kindly said to me some time ago that you would tell me how you brought up your family. I have no right to ask the question whether you taught them your own views, but I should like to know. If you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being out­ side matter, then I do not see that it is so difficult for you to face other obstacles. There are facts as certain, ascer­ tained by inference, as those that you arrived at by experi­ ments. You do not need to put everything under the microscope or the dissecting knife in order to be certain. There are many facts in connection with religion that you •can arrive at by inference. I go back to the beginning of •our correspondence. You said you believed in the eternity 30 �■of matter. I say it is impossible for the human mind to •conceive of anything without a beginning, yet you believe it. Yes, science forces you to believe it, for you say : “ Is it not as easy, or easier, to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being created like matter, with intelligence and wisdom?” If you believe in an uncreated entity, why not in the larger and, to my mind, the likelier theory ? I must honestly say that I would like you to have broader and fairer views on this question. You have not sufficiently explained to me how you can believe in the eternity of > matter and not in the eternity of a Supreme Being. Yet I am unwilling to think that you do not believe in the exist■ence of God, and hold the opinion that human existence ends here. I earnestly trust you will reconsider your position. I do not wish to continue arguing on these points. You and I will find plenty of material to support our arguments for and against Christianity and the existence of a Deity, but I find life top real and serious to occupy my time in discussing questions on which I believe we cannot see eye to eye. It would be .a great pleasure to me to have a personal interview with you, but this cannot be unless you should chance to be in this directions If so-it would afford me great pleasure to receive a visit from you. What do you say of the lat$ Mr. Gladstone ? You will no doubt acknowledge that he had a powerful mind. See what comfort and peace he felt on his death-bed. Do not think that I am presuming too much when I express the hope that, when your journey is nearly ended, you will go back in heart and soul to those old truths that have pro­ duced such splendid men in our land, many of them well known to you. Then you will find in the beautiful words and perfect life of Jesus Christ, as well as in his wonderful death for sinful mankind, that rest and peace, in view of the great future, that others have experienced. This is indeed my prayer for you—that Almighty God will lead you to faith in him.' I have allowed my pen to run loose. Please excuse. With kind regards, i I am, Faithfully yours, Clergyman. 3i �XXII. Dear Sir,— In a concluding paragraph of your letter of July 6th you write that we cannot see eye to eye, and that you find life too serious to occupy time in discussing, etc. That is in accord with a similar sentiment I have held for some time —namely, that, /w or con, Christianity may be deleted, from our correspondence—and, if so, I do not see the use of continuing it. It was your desire that I should become a Christian. You have preached at and prayed forme, but you have only seen one side of the shield. I have seen both, and the Lord has not heard your prayers ; I leave that to be settled between you, for up to now I am, as I was, a disbeliever in the miraculous. In my first letter I gave you my reasons for dissenting from various points of your faith, including your virgin-born Christ; but you have not dealt with them. Indeed, how could you, on a matter contradicted by all experience ? Your silence reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was spending a few days at Naples. On going into the smoking room of the hotel one day after dinner, I found about a dozen gentle­ men, one of whom was doing all the talking, while the others were smoking. He was a middle-aged man, evidently from America. He was telling the others what churches he had been to, and he was pitying those poor ignorant Catholics who worshipped images, and he related how he had seen them kissing the feet of the sculptured saints. Being the last comer, I did not care to speak, unless none of the others did ; but, as no one replied, I said : “ Perhaps some of those people could point at something in your belief which they consider equally as unsound.” “Oh, ” ’ ’ ” ' no, he at once retorted; “ I prove all things, and hold to that which is good.” I said : “ I suppose you are a family man. He nodded assent. “ Well,” I continued, “suppose your wife were to say to you one morning at breakfast: ‘My dear, I am much 32 �afraid there is something wrong with daughter Mary : I don’t like her symptoms.’ You would exclaim : ‘Impossible, I will have her up to the library and question her.’ You would call your valet to send in your daughter. When she arrived you would say : ‘Mary, your mother is seriously alarmed about your condition; her quick eyes have dis­ covered that something is wrong.’ Mary would hang her head, but say nothing. You would entreat her to make full confession of her weakness. She would still be silent, but most probably give way to tears. You would say : ‘Mary, I insist upon knowing who is the author of your trouble.’ She would then faintly say: ‘Father, it is the Holy Ghost.’” I paused half a second and said : ‘Would you believe her ? No; and yet you believe a similar story told about a Jewish girl, who is alleged to have lived nearly two thousand years ago.” I paused dramatically. He made not one word of reply. I looked round to see if any­ one else would ; but no. Some smiled broadly, but no one spoke. The American shortly after rose and left without saying “Good evening, gentlemen.” He was quite right to take his defeat in silence, and far wiser than to have tried to argue in such an impossible position. He was going to the Holy Land ; I hope I gave him something to think about on the way. You said that Ingersoll was flippant; I know what you mean. Christians can be flippant and abusive in their references to Freethinkers ; but the moment their faith is attacked by sarcasm they call it flippancy. I have faith in sarcasm ; it strikes prejudices, it stings, it makes fools think. In my opinion, Ingersoll reasons admirably and humorously ; he can make people laugh, and laughter is a good antidote to folly. You have twice asked how I brought up my family. I had two daughters and four sons. Up to the age of nine or ten they were at local schools, and at home, where religion was not considered a fit subject for youthful minds, so there was no instruction for or against it. When they went to boarding-school I insisted that they were not to learn catechisms, psalms, etc., but to have the time that is usually devoted to this branch of study for play, for I remembered the trouble such things had been to me. I 33 ✓ �✓ have happily forgotten them all now except “that the chief end of man was to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.’ My eldest son I sent to University College School,London, where he met boys from different parts of the world—this itself was education. One of John Bright’s sons was there at the same time. The other three boys and the two girls I sent to Madras College, St. Andrews, as they became of proper age. I found the boys had seven or eight classes to attend, each of about an hour’s duration, out of one room into another. I thought these were too many, so I struck out one class, held about mid-day, which I deemed they least needed, and they had that hour to play. I gave the boys bicycles, and sometimes they would ride from St. Andrews to Leven, where their eldest brother was learning mechanical engineering. Each of my boys I sent to learn a mechanical trade. While they were at St. Andrews, I arranged at the hotel for a groom to take both boys and girls riding on Saturday afternoons. The two girls and the youngest boy I afterwards sent to Germany The girls’ education was already what is called finished, but they went for the study of music and languages, the boy for natural philosophy and chemistry under Bunsen. They were there a couple of years. The boy came home and went to King’s College, London, and the girls I took to Italy—to Florence first, afterwards to Rome. I used to join them during their holidays, taking them to Switzerland, Venice, Pisa, etc., where they saw the immortality of man in architecture, sculpture, and painting. My eldest sonhad gone to Chili to construct, and afterwards manage, a gas works ; my elder daughter followed him. He died while engineer of the gas works, Santiago. My daughter took to teaching music, English, French, German, and Italian ; she made two hundred a year, and was welcomed in the best society, where her riding proved an advantage, as all good people ride there. In the course of time she married. My younger daughter, went out to her sister after her mother’s death. My elder daughter’s husband died, and she took to teaching again, assisted by her sister. She, too, became the wife of a Scotchman, and they all live to­ gether. My youngest son is now my right hand in my office. - Of my other two sons, one has been twelve years34 �in Corsica managing my gas works there, the other is en­ gineer and secretary in a gas works near London. All are married and have children. I may say that they have given me no trouble ; and, if I had their bringing-up to da again, I fail to see where I could alter it with advantage. As to their religion, I have never troubled my head about it, and I fancy the subject has not given them much con­ cern, although some of them, I believe, conform to a few of its forms, which I have never done. A minister of the English Church called on me shortly after I had taken possession of a house in the country, to tell me that my house had a seat in the church. I took him indoors, showed him my shelves of books, told him that here and in the fields I spent my Sundays, uncorked a bottle of port (of which we both partook), and chatted harmoniously. Some months after the men of the near village called to ask me to take the chair at their bean­ feast. I agreed. They had engaged a band of music from a neighbouring village. I asked them why they did not have a band of their own. 'Jhey appreciated the hint, and came to me next week to head the parish subscription. I said ; “No, no; you must go to the big-wigs who have been longer established here than I have, then come to me.” They did so ; got enough money, bought instruments, and secured a bandmaster from the nearest barracks. In a few months they could play very well indeed ; and, after a while, they used to come marching in at my gate, pose themselves in the circular carriage-drive in front of the house, and play capitally. They had got something better to do than spend their evenings at the ale-house, and I hope they became better men and saved the money they formerly paid for a band to play at their village festivals. In my opinion, this was better than praying for them. If you have not, up to this, found out my position on the subject of the gods, I scarcely know how to enlighten you. I have told you that gods, devils, witches, warlocks, spirits, etc., are but myths of ignorant human imaginings, and are as various as teachings you have received—in fact quite geographical. Born in Rome, Catholic ; in London Protestant; in China, Buddhist; in Turkey, Mohammedan —all contradicting and damning each other, hunting and 35 �x killing as opportunity affords. Outside their various religions they will buy and sell; they will join in schemes for the bettering of mankind; but do not introduce religion of any sort, or they are ready to fly at each other’s throats. Talk not to me of the civilizing results of religion, when all history proclaims the direct contrary. Of course, Christians have done much good, but not as Christians, and it is only in secular pursuits that they have benefitted the world. They are'ashamed now to kill or skin a iiran, but it is because the spirit of the age is more secular. Christianity has to retire into the background,while science, which is purely secular, advances to the front; and an Archbishop of the Church of England is glad to attend at the inauguration of a marble statue to Darwin. The excuses which religionists make for their former blunders and ignorance are most humiliating. The world goes round and the sun does not travel, as the Church formerly taught ; so the story of the sun standing still until Joshua slew his enemies is a mistake. The world was not created in six days—it was in six long periods of time; neither was "it created about six thousand years ago. Here, again, a long period of time is called a •day, for geologists have settled that the world is hundreds of thousands of years old ; and so on in many other cases. Your Bible, too, is an obscene, highly improper book to be put into the hands of youths. I am certain you would not read the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis to your con­ gregation from the pulpit. I grant there are some beauti­ ful passages in the Bible; but they should not be mixed up with so much that is objectionable. It requires expurga­ tion—and I wonder some Christians have not the courage to do it. The Roman Catholics know this, for they do not encourage their people to read it. However, with all its blots and false statements, it will be read, and the sys­ tem will go on for many years to come. There are too many people who earn their living by it, and there is too little independence in those who do so for them to throw it up. -Its decay will be a gradual process : but doubtless the day will come when the churches will be turned into halls of science and concert rooms, where people will be able to improve and enjoy themselves : when the fires of 36 �hell will be extinguished, and a heaven be'made here : when each and all will revel in the happy present, although they may lament the sorrows of their fore-fathers, caused by pestilential doctrines imposed on them by the ignorance and avarice of their teachers for thousands of years, in all parts of the world. We shall never see the happy day : but it is coming, coming, coming, and all who advance it a step (among whom for fifty years I have been one) have their consolation, If, in the far-off future, it is in the process of nature that we shall be cognizant of the doings of the men of that per­ iod, we shall have our reward; if it is not, still I am content. Yours, George Anderson? XXIII. _ Dear Sir, I am much obliged for yours of August 4th, and’for the full and very interesting account you gave of the history of your family. You must have been a very kind and thought­ ful parent, and your children should always feel grateful to you. You say they were not permitted to learn catechism and psalms at school. Well, that was a mild way of teaching them to avoid the “superstition” of Christianity. I think that at heart, if you will excuse me for saying so, you are not such a disbeliever in Christianity as your statements would sometimes lead me to infer. You recollect that the first question of the Catechism is “ that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.” If you believe that and act upon it, you do well. I am afraid you misunderstood me when I referred to our not seeing eye to eye about religion. I am not growing weary of our correspondence ; I have not given up hope of your returning to the faith of your childhood. I am still praying for you, and I am not discouraged because you are still a disbeliever in the miraculous. If you are a believer in God, that is the first all-important 37 �. point. It is the point that I was always wanting to get at, and I must say that you have never been definite on this subject. Sometimes I think you believe in a Supreme Being, and at other times you make statements that lead me to suppose you do not. Now, my contention is this,, and I would like you to notice it. You believe, you say, in the eternity of matter. I say, by the constitution of the human mind, it is easier to believe in a supreme intelli­ gence that created matter. Science itself shows most clearly the order and perfection of nature, and it is incon­ ceivable that it could arrange itself without any intelligence to guide it. Now, if you admit the existence of God, which I think you do, I contend that other difficulties will disappear. It is quite easy to raise side issues and discover weak points in connection with Christianity, and hold them up to scorn, as your friend Ingersoll does ; but you must grasp fundamental principles. Admit the existence of Deity, and you need not make mountains of other matters. I do not intend to discuss with you the question of the “Virgin-born Son.” I admit, from the secular' point of view, there is great difficulty in explaining this ; but God, who made all things, is surely able to perform acts that may appear to us to be against the laws of nature. Are we justified in saying we have discovered all the laws of nature ? I think, as a scientist, you will allow that there may be laws—many laws—that are as yet unknown to us. There may be a sphere in which the miraculous may appear quite consistent. Do not, I pray, let everything turn upon the miraculous. Leave that out of the question in the meantime, and do not harp upon the inconsistencies of Christianity, nor upon the supposed mistakes in the Bible ; you can find plenty to say on these points. Look at the question in its broad outlines, and try and explain the phenomenon of Christ. Can you explain his life and sayings; can you account for his influence? I differ entirely from you as to the effects of Christianity; there is no question as to its benign influence upon the human race. Where has heathenism provided hospitals and homes for the suffering and the poor, as Christianity has done ? It is because you are a Christian, though you do not know it, that you so liberally subscribe to these charitable 38 �y objects. You cannot, in my opinion, get over the difficulty of the life and sayings of Jesus Christ and his religion unless you ignore the facts of authenticated history. Will you read the Gospels once more ? Read the Gospel of John and the fifth chapter of Matthew. Do not read to find fault, but simply to learn; and I think, if you put away prejudice, you will find that there is much good in the book that you cannot fail to admire. I am reading Darwin with great interest. All your books make me a still firmer believer in my God, *who has ordered all things so perfect and so beautiful. I am very busy, or I would have answered your letter sooner. Yours truly, Clergyman. XXIY.Dexr Sir,— In your last you state that you are not sure whether or no I believe in God. I think my previous letters have been quite clear on that point. Know, then, that I do not believe in any of the gods I have read of; they are all mere myths. Ignorance of nature, and the cunning of men who would use these myths as levers to frighten the ignorant into submission, are the creators of the gods. The gods of a beautiful, fertile country, with pleasant surroundings, were more loveable than the Gods of a country of storm, avalanche, and wild beasts. The gods of Greece were the most perfect of any I have read of; but change in the belief of the people annihilated them. The Greeks have adopted other gods, less beautiful—the gods of the Old and New Testament; the former represented as a cruel tyrant, and the latter as the author of an eternal hell for most men. My opinion is that hell is a priestly invention, and has no existence. Even the clergy are getting ashamed of it, and mention it as the abode of lost souls—another un­ proved assertion, fpr what more knowledge do they possess 39 �of the abode of a soul than I do ? and I know nothing of souls apart from bodies. You will hear of someone described as a great-souled man ; but it only means that he is noble and loveable. If the clergy are to continue to live, they must come down from that elevation from which the ignorance of man has hitherto allowed them to address us. As a class they know less than ordinary educated men of the day ; and what they think they know are deductions from unsound premises, which no investigation supports, and which are, therefore, ’ not believed in by anyone whose opinion is worth having. I feel, however, that we are wasting time which should be better employed. Have you put into your schools the Science Primers I sent you ? That is the kind of information you should disseminate. I know, to my constant regret, that in the Shorter Catechism “ the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever,” for, as a boy of eight, it was inflicted upon me ; but I can give you something much better, and far more sensible : The chief end of man should be to do all the good he can to make himself and his fellow-men happy. What do you say to our correspondence being published ? You could appear under a nom de plume if you liked. Yours with every respect, George Anderson. XXV. My Dear Sir,— I am sorry that yours of September 14th has been so long unanswered. You say you do not believe in any of the gods. I am sorry to hear this ; but I cannot help thinking that, in the depth of your heart, you do believe. You make many statements which I regard as rash and unjust. You seem to impute unworthy and base motives to the clergy, as if they invented and perpetuated views 40 �and opinions to suit themselves, and to support their own interests. Now, this I regard as unjust and uncharitable. You tell me that, as a class, the clergy know less than ordinary educated men of the day. I deny this. I do not know what class of clergymen you come in contact with ; but I am astonished that a Scotchman should make a statement so contrary to fact as far as Scotland is con­ cerned, and other countries also, for, as a rule, clergymen are well educated. But these things are side issues, and, from the tenour of our correspondence, I have the im­ pression that your ungenerous views of Christianity have, to some extent at least, arisen from animosity to the clergy, the origin of which is best known to yourself. I have on several occasions referred to your statements at an early stage of our correspondence, to the effect that you believe in the eternity of matter. Now, I again say that it is much easier for the trained intellect, or for any intellect, to believe in an intelligent Being (whose origin you cannot account for) than to believe that matter, in virtue of its own force, has developed itself into its highest form—that of the human body and mind. If you do not believe in a Supreme Being, it seems to me that it is because you will not, not because you cannot—for you confess that you believe in the eternity of matter, which seems much more difficult. And if you will not believe in God, may it not be that it is because there are some things you do not wish to part with, which you would be obliged to do were you to believe ? It resolves itself into the old question, the words of our Lord : “ Ye will not come to me that ye may have life.” You will not love the light. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. You seem to me to take too much for granted touching your own knowledge and intellect, and those of others who think with you, and too little of the same qualities in those you differ from. A fair mind—one that has power, and lays claim to impartiality—will weigh both sides of any question, will read and think of what is thought and said on the opposite side. Now, I fear that your reading is somewhat exclusive ; that you study those books that are opposed to Christianity, and not those that defend it. I would suggest that you 'read the other side 4i �of these great questions which we have been considering. I have read both sides. 1 have read the books and the periodicals you sent me, and I have not swerved in the least from my view of Christianity, and my faith in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of men. Those writers whose books you lent me, with the exception of one or two—and those certainly not the most noteworthy—never make assertions like some of those you make ; and it is not because they have no intellect, no perception, nor courage, but because they have fair and logical minds. With regard to publishing our correspondence, I do not think it is worth publishing on either side. If I thought you had that idea in view when we commenced it, I would at once say No, for that would indicate on your part a lack of honesty that I am unwilling to attribute to you. The only condition on which I would agree is that all my letters in toto should be published, and that I should be allowed to correct the proofs ; and that all yours should be pub­ lished in the same way. -But I really do not think it would be of any service. I would not care to have my name appear. I visjted two old ladies «th_is week—one ninety-one, the other ninety-four years of age? They were both peaceful and happy in'view of death ; they firmly believe in God, and they have rest in the thought of the future. May I trust that your old faith will return to you before the end of your life, and that you will experience that peace and joy which have been the heritage of millions in the past, and will be that of millions in the future ? The Science Primers I have not yet put into the'hands of my young people, but will do so soon. Would you like to give an examination at the end of the sess-on, and would you care to offer some prizes to the best students ? Excuse this long letter. May I ask you to read the Gospels, and study them impartially ? Yours sincerely, Clergyman. 42 �XXVI. Dear Sir,— Your letter of October 25th arrived when I was from home. It is the worst I have received from you. Such statements as thac I do not believe because I will not, and that, to believe, I would require to give up some things I do not wish to part with, are beneath notice, and are not arguments. Are you not aware that belief or disbelief is not a matter of will ? It is a matter of evidence, or the want of it. The opinion I have expressed re the clergy is supported by history. In the time of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth the bishops and clergy became Catholics or Protestants, as suited the pressure of the passing times and the reten tion of their emoluments. Henry was the most immoral of all our monarchs, and Elizabeth the most cruel; yet neither was forsaken by the clergy, who at one time bastardized Elizabeth and after­ wards crowned her. Henry robbed the Catholic Church of its cathedrals, houses, and lands, wherein the poor were supported. At that time there were no poor rates ; the Catholic Church supported the poverty-stricken. There were houses at short distances where the man in search of work could sup, sleep, breakfast, and proceed on his way. This was not charity ; it did not pauperise him ; it was his immemorial right. But these two crowned scoundrels stole all this and divided it between the aristocracy and the clergy ; hence the present poor rate— a legacy from those times to us. Kings, queens, and clergy have improved since then, but only in countries like ours, where secular knowledge has spread. Some countries suffer now from kingly injustice and clerical superstition, as we did three hundred years ago; there­ fore, still further improvement is required. The clergy are very bitter towards anyone who disputes the doctrines they live by. They are the only body who detest discussion 43 �and free inquiry ; they try to smother free thought in its bud, so that it may not bloom ; hence they catch the child in its cradle. They perform the mummery of baptism ; they “ confirm ” it; they marry and they bury it ; and they taboo and impute improper motives, and put outside the law all who question their unproved^ and unprovable assertions about their everlasting gods. Why, sir, compared with man, gods are things of a day. The beautiful gods of ancient Greece, the liberal gods of ancient Rome, are all dead. There are yet Buddha, Mohammed, and Christ left; but they are all consumptive, and death will claim them at last. You have once more returned to the question of my belief in the eternity of matter, but you have not put for­ ward any arguments ; you have only told me that you think it is easier to believe that an intelligent Being, whose origin you cannot account for, and of whom you know nothing, has accomplished all the developments we find in nature, including man. The God you worship, whom you suppose has done all this, is, according to Scripture, without body, parts, or passions, which, to my mind, appears to be a concise description of nothing. You cannot give any description of such a body, yet you ascribe to it intelligence. Where have you ever found intelligence apart from matter? Intelligence is only a name we give to the mental action of an organized body— a body with a brain ; for all bodies are not intelligent. A lump of granite is matter, but it has no brain ; hence we do not accord it intelligence. You say that the clergy are well educated. Tj be merely a clergyman, I do not see what need he has for education : he has nothing to talk about but mysteries, which he tells you he does not understand, yet asks you to believe. In my opinion, the gift a clergyman most requires is oratory, a good delivery, such as Burns describes in his “ Holy Fair.” Clergymen sometimes dabble in secular matters ; but it would be better for them to leave that field alone. Their efforts seldom meet with approval, especially in Scotland, where secular life thinks it can manage its own affairs— which opinion I share. They are best in the pulpit, where 44 �no one dares to contradict them, and where they can be eloquent upon subjects no one understands. You think my reading has been devoted too much to books antagonistic to Christianity. I think not. I have about 1,000 volumes in my library ; not one in fifty speaks for or against Christianity. Among them is included Alison’s History of Europe (24 octavo vols.), Scott’s Works (12 vols.), Gibbon’s Rome (12 vols.), Hugh Miller (13 vols.), Jones’s Asiatic Researches (9 vols.), fourteen volumes of Scottish History and Story, twenty-four volumes of Tales of the Borders, Ballantyne’s novels (10 vols.), Robertson’s Histories (8 vols ), Darwin’s works (14 vols.) ; several volumes on Geology, several on Astronomy; poems of Burns, Byron, Shelley, Cowper, Southey, Dryden, Moore ; most of Dickens’s novels, Berkeley’s Dictionary, and several others, including the original edition of Johnson’s in two volumes, which weigh about a hundredweight (these latter I have only glanced at) ; also twenty-four octavo volumes of Parliamentary History of England, from the time of Henry IV. to the restoration of Charles II., many books on engineering, and hundreds besides. In addition to these 1 read the Times and Daily Graphic, likewise magazines and weekly papers. I read the Old and New Testaments long ago ; found the former cruel and indecent, and the latter impracticable. I possess, and have read, the Talmud and the Koran. The Koran I consider the most rational of them all. Granting the possibility of a future life, it is the most likely to make converts ; there is something human in its mode of enjoy­ ing eternity, far better than for ever singing in praise of the Lord. And what a low, barren opinion of God they must hold who think that everlasting adulation will please him. I had no thought of publishing when this correspond­ ence began, therefore I kept no copy of my first letter to you; but, when I saw that you wished to make a Christian of me, I deemed it best to keep copies ; and it was only when I was informing you of the manner in which I brought up my family that the idea occurred to me that I might publish, as I consider this duty to be the most important in a man’s career. Should I publish, I will not 45 �name you without your consent. If you decline to give it, I shall not consider it necessary to send you proofs, for 1 shall not publish for profit, and naturally wish to keep down expenses. As this will probably be my last letter, I must say that I suspect your dull, one-sided ass has not mended his pace by beating. I forgive you all your unkind thoughts as to my motives for rejecting Christianity. I know they are mistakes. Tf I had not been a lover of truth, I might have posed as a Christian ; but I detest your faith, and regard it as a hurt­ ful superstition that afflicts mankind—one that has divided those who would otherwise have been mingled into one great brotherhood ; and I have had honesty and backbone enough to appear in my true colours, and always, 1 trust, without giving offence to others. I am, yours, George Anderson. XXVII. Dear Sir, I have gone back in my previous letter to the beginning of our correspondence. You say there you believe in the eternity of matter—that is, you believe in what you cannot, in your own words, understand or explain. This is an admission of great importance on your part. I maintain it is easier to believe in the existence of an intelligent Being who created matter than to believe that matter developed itself. That being so, I asked the question : “ Why don’t you believe in what is the easier rather than in the more difficult thing ? ” You say that this is not argument, and shunt off, in your usual style, to a disquisition upon the Old Testament idea of God. In my opinion this “ is not argument.” In asking the question, Why don’t you believe in the easier conception ? I suggested it might be that to do so would involve on your part a sadrifice that you are not prepared to make. You say that belief is not a matter 46 �of will, but of evidence. Belief is founded on the result of evidence. In the act of believing you are influenced by evidence. One may be convinced by evidence that he should do a certain act; but he determines to do other­ wise, because he wills to do the one and not the other. He is conscious of his freedom to act, and he does it contrary to the evidence that he should do otherwise. ». If a man has no will free to act, where is his responsi- . bility ? I still ask the question : “ Why do you not believe in the existence of an eternal intelligent Being as well as in the eternity of matter? You give no satisfactory answer to that question. The system of your arguments in all your letters turnS upon that you have to stop there, like others who cannot explain how things began to be. You say that you follow Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall. These gentlemen never make such unfounded assertions as you do. You will find that my allusion to the clergy was made with reference to a former statement of yours as to the education of the clergy of the present day. You go off to the time of Henry VIII. ; this is not an unusual method of yours. I admit, with you, that the state of the olergy was badjthen, and it is still, in many places. That, how­ ever, is not the point. There is an advance in the Church as well as in science. If you go back to the time of Henry VIII. for your science, you will find it worse, com­ pared with the present, than you find the Church. You kindly give a list of your books; a fairly good library, but certainly not modern as a whole. You say there are none of them for or against religion. Some of those you sent me are decidedly against religion—such as Gould’s, Ingersoll’s, and literature of that kind. Have you read the other side of the question by authors of the present day ? I have read both sides; but my faith in Christianity, Jn Christ, in his life and words as given in the New Testament, is not shaken. You tell me you read the Old and Netf Testaments long ago : they can bear another reading. I would most sincerely recommend you to study the New Testament once more. Read the sayings of Jesus ; you will find them beautiful and profitable, and not impractic­ able, as you assert. 47 ♦ �You say that the reading of the Koran has led you to believe it to be better fitted to make converts than the Bible and other sacred books. Why does it not do it ? As a matter of fact, the Koran religion is going down, and the Christian religion is making rapid and vast strides. Facts are stronger than assertions. Christianity has never been so strong and aggressive as at present. Tell me how it is that faith in Christ produces such a marvellous moral change in a man. I have been twenty-five years a minister of the Gospel of Christianity; I have seen drunkards reclaimed ; I have seen men and women of all classes, who were a disgrace and a ruin to their homes and to their friends, so much changed that they lived good and beautiful lives for the remainder of their days. These are facts which, it seems to me, your school cannot explain, and they are produced by faith in Christ. I consider your insinuations as to the clergy selling themselves for a mere living quite unworthy of a gentleman of your professed intelligence. If you knew many of them, as I do, I am sure you would change your opinion. You would find them neither one-sided nor inclined to dis­ courage inquiry. I am convinced that if you would study the other side of the question as to the being of God, and the literature of Christianity, and if you come more in contact with Christian men, you would change your views. I am very sorry you seem to think that I have i nkind thoughts of you as to why you are not a Christian. My remark was purely in the line of argument, and I still maintain that, as a free agent, you have the power to will and do ; and if you do what is more difficult, there must be some reason why you do not do what is easier. Excuse my remark that you did not will to be a Christian because Christianity involves responsibility that you do not care to take upon yourself. Far fromTiaving unkind thoughts of you I have the very opposite. I have your portrait among my friends in my drawing-room ; I feel the deepest interest in you. I am still praying for you, for I believe in God, and in his power to influence you in your old age. But even God will not force a man to be a Christian against his will. As I have said more than once, I wish so much 48 �to have a personal interview. If you should have time to take a holiday, I can assure you of a hearty welcome in my home. It is quite possible we might understand each other better if we met. Meanwhile, let me again assure you that I have every good and kind thought towards you, and I am not without hope that you will have different thoughts of Christianity before the end of your life. I am, faithfully yours, Clergyman. P.S.—If you mean to publish, as I have kept no copies of my letters, and I would like to see proofs and I would like them to be complete. The sending of proofs to me will not make much extra expense; but, as I have already said, I do not think that our correspondence is worth publishing. XXVIII. Dear Sir, This correspondence must cease. The object which caused you to commence it has not been obtained nor is it likely to be; hence we but waste time. I have daily evidence that my belief is in the ascendant, and I have no doubts. Governments, Courts of Law, and business between man and man, are all conducted on secular principles, notwithstanding that old religious nostrums are mixed up with their proceedings. When we find one has sworn falsely we commit him for perjury, and we know that the man of criminal intent is far more afraid of a policeman than of the all-seeing, ever­ present God. I trust that you will provide for your schools sets of the Science Primers I sent you. Teach children something of this world, and of their own bodies, and you will make them united, intelligent and happy, and pave the way for the world we live in to become a home superior to your fabled heaven. -1 believe you are better than your religion, and I do not think that you would burn me everlastingly if you had the power. I am, yours, George Anperson, 49 ����J. W. GOTT. Wholesale and Retail Clothier 2, Union Street, Bradford. AGENTS WANTED. Write for Terms. Leading Lines. Gent’s Suits to Measure 30/- 35/- 42/- Gent’s Overcoats to Measure 25/- 30/- Bradlaugh Boots 15/- 10/6 1216 35/- Famous Bedding Parcel at 21/- Dress Goods 1/6 to 4/6 per yard. Costume Materials 2/- to 5/- per yd. All Goods direct from the Warehouse. J. W. GOTT supplies goods to all the leading Reformers throughout The British Isles. �(Editor of the Truthseeker) Last man in England Prosecuted for Blasphemy. THE Truttiseeker Is the only Penny Freethonght Journal in England. The Editor has been Prosecuted so often for selling the paper, that few Newsagents will risk supplying copies. It can always be had direct from The Truthseeker Office, 2, Union St. Bradford Post Free for 1/6 per year. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Christianity and agnosticism : a correspondence between a clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anderson, George [1824-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Bradford Collation: 49 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Advertisement inside back cover: J.W. Gott, wholesale and retail clothier,2, Union Street, Bradford. ... J.W. Gott supplies goods to all the leading Reformers throughout the British Isles. Back cover has photograph of Gott and advertisement for the Truthseeker, of which Gott was editor. Explanatory note, signed by K.E. Watts, and note on George Anderson (from Joseph McCabe's Biographical dictionary of modern rationalists) inserted loose. Both items are photocopies. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available J.W. Gott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N046 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity and agnosticism : a correspondence between a clergyman of the Church of Scotland, and George Anderson, Agnostic; London), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Agnosticism Christianity NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=lRwwFjMx0KESVzkwSAkmzSnXj-OlwRSHKQLBdjqIXwDCjZH8PwyyYYa29kiARFS9o0xAgMXr8wmNBdMkAfAa1TVKdALqqqEjRDjQ2fYc4CzBh0vx2OBLC-eOe9q5nIQrxYA9%7EstHdZjVzfGgPzHfo9-IPIcAwHIkitcLXyPBnmxQGCGzNel3M5VHQWfucK-WbWRTtCVrriFrWDxtwe3A5kVgcXVuI29bLQ-D8xoK-gwcEaG7eMoX4CsNNLxl5wAy7uUxamWFckE6f-GJbmbrdmxQasdtQGB6OSUo5APeBFx-swFJyvuYjecSjvxR0qY6yX6AHmdvbwBywJA%7E4VP-Aw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 37feacb69ba8bfdfa58d820541348d09 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. BY “ HTJMANITAS.” Author of “ Is God the First Caused ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”, “Thoughts on Heaven’9, “Jacob the Wrestler99, “Mr. Eradlaugh and the Oaths Question", “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P,", “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ",“ Socialism a Curse", “ A Fish in Labor; or, Jonah and the Whale ", “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments Against Agnosticism ", “ Against Socialism ", tc. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9 . PRICE TWOPENCE. �LONDON FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHAELES BBADLATOH, 63 FLEET STEEET, E.C. �\T0S3 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. This pamphlet was originally written as a portion of my larger one on “God ” ; but considering it to be complete in itself—as against Agnosticism—I determined to publish it, in a separate form, hoping thereby to reach many who might not be inclined to buy the larger one. The observations I have made, and the arguments I have endeavored to advance, are made and advanced with great respect and with much diffidence: respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer and closer appli­ cation to the question, and better means of studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion than my­ self : and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion. Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself; but I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I shall endeavor to put forward seems to me to be real difficulties. If I should appear to be dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty in finding a method of expressing the thoughts I wish to convey. In my pamphlet on God, of which this forms a part, I have said that God is not, nor could not be. And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observa­ tions. I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his existence. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings. �4 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. But I think I see very marked signs of what may be considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism. Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take up this position, but what is considered the safer and more moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him; and that therefore he should neither affirm_ nor deny his existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos­ ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence.. Mr. Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of th© Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a first, cause, and a personal God ; equally, we cannot prove a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further saying: “ Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned ”. I would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull­ ing the statement. But he further holds that if the existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of course to illustrate the idea he is expounding.) be asserted in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos­ sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist an uncaused cause of all things? If it, as well as the existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc., — which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ? It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr. Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned, the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned. If anything which is inconsistent with what we really 1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. �AGAINST AGNOSTISISM. 5 know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—£e., God —stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct issue. The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr. Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face -of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is, as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously, forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice it denies it. Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then it is, so far Atheism: because the Atheist does but say what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis­ able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not, physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical­ ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility of something about the Unknowable; although that admis­ sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions superbly ridiculous. Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the possibility of what both practically say is impossible?1 2 1 I notice that “D” (of the NationalReformer} takes exception to the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, but I do not think that affects the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God. 2 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journaloi March 30th, remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic­ �6 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. It would appear to me that what is ■unknowable is not. Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there may be some points and niceties about it which pass my comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra­ ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you prove to the contrary ? ” Of course one could shake one’s head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the closure will come in again with quite as much force against the improbable as it did against the impossible, when used in reference to the Unknowable. It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding that it may le this, that, or the other. The whole idea seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically, no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall be completely outside or free from considerations which ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and Atheism is no more.” Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is assured. ‘God’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.” With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults. If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists who believe in God. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 7 ar© in connexion with the universe, or which are not based upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos­ ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or, what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure, rather than to throw more light upon what is already sufficiently difficult. As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach­ ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre­ sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism. I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism, or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other hand, if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution till he arrives at Theism, which says yes. Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house between the two extremes, there will at all times probably be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism, and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who are either going forward or returning, as the case may be. In the observations which follow I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God. I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs. Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the Rev. W. T. Lee, and the definition of Agnosticism quoted �8 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. from, the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan­ guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only B very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi­ fying the boast made by many, that there is no living person who really believes there is no God. Of course this boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything, mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed, and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would, I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues, which may contain no principle. The question then arises which is the most logical position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimate end and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at the last gate by refraining from making such direct declaration ? At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what his name implies—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves in the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God. Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi• tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula 1‘ we do not and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does he not in reality say “there is no God ” ? If you venture as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 9 logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict? It appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the common and consequent result of investigation should not be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not­ withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi­ bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra­ dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible. If you venture one whit further in the shape of denial than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be true. I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for giving direct form to his verdict, orresult of his investigation. I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse declared it contained no money, would not be held to be illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin­ ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con­ tained money, but would not venture upon saying out­ right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it �10 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn, and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi­ tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use in dropping one term and picking up another, which, whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing? If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean one other thing : the possibility of the existence of God, which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and denial of Atheism. Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism, as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ? But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact; thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con­ ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils, ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms with which the regions of supernature are peopled. I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to admit of a may-le, which the whole universe proclaims may not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grateful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position the possible correctness of which you have already 1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to me that the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature, is an admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still an admission that perhaps it (supernature) ; to the shutting out of the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 11 conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate. It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quitesavoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that Agnosticism is safer because it teils you neither to affirm, nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you. there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say perhaps yes? Do I then doubt, or half believe? What logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non­ admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not. The “New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded, and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. AVace, states that “an Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and, as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good.enough for the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism. Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good ; although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who dis­ claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late 1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following quotation, given in the .Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition of the word, be correct: “As the inventor of the word, I am entitled, to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence �12 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. "bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”. He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist, nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com­ patible with the position now apparently assumed by leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti­ mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in the belief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case. To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is, at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic doing so. of science whether ancient or modem. It .-imply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such belief. So far it is Atheistic.; but if it further means that man has no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not therefore to state his disbelief, then it is rot Atheistic. And if meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove. But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean­ ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi­ cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss h m. Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance, the Trinity. �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 13 It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that, while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out­ side natural phsenomena, nor of the first cause which is the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and act Atheism. I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we are bound to have great respect, that the word God, undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ? It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin­ ning and the End, and many other things.. But the cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist, knowing what is broadly meant and held as. to God by those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no moaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can you not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can ' know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined. I recognise the difficulty; but reply: Would an Atheist subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary —I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no 1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas, they are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence. �14 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli­ gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist to say yes or no to such general meaning. If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I presume in every scientifically arranged language in the world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their deri­ vatives, nor would Atheists themselves have existed. If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will —put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing room for variations of definition) holds that he does not exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ? I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in this particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he must not venture upon making the logical and consequent avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic­ tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results. It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 15 it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity. I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not, it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter­ pret his position. I could understand taking up the position that, because we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what might, or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos­ sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable and improbable ; although I should be strongly tempted to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I should consider beyond the improbable and to be im­ possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round and include all questions, and not be confined to that.of the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con­ cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence. I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving­ expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving expression to his conviction that a moon made of green cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being “ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis­ belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither affirming nor denying” : it is the embodiment of denial and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into another position; but in the meantime, I must again say that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis­ believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name, and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi­ tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the weak avowal he makes when he says ‘ ‘ the Atheist does not say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions �16 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words, he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much reason be regarded as a loop-hole. But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do not know God — and forgive me if I once more say— thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought, I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other terms as shall better define our position. In that case we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one. For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or otherwise, I have no hesitation in asserting that, so far as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other­ wise, I could not be an Atheist. Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles in the National Reformer, “In Defence of Agnosticism”. They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them. But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question ” being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”, But he further says that some argument is admissible when he is taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it: “ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on to explain, such assertions include statements with regard to the order of nature ; as, for instance : “We may argue �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 17 •from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”, This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but to my wind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to leave the person awkwardly situated, who does. not believe in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his God forward as being supernatural only, and as having nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be dumb; or limit, one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put forward in conjunction with our phenomenal universe (as indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him. But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirma­ tively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be verified either way without full discussion ? And why should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ? And finally, is that Agnosticism ? But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward. Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time the cause and author or creator of the universe and of all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the enabling position, above all others, I take to be that of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion of the statement only, discussion upon the question of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super­ natural being. But the qualification comes in as a kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega­ tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say, �18 AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. “ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis­ factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos­ ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s” further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when a Christian states that “three times one God are one God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possi­ bility, as to say “the subject matter is beyond the reach of my faculties, and that the assertion itself conveys no distinct meaning to my mind”. These seem to be quite distinct statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro­ fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed. I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”, but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon common sense and science, “does not, or needs not, deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it; but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming nor denying. The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored to give form have been in my mind for a considerable period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps, in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other. The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small space here at my command I have not been able to much more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as �AGAINST AGNOSTICISM. 19 occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My observations are possibly better calculated to induce the ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and to look for larger and more complete investigations than they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the great of learning. The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating humanity, and building up a people who shall consider their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry, but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry, rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ball, William Platt [1844-1917] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 19 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N053 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/144333907e0df5166510fb57b643e074.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Ht3dygEVztTqu8K5YrtE3o65UMtwEjKPeYV6DPSRkcJThb6nTx49ROKrc980bLOU9dbWQl6FEUNBr%7E28mzp5kpX1nCyMXxekNj4qN7pWYGJDmlIaXT5VbGHBlK-duEIjNVl5yD4gFBuHBhmblKoi1EY9CWso2BWcfF%7ElKJiIuX5eUG0-ZNTO8NPzfRQ85fDOedBaOC7KAxjEIU61qiw8fFgW9S158zpxvvr8m8mGIIKljYiGs9obnPXLXvMb3cZgwXRBdK41U0dkd6q41gfLYSmWp-hb33licAl5quqafNTAU0ZhHjuEOer9TRguYjXSqg%7EEzzVbpbEYJuVhkvVySA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c4fe65c4f321c6538774d95c70ac2a8 PDF Text Text B 2a>9 KSt>S£ NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY GOD. Being also a Bsiet Statement ot Arguments Against agnosticism. BY “TIUM ANITAS.” Author of “ Is God Heaven”, Commons “ Christ’s Temptation”, “ Jacob the Wrestler”, “Jonah and the Whale”, the First Cause?”, “Follies of the Lord’s Prayer”, “ Though's on “Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath Question”, “How the British House of Treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”, “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation”, “ Socialism a Curse”, “ Against Socialism”, etc. QoclIm? PldxT \ LONDON: FEEETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9. COMPANY, �LONDON : PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BKSANT, 63 ELEET STREET, E;C. �GOD. BEING ALSO A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST AGNOSTICISM The following observations were suggested to me by a remark—or rather, by a question put to me in the shape •of an argument—by an intimate and, I believe, a true friend, under rather peculiar circumstances. He is not •only a Christian—and I will do him the justice of believing him to be a sincere one—but a “ minister of the Gospel ”, having qualified himself in what should have been his hours of rest from daily toil, under the auspices of Mr. Spurgeon. We chanced to be inside a very important Catholic •church in the City of Dublin. It was upon a Saturday evening, a favorite time for going to confession amongst the poorer Catholics. The interior of the place presented the appearance usual upon such occasions, being only partially and dimly lit up ; making the small red lamp burning in front of the high altar [indicating the presence of the “Host”—i.e., a small piece of God’s “ very flesh ” in the form of the “ wafer ”, which is made of flour and water] more remarkable and mysterious. Groups of penitents kneeled and prayed, beads in hand, in front of one or other of the numerous altars, either waiting their turn to disappear into one of the many confessionals, or saying a few prayers—perhaps a portion of their penance—after coming out from them. Occasionally a priest would glide quickly and silently past in that well-known conventional and prof essional manner peculiar to them and their calling; bowing to the very ground in solemn fashion as he passed the “Adorable Host”. Pictures of the “Stations of the �4 GOD. Cross”; highly colored and decorated statues of “Our Saviour”, the “Blessed Virgin”, “ St. Joseph”, and various other saints ; stained glass windows, looking strangely and weirdly indistinct in the dim light, and helping the gene­ rally mysterious glamor which prevailed; people in various stations of life, but chiefly the poor, sprinkling themselves with holy water, blessing themselves and making the sign of the Cross as they passed, or almost crept, in and out; the curious odor so dear to the olfactory nerves of the faithful, caused by the burning of incense, and which never seems to leave the building: these, together with many other features peculiar to the Catholic Church, seen by my friend for perhaps the first time, inspired him with much curiosity, but withal much contempt. I think it likely that he experienced some such feelings, as did the simple honest Scotchman when he, for the first time in his life, got a glimpse of a bishop in the full blaze of his glory and paraphernalia, officiating in a Catholic Church upon the occasion of its being opened for public worship, and exclaimed : “Ah! mon, but it’s the deil!”. However that may have been, he is, as I say, a Christian minister, and of course fervently believes in the existence of God. In fact, he went so far as to declare—and I believe in all sincerity—that he did not believe one single human being existed who thought for a single moment there was no God. This being so, and whilst we stood opposite the high altar, he appeared to be suddenly struck with an idea: he thought he saw a favorable opportunity of driving home an argument, and thereby eventually saving my soul from the awful doom which he felt sorrowfully confident was hanging over it. For, turning to me, with much solici­ tude, he asked the question to which I have alluded, viz., “ Does not that fine piece of work ”—pointing to the high altar—“ show design ? Does it not bespeak thought, intelligence: in short, does it not show mind on the part of the maker ? ” Of course I at once saw at what my friend was driving; and there, in the centre of mystery and mummery, with the Faithful, and, as we both thought, foolish devotees, bowing and scraping, and blessing and mumbling and crawling about us, we two, a Baptist minister and an avowed Atheist, held an argument as to whether there existed a God or- not. Of course it was held in undertones ; but more than once we were �GOD. 5 suspiciously glanced at; and, wonderful to relate, the walls did not fall in upon us, nor did the floor open and swallow us up! I believe, Atheist as I am, and holding the Church of Rome—with its host, its mutterings, its tinsel and trappings, its celibate (?)' priesthood, and its large and lucrative trade done in departed souls—to be all delusion and pretence, that my friend’s disgust at what was passing around us, was greater than mine. Yet he, in turn, finds no difficulty in subscribing to such things as the “Trinity”, the “Fall”, and the “Atonement” (embracing as the latter does, the pre-ordained tragedy of the murder of God No. 2); the doctrine of eternal torment, and the usual orthodox miracles ascribed to Christ, etc., ■etc. With these few observations as to the origin of the pre­ sent paper, I will at once proceed with my task. In dealing with my subject, I shall hold that “God” means, not only the “Sovereign Lord”, the “Supreme Being”, the “Maker of heaven and earth”, etc., which terms all convey pretty much the same meaning or idea ; but that it must necessarily mean the beginning of all things; in fact, the First Cause. I take this to be the primary meaning of the term; and to be the centre of nearly all the definitions put forward. [I shall, in concluding this paper, make some remarks upon the question as to whether an Atheist can reasonably hold that the term God conveys no meaning to him. “Creator”, “Maker”, “First Cause ”, etc., seem to me to be fairly definite, and to convey the idea that the person who uses them, or the term (God) for which they stand, holds that he exists.] Christians generally certainly hold God to be the begin­ ning of all things. They all, with perhaps slight varia­ tion, teach what is conveyed in : “ Before all things were, God was ”. And the Theist, pure and simple, holds that he in some fashion or other made, or caused the universe. I shall, as a matter of course, endeavor to show that this is erroneous. My friend’s contention, as will have been observed, amounts to nothing more nor less than our old familiar friend the design argument: that because an altar, a building, or a piece of machinery, indicates mind on the part of the constructor, therefore the universe must have had a constructor who possessed that attribute. I do not, �6 GOD. however, think that either he or they who hold the sama opinion are sufficiently logical to admit that, inasmuch as the universe, like the objects referred to, showsgreat imperfections, therefore its maker, like theirs, must necessarily have had only an imperfect mind. To make this logical confession would defeat the object of the comparison and inference drawn. My first objection to the theory that the universe wasconstructed or made is that it pre-supposes a period when a universal nothing prevailed ; that there was a time when this world, with its sun and its planets, and the other millions of worlds, compared with which this is quite insignificant, did not exist; and when matter in any form was not. The thing is simply unthinkable. It is pure assumption. It used to be assumed and enforced—by death if necessary—before the shape, dimensions, laws, etc., which govern this world (not to mention the others) were known, that the very matter of which it is composed was made—called into existence by this intelligent God, about 6,000 years ago. But science having rendered that position untenable, a compromise is made: what was inspiration then is not inspiration now; and it is therefore held that the raw material only existed previous to that period, and that creating simply means fashioning, or working into shape, which again was not accomplished in the good old-fashioned six days—upon one of which we are enjoined to rest from our labor—but perhaps (and mark the perhaps) took six incalculable lapses of time. But this latter-day shift does not touch upon the question of the previous making of the matter. It leaves it exactly where it was : impossible to suppose, and a most un­ necessary assumption. But it is further contended that the world was not only made, but that its maker must have possessed intelligence, must have had a mind. It ought not to be necessary to point out that intelligence, or mind, is the result of brain power. It is impossible to conceive or think of mind except in conjunction with organism. And God is claimed by those who insist upon his existence to be a pure spirit without either body or parts. "What can be really known of a pure spirit ? And how can you couple mind with it ? Mind is a faculty of, and belonging to, certain animal organisations, having its seat in the brain; and intelli­ �GOD. 7 gence is the result of the greater or lesser supply, quality, or exercise of that essentially animal organ. How then can a pure spirit, which cannot be conceived as having any functional power or conditions whatever, be said to possess mind ? As well might you speak of God’s mouth, or God’s any other part, as speak of his mind. Indeed, the folly to which I point is actually reached in such phrases as “his all-seeing eye”, “the finger of God”, etc., which are the common cant of Christians. I suppose I shall be told these are but figures of speech ; but I see no more reason for making them such than for doing a like thing with God’s intelligence, which is the pivot upon which the argument for design turns. There are many Theists who do not venture upon a description of God, simply contending that he does in some fashion exist. Well, that is certainly much safer ground, but of course it does not find favor with those who, whilst holding him to be pure spirit, yet contend for his personality. No less a person than Archdeacon Farrar1 is just now triumphantly asking by way of a death blow to Atheism, where motion and life came from ‘1 save the finger tips of omnipotence ? ” It might be remarked, by the way, that when the venerable Archdeacon is asked, Whence came omnipotence ? it becomes his turn to take his own advice, and, giving the “Rabbi’s answer”, say “I do not know”. But the cream of the joke is, the Archdeacon thinks he has solved the problem. It is doubtless very pretty and off-handed, to talk about the world coming from God’s finger tips: but why did he not say from his toe ends ? For my own part, I do not think it matters much which limb or end of omnipotence you make use of, either as matter of fact, or figure of speech. Omnipotence could, when he had the world, or worlds, rolled up into round lumps, as easily have tipped them off with his foot, as with his hand. I am curious to know upon what he rested the rough lumps when at work upon them. Did he climb all over them, or rest them in his lap ? Can God who is without form, body, or parts, have a lap ? Get behind, 1 See the National Reformer of August 5th, 1888, containing his seven questions, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s replies. Also Ernest Ferrol’s reply in Secular Review of August 25th, 1888, and “Julian’s” scath­ ing remarks in same journal of a week later. �8 GOD. ye of little faith!—or go to Archdeacon Farrar, and he will tell you that God, being God, can have many laps, and no lap, at one and the same time. What does the Archdeacon say to this ? He speaks of the finger tips of omnipotence : then why not of the nether end ? One were as foolish as the other : and yet he deemed those who do not come to the same conclusion as himself, to be talking “ stupendous nonsense ”. I believe that the idea of God working upon the worlds cobbler-fashion is not, however, the orthodox one: a much more sublime view is taken. God is made more of a necromancer, or wizard : he did his work by his word :— “ Heigh presto ! ” and it was done. “ Let there be light ”, etc. “And it was so”, notwithstanding that there had already been three mornings and evenings, and, shall I be profane if I conclude, also nights ? How very omnipotent this God—formless, yet fingered and eyed—must have been ! And it will not avail to argue that those terms really are figures of speech, because having refer­ ence to the particular attribute—mind—which we are mainly considering ; it is implicitly believed that he is not only possessed of intelligence, but is the fountain-head of all wisdom. And there is logically no more reason why eyes and fingers, or any other functional condition or term, should be held to be figurative, than intelligence. . Seeing is certainly as much the result of function as intelligence, and intelligence is not less the result of function than see­ ing. No doubt this figurative idea is extremely useful. The inspired Scriptures are held to be both figurative and literal, as occasion and the needs of this and that particular doctrine or dogma may require. Of course it goes for nothing that those who thus ring the changes, do so to prove each other wrong,—both, too, being under God’s Divine Providence! Now, looking the argument fully in the face, that because work done by man shows him to be possessed of a mind, therefore the universe shows it must also have been produced by a personal power—or even power other than personal—possessing that quality ; I reply that nothing of the kind necessarily follows, especially when it is contended that the power or person so acting is pure spirit, producing its work out of nothing. I think no one will be guilty of holding cause and effect to be contained in such a pre­ �GOD. 9 posterous contention. And the case is even worse when it is further contended that its work demonstrates supreme power as well as supreme intelligence. It does not follow that, because a piece of music or a steam engine is the result of brains, therefore the universe is also the result of brains: much less of brains dwelling in what could not possibly be a dwelling-place for them. Because in order to produce your power, your brains, your mind, or your intelligence, you have to travel out of nature into something indefinable, something in which neither •one nor the other could exist—in reality into nothing. Talking of “omnipotence” does not explain anything; neither does accounting for nature by supernature. Many shallow Christians besides Archdeacon Farrar have made •merry over what it is pretended the Atheist believes as regards chance ; while they themselves maintain that law and order were produced by miracle, which is a negation •of all law, and that nature, which is an endless chain of cause and effect, was caused by an uncaused cause ! This is less logical than chance. If a cannon ball chanced to come into contact with a man’s head it would speedily produce an effect. But your uncaused cause is simply a contradic­ tion of terms, or a logically impossible arrangement of terms, and kills itself. Those who so argue resemble the poor man who, thinking he had no further use for his brains, got a friend to knock them out for him; or the little boy who, having opened all his cockles by means of •each other, was at a loss how to proceed on coming to the last one, and so smashed it. As a matter of fact the materialist is the last to subscribe to a belief in “ chance ”. He must necessarily hold to law and order ; it is the corner stone of his position. He cannot even indulge in the luxury of a temporary reversion or cessation of law, either through the instrumentality of prayer or otherwise. Perhaps the main difference upon this point between, say, an advanced scientific Christian Theist and an Atheist is that the former, arguing that the fact of the existence of the world is insufficient, will insist upon going behind it to find a cause. But he will then stultify himself and cut the throat of his own argument by asserting the said cause to have been itself uncaused: thus of a verity straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel. �10 GOD. The Atheist and Materialist, on the other hand, at once admits that he knows nothing, and can know nothing, beyond the universe. He takes it as he finds it. And one of his highest aims is to become acquainted with it: to understand the laws which govern and pervade it. But he cannot suppose a time when it did not exist, nor a time when it will cease to exist. Change it may, but it will be in obedience to laws inherent in itself. Nature perpetually changes, but it does not cease. And there is no more reason to suppose that it began to be, than that it will cease to be. Let anyone seriously try to think a period in which there existed nothing — not even the atmosphere; that all the millions cf orbs, suns, or systems —for we cannot confine ourselves to our own comparatively small system—did not exist, were not made; and that somewhere out in space there did exist, and always had existed, an incomprehensible something, formless, brain­ less, and without substance, and yet possessing the intelligence and power to produce all these millions of worlds out of nothing, as if by magic. Let him attempt to think it, and he will not only be lost in the folly of the effort, but also in that of the reasoning it implies. If the fact be candidly recognised that the world bears down in its depths, and upon its surface, unmistakable proofs of its incalculable age; and if it also be admitted that there cannot be gathered one single scrap of evidence that it once did not exist—that, as I have pointed out, a time when it and all nature, of which it is but part, was not, is unthinkable—the logical conclusion which affirms the eternity of nature and her laws—by which I mean all that happens in nature, and that is necessary for the happening—will have to be conceded : thus shutting out, or allowing no room for God. Nature therefore being all-sufficient and eternal, necessarily could not have had a supernatural beginning, nor indeed any beginning. If I am told the world bears evidence of having had an intelligent maker, I reply that such is not the case. It bears evidence of vast and perpetual change ; of lapse after lapse of time so great as to almost annul our sense of what time means; but nowhere does it point to an intelligent maker, and therefore a beginning. Nor does it give evidence of an ending. In fact it gives evidence of its own eternity. And least of all does it give evidence of �GOI). 11 having had a beginning in a something which of a neces­ sity must have been foreign to the laws and principles which are part and parcel of itself. Of tho intelligence of the alleged maker, as evidenced by his work, I will speak presently. The Theist, in his anxiety to find a beginning for what it is impossible to conceive as having had one, travels out of tho universe, beyond the real and knowable into the regions of fairyland; and seems to havo invented—and the Christians, with various additions and modifications to have adopted—a kind of fabulous monster combining all the good and bad qualities of his predecessors rolled into one ; with the difference that while as a rule the Gods which he replaced, or who went before him, took, and were worshipped in, some particular shape or form, the Jew-Christian God is said to be entirely without form ; but is at the same timo capable of assuming all shapes and forms, and also of assuming no shape or form what­ ever, as time and occasion may require. Ho is accredited with other peculiarities, perhaps not common to his more savage and less manipulated precursors and contemporaries : such as being a pure spirit without parts, but nevertheless able to see, walk, talk, and sit; and possessing memory, will, and understanding. According to Dr. Cross, an enlightened and Christian member of tho Liverpool City Council,1 God actually has a “ snout ” capable of receiving a “ slap ” “ with tho back of the” municipal “hand”. Which statement another even more Christian councillor, not relishing the profanity of his civic brothor, indignantly interpreted as “giving the Almighty a bloody noso ” ! But tho most amusing part of this incident was that the latter gentleman had to withdraw, whilst the former statement was allowed to stand unchallenged. So that by the decision of these exports in Christian and Doistic niceties, it is fail’ enough to speak of giving tho Almighty a “back-hander” on the “snout”; but the line must bo drawn at bloodying his nose. These arc not my vulgarities, bear in mind, but are those of Christian gentlemen who would not desecrate the Sabbath by giving their sanction to tho means of educating working people upon that awful day. 1 See “Summary of News” iu National Reformer, August 12th, 1888. �12 GOD. Having regard to the traits and characteristics which go to make up the Christian Deity, one cannot help thinking that he would form a most interesting and unique addition to the God Department of the Exhibition of Religions newly opened at Paris. The only difficulty I see would be as to shape. A pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke would not be quite so tangible, and perhaps God-like, as some of their divine majesties already placed. The form of man is, I venture to think, too commonplace; and to give him his great characteristic, no form at all, is of course quite cut of the question. Hence the difficulty in representa­ tion. It is possible that, if appealed to, he might deign to signify to the promoters of the Exhibition in what par­ ticular guise he would wish to appear amongst his rival high-and-mighties. In speaking of the shape or image of God, it is curious to note that the portion of man which he is said to have made in his own image and likeness is that particular portion—?■'.<?., his mind—which is imageless, and which he possesses, though in a larger degree, in common with all creatures whose systems include brains. Therefore it would be quite as true to say that he made cats and dogs in his own image as to say it of man; or, in other words, one statement is equally as foolish as the other. It might not be out of place here to remark what I have more than once pointed out—viz., the extreme reluctance displayed nowadays by defenders of Christianity to discuss or to touch upon the God of the Bible, and his doings as therein related. They either evade or refuse point blank to deal with the subject, pretending that it has nothing to do with Christianity, etc., etc. Well, if not altogether logical, it is yet good. It is well they are ashamed of the root of their tree, and it gives hope that they will eventually entertain a similar feeling with regard to the fruit thereof. But I ask seriously and pointedly how Christians—and I allude especially to Trinitarians—can hold Christ the Son —who is co-equal with God the Father, being not a separate God, but the second person of the God-head, practically one and the same—to be innocent, or in any way not responsible for all the acts said and done, as related in the Old Testament ? The weak attempt at evasion anent the New Dispensation, etc., does not suffice; and cannot make bloodshed, deceit and lying, �GOD. 13 obscenity, and profligate barbarity, other than they are. Whilst admitting that Judaism taken alone is not Chris­ tianity, I urge that it is the foundation upon which it is built, and that a Christian, whilst accepting the super­ structure, may not reasonably eschew the foundation. Man in building up a civilisation may reasonably subscribe to the present-day result, whilst at the same time admitting that many of the events which went before were not, as now viewed, right or moral, man can but use his brains, and he necessarily and often blunders. Frequently he knowingly commits crime, which must be condemned, although future generations are influenced and compelled to shape their course by reason of it. Indeed the blunders and crimes, as well as the great achievements and virtues in the direction of truth and acknowledged right, of those who go before, shape the course of those who follow. But a God building up a religion—giving to man the actual standard of right—is altogether another question. He is not at liberty to blunder and commit crime, other­ wise he is not God. Man cannot conceive (I admit some men can) a God leading his people through bloodshed, pillage, and rapine to a righteous goal. Man cannot conceive a God doing and saying such things, and establishing for centuries foolish fables regarding natural facts, as not only to constrain his “ enemies ”, but his very disciples, either to denounce or evade him. But such is the case, for it would seem now that God has in part changed his skin, and that number two portion is much whiter than number one. Bible Theism is not now deemed sufficiently respectable to go hand in hand with New Testament Theism. The Son is ashamed of the Father, and I look forward to a time when the enlightened will be ashamed of both ; by which I mean, ashamed of being —or rather of pretending to be—bound down and ruled by such books of fable as both the Old and New Testa­ ments admittedly are. Going back again to the folly of hunting for a God, it really is interesting to note how, in obedience to what he believes to be a logical necessity, your believer in his existence, after he has left the land of science and fact, entered that of imagination and myth, and secured, as he thinks, his origin for the land he has left, will, without �14 GOD. scruple, disregard what he conceived to be the logical necessity which sent him there. He opines that there must have been a beginning to all things, falls down before the indescribable creation of his own brain, damns his brother if he does not do likewise, proclaims that he has found the beginning, and thus ignores the very principle which sent him in search of it. All things must have a beginning, except, forsooth, his God. That were a child’s method of solving the difficulty. It is also a child’s method of shirking it. It may be contended, in fact it was so put by my friend, that it is enough if the necessity for a maker of the world is demonstrated, without going behind that maker : that it is enough for man to know there is a creator, without pushing the enquiry as to how be came about. I reply that it is not enough. First, because that would be a good argument against his existence, and for the allsufficiency of nature. But I reply further, and principally, that the argument which insists upon the necessity of a God, when carried to its fair and legitimate end, simply annihilates him. If you insist that the universe—all nature—must have had a cause (of .course an intelligent one) equal to the effect, you must in common sense admit that your cause is the effect of an antecedent cause also equal to the effect. And so on, ad infinitum. Where then is your first cause? I say that, according to your own showing, your God is not a respectable half-way house to the first cause. His very existence, as created by man, logically kills him. The truth is, he does not, and so far as we are able to reason, could not exist. It may be argued that it were as reasonable to hold that God always was, and therefore had no beginning, as to hold the same thing of the universe and of nature. But I reply again: first, that the God theory, whilst being in no way a solution of the real difficulty, merely aggravates it. It is a large and a gratuitous addition, and simply piles difficulty upon difficulty. It assumes as a basis of its existence, what the need for its existence says is impossible; and so either evades or strangles the principle it evokes. And I reply secondly: that man cannot travel beyond nature. If ever he finds a first cause it must be a natural one. To him super-nature is nil, he can know nothing of it; and, therefore, to endeavor to account for nature upon �GOD. 15 what must necessarily be not only pure assumption, but the assumption of something to which you have no means of applying a test, is simply nonsense. Let us suppose that it is admitted that the beginning of nature is an im­ penetrable mystery. Do we gain anything by creating another and a more impenetrable mystery ? We know the universe exists, but we do not know how it came to exist; and in our simplicity we create a Aow, which must be logically beset with the same impenetrable mystery and necessity for an origin as that for which it is made to account. Thus, whilst going very cunningly round the smaller pit, we fall headlong into the larger one, com­ placently belauding ourselves the while for our great sagacity.1 When a person argues that, inasmuch as the world could not have made itself, it must therefore have had a maker ; but that the said maker—let it or him be what­ soever you please—is free from such necessity, he does but shift from what he considers one insurmountable barrier to another and a more insurmountable one. It is like saying ten must be composed of a sufficient number of units, or their equivalent, but that twenty need not. But such a method of reasoning brings you no nearer the beginning : You are no nearer the First Cause. This method of arguing back to Grod, and then killing your argument, is very like that contained in the following dialogue :— “ Mother, who or what made that little gooseberry ? ” “ That big one, my child.” “ But mother, who made the big one ? ” “My dear child” (this rather severely), “the big one never was made ; it always existed.” “ But mother, how could a big gooseberry exist without having been made, any more than a little one ? ” “ Hush I child ” (this time quite sternly); “ that is a foolish and a wicked question.” But why is it foolish ? Why does the Theist strain at 1 If those who believe in the mystery called God, did nothing worse than pat themselves on the back, there would be very little harm done. But they have ostracised and even burned alive their brother, for but saying or doing something which pointed in a contrary direc­ tion. �16 GOD. the smaller difficulty and swallow the larger one ? Why endeavor to account for a seeming impossibility by accepting, without question, a greater ? Materialists see in this universe an endless chain of cause and effect; and are not only willing but anxious ta investigate these changes and conditions, down to the remotest and most minute data. To them there is no dread of encountering some awful nightmare in scientific study, which will possibly shatter the fabric upon which they build their theory. That such fear does exist amongst Christians is evidenced by such statements as the following: “How can we expect men of science, who do not neces­ sarily believe in God, to be impressed by us, if we, who do profess to believe in a spiritual creator, recoil from much they tell us about the creative methods as if it would undermine our faith1? ”1 (Italics mine). And, “why does the scientific dread of first causes alarm us, if we heartily believe ? ” etc. Why, indeed! The non-supernaturalist—who does not 11 believe in a spiritual creator”—can have no fear or alarm in unveiling nature; it is his interest and desire to study her laws, and to become familiar with them, and, when proven, to admit them as facts, preconceived doctrines and revealed religion notwithstanding. But he is not prepared to travel out of nature in order to find a super­ natural origin for her existence. There is indeed no reason for such a proceeding, nor necessity for it. Mother nature is sufficient, is all in all. You cannot go beyond her, nor get outside her influence. Super-nature is not. And this fact is painfully evident in the efforts made by men to dabble in the supernatural. Their gods, who may always be regarded as the personification of their particular myth, are generally disfigured with the passions, loves, and hates which sway themselves. They are, physiologically —if I may so misapply the word—made up of the legs and wings of the animal world, after the manner of your approved nondescript, which, whilst being unlike anything in “the heavens above” or in “the earth beneath”, must necessarily be built of such limbs and parts—no matter how uncouthly thrown together—as are familiar to man. ’ See J. R. Hutton’s address upon “Atheism” at the Church Congress, held at Manchester, October 3rd, 18S8. �GOD. 17 The Gods always reflect the physiological and intellectual condition of the people, for the time being, who set them up; but must necessarily change as man’s condition and surroundings change. They are at once the idols of the age which gives them birth, and the laughing stock of succeeding ages. Being ever made by man, they ever bear man’s impress. Trie Christian God is no exception to the rule. He is perhaps the biggest oddity of them all, and before being Christianised simply revelled in blood. Indeed, the Christian Church has done some bloody and revolting work in his name. But he is now less ferocious, and is satisfied with much milder holocausts than of old. This change is, however, due to the fact that ‘‘heretics” and “Atheists” have, either in con­ formity with his will or in defiance of it, curtailed the power of his priests. They may not now do what, under God, was as holy as it was horrible and infamous. I have elsewhere dealt more fully with God’s charac­ teristics—his composition, his tripleness, his mother, his father (poor Joseph), etc., etc. I have also said that it would be more correct to say man made God than to say God made man. I will now supplement that statement by another, made by the some-time Bev. Parker Pillsbury, who said : “ An honest God is the noblest work of man ”. But I would further add that man has not yet produced him. Gods indeed he has produced in abundance and variety ; but as far as I know an honest one has yet to appear. All Gods are jugglers ; or perhaps it would be more correct to say all priests juggle in the name of their Gods, which is practically the same thing. It would appear to me that man’s failure in the art and craft of God-making necessarily arises from two causes. First, his own im­ perfections and his natural and inevitable tendency to endow his creation with them; and, secondly, the materials upon which he has to work—taken, of course, as showing the character of the God he is manipulating. The world as we find it does not bespeak an honest God; the folly lies in the attempt to manufacture one. If any Christian Theist objects to this, I ask him if it was honest to foreknowingly curse the human race with corrupt souls, or, if he prefers, with corrupt natures, and then to damn it for eternity because it either will not or cannot accept the proffered salvation by reason of its corruption ? And I �18 GOD. ask the ordinary Theist, who may or may not believe in the existence of hell—mostly, I think, they do not, although I believe nearly all hold to a belief in some sort of future existence—whether it is just or honest to curse millions of living bodies with horrible diseases and imperfections, inherited or not ? As regards the making of Gods, doubtless our friends the Christians think they have succeeded in producing the genuine article, forgetting that they are under the neces­ sity of supplementing him with the devil, and of counter­ balancing his wondrous home of superlative bliss with the dismal abode of unutterable woe in which the devil is, by way of contrast, located. This, although I will give them the credit of not knowing it, is the only possible outcome of the conditions under which they must labor. Black and white, sunshine and storm, joy and misery, peace and love, hatred, war, and revenge, fair justice and benign mercy, crushed innocence, and unmerited suffering, etc., accounted for upon the God theory, naturally give birth to twins, one fair and the other foul, one good and the other its antithesis—in a word, God and the Devil, or their equivalents. The great difficulty from the Christian point of view, consists in God having to share his sceptre with his black and discredited brother ; having to wield one end, as it were, leaving the other to the devil—who, indeed, fre­ quently annuls his co-partner’s God-ship most completely by wielding both ends. God is not God all round. It is at best a case of turn about between himself and the devil. God is God to-day, but the devil is God to-morrow —and very often the day after. God makes the world to-day, declaring it to be good ; and the devil damns it the next. God later on sends a Savior (one-third of himself I don’t smile) to repair the mischief ; but the devil so contrives matters1 that, after the lapse of nearly 2,000 years, a mere handful have heard his name; and the bulk of those who have heard it, either fail to accept him, or to be influenced for good by him. And so on to 1 You may hold that God does this—which, indeed, to be consistent you ought to do—and so make him do the devil’s work if you please. In which case, make your exit, Mr. Devil; God can do his own dirty work without your assistance. �GOD. 19 the end of the piece. God, the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things, the Sovereign Lord, etc. etc., is ■so limited, thwarted, and hopelessly circumvented by a power which he either purposely created, or which exists* without having been created, and in spite of him, that he ■can. in no sense be held to be God : the very term becomes a misnomer. To glance again for a moment at what is called creation —and I think I am justified in making these occasional digressions, because they bear upon most important matters, •said to have been done by God, or at least by what may be termed the nowaday most important personification of the idea. It is the common belief and tradition of the Christian Churches that this particular planet was called into existence by God, to be a kind of nursery ground for a large quantity of angels whom he required to fill up the gaps in the heavenly ranks, caused by the rebellion and consequent expulsion of Satan and his confederates. (Note the idea of coming to grief even in heaven.} But Satan,1 although hurled into the bottomless pit, found 1 It might be worth remarking that the Bible, in its account of the ■creation does not say one single word to lead you to suppose that the devil took hand or part in the apple-tree fable. It speaks of “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil ”, and says (Genesis iii, 1) : “Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which God had made ”, etc., and is actually headed “The Serpent’s Graft ”, and further states (verse 4) that God curses the serpent ‘ ‘ because thou”—the serpent—“hast done this thing”. If the unfortunate .serpent was in Satan’s hands, where the necessity of his superior ■cunning ? And why curse it for being made use of ? Is it held that the serpent, being a reptile, was yet morally responsible for the part the devil made it play, or that he himself played through its instru­ mentality ? It would appear to me that in this case the devil was the monkey, the serpent the cat, Adam and Eve the chestnuts, and the Garden of Eden the fire. And bear in mind, if you take away the Christian gloss, and rely upon the ‘1 unvarnished tale ’ ’ as given in the text, the case is no better. You are bound to conclude that the serpent as such, took an active intelligent part in the business, even to the extent of making use of its powers of speech, etc., for w’hich God held it morally responsible, and for which he deliberately cursed it. What villanous trash it assuredly is, take it which way you will! I am here deliberately ignoring the idea which seems to be held by some of my critics (see Watts's Literary Guide, May, 1888), viz., that ■one should read the Scriptures, disregarding the common meaning of language, and fishing, as it were, for renderings which might perhaps completely metamorphose the entire text or story. Or as they put it, ■one ought to take note of the different aspect which these “ miraculous �20 GOD. occasion by means of the first couple of intended angel­ progenitors, to convert the world into a regular market­ garden of devils; a huge cradle for blasted souls I So that God—otherwise he is not God—is, by the instru­ mentality of the devil, filling up the ranks in hell, rather than in heaven ! Passing by the singular notion of putting pure souls through this worldly ordeal, with a fore­ knowledge of its fatal consequences, I cannot but think that God, every time he places these pure souls into his now vile and be-devilled bodies, must feel sadly humbled and disappointed at the continued success of the cast-out rebel, and at his own impotency. That he will finally assert himself and be revenged, battening the devil and his victims down for ever in an eternal stew-pan, is, whilst being a melancholy outcome of omnipotence, one of the most ferocious and relentless intentions that any sane set of people could dream of imputing even to a God. Besides which, if God be God, it is but another way of saying that it was ever his will and intention that this dire conflict between good and evil should drag its sad and awful length through ages upon ages, with the shocking consummation of eternal and unmixed woe for nine-tenths of the creatures created. (I am here referring exclusively to man.) So far we have almost entirely dealt with that part of the question which has reference to the supposed necessity of a world maker. We have principally confined ourselves to the consideration as to whether a God can logically be held by man to exist; and have endeavored to show that he cannot. Now, leaving that portion of the case, and surveying the world as it exists, what kind of a maker should we have to judge him by the evidence of his work ? All powerful, all wise and good—or even just? Most certainly legends bear, when considered as indications of religious and mental evolution, and as crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart ”, etc. The Scriptures are not put forward as “ miraculous legends ”, nor as “imperfect endeavors of the pious heart”, etc., but as God’sdirect word to man. I conceive it to be right and best to tight the Bible as being what it is put forward to be. If it were placed in the same category as other books of fable and legend, there would be no need of fighting it. It is because it is not so, but is held to be God's truth, permitting of no doubt, that the necessity of opposing it arises. And to fight Christianity by means of a rendering of the Scriptures which Christians do not hold, appears to me to be the height of folly. �GOD. 21 not. The world as we find it and know it teems with misery, wrong, pain, suffering and death. Nay, further: it is full of unmerited and unpreventable suffering; and this applies to all living creatures. It often applies with more force to what is called the brute creation than to man. Life, throughout nearly all classes of the animal world, is an endless chain of destruction and consequent suffering. Life for one creature means death to many others ; each in turn falling a victim to the general slaughter, or ending its existence in the painful throes of a prolonged death from disease or starvation. Out in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, down in its depths, and in the seas and oceans, the work of destruction goes unceasingly on. Talon, tooth, claw, and poisoned fang are ever doing their deadly work; and, in addition, each creature is tormented with a parasite peculiar to its kind. Is this the work of a perfect being? I do not mind whether he can sit without the wherewithal to sit upon, walk without legs, or see without eyes. Neither do I mind whether he tipped them off with his fingers or kicked them off with his foot. I am entitled to ask why, if he be perfect, he did not at least make the helpless brutes free from the suffering they endure. Countless thousands of birds annually die of starvation alone, because the almighty designer has covered the food upon which he designed them to subsist with frost and snow­ bound it up hard and fast with an atmosphere by the inclemency of which they must perish, even should they escape the starvation which it heralds. Does this show intelligence of design? Would it do so on the part of man ? How then can it do so on the part of a God ? Must man annihilate his own sense of justice and mercy as well as his intelligence, to discover them in a deity ? Every stroke of the spade, every plunge of the plough, means mutilation and death to numberless insects. And if you do not kill the insects, the snails, slugs, and lice, they will disfigure and kill your plants and your crops. In fact, to kill is a necessary condition of life. I would fain dwell upon the unpreventable, and what may be called natural sufferings which the lower order of creatures must endure, because they are not considered responsible creatures, nor to be so suffering by reason of fault committed: but space will not permit. They are �22 GOD. precisely creatures of nature; nothing' else. I am not; now alluding to those which have been brought under the sway of man; their sufferings are simply unspeakable; which fact, though degrading to man in the highest degree, does not help God’s case as the designer of the whole. My remarks have reference to the animal kingdom at large. They are, in the language of the deist, exactly what God made them ; and, as such, stamp him as being, if Almighty, most heartless and ferocious. Do I hear some miserable apologist repeating the wretched question-begging cant, that it is necessary, and that he does all for the best ? Does he ? Does he set two creatures which he has already made savage, to deadly combat, sometimes by reason of their passions—as in the rutting and breeding season—and sometimes by reason of their prolonged hunger, all for the best ? Does he set fire to vast tracts of land and burn all before him, scorch­ ing and flaying alive all living creatures who cannot escape the sea of fire as it is swept irresistibly onward by the wind, all for the lest ? This point could be persisted in to an almost unlimited extent, but I think enough has been said to show that, even in the matter of the animal world, God either would not or could not avoid the misery which prevails.1 Turning to the elements and to the surface of the globe, where do we find evidence of this wonderful combination of power, wisdom, and love ? Does the world and its surroundings display the perfect work of a perfect mind ? Do storm, hurricane, landslip, or deluge—devastating large sections of country ; destroying homes and lives by the hundred; and dealing out want, sickness, and number­ less consequent horrors wholesale; smiting the infant and the old and helpless, the good and brave, as well as the undeserving—evidence a good and mighty creator ? Are the recent blizzards which perished and shrivelled up the people as they plied their daily toil, marks of perfect design ? Were the many hundreds of people’s heads 1 It may be remarked by the way, that in either case it is difficult to see how he comes up to the God standard ; and the same remark applies to the sin and misery existing all over the world. And bear in .mind, I have but touched the subject, as it were, with my pen’s point. The full measure of what I am but pointing to, must remain, for ever untold. �GOD. 23 which have been recently crushed in various parts of the world by the weight of the hail-stones falling upon them, designed to be so crushed ? And in any case, how does it show the love and wisdom of the designer ? Did the lightning which awoke the poor little affrighted child, as she lay sleeping upon the sofa, and injuring her so much that she died from the effects a few moments after in her sorrowing father’s arms, show the exquisite perfection of design which is urged ? I am not giving day and date for these things; indeed it is not necessary ; they are the daily record of what has not unfitly been called, ilie tear of the elements. But here is a brief and graphic account, taken from a newspaper,1 of some of the horrors of the recent volcanic eruptions in Japan, which comes to my hand altogether unsought, and which I will give in full, as showing how truly awful are some of the results of this design, which is said to denote perfect power and wisdom. It runs as follows : “ Advices received yesterday from Japan, via Honolulu and San Francisco, bring additional particulars regarding the recent volcanic eruptions in Japan, which resulted in the loss of several hundred lives. The villages of Kishizarve, Arkimolo, and Hosno, in Hinok-Hara, Mura, were covered with sand and ashes, and the sites on which they stood thrown into a mountain, the inhabitants, numbering 400, being buried alive, none escaping. At Alina, forty-five residences were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Shibuza, seventeen residences were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Nagazaka, twenty-five residences were destroyed, and ninety-eight persons killed. And at Horekel, thirty-seven residences were destroyed, but no one was killed. The people fled.” This, I think, needs no comment. But worse follows. The account goes on : “The Datlii News Yokohama Correspondent telegraphs: Further details have now reached here of the eruption of Bandal Sau. The place where the disaster occurred has been and is greatly changing, mountains having arisen where there were none before, and large lakes appearing where once there were only rich corn-fields. Landmarks are obliterated. The con­ dition of the wounded is terrible : some have fractured skulls, the majority broken limbs, while others are fearfully burned. The state of the bodies recovered resembles the appearance of 1 Evening Mail. �24 GOD. victims of a large boiler explosion. Many of them are cut to pieces, and others are par-boiled, so that it is difficult to distinguish sex. But the most ghastly sights which met the eye of the helpers were bodies dangling on the branches of blackened and charred trees, thrown into the air by the awful violence of the eruption. Their descent had in many cases been arrested by the trees, and there the victims hung, their bodies exposed to the cruel and well-nigh ceaseless rain of hot cinders and burning ashes. From appearances, death speedily relieved them from their agony; yet, short as the time was, their sufferings must have been past belief. In other places the flesh hangs from the branches of the trees, as paper from telegraph wires. In one case a woman fled from the eruption with her child upon her back, and while flying, a red-hot stone fell upon the infant’s head, killing the little one and deluging the mother in her child’s blood. She escaped, and reached Wakamutsu, where she fell exhausted, with the mangled remains of her child still tied to her back.” This graphic and most appalling account may he truly said to be written in letters of blood. And yet it must be claimed by the design advocate as showing the fitness of his design. It would perhaps appear superfluous to comment upon the above awful refutation of the fitness of things as displayed by the universe, upon which the design argu­ ment is mainly built. But awful and calamitous as it assuredly is, it is a very small affair compared with very many events of a similar nature which have preceded it. I only mention it here because it comes to my hand as I write. It is indeed a bit of touching up and remodelling of the old “ design ” with a vengeance. One would think that if the almighty architect desired lakes and mountains to appear where stood cornfields, gardens, meadows, and homesteads, he would have removed—or at least have mercifully killed by painless process—those whom his own providence had placed in his way. But he did not. He saw fit to burn, scald, suffocate, and mutilate them in the shocking manner stated. OhI the perfection of design here displayed is most exquisite ! Yet would I ask if the burning stone which crashed into the head of the little creature, covering its wretched mother with its life blood as it clung to her back, was designedly hurled? Had the “finger tips of omnipotence” anything to do with it? Or did the unhappy mother’s run for life carry her little �GOD. 25 one beyond providence ? If you say that the mother had a providential escape you must also admit that the child met a providential death. Those who believe in Provi­ dence cannot get outside of it; neithei’ can they find room in it for accidents. God accidentally knocking the brains out of a child cannot be thought of. Therefore it must be admitted by those who believe in his providence that he not only providentially shattered the head of this particular little creature, but that he equally providentially burned, boiled and mangled the life out of the other victims. These questions and considerations are part and parcel ■of the God question ; and need much answering. I am tempted to ask if Mr. Balfour had some of these horrors in his mind, when at Manchester, in his new •character of semi-cleric he said: “There is no human being so insignificant as not to be of infinite worth to the maker of the heavens”, etc. Did the “infinite worth” of these particular human beings consist of their fitness for decorating charred trees with their livid and literally living flesh ? What grim and hideous satires these pious inanities become when contrasted with actual occurrences ! Drop the orthodox snuffle, and the thing said becomes meaningless. Atheists are twitted by Theists, and es­ pecially Christian Theists, with holding a belief in “blind •chance ” ; but here we have something worse than “ blind chance”: we have blind brutality, especially and design­ edly so; and yet of a most undiscriminating kind. We have pain and suffering inflicted without reference to age, sex, innocence, or guilt. I make the inventors and patentees of “ Blind Chance ” . a present of this, and all other calamities, as work especially and designedly done by their God to whom they childishly pray : “ deliver us from all evil ”. The Rev. Dr. A. W. Momerie, speaking at the Church ■Congress upon the subject of Pessimism, contended that pain is necessary both for “men and animals” ; and this notwithstanding God’s superiority to law, and his admission that pain is the result of law which God made. He also gave some reasons (?) why it is necessary, one being that “ if pain had not been attached to injurious habits, animals . and men would long ago have passed out of existence ”. This, if true, is only another way of saying that God made �26 GOD. the necessity for pain, which is the very kernel of the com plaint. He further says : “ If tire did not hurt, we might easily be burnt to death before we knew we were in any danger ” ! Does he forget, or ignore, the fact that we are frequently burnt to death before we know we are in danger, notwithstanding that fire hurts ? Does he mean that we should be more easily burnt to death only for this wise precaution of God’s in making fire hurt ? If that be his meaning, I make free to tell him, it is but a poor crutch for himself and God to hobble upon; for, as I have pointed out, it frequently does hurt us to death; and therefore, at best, the warning but partially succeeds. But will he drive his argument fairly home, and affirm that the pain by fire and boiling water to which I have been referring, was necessary ? Or does he mean that some pain existing by necessity, these dire results of excessive pain could not be avoided ? And if so, what sort of an almighty God does he believe in ? Is it necessary that the human race must not only taste small pain in order to avoid greater, but must also perish frequently in maddening and unendurable pain ? Does this rev. philosopher mean that it is necessary for “men and animals” to actually pass out of existence in most intense pain as a preventive, by means of small pain, to their passing out of existence? Because this, viewed in the light of what does occur, is about what his contention comes to. To give him the greatest possible latitude of which his contention will admit, he can but claim that it is by means of what I am calling smaller pain—-which frequently outgrows itself—that the animal world (including man) is enabled to exist, and eventually perish in greater or lesser pain as the case may be. Well, that is poor enough, but poor as it is it leaves all pain caused by sudden and unexpected convulsions of nature completely out of the question. Take lightning for in­ stance, which often does such sudden and fearful injury that no forethought—not even aided by the knowledge that it hurts—could possibly prevent. From the doctor's mode of reasoning it would seem that it is necessary for the electric fluid when disturbed to blast and shrivel up 11 men and animals ” instantaneously, so that they may know it will blast and shrivel them up, before they know they are in danger. May I ask this rev. and learned doctor to �GOD. 27 show how the pain, which is meant not only to the victims but to those who hold them dear, in the premature death of one half the people born, before they reach the age of seventeen years, is necessary ? Is it to prevent them from passing out of existence? “To form character”? Or to teach them that fire burns ? This arguing for the necessity of pain is only another form of arguing for the necessity of evil, and therefore—from the parson point of view—of the devil. But does the Rev. Dr. Momerie forget or ignore the creation and fall' as told in the opening chapters of his Bible ? Or does he agree with me in regarding them as amusing fables ? And if he does, has he taken his flock into his confidence ? For my own part, I am curious to know how God considered pain necessary to keep “men and animals” from destruction, and from passing out of existence when he bade them to be fruitful and to multiply before pain came into the world. If he thought pain necessary why did he tell Adam and Eve not to do the thing which brought it about ? And why were the poor serpent’s legs conjured off for doing what was necessary ? Of course this is all figurative. I will do the learned doctor the justice of believing him to so regard it; but then he ought not to be a Church of England parson. I 1 I have frequently marvelled at the tremendous dilemma God would have been placed in had these first parents have partaken of the “ tree of life ” as well as that of “ good and evil ”. Well might he hurry them out of paradise exclaiming “lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. It must be admitted that it would have been most unfortu­ nate and awkward for the. almighty to have had a world on his hands teeming with sin-struck immortals upon whom he had pronounced death (both of body and soul), but who would not, nor could not, die by reason of the charm contained in a particular tree which he had planted in their midst. But there is another curious point: if it be a fact that death came into the world by sin there was, previous to the fall, practically no use nor need for this particular tree, except perhaps as a kind of temptation, and even that is not made quite clear, as Adam and Eve do not appear to have been forbidden to eat of it. The people .were already immortal, and would, bar accidents, “ go up ” without tasting death. And when the occasion for its use might be fairly thought to have arrived, by reason of their having incurred the penalty of death, they were, as we have seen, hurried out of its presence. And what about the animals ? Did Eve’s sin bring pain and death upon them, or were they to die in any case ? And would they have �28 GOD. admit I have not read his book upon the “ Origin of Evil ”, in which it is possible he may clear these matters up. In the meantime I would fain tell him that, if God be the origin of all things, evil must come in with the rest, and certainly be put down to his account. The fact that pain and evil do exist is indisputable, and, whilst fully admitting this fact will not increase it; the tortuous efforts to reconcile its existence with that of a good and Almighty God will not remove nor lessen it. Neither will dubbing those “ Pessimist ” who cannot shut their eyes to it. The so-called Pessimist does not point out the existence of pain and evil, with a view—as I take if of sitting down and crying; but rather, with the view of removing or lessening their power and scope. In this he is certainly more logical than he who, whilst admitting them to be deplorable, not only insists upon their necessity, but caps all by affirming that an all-powerful creator could not order it otherwise. I will, before proceeding with my main contention, trouble my readers with another very short, but shock­ ing account of what I will call—if not intended—a serious and awful hitch in the divine machinery. It is taken from a daily paper of about the same date as both lived and died free of pain ? And if so, what about the carnivora and their victims? Were they originally to be all herb-eating creatures (this would also apply to man), but completely meta­ morphised into what they now are by God at the time he chopped off the serpent’s legs? Perhaps there were no carnivora at that period. In truth nothing whatever is known as to what time it is said to have occurred. Modern believers in the fable are willing to place it in any period, varying by millions of years, to which infidel or scientist may drive them. Take again the case of whales ; are we to suppose they were not originally intended to feed upon small fish ? What of sharks, and, indeed, of fish generally ? Are we to suppose they were not, till after the fall, intended to prey upon each other ? The same may also be asked of birds preying upon insects, not to mention those which prey upon their own species. Was this all to be so, or are these creatures an afterthought, and so “made” by God to suit the altered circumstances in which he found himself ? Taken altogether it certainly does form a most curious instance of the “ crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart to express its sense of the tragedy and solemnity of human experience”. Fables and legends indeed these things are, but they are not put forward as such ; they are forced into children’s minds as truths, and kept there by fear of hell. Hence, I say, it becomes necessary to completely break down such pernicious nonsense. �GOD. 29 the others from which I have quoted upon similar catas­ trophes : “ Mail advices have now been received from Cuba, giving particulars of the recent cyclone in the island. It appears that it raged on the 4th and 5th, over the whole length of the province of Santa Clara, causing damage amounting to millions of dollars. At Sogna, scarcely twenty houses escaped injury. The desolation and ruin was complete. The rivers overflowed their banks, and vessels foundered or stranded, while in some cases they were driven into the streets of the town. Fatalities are reported everywhere. A hundred persons perished at Cardenas, and seventy at Caibarien; the total number of deaths in the island being estimated at one thousand.” Now I ask: did these poor people, their homesteads, their ships and commerce, and industries, mar the general design ? Or, did they become part and parcel of it against the intention and desire of the almighty architect, and was it therefore that he thus cruelly wiped them out? And in any case, do this and the other calamitous results of the workings of nature—to which I have but pointed—demon­ strate the fitness-of-all-things which is said to pervade the universe ? Do they not rather demonstrate the unfitness of all things ? Bear in mind, they are no mere theorisings : nor are they isolated cases : they could be multiplied without end. They are the daily lessons, bloody and awful, which nature reads out to her children without cessation. The world, every journey round the sun, pro­ duces and chronicles in awful manner its yearly record of calamities over which man has no control, but of which he is the helpless victim : and which if held to be the work of an almighty designer, would stamp him as being a fiend. The elements, under certain conditions, smite furiously and indiscriminately all things which lie in their course. They will blast the innocent lamb, or scorch up the poor cow, as readily as they will topple over a church steeple, or shrivel up a little child. They are but the blind forces of nature, and could do no other than they do. The Christian Theist is at liberty to hold these blind forces of nature to be directed by an “ All-seeing eye”; in which case I am at liberty to ask: To what kind of monster does this all-seeing eye belong ? The sea, if lashed �30 GOD. into fury by wind or storm, will as readily engulph. the little boat of heroes as they nobly face death in order to rescue their fellow creatures, as it will the blood-stained pirate craft which preys upon the helpless and the unwary. The ill-fated emigrant ship—with its cargo of entire families; its wives and children going to join the father who waits with tender longing for their coming to the home he has with love and industrious labor prepared for them; its sons and daughters going to seek on foreign shores the sustenance and comfort for parents and younger children, which they fail to obtain at home—is as mercilessly wrecked and submerged, as is the infamous slaver, with or without its living freight of wailing and outraged humanity.1 But I fail to see in what way this demonstrates perfection of design—design as emanating from one who is all-good and all-mighty. Do you suppose, reader, that you could procure a patent for your design after showing that it produced such un­ toward and disastrous results as are produced by the elements ? And if you did obtain your patent, do you think after twelve months experience of its work, you could sell it for much money ? Of course it must always be remembered that man is in no sense perfect; consequently his works must at most be but efforts in the direction of perfection: the highest and best only excelling those which they succeed. But this reasoning cannot be applied to God. He deliberately, with all power and all knowledge —present and to come—made things as they are; and is therefore responsible for the world as it exists at this .1 When I reflect upon the awful sufferings of every conceivable kind which all living creatures must, by the nature and conditions of their existence endure, and try to understand what it means, I become appalled : my efforts to express myself fail me ; and I am over­ whelmed. Let therefore no self-satisfied quibbler, holding a cut-anddried read to Heaven—whether upon the degrading plan of the agony and death of an enthusiast, or upon the farce of a mangled and crucified third portion of a God—point the finger of scorn at me. My reason and my better feelings, which at times well-nigh unman me, will not suffer me to worship anything so ignoble as their butcher-God, whom they themselves have set up. And I deliberately avow that I cast my measure of scorn, although utterly inadequate —well, I will not say upon those who hold it; but certainly upon the brutal and degrading idea that the same God, or indeed any God, will, after this world and its woes are ended, doom the vast bulk, or even one of the creatures he has created, to eternal torture ! �GOD. 31 instant: either this, or the word God loses its meaning. A curtailed and changing immutable and omniscient omnipotence is simply an impossibility, and ought to be too ridiculous even for Christians to pin their faith to. The idea of inventing an almighty God, and then killing him, or annulling his almightiness by another, and calling that other devil, is, to my thinking, excessively foolish. Almighty God must, under pain of damnation, be held to be good and just, even though we invent a devil to stand sponsor for what we know to be evil and unjust. Nay, further : our invention of the devil involves the idea that God himself produced him as a kind of scape-goat, as a something upon which to charge the existence of that evil which he, although omnipotent, either could not or would not avert. This is the reasoning involved—but I digress somewhat. It appears to me that, wherever you look, you are con­ fronted with a mixture of good and evil; or they exist side by side. I think the former is more generally correct, although it is often difficult to determine which really preponderates. Take, for instance, the sun, which is the vastest and most wonderful body of all those that go to make up our special system, and whose rays are full of life-giving heat. Yet there are some portions of the globe which are never touched by them, whilst other portions are literally scorched up. In some of the deserts, by reason of the heat, and the absence of water, the suffering of man and beast is extreme. So .with water. In some parts of the earth it is abundant, and in others so scarce as to render life almost insupport­ able. At some seasons of the year, rivers are dried up; and at others they rise and overflow their banks, inundating the surrounding country, and doing much injury to life and property, perhaps sweeping away entire communities. Some portions of the globe—especially at particular seasons, are a. perpetual swamp, and are the source of constant malaria, fever, ague, and death. Can all this be held as evidence of perfect wisdom and power on the part of a maker ? Bear in mind, I am not speaking of nature and its wondrous revelations in a mocking or disparaging sense. I am simply pointing out its imperfections, and trying to combat the puny idea that it had its origin in a ghost. �32 GOD. As another practical illustration of the complete failure of the design argument, as evidenced by what actually occurs, I will give, in full, the following from a daily paper, the Freeman's Journal, of September 1st, 1888 : “ What is one poor country’s meat, is another poor country’s poison. While we are threatened with ruin by rain here, and are praying for dry weather, they are face to face with famine in Egypt by reason of the drought, and they are praying for the Nile to inundate the lands. ‘Yesterday,’ says the Correspondent of the Standard, ‘I had an opportunity of con­ versing with two large landed proprietors, whose opinions may be quoted as authoritative. One of these is a Bey, owning immense fields, of which the yearly land-tax amounts to a small fortune. He had come to Cairo in order to complain to Biaz Pasha of the scarcity of water. His fields had now, he said, been dry for sixty days, and under these circumstances it was, he affirmed, quite impossible to pay the taxes. The other proprietor, a well-known Pasha, whose land-tax amounts to about two thousand pounds a year, declared that unless the Nile should rise two metres within the next ten days, the whole maize crop of Lower Egypt would be lost. There are out of every six hundred acres, no less than one hundred and fifty under maize, and the failure of this crop would mean financial ruin and starvation for the fellaheen population, w’ith whom maize is the staple food. As to cotton, my informant stated that he had in one field a hundred men picking off the worms. For some time past there had been no water, and unless there was a speedy improvement, he, too, did not see any way of paying the taxes.’ ” Come nearer home. Take a glance at agriculture amongst ourselves, and what do we find? We find the farmer’s life one long struggle with the elements and against the disasters resulting from them. True, he manages to live, but often very badly. The weather is generally so unpropitious as to cause him, in a fit of despair—and always as a last resource—to join with his Church, and take part in offering up set petitions and special pleadings that God will, for the sake of poor humanity in general, and himself in particular, avert the calamitous results which would follow a continuation or a fulfilment of what would appear to be God’s present intentions. It is quite clear that the majority of those who express belief in “him who rules all things ”, and who talk much of his providence—including his own ordained ministers— do not always agree with him as to the wisdom and �GOD. \ 33 humanity of the course he happens to be pursuing. Indeed, bearing in mind their daily beggings and pray­ ings, it would be more correct to say they never agree. Practically they have much more faith in the seasonable and desirable weather which they know will facilitate the growth of their crops or ripen them into maturity than they have in the deity whom they inconsistently believe is providentially blighting them. Practically, I say, they prefer to have a big finger in their own providential pie. They pretend that God is all-wise, but go on their bended knees to the end that he may drop his all-wisdom, which means ruin to them, and adopt theirs. That their petitions are not heeded is quite certain. Nature sweeps right on. She always prevails, the mutterings to an imaginary “throne on high ” notwithstanding. The marvel to me is that intellectual people should engage in such childish forms.1 It might not be altogether amiss in speaking of prayer to note that one of the bishops (him of Wakefield) at the late Manchester Congress, whilst professing very frequently that he had no fear of law, was yet very much staggered at its immutability. The tenor and aim of his entire speech was to tone down what he called the “splendid paper read by Mr. Momerie ” ; because it contained “ certain words ” which struck him “ very forcibly ”, and made him “feel a certain amount of doubt with regard to them”. The “doubt”, or fear, as I think it should be called, is fully explained in the following passage which comes immediately after: “What I felt at the moment was this—may not some of those who form this audience go away from here and say: ‘ Why, then, should I pray ? Why should I ask God to restore a friend from a bed of sickness? Why should I ever join in the church’s prayers for a blessing on the harvest and the like?’.” Common sense echoes : Why indeed ! . The Bishop, in his further remarks, whilst still depre­ ciating the immutability of law, admits we cannot “alter” the laws by which the universe is governed; but hastens to point out that we can “interfere” with them. He illustrates his meaning by asserting that we interfere with the law of gravitation every time we pick up a stone and 1 See “ The Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed Publishing Company. Freethought �34 GOD. throw it into the air, or catch it as it falls. This is of course to keep law from barring the way to miracle and the utility of prayer. But it is wide of the mark; because if it means that miracles can happen, there can be neither sense nor utility in showing that one law may counteract another. And if it does not mean that miracles may happen, it means (from the Bishop’s point of view) nothing. AVhat the statement, taken as a whole, actually does mean—whether his lordship intended it so or not, is another matter—is that, inasmuch as that law, as applied to nature, is unalterable, but can be interfered (!) with; therefore man, by means of prayer, can induce immutable God to interfere with what he has decreed to be un­ alterable! Poor Bishop of Wakefield. But it is only another and a very weak edition of the Bev. Octavious Walton’s “Swallowed Miracle”; wherein that philosophic divine childishly contends that because there are other laws, which, under given circumstances counterbalance that of gravitation; therefore miracles are occurring every moment of time ! The law of gravitation seems quite a favorite sugar-stick to suck, with these clerical nincompoops. Albeit, they do their sucking prayerfully; but they are sure to suck it at the wrong end. It would appear, so far, from this right rev. gentleman’s utterances, that he holds law to be good all the while you hold that it can be annulled by God, at the will or whim of his creatures. He fears that if its immutability be but once admitted, the efficacy of prayer is done for. He would seem to recommend just enough law; but not too much. Judging, however, by another passage in his speech, he would appear to go even farther still, and throw law entirely to the dogs; for he says: “I am not content to accept that view of answers to prayer which tells us that God may move the spirit of man to act upon outward things by which he is surrounded; I say I want something more direct.” If man is not going to act upon the things by which he is surrounded, what is he going to act upon ? It is evident that nothing less than the total cessation or reversion of law will satisfy his lordship. But he is a curious and quite an amusing description of Bishop. He concludes his remarks by saying he believes that “he ”— God—“governs and directs his own laws, and that the whole world everywhere is bound with gold chains about �GOD. 35 his feet”. By governing and controlling his own laws, I presume he means that God decrees when fire shall burn —or, as one of his colleagues puts it—“hurt,” and when it shall not; and when water shall be wet, and when it shall not; and also when man shall have too much of one, or both; or not enough of either, as God may see fit— always subject of course to the superior wisdom and control of man, as exemplified by prayer. I think there was an error of about 300 years made in the date of this particular Bishop’s birth. He is living in the wrong age. With regard to the “world everywhere ” being chained with gold chain about God’s feet: should I spoil the great sublimity of the metaphor if I suggested brass or nickel silver as being good material for the chain ? and that a whole string of worlds chained about his neck would not look amiss as a necklace, and that perhaps two fine large planets would come in very well as droppers to his ear­ rings ? I can appreciate a truly sublime or beautiful metaphor, thought, or figure of speech, as such, even though it embody an idea to which I demui’; but to talk of binding the world everywhere with gold chain to the feet of a footless ghost, with a view, as I take it, of teaching that natural law may be effaced or reversed by means of man’s supplications—for that is the Bishop’s great con­ tention—is not to be sublime, but ridiculous. Clerical inanity is a better term for such nonsense. Speaking of prayer, and as an example of the mode in which it is made use of, and, principally as an example of its always non-success, I will for a moment direct attention to an incident of the kind which has, whilst I write, been forced upon my notice. When I say tho always non-success of prayer, I mean that the happenings would have occurred whether the petitions wore offered up or not; and that whether they seem to be propitious or otherwise, they have no reference whatever to the prayer. But beyond that, it is really remarkable how the hopes of tho prayerful, who of course hold their hopes to bo founded upon the direct promises of him to whom they pray, are continually falsified by daily events. I like to place these every-day facts before the notice of my readers, bocause, being indisputable, they most effectually answer and expose the sacerdotal pretence which I hold to be so abominable and �36 GOD. so transparent. The wild Indian, who, whilst offering­ incantations to the Great Spirit, patiently shooting arrow after arrow into the clouds, till one floats and bursts over his village, is not more foolish nor arrogant, and I might add cunning, in claiming the result as being due to the strength of his medicine, than is the mitred and tinselled prelate, who offers up his incantations and mutterings, and claims the ordinary and inevitable happenings of nature as the result of his particular action. Indeed I find it difficult to believe that thinking and intelligent men do believe that there is a power of any kind waiting to fashion his, or its, actions upon the supplications and cravings of this, that, or the other people, or sect, or clan: the desires being mostly in contradiction and at variance one with another. I scout such an idea as being too absurd for serious argu­ ment. But to go to the case mentioned; and in which case, for the complete failure of the prayers, I will not ask belief in my own words, but will give evidence out of the mouths of Christians themselves. The paper I shall principally quote is in no sense favorable to unorthodox views, but is the recognised political organ of the Catholic Church in the country (Ireland) in which it is published. During the latter portion of the summer of 1888, and far into the autumn, the weather had been extremely wet and cold; continuous rain, with frequent very heavy down­ falls, had prevailed. AVe were getting cold soaking rain instead of genial sunshine. Great complaints and murmurings were heard on all sides, and general fears were entertained that we should have a bad harvest with all its dire results. In a word, and from a Christian Theist’s point of view, God, nothwithstanding his all-wisdom, and the perfection of his design, was going wrong: he was rotting with excess of cold moisture, what his humble subjects presumed to think he should have been browning and ripening with heat. In this extremity my Lord Bishop of Dublin, the Most Bev. Dr. Walsh, in the interests of his faithful flock, came to the. rescue,1 and ordered special 1 lie came to their rescue upon a more important occasion—that of their eSort to obtain self-government, but completely changed front, directly his master, the Pope, spoke. What was political at once became non-political in the Doctor's mouth. Only some two or three dared openly allude to this ; the majority, including the National Press—notably the Freeman—belauded him for the shuffle. �GOD. 37 prayers for fine weather to be said throughout his diocese. The prayers, as a matter of course, were of the usual orthodox type. The petitioners were made to crawl into the presence of their supposed offended tormentor by admitting, as I think in grave satire, their complete unworthiness ; and then craving as a favor that he might see fit to change his mind by removing the kind of weather he was putting upon them, and replacing it with the kind they required ; and finally telling him not to mind what they were asking, but to do as he thought best. What he did think best, shall be told by the daily papers. There are always three cardinal points which must be existent in your orthodox petitioner; his total degradation and unworthiness, his strong sense of what he considers essential to his well-being, and his desire to obtain it; and his total lack of the sense of the ludicrous, as displayed in his telling God not to do as he is asked, but as he chooses. What God really chose to do upon this particular occasion, although quite usual, forms a very amusing and instructive comment upon the petition itself, and upon special prayers in general. The announcement of the order for saying these special prayers, I take from the Freeman’s Journal of August 11th, 1888, as follows : “His Grace the Archbishop and the Weather.—In consequence of the continued unsettled state of the weather, and the precarious condition of the crops, his Grace the Arch­ bishop of Dublin has issued directions to the clergy of his diocese for the saying of special prayers in the Mass for a favorable change. The prayers to be said from and after to-morrow, till further notice.” The weather upon that particular Sunday, and for hours after the offering up of the special prayers, was perhaps the worst we had yet experienced. Possibly it took some little time to duly receive and consider the humble petition. However that may have been, there was no improvement, “no favorable change”; indeed matters became very much worse. But the papers evidently held on as long as they could in the hope that they would be able to score a victory for the Archbishop. At length the editorial patience of one, the Evening Telegraph of August 20th, gave way ; the following item of news being the cause : “Yesterday’s rain and storm. — A heavy rainfall took �38 GOD. place in many parts of Ireland yesterday. In West Cork much damage is reported to have been caused to the grain and potato' crops. The potatoes are in places affected with the blight.” It would have been more correct to have said that it had scarcely ceased to rain since the offering up of the prayers ; but it is perhaps near enough. The same paper of four days later, in referring to further storms said : “ Great damage (says a telegram this afternoon) has been caused in the lower Shannon valley by the heavy rains of Tuesday. Hundreds'of tons of hay have been carried into the river, and turf has been carried long distances. The corn crop is lost. The potato crop is injured, and many roads are torn up.” The prayers were being answered very tardily ; or were being answered in a reverse direction to that prayed for. The Freeman's Journal of August 28th, under the heading of “ The Rain and the Crops ”, gave a list of woes resulting from the former, which came in from nearly all quarters, and from which I will give a few quotations : “ Kilrush, Monday.-—Such a destructive deluge of rain has not been witnessed in West Clare for a quarter of a century, as that experienced last night. All the rivers have inundated the country around, and large quantities of hay in meadow cocks have been carried seaward. In low lying districts the houses have been flooded, and many were in danger of falling. The oat and wheat crops have been laid in vast tracts. The amount of damage caused by last night’s continued downpour is incalculable in the country, as testified by various reports to-day.” Surely there could not have been one single grain of faith amongst the hundreds of thousands of petitioners— including the Archbishop himself-—or their prayers would not have produced such lamentable results. But tho accounts from all parts are the same. “ Navan, Monday.—The prospects of a good or middling harvest are again darkened by the incessant rains. All work has been retarded.” “ Castlewhelan, Monday.—The severe weather of the past week has exercised a most dispiriting effect on the harvesting prospects in the large districts of the County Down, of which this town is the centre. Great fears are entertained for the potato crops. The tubers, which are in abundance, remain still very soft; and now reports from all sides signify that the spots- �GOD. 39 which so surely indicate the approach of disease to the germ have made their appearance,” etc. Sorrow is then expressed for the partial failure of the oat, wheat, and flax crops. “F-ERMOY, Monday.—-The hopes which were entertained here some time ago of a bountiful harvest are now almost completely blasted in consequence of the late incessant rains which have fallen with the most destructive results to almost every descrip­ tion of growing crops.” [This is certainly a trifle unco after the Archbishop’s special prayers for their safety.] “The mis­ chief done since last Sunday is incalculable, and should there be a continuance of the present unsettled state of the weather the consequences will be disastrous to the farmers of the dis­ trict,” etc. After giving a similar dismal account from Newry and Banbridge, the list for that day closes with the following: “ Lokgford.—-There can no longer be a doubt on the subject that the crops in this county are a complete failure owing to the recent rains. Every day for the last month [italics mine] there have fallen heavy showers completely paralysing the farmer’s efforts to save ’his crops. Turf, hay, and oats are all bad. The potatoes, too, are failing rapidly. Nothing could be much worse looking than the existing prospect.” In reference to the above, it may be remarked that the “showers” must have been “heavy” indeed to have completely paralysed the farmers’ efforts for a whole month. But be it noted that “the past month” spoken of comprises at least three weeks which had elapsed since His Grace’s special prayers were muttered ; and yet he actually had the audacity to claim that his prayers were answered ! This list of woes collected together for me by Christian and God-fearing journalists (?) may be taken as a kind of supplement to my own remarks upon the work of the ejements, as illustrating the general unfitness of things. Now, it will not be wondered at, after the above leugthened spell of disastrous work done by the weather, flat it did eventually and in natural course change for the better. But what did this astute Archbishop do ? Did he admit that he had ordered his special prayers just one month too soon for an immediate response ? Not at all. D:d he candidly admit that from beginning to end they were a total failure ? Nothing of the kind. Then what dil he do ? Why he actually insulted his God, and the intellects (if they possessed any) of his flock, by ordering �40 GOD. fresh prayers—this time—of thanks to God for having lent a favorable ear to their former ones, and so vouch­ safing them fine weather ! Thus imposing upon the ig­ norance and stupid credulity of his people, by making clerical capital out of the ordinary workings of nature, which if they, from his own stand-point, meant anything, meant a complete failure. He asked that the rain might cease, and the sun shine, in order that the crops might be saved. The rain did not cease, the sun did not shine, and the crops were not saved. Upon the showing of his own people the destruction was general. Whereupon he orders these same people—I should dearly like to call them geese—to thank God for not destroying these very crops I This of course is priest-like. These are the tricks and trade devices of the priest’s calling; they are what he lives by. But what can be said—how infantile, nay, imbecile—or, to be orthodox, truly child-like—must those be who kneel and pray and smite their breasts, making offerings and crying “Amen” to such transparent chic­ anery. I was, previous to giving the foregoing Christian evi­ dence against Christian Theism, dwelling upon the frequent unfitness of the weather for the work it is insisted it was designed to perform ; and will now in continuation of that idea offer some further remarks, taking it up at the point at which I broke off. Now, it frequently happens that in spite of the prayers (of the efficacy of which we have just had an example) and all the care and precaution a farmer can bestow upon his lands, his crops are blighted by unseasonable weather, by cold winds, storms, droughts, hail and frost; and thus a who.e year’s toil, expenditure, and anxiety is sacrificed. At times, the failure of crops—often a particular crop which forms the main subsistence of a people, or section of a people—is so complete as to leave them without fool; and gaunt famine with its hideous train of horrors stalks through the land. In what way, I must continue to ask, does all this show perfect order and design? Why the best kept garden you meet with may become a mass of blight and pest, the attention bestowed upon it notwith­ standing. You will see a rose tree grow and bud forth almost into flower, and wake up some morning to find it blighted by the atmosphere, or covered with vermin; )r, �GOD. 41 perhaps the centres of the yet unopened blooms become cradles for destructive insects. (“ The worm i’ the bud”, taken in the wide sense, is no mere poetic figure, as those who cultivate and live by the land know to their dear cost.) The same can be said of perhaps every plant that grows. Your cabbages will be literally riddled and eaten to the bare stalks immediately the larvse deposited by the butter­ flies assume the caterpillar form. What nature, aided by science and labor does to-day, she undoes to-morrow. Entire orchards of fruit, gardens of hops, fields of corn, potatoes, hay, etc., are yearly sacrificed to the elements. And yet all this means perfect and exquisite design on the part of a maker ! What it really does mean is simply that nature is as we find her, and that there is no maker in the case. All-wisdom and all-power, could not result in failure, nor in disaster sometimes so hideous as to curdle the blood as the tale is told. Turning to man himself, can he, taken for all in all, be considered to show evidence of having had a perfect maker1 ? Is he is in any sense the work of perfection ? For his own physical perfection, let the hospitals, asylums, and houses for incurables all over the world speak. For his mental and moral perfection, his doings as recorded in history must answer. The penal settle­ ments and gaols of to-day must also give their evidence. It is held that God made man in his own image, and, curiously enough, it is man’s mind, or spirit, as it is termed—which is imageless—which is held to be so made. But that by the way. It follows that, either God himself was a depraved pattern, or he blasted man after the making. Indeed the latter is claimed to be the true solu­ tion. If I might be allowed to judge of “ God the Father” by applying to him one of the standards claimed as emanating from “God the Son”, anent judging the tree by its fruit—more especially if man be the depraved wretch Christian theists contend he is—I should have to come to the conclusion that the tree in question was a most corrupt and imperfect one. I suppose there is not one single human being, sound 1 When I speak of man as having had a maker, I do so in the sense generally accepted by Christians, and therefore the statement itself, and any observations made upon it do not necessarily apply to those Theists who believe otherwise. �42 GOD. in body and mind, brought into the world in a century, though there are many millions of defective ones. Take for example—and they are but a small item in the general failure—the deaf mutes, the blind, and the idiotic from birth. I suppose it would fill a fair-sized volume simply to enumerate all the diseases peculiar to man. Those peculiar to children alone are something appalling. Take the average duration of life as a test of the design argument. It is estimated that of all who are born, one-fifth die within a year after birth, and onethird before the completion of the fifth yeai'; whilst one half do not reach seventeen years ; and only six per cent reach seventy-five years. So that, whilst one-fifth go to the grave before they can be said to be well into the world, one half never reach the age of maturity, and only in every hundred reach what has been foolishly called “ man’s allotted time ” I I think comment upon these crushing figures is superfluous. I will but add that these premature deaths are brought about, for the most part, by painful, lingering, and dreary process ; and sometimes by such shocking mutilations as we have previously glanced at. And if you take the Christian theory, in addition to his natural woes, every human being that ever came into the world, or ever will come into it—-save the first pair, who were themselves so defective as to succumb at the first test—is literally damned with a soul whose natural (i.e., unnatural) corruption is, upon the same authority, certain to carry the vast majority into eternal suffering.1 Man, like all other portions of the universe, is a mix­ ture of good and evil. He has noble parts and degrading passions, high aims and selfish fears, hates and jealousies. He is capable of the highest deeds of known right and self-sacrifice, and of the lowest deeds of cunning and cowardice. He is capable of experiencing the highest pleasure and the deepest woe. Man was not put upon the earth cut and dried. His progress from savagery to civilisation has been long and painful. And his further progression onward and upward must needs partake of 1 It is explained by the Roman Church, that the soul is originally pure, but becomes corrupted the moment it fuses with the body. I claim that, whether the body blasts the soul, or the soul the body, the result is still the same. �GOD. 43 the same tedious nature. The evolution of man, from the lowest to the highest type—without going further down in the scale than man himself—does not argue for a perfect maker. Man’s existence is one long struggle to free himself from his grosser nature; and to develop into a higher state. If it is contended that he had an Almighty maker, in the sense in which the phrase is commonly applied, then I am justified in asking why he should have been made of such base material, and beset with such untoward conditions. His maker, being Almighty, could have made man upon any other plan, or with any set of conditions, that he saw fit. Indeed, it is contended that God did make man upon such conditions as he saw fit; and behold the result! I hold that man’s weaknesses, his infirmities, his passions and sufferings—sometimes caused by himself, sometimes by others, and sometimes inherited in spite of himself—do not point to an intelligent, a just, and an almighty maker. A child born blind, or lame, or covered with some loathsome disease, would show the maker either to be impotent or a monster. A perfect creator would not blast what he had created with imperfections most shock­ ing. And I will push my contention to man’s passions; because God must be held responsible for the results of his own work : especially when he is accredited with having been cognisant of those results when he began it. . Man is bound to hold man responsible to man, for his right doing : hence the existence of courts of law and justice throughout the civilised world. But if you are to hold to the doctrine of a personal all-powerful maker and superintender—especially the latter—of the world, you are bound to lay to his charge the sorrow and suffering of all living creatures, including man. And with regard to him, I will add, sin likewise. As I have said, God must be held, responsible for his own work. He is, from the Theistic point of view, the primary mover, maker, and first cause; or he is nothing. He either could not, or would not, order it otherwise; and in either case it is difficult to recognise the God-ship. It is—and that most assuredly from what I will call the God-maker’s point of view^-somewhat idle to talk of man bringing all the misery upon himself ; that he knows right from wrong, etc. That contention certainly cannot �44 GOD. apply to those who are born into the world with bodies unfit for life, and in such manner and conditions as must necessarily render their lives a grievious burden. Nor will it apply to the innocent victims of those who do wrong. Indeed it is inapplicable to four-fifths of the wrong and misery endured by man—not to mention again that endured by the lower order of animals. In fact, if the all-ruling argument be brought in, it cannot apply at all; else, where the «A-ruling ? It must also be borne in mind that man does not always know right from wrong. He frequently does the most criminal things under the impression that he is doing right. The conscience standard, or test of right and wrong, which is generally put forward by Christian apolo­ gists is not necessarily a true one. In a vast number of cases it is no test at all. Conscience can only be a test of right, in the sense that it is right to do what one believes to be so ; but it is no test as to whether the thing done is right or wrong. The truth or falsity of positions, theories, and acts, must rest upon evidence, upon facts and con­ siderations in connexion with themselves; and not upon what a number of persons — or, rather, each individual person, three parts of whom may be quite uninformed— might conscientiously think or believe about them. One man’s conscience will acquit him of doing things at which another’s revolts. In Africa, a man’s conscience will acquit him of sacrificing his brother man to the Fetish. In the middle ages the highest consciences in the Christian world sanctioned the burning alive of those whose consciences forced them to differ from their executioners. Till recently, the Christian conscience, even in Great Britain, sanctioned upon Bible authority the burning of unhappy enthusiasts or half-witted creatures as witches.1 And to-day, the Christian will sanction the outlawry of the Atheist-—right or wrong-—as per conscience. Conscience, to a far greater extent than is usually admitted by those who urge it as a 1 At the present time, as a rule, the Christian advocate’s conscience will not permit him to include the Bible a,s part of his creed. “ Bible smashers” have doubtless had much to do in shaping the modern Christian conscience. It is now a' matter of history that Christian legislators have, under the guidance of the “ Infidel Advocate ”, con­ scientiously passed into law what they but yesterday conscientiously affirmed would insult their maker and bring ruin to their country. �GOD. 45 standard, is only another name for intelligence, and must always depend upon circumstances : upon creed, birth, and surroundings.1 God must not, therefore, under the plea of conscience, be freed from the consequences (which he fore-knew) of what he has created; and which from their very nature proclaim that he is not good and omnipotent. Some such ideas and considerations have doubtless been in the minds of peoples at all times. The human race have at all periods recognised the fact of the existence, in many shapes, of good and evil; hence their many Gods, some good and some bad. The Christian has dethroned and banished all the Gods but one, which he holds to be the Z/w God. But he has balanced the case by inventing the devil, who is a kind of concentrated essence of all the old and bad Gods squeezed into one; and is made to do duty for what I will call the black side of “ Creation”. All the shortcomings, slips, and can’t-help-its of the good or white God are saddled upon the black one—whose presumed existence is thought to make that of his rival more feasible. The existence or non-existence of the devil may be thought to be somewhat outside the question; but I venture to introduce his sable majesty entirely upon the authority of his friends—indeed I might say his patentees —who have, I believe, not intentionally made him co-equal, and frequently more than co-equal, with his white brother in the management of the world. By far the largest number, in fact by nearly all Theists, he (the devil), or something equal to him, is held to be a necessary antithesis to God proper. You see God is greatly hampered : all over the world, at all times, he has been heavily weighted, either by devils or devil, in some shape or guise, which indeed is not to be wondered at; for, taking a Bible and a Christian view, and, I think I would be justified in saying, a Theistic view generally, he has only himself to thank, because if he is the beginning, the author and creator of all things, he is the author and creator of the evils these devils and devil-Gods personify. Indeed 1 I think a better definition for conscience than the usually accepted one, would be : The sense.of approval or sanction which we accord or withhold to our actions. �46 GOD. the existence of evil is so patent to all as to have become proverbial, and amongst us finds expression in such sayings as : “ There is never a good without an evil ” ; and vice versa. Why Giod does not see fit to uncreate the source of evil—if he can do so without uncreating himself—is of course beyond our ken. Before finally quitting the design argument I will for a moment or two longer dwell upon this personification of evil, or rather, upon some of his doings as chronicled in God’s book. I feel justified in doing so, because the remarks I am about to make have direct reference to what Christian and Jew alike assert God to have performed and suffered, whilst working out what (under God) for many centuries was held to be the very beginning of the work of creation, but which is now held by Christians (of course still under God) to be any period or stage of the work which Science and Infidelity may ascribe to it. And I would here submit that those who hold to a belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment, ought to be the last to dabble in the design idea. According, then, to the opening chapters of the Bible, the Almighty began his work in what may be termed the Garden-of-Eden fashion, but finished it—well, very much otherwise. Heaven will answer as denoting the beginning, but Hell is the word which applies to the ending. God had no sooner completed his work and blessed it, and pronounced all things to be good, when, by the superior cunning of a reptile—made by his own hands—he found his design working so badly that he had at once to blast everything he had made, and to introduce pain, labor, thorns, thistles, disease, and death—not only for man, but for beasts likewise. Thus Omniscience and Immutability succumbed at the first bite of the apple. The serpent obliterated Paradise, and deprived Omnipotence of its meaning. And bear in mind the weak argument as to free will does not affect the question—except in a detri­ mental sense—of an Omniscient designer. If there be any truth in the theory, you are bound to believe that the serpent was designed to beguile the woman and so damn mankind, and this, whilst adding nothing in the shape of perfection to the general muddle, simply converts your God into worse than a devil. According to the prevailing Christian belief—certainly �GOD. 47 the Roman Catholic belief—God created the world as a means of replacing those angels who were expelled from heaven for disobedience and rebellion; and the result, according to the same authority, is simply becoming an overflowing hell. God thought by means of this world to recruit his celestial army, but the devil stole his recruits before they were yet ripe, and made fuel of them to feed his eternal stew-pan. Talk of design : it is really a worse case than that of the painter who was not sure till he had finished his picture whether it would turn out to be a “ cow in the meadow ” or a “ ship in a storm ” ! If I am asked for a justification for these remarks, I refer my interrogator to the Bible account of the transaction, in which he will see how the serpent, getting his own way in the matter of Eve and the forbidden fruit, put God to another and most disastrous shift—i.e., damning creation, followed, if you will, by a confessedly futile scheme of salvation. If it were not so far away from my immediate subject, I should like to go into the question as to where the Serpent’s great wisdom came from ; and whether he had already stolen a few apples upon his own account ? However that may have been, God took summary vengeance upon him, and at once either conjured or chopped off his legs, and made him go upon his belly—although I presume he was under the necessity of supplying him with a new set of muscles to enable him to get along in his new and strange method of locomotion. Or, has he— the serpent—to some extent proved the truth of evolution by acquiring for himself these organs since his fall ? But what a childish fable for grown people to hold as God’s truth. Of course these observations are not founded upon any­ thing better than the teachings and dogmas of men who hold in various ways the position I am attacking. But in such an enquiry as this, the things said for God, and of God, by those who maintain his existence, are fair matters for comment. And this applies to many other comments in this pamphlet. I have before me a scrap of what I take to be a portion of a sermon upon the canonisation of St. Alphonsus Rodriguez, in which the following passage appears. My excuse for giving it is that it applies to God, inasmuch as �48 GOD. it shows God’s method, or one of his methods, of utilising' defunct saints : “ They ” (saints in general) “were a shield of protection not only for those who invoked them, but also, through the super­ abounding mercy of God, even to those who were ignorant of their very names. Just as a range of mountains in the distance frequently breaks the violence of the elements, so do the accu­ mulated merits of the saints act as a barrier against the fury of God’s vengeance, shielding even the unworthy from his wrath”, etc. Now this, divested of its oratorical and sacerdotal coloring, means that one of God’s occupations is to providentially raise up barriers in the shape of departed saints, against his own wrath, so as to prevent himself from taking as much vengeance as he otherwise would upon the beings he has providentially created. What a dreadful character he most assuredly would be if he were let alone—or rather, if he let himself alone I Just imagine mountains of buffers against the “fury of God’s vengeance” in the shape of defunct saints I Under the circumstances mentioned, one can scarcely help wondering how heaven can really be heaven to them. Think of the picture here presented. Shoals of departed saints dwelling in perfect bliss, but nevertheless perpetually on the watch, both, in heaven and out of it, so as to be ready at any instant to throw them­ selves between God’s fury and his intended victims. I don’t think I should care to be a saint under the circum­ stances. But the saints were ever a queer lot, and it is possible their work in the next world is quite as unco1 as in this. If we are to believe those who are authorised to speak for them, they are, though dead, still used as a kind of supernatural cement to patch up the design which they preached, but which I nevertheless think they marred when in the flesh. It has just dawned upon me that possibly I have failed to interpret aright the meaning of this highly-colored statement of supernatural-natural nonsense and incredi­ bility ; which indeed would be excusable. It is possible that it is not the saints’ bodies which we are to understand as acting as barriers and buffers, but their merits. These merits would in that case stand in the same relationship to God’s wrath and vengeance as the mountains do to the fury of the elements, and thus prevent him, as I before �GOD. 49 remarked, from doing such dire and dreadful things as he ■otherwise would do. He spends the fury of his vengeance upon these mountains of virtues—after the manner of the elements—rather than upon those who (presumably) de­ serve it! There is a most curious theological fact—it could only be a fact theologically—peeping out from behind this mountain ■of sacerdotal nonsense, i.e., that God is so mighty, and so wonderful as to be able to suffer his power and his inten­ tions to be broken and scattered as are the elements against mountains which successfully withstand their force, and disperse them; without for an instant lessening his omnipotence or his immutability. What a very wonderful God these nineteenth century Christians must have ! The observations I am now about to make, although not perhaps strictly pertinent to the subject, are yet bearing upon it, being still in reference to the God question. I make them with great respect, and with much diffidence: respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer and closer application to the question and better means of studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion than myself; and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion. Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself. But I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I shall put forward seem to me to be real difficulties. If I should appear dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty in finding a method of conveying the thoughts I wish to express. And I ask Christians to apply these remarks, in so far as they are able, to what has preceded them (what immediately follows does not touch them1); for, if in arguing this subject I have not shown enough respect for their feelings, have spoken harshly or irreverently of their accepted doctrines and dogmas, I desire to say that I have not intended to be wittingly offensive; although I will confess I have not endeavored to hide feelings of con­ tempt for certain beliefs and ideas which appeared to be contemptible as they came before my mind. This I could not avoid; it were false to act otherwise. And I must 1 This has reference to the argument which I am about to venture upon, and not to the remarks I am now making. �50 GOD. also admit that I do not feel in any way bound to be extremely tender with the doctrine of Christianity, as a doctrine, and taken as a whole. Some things which have happened, and which show even at this day a dangerous smouldering of the awful Smithfield fires, have made a deep impression upon me. To travel no further than three of the foremost English Freethinkers of to-day: (a) Mrs. Annie Besant was, by process of Christian law, ruthlessly separated from all a woman holds dear, and cast without means upon the world, because she, being a Christian minister’s wife, dared to think, and was not hypocrite enough to hide her conclusions, (#) Later on Christian legislators actually endeavored to prevent her and her fellow-students, the Misses Bradlaugh, from teaching Science, pure and simple, to their fellow beings. (0) Charles Bradlaugh was persistently treated with insult and contumely, the sanctity of his person was outraged, and he was robbed of his legitimate status as a citizen and duly elected representative of the people, and all but ruined—the struggle continuing for six years—by a Chris­ tian House of Parliament, because he was an avowed Atheist.1 Mr. G. W. Foote, in company with Mr. W. J. Ramsey, was incarcerated in a felon’s gaol, treated as a criminal, and made to suffer all the indignities of a convicted rogue and thief, or perjurer, because he would not belie his sense of right and liberty in matters of freedom of thought. Christians, now as ever, trample on those who differ from them, and I do confess there is that within me which will not permit me to kiss the hand that smites me; nor lick the foot which spurns and kicks me. Christians profess to do these things ; but their practice belies their professions. For my own part, until I am allowed toexist upon equal terms in all respects, I will fight. I will not prostrate my individuality before the Christian Jug­ gernaut, and say : “ Trample out my existence, I am only 1 I am happy to know that a vast number of Christians have since joined with others in contributing to clear off the debt incurred by above six years’ struggle. Nevertheless Christians did the thing I complain of in the name of Christianity. Any other man than Charles Bradlaugh would scarcely have survived to afford the con­ science-mongers an opportunity of thus easing their consciences. �GOD. 51 an infidel ” ; but will, if need be, take my “ tomahawk”, which a not altogether unfriendly critic has put into my hand, and, striking right and left, hope it may never alight upon the head of a friend, nor miss that of an enemy. Having said thus much, because I thought the occasion opportune, I will proceed with the remarks to which I have referred. In this paper I have said that God is not, nor could he be. . And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observations. I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his existence.. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings. But I think I see very marked signs of what may be considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism. Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take up this position, but what is considered the safer and more moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him; and that therefore he should neither affirm nor deny his existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos­ ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence. Mr. Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of the Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a first cause, and a personal God; equally, we cannot prove a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further saying: “Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned”. I would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull­ ing the statement. But he further holds that if the existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of 1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. �52 GOD. course to illustrate the idea he is expounding) be asserted in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos­ sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist an uncaused cause of all things ? If it, as well as the existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc.,— which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ? It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr. Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned, the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned. If anything which is inconsistent with what we really know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—i.e., God —stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct issue. The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr. Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is, as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously, forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice it denies it. Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then it is, so far Atheism : because the Atheist does but say what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis­ 1 I notice that “D” (of the National Reformer) takes exception to the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, hut I do not think that affects the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God. �GOD. 53 able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not, physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical­ ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility of something about the Unknowable ; although that admis­ sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions superbly ridiculous. Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the possibility of what both practically say is impossible.1 It would appear to me that what is unknowable is not. Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there may be some points and niceties about it which pass my comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra­ ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you prove to the contrary? ” Of course one could shake one’s head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the closure will come in again with quite as much force against 1 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journal (J March 30th, remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic­ ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and Atheism is no more.” Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is assured. ‘ God ’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.” With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults. If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists who believe in God. �54 GOD. improbable as it did against the impossible, when used in reference to the Unknowable. It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding that it may be this, that, or the other. The whole idea seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically, no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall be completely outside or free from considerations which are in connexion with the universe, or which are not based upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos­ ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or, what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure, rather than to throw more light upon what is already sufficiently difficult. As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach­ ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre­ sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism. I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism, or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other hand if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution till he arrives at Theism, which says yes. Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house between the two extremes, there will at all times probably the �GOD. 55 be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism, and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who are either going forward or returning, as the case may be. I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point ■out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God. I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs, Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the Bev. W. T. Lee, and the. definition of Agnosticism quoted from the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan­ guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only a very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi­ fying the boast made by many, that there is no living person who really believes there is no God. Of course this boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything, mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed, and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would, I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues, which may contain no principle. The question then arises which is the most logical �56 GOD. position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimateend and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at the last gate by refraining from making such direct declaration ? At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what hisname implies-—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves: m the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God. Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi­ tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula ‘ ‘ we do not and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does he not in reality say “ there is no God ” ? If you venture as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict ? It appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the common and consequent result of investigation should not be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not­ withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi­ bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra­ dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible. �GOD. 57 you venture one whit further in the shape of denial than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be true. I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for giving direct form to his verdict, or result of his investigation. I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse declared it contained no money, would not be held to be illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin­ ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con­ tained money, but would not venture upon saying out­ right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn, and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi­ tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use in dropping one term and picking up another, which, whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing? If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean one other thing: the possibility of the existence of God, which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and denial of Atheism. Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism, as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ? But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility If 1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to methat the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature is an admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still an admission that perhaps it (supernature) is; to the shutting out of the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism. �58 GOD. of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact; thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con­ ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils, ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms with which the regions of supernature are peopled. I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to admit of a may-be, which the whole universe proclaims may not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grate­ ful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position the possible correctness of which you have already conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate. It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quite savoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that Agnosticism is safer because it tells you neither to affirm nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say perhaps yes ? Do I then doubt, or half believe ? What logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non­ admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not. The “ New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded, and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. Wace, states that “ an Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and, as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good enough for the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant �GOD. 59 for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism. Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good; although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”. He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist, nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I 1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following quotation, given in the Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition of the word, be correct: ‘ ‘ As the inventor of the word, I am entitled to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence of science whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such belief. So far it is Atheistic ; but if it further means that man has no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not therefore to state his disbelief, then it is not Atheistic. And if meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove. But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean­ ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi­ cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss him. Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance, the Trinity. �60 GOD. think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com­ patible with the position now apparently assumed by leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti­ mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in thebelief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case. To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is, at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic doing so. It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that, while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out­ side natural phenomena, nor of the first cause—which is the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and act Atheism. I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we are bound to have great respect, that the word God, undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ? It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin­ ning and the End, and many other things. But the cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist, knowing what is broadly meant and held as to God by those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no �G01). 61 meaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can yon not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined. I recognise the difficulty; but reply : Would an Atheist subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary —I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli­ gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist to say yes or no to such general meaning. If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I presume in every scientifically arranged language in the world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their derivatives. If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will —put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing room for variations of definition) holds that he does not exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ? I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then 1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas they are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence. �62 GOD. he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in thia particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he must not venture upon making the logical and consequent avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic­ tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results. It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity. I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not, it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter­ pret his position. I could understand taking up the position that, because we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what mighty or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos­ sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable and improbable; although I should be strongly tempted to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I should consider beyond the improbable and to be im­ possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round and include all questions, and not be confined to that of the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con­ cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence. I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving expression to his conviction that a moon made of green cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being “ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis­ belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither affirming nor denying ” : it is the embodiment of denial �GOD. 63 and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into another position; but in the meantime, I must again say that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis­ believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name, and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi­ tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the weak avowal he makes when he says “the Atheist does not say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words, he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much reason be regarded as a loop-hole. But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do not know God — and forgive me if I once more say— thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought, I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other terms as shall better define our position. In that case we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one. For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or otherwise, I have.no hesitation in asserting that, so far as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other­ wise, I could not be an Atheist. Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles in the National JR&former, “In Defence of Agnosticism”. They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and �64 GOD. profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them. But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question” being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”. But he further says that some argument is admissible when he is taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it: “ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on to explain, such assertions include statements with regard to the order of nature ; as, for instance: “We may argue from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”. This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but to my mind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to leave the person awkwardly situated, who does not believe in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his God forward as being supernatural only, and as having nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be dumb; or limit one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put forward in conjunction with our phaenomenal universe (as indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him. But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirmstively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be verified either way without full discussion ? And why should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ? And finally, is that Agnosticism ? But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward. Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time the cause and author or creator of the universe and of �GOD. 65 all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the enabling position, above all others, I take to be that of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion of the statement only, discussion upon the question of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super­ natural being. But the qualification comes in as a kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega­ tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say, “ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis­ factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos­ ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s” further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when a Christian states that “three times one God are one God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possibility, as to say the subject matter is beyond the reach of my faculties, and that the assertion conveys no meaning to my mind. These seem to be quite distinct statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro­ fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed. I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”, but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon common sense and science, “does not, or needs not, deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it; but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be �66 GOD. hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming nor denying. The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored to give form have been in my mind for a considerable period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps, in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other. The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small space here at my command I have not been able to much more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My observations are possibly better calculated to induce the ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and to look for larger and more complete investigations than they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the great of learning. The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating humanity, and building up a people who shall consider their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry, but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry, rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ball, William Platt [1844-1917] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 66 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N056 Subject The topic of the resource God Agnosticism 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 (God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), 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 Agnosticism God NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4f0c71ebc0e72adef0c2fd6bedf8fb75.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=FTfmhuntG7XnmjytsbGQPUpWX6BiJOwsDjb35PUIGVNMz5hP1IWkzkGEBXbCCfMptt%7E9zWQOZC9NeaKlkE4W4j9pINoW0DiloaPVz9%7ETM3bHf634P6Zvgrv5QfbsBjlsIzi1NL0OVSDOCpN%7E2J9lzMgsiGZrdQPRw2yZ1U3t9tTUulPvEdoKp38rqnbZPXAWv0yItxTCNfUQbJs4eMW%7EpIFds0kx12YT6-SevMgGuTfGrKWJE%7EyeyRGXcflJCR3mgM4uzeOs7pEkIjJyzewExYV6s6GkIeHyuQsYAXqGXzhGMCMLuRz4yN246PGq6ZvKbX%7ET21KFIQQvgAv3pdt9lA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a2000903cee70a690ada280668102e6e PDF Text Text NOTZ The following appeared in the “ Clarion ” of March 25th last:—■ r | A BRISTOL MINISTER ON “GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR.” •_ AN OBJECT LESSON. t , , ( (By ROBERT BLATCHFORD.) A Bristol reader sends me a pamphlet, by the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace, containing, I am sorry to say, some spiteful and ill-considered per­ sonal attacks on me, and asks me to say “a few words in defence.” No defence is called for. My life and work are my defence. Neither is Mr Wallace’s pamphlet worthy of notice, .except as a regrettable manifestation of' littleness of mlind and bitterness of spirit which are, unfortunately, too common amongst pro­ fessing Christians. T'he pamphlet is entitled “ ‘ God and My Neighbour’: a Criticism of iMr Blatchford’s book, by Hugh C. Wallace.” It would have been more correctly described as “ A Personal Attack on Robert Blatchford, by one whoneither knows nor understands him.”, Now, although it .is perhaps advisable topoint out io tin Christian ministers who have descended to the level of personal recrimination, the error of theiir ways, .it is not easy to deal with a case like this without seeming to be severe. And I do not want tobe severe, nor to give pain to Mr Wallace, nor to any other Christian. My .sole desire is, to say a few words for the -cause of toleration and human kindness, and, -at the same time, to convince my assailants, if that is possible, that their conduct is mistaken and indefen­ sible. On page 5 of his pamphlet Mr Wallace says:— . One is disposed to ask, “ How has socialism affected ‘ Nunquam ’ ? ” He is no longer a ■private in the army 'b-ut the editor an in­ fluential ■and largely circulated paper. What effect has his infidelity had upon his position ? Instead' of going down-, the “Clarion” cir­ culation has gone up since he commenced his series- of attacks upon the Christian faith. In the- light of that I -am perfectly prepared' to believe his statement on page 190 that: — “ My attack is not. wanton, but- deliberate ; n>ot purposeless, but very purposeful.” Here Mr Wallace tacitly charges' me with attacking religion for the sake o.f making money. And he makes this charge, not hastily and in anger, but- deliberately and in cold! ■ blood. Now, I submit to Mr Wallace that even if he knew for*a certainty that his charge was true,, he ought, as a Christian minister to have ex­ pressed it more, gently, -and with more dignity. But he has chosen to be deliberately sarcastic and bitter. / �2. And I submit to him that as a matter of commom honesty and manliness he ought not to have made so gross and so offensive a sugges­ tion until he had taken great pains to make sure of its truth. But if he had taken even a very little trouble he would have found tout, that his suspicion was not only unfounded1, but grotesquely un­ true. I conclude, then, that Mr Wallace—a professed Christian and a minister of the gospel.—has allowed his anger and his pre­ judice ito mislead! him into' charging with base eoniducib a man of whose life1 and character he is utterly ignorant. But, besides being uncharitable and unjust, Mr Wallace’s personal attack on me is mani­ festly unwise. For even if what he insinuates were true, even if I were as contemptible a creature as he represents me, what 'bearing would that have upon the question at issue between us? Would the fact that one Agnostic was a rogue prove Christianity to 'be true? If so, the easy task of finding a professed Christian who is a liar or a thief might be alleged as a proof that Christianity is false. Mr Wallace, in his pamphlet, suggests that I am mercenary, insincere, incompetent, con­ ceited, frivolous, irreverent, and devoid of spirituality and the saving grace of humour. Suppose I am all that, I am what thousands of other men are, and -amongst them some ministers of the Gospel. But what has that to do with the case? A man writes a book in which he argues that the Christian religion is not true. Mr Wallace retorts 'by saying that infidelity pays. Is that a wise, or a dignified, or an effective reply. The question of truth or untruth of the national religion is a very serious public question. Mr Wallace iis trifling with the sub­ ject and with the public when he offers them a pamphlet in which personal attacks upon Robert Blatchford waste the space that -should be devoted to answering the arguments brought by Agnostics against Christianity. On page 14- of his pamphlet Mr Wallace says: A few years ago there lived at Bowdon a prosperous Christian man; he was clear­ headed, far-sighted, a genius and inventor; at the bidding of the Spirit of God he gave up his fine house and grounds, and went to live in one of the darkest slums of Man­ chester, Ancoats; he did this that he might redeem it from its vice and make it part of the Kingdom of God. iHis name was -Frank Crossley. There was another man who, by sheer force of character and by honest hard work, climbed up the ladder step by .step from being a, private in the army to an influential and responsible position in the newspaper world; and then he went to live in a snug little villa in a London suburb. His name was Robert Blatchford. Nothing .more need be said. I think a good deal more need be said', for I think Mr Wallace is very superficial in this matter. He honours Mr Crossley for going tolive in a slum, and he suggests that I am to blame because I do not live in a. slum. Am I right in assuming that the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace does not live in a slum? Am 1 right �in assuming that such popular religious leaders as Dr Horton, Dr Clifford, the Rev. R. J. Campbell, a*nd the Archbishop of Canterbury do not live in slums, but actually live in better houses than I can afford, and are better paid; for preaching the Gospel than I am for preach­ ing Socialism? I cannot see' that it is my duty tO' go and live in a slum, nor to take my wife and children to live in such an unlovely and un­ healthy place. Doubtless Mr Crossley was jus­ tified in his action, but is Mr Wallace sure that I am not justified in mine? No human being ought to live in a slum. The best way to help those who are. doomed to confinement in such miserable surroundings is by helping to- abolish such surroundings, 'by helping to remove the evil and the injustices which cause the slums. This I have tr:ed to do. in the only way in which it can be done, by preaching Socialism. And, although I may be wrong and- Mr Wallace may be right, I think I have done more good in the past dozen veai's ,by my public work than I could have done by going to live in a slum. The more especially as I should probably have died there, and done no good at all. Of course Mr Wallace wishes to convey the impression that Christianity makes men altruist's, and that Agnosticism makes them selfish. He might have taken a more logical and a less offensive' way of advanc:ng that ■claim. .But stated in any form I dispute it. During the recent discussion on religion in the “Clarion ” I could not help seeing that my Christian opponents were less generous- and less 'courteous to me than I was to them; that whereas I only attacked dogmas and arguments they attacked me- personally. Can Mr Wallace explain this difference ? I account for it by assuming that my philosophy is better than the Christians’ religion. Finally, I assure Mr Wallace that he1 has misunderstood' and misrepresented me, and I ask him to confine himself in the future- to answering his opponents’ arguments and to refrain from recklessly maligning their char­ acters. Anyone who- knows: me- or my work would convince Mr Wallace in a few minutes that he has acted unwisely, and has brought discredit upon himself in. hi-s desire to- injure ■me. Of course Mr Wallace: know no better, but a man in his position should be more careful -and discreet. On page 7 of his pamphlet Mr Wallace1 says: I judge him largely by his- preface. He finds his fellows: so “ amusing.” He walks along the Strand peopled, on his- own con­ fession, by thieves, gamblers, and prosti­ tutes, and he finds them “amusing”; and this is the kind of man who sets himself up to criticise a religion that teaches “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This remarkable reading of the preface- to “ God and My Neighbour,” and thi® astounding picture of the frivolous author laughing at the misery of his fellow creatures proved my con­ tention that Mr Wallace does not know nor understand the -man he ha® attacked. To quote Mr Wallace—“ There is no more to- be said.”' �4. THE REV. HUGH C. WALLACE’S REPLY TO ROBERT BLATCHFORD’S BOOK, “ GOD AND 'MY NEIGHBOUR.” It has been thought well to issue in leaflet .form Mt Blatchford’s notes, which appeared in the “<£larion,” of 25th March last, on the pamphlet published by the Rev. Hugh C. Wal­ lace, of David Thomas Church, Bristol. As Mr Wallace's attack is mainly personal, stigmatising Mr Blatchford as unfit for the task undertaken, and representing him to be actuated by base and mercenary motives, it is but right that those interested should have a true .statement concerning these matters. Mt Blatohford has been for many years an earnest reformer, with a deep passion for the welfare and ennoblement of humanity, and has made this cause his life work. He has had a brilliant literary career, and is recognised as an. acute and logical thinker. He is the author of many books, amongst which are “Merrie England” and “Britain for the British.” The former obtained a circula­ tion of over a million, and has been translated into many languages. He is certainly aslfit for the work entered upon as were William ■ Cobbett and Shake­ speare for the services' they so brilliantly per­ formed. Previous to founding the “Clarion,” Mr Blatchford was receiving a salary of £1000 per annum for 'his services to .a. well-known paper. On this paper his advocacy of the cause he espoused was hampered, -and he voluntarily sacrificed the position rather than abandon his principles, and! launched the “■Clarion” for their free advancement, despite the fact, then known to him, that no. paper previously issued, for the same humanitarian purpose had paid. And, although the paper was not remunerative for m'any years, and Mr Bliatchford had received numerous outside offers for his services, greatly .superior to any­ thing the “ Clarion ” could provide in a financial sense, he has not abandoned ■his task. When .about, to. undertake the criticism of theology, Mr Blatchford was earnestly urged by friends of the paper to desist from so doing, in the interest of the circulation of the “’Clarion.” To this Mr Blatchford replied that he would not sacrifice what he believed to' be true to monetary con­ siderations. Such are the facts. It is dis­ tasteful to refer further to these matters, but it should be known that although Mr Blatch­ ford is a brilliant novelist and a. popular writer, with an international reputation, that, in consequence of allying himself with a.p unpopular cause, he is not 'So well paid for his public work as is the Rev. Wallace for his professional religious duties. Indeed, it is very., very probable that Mr Blatchford has sacrificed more in the furtherance of his principles than, even the Rev. Wallace. However, placing these matters aside, it is important that any further discussion should be confined to 'dealing with fundamental facts and essential argument. w >5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Bristol minister on "God and my neighbour" : an object lesson Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Blatchford, Robert [1851-1943] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 4 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: At head of title: "The following appeared in the "Clarion" of March 25th last." P.4, apparently written by the editor of The Clarion, justifies the "issue of Mr Blatchford's notes [...] on the pamphlet published by the Rev. Hugh C. Wallace of David Thomas Church, Bristol." Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Clarion Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N077 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A Bristol minister on "God and my neighbour" : an object lesson), 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 Agnosticism NSS Robert Blatchford https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/675b9647a6d5d889519f669bef7bfb1b.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=LrLEd-EH1iUCBIG-WptIEUQ32vKYNEhlJWjsHFUCVpXhHBtjPtIQXurnu1uR-t4SsRsQTJbIcN3q4iDBxXdY%7ESjeLI28if3yLrx3myNYmROyPnm4m-X0rbR7EYk4pcK5XuAm%7Ej3mc1P6XmMNhFq0ywDuLm3i%7EoAvZohNhXHhhtoqejun5z6Nl7Xe1a1s2do9FaM6sJn%7ERckhKrYlwwpyfsDvdnZjvZLFPe1Ot1gerDA7wlAPHbAm86VE0DBs0vDhIQ7cw3GuauSCZkKjxWtyyfCZLSwn56S3WqhdbcTHVIpyB0YxuHWzQzyiMBE1vrAZcYpA48FC%7EZjyOQav5YJPrw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ea86c81567e681e94a69a7cc9a098528 PDF Text Text By the same Author, “ Life and Times of C. C. Cattell.” One Penny. “ Perils of Genius ” (Illustrious Men who suffered in times past). Published at is., post free, 7d., of C. Cattell, “ Emerson,’’ Boscombe Park, Bournemouth. Agnosticism : AN EXPOSITION AND A DEFENCE. Selected from leading authorities by CHARLES COCKBILL CATTELL. Introduction. Long before I heard of Huxley, or Agnosticism, I held that whatever was presented to the intellect de­ manding assent, must have reasonable grounds for its acceptance—rational proof. In forming a judgment on any subject, faith or authority must never be per­ mitted to usurp the place of facts. We find ourselves living among incessant changes called “causesand effects,” interminable in time and space. These changes have been observed to occur in a certain order ; and such are named “Laws of Nature.” Hence we are led to believe in universal causation—a first or a last cause having no meaning. As to why there is one existence we call “ Nature,” or why there ’is any existence at all—Who) can tell ? The idea of one existence includes all that is and all that is necessary for all that happens. Science in some measure explains how things now existing became what they are ; the conditions of existence appear to determine the duration of their varying qualities and forms. These conditions must have been adequate to produce these effects, or the earth in our time would not supply the varied forms and manifestations of life. But why all this has taken �2 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. place—Who can tell? Spencer teaches that the power manifested in nature is inscrutable. Those who do not accept the idea of a power indescribable operat­ ing in nature, resort to the alternative of an external power. This much we know—that all the changes observable take place tn the nature we know; hence, a power assumed external to it explains no more than a power assumed to operate within it. As to the durability of Nature, the indestructibility of matter points to unlimited time, an everlasting existence. Our only scope of inquiry is, therefore, clearly Nature and its laws; the latter term being a name for observed changes, and not in any sense implying causes, such use of the term being misleading, although very common. Law is not a cause, an agent, or an in­ strument, but merely the name of the path or way along which forces travel to phenomena. The subject may be made clear by recalling the fact that while the Theist may affirm a God infinite and eternal, and the Atheist may affirm the same of Nature, Agnostics maintain that these terms do not admit of being thought of at all. At most, they convey the idea of indefinite extent in space and time, while every thought implies a boundary, a limit, something definite. Some perverse people insist that “ Agnostic ” stands for Ignorance, and others contend it is adopted through want of courage to avow what we really are. I hold the name is a fitting title to distinguish one who finds it beyond his mental powers to believe in things that have no relation to common knowledge. In formulating a thought about anything, we dis­ cover it implies likeness, relation, and difference, which cannot apply to the terms “infinite” or “ eternal ”—no such thought is possible ; they have no likeness, relation or difference, although no words are more commonly heard in the religious world. The Agnostic’s position is governed by limits found to rule our intellect in forming conclusions. An examination of the formulation of consciousness about the infinite will reveal the fact that parts of known things have been used in its formation, �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 3 A popular writer maintains that he can grasp all the ideas which the Agnostic deems beyond our powers to grasp, such as self-existence, eternity, infinity, “ although it is only by consciousness, by feeling that we know.” But no explanation is given as to how finite con­ sciousness (and there is none other) can feel infinite self-existence. Although in former years I wrote at length on this subject, I leave the following extracts to represent my views on the present occasion. The term Agnostic and Agnosticism arose as follows:— “ I took thought and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of Agnostic. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘ Gnostic ’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my satisfaction the term took ; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people that knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled. That’s the history of the terms. “ And it will be observed that it does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the Rev. Principal of King’s College, that ‘ the adoption of the term Agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion ; in relation to the Church and Christianity. . . . . The people who call themselves ‘ Agnostics ’ have been charged with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves ‘ Infidels,’ have adopted a new name to escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. . . . Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘negative’ creed, nor, indeed, as a creed of any kind, except in so far as a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. The principle may be stated ir. various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of �4 Agnosticism—An'Exposition and a Defence. any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts, and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propo­ sitions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence ; and that repro­ bation ought to attach to the profession of dis­ belief in such inadequately supported proposi­ tions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows its application, whether in the field of natural or in that of civil history ; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity. Agnosticism is the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Agnosticism says that we know nothing beyond phenomena. . . . . As to the interests of morality, I am disposed to think that if mankind could be got to act up to this principle in every relation of life, a reformation would be effected such as the world has not yet seen ; an approximation to the millenium, such as no supernaturalistic eligion has ever yet succeeded, ior seems likely ever to succeed in effecting.”—Huxley. “ That which persists' unchanging in quantity, but ever changing in form, under the sensible appearances which the universe presents to us, transcends human knowledge and conception, is an unknown and unknowable power, which we are obliged to recognise as without limit in space, and without beginning or end in time. This is in its highest form, the philosophy of Agnos­ ticism. . . . If we ask how came the atoms into existence, endowed with marvellous energy, we can only reply in the words of the poet : ‘ Behind the veil, behind the veil.’ We can only form metaphysical conceptions, or I ought rather �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 5 to call them the vaguest guesses. One is, that they were created and endowed with their elementary properties by an all-wise and allpowerful creator. This is Theism. Another, that thought is the only reality, and that all the phenomena of the universe are thoughts and ideas of one universal all-pervading mind. This is Pantheism.” “ Or, again, we may frankly acknowledge that the real essence and origin of things are ‘ behind the veil,’ and not knowable or even conceivable by any faculties with which the human mind is endowed in its present state of existence. This is Agnosticism. Agnostics do not deny that, in the course of evolution, certain feelings and as­ pirations have grown up which find a poetical ex­ pression in the ideas of God and immortality. They simply deny that we have, or can have, any certain, definite and scientific knowledge respect­ ing these mysteries.”—Laing. “ The Agnostic is one who asserts—what no­ body denies—that there are limits to the sphere of intelligence. He asserts, further, what many theologians have expressly maintained, that these limits are such as to exclude at least what Lewes called ‘ metempirical ’ knowledge. But he goes further, and asserts, in opposition to theologians, that theology lies within the forbidden sphere.” “ ‘Trust your reason,’ we have been told until we are tired of the phrase, ‘ and you will become Atheists or Agnostics.’ What right have you to turn round and rate us for being a degree more logical than yourelves ? You say, as we say, that the natural man can know nothing of the Divine nature. That is Agnosticism. Our fundamental principal is not only granted but asserted. . . . Dr. Newman’s arguments (in * Grammar of Assent’) go to prove that man, as guided by reason, ought to be an Agnostic, and that at the present moment, Agnosticism is the only reason­ able faith for, at least, three-quarters of the race. . . . The race collectively is Agnostic, �6 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. whatever may be the case with individuals. . . There is not a single proof of natural theology of which the negative has not been maintained as vigorously as the affirmative. You tell us to be ashamed of professing ignorance. Where is the shame of ignorance in matters still involved in endless and hopeless controversy ? Is it not rather a duty.”—Sir Leslie Stephen. “ The Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a Superior Existence, from lack of satisfying evidence to warrant affirmation or denial. He is neutral, not because he wishes not to believe, or desires to deny, but because language should be measured by proof of conviction. Huxley’s wise, useful, and honest word ‘ Agnostic ’ has done more to teach theologians to think, and incite in them discrimination and tolerance, than any other word which has been added to the nomencla­ ture of controversy this century.” “ Is it ‘ dodging ’ to refuse to identify yourself with the preposterous presumption of the Theist or the Atheist ? Is it not imposture in any one to adopt a term which implies all-penetrating knowledge, when you know you have it not ? Nature is too illimitable to be conceived, and the past is beyond all human experience. The Agnostic neither decries nor disparages them [Theist and Athiest], but frankly says he is not of their way of thinking. Many now see no distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism. It is the wide distinction between knowing and not knowing. Agnosticism means scruplousness and truth.”—G. ]. Hol'joake. “ The contest between Theology and Agnos ticism is like that between a man in a balloon and one on the solid ground. The balloon man shouts down to his enemy, ‘ Come up here and I will give you a good beating.’ The reply is ‘ No ; I cannot leave the solid ground of fact. I cannot float myself with the gas of sentiment and imagination. But, if you come down to terra firma, I will very soon test the strength of your �Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. 7 balloon. If your silk can stand the sharp edge of my knife—scientific criticism—well and good, you will continue to float above the earth. But if not/and a rent is made, you and your balloon will collapse into nothingness. The balloon man shouts down that his antagonist is a coward, throws some dust into the eyes of the spectators, and so ascends into the heavens. The theologian, so long as he remains in the region of emotion and imagination, is safe from any attack on the part of the scientist; but the moment he touches the ground of fact he must prepare for hostilities ; and it is well that he should understand that such things as miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, etc., are subject to criticism, and will be vigorously combatted.”—John Wilson, M.A. “ If after devoting our best energies and highest endeavours to the investigation of the arguments of Maratheism, Dualism. Polytheism, Pantheism, and Atheism, we find none entirely convincing, there is no cowardice involved in the admission. On the contrary, it becomes our highest duty to confess that all our labour has been without fruit or reward. Though we have fervently sought we have failed to find. We are sceptics or agnostics, and recognise the fact that, even should one or other of these five interpretations of the mystery of existence be accepted as its true solution it is but a proximate solution and thus but removes the essential mystery but a step further back.”—Constance E. Plumptre. “ We get rid of the accursed spirit of condem­ nation, and the setting open wide—as wide as humanity itself—the gates that lead to truth and human progress. For the Agnostic is no narrow pale, on one side of which stand the saved and the other the lost; and no ascription of certain social experiments to a corrupt imaginaand an evil heart......................... “We know nothing of the hereafter—absolutely nothing. But, freed as we are from the trammels of superstition and the strangulation of fear, we �8 Agnosticism—An Exposition and a Defence. deny the eternal Hell, and the omnipotent Devil formulated by old-world ignorance and terror. For us the life of man is emphatically his life in the present, and his merits or demerits are determined by his relations to others. He has, in a word, got rid of night and its dreams, and has come out into the light of waking day of which he does not pre sume to foretell the state of the evening, or the conditions of the night that follows after. All he knows is that there must come this evening, when strength will wane and the light will wax dim ; and that then will steal down the night—into which he cannot peer. Whether that night is to be starless, or brilliant with these “ many mansions ” of light, must be left to time to settle. No, the Agnostic does not waste his time in these speculative futilities. He works for the present and in the present, and he leaves the undiscovered future to take care of itself.—Mrs. Lynn Linton. , “ The essential principles of Agnosticism were known and recognised before the name was in­ vented ; but the introduction of a definite name arrested the attention of the reflecting classes. Their attention once fixed on the subject, people began to say this was what they always thought. The unseen and unknown presents an ample field for speculation, and by contemplative minds must always be viewed with reverence and awe. A con­ sciousness that the sphere of known and knowable phenomena, when expanded to its utmost limits, is very far from embracing the whole universe, very far from exhausting the possibilities of thought and feeling, while the Beyond is, to the upright man and pure in heart, an unfathomable abyss into which he looks with much ground for hope and very little for fear.—Dr. BitheU. London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C. ONE PENNY. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities... Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cattell, Charles Cockbill Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [W. Stewart & Co.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N118 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism 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 (Agnosticism : an exposition and a defence, selected from leading authorities...), 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 Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5c5bb91b203ca3ab8802fa5d92729308.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=NNCon7HD0t8QymMMO0NfQ4kcvhxist-81uBFOXHCXzyLPZ-JXF27dW5zi-26RlmjZxxUE4KfiIgo6mLzalvK0B44Qe6uhb0rwsDqlspPLUfmBzBCkSodE7S7wFhAxpvFRqw9wv-3u6U5pgsJjCoF9iKmEzLaMIckkWcd13o6wiV%7EuT4jPZDfacuQ8lPJKA41VScrcp-AhIdN1LzYj9SaMJQwfHoBtYZDTSPQjLpGmW7zi6XE8bfp5sJ3wX039k6dGJUWDMB4rICGOXAP7K6fG1Dc78bmhfkzYsdm31ztzhy8H9FyP%7Eara8BdBzYHOkwu5v0YmiHeDEFhYWyxGv8%7EMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 215c14e35028d04475c16375245daeb0 PDF Text Text Agnosticism or... ^ I admit that the title of this pamphlet is illogical. It suggests an alternative where no alternative exists. My excuse for the title is that this and the succeeding pamphlet represent a single essay broken in halves for no other reason than the matter of publication. The purpose of this first half is to prove that a genuine Agnosticism is Atheism masquerading under a lesser socially objectionable name. As presented by the Agnostic himself, no difference between the two terms is discernible. An Atheist is one who does not believe in God. An Agnostic is one who is without belief in God. The difference between not having and being without is too fine for my dull brain. All important words have a history, and in the present case the history of modern “ Agnosticism ’* throws light on the intention which gave it birth. “ Gnostic ” is a very old term, and in the early years of Christianity gave considerable trouble to the Church. The Gnostics were those who claimed, by the aid of some “ inner light,” to know the mysteries of God and the universe. So did the Church, but the gnosis of the Church differed from the gnosis of the Gnostic sects, and when rivals in the mystery busi­ ness quarrel, the conflict is apt to be very fierce. And it is fiercest of all when neither of the two principals know anything of the matter which divides them. One of the disputants in the quarrel we have in mind has seized hold of this old. war-word, Gnostic, with an addition. He does not claim any knowledge (gnosis) of God or gods, he asserts his ignorance, his irremovable ignorance, in the word “ A-gnosticism.” 2 �Nl3o AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? J He agrees with the Atheist in. not having a belief in God, but he disagrees with him as to how that ignor­ ance should be expressed. The Atheist declines to be led astray by the mere change of a word. So, too, would the Christian if Atheism was not there to bear the brunt of his hostility. But the Atheist insists on an identity underlying the verbal difference. The Agnostic accuses the Atheist of “ coarseness,” of saying more than he ought to say, of being definite where he should be hesitant. To this the Atheist retorts that the Agnostic is thinking “ respectably ” where he should be helping to rid a perfectly honest and completely applicable word of the ill-odour with which religious bigotry has surrounded it. That is the existing position in a nutshell. “ Agnostic ” was brought into vogue by the famous scientist, T. H. Huxley, towards the end of the ’eighties. Examining himself he found that he was without belief in a god. In those days being without belief in a God and spelling it A-T-H-E-I-S-T was a much more serious offence than it is to-day. And it was an offence that was peculiarly English. It was not intellectually wrong, but it was socially undesirable. It was coarse and common; it reeked of quart pots and clay pipes, and had a number of other objectionable connotations with which Christian malignity had surrounded it. So Huxley looked round and found a word that enabled him to spell Atheism in another way. He tacked “ a ” on to gnosticism, and Agnosticism was born. In the interests of clarity let us take a number of pertinent definitions from an authoritative modern dictionary, always remembering that dictionaries do not manufacture our vocabulary, they merely record it, and speculate on origins. Here are the relevant definitions numbered for ease of reference: — �4 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? (i) God. Origin unknown. Probably an Aryan word meaning that to which sacrifice is made. One of a class of powerful spirits regarded as controlling a department of nature or of human activity. ■ (2) Agnostic. One who does not believe in, and who holds that nothing can be known about, God. (3) Atheist. One who does not believe in the existence of God. (4) Agnosticism. The negative doctrine held by Agnostics. (5) Atheism. Disbelief in God. It will be observed that in the first definition “ God ” leaves us completely in the air. It has not the slightest significance by itself. It implies nothing. If I define a thing as wood, I can relate it to wood in general, leaving the particularization of the many forms of wood for after consideration. But “ God ’’ by itself? We cannot say that “ God ” by any other name would mean as much, for it has no meaning whatever. “ God,” we are told, is probably an Aryan word. But an Aryan language and an Aryan people were both invented about the middle of the last century as a working hypothesis, and are now discarded nearly everywhere—except in Germany. The rest of the definition does tell us something of importance, but it is of no value whatever to Agnos­ ticism; the definition tells us something concerning gods, but the whole significance of Agnosticism is that it indicates something of which nothing can be known. I disclaim all responsibility for this last seven words, it is the strict Agnostic position. And the information given us in the latter part of the definition is fatal to Agnosticism. The latter part of the definition, “ One of a class ot powerful spirits regarded as controlling a department of nature or of human activity,” and “ that to which sacrifice is made,” does tell us something about gods. > �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? g It indicates the known way in which the gods have come into existence, and it is what people have in mind when they use “ God ” with honesty and intel­ ligibility. But that information is, again, fatal to Agnosticism. “ The God according to religion,” said the late Lord Balfour, is “ a God to whom men can pray, who takes sides, who has preferences.” In plain words, a magnified man, not a mere unintelligible abstraction. Gods, says the great anthropologist, Westermarck, are made by man, and man “ endows them with rights quite after human fashion, and imposes on himself corresponding duties.” Sir James Frazer says, “ By a God I understand a supernatural being of a spiritual and personal nature, who controls the world or some part of it. . . It has been not unusual to apply the name God to very different con­ ceptions. . . I cannot but regard them as illegitimate extensions of the term, in short, an abuse of language.” Professor F. H. Bradley (author of Appearance and Reality') is more directly con­ temptuous in his language. He says, “ Most of those who insist on the personality of God are intellectually dishonest. They desire one conclusion, and to reach it they argue for another. . . The deity they want is, of course ... a person like themselves. . . What is not this is really nothing.” , There is no need to multiply quotations to this end. What I am driving at is this. A proposition to be affirmed or denied, or about the truth of which we suspend judgment, must be intelligible. If I am asked whether my neighbour is guilty of burglary, I may reply, Yes, or No, or say that I cannot decide one way or the other. But then I have a clear con­ ception of what I mean in any one of the three cases. But if I am asked whether “ sloberkums ” “ corifies ” “ ketcherput,” I cannot say I am agnostical on the matter, I can reply only that I do not under­ �6 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? stand what is the reference of the questions. I may­ look as wise as the most learned fool that ever existed, but my ignorance remains unaffected. In other words, I am saying that a proposition to be understood must be intelligible, its meaning- must be more or less definite. The answer to whether a “ Whoozelum ” exists is not, “ I do not know, I must wait for evidence one way or the other,” the answer, the only intelligible answer, is that I do not know what my questioner is talking about. Has the Agnostic when he says “ I neither affirm nor deny the existence of God,” anything- in mind? Is his declaration of Agnosticism intelligible to him­ self? Does it really contain anything more than a desire to guard against being identified with that terrible thing “Atheism”? Candidly I can find nothing more than this. Even if we pass the very ambiguous word “ spirit,” the Agnostic cannot mean that he is in doubt as to whether there is a number of spirits controlling nature and human activities. That would bring him straight back to fetichism. By some, Agnosticism is described as a case of sus­ pended judgment. Suspended judgment on what? Does the Agnostic suspend judgment as to whether God ” has ever meant anything other than a mag­ nified man? Many modern religionists deny “ God ” the possession of a physically animal structure. He has not the shape of man. He has neither arms nor legs, he has neither a physical head nor a physical structure such as a-man has. But he is still capable of love, anger, wisdom, etc. Yet these are as much animal and human characteristics as arms and legs. Intelligence, love, desire, are as human as red hair and side-whiskers. What is it about which judgment is suspended ? It is no use to keep up a steady chatter, “ we do not say that God is or God is not,” if one has not the least notion of what God is, and would not know him if he were found. Looking for a black �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 7 cat in a black passage on a black night is a very stiff proposition, but at least we do know what “ cat ” and “black” and “passage” stand for. The Agnostic is looking for a “ what-you-may-call-ir " in a “thingumajig ” and a “ whatsisname.” If he ever found it he would never recognize his discovery. The Agnostic warmly declares that he knows nothing about God. That is the foundation of his creed. But if that was all he implied, the statement would hardly be worth making. He obviously means more than this. What he says is, “I know nothing about God.” What he implies as the justification of his own credo is “ Neither does anyone else.” And, as we shall see, when he justifies this, he is justify­ ing precisely the position taken up by the avowed Atheist. Perhaps the most curious attempt to make the Agnostic position intelligible was essayed by the late Sir Leslie Stephen. In his Agnostic's Apology, he solemnly informs us that “ The Agnostic is one who asserts—what no one denies—that there are limits to human understanding.” Of all the apologies that have been put forward this is surely the poorest and the weakest. Where is the necessity to coin a new word to affirm what nobody has ever denied? One might as reasonably establish a society of “ noseites ” and limit the human membership to those who have nasal organs. There might be a certain convenience in adopting a formula that puts one in agreement with everybody, but it is hardly worth while. After all, a definition must define— that is, it must exclude as well as include. And if the meaning of Agnosticism is as given by Sir Leslie Stephen, in what way does it differentiate the Agnostic from the Atheist, or from anyone else ? The Agnostic apparently believes nothing that others do not believe, and says nothing that all others do not say. �8 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? Let us, as the professional evangelist would say, get back to God. And I begin with something that everyone actually does believe. The world as we know it (which is the only world we can deal with) is made up of things, or as some would prefer to put it, of events. But all events, whatever they are like, or wherever they occur, are single in their existence. We have collective terms such as “tree,” “ man,” bird,” and so forth, but there is not a tree separate from particular trees, or “ Man ” distinct from par­ ticular men. I stress this consideration because a great deal of the confusion connected with “ God ” is due to its neglect. There are a multitude of gods in the world, as there are a multitude of trees, and in the earlier stages of civilisation g'ods are contemptibly common. Many of them have passed away, and many new ones have been created; but there is no such conceivable thing as a God ” that is distinct from particular gods. The gods can be collected, tabulated, and their common characteristics noted, just as one can collect different men, brown, red, yellow, white, tabulate them and indicate what features they have. Abstract words are very often useful instruments of thought. Without them human thought could not* get very far. But when we mistake abstractions for concrete existences, confusion is certain to follow. Now the gods of the world are as well known and as well understood as the trees of the world. And if we were to take all the g'ods that have ever existed, and add to them the gods that do exist, the Agnostic would not hesitate to dismiss them one after the other as mere figments of the imagination. In the end he would become a deicide on the most elaborate and comprehensive scale. More than that, in terms of his Agnosticism, he would deny the existence of any other god that any people could ever conceive or worship. The gods of existing savages, the gods of �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 9 the Mohammedan, the Jew,- the Christian, would all go. But if all gods, past and present, and future, are rejected as having no better existence than the ghost that haunts the old baronial castle, what has he in mind when he says that he does not deny the exist­ ence of God. He is denying the existence of any conceivable god, and an inconceivable proposition is just nonsense. Or if, as is said, the Agnostic suspends judgment as to whether “ God ” exists or not, what “ God ” is it he has in mind ? As I have written elsewhere, if I say that I don’t believe in the existence of the only kind of bird, fish, or tree that is known to me, that I believe they are all creatures of the imagination, but add that I will not say that there does not exist any­ where a fish that has not the structure of a fish and does not live in the water, or that I think there may be in existence a bird that is quite unlike a bird in both structure and habits, or that there may. exist somewhere a tree without roots, trunk or branches, etc., I shall quite properly be told that if I run across these things they are certainly not fish, bird, or tree. Can anyone think of a thing existing which is quite unlike any other thing of the same name or nature ? The man who is looking for a god or a bird that is entirely unlike the bird and the god he knows would not know them for either god or bird if he ran across either or both. We have not vet reached the end of the confusion and self-contradictions of the Agnostic. The only helpful definition of “ God ” that we could find was that God began as one of a company of spirits who exercised control over some part of nature. I accept that definition, not because it suits my own position, but because my position has grown out of the anthro­ pological account of the origin of gods. Every god the world has known began existence as a good or evil spirit, and he was dreaded or loved because he �I© AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? was supposed to be capable of exerting a good or bad influence on human affairs. These are incontro­ vertible facts. No competent person seriously dis­ putes them. Many of these gods have come down to us as fairies, goblins, etc., and many of them have died away altogether. The Agnostic has not the least hesitation in brushing aside whole galaxies of known or conceivable gods as figments of the imagination. He says they are the outcome of an unenlightened imagination, and I agree with him. By what rule does he dismiss these dethroned gods, and also all that are still ruling over very diminished territories, but still insists that he cannot deny the existence of something he knows not what, and would be in no better state of mind if he met it ? All my life I have been asking Agnostics to give me some justification for their “ suspension of judg­ ment.” What is there on which we are to suspend! The Agnostic does pass judgment on the spirits he is told about, and in whom other people believe. Is there any better evidence, or any different evidence, for the probable existence of a spirit called God, than there is for another spirit who, instead of being called God, is called Mumbo-Jumbo? There is sin­ cerity of belief with both these gods, and the evidence for the existence of each is of exactly the same character and quality. Why the differentia­ tion? If I may paraphrase a line in Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan, whenever religion is concerned to be intelligible it is found out. Still further. Less than two centuries ago the belief that men and women might hold intercourse with the devil was very generally held. Witchcraft was then a criminal offence, and many thousands of men, women, and children were tortured and killed for intercourse with devils, in whose existence there is the same religious and Christian warranty as there is for the existence of God. This belief in intercourse �AGNOSTICISM OR . . II with devils was killed, for intelligent men and women, by the knowledge of the conditions that gave this belief being and authority. Yet one never heard an Agnostic say that he suspended judgment con­ cerning that deposed god, Satan. Quite definitely he says with the Atheist that so soon as the origin and history of the belief in human intercourse with the spirit, Satan (God) was known and understood it was at once definitely rejected. He does not say I am agnostic on the subject of demoniacal posses­ sion. He says, I deny that any such being as Satan exists; he owes his existence to the imaginings of the uninstructed mind. The belief is condemned by its history. And this is exactly what has happened to the gods. They have been found out. I do not mean that they have been found out in the sense in which we find out that someone is bad whom we have considered good, or as a liar one whom we thought truthful. The gods have been found out, as people discovered ghosts and fairies an*d demons to be mere “ figments of the imagination.” For the past three hundred years this idea concerning the gods has been gaining ground, and, with and since the publication of the epoch-making Primitive Culture, by E. B. Tylor, the gods have been tracked down and their origin exposed with a devastating accuracy. Such primitive peoples as exist have been carefully studied and the process of god-making has been fully exposed. The whole weight of modern scientific theory is thrown upon the side of the conviction that all gods, ancient and modern, savage and civilized, good and bad, have had their origin in the uninstructed mind of man reading his own feelings into nature, personifying them, and then trembling before the creation of his own imagination. There are, of course, divergences of opinion as to the order of the different stages of this development, just as there are differences �12 AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? of opinion as to the precise nature and order of that organic evolution which traces the development of living matter from the simplest, to the hig'hest form. From all sides, from that of the study of culture in. general, from the essential nature of such ceremonies as the Christian eating of the god, the incarnate god walking the earth as a man, the general conception of natural happenings as due to! supernatural or superhuman beings, the whole of modern religion can be traced. Now it is possible, although it would be supremely ridiculous at this time of day, for the Agnostic to repudiate the demonstrable findings of the anthro­ pologists. But I have never met an Agnostic who takes up this position. With a lack of logic that runs the Christian Scientist very close for a front place in the race for the absurdity medal, what we find is an acceptance of the scientific account of the origin of the belief in gods, followed by an assertion that one must suspend judgment on the whole question as to whether gods exist. But if one really does accept the account of modern science concerning- the origin of the belief in God, what is there left on which to express doubt? If all the facts of experience, sub­ jective and objective, upon which primitive humanity built the belief in “ spirits ” are otherwise explained, the first interpretation is quite plainly ruled out of court. We cannot, at least we ought not, to accept a conclusion that follows from premises that are demonstrably false. If the mental hesitancy and illogicality displayed by the Agnostic in relation to the idea of God was manifested with regard to the ordinary affairs of life, existence would be impossible. I began this pamphlet with some definitions. I may well end with some more. A correspondent once asked me what reply I would give to a ques- �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 13 tioner who at the end of one of my lectures put the following question: — Do you believe that the universe was created or set going by a personal power? I replied in substance to this question, which was obviously considered clear and simple, that the question needed clarifying because in any important controversy a question should have a definite mean­ ing. Words should have a reference to somethingthat one understands. Take, for example, the three cardinal terms in this fifteen-wo rd sentence. Created. In relation to the question this has two meanings. It may carry the theological implication that the world was made out of nothing. That may be set on one side as pure nonsense. It might be recited as an act of faith, but it could not be believed apart from a first-rate miracle. The second meaning of the term might be that indicated when we speak of the creation of a painting, a piece of music, or the design of a building. But this does not lift us out of the realm of human effort, and so cannot have any bearing on the question of Agnosticism. As used, the word is either nonsensical or misleading. Universe. There is a double sense here, that may very easily mislead. The world, or the universe,' whichever term we prefer, does not refer to one thing, but to a vast number of individual things. There is riot indicated in the word “ world ” an exist­ ence that is separate from particular things. “World ” is a short summing up of the total of individual things. But a whole has never an existence separate from the parts. The world, as I have already said, is a world made up of particulars. They form the material of and for our thinking. But there does not exist these things plus another existence, the world. To think otherwise is to get back to the fallacies of the mediaeval schoolmen. • �M AGNOSTICISM OR . . . ? Personal Power. Power means, briefly, the ability or capacity to do something, never any more than this, even though it be spelt with a capital P. Per­ sonal means something pertaining to a person, to a human being, although if anyone chooses to extend it to animals, I should raise no objection. But no “ personal power ” is known or is conceivable that can absolutely originate power. All that happens in nature is the transformation of “ power,” or emerg­ ence of power following from a rearrangement of existing forces. (There is a suggestion of question­ begging here, but it would require a lengthy discus­ sion to put it otherwise, and the reader will, I think, follow my meaning.) If we are to retain a sane meaning to the words we use, the creation of the universe by personal power is simply unthinkable. We are mistaking words for things, which lands us back into the early stages of savage thought. As to how I would reply to one who put the -question given at the end of a lecture I might probably answer as follows : — “ I will put this question into plain English before replying to it. I have been asked whether I believe that every thing has been created by some manlike power—this is what I understand by personal power, because if it means that everything has arisen ent of preceding conditions, the question has no connexion whatever with ‘ God.’ If the first meaning is in­ tended, then I must know what it means. Until then I cannot say I do not know, because even to say that one does not know one must know what it is of which he pleads ignorance. If a question is asked in Greek, how can I say whether I agree with it or not unless I have some understanding of Greek? I do not know and cannot conceive any personal power except that manifested by man. So will you please go home, write out the question you have in mind, giving it an intelligible meaning, so making it a topic for �AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? 15 probable fruitful discussion, and I will see what can be done. At present all the good that has been done by your question depends upon whether I have made it plain that philosophy does not consist in posing unanswerable questions clothed in non-understandable language, but in properly framing an enquiry resting on a known basis, and to work from that known basis to further understanding, And in doing this it may help to bear in mind the fact that profound truth is nearly always simple. It is only complicated error that looks intellectually impressive—until it meets with exposure.” I will conclude with one more attempt to clear up a confusion, and by asking a question. The confusion is a very common one with modern religious apolo­ gists, and it appears to have fooled a great many who are not religious. Jumbling together a purely arti­ ficial question that belongs to a philosophy that has not yet freed- itself from the influence of religious associations, we are told that neither the Atheist nor the Agnostic can solve the problem of the “ mystery of the universe. ” But the mystery of the universe has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the Belief in “ God ” or gods. It is a heritage from the days when neither science nor philosophy had completely freed itself from theology. Besides, science knows nothing of “ mysteries it considers only problems. And a problem must be stated in intelligible terms; it must have reference to knowable facts, and we can only think of what is unknown so far as it falls into the framework of the possible knowable. To use a horse-breeding term, “ The problem of the universe was born of bad metaphysics out of a weakened theology.” The progeny of that line has been simply awful. The final question I put to the Agnostic is this : — The Agnostic says he does not deny the existence of �i6 AGNOSTICISM OR ... ? “ God ” (this does not include the g'ods of all theologies past and present), but denies that if “ God ” exists he cannot be like the gods of any of the religions, otherwise he would not call himself an Agnostic. So my question is : “ As ‘ God ’ standing by itself has no reference to anything known, or to anything that is conceivably known, how would the Agnostic recognize God as God if he ever discovered him—or it ? In other words, how does anyone recog­ nize something as being what it is, if it is totally unlike anything he has ever seen, or anything he can even think about? ” By the time the Agnostic has carefully recon­ sidered his question, I fancy he will have small use for such a word as Agnosticism. . PAMPHLETS FOR THE PEOPLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1'3. 14. 15. 16. Did Jesus Christ Ever Live? Morality Without God. What is the Use of Prayer? Christianity and Woman. Must We Have a Religion? The Devil. What Is Freethought? Gods and Their Makers. Giving ’em Hell. The Church’s Fight for the Child. Deity and Design. What is the Use of a Future Life? Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to Live. Freethought and the Child. Agnosticism Or ... ? Atheism. Postage One Penny. Twopence Each. Issued for the Secular Society Limited, and Printed and Published by Thb Pioneer Press (G. W. Foote & Co., Ltd.), 61, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.4, ENGLAND. 71 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Agnosticism or...? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Series title: Pamphlets for the People Series number: No. 15 Notes: "Issued for the Secular Society Limited." Publisher's series list on back cover. Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Pioneer Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1914] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N130 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism 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 (Agnosticism or...?), 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 Agnosticism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3d772fe12215b949e1edf4f05e54d6ab.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=XEkkYfn%7EoaxgeCnbIJskjIrUXiTQgR588oK3B4VaOpo-3i81EMzOPnRSXBS7k%7E9TFxr7jlLc%7Ersk%7EwDM1M99K%7EhYTP5iOtEXGHCFssTyF6EBqTcGdUG00kTEL9wUullTw0uNojSxRBJSZnmV3skblVcJOWSZA8EH-woCVZ1R7SWMnj9TBDShiEvUsRyCLDWXUY0iCrJmy1Mli-40tyXpIJFiLFif3zpXdAfxXX4rAbWlfYjH5zTBs6o7V52kT04V-C7UNlYJ4NoKZKVQu%7EjMVPFrikdupRCTOfr6t%7E5wj1JFFc%7EFkXg2kS8DPhR3FnQjJ8tonz%7EnZ7k-nioig7TJww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ab0023e38c0026b3cd49a4cef7acb1c6 PDF Text Text WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ? WITH OBSERVATIONS ON ' HUXLEY, BRADLAUGH, AND INGERSOLL AND A REPLY TO GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE ALSO A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. BY G. W. FOOTE, PRICE THREEPENCE. LONDON THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED,. 2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, E.C. igO2. �PRINTED BY THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD., 2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C. �ß 2SiO NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AGNOSTIC PRETENSIONS. \ I happened to say once that an Agnostic was an Atheist with a tall hat on. Many a true word is spoken in jest, and I believe this is a case in point. It may be my ■obtuseness, but I have never been able to discover any real difference between the Atheist and the Agnostic, ■except that the latter is more in love with respectability ; ■or, if not exactly in love, is anxious to contract a marriage of convenience. In the old Hall of Science days, I noticed that sturdy Freethinkers used to come and sit under Bradlaugh, and proudly call themselves Atheists. That was while they were comparatively poor, and free from domestic embarrassments. When they became better off, and their children (especially their daughters) grew taller, they gradually edged off to South-place Chapel, sat under Mr. Conway, and ■called themselves Agnostics. They did not pretend that their opinions had changed, and they were glad to sneak into the old place (minus wife and family) on a stirring occasion ; but they had drifted, and they knew why, though they never liked to say so. Bradlaugh’s strength lay amongst those who could, for one reason or another, afford to defy conventions; such as the skilled artisans and the lower-middle classes, with a dash of professional society. Two hundred a year was fatal to his front-seat people. When they reached that income they emigrated (with their womenkind) to a more 81 respectable ” establishment. �4 I do not shrink from the consequences of the foregoing; observations. Indeed, I will speak with the utmost plainness. Charles Bradlaugh was an Atheist becausehe was a man of invincible courage, and did not care: twopence for the frowns of the Church or the sneers of Society. Professor Huxley was an Agnostic because he: had» over a thousand a year, and moved in the “ upper circles,” and filled certain “ honorable ” positions. He was too honest to say that he believed what he dis­ believed, but he could not afford to bear an odiousname. So he coined the word “ Agnostic,” which wasnewer, longer, and less intelligible than “ Atheist.” And having got a label that suited him entirely, he devised many subtle reasons why other Freethinkers should, wear it too. A number of them jumped at the oppor­ tunity. They were delighted to be at once heterodox; and respectable. It was a new and unexpected sensa­ tion. They were able to criticise orthodoxy with great, freedom, providing they did not touch upon the twovital points of all supernatural faith — namely, the: belief in God and the doctrine of a future life ; and. they were also able to chide the Atheist for his vulgar dogmatism in calling certain religious ideas false, when, the true philosopher knew that it was impossible todemonstrate the negative of anything. I used to think that Mr. Holyoake was an Atheist. At any rate, he wrote a Trial of Theism, in which he made that ancient faith look a frightful old impostorj But I conclude that he now wishes this work to b<& regarded as an academic exercise, a playful effort of the theoretical intelligence. Many years ago—and still for all I know—he offered the British public the story of his prosecution and imprisonment for “blasphemy’' under the title of The Last Trial for Atheism. He wasreally not tried for Atheism at all, and most of us took the word as a defiant expression of his principles* Buhl �5 we were mistaken. Mr. Holyoake explains in a recent publication that he is not an Atheist now, what­ ever he may have been when he was young, ignorant, -and impulsive. He says that the Atheist is guilty of ■“ preposterous presumption ”—which I think I under­ stand, although it is a very loose expression. He calls Atheism a “ wild assumption.” He professes himself an Agnostic ; which, as he explains it, is our old friend Sceptic alive again from the pages of David Hume. “Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism denote attitudes of thought in relation to the existence of a Supreme Cause of Nature. The Theist declares, without mis­ giving, that there is such an existence. The Atheist, without misgiving, declares there is no such existence. The Agnostic, more modest in pretension, simply says that, having no information on the subject, he does not know.” Mr. Holyoake says, further on, that the Theist and the Atheist alike have “ no doubt that they knew the solu­ tion ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.” Well, I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist who does not affect to know this “ solution.” This particular Atheist does not so much asknow the meaning of “the cause of eternity.” To him it is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words! But this is not enough. I will go further, and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God. Of course there are many Atheists who deny the existence of this or that God, because the definition of such alleged beings involves a contradiction to obvious facts of universal ■experience. But what Atheist denies the existence of ■any God ; that is to say, of any superhuman or super­ mundane power ? All the Atheists I know of take the position that there is no evidence on which to form a valid judgment, and that man’s finite intellect seems �6 incapable of solving an infinite problem. And as I understand Mr. Holyoake this is the very position taken by the Agnostic. Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an Atheist is. one without God. That is all the “A” before “Theist”' really means. Now I believe the Agnostic is without God too. Practically, at any rate, he is in the same boat with the Atheist. Atheism may be called a negative attitude. No doubt it is so. But every negative involves something positive.. If the Atheist turns away from the “ mighty problem ” as hopeless, he is likely to tackle more promising pro-« blems with greater vigor annd effect. But it is admitted by Mr. Holyoake that Agnosticism is a negative attitude too. Wherein, then, lies the justification for all the super fine airs of its advocates ? When you look into the matter closely, you perceivfl that Atheism and Agnosticism are both definite in the same direction. Bradlaugh and Huxley were at one in their hostile criticism of Christianity. Keeping the mind free from superstition is an excellent work. It is weeding the ground. But it is not sowing, and still less reaping. It merely creates the possibility of sound and useful growth. We have to fall back upon Secularism at the finish. Nor is that a finality. Secularism is the affirma­ tion of the claims of this life against the usurpations of the next. But the affirmation would be unncessary if the belief in a future life disappeared or radically changed.. Secularism itself—whatever Mr. Holyoake may say—is. an attitude. The face that was turned from God is. turned towards Man. What will follow is beyond the. range of Atheism or Agnosticism. Presently it is. beyond the range of Secularism. It is not to be deter­ mined by any system. It depends on positive knowledge and the laws of evolution. �7 AGNOSTICISM AND ORTHODOXY. During the most vigorous part of his life Mr. Holyoakepassed as an Atheist, but in his old age he prefers to call himself an Agnostic. Now this is a change that might be allowed to pass unchallenged, if it were not made the occasion of an attack on others who elect to remain under the old flag. Old age is entitled to comforts, or at least to shelter from hardships ; and if a veteran of over eighty finds any advantage or convenience in adopt­ ing a more tolerable designation, without any actual renunciation of principle, it is only a curmudgeon that would deny him the luxury. But when we are practi­ cally asked to share it with him we have the right tomake an open refusal. When the fox, in the old story, lost his tail, and then tried to persuade his brethren that they would look much handsomer if they dispensed with theirs, it was time to tell him that the appendages were both ornamental and useful. If “ Atheist ” is in Mr.. Holyoake’s way, by all means let him get rid of it. Butwhen he advances a reason why others should follow his example, it is permissible to tell him that his reason is insufficient. Mr. Holyoake’s reason is this—in brief. Theism says there is a God, Atheism says there is no­ God, and Agnosticism says it does not know. Agnosti­ cism, therefore, is modest and accurate; it does not dogmatise, and it keeps within the limit of its informa­ tion. Such is Mr. Holyoake’s argument, and his con­ clusion would be sound enough if his premises were not faulty. But they are faulty. Mr. Holyoake declared that Atheists, like Theists, had “ no doubt that they knew the solution ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.” “Well,” I said in reply, “ I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist who does not affect to know this ‘ solution.’ To him it �is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words ! I will go further,” I added, “ and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.** He has not, however, deigned to reply to this perfectly legitimate question. Atheists may, just like Agnostics, deny the existence of this or that God. It all depends on definitions. A quarter of a century ago, in criticising a book by Pro­ fessor Flint, I wrote as follows :— “ There be Gods many and Lords many; which of the long theological list is to be selected as the God ? A God, like everything else from the heights to the depths, ■can be known only by his attributes; and what the Atheist does is not to argue against the existence of any God, which would be sheer lunacy, but to take the attributes affirmed by Theism as composing its Deity, and to inquire whether they are compatible with each other and with the facts of life. Finding that they are not, the Atheist simply sets Theism aside as not proven, and goes on his way without further afflicting himself with such abstruse questions.” This is precisely the position I took in replying to Mr. Holyoake recently, and it is the position of all the Atheists I know or have ever known. Moreover, it was, as far as I understood him, the position of Mr. Holyoake himself while we all thought him an Atheist. During his debate with Mr. Bradlaugh, some thirty years ago, it was admitted that both were Atheists; the question in dispute was whether Atheism was involved in Secularism. I do not recollect that there was so much as a suggestion that a difference existed between them as to the meaning of Atheism. Their difference was over the meaning of Secularism. I am well aware that persons of a metaphysical turn of mind, and a good knowledge of the dictionary, can argue with each other on all sorts of subjects, and keep �9 it up till death or the day of judgment. But the troublecomes when they have to meet the practical man, the average man, the man in the street. He has his living • to get, and lots of things to attend to ; so, instead of beating about the bush, he goes straight to what seems, to him to the kernel of the question—the real point at issue. He may be mistaken, of course ; but that is his method, and you will never wean him from it. All the “ revelations ” in the world have been got up for him. It was found that no impression was made upon him by Platonic or other long-winded ratiocinations; so specu­ lation was presented to him as fact, and fancy as history ; and in that .way he was nobbled, because he did not perceive the cheating—though he is beginning to see it now. Well then, let an Atheist and an Agnostic stand together before this gentleman; and what difference will he discover between them ? “ Have you got a God?” he asks in his blunt way. The Atheist plainly answers “ No.” The Agnostic hums and ha’s. “ Come now, straight,” says the questioner, “ have you got a God?” The Agnostic says : “Well, I------.” “ Here^ that’ll do,” says the man in the street, “ I see you haven’t got one. You’re just like the other fellow, only he’s straighter.” And really that practical man, that average man, that man in the street, is right. He has ' got hold of the substance. All else is shadow. You have a God, or you have not. There is really no intermediate position. If you have a God, you are a Theist; if you have no God, you are an Atheist. Let your reasons be few or many, plain or subtle, this is what it comes to at the finish. “ I am the Lord thy God,” cries some Deity or other through the mouth of a priest. “Not mine,” says the Atheist. - “ Not precisely mine,” says the Agnostic, “ at least at present; these things require a great deal of consideration ; but I promise to keep an open mind.” Now if the offended Deity were to box. �IO the ears of one of them, which do you thin it would be ? I fancy it would be the Agnostic, for all his ii reverence.” Mr. Holyoake’s new attitude is likely to procure him fresh friends in the fold of faith—which he will probably not find annoying. One announced himself in the Church Gazette, and this is what he said :— “ One is glad to see that Mr. Holyoake has renounced the title of ‘Atheist’ in favor of that of ‘Agnostic.’ The Freethinker deprecates his doing so on the ground that the two terms imply exactly the same thing. We cannot admit that they do. An ‘ Atheist ’ properly means a person who positively denies the existence of a God, while an ‘ Agnostic ’ is simply one who does not know, but who very often is strongly inclined to believe in a Deity. Between these attitudes there lies a vast interval. The first is as dogmatic as that of a Cardinal; the second is philosophical, and of one who adopts it there is always a good deal of hope.” Without inquiring what right a Christian paper has to define “ Atheism ” for Atheists, I may observe how consoling it must be to Mr. Holyoake to be told by a ■Christian that he is “ philosophical,” that there is “ a vast interval ” between himself and a wicked, dogmatic Atheist, and that there is “ a good deal of hope ” for him! My own criticism is nothing to this. This orthodox editor greets Mr. Holyoake’s one leg over the fence, and “ hopes ” for his whole body. Other orthodox .editors in the course of time, either before his death or .after, will perhaps argue that Mr. Holyoake really saw the error of his ways and probably “ found salvation.” �11 MR. HOLYOAKE’S VINDICATION. Mr. Holyoake’s article on “ Agnosticism Higher than Atheism ” in my own journal, the Freethinker, for January 6 (1901) opened with a warm defence of his ■own consistency. Personally, I may say that I do not care two pins, or ■even one, whether Mr. Holyoake has or has not made or undergone a change in his opinion, his attitude, or "whatever he or anyone else may please to call it. He :seems to be quite passionate about it, but it is really of no importance to anyone but himself. The only important question is whether he is right in what he says now. All men but the fossilised have •changed intellectually, as they have changed physically. ““ In a higher world,” said Newman, “ it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to' have changed often.” Emerson stated the same truth with scornful relation to human vanity. “ A foolish consistency,” he said, “is the hobgoblin of little .minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and •divines.” It may be telling in political debate, where there is ever a hundred grains of nonsense to one grain ■of sense, to reply to an opponent out of his own mouth, and show that what he says to-day is answered by what he said several years ago. Vain politicians fall into this trap, because they fancy their own consistency is somethingiof infinite moment; not their consistency of prin­ ciple or intention, but their consistency of mental ■conclusion. But now and then a stronger politician laughs at the trap which is laid for him. Some persons thought it was mere cynicism on Beaconsfield’s part when he declined to argue a question before parliament in the light of certain “musty old speeches” of his, which had been quoted against him in the debate. But f- �12 it was sanity and wisdom. It was a personal question1 whether he was right or wrong twenty years before; it was a public question whether he was right or wrong at that moment. Mr. Holyoake, as I understand him, says he never wasan Atheist. He has always an Agnostic, but he lacked the word to express his attitude. The term he did suggest was Cosmism as a substitute for Atheism. In connection with it he quotes the words—from ThomasCooper, I believe—“ I do not say there is no God, but. this I say—I know not.” Perhaps it will surprisehim to learn—or to be reminded of it if he has forgotten it—that Charles Bradlaugh, both in print and on theplatform, was fond of quoting those very words asindicating the essential attitude of Atheism. Are we to conclude, then, that Bradlaugh, too, was an Agnostic without knowing it ? Are we also to conclude that not a single Atheist during the past forty years understood Atheism, and that the only person who did understand it was Mr. Holyoake, who was never an Atheist at all ? “ Agnosticism,” Mr. Holyoake says, “ relates only toDeity.” Does it indeed ? Its meaning and application were not thus restricted by Professor Huxley. This is what he said in his essay on “ Agnosticism ” (Collected Essays, vol. v., p. 245) :— “ Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method», the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of M single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said ‘ Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed : In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration- �i3 And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the Agnostic faith.” This is stated even more compendiously in a later essay on “Agnosticism and Christianity” (vol. v., p. 310) :— “ Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘ negative ’ creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts ; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.” These are, I believe, the only two definitions of Agnos­ ticism to be found in Huxley’s writings; and, so far from restricting the application of the term to the question of the existence of Deity, as Mr. Holyoake :says it should be, its inventor does not so much as allude to that question in either of these passages. He presents Agnosticism as a general method or attitude in relation to all propositions, and therefore to all subjects whatsoever. Mr. Holyoake goes on to say that Agnosticism—his Agnosticism—“ leaves a man to reason, to con­ science, to morality, to nature, to the laws of truth, of honor, and the laws of the State.” Yes, and it also leaves him, if he prefers, to the opposite of these—to folly, vice, and crime, to the workhouse, the lunatic asylum, and the prison. What Mr. Holyoake says of Agnosticism is simply an echo of what Bacon said of Atheism. “ Atheism,” that philosopher said, in the Essay Of Superstition, “ leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation.” �When Bacon wanted to dig the Atheist in the fifth rib with a dirty dagger, he treated Atheism as a denial of God. “None,” he said, “ deny there is a God but those for whom it maketh that there were no God.’” Which is equivalant to saying that no one denies God. but a scoundrel. But when he talks like a candid philo* sopher his language is very different. “It were better,’” he declared, “ to have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy of him.” That was. the real difference between Atheism and superstition. “ No opinion of God at all.” Bacon regarded that as philosophical Atheism. Mr. Holyoake regards it as philosophical Agnosticism. Well, this is a free country, at least to that extent, and I prefer to side with. Bacon. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoke’s philosophy of “disbelief” and “ non-belief ” is a sad confusion, abound­ ing *in arbitrary statements. Take the following passage», for instance :— “‘Disbelief’ is the state of mind of one who hag; evidence before him, but finds it so insufficient that ha disbelieves the proposition to which the evidence: relates. ‘ Non-belief’ expresses that state of mind whefft all relevant evidence is absent, and he is therefore in ft. state of non-belief or absolute unknowingness.” Now the first sentence is but a pretty waste of wordsRepetition is not definition. It enlightens no one to say that “disbelief” is the state of mind of a person who “ disbelieves.” Nor is it true that one who disbelieveshas always evidence before him. He may have none at all. I disbelieve in the existence of dragons and centaurs, but I am not aware that there is a scrap of positive evidence on the subject. On the other hand, there may be “relevant evidence”—can there be any irrelevant evidence ?—in the case of “ non-belief,” which is precisely the same thing as unbelief. My own position �i5 with regard to the “ microbe theory ” of disease is oneof “ non-belief,” but I should be very ignorant or foolish to say that “ relevant evidence ” was totally “ absent.”' And how on earth can “ absolute unknowingness ” haveany relation to belief at all? It is simply a blank. Nothing is there, and no room exists for any form o£ opinion. Mr. Holyoake’s “ non-belief ” seems to be a nonentity. The remaining term is “ disbelief.” This he does not really define, but he evidently means it to connote a. state of mind following the recognition that the evidenceadvanced in favor of a proposition is “ insufficient.” Now I venture to say that this is unbelief or disbelief simply according to the balance of the evidence. Mr, Holyoake speaks as though evidence were always for and never against, whereas it is usually of both kinds. If the evidence is unsatisfactory, we say we do not believe the proposition. If the evidence is very unsatis­ factory, we say we disbelieve it. The two words express different degrees of the same general state of mind. This view has fbe countenance of common usage, asit certainly has the countenance of etymology. And a. very remarkable fact may be cited in this connection. The orthodox term for all sceptics, from the mild. Unitarian to the terrible Atheist, is “ unbelievers.” Mr. Holyoake goes to the length of saying that “ Todisbelieve is to deny.” I say it is not. Mr. Holyoakehimself disbelieves the theory of a future life, but he does not deny it. Denial, in the strict sense of the word, presupposes knowledge. It is not a mere question of opinion—like belief, unbelief, or disbelief. < If you say I have done a certain thing which I know I have not done ; if you say I was at a certain place yesterday when I know I was not there ; I deny your assertion. But if you say that a friend of mine has done a certain �i6 thing, or was at a certain place yesterday, when I was not there myself, I cannot deny your assertion. Yet I may not believe it from what I know of my friend’s ■character and movements, and I may disbelieve it when I have heard the evidence on both sides. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake made this arbitrary •affirmation about disbelief and denial because it served the turn in his argument against Atheism. He proceeds to say—and with plausibility if his theory of disbelief is .accurate-—that if you “ take denial out of the word ” Atheism you “ take the soul out of it.” “ Atheism,” he repeats, “ which does not deny God is a corpse.” All this, however, is repetition on repetition of what he is asked to prove. The idea seems to be that saying a thing over again, with fresh force and point, is a good substitute for “ relevant evidence.” Mr. Holyoake says there are “ brave spirits ” in the Atheistic camp “ who believe that the existence of God <an be disproved, and say so.” “ To them,” he adds, “Atheism, in its old sense—of denial—is the only honest word.” Of course it is. But who ave, these Atheists ? AVhy does not Mr. Holyoake give us a little informa­ tion ? What is the use of argument without facts ? I ■admit there are Atheists who believe that the reality of some conceptions of God can be disproved. If reason is to be trusted—and we have no other guide—it is perfectly clear that a God of infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite goodness, does not exist. John Stuart Mill was as firm as a rock on this point, and he was the author of a classical treatise on Logic. Mr. Holyoake himself, I believe, would not deny that Science has practically disproved the existence of the God of Miracles. It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake plays with the word “ God.” He treats it is a definite word, with one invariable meaning. But it means anything or nothing, �.according to definitions. Without a definition, you might as well pronounce it backwards. It may be true that the Atheist “ denies the existence of God,” if you ■define God to mean Thor, Jupiter, Jehovah, or Christ. But is it true that the Atheist denies the existence of any possible God ? This is a point to which Mr. Holyoake does not address himself. Nor is he likely to ■ do so while he uses the word “ God ” as loosely as any ^shuffling theologian. Some conceptions of God are flatly contradicted by the most familiar facts of experience. These are as much to be denied as a round square or a bitter sweet. Some conceptions of God are not contradicted by any facts of experience. They may be true, and they may Be false. In the absence of “ relevant evidence,” there is no way of deciding. It is all a matter of conjecture. And both information and. denial, in such cases, are mere expressions of personal preference. But behind all the metaphysics of this subject there is a Science of which one could hardly surmise from his writings that Mr. Holyoake had ever heard. I mean the Science whith the great David Hume inaugurated in his Natural History of Religion. Not to go beyond •our own country, the researches of Spencer, Lubbock, Tylor, Frazer, Harland, and other workers in this fruitful field, have thrown a flood of light upon the .genesis and development of religious belief. The facts .are seen, and they tell their own tale. And when it is •once perceived that the “highest” ideas of modern theology have their roots in the lowest savage super­ stitions, the old disputes about the existence of God .seem almost fantastic. This is a point, however, which it is not my object to press. Some of my readers will understand ; others, perhaps, will take the hint. I wish to conclude this ■criticism by showing that what Mr. Holyoake means by �Agnosticism, is what Atheists have always meant by Atheism. The shortest way is the best. Let us take the most conspicuous, the most hated, English Atheist of thenineteenth century ; one who was supposed — and especially by those who knew least about him—to beas extravagant in his speech as he was shocking in his. character. I refer to Charles Bradlaugh. He was am Atheist of Atheists, and this is what he wrote:— The Atheist does not say ‘there is no God,’ but hesays, ‘ I know not what you mean by God; I am with­ out idea of God; the word “ God ” is, to me, a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I haves no conception, and the conception of which, by its. affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.’ ” Now let us hear the Agnostic. Mr. Holyoake says “ The Agnostic assertion of unknowingness is far wider, far mo.e defiant and impregnable than the deniaL of the Atheist who stands upon the defective evidence. Agnosticism is a challenge. It says: ‘ I do not know J do you ? Your assertions have no force. Evidence from the field of facts is wanted’....... the very idea of an originating Deity has no place in the understanding.’* Mr. Bradlaugh’s language is that of clear thought.. Is Mr. Holyoake s so ? It is hard to see how an asser­ tion of ignorance can be “ defiant,” though it may be “ impregnable ” because there is nothing to attack. If the Atheist stands upon the defective evidence, what else is the A gnostic doing when he says that evidence iswanted ? And is not the last sentence on all-fours with. Mr. Bradlaugh’s last sentence ? What difference there is seems in favor of the Atheist. It is one of carefulnessand modesty. Mr. Bradlaugh speaks for himself. Mr. Holyoake speaks for everybody. �i9 What substantial difference, I ask, can anyone find, between these two quotations? Mr. Bradlaugh was asmuch an Agnostic as Mr. Holyoake, and Mr. Holyoake is as much an Atheist as Mr. Bradlaugh. It is therefore evident, as far as this particular discussion goes, that Agnosticism is a new name for the old Atheism. After repeating that Agnosticism “asserts that theexistence of Gcd is a proposition of utter unknowing­ ness,” Mr. Holyoake declares that it “leaves Theism, stranded on the shores of speculation.” What more has been asserted by any Atheist ? Does it not provethat the Agnostic is “ without God in the world ”? And. does not this illuminating phrase of the great Apostle­ show the real parting of the ways ? INGERSOLL’S AGNOSTICISM. Mr.. Holyoake, I believe, has a great admiration for the late Colonel Ingersoll. I have a great admiration for him too. He was a splendid man, a magnificent orator, and a deep thinker. This last fact is too little recognised. Many take the clear for the shallow and. the turbid for the profound. Others love decorum even though it drops into dulness. Ingersoll’s brightness, noless than his lucidity, was detrimental to his reputation.. It is commonly thought that the witty man cannot be wise. But a minority know how false this is. Shakes­ peare was the wittiest as well as the wisest of men. Be that as it may, the point is that Mr. Holyoake and. I both admire Ingersoll. We may therefore appeal tohim on this question of Atheism and Agnosticism. Not that he is to decide it for us, but it will be profitable tohear what he has to say. Ingersoll published a lecture entitled Why Am I An Agnostic ? This was during his mellow maturity,. �when some hasty persons said he was growing too ■“ respectable.” He was perfectly frank, however, and even aggressive, on the question of the existence of Deity. Here is a passage from the very first page of this lecture :— “Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that Jehovah is not God, that the Bible is not an inspired book, and that the Christian religion, like other religions, is the creation of man, usually say : ‘ There must be a Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an •over-ruling Providence or Power.’ “ This position is just as untenable as the other. He who cannot harmonise the cruelties of the Bible with the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonise the cruelties of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed Deity.” After giving several illustrations of the Deist’s diffi­ culty, Ingersoll proceeds as follows, introducing for the first time the word Agnostic :— “ It seems to me that the man who knows the limita­ tions of the mind, who gives the proper value to human testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of compre­ hending the supernatural, or conceiving of an infinite personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all meaning falls.” Mr. Holyoake might reply that he endorses every word of this paragraph ; but I should have to tell him that there are much stronger things to come. My point for the present is that Ingersoll in a lecture on Agnosticism makes it look remarkably like Atheism. Certainly he dismisses the only idea of God that a Theist would ever think of •contending for. Let us now turn to the last address that Ingersoll ever ■delivered, before the American Free Religious Associa­ tion at Boston, on June 2, 1899, only a few weeks prior �21 to his sudden death. This lecture is published under thetitle of What is Religion ? Curiously it sums up all that he had ever taught on the subject. There is an autumn ripeness about it, and its conclusion has the air of a final deliverance in sight of the grave. Nor is this astonishing ; for he knew the nature of his malady, and was aware that death might overtake him at any monent. It should be added that Ingersoll read this address, which was printed from his manuscript. Now this lecture on What is Religion? contains a care­ ful and elaborate statement of the speaker’s Materialism. It runs as follows :— . “ If we have a theory we must have facts for the foundation. We must have corner-stones. We must not build on guesses, fancies, analogies, or inferences. The structure must have a basement. If we build, we must begin at the bottom. “ I have a theory, and I have four corner-stones. «The first stone is that matter—substance—cannot be destroyed, cannot be annihilated. ► The second stone is that force cannot be destroyed, cannot be annihilated. “ The third stone is that matter and force cannot exist apart—no matter without force; no force without matter, “ The fourth stone is that that which cannot be destroyed could not have been created; that the indestructible is the uncreateable. ** If these corner-stones are facts, it follows as a necessity that matter and force are from and to eternity ; that they can neither be increased nor diminished. “ It follows that nothing has been, or can be, ereated; that there never has been, or can be, a creator. “ It follows that there could not have been any intel­ ligence, any design, back of matter and force. '¿/‘There is no intelligence without force. There is no force without matter. Consequently there could not by �22 -any possibility have been any intelligence, any force, back of matter. ' ’ It therefore follows that the supernatural does not, •and cannot, exist. If these four corner-stones are facts, nature has no master. If matter and force are from and to eternity, it follows as a necessity that no God exists.” Here is an argumentative denial of the existence of 'God, as the term is generally understood. It is true that Ingersoll says, a little later on, that he does not -pretend to know, but only states what he thinks. This ■qualification, however, while it is a sign of modesty, is not necessary from a philosophical point of view, since no man who is not inspired can possibly advance any­ thing on this subject but his opinions. This is so from the very nature of the case, for there is no certainty • about the strongest argument in the world unless its •conclusion can be submitted to the test of verification. According to Mr. Holyoake’s criterion, therefore, Ingersoll had no right to call himself an Agnostic. He was not merely a doubter, but a denier, and should have called himself an Atheist. Not that he denied any possible God, for no Atheist does that. He denied the God of Christianity and the God of ordinary Theism. Now if Ingersoll s statement of the Agnostic position, thus qualified and understood, is one which Agnostics m general are ready to endorse, it is perfectly clear that the only difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is one of nomenclature. There is evidence that this was Ingersoll’s own •opinion. The complete “ Dresden ” edition of his works contains an important “ Inverview ” headed M My Belief” (vol. v., pp. 245-248). It is in the form of •Question and Answer. We will take the following :—■ Question. Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being ? �23 Answer*—I do not believe in any Supreme personality or in any Supreme Being who made the universe and governs nature. I do not say there is no such Being— all I say is that I do not believe that such a Being exists. This is precisely the position taken by all the Atheists T ever knew. If this is Agnosticism, every Atheist is Agnostic, and every Agnostic is an Atheist. ■Let it not be said that this is only my inference. It was Ingersoll’s own view, as is shown by the following extract:— Question. Don’t you think that the belief of the Agnostic is more satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist ? Answer. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: “ I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God.” The Atheist says the same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there is a God ; but we know that he does not know. He simply believes. He can­ not know. The Atheist cannot know that God does not exist. I have given the whole of this Question and Answer do avoid any possible misunderstanding. The pertinent >nd decisive words are in the first half of the Answer. Ingersoll is not with Mr. Holyoake, but against him. 'We have only to reverse the order of three short sentences to feel the full force of his conclusion. The ^Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic is an Atheist. There is W difference. �24 WICKED OPINIONS. Mr. Holyoake seems to be turning his back upon a prin­ ciple which he has often expounded; a principle which in the justification of Freethought, and without which persecution is honest jurisprudence. He refers very strangely to certain “ Atheists whose disbelief in born of dissoluteness, and who conceal vice by theological outrage of speech.” This is followed by a scornful reference to“ pot-house Atheism.” I am not well acquainted with pot-houses, but I should' imagine that Atheism is not prevalent in them. I have seen the pot-house people at large on certain holidays,, but I never noticed much Atheism in their conversation.. Vulgar, malignant Christians, of course, have often suggested that Atheists hold their meetings in public­ houses ; but I hope Mr. Holyoake does not wish tocountenance this calumny. I should imagine, too, that if a man wanted to “ conceal ” his “ vice ” he would be a very great fool toresort to “ theological outrage of speech.” It would pay him better, or rather less badly, to be outrageous in any other direction. This is precisely the way to excite odium, to attract hostile regard, and make him­ self an object of general suspicion. That a vicious man should wear a mask of piety is sufficiently intelligible.. Myriads have done it, and many still do it, as we learn every now and then by the police news. But for a. vicious man to range himself on the side of an odiousand hated minority, to affront the prejudices of the very people he wishes to impose upon, and thus to invite a scrutiny where he desires to practice concealment, would be an amazing display of imbecility. But it is still worse to hear Mr. Holyoake stigmatising; the “disbelief” of certain Atheists—not their affecta- �25 lions or pretensions, but their disbelief—as “ born of •dissoluteness.” If this has any meaning at all, it implies that belief is amenable to volition. If it be so, you •can change a man’s belief by punishing him ; that is, by .•giving him a strong inducement to believe otherwise; and, in that case, the Christians were quite right when they fined, imprisoned, tortured, and burnt heretics as .guilty of moral perversity. Such offenders could believe the orthodox faith, but they would not, and force was «employed to overcome their obstinacy. But the truth is, that men do not think as they would, but as they can; that is to say, as they must. The intellect may be .affected by the emotions, but not directly. The wish is :sometimes father to the thought, but it must necessarily be a case of unconscious paternity. We may be blinded by passion, but when the mist disperses the mind’s eye sees the facts according to its capacity and the laws of mental optics. I do not merely “ disbelieve,” I deny ” that Atheism ever was, ever is, or ever could be, born of dissoluteness. “ The fool,” according to the Psalmist, “ hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Mr. Holyoake substitutes sinner for fool, and thinks he is philosophic. I think that he and the Psalmist are in the .same boat. Let us take an illustration. A burglar is going to break into a jeweller’s shop, but he sees a policeman looking at him from the opposite corner. He wishes to •crack that crib, he came out to crack that crib, he is there to crack that crib. Why should he not do it ? There is a policeman over the way. What of that ? -Can he not wish the policeman were not there ? Can be not believe the policeman is not there ? We know he ■cannot. We know the shop is safe for the present. Now the God that Mr. Holyoake refers to in this con­ nection is the heavenly policeman. A vicious man wishes this God were not looking on, then he believes this God �26 is not looking on, and thus he becomes a full-blown Atheist! Could there be a greater absurdity ? It should be recognised that the human intellect acts (or functions) according to necessary laws. Given certain information, and a certain power of judgment,, and a man s conclusion follows with mathematical pre­ cision. His desires, and hopes, and fears have nothing“ to do with the matter. They do not govern his opinions. His opinions govern them. Our ideas do not accom­ modate themselves to our emotions: our emotions accommodate themselves to our ideas. Love itself, which is supposed to be absolutely blind, walks with, some degiee of rationality in the light. Peasants do not fall in love with a princess. Why ? Because they know she is beyond their reach. Actions may be wicked, and intentions may be wicked.. But there cannot be a wicked opinion. An opinion has only one quality; it is true or false—or, to be still, more strict, it is accurate or inaccurate. The quantity of accuracy and inaccuracy may vary, but the quality is unchangeable. An opinion may always be reduced to a proposition.. Now if you apply the word “wicked ” to a proposition you will immediately see its grotesqueness. It is true that a man may neglect to inform himself on a subject, either through indolence or wilfulness ; and his opinion will suffer in consequence. He may even be dishonest, if inquiry devolved upon him as a duty.. But his opinion cannot be dishonest. You might say it was born of dishonesty, but that is a very forced metaphor, and not the language of philosophy. An opinion is always born of two parents ; a man’s natural, faculty of judgment and the information on which it operates. If there cannot be a dishonest opinion, of course there cannot be an honest opinion. It is nonsense to talk of �27 a man’s “honest belief” unless you simply mean that the belief he expresses is the belief he entertains. Strictly speaking, the honesty is not in the belief, but in. the man. He may believe what he says or he may not; in either case his belief is his belief. He knows it, if you do not. Mr. Holyoake, if I recollect aright, has championed, the cause of “honest disbelief” in his former writings.. The expression was unfortunate, because it was unphilosophical; but I always understood him to mean that the sceptic had the same right to his thought as a. believer, So far I agree with him. In any other senseof the words I profoundly differ. And I deeply regret that Mr. Holyoake has given the sanction of his name to a view of the formation of opinions which is calcu­ lated to serve the cause of bigotry, if not of active per­ secution. I fear that the sentence I have specially criticised will be quoted against Atheists ad nauseam, and will be a fresh stumbling-block in the path of Freethought advocacy. BLANK ATHEISM. Mor® than twenty years ago I was personally acquainted', with the late Mathilde Blind. James Thomson (“ B.V.”), the author of that sombre and powerful poem, The City of Dreadful Night, was with me on more than one occa­ sion in her rooms, which were then the centre of some distinguished intellectual society. Swinburne used to call there occasionally, though it was never my luck to meet him. Professor Clifford was another visitor,, and with him I came into fairly close contact. One evening I had a little party, consisting of Miss Blind and a few of her friends, at my own bachelor diggings, where by request I read them Thomson’s masterpiece.. �28 It was not then published, in the ordinary sense of the word. I had it as it appeared in the National Reformer— •a presentation copy from Thomson himself, with the ■omitted stanza added in his own handwriting. It had Teen a good deal talked about in select circles, and the members of that little party were very glad to make its 'Complete acquaintance in that fashion. When the flood.gates of criticism were open, one young poet suggested some rather fatuous improvements. All admired the work very much, or said they did ; but I noticed that they all regarded it as a literary curiosity, a striking poetical /w de force, and not at all as the life-agony of a man of genius minted into golden verse by his unsubduable art. That aspect of the case did not seem to strike them a bit, and I felt considerably disappointed at their ■dilettante observations. But why do I go back to that long-ago ? Why open and deliberately shut doors of old memories ? Why let the daylight of recollection into ancient disused chambers, where the only footfalls are ghostly, and even these are •deadened by the dust of many years ? Because I cannot help it. Because a sentence in a book, casually meeting my gaze, has done it in my despite. “ What took this soul of mine on the verge of a blank Atheism, of utter denial and despair; what took it and led it out of itself to the calm and awful centre of things ?” "This was the sentence that arrested my attention in the Memoir ” which Dr. Garnett contributes to the new •edition of Mathilde Blind’s Poetical Works. The sentence is hers. And having raised the question, she supplies .the answer. “ It was Buckle. I verily think I owe to him what I owe to no other human being—an eternal debt of gratitude for the work he has left. It was the right book at the right time, the serene proclamation of law �29 o he unrolled the history of humanity before me from. , its earliest germs.” Now I confess to a certain sense of confusion in reading all this- In the first place, Buckle did not do what he is alleged to have done. He did not unroll the history of humanity from its earliest germs. His work was a great one, but that is not a proper description of it. In the next place, I can hardly conceive that Mathilde Blind had not read Buckle when I knew her, and she was certainly an Atheist then. Clifford was so far from being ashamed of the designation that he gloried in. it, and we all understood that Mathilde Blind’s attitude was precisely similar. What on earth then could she mean by saying that Buckle saved her from “blank Atheism ” ? What, indeed, is there in Buckle incom­ patible with Atheism ? Did not his orthodox critics call him a teacher of the Atheistic philosophy? Not that Le W® fin Atheist, but as far as his book went it was not unnatural that they (at any rate) should think him It does not appear that Mathilde Blind herself ever became a positive Theist. I fancy she called herself to ■ the end fin Agnostic. Her own poetry is not the work of a believer in God. What on earth then, I repeat,, did she mean by the statement that she had been saved from * blank Atheism” ? And what is the meaning of the words that follow ? “ Utter denial ” of what ? And 44 despair ” of what ? The whole thing is like a Chinese puzzle. I cannot help thinking that Mathilde Blind,, writing perhaps in after years, when Clifford was dead, and when perhaps the great Bradlaugh struggle had rendered ® Atheism ” more odious than ever to the great mob of “ respectable ” people, used the word with that looseness which is only too common, but of which she ought »ot to have been guilty. It is curious how so. many persons, and orthodox teachers especially, are loth �30 to let “Atheism” stand by itself, and tell its own story. They seem to feel the necessity of prejudicing the reader (or hearer) against it at the very outset. So they hasten to put a suggestive, or even a sinister, adjective m front of it, as a kind of warning herald. Sometimes it is “ downright ” Atheism, sometimes it is utter ” Atheism, sometimes it is “ grovelling ” Atheism .sometimes it is “ blatant ” Atheism. This, by the way,' is the favorite adjective of gentlemen like the late Rev. Mr. Price Hughes. But “ blank ” Atheism is perhaps the most ingenious form of depreciation. The horrified imagination of piety is free to fill in the “ blank ” accord­ ing to the instant movement of the spirit. Then it has at least a suggestion of swearing. It sounds like a polite or fastidious form of “ damned Atheism,” or even ■one of those stronger expletives which are so common in the streets of Christian cities. Yes, “ blank Atheism ” is distinctly good, and may be recommended to the average apologists of religion, who might blunder into obvious bad language if left to their own resources. When one comes to think of it, however, it is per­ fectly clear that Atheism is only “ blank ” in the sense that it is not Theism. Atheists dispense with what they regard as fictions, but they retain what they (and every­ body else, for that matter) regard as facts. They dismiss dreams, but .they cling to realities. They roam the ■ earth, though they believe in no hell under it. They admire the ever-shifting panorama of the sky, though they believe in no heaven above it. They breathe the universal air, though they do not believe it is peopled with invisible spirits. All that anyone is sure of is theirs. The “ blank ” in their minds and lives only relates to the unknown, the incomprehensible, and perhaps the impossible. What is it that the Theist knows and the Atheist does not know? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. To the �greatest minds, as well as the smallest, God is at the best an inference ; and the doctrine of a future life can only be verified (if at all) by dying. In this world, there­ fore, and on this side of death, the Atheist has, or may have, as much information as any religionist. Nor has he fewer sources of enjoyment, or fewer means of per­ sonal development and elevation, or fewer opportunities -of social usefulness. The “ blank ” only means that he does not burden his mind with the contradictory fancies of theology. He objects to wasting his time in trying to find the value of the infinite X. And he has learnt from history that the pursuit of such chimeras has pro­ duced a very decided “ blank ”—as far as secular science and civilisation are concerned—in the minds and lives of many men of genius, and of whole societies of inferior mortals. �SOME PUBLICATIONS BY G. W. FOOTE. Bible Romances. Cloth. 160 pp. 2s. Bible Heroes. 200 pp. Cloth. 2S. 6d. Bible Handbook Paper Covers, is. 6d, Cloth, 2s. 6d. The Book of God In the Light of the Higher Criticism. Paper, is. Cloth, 2s. Flowers of Freethought. FIRST AND SECOND SERIES. Cloth, 2s, 6d. (each). Scores of Essays and Articles on a vast variety of Freethought Topics. Crimes of Christianity. Hundreds of References to Standard Authorities. Cloth, 2S. 6d. Theism or Atheism? Public Debate with Rev. W. T. Lee. Boards, is. Christianity and Secularism. Public Debate with Rev. Dr. McCann. Paper Covers, is. Cloth, is. 6d. Comic Sermons & other Fantasias Paper Covers, 8d. Darwin on God. Paper Covers, 6d. London : The Freethought Publishing Company, Ltd.. 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C. ** A � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: Selective list of author's other works on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Limited Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1902 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N268 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Agnosticism Charles Bradlaugh George Jacob Holyoake NSS Robert Green Ingersoll Thomas Henry Huxley https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/24c34cd4c1b095f5732418f32019beec.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=dd%7Ex-PfM5aPgID9nS5tPRwgcguIC2KAU74IpVP8bxANaCub9D-paAD09-K7-ZRFQIRJI1qrRnmzNG8fkDPwHn-j9PX%7EothRt7EJRWbMCGTxhfPZlai%7EWDbJ8Vbk-VzEHtV%7EdRPrhcoackXLiYX4np2GPzk0LGaRL79DqPBoIFKMXOFEU1TGZJJd%7E5BYAKdO-PziEcGUsuUU24r9V0e5Jnqacz6pbU1s-Y%7ExNb604-Os8AZKgGDqmqNO8sWNiKEAKS4pRU9sRnVuCBE7WbLAg-Y4ieiRlh4h3HzyqjLQmZMJoS1jEuavJ9KzijXWmsPzNBGNH6LRThExE3bMNeZQj3A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c96d9f8f18e233e5b3284b4df50422e9 PDF Text Text BELIEFS OF UNBELIEVERS. A * LEOTU«E DELIVERED BY THE . > REV. 0. B. FROTHINGHAM, IN BOSTON, U.S. > PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. ��THE BELIEFS OF UNBELIEVERS. ----- —-----N a Swedenborgian book written thirty years ago on the inspiration of the Bible, one finds a descrip­ tion, copied from an official report made to the govern­ ment by a Mr James, of a “ horrid desert” occupying hundreds of square miles of the territory between the Mississippi river and the Rocky Mountains. The picture of this desolate waste, with its unsightly and repulsivevegetable growths, its swarming locusts (on which the Mississippi hawk swooped and fed), its venomous and enormous snakes, is a thing to haunt the reader’s dreams. But now through this region the Pacific Railroad runs, and one steams away through the golden, far-off West, looking vainly from rear plat­ forms of cars for this land of darkness and the shadow of death, and finding instead a region capable of sup­ porting an immense agricultural population, the future site of pleasant homes. The great American desert is a myth. Similar accounts have been handed down to us of intellectual and moral deserts in Europe and elsewhere—great spaces of territory or of time, covered with the prickly thorns of disbelief, cursed with poison­ ous vegetable growths, infested with deadly serpents, made hideous by unclean animals, awful with the dark flappings of demoniac wings. Such a district the Roman empire before the coming of Christ was long supposed to have been; and it is the more liberal scholarship of our own generation which has shown it I �t 4 Beliefs of Unbelievers. to us in fairer colours—taught us that then and there, * even, men hoped, and trusted, and prayed, and believed, ' and endeavoured, and attained—that the empire had soinething to bestow on Christianity, as well as Chris­ tianity on the empire—that the time and state were neither worse nor better than they should have been, but lay directly in the track of historic progress. We know that human nature exhibited there all its attri­ butes, its best as well as its worst; that it produced sages, reformers, and saints; grew philosophers by the dozen ; noble men and women by the score; that it rectified laws, remedied abuses, restrained crime, re» * ,'A buked sin, and in the usual way pushed itself out into the light and atmosphere of virtue. Renan makes it pretty clear that the middle of the second century, so long regarded as given over to the devil, was neither worse nor better than it ought to have been, and Lecky shows that the Roman empire neither experienced con­ version nor needed it. One by one the deserts are dis­ closed in their native fertility, and the shapes of moral grandeur are revealed in spots where nothing was r ’’;. supposed able to exist. In like manner a beam or two of illumination may well be thrown into the dreaded shadow-land of so-called infidelity, by bringing to the light of day the beliefs of the unbelievers. With the worst side of infidelity the church-going world is familiar enough. It will be allowable, to day, to pre­ sent the best side of it. But nothing shall be unfairly extenuated or exaggerated, since the only thing worth our having is the truth. In every age of Christendom there have been men whom the church named “ infidels,” and thrust down into the abyss of moral degradation. The oldest of these are forgotten. The only ones now actively ana­ thematised lived within the last hundred years, and owe the blackness of their reputation to the assaults or superstitions that still are powerful, and the dogmas that are still supreme. The names of Chubb, Toland, L . �The Beliefs oj Unbelievers. Tindal, of Herbert of Cherbury, Shaftesbury, and Bolingbroke, though seldom, spoken now, are men­ tioned, when they are mentioned, with scorn and horror. The names of Voltaire and Rousseau recall at once sermons and verdicts that our own ears have heard. The memory of Thomas Paine is still a stench in our nostrils, though he has been dead sixty years— so deep a stamp of damnation the church fixed on him. Even a man as well intentioned as Adam Storey Farrar, who must have studied his themes for himself, falls into the vulgar slang of the pulpit when speaking of these men who dared to reject the prevailing beliefs of Chris­ tendom. It will be years before the grass will be al­ lowed to grow green on their graves. Disbelievers they were. He claimed for them that honour. It is their title to immortality. Doubtless they were deniers, infidels, if you will. They made short work of creed and catechism, of sacrament and priest, of tradition and formula. Miraculous revelation, inspired Bible, authoritative dogma, dying Gods and atoning Saviours, infallible apostles and churches founded by the Holy Ghost, ecclesiastical heavens and hells, with other fic­ tions, their minds would not harbour. They criticised mercilessly the drama of the redemption, and spoke more roughly than wisely of the great mysteries of the Godhead. But, after their fashion, they were great believers. In the interest of faith they doubted; in the interest of faith they denied. Their nay was a backhanded method of pronouncing “ yea.” They were after the truth, and supposed themselves to be removing a rubbish-pile to reach it. Toland, whose “ Christianity not Mysterious” was condemned to the flames by the Irish Parliament, while the author fled for protection to England, professed himself sincerely attached to the pure religion of Jesus, and anxious to exhibit it free from the corruptions of after times. So Thomas Paine wrote his “Age of Reason” as a check to the professors of French Atheism. One author in �6 The Beliefs of Unbelievers. 1646 enumerates 180 “flagrant heresies,” one of which was: “ That we may walk with God as well as the patriarchs.” These unbeliefs were born of the spirit of the age. It was a time of terrible shakings. The axe had fallen on the neck of a king, and the halberd had smitten the images of the saints. Scarcely an authority stood fast, and not one was unchallenged. The infidels felt this spirit first. Fidelity to its call was their faith. They believed in the sovereignty of reason, the rights of the individual conscience. They had that faith in human nature which is the faith of faiths. It is a faith hard to hold ; and these infidels found it so in their time. If anything is clear, it is that faith is large in propor­ tion as it dares to put things to the proof. Fear and laziness can accept beliefs ; only trust and courage will question them. To reject consecrated opinions demands a consecrated mind—at all events, the moving impulse to such rejection is faith—faith in reason ; faith in the mind’s ability to attain truth; faith in the power of thought, in the priceless worth of knowledge. The great sceptic must be a great believer. None have so magnificently affirmed as those who have audaciously denied; none so devoutly trusted as they who have sturdily protested. Not willingly do good men under­ mine deep-planted beliefs or throw precious hopes away. Small pleasure does it give to noble minds to pull down roofs beneath which for ages people have found shelter. If they are indifferent to others’ sorrow they must have some thought for themselves. Is there pleasure in having ill-will, hate, persecution, in order that they may belittle the world and themselves ? Is it such a privilege to be without faith in the world that men are willing to lay down their lives for it ? Is it true, as I read lately on a sarcastic page, that “ the most advanced thinker of our times takes an enlight­ ened delight in his father, the monkey ? When he has sunk his pedigree as man and adopted as family- �The Beliefs of Unbelievers. 7 tree a procession of baboons, superior enlightenment radiates from his very person, and his place of honour is fixed in the illuminated brotherhood.” I know of none who profess such a creed, but if there be any such, what martyrs so devoted as they, who are willing to abrogate humanity in the cause of knowledge, and to immolate their immortal being on the altar of creative law ! The great provers have dared to prove because they were sure that their proving must result in the establishment of truth. The beliefs of the unbelievers, being fundamental, are few. The creed of the infidel is short, but few nobler words have been written than some of the utter­ ances of Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, and other English infidels. Francis W. Newman’s creed is: “God is a righteous governor, who loves the righteous, and an­ swers prayers for righteous men;” but this may be abbreviated by omitting the last clause. Speaking more particularly of some of the half-forgotten English infidels, the creed of Herbert of Cherbury was a uni­ versal religion implanted in the minds of all men; Charles Blount’s that God was to be worshipped by piety alone ; Tindal asserted the immutability of God and the perfection of this law; Lord Shaftesbury opposed the sensational philosophy of Locke, and main­ tained the existence of an immutable principle of faith and duty in the breast; Anthony Collins received a letter from Locke, in which occurs this sentence:— “ Believe it, my good friend, to love truth for truth’s sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world and the seedplot of all other virtues; and if I mistake not, you have as much of it as I ever met with in anybody;” Thomas Chubb referred Christianity, like any other religion, to the law written on the heart; Bollingbroke taught belief in the existence of a supreme being of infinite wisdom and power. In England infidelity planted itself on reason and common-sense, stood by the broad facts of nature, maintained the unity * ♦ �8 The Beliefs of Unbelievers. of God, the order of the world, and the welfare of all creatures in it. French infidelity was of a different cast, for it was born of different experiences. The French infidel was by necessity a revolutionist. France had neither free press, free parliament, nor free debates. There were no public meetings and no discussions. A government decree forbade the publication of any book in which questions of government were discussed ; another made it a capital offence to write a book likely to excite the public mind; a third denounced the punishment of death against any one who spoke of matters of finance or who attacked religion. Besides the worship of reason and the search for truth, it was a fiery and pas­ sionate protest against injustice. There was no free­ dom in the France of Voltaire’s time. Almost every French writer of that epoch, whose writings have survived the age in which they were produced, suffered fine or imprisonment, or the suppression of his works. Voltaire was again and again imprisoned. Rousseau was exiled, and his works publicly burned. The whole intellect of France, thus thwarted, insulted, goaded to madness, rose in insurrection against the government. But the only hopeful way of assailing government was to assail the church. Religion was weak in comparison with royalty. Divinity hedged the king but not the priest. The clergy had greatly degenerated in charac­ ter, and had forfeited by their hypocrisy the respect even of the immoral. Thus the church offered the first point to the attack of the outraged genius of France. That attack was too headlong and furious ; the church recovered from it and heaped infamy on the names of its enemies. But that offal-heap is disappearing, and we see now that even these sinners lived and died in the faith. Their courage was kindled at the upper and not the nether fires. The love of truth and of humanity constrained them, and their foes were dog­ matism and superstition. �The Beliefs of Unbelievers. 9 One cannot do justice to the faith of these men by a bare enumeration of their religious opinions ; but it is interesting to know that Voltaire believed in a per­ sonal God and trusted in immortality. The inscription on his tomb—“ He combatted the Atheists ”—wears an impressive look. I read Voltaire’s confession of faith in sentences scattered all over his pages, which, written most of them in heart’s blood, attest the fact that this terrible infidel had a soul of faith great enough to save him. It saved many beside. The soul of Voltaire quickens France to-day, a soul of re­ volution, but of regeneration as well. The inspiration of Diderot was the spirit of intelligence, not the spirit of unbelief. His atheism was the protest of a glowing heart against a freezing divinity. His belief in a great God instead of a little one. Can any good thing be urged for materialists like Helvetius, or atheists like Dr Holback ? Their articles of faith were indeed few. They rose in such wrath against the church that they struck away the last vestige of religion, leaving neither God nor immortality. Man was for them an ingenious piece of mechanism—the universe a machine. But they taught an obedience to the laws of nature, which, if fully carried out, would almost make God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Sensible men have done talking about the infidelity of Rousseau—the apostle of sentiment in religion, the prophet of the conscience, the passionate eulogist of Jesus. The sen­ timentalists win glory to-day by their repetitions of his thoughts on the absolute goodness of God and the large hospitalities of heaven. Our republican state is not more indebted to him for its idea of man than is our church for its idea of deity. We come to Tom Paine—his name was Thomas, but that name being Christian is not yet given him by respectable people—Tom Paine, “ the foul-mouthed infidel,” the “ ribald blasphemer,” “ the man of three countries, and disowned by all-—English in his deism. �io The Beliefs of Unbelievers. American in. his radicalism, French in his scoffing temper,” the hugbear of the priest, the anti-Christ of the preacher. They that deny to him beliefs have never read his writings—they that refuse to him a faith must explain his heroism as they can. The “ Age of Reason,” dreadful book, which all revile because none read it, opens with this statement: “I believe in one God, and no more ; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.” “The world my country; to do good my religion,” was this unbeliever’s motto ; and to him we owe this exquisite definition: “ Re­ ligion is man bringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart.” There was a soul of faith in him ; and in these days he would take rank with our beloved Theodore Parker. Character was the test of conviction, and these unbelievers must be judged by their acts. They were not saints, and very few men are. Their character would compare favourably with any of the so-called believers of their age. There were few to speak a word for the atheist Diderot; yet for a few such athe­ ists the church would not be made worse. Clergymen had copied the small virtues of Voltaire, multiplied them by ten, and perfumed them with asafetida, while his great virtues were beyond their comprehension. The prominent traits of Paine’s character were bene­ volence, tenderness to the weak, and hatred of wrong and oppression. When we test the faiths of our un­ believers by their works, we find them men, like the rest of us, sharing the faults, sometimes the vices, of their times, but all had a certain nobility of soul, and some were heroes. Lord Barrington speaks of “ the virtuous and serious deists ” of his time. Taylor calls Herbert of Cherbury “ a man of religious mind.” Sir James M'Intosh describes Shaftesbury as “ a man of �The Beliefs of Unbelievers. 11 many excellent qualities; temperate, chaste, honest, and a lover of his country.” “ The principal traits in the character of Voltaire,” says Jules Barin, “ were benevolence, tenderness to the weak, hatred of wrong and oppression.” Indeed Voltaire’s grand acts of heroism are well known to all who have read anything about him— his devoted efforts to obtain a reversal of the sentence against the family of Jean Calas—victim at once of sanguinary superstitions and brutal laws— an effort which lasted three years, “ during all which time,” he declares, “ I reproached myself with every smile as if it were guilt ”—was only one of his selfsacrificing attempts to .aid the weak and oppressed. We find him paying the debts of the poor, restoring the fallen fortunes of one and another, making himself a benevolent providence wherever he found suffering. Surely at the end he could say, “ I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith.” The new day-spring that is coming over the hills has reached even the low grave of Thomas Paine, and is covering it with flowers. The foul spectres that gathered there no longer appear to those that have eyes to see. Every true American should know at least something of the great qualities of Thomas Paine. Every true American should know that it was he who struck the key-note of the Revolution by his “ Common Sense.” Every true American should know that his. “ Crisis,” written in an hour of extreme discourage­ ment, electrified the army, put a soul into the country, and was worth to the failing cause of independence more than an army with banners. His first sentence, “ These are the times that try men’s souls,” is still the patriot’s battle-cry in the last struggle. Every true American should know and should love to remember that when these two publications were having an enormous sale—the demand for the former reaching not less than 100,000 copies, and both together offered to the author profits that would have made him rich— �12 The Beliefs of Unbelievers. that man, poor and overworked, refused a cent of re­ muneration for his toil, and, like a prince, nay, rather like a true friend of man, freely gave the copyright to every State in the Union. Every true American should know and delight to tell how Thomas Paine, in his period of public favour and of intimate friendship with the founders of the government, declined to accept any place or office of emolument, saying, “ I must be in everything, as I have ever been, a disinterested volunteer. My proper sphere of action is on the com­ mon floor of citizenship, and to honest men I give my hand and my heart freely.” Every true American should know and should not forget that when the State of Virginia made a large claim on the general government for lands, Thomas Paine opposed the claim as unreasonable and unjust, though at that very time there was a resolution before the Legislature of Virginia to appropriate to him a handsome sum of money for services rendered. He knew it when he wrote. He knew what would be the effect of his writing ; but not for any private considerations would he hold back his protest. Every true American will be glad to know that Paine, though an Englishman, had such love for republican institutions that he declared he would rather see his horse “ Button ” eating the grass of Bordentown or Morrisania than see all the pomp and show of Europe. No private character has been more foully calumni­ ated in the name of Gfod than Thomas Paine’s. Dead now for more than sixty years, few people care, per­ haps, whether he was slandered or not j but, speaking as a historian alone, one would be justified in demand­ ing attention to a fully detailed vindication of this name, so remarkable in our own annals. Speaking not as a historian, but as a free-religionist, surely one may be allowed a brief space wherein to show that infidels had their virtues as well as their beliefs ; that the territory occupied by the unbelievers is not a �The Beliefs of Unbelievers. 13 barren desert, bnt a fruitful domain wherein the humanities dwell and the angels sing. All the gravest charges against Paine have been utterly disproved, and have fallen to the ground. We have left, the memory of a man full of zeal for God and for humanity—not a saint, indeed, but surely not a sinner above all who dwelt in Jerusalem. He drank more brandy than was wise, or would now he deemed dignified, but the eminent Christians of his time more than kept him company. He was no dandy, but is dandyism reckoned an apostolic grace ? He used snuff, but is snuff-taking so much more heinous than smoking, which is said to be a clerical weakness, that it makes all the difference between the believer and the infidel? He lost his temper sometimes, but what amount of orthodoxy will make it sure that a good man's temper shall never fail ? There were magnificent moments in this much maligned life. It was one of them when the French Assembly met, to order the execution of Louis XVI., and Thomas Paine protested in the name of liberty against the deed. “ Destroy the king,” he cried, “but save the man. Strike the crown, but spare the heart.” The members, in a rage, would not believe their ears. “ These are not the words of Thomas Paine,” resounded from every side of the chamber. “They are my words,” said the undaunted man. But they cost the hero his reputation, and came near costing him his life. Ah, what do we not owe to the few who have had the courage to disbelieve ! The men who bore hard names through life, and after death had harder names piled like stones over their memories ! The men who lived solitary and misunderstood, who were driven by the spirit into the wilderness ; who were called infidels because they believed more than their neighbours; and heretics because they chose the painful pursuit of truth in preference to the idle luxury of traditional opinion; and atheists because they rested on a God so �14 The Beliefs of Unbelievers. large that the vulgar could not see his outline; and image breakers because they adored the unseen Spirit; and deniers of the Christ because they affirmed the Eternal Word ! What do we not owe them, who went about shaking their heads, and murmuring no with their lips, their hearts all the while saying yes to the immortals 1 They, after all, are the builders of our most splendid beliefs. Almost all our rational faiths we must thank them for, liberators that they are ! It is they who have hunted the old devil from the high­ ways and byways of creation. To them we owe deliverance from witchcraft, priestcraft, and the mani­ fold shapes of superstition. They have taught us to read the Bible with open eyes. They have interpreted the sweet humanity of Jesus. Who but they have practically taught us the preciousness of the eternal life, have rescued us from the tyranny of creeds, and purchased with their blood the soul-freedom which is our birthright ? We will cry with Erasmus : “ Holy Socrates, pray for us.” We will say with Schleiermacher: “Join me in offering a lock of hair to the shade of the rejected Saint Spinoza. Full of religion was he j and full of the Holy Ghost.” And if there were a louder voice calling on us to lay tears, vows, and purposes on the graves of all faithful infidels and be­ lieving unbelievers, we would say amen and amen. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The beliefs of unbelievers: a lecture Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Frothingham, Octavius Brooks Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. A lecture delivered in Boston on January 8th 1871. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5467 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism 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 beliefs of unbelievers: 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 Agnosticism Conway Tracts Unitarianism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8afc5440a07d4b55795692d73788f5ac.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=cZ6HQ9UFn6rydKZy80eYjbwkTfdg0gDND9L7bEj8fHW6ez5Tbpg8x2WVw48zlOpcx9Lur0HZiVU3sSsUtL7t%7E4pkW%7EwptBY0EJIjsTA0FAGEbm%7EICtMgpDxjNdfBIkiGQd84M5y-MOwaOxYanvhfYjlGedn3t3ad-ZKC10VQMayptb1je-IydjMyyYv5OGvbH51fotG6yYp%7ERCjDxvRs6Pz4jqYzLHz5TBHlkzTV9hgRFm1fiUY0w-feLta6Cl6znV6INshgo0eAYcCpLQLTZsapf0wwttAQTsQldAZ1RmO1DM42TlMCDMD8bbH-0xirOV9uPUpJ3rUvijI4DbUtjA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 11b6330c5d6cb6ffdd7805bffae495d6 PDF Text Text No. 2, “Miracles Weighed in the^alance,” ready shortly. STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM.—No. I. national secular society ECCE DEUS! I OR, A NEW GOD. J“-' 7 by F. J. GOULD. ■O IT IS BETTER TO DREAM OF A NOBLE GOD THAN TO BELIEVE IN A BAD ONE. ’ If London : WATTS & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St, Price One Penny. ��ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. If an almighty and supremely good God were to reveal himself to mankind to-day, all Scepticism would vanish away by to-morrow. The world stands in sore need of Almighty Justice and Almighty Love. Oppressed nations, trembling slaves, the fatherless and widow, the leper, the cripple and the blind, the unhappy Lazarus that lies at the gate of society : all these murmur a cease­ less prayer for a God. He never answers. “ Peradven­ ture,” like ancient Baal, “ He sleepeth and must be awaked.” What man or woman can read Oliver Gold­ smith’s description of the deserted village without feeling the dint of pity in his heart ? But what is a deserted village compared with an unhappy world, upon which, one might almost think, the stars have looked for ages with compassionate eyes, because our struggling race has lived and bled and wept and died, and never a God stepped down from heaven to offer one cup of water, one word of hope, one smile of love, one gift of grace. Never ? You, Christian reader, will perhaps thrust a Bible into my hands, and assure me that God has indeed visited us and given us living water, eternal hope, infinite love, and ineffable grace. Ah, if that were true, I should not need to pore over the pages of a book to find God. He would meet me face to face in every nook and cranny of this broad world, every bush would blaze with His glory, and every human countenance reflect His beauty. The Christian believes in a God; the Sceptic yearns for one. Then why, with this desire possessing his heart, will not the unbelieving Sceptic kneel beside the believing Christian, and adore the same God ? Because �2 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. the God of the Bible is lacking in dignity and nobility, lacking in generosity and love, lacking in wisdom and power. Dignity, nobility, generosity, love, wisdom, power—these are, or should be, the marks of a. great man; how much more, then, of a great God? The Christian God eats, He drinks, He smells, He laughs to scorn, He mocks, He roars, He utters oaths, He gesti­ culates : this is not dignity and nobility. The Christian God is jealous, He is angry, He is furious, He hates, He curses, He executes vengeance, He drowns, He burns, He starves, He smites, He desolates, He rains down fire from heaven, He opens fatal chasms in the earth, He feeds the perpetual fire of Hell: this is not generosity and love. The Christian God is continually thwarted and hindered by the Devil: this is not wisdom and power. Search the Scriptures, and see whether these things be so or not. Perhaps you reply that they are merely figurative expressions, pictures, or rough poems, furnishing a kind of ladder by which man may climb up to a knowledge of God. Very well; I agree that, if God is to be apprehended at all by the human mind, it must be by means of figures and symbols. But why not choose the higher, the more graceful, the more stately symbols—symbols which stand for the grander, and not the baser, side of man’s nature? Jealousy, and fury, and hatred are feelings of the baser sort, and should not therefore enter into our conception of God. Eating and drinking are necessities to the most imperious monarch or the most saintly prophet; but when we think of a great man we leave his eating and drinking quite out of account, and fix our eyes upon far loftier acts and qualities. Our thought of God should be, so to speak, all of gold. The image should be free from common and unclean iron and clay; free from all that is brutal and vulgar. Our conception of God should be, like the Passover Lamb, without spot or blemish; without passion, without vengeance, without harshness, without grossness; full of dignity, love, wisdom, and power. Take up the Bible and consider this brief history of the Christian God:—He made the universe, the earth, and man ; and all was apparently fair and good. Adam and the woman ate— �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 3 “ Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world and all our woe. ” The miserable pair were exiled from Eden, the Tempter was cursed, the earth was cursed, murder was com­ mitted, Cain was cursed, the whole human race was destroyed except eight persons. God chose Abra­ ham and his posterity to be a peculiar and sacred people; He burned Sodom and Gomorrha to the ground, He- "plagued the Egyptians and ruined their country, He harried the sacred people in the desert with pestilence, earthquake, fire, and vipers ; He smote the seven nations of Canaan with hailstones and the sword, annihilated the Amalekites, scourged the Israelites with war, sickness, and famine ; blasted a magnificent army of Assyrians in one night; sent His people into slavery, and raised up prophets who cried woe and desolation upon every land and nation under the sun. And still, after all these ghastly scenes of suffering and penance, Satan was unconquered, and still stood—“ Like Teneriffe or Atlas unremoved.” God became man; He was derided, insulted, rejected, crucified; He proclaimed salvation to mankind, but chose only a fraction of the race, threatened to consume the world in a final fiery catastrophe, and closed His revelation with a book full of fearful imprecations, vol­ canic horrors, volumes of smoke from the accursed Abyss and the livid flames of Hell. If you seek the cause of unbelief, study this history of the Christian God, for the cause is there. The Bible is the mother of Scepticism. Some Christian may reply : “ The record of human grief is indeed terrible; but, after all, the course and constitution of Nature itself would lead us to expect the infliction of pain. If you make mutiny against the laws of Nature, you will rue your disobedience; as, for example, if you are a gluttonous man, you will suffer the throes of indigestion ; if a wine-bibber, the horrors of delirium tremens. The God of Nature is the God of the Bible. Hence the Bible record of his dealings with man reflects the method of Nature.” If this be so, the matter is not mended, unless, with Pope, we have that �4 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. large faith which maintains “Whatever is is right.”' Every drop of an honest man’s blood cries out indig­ nantly that the constitution of things is not right; that Nature oftentimes does us wrong, and that it is our duty, at a thousand different points, to resist Nature, and wring justice from her unkind and reluctant hands. This is the verdict of Mr. John Stuart Mill. “ Nature,” he says in his well-known essay on that subject, “ is. replete with everything which, when committed by human beings, is most worthy of abhorrence,” and “ anyone who endeavoured in his actions to imitate the natural course of things would be universally seen and acknowledged to be the wickedest of men.” And he instances, among other illustrations, that “ no human being ever comes into the world but another human being is literally stretched on the rack for hours or days, not unfrequently issuing in death.” If, then, the God of the Bible is the God of Nature, He is doubly con­ demned. I, as a Sceptic, refuse to bow the knee to either, because both are unmerciful and unrighteous. Cannot I, cannot you, imagine a happier constitution of Nature ? Ought not you and I to toil and wrestle that we may hasten the brighter day ? If God is the Author of Nature, then every effort of man to reform Nature isa stroke of a blasphemous hammer against the handi­ work of God. To suggest that the constitution of Nature is not perfectly wise and just must also be a sin. The learned Bishop Butler severely condemns any such suggestion as “ vain and idle speculations,” “ folly and extravagance.” Of course, if you read his famous “ Analogy,” you will see that his grand aim is to excuse the blots on the Bible by pointing to the bloodstains which Nature has left on the earth. In spite of Bishop Butler’s frowns, I invite you to imagine a God worthier of worship than the God he worshipped, and whom he was obliged to defend. Bear with me while I indulge in a “ vain and idle speculation.” Let me create for you the image of a New God. It will at least make clear to you what kind of divine being the unbeliever would willingly render homage to, and why his heart will not do obeisance to the God of Christianity. Suppose, then, the great Epiphany or Manifestation of �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 5 the New God has just taken place. He surveys man and Nature, and is unable to pronounce them “ very good.” Will He weep as Christ wept over the doomed Jerusalem ? Nay, it is not for infinite love, wisdom, and power to weep. It is the work of a God to relieve, not to weep ; and He will not rest on the Sabbath or any other day until universal salvation is an accomplished fact. Delay is not His attribute. God’s mill will not grind slowly. He will fulfil the promise which has so long mocked the world,—“ The God of Peace shall "bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” His first act will be to destroy the Devil, not in a long succession of battles, but at once and forever. Why not ? Is there any advantage to be gained by prolonging the struggle ? Is any amusement to be found in watching the combat between God and Satan, as if it were a brilliant tourna­ ment, and the more the rivals clash their arms, the more loudly the spectators applaud ? Such a combat might be sport to immortal and ethereal beings ; but alas ! it is 'death to us. The divine voice will resound through the universe : “ I am God, and there is none else.” He will have no divided sovereignty. He will tolerate no prince of darkness. Every world he creates will be an Eden, in which no serpent can ever leave its fatal trail. If the Almighty Power of God embraces all things, the Devil can have no resting-place for the sole of his foot. Do you believe that divine goodness could fashion an author of evil, and breathe the breath of life into the monster’s nostrils ? Do you believe infinite love would affix His divine seal to a charter which gave Satan the lordship over horror, pain, and sin ? This would be indeed the basest of Infidelity. To believe in a Devil is to revile God, to blaspheme His name ; it is, in effect, to deny His existence. Our new God, then, will imme­ diately and finally annihilate the Devil.* When God surveys the world, He will regard all men and women as his sons and daughters. He will have no * It is instructive to note how, on the approach of the Sceptic, Christian apologists take the greatest pains to conceal the Devil from view. Let the reader take the trouble to search through Butler’s “ Analogy ” for allusions to the Devil, and he will probably t>e astonished at the result. �6 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. chosen people, no favourite nation. He will never say y “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” There shall be no Jews and Gentiles. There shall be no saved and unsaved. There shall be no blessed and cursed. There shall be no heirs of the kingdom and outcasts in darkness. There shall be no sheep and goats; no bulls of Bashan in the pasture of God j no wandering stars in His firmament; no tares in His field. There shall be no Heaven and Hell. The pitiless sentence, “ Depart from me,” will never be pronounced. Every creature whose breast can feel a pang of sorrow, or whose eye can light up with a ray of gladness, shall be the child of God. If God were to come among us to-day, He would find (alas ! how easily they are found) the staggering drunkard, the burglar, the profligate, the swindler, the tyrant, the hypocrite, the Pharisee. From these He will not hide His face ; He will interpose no pillar of cloud. Their names shall not be blotted from His Book of Life. With irresistible winsomeness He will gain their hearts. Before many days elapse they will respond to His smile, and a voice from the eternal Holy of Holies will say : “ These are my beloved children, in whom I am well pleased.” Not one single square inch of the globe will be left in possession of the powers of dark­ ness, not one single creature left neglected. Else, if it were possible for God to summon a general assembly of the human race, and, with the innumerable multitude before him, to ask, “ Is there, in the whole world, one being who is not good and happy ?” and if, out of some dim forgotten corner, one poor wretch could creep forth in his rags and answer, “ Yes ; I, and I only, am still sinful and still sad,” that one feeble reply would be sufficient to impeach the wisdom of the Creator! Our new God will alter that system which is the admiration of the theologians ; He will alter the “ course and constitution of Nature.” The black clouds may still gather in the sky, the thunder crash, and the light­ ning glitter but the lightning and the hail will never blast the life of man or beast. No doubt the Christian reader will exclaim : “ What an absurd world you are creating, one in which lightning will not harm, fire will not burn, water will not drown—an impossible world �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 7 altogether ” ! To which exclamation two replies may be made. (1) The Christian ought not merely to conceive of such changes in the constitution of nature; but, if he is sincere, he already believes these changes have on certain occasions actually been wrought. The God of the Bible handles the elements with the greatest freedom. A hundred men who attempted to arrest the prophet Elijah were struck by fire from Heaven ; but the light­ ning left Elijah unscathed. That is to say, God could guide the electric bolts in whichsoever direction He pleased. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were flung into Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, fire did not burn them. When Jesus and Peter walked on the sea of Galilee, water did not drown them. What God could do for a few individuals He could do for all. If you are a Christian, you have no right to say that God could not protect us from all possible dangers. You may object we should then be living in a world of miracles. Let it be so : what then? We should gain, and God could not lose. Miracles cost nothing to an Omnipo­ tent God. But (2) God could make the world happy without miracles. Let me again point the Christian to his Scrip­ tures. According to the Bible, God made the world perfect and good; but it is not usual to describe the process of creation as a miracle. The Bible also pro­ phesies a revolution in nature. “The wolf,”says Isaiah, “ shall dwell with the lamb ; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox ; and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.” This is indeed a miracle, that the animal tribes should be at peace with one another in the manner Isaiah describes. But surely it is not unlawful to imagine that God could have so ordered the system of nature when He first planned it that there should have been no necessity for bloodshed and warfare among the brutes. If He can do so at the �8 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. end of the world, He can do so at the beginning. But, if a God created the world at all, He created the various orders of animal life, man included, in such a lamentable fashion that there has ever since been going on among them a perpetual struggle for existence, in the course of which the weak succumb and the fittest survive. “ The survival of the fittest ”! The very phrase condemns either God’s power or God’s love. Why did He not make them all fit to survive—all rejoicing in His light, and all wandering unmolested in the boundless Paradise of His grace ? If you, as a Christian, dare to assert that God could not have done so, you are false to your own creed; you deny the omnipotence of the Being you worship. Our new God will possess the strength of a God as well as the name. We shall not need to excuse Him, and explain Him in elaborate books of apologies and analogies and evidences. All nature will praise Him and reveal Him. We shall never look at moon or stars, at sea or land, at animal or plant, at fowl or creeping things or fishes, or the hyssop that springeth out of the wall, without reading in them a charming bible. There will be no scene of horror to turn away from with a shudder. All creatures, and man himself, will find their food, and supply all their physical wants, without muti­ lating or destroying their fellow-creatures. No man, no beast, shall ever know the sight of blood. Earth shall never be stained by one drop. It shall never redden the soldier’s sword. The smell of the blood of bulls and goats will not please the nostrils of our God. He will not need to be reconciled to His children by the blood of the cross. His vesture will not be dipped in blood, nor will blood issue from His vengeful winepress. The blood of man will not be spilt by accident or disaster. God will endow man with such quickness of sense and thought as will put him on the alert against all perils, and will allow no perils to threaten him from which he cannot so guard himself. From natural dangers such as volcanoes and earthquakes, either man will be protected, or they will disappear from the economy of nature. The earth, no longer a valley of the shadow of death, will be a temple dedicated by God to the use and innocent �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 9 pleasure of man. We shall hear no more of “provi­ dential escapes.” What a ghastly conceit is that which leads the fiftieth man to thank God for his “ miraculous preservation,” while his forty-nine companions lie gaping iit Heaven, stricken down by a frightful death! No; under the sceptre of our God there will be no provi­ dential escapes, because there will be no providen­ tial calamities. All things will proceed with eternal harmony. Creation will mean beauty, and life will mean happiness. Love will twine flowers round the porch of -every man’s home. Smiles and laughter will turn daily toil into daily cheer. God will be glorified in the sports ■of children, the contentment of men and women, and the peace of all nature. There will be music in the stars, and joy in the whole earth. Such will be the story of every day so long as the world lasts. There will be no “ Infidelity ” then, for Infidelity could not live in such an atmosphere. Or, if it were possible that for one •brief moment a sceptical thought could enter the mind ■of man, and make him say in his heart “ There is no ‘God,” the next moment his own eyes, his own ears, would testify against him. God would hasten to unroll before him such splendour, art, and majesty in the world about him, above him and at his feet, that his scepticism would be crushed out for everlasting, and he would laugh as men laugh at a foolish dream. Or again, if it were possible that some Christian bishop or missionary, some theological waif, some strange survival from the nine­ teenth century, could address God, and appeal to Him to cast the Infidel into Hell, the Father of all might make this answer : “ Thou fool! if this man is an Infidel, he ■is so either from ignorance or from an evil heart. If from ignorance, the only remedy is knowledge. I must ■convince him by enlightening him. I must prove my existence to him by the unimpeachable witness of Nature. I, who gave him an ear, must cause him to hear the voice of Nature whispering the Divine secret. What knowledge could he derive from Hell-fire, except indeed this : that I who made him had power to torment him ? And if he is an Infidel by reason of an evil heart, then I must convince him by my incessant generosity and goodness. If, with his full faculties of mind and body, �io STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. he denies my existence, how can he be persuaded toreflect on the subject when his every limb is writhing in the pains of Hell ? He might indeed acknowledge the superiority of my strength. But what would that avail ?’ I, who gave him his being, should regard him as a failure. He, in his turn, would regard me as a devil.” The Christian believes in God and Hell: a startling and impossible contradiction. Every lost soul that passes through Hell-gates is an additional proof of God’s incapacity to rule the world. The God of the Bible asserts his authority by pointing to Hell. It is as if a physician should endeavour to convince us of his medical skill by showing us the graves of his patients. If God can do nothing more for the reformation of the wicked, it would be better to blot them out of existence alto­ gether than permit them to remain as tokens of his moral feebleness. Singular God ! while men wish to forget their failures, He takes pleasure in their contemplation. The kings of the earth like to be surrounded by captured banners and jewels, the trophies of victory. The King of Heaven chooses to gaze for all eternity upon the wretched spectacle of Hell. He burns men for their crimes; but in so doing He kindles a fire, in the fierce light of which all creation can read the story of His defeat. Our new God will reverse this policy. He will not rest satisfied with bringing salvation to earth. He will hear the cry of His children in Hell. They have heard that earth has been illuminated with bliss and peace; and they pray that Hell also may be blessed. The gates of Hell shall be broken down, and there shall come forth the mightiest, the strangest, the saddest, and yet the gladdest procession that mortal eyes have ever seen: thousands and millions, rank upon rank, army after army. Some of them have breathed the sulphurous air of Hell since the early days of our race : some began to breathe it only yesterday. Wise men are there, who dared to think the Bible was not worthy of a great God. Foolish men are there, whose foolishness the Bible never enlightened. Bad men are there, whose vices proved how often the Bible has failed to influence human nature. All come swarming back eagerly to the earth, amid cries of welcome and songs of rejoicing �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. II the wise to learn more wisdom, the foolish to become wise, the bad to become pure, and all to enjoy the privilege of every child of God, the pleasures of sweet Home. Our God will need no great white throne. His throne will be placed where he hears a cry of distress, a sob, a sigh j where he sees a pale cheek, a dim eye, a wasted hand : and there He will hold His royal court until the blush comes back to the cheek and brightness to the eye. Will He ask for temples erected to His honour ? If men delight to raise the tall cathedral, with its many spires and painted roof and rainbowed windows, He will not say them nay. But not one stone of the masonry shall be laid until the restoration of man is complete. He will not accept the tribute of costly churches and gilded altars while one single human being goes badly clothed, or badly shod, or badly fed. Our God will need no prayers ; for He will know what things we have need of. We shall say we are His children ; and that will beour whole prayer. He will dissolve all priesthoods. The very existence of a priesthood is a libel on the love of God. He will want no middlemen between Himself and the children whom He loves. How eagerly Christians press us to commit our soulsto the keeping of their God : a God who cannnot be trusted to preserve our bodies. The promises of the God of the Bible are tainted by a terrible suspicion. He promises men heavenly food; but He does not give them their daily bread. He promises them that they shall see scenes of ravishing beauty ; but many of them are born blind. He promises that they shall hear the songs of angels ; but many of them are born deaf. He promises that they shall walk along the burnished terraces of Heaven; and many of them are born cripples. He promises that they shall understand all mysteries ; and many of them are born with diseased brains. If He plays our bodies false, why should we surrender to Him our souls ? Our new God, on the con­ trary, will watch over the birth of each child. Wher­ ever, all over the wide globe, there is a cradle, there will God be ; shielding the babe’s pink face with the curtain of His everlasting tenderness, and soothing it with Divine �12 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. melodies. No stunted and deformed babe, no freak of nature, no puny and ricketty infant with the chill of death already glazing its hollow eyes, will ever enter the world. If such a God needed to be defended against a Sceptic, every child would furnish an argument from design in His favour. Its happy face, its sparkling eyes, and healthy limbs would tell more eloquently of a bene­ volent Creator than ten thousand times ten thousand priests. As the young generation grow up, they will find in a smiling and fertile earth a full supply for all their needs, not indeed to be obtained without labour, but by such honest and moderate and cheerful labour as will furnish pleasant exercise for the body and recreation for the mind. If a poet or a Socialist clairvoyant comes to us and prophesies a golden age like this, we smile, and reply that the picture is pretty, but the realisation impos­ sible. But how easy for God to accomplish! That which perhaps the human race will never be able to do, God could do in one day’s work. A joyous revolu­ tion would change the whole aspect of nature, and the chronicler of the Divine work would close the record with the simple words, “ And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Nor, in providing men with sound bodies, will God forget the sound mind, the intellect, the heart, or, if you like to call it so, the soul. Men ■will not catch each other by the coat-sleeves, and make commonplace inquiries about the state of each other’s ■souls. God will inspire every man’s heart. Men will not thirst for the water of life. They will thirst for know­ ledge, and God will satisfy their thirst. All over the earth men will unfurl the snow-white flag of peace. They will consider war not only a brutality, but an absurdity. Why should they go to war ? There will be no creeds to beget divisions among them. The names of Catholic and Protestant and Moslem and Buddhist will be forgotten. No commander-in-chief or army chaplain will blaspheme the name of our God by asking His aid in the task of cleaving skulls, or blacken­ ing the timbers of a homestead. When all men are the ■children of God, there will be no hatred between races. When the cup of all men’s happiness is full, they can .gain nothing by conquest. �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 13 Suppose it were possible for the Devil to rise again from the dead and visit this new paradise, would he plan another attack on the peace of mankind? Hopeless attempt 1 The fortress he once captured so readily would now be impregnable. Where could the Devil find a footing ? Vice cannot exist where the blood is pure and the mind has been taught to dwell on worthy sub­ jects. There can be no avarice where knowledge is counted the greatest riches, and knowledge is free to all “ without money and without price.” There can be no struggle for existence where all have enough. Satan would turn away in despair, and acknowledge that to wreck the virtue of such a world would require more subtlety than that of the Serpent, and more force than the crimson temptation of a forbidden fruit. Such, then, is the Divine Figure whose advent would dispel all Scepticism. It will be generally admitted that Christian society worships a quite other Deity in the God of the Bible. To that God we Agnostic dissenters are unable to take the oath of allegiance. The multi­ tudes of Christendom may sing their Te Deum to him, as the multitudes on the plan of Dura prostrated them­ selves before the proud image reared by the King of Babylon. We stand aloof, choosing rather to bear the reproach of heresy than to adore a God who is less noble than He whom our imagination can portray. Perhaps the day may come when all the throbbing forces of evolution in this mystic universe shall unite in one mighty effort and produce a living God worthy of our worship. From world to world, from star to star, from heaven to heaven, the tidings will fly, “ Unto us a God is born : a God who will not foretell a kingdom of peace and goodwill, but establish it now and forever.” Ah > then indeed we should burn our doubting books in the market-place and bend our stubborn knees in reverence. We, too, could raise a hymn as we looked at the new world through our tears. Is this a fancy ? Yes, it is a fancy; but it is better to dream of a noble God than to believe in a bad one. Let us close with a brief summary of the arguments which theologians have advanced in proof of the exist- �T4 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. cnce of God. Strange are their names. If only their value corresponded with their bulk ! z. The Ontological Argument.—We can form a clear idea of God as the Infinite and Perfect Being. To this idea we must attach the notion of existence; for we can clearly conceive God as existing, and whatever we can clearly conceive about anything must be an attribute of that thing. Hence existence is one of God’s perfec­ tions—that is, God exists. This astonishing argument is thus stated by Anselm (died 1109 a.d.) : “ We have a conception of a Being than whom there is none more perfect, the All-perfect one; but a Being than whom there is none more perfect cannot exist in the intelli­ gence only: he must also exist in reality. For let us suppose that he exists only in the intelligence. Then something greater than he can be thought--viz., this Being as existent, which is greater than the same Being non-existent. So that the very Being than whom a greater and more perfect cannot be thought is a Being than whom a greater and more perfect can be thought, which is an absurdity. There exists, therefore, both in the in­ telligence and in reality a Being than whom a more perfect cannot be thought, and this Being is God.” The same kind of discourse might be held about a horse, an ass, or a dragon; for, unless we consider it as existing, we could not think of the real or fancied creature at all. 2. The Cosmological Argument, which points out that " all things of which we have experience are contingent —that is, they are changeable; they are dependent on some other thing or things ; they do not contain in their own nature the necessity of existing; they are effects of some cause; and they can be imagined as ceasing to exist. But the universe is made up of all these contin­ gent things added together. Then the ground of its existence must be a substance which is not contingent, but whose existence is necessary and eternal. In other words, it is the Great First Cause or God.” If this be so, and God is the Great First Cause, the Infinite and Complete Being, where is there room for any finite thing, which is not God, to come into existence ? Why not, before such mysteries, keep silence with the Agnostic ? �ECCE DEUS ! OR, A NEW GOD. 15 3. The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design.—The universe, we are assured, bears the marks of an unseen but intelligent Designer. By natural means certain natural ends are accomplished. The eye sees; the ear hears ; and who can doubt that the eye was made to see, and the ear designed to hear ? Alas! who then designed the blind eye and the deaf ear? Who mingled pain with pleasure, and evil with good, in the cup of life ? Who designed the Devil ? In vain do Paley and all his school tell us of the exqui­ site build of a bird’s feather, or the nice mechanism of the human hand. Yes, yes ; but your pompous tele­ ology will not account for a broken heart, or the sor­ rowful sighing of the innocent prisoner. Perhaps indeed, as has been well pointed out by Mr. J. S. Mill, there may be a good God whose hands are partly tied by the cord of some awful, universal Fate. He would suppress wrong if He could. He will suppress it in some far-off victorious future. “ The only admissible moral theory of Creation,” says Mill, “ is that the Prin­ ciple of Good cannot at once and altogether subdue the powers of evil, either physical or moral; could not place mankind in a world free from the necessity of an incessant struggle with the maleficent powers, or make them always victorious in that struggle, but could and did make them capable of carrying on the fight with vigour and with progressively increasing success.” There is a chime of hope in that thought—a sweet, low music of faith. Only, if such is to be our creed, let us prattle no more of an “ Almighty God, all whose works praise Him, and all whose works are perfect.” 4. The Anthropological Argument, or the Witness of Man's Mind, Heart, and Conscience.—Above all others, Kant has insisted upon this. He regarded the idea of Duty, the inner voice of conscience that says “ Thou shalt ” and “ I ought,” as a clue to, a proof of, the Divine Being. Supposing this to be so, this sacred feeling of Duty, this moral index of the heart, will not point us to the God of the Bible. For when we read the story of his deeds, his destruction and his wrath, the conscience revolts, and exclaims: “ These things ought not to be.” And, let it be added, it can be �16 STEPPING-STONES TO AGNOSTICISM. shown, and has been shown in the works of Mill Spencer, and others, that the growth of the moral law can be explained without deriving it from supernatural revelation. God can only show Himself to us through the lattice of obscure arguments such as these, if He cannot incarnate Himself in a universe of concord and virtue, let us cease the weary search. No longer let us scour land and sea in quest of jewels hidden in the rainbow of Deity. The old creeds can no longer serve us. Yet let us not sit weeping beside the sepulchre of dead beliefs. The earth, which is not yet divine, may per­ haps be made so ; or, if our race is destined to expire without ever seeing the face of God, then let it die in the noble attempt to render earth a kingdom fit for His presence. . There is rich gold in the soil of earth. Much of it already glitters on the temple of civilisation, placed there by the hands of good men and women who went before us in the march of life. Every art, every triumph of thought, every gift of literature, every skilled device for healing and help, has been the work of man. This at least is true : that the world is diviner now than in the days of our forefathers. They, from their graves, call to us to make it yet more divine. t ��16 272 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free, <HE TRIAL OF THEISM THEISM: ACCUSED OF OBSTRUCTING SECULAR LIFE. re . BY G. J. HÒLYOAKE. Synopsis of Contents ;— , telstical Witnesses—The Conversion of Thomas Cooper ' Jj»e.Paleyan School—Testimonies Against the Argument Jn( Design—Clearness the Criterion of Truth—Understand­ ing a Condition of Belief—The Eternal Problem of Evil— ¡aliases of Theism—Difficulties of Theism—Theistical Neo4tions—Primitive Deities and Popular Defences—Cosmism j(fte Complement of Atheism—Impassioned Religion—Phi­ losophical Religion—Ingenious Theism—Prize Essay Piety .^-Contemptuous Religion—Carping Religion—Argumenta­ tive Religion—Evangelical Religion—Pantheistic Religion The Two Providences—Conscientious Scepticism—The•fetic Misconceptions—Theological Party Names—Atheism p'.n Incentive to Self-Help—Atheism Devoid of Irreverence ^■Reasoning ,°n Death—Unitarian Criticism of Secular platn^’P^es—Life Apart from Theism—Realities Beyond who . ■ i11 every Freethought Library. A masterly of Christianity. sL_______ J. ______________ -_____ .Bound in cloth, price 2s., by post 2s. 3d., ¿AGNOSTIC FIRST PRINCIPLES. Eeing a Critical Exposition of the Spencerian System of Thought, By ALBERT SIMMONS (Ignotus). With. Preface by Richard Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. “ This is a very able summary of Spencer’s philosophy, written for those who have not the opportunity to read or the ability to follow all that great thinker’s works. Mr. Simmons is an enthusiast, and he has evidently undertaken a labour of love............... A | careful and solid performance.”—Progress. Cheap Popular .Edition, price is. 6d., post free is. 9d., or bound in cloth 2s. 6d. post free, THOUGHTS ON SCIENCE, THEOLOGY, AND ETHICS. By JOHN WILSON, M.A. London : Watts & Go., 17, Johnson’s Court, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Ecce Deus! or: a new God Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gould, F.J. (Frederick James) [1855-1938] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Series title: Stepping-stones to agnosticism Series number: No. 1 Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Watts & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N288 G5080 Subject The topic of the resource God Agnosticism 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 (Ecce Deus! or: a new God), 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 Agnosticism God NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/70cf2bac7fdd57726d77172875d774ce.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Ty9dRsFAgKovXFiy4vn0G2%7E24zYgRwphqmItkeRZ7C58-4aapGqE1QsQjd4HU-HJpTTdPybhagSJPP1RvCCDdE2MYhN2G1S4M02QFDhtQ6rCwoVUU5OQjXEX89l8siqUTRGixi-M8zTgh8iF9%7E5z4vJ18vAppp2U-xi1rcdG3D0WV6OEn5rIGBWK-3cemVyxjVhsclCmEPO0FGg4xHwDaCK3HL6-e5beLY393c4diHibaqKABJ6-PkCQNER0UX76ibyLqFmW3vSClxh8Wz8L51No-1yQeot%7ESuJKs9hX6IEFRZ70--VyhSjbwuPp-cL9nbkuyVinxh4mVrN0l02wHw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 19b00fa9a7514ee527cfbe55c0d89161 PDF Text Text THE GODS1 AN ORATION BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. Price Sixpence. o'r; LONDON: rjq $ R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. $ ��B7 NATIONAL secular SOCIETY ORATION ON THE GODS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. ^onbau: R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1893. �LONDON : PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 14 CI.ERKENWELL GREEN, E.C �Oration on the Gods. “An Honest God is the Noblest Work of Man.’ Nearly every people have created a god, and the god has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved, and he was invariably found on the side of those in power. Each god was intensely patriotic, and detested all nations but his own. All these gods demanded praise, flattery, and worship. Most of them were pleased with sacrifice, and the smell of innocent blood has ever been con­ sidered a divine perfume. All these gods have insisted upon having a vast number of priests, and the priests have always insisted upon being supported by the people, and the principal business of these priests has been to boast about their god, and to insist that he could easily vanquish all the other gods put together These gods have been manufactured after number­ less models, and according to the most grotesque fashions. Some have a thousand arms, some a hundred heads, some are adorned with necklaces of living snakes, some are armed with clubs, some with sword and shield, some with bucklers, and some have wings as a cherub ; some were invisible, some would show themselves entire, and some would only show their backs ; some were jealous, some were foolish ; some turned themselves into men, some into swans, some into bulls, some into doves and some into Holy Ghosts, and made love to the beautiful daughters of men. Some were married—all ought to have been—and some were considered as old bachelors from all eternity. Some had children, and the children were turned into gods and worshipped as their fathers had been. Most of these gods were revengeful, savage, lustful, and �4 Oration on the Gods. ignorant. As they generally depended upon their priests for information, their ignorance can hardly excite our astonishment. These gods did not even know the shape of the worlds they had created, but supposed them perfectly fiat. Some thought the day could be lengthened by stopping the sun, that the blowing of horns could throw down the walls of a city, and all knew so little of the real nature of the people they had created, that they commanded the people to love them. Some were so ignorant as to suppose that man could believe just as he might desire, or as they might command, and that to be governed by observation, reason and experi­ ence is a most foul and damning sin. None of these gods could give a true account of the creation of this little earth. All were wofully deficient in geology and astronomy. As a rule they were most miserable legislators, and as executives, they were far inferior to the average of American presidents These deities have demanded the most abject and degrading obedience. In order to please them, man must lay his very face in the dust. Of course, they have always been partial to the people who created them, and have generally shown their partiality by assisting those people to rob and destroy others, and. to ravish their wives and daughters. Nothing is so pleasing to these gods as the butchery of unbelievers. Nothing so enrages them, even now, as to have someone deny their existence. Few nations have been'so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easy, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god-market was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms. These gods not only attended to the skies, but were supposed to interfere in all the affairs of men. They presided over everybody and everything. They attended to every department. All was supposed to be under their immediate control. Nothing was too small—nothing too large : the falling of sparrows, the flatulence of the people, and the motions of the planets were alike attended to by these industrious and observing deities. From their starry thrones they �Oration on the Gods. 5 frequently came to the earth for the purpose of imparting information to man. It is related of one, that he came amid thund erings and lightnings, in order to tell the people that they should not cook a kid in its mother’s milk. Some left their shining abodes to tell women that they should, or should not, have children—to inform a priest how to cut and wear his apron, and to give directions as to the proper manner of cleaning the intestines of a bird. When the people failed to worship one of these gods, or failed to feed and clothe his priests (which was much the same thing), he generally visited them with pestilence and famine. Sometimes he allowed some other nation to drag them into slavery—to sell their wives and children ; but generally he glutted his vengeance by murdering their firstborn. The priests always did their whole duty, not only in predicting these calamities, but in proving, when they did happen, that they were brought upon the people because they had not given quite enough to them. These gods differed just as the nations differed : the greatest and most powerful had the most powerful god, while the weaker ones were obliged to content them­ selves with the very off-scourings of the heavens. Each of these gods promised happiness here and here­ after to all his slaves, and threatened to eternally punish all who either disbelieved in his existence, or suspected that some other god might be his superior ; but to deny the existence of all gods was, and is, the crime of crimes. Redden your hands with human blood ; blast by slander the fair fame of the innocent; strangle the smiling child upon its mother’s knees; deceive, ruin, and desert the beautiful girl who loves and trusts you—and your case is not hopeless. For all this, and for all these, you may be forgiven. For all this, and for all these, that bankrupt court established by the gospel will give you a discharge ; but deny the existence of these divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and tearful face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate. Heaven’s golden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, with the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your �6 Oration on the Gods. endless wanderings in the lurid gloom of hell—an immortal vagrant—an eternal outcast—a deathless convict. One of these gods, and one who demands our love, our admiration, and our worship, and one who is worshipped, if mere heartless ceremony is worship, gave to his chosen people, for their guidance, the following laws of war : “ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto -it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inherit­ ance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breath eth.” Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous ? Can you believe that such directions were given by any being except an infinite fiend ? Remember that the army receiving these instructions was one of invasion. Peace was offered upon condition that the people submitting should be the slaves of the invader ; but if any should have the courage to defend their homes, to fight for the love of wife and child, then the sword was to spare none— not even the prattling, dimpled babe. And we are called upon to worship such a god ; to get upon our knees and tell him that he is good, that he is merciful, that he is just, that he is love. We are asked to stifle every noble sentiment of the soul, and to trample under foot all the sweet charities of the heart. Because we refuse to stultify ourselves—refuse to become liars—we are denounced, hated, traduced, and ostracised here ; and this same God threatens to torment us in eternal fire the moment death allows �Oration on the Gods. T him to fiercely clutch our naked, helpless souls. Let the people hate—let the god threaten; we will educate them, and we will despise and defy him. The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust, and atrocious This is the book to be read in schools, in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book to be recognised in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice. Strange! that no one has ever been persecuted by the church for believing God bad, while hundreds of millions have been destroyed for thinking him good. The orthodox church never will forgive the Universalists for saying, “ God is love.” It has always been considered as one of the very highest evidences of true and undefiled religion to insist that all men, women and children deserve eternal damnation. It has always been heresy to say “ God will at last save all.” We are asked to justify these frightful passages—• these infamous laws of war, because the Bible is the word of God. As a matter of fact, there never was, and there never can be, an argument, even tending to prove the inspiration of any book whatever. In the absence of positive evidence, analogy, and experience, argument is simply impossible, and at the very best can amount only to a useless agitation of the air. The instant we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, or even reasoned about, we are mental serfs. It is infinitely absurd to suppose that a god would address a commu, nication to intelligent beings, and yet make it a crime, to be punished in eternal flames, for them to use their intelligence for the purpose of understanding his com­ munication. If we have the right to use our reason, we certainly have the right to act in accordance with it, and no god can have the right to punish us for such action. The doctrine that future happiness depends on belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The idea that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd �Oration on the Gods. for refutation, and can be believed only by that un­ happy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called “ faith.” What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God ? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and, according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salva­ tion of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give its assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible, and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration. Whether the Bible is true or false is of no conse­ quence in comparison with the mental freedom of the race. Salvation through slavery is worthless. Salvation from slavery is inestimable, As long as man believes the Bible to be infallible, that book is his master. The civilisation of this century is not the child of faith, but of unbelief—the result of free thought. All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention—of barbarian invention— is to read it. Read it as you would any other book ; think of it as you would of any other ; get the bandage of reverence from your eyes ; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition—then read the holy Bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity, to be the author of such ignorance and of such atrocity. Our ancestors not only had their god-factories, but they made devils as well. These devils were generally disgraced and fallen gods. Some had headed unsuc­ cessful revolts ; some had been caught sweetly reclining in the shadowy folds of some fleecy clouds, kissing the wife of the god of gods. These devils generally sym­ pathised with man. There is in regard to them a most wonderful fact : in nearly all the theologies, mytho­ logies, and religions, the devils have been much more �yy',r"r Oration on the Gods. * h,- 9 humane and merciful than the gods. No devil ever gave one of his generals an order to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. Such bar­ barities were always ordered by the good gods. The pestilences were sent by the most merciful gods. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of a dead mother, was sent by the loving gods. No devil was ever charged with such fiendish brutality. One of these gods, according to the account, drowned an entire world, with the exception of eight persons. The old, the young, the beautiful, and the helpless were remorselessly devoured by the shoreless sea. This, the most fearful tragedy that the imagination of ignorant priests ever conceived, was the act, not of a devil, but of a god, so-called, whom men ignorantly worship unto this day. What a stain such an act would leave upon the character of a devil 1 One of the prophets of one of these gods, having in his power a captured king, hewed him in pieces in the sight of all the people! Was ever any imp of any devil guilty of such savagery ? One of these gods is reported to have given the fol­ lowing directions concerning human slavery : “ If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.” According to this, a man was given liberty upon condition that he would desert for ever his wife and children. Did any devil ever force upon a husband, upon a father, so cruel and so heartless an alternative ? Who can worship such a God ? Who can bend the knee to such a monster? Who can pray to such a fiend ? < 7'S �10 Oration on the Gods. All these gods threatened to torment for ever the souls of their enemies. Did any devil ever make so infamous a threat ? The basest thing recorded of the Devil is what he did concerning Job and his family, and that was done by the express permission of one of these gods, and to decide a little difference of opinion between their “ serene highnesses ” as to the character of “ my servant Job.” The first account we have of the Devil is found in that purely scientific book called Genesis, and is as follows : “Now. the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ‘ Ye shall not eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden ?’ And the woman said unto the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, “ Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” ’ And the serpent said unto the woman, ‘ Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. . . . And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man, and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.” According to this account, the promise of the Devil was fulfilled to the very letter. Adam and Eve did not die, and they did become as gods, knowing good and evil. The account shows, however, that the gods dreaded education and knowledge then just as they do now. The Church still faithfully guards the dangerous tree of knowledge, and has exerted in all ages her utmost power to keep mankind from eating the fruit thereof. The priests have never ceased repeating the old false­ hood and the old threat: “Ye shall not eat of it, �Oration on the Gods. 11 neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” From every pulpit comes the same cry, born of the same fear, “ Lest they eat and become as gods, knowing good and evil ” For this reason, religion hates science, faith detests reason, theology is the sworn enemy of philo­ sophy, and the Church with its flaming sword still guards the hated tree, and, like its supposed founder, curses to the lowest depths the brave thinkers who eat and become as gods. If the account given in Genesis is really true, ought we not, after all, to thank this serpent ? He was the first schoolmaster, the first advocate of learning, the first enemy of ignorance, the first to whisper in human ears the sacred word “ liberty,” the creator of ambition, the author of modesty, of inquiry, of doubt, of investi­ gation, of progress, and of civilisation. Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge ! Some nations have borrowed their gods ; of this number, we are compelled to say, is our own. The Jews having ceased to exist as a nation, and having no further use for a god, our ancestors appropriated him, and adopted their devil at the same time. This borrowed god is still an object of some adoration, and this adopted devil still excites the apprehensions of our people. He is still supposed to be setting his traps and snares for the purpose of catching our unwary souls, and is still, wfith reasonable success, waging the old war against our God. To me it seems easy to account for these ideas con­ cerning gods and devils. They are a perfectly natural production. Man has created them all, and under the same circumstances would create them again. Man has not only created all these gods, but he has created them out of the materials by which he has been surrounded. Generally he has modelled them after himself, and has given them hands, feet, eyes, ears, and organs of speech. Each nation made its gods and devils speak its language not only, but put in their �12 Oration on the Gods. mouths the same mistakes in history, geography, astronomy, and in all matters of fact, generally made by the people. No god was ever in advance of the nation that created him. The negroes represented their deities with black skins and curly hair. The Mongolian gave to his a yellow complexion and dark almond-shaped eyes. The Jews were not allowed to paint theirs, or we should have seen Jehovah with a full beard, and oval face, and an aquiline nose. Jove was a perfect Greek, and Jupiter looked as though a a member of the Roman Senate. The gods of Egypt had the patient face and placid look of the loving people who made them. The gods of northern countries were represented warmly clad in robes of fur ; those of the tropics were naked. The gods of India were often mounted upon elephants ; those of the islanders were great swimmers, and the deities of the Arctic zone were passionately fond of whale’s blubber. Nearly all people have carved or painted representa­ tions of their gods, and these representations were, by the lower classes, generally treated a,s the real gods, and to these images and idols they addressed prayers and offered sacrifice. In some countries, even at this day, if the people after long praying do not obtain their desires, they turn their images off as impotent gods, or upbraid them in a most reproachful manner, loading them with blows and curses. “ How now, dog of a spirit,” they say ; “ we give you lodging in a magnificent temple, we gild you with gold, feed you with the choicest food, and offer incense to you, yet after all this care you are so ungrateful as to refuse us what we ask.” Hereupon they will pull the god down and drag him through the filth of the street. If in the meantime it happens that they obtain their request, then, with a great deal of ceremony, they wash him clean, and carry him back and place him in his temple again, where they fall down and make excuses for what they have done. “ Of a truth,” say they, “ we were a little too hasty, and you were a little too long in your grant. Why should you bring this beating on yourself ? But what is done uannot be undone. Let us not think of it any more. �Oration on the Gods 13 If you will forget what is past, we will gild you over again brighter than before.” Man has never been at a loss for gods. He has wor­ shipped almost everything, including the vilest and most disgusting beasts. He has worshipped fire, earth, air, water, light, stars, and for hundreds of ages pros­ trated himself before enormous snakes. Savage tribes often make gods of articles they get from civilised people. The Todas worship a cow-bell. The Kotas worship two silver plates, which they regard as husband and wife, and another tribe manufactured a god out of a king of hearts. Man having always been the physical superior of woman, accounts for the fact that most of the high gods have been males. Had WQman been the physical superior, the powers supposed to be the rulers of Nature would have been women, and instead of being repre­ sented in the apparel of man, they would have luxuriated in trains, low-necked dresses, laces, and back-hair. Nothing can be plainer than that each nation gives to its god its peculiar characteristics, and that every individual gives to his god his personal peculiarities. Man has no ideas, and can have none, except those suggested by his surroundings. He cannot conceive of anything utterly unlike what he has seen or felt. He can exaggerate, diminish, combine, separate, deform, beautify, improve, multiply, and compare what he sees, what he feels, what he hears, and all of which he takes cognizance through the medium of the senses ; but he cannot create. Having seen exhibitions of power, he can say, omnipotent. Having lived, he can say immor­ tality. Knowing something of time, he can say eternity. Conceiving something of intelligence, he can say God. Having seen exhibitions of malice, he can say Devil. A few gleams of happiness having fallen athwart the gloom of his life, he can say, heaven. Pain, in its numberless forms, having been experienced, he can say hell. Yet all these ideas have a foundation in fact, and only a foundation. The superstructu re has been reared by exaggerating, diminishing, combining, separating, deforming, beautifying, improving, or mul­ tiplying realities, so that the edifice, or fabric, is but �14 Oration on the Gods. the incongruous grouping of what man has perceived through the medium of the senses. It is as though we should give to a lion the wings of an eagle, the hoofs of a bison, the tail of a horse, the pouch of a kangaroo, and the trunk of an elephant. We have, in imagina­ tion, created an impossible monster. And yet the various parts of this monster really exist. So it is with all the gods that man has made. Beyond nature man cannot go, even in thought; above nature he cannot rise, below nature he cannot fall. Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers, and with direct reference to him. To preserve friendly relations with these powers was, and still is, the object of all religions. Man knelt through fear and to implore assistance, or through gratitude for some favor which he supposed had been rendered. He endeavored by supplication to appease some being who, for some reason, had, as he believed, become enraged. The lightning and thunder terrified him. In the presence of the volcano he sank upon his knees. The great forests filled with wild and ferocious beasts, the mon­ strous serpent crawling in mysterious depths, the boundless sea, the flaming cQmets, the sinister eclipses, the awful calmness of the stars, and, more than all, the perpetual presence of death, convinced him that he was the sport and prey of unseen and malignant powers. The strange and frightful diseases to which he was subject, the freezings and burnings of fever, the contortions of epilepsy, the sudden palsies, the darkness of night, and the wild, terrible, and fantastic dreams that filled his brain, satisfied him that he was haunted and pursued by countless spirits of evil. For some reason he supposed that these spirits differed in power—that they were not all alike malevolent—that the higher controlled the lower, and that his very existence depended upon gaining the assistance of the more powerful. For this purpose he resorted to prayer, to flattery, to worship, and to sacrifice. These ideas appear to have been almost universal in savage' man. �Oration on the Gods. 15 For ages all nations supposed that the sick and insane were possessed by evil spirits. For thousands of years the practice of medicine consisted in frightening these spirits away. Usually the priests would make the loudest and most discordant noises possible. They would blow horns, beat upon rude drums, clash cymbals, and in the meantime utter the most unearthly yells. If the noise-remedy failed, they would implore the aid of some more powerful spirit. To pacify these spirits was considered of infinite importance. The poor barbarian, knowing that men could be softened by gifts, gave to these spirits that which to him seemed of the most value. With bursting heart he would offer the blood of his dearest child. It was impossible for him to conceive of a god utterly unlike himself, and he naturally supposed that these powers of the air would be affected a little at the sight of so great and so deep a sorrow. It was with the barbarians then as with the civilised now ; one class lived upon and made merchandise of the fears of another. Certain persons took it upon themselves to appease the gods and to instruct the people in their duties to these unseen powers. This was the origin of the priesthood. The priest pretended to stand between the wrath of the gods and the helplessness of man. He was man’s attorney at the court of heaven. He carried to the invisible world a flag of truce, a protest, and a request. He came back with a command, with authority, and with power. Man fell upon his knees before his own servant, and the priest, taking advan­ tage of the awe inspired by his supposed influence with the gods, made of his fellow-man a cringing hypocrite and slave. Even Christ, the supposed son of God, taught that persons were possessed of evil spirits, and frequently, according to the account, gave proof of his divine origin and mission by frightening droves of devils out of his unfortunate country-men. Casting out devils was his principal employment, and the devils thus damaged generally took occasion to acknowledge him as the true Messiah, which was not only very kind of them, but quite fortunate for him. The religious people have always regarded the �1G Oration on Ilio Gods. testimony of these devils as perfectly conclusive, and the writers of the New Testament quote the words of these imps of darkness with great satisfaction. The fact that Christ could withstand the temptations of the Devil was considered as conclusive evidence that he was assisted by some god, or at least by some being superior to man. St. Matthew gives an account of an attempt made by the Devil to tempt the supposed son of God ; and it has always excited the wonder of Christians that the temptation was so nobly and heroically withstood. The account to which I refer is as follows: “ Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when the tempter came to him, he said, ‘ If thou be the son of God command that these stones be made bread.’ But he answered and said, ‘ It is written : man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city and setteth him upon a pinnacle of the temple and saith unto him, ‘ If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down ; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time thou shalt dash thy foot against a stone.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘ It is written, again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.’ Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, ‘ All these will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me.’ ” The Christians now claim that Jesus was God: If he was God, of course the Devil knew that fact, and yet, according to this account the Devil took the omni­ potent God and placed him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and endeavored to induce him to dash himself against the earth. Failing in that, he took the creator, and owner, and governor of the universe up into an exceeding high mountain, and offered him this world —this grain of sand, if he, the God of all the worlds, would fall down and worship him, a poor devil, with­ out even a tax title to one foot of dirt! Is it possible the Devil was such an idiot? Should any great credit be, given to this Deity for not being caught with such chaff ? Think of it! The Devil—the prince of sharpers —the king of cunning—the master of finesse, trying �Oration on the Gods. 17 to bribe God with a grain of sand that belonged to God! Is there, in all the religious literature of the world, anything more grossly absurd than this ? These devils, according to the Bible, were of various kinds—some could speak and hear, others were deaf and dumb. All could not be cast out in the same way. The deaf and dumb spirits were quite difficult to deal with. St. Mark tells of a gentleman who brought his son to Christ. The boy, it seems, was possessed of a dumb spirit, over which the disciples had no control. “ Jesus said unto the spirit, ‘ Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into him.’ ” Whereupon, the deaf spirit (having heard what was said) cried out (being dumb) and immediately vacated the premises. The ease with which Christ controlled this deaf and dumb spirit excited the wonder of his disciples, and they asked him privately why they could not cast that spirit out. To whom he replied : “ This kind can come forth by nothing but prayer and fasting.” Is there a Christian in the whole world who would believe such a story, if found in any other book ? The trouble is, these pious people shut up their reason, and then open their Bibles. In the olden times, the existence of devils was uni­ versally admitted. The people had no doubt upon that subject, and from such belief it followed as a matter of course, that a person, in order to vanquish these devils, had either to be a god, or assisted by one. All founders of religions have established their claims to divine origin by controlling evil spirits and suspending the laws of nature. Casting out devils was a certificate of divinity. A prophet, unable to cope with the powers of darkness, was regarded with contempt. The utterance of the highest and noblest sentiments, the most blameless and holy life, commanded but little respect, unless accompanied by power to work miracles and command spirits. This belief in good and evil powers had its origin in the fact that man was surrounded by what he was pleased to call good and evil phenomena. Phenomena affecting man pleasantly were ascribed to good spirits, B �18 Oration on the Gods. while those affecting him unpleasantly or injuriously were ascribed to evil spirits. It being admitted that all phenomena were produced by spirits, the spirits were divided according to the phenomena, and the phenomena were good or bad as they affected man. Good spirits were supposed to be the authors of good phenomena, and evil spirits of the evil: so that the idea of a devil has been as universal as the idea of a god. Many writers maintain that an idea to become universal must be true ; that all universal ideas are innate ; and that innate ideas cannot be false. If the fact, that an idea has been universal, proves that it is innate, and if the fact that an idea is innate proves that it is correct, then the believers in innate ideas must admit that the evidence of a god superior to nature, and of a devil superior to nature, is exactly the same, and that the existence of such a devil must be as self-evident as the existence of such a god. The truth is, a god was inferred from good, and a devil from bad phenomena. And it is just as natural and logical to suppose that a devil would cause happiness, as to suppose that a god would produce misery. Conse­ quently, if an intelligence, infinite and supreme, is the immediate author of all phenomena, it is difficult to determine whether such intelligence is the friend or enemy of man. If phenomena were all good, we might say they were all produced by a perfectly beneficent being. If they were all bad. we might say they were produced by a perfectly malevolent power. But as phenomena are, as they affect man, both good and bad, they must be produced by different and antagonistic spirits ; by one who is sometimes actuated by kindness, and sometimes by malice ; or all must be produced of necessity, and without reference to their consequences upon man. The foolish doctrine, that all phenomena can be traced to the interference of good and evil spirits, has been, and still is, almost universal. That most people still believe in some spirit that can change the natural order of events, is proven by the fact that nearly all resort to prayer. Thousands, at this very moment are �Oration on the Gods. 19 probably imploring some supposed power to interfere in their behalf. Some want health restored ; some ask that the loved and absent be watched over and protected ; some pray for riches ; some for rain ; some want diseases stayed; some vainly ask for food ; some ask for revivals ; a few ask for more wisdom, and now and then one tells the Lord to do as he may think best. Thousands ask to be protected from the devil ; some, like David, pray for revenge, and some implore, even God, not to lead them into temptation. All these prayers rest upon, and are produced by the idea that; some power not only can, but probably will, change the order of the universe. This belief has been among the great majority of tribes and nations. All sacred, books are filled with the accounts of such interferences., and our own Bible is no exception to this rule. If we believe in a power superior to nature, it i» perfectly natural to suppose that such power can and will interfere in the affairs of this world. If there is no interference, of what practical use can such power be ? The scriptures give us the most wonderful accounts of divine interference : Animals talk like men ; springs gurgle from dry bones ; the sun and moon stop in the heavens in order that General Joshua may have more time to murder ; the shadow on a dial goes back ten degrees to convince a petty king of a barbarous people that he is not going to die of a boil; fire refuses to burn; water positively declines to seek its level, but stands up like a wall ; grains of sand become lice ; common walking-sticks, to gratify a mere freak, twist themselves into serpents, and then swallow each other by way of exercise ; murmuring streams, laughing at the attraction of gravitation, run up hill for years, following wandering tribes from a pure love of frolic : prophecy becomes altogether easier than history ; the sons of God become enamoured of the world’s girls; women are changed’ into salt for the purpose of keeping a great event fresh: in the minds of men ; an excellent article of brimstone is imported from heaven free of duty ; clothes refuse to wear out for forty years ; birds keep restaurants and feed wandering prophets free of expense ; bears tear �20 Oration on the Gods. children in pieces for laughing at old men without wigs ; muscular development depends upon the length of one’s hair; dead people come to life, simply to get a joke on their enemies and heirs ; witches and wizards converse freely with the souls of the departed, and God himself becomes a stonecutter and engraver, after having been a tailor and dressmaker The veil between heaven and earth was always rent or lifted. The shadows of this world, the radiance of heaven, and the glare of hell, mixed and mingled until man became uncertain as to which country he really inhabited. Man dwelt in an unreal world. He mis­ took his ideas, his dreams, for real things. His fears became terrible and malicious monsters. He lived in the midst of furies and fairies, nymphs and naiads, goblins and ghosts, witches and wizards, sprites and spooks, deities and devils. The obscure and gloomy depths were filled with claw and wing—with beak and hoof—with leering look and sneering mouths—with the malice of deformity—with the cunning of hatred, and with all the slimy forms that fear can draw and paint upon the shadowy canvas of the dark. It is enough to make one almost insane with pity to think what man in the long night has suffered ; of the tortures he has endured, surrounded, as he supposed, by malignant powers and clutched by the fierce phantoms of the air. No wonder that he fell upon his trembling knees—that he built altars and reddened them even with his own blood. No wonder that he implored ignorant priests and impudent magicians for aid. No wonder that he crawled grovelling in the dust to the temple’s door, and there, in the insanity of despair, besought the deaf gods to hear his bitter cry of agony and fear. The savage, as he emerges from a state of barbarism, gradually loses faith in his idols of wood and stone, and in their place puts a multitude of spirits. As he advances in knowledge, he generally discards the petty spirits, and in their stead believes in one, whom he supposes to be infinite and supreme. Supposing this great spirit to be superior to nature, he offers worship or flattery in exchange for assistance. At �Oration on the Gods. 21 last, finding that he obtains no aid from this supposed deity—finding that every search after the absolute must of necessity end in failure—finding that man cannot by any possibility conceive of the conditionless— he begins to investigate the facts by which he is surrounded, and to depend upon himself. The people are beginning to think, to reason, and to investigate. Slowly, painfully, but surely, the gods are being driven from the earth. Only upon rare occasions are they, even by the most religious, supposed to interfere with the affairs of men. In most matters we are at last supposed to be free. Since the invention of steamships and railways, so that the products of all countries can be easily interchanged, the gods have quit the business of producing famine. Now and then they kill a child because it is idolised by its parents. As a rule they have given up causing accidents on railroads, exploding boilers, and bursting kerosene lamps. Cholera, yellow fever, and small-pox are still considered heavenly weapons; but measles, itch, and ague are now attributed to natural causes. As a general thing, the gods have stopped drowning children, except as a punishment for violating the Sabbath. They still pay some attention to the affairs of kings, men of genius, and persons of great wealth ; but ordinary people are left to shirk for themselves as best they may. In wars between great nations, the gods still interfere ; but in prize fights, the best man, with an honest referee, is almost sure to win. The Church cannot abandon the idea of special providence. To give up that doctrine, is to give up all. The Church must insist that prayer is answered —that some power superior to nature hears the grants and requests of the sincere and humble Christian, and that this same power in some mysterious way provides for all. A devout clergyman sought every opportunity to impress upon the mind of his son the fact that God takes care of all creatures ; that the falling sparrow attracts his attention, and that his loving kindness is over all his works. Happening, one day, to see a crane wading in quest of food, the good man pointed out to �22 Oration on the Gods. his son the perfect adaptation of the crane to get his living in that manner. “ See,’” said he, “ how his legs are formed for wading ! What a long, slender bill he has ! Observe how nicely he folds his feet when putting them in or drawing them out of the water. He does not cause the slightest ripple. He is thus enabled to approach the fish without giving them any notice of his arrival. My son,” said he, “ it is im­ possible to look at that bird without recognising the design, as well the goodness of God, in thus providing the means of subsistence.” “ Yes,” replied the boy, “ I think I see the goodness of God, at least so far as the crane is concerned ; but after all, father, don’t you think the arrangement a little tough on the fish ?” Even the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in any great amount of interference by the gods in this age of the world, still thinks that, in the beginning, some god made the laws governing the universe. He believes that in consequence of these laws a man can lift a greater weight with, than without a lever ; that this god so made matter, and so established the order of things, that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time ; so that a body once put in motion will keep moving until it is stopped ; so that it is a greater distance around than across a cirle ; so that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of five or seven. He insists that it took a direct inter­ position of providence to make a whole greater than a part, and that had it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one might have been more than twice two, and sticks and strings might have had only one end apiece. Like the old Scotch divine, he thanks God that Sunday comes at the end instead of in the middle of the week, and that death comes at the close instead of at the commencement of life, thereby giving us ¿ime to prepare for that holy day and that most solemn event. These religious people see nothing but design everywhere, and personal, intelligent interfer­ ence in everything. They insist that the universe has been created, and that the adaptation of means to ends is perfectly apparent. They point us to the sunshine, to the flowers, to the April rain, and to all there is of �Oration on the Gods. beauty and of use in the world. Did it ever occur to them that a cancer is as. beautiful in its development as is the reddest rose ? That what they are pleased to call the adaptation of means to ends, is as apparent in the cancer as in the April rain ? How beautiful the process of digestion ! By what ingenious methods the blood is poisoned so that the cancer shall have food ! By what wonderful contrivances the entire system of man is made to pay tribute to this divine and charming cancer! See by what admirable instrumentalities it feeds itself from the surrounding quivering, dainty flesh ! See how it gradually, but surely, expands and grows ! By what marvellous mechanism it is supplied with long and slender roots that reach out to the most secret nerves of pain for sustenance and life! What beautiful colors it presents ! Seen through the micro­ scope, it is a miracle of order and beauty. All the ingenuity of man cannot stop its growth. Think of the amount of thought it must have required to invent a way by which the life of one man might be given to produce one cancer! Is it possible to look upon it and doubt that there is design in the universe, and that the inventor of this wonderful cancer must be infinitely powerful, ingenious, and good ? We are told that the universe was designed and created, and that it is absurd to suppose that matter has existed for eternity, but that it is perfectly self-evident that a god has. If a god created the universe, then there must have been a time when he commenced to create. Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing—absolutely nothing —except this supposed god. According to this theory, this god spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum, and in perfect idleness. Admitting that a god did create the universe, the question then arises, of -what did he create it ? It cer­ tainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of a raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that the god must have made the universe out of himself, he being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of god, �24 Oration on the Gods. the god must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander, of Miletus, said : “ Creation is the decomposition of the infinite.” It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun, only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, and those worlds must be attracted by other worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left ? The idea of a creative deity is gradually being abandoned, and nearly all truly scientific minds admit that matter must have existed from eternity. It is in­ destructible, and the indestructible cannot be created. It is the crowning glory of our century to have demon­ strated the indestructibility and the eternal persistence of force. Neither matter nor force can be increased nor diminished. Force cannot exist apart from matter ; matter exists only in connection with force ; and con­ sequently a force apart from matter, and superior to nature, is a demonstrated impossibility. Force, then, must have also existed from eternity, and could not have been created. Matter, in its count­ less forms, from dead earth to the eyes of those we love, and force in all its manifestations, from simple motion to the grandest thought, deny creation and defy control. Thought is a form of force. We walk with the same force with which we think. Man is an organism, that changes several forms of force into thought-force. - Man is a machine, into which we put what we call food, and produce what we call thought. Think of that wonderful chemistry by which bread was changed into the divine tragedy of Hamlet! A god must not only be material, but he must be an organism, capable of changing other forms of force into thought-force. This is what we call eating. Therefore, if the god thinks, he must eat, that is to say, he must of necessity have some means of supplying the force with which to think. It is impossible to conceive of a being who can eternally impart force to matter, and yet have no means of supplying the force thus imparted. If neither matter nor force were createcL what ev - �Oration on the Gods. 25 dence have we then of the existence of a power superior to nature ? The theologian will probably reply, “ We have law and order, cause and effect, and besides all this, matter could not have put itself in motion.” Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there is no being superior to nature, and that matter and force have existed from eternity. Now suppose that twoatoms should come together, would there be an effect ? Yes. Suppose they came in exactly opposite directions with equal force, they would be stopped, to say the least. This would be an effect. If this is so, then you have matter, force, and effect without a being superior to nature. Now, suppose that two other atoms, just like the first two, should come together under precisely the same circumstances, would not the effect be exactly the same ? Yes. Like causes producing like effects is what we mean by law and order. Then we have matter,, force, effect, law, and order without a being superior to nature. Now, we know that every effect must also be a cause, and that every cause must be an effect. The atoms coming together did produce an effect, and as every effect must also be a cause, the effect produced by the collision of the atoms, must as to something else have been a cause. Then we have matter, force, law, order, cause, and effect, without a being superior to nature. Nothing is left for the supernatural but empty space. His throne is a void, and his boasted realm is without matter, without law, without cause, and with­ out effect. But what put all this matter in motion ? If matter and force have existed from eternity, then matter must have always been in motion. There can be no force without motion. Force is for ever active, and there is, and there can be, no cessation. If, therefore, matter and force have existed from eternity, so has motion. In the whole universe there is not even one atom in a state of rest. A deity outside of nature exists in nothing, and is nothing. Nature embraces with infinite arms all matter and all force. That which is beyond her grasp is destitute of both, and can hardly be worth the worship, and adoration even of a man. �26 Oration on the Gods. There is but one way to demonstrate the existence of a power independent of and superior to nature, and that is by breaking, if only for one moment, the con­ tinuity of cause and effect. Pluck from the endless ■chain of evidence one little link ; stop for one instant the grand procession, and you have shown beyond all contradiction that nature has a master. Change the fact, just for one second, that matterattracts matter, and a god appears. The rudest savage has always known this fact, and for that reason always demanded the evidence of miracle. The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine—cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance, this was easy to do. The cre­ dulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvellous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently every religion has for its foundation a miracle—that is to say, a violation of nature—that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world’s whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle was ever performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to and independent of nature. The Church wishes us to believe. Let the Church, or ■one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions. We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible, and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans, and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We �Oration on the Gods. 27 pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits, and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year’s fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years. Their reputation for “truth and veracity” in the neighborhood where they resided is wholly unknown to us. Give us a new miracle, and sub­ stantiate it by witnesses who still have the cheerful habit of living in this world. Do not send us to Jericho to hear the winding horns, nor put us in the fire with Meshech, Shadrach, and Abednego. Do not compel us to navigate the sea with Captain Jonah, nor dine with Mr. Ezekiel. There is no sort of use in sending us fox-hunting with Samson. We have positively lost all interest in that little speech so eloquently delivered by Balaam’s inspired donkey. It is worse than useless to show us fishes with money in their mouths, and call our attention to vast multitudes stuffing themselves with five crackers and two sardines. We demand a new miracle, and we demand it now. Let the Church furnish at least one, or for ever after hold her peace. In the olden time the Church, by violating the order of nature, proved the existence of her God. At that time miracles were performed with the most astonish­ ing ease. They became so common that the Church ordered her priests to desist. And now this same Church—the people having found some little sense— admits, not only that she cannot perform a miracle, but insists that the absence of miracle—the steady, un­ broken march of cause and effect—proves the exist­ ence of a power superior to nature. The fact is, however, that indissoluble change of cause and effect proves exactly the contrary. Sir William Hamilton, one of the pillars of modern theology, in discussing this very subject, uses the following language : “ The phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, so far from warranting an inference to the existence of a god, would, on the contrary, ground even an argument to his negation. The phenomena of the material world are subjected to immutable laws ; �28 Oration on the Gods. are produced and reproduced in the same invariable succession, and manifest only the blind force of a mechanical necessity.” Nature is but an endless series of efficient causes. She cannot create, but she eternally transforms. There was no beginning, and there can be no end. The best minds, even in the religious world, admit that in material nature there is no evidence of what they are pleased to call a god. They find their evidence in the phenomena of intelligence, and very innocently assert that intelligence is above, and, in fact, opposed to nature. They insist that man, at least, is a special creation; that he has somewhere in his brain a divine spark, a little portion of the “ Great First Cause.” They say that matter cannot produce thought, but that thought can produce matter. They tell us that man has intelligence, and, therefore, there must be an intelligence greater than his ? Why not say, God has intelligence, therefore there must be an intelligence greater than his ? So far as we know there is no intelligence apart from matter. We cannot conceive of thought, except as produced within a brain. The science by means of which they demonstrate the existence of an impossible intelligence, and an incomprehensible power, is called metaphysics, or theology. The theologians admit that the phenomena of matter tend, at least, to disprove the existence of any power superior to nature, because in such pheno­ mena we see nothing but an endless chain of efficient causes—nothing but the force of a mechanical necessity. They therefore appeal to what they denominate the phenomena of mind to establish this superior power. The trouble is, that in the phenomena of mind we find the same endless chain of efficient causes, the same mechanical necessity. Every thought must have had an efficient cause. Every motive, every desire, every fear, hope, and dream must have been necessarily produced. There is no room in the mind of man for providence or chance. The facts and forces governing thought are as absolute as those governing the motions of the planets. A poem is produced by the forces of nature, and is as necessarily and naturally produced as �Oration on the Gods. 29 mountains and seas. You will seek in vain for a thought in man’s brain without its efficient cause. Every mental operation is the necessary result of certain facts and conditions. Mental phenomena are considered more complicated than those of matter, and, consequently more mysterious. Being more mysterious, they are considered better evidence of the existence of a god. No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the com­ plex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God, what we know is science. When we abandon the doctrine that some infinite being created matter and force, and enacted a code of laws for their government, the idea of interference will be lost. The real priest will then be, not the mouthpiece of some pretended deity, but the inter­ preter of nature. From that moment the church ceases to exist. The tapers will die out upon the dusty altar ; the moths will eat the fading velvet of pulpit and pew; the Bible will take its place with the Shastras, Puranas, Vedas, Eddas, Sagas, and Korans, and the fetters of a degrading faith will fall from the mind of men. “ But,” says the religionist, “ you cannot explain everything ; you cannot understand everything ; and that which you cannot explain, that which you do not comprehend, is my God.” We are explaining more every day. We are under­ standing more every day; consequently your God is growing smaller every day. Nothing daunted, the religionist then insists, that nothing can exist without a cause, except cause, and ■that this uncaused cause is God. To this we again reply : Every cause must produce an effect, because until it does produce an effect, it is not a cause. Every effect must in its turn become a cause. Therefore, in the nature of things, there cannot be a last cause, for the reason that a so-called last cause would necessarily produce an effect, and that effect must of necessity become a cause. The converse of these propositions must be true. Every effect must have had a cause, and every cause must have been an �30 Oration on the Gods. effect. Therefore there could have been no first cause. A first cause is just as impossible as a last effect. Beyond the universe there is nothing, and within the universe the supernatural does not and can not exist. The moment these great truths are understood and admitted, a belief in general or special providence becomes impossible. From that instant men will­ cease their vain efforts to please an imaginary being, and will give their time and attention to the affairs of this world. They will abandon the idea of attaining any object by prayer and supplication. The element of uncertainty will, in a great measure, be removed from the domain of the future, and man, gathering courage from a succession of victories over the obstructions of nature, will attain a serene grandeur unknown to the disciples of any superstition. The plans of mankind will no longer be interfered with by the finger of a supposed omnipotence, and no one will believe that nations or individuals are protected or destroyed by any deity whatever. Science, freed from the chains of pious custom and evangelical prejudice, will, within her sphere, be supreme. The mind will investigate without reverence, and publish its con­ clusion without fear. Agassiz will no longer hesitate to declare the Mosaic cosmogony utterly inconsistent with the demonstrated truths of geology, and will cease pretending any reverence for the Jewish scriptures. The moment science succeeds in rendering the Church powerless for evil, the real thinkers will be outspoken. The little flags of truce carried by timid philosophers will disappear, and the cowardly parley will give place to victory—lasting and universal. If we admit that some infinite being has controlled the destinies of persons and peoples, history becomes a most cruel and bloody farce. Age after age, the strong have trampled upon the weak ; the crafty and heartless have ensnared and enslaved the simple and innocent, and nowhere, in all the annals of mankind, has any god succored the oppressed. Man should cease to expect aid from on high. By this time he should know that heaven has no ear �Oration on the Gods. 31 to hear, and no hand to help. The present is the necessary child of all the past. There has been no chance, and there can be no interference. If abuses are destroyed, man must destroy them If slaves are freed, man must free them. If new truths are discovered, man must discover them. If the naked are clothed ; if the hungry are fed ; if justice is done ; if labor is rewarded ; if superstition is driven from the mind ; if the defenceless are protected, and if the right finally triumphs, all must be the work of man. The grand victories of the future must be won by man, and by man alone. Nature, so far as we can discern, without passion and without intention, forms, transforms, and re-transforms for ever. She neither weeps nor rejoices. She produces man without purpose, and obliterates him without regret. She knows no distinction between the beneficial and the hurtful. Poison and nutrition, pain and joy, life and death, smiles and tears are alike to her. She is neither merciful nor cruel. She cannot be flattered by worship nor melted by tears. She does not even know the attitude of prayer. She appreciates no difference between poison in the fangs of snakes and mercy in the hearts of men. Only through man does nature take cognisance of the good, the true, and the beautiful; and, so far as we know, man is the highest intelligence. And yet man continues to believe that there is some power independent of and superior to nature, and still endeavors, by form, ceremony, supplication, hypocrisy, and sacrifice, to obtain its aid. His best energies have been wasted in the service of this phantom. The horrors of witchcraft were all born of an ignorant belief in the existence of a totally depraved being superior to nature, acting in perfect independence of her laws, and all religious superstition has had for its basis a belief in at least two beings, one good and the other bad, both of whom could arbitrarily change the order of the universe. The history of religion is simply the story of man’s efforts in all ages to avoid one of these powers and to pacify the other. Both powers have inspired little else than abject fear. The �32 Oration on the Gods. cold, calculating sneer of the devil and the frown of •God were equally terrible. In any event, man’s fate was to be arbitrarily fixed for ever by an unknown power superior to all law and to all fact. Until this belief is thrown aside, man must consider himself the ■slave of phantom masters—neither of iwhom promise liberty in this world nor the next. Man must learn to rely upon himself. Reading Bibles will not protect him from the blasts of winter; but houses, fires, and clothing will. To prevent famine, one plough is worth a million sermons, and «ven patent medicines will cure more diseases than all the prayers uttered since the beginning of the world. Although many eminent men have endeavored to harmonise necessity and free will, the existence of evil, and the infinite power and goodness of God, they have only succeeded in producing learned and ingeni­ ous failures. Immense efforts have been made to reconcile ideas utterly inconsistent with the facts by which we are surrounded, and all persons who have failed to perceive the pretended reconciliation have been denounced as Infidels, Atheists, and scoffers. The whole power of the Church has been brought to bear against philosophers and scientists in order to •compel a denial of the authority of demonstration, and to induce some Judas to betray Reason—one of the saviors of mankind. During that frightful period known as the “ Dark Ages,” Faith reigned, with scarcely a rebellious subject. Her temples were “ carpeted with knees,” and the wealth of nations adorned her countless shrines. The ■great painters prostituted their genius to immortalise her vagaries, while the poets enshrined them in song At her bidding, man covered the earth with blood. The scales of justice were turned with her gold, and for her use were invented all the cunning instruments of pain. She built cathedrals for God, and dungeons for men. She peopled the clouds with angels and the ■earth with slaves. For centuries the world was retracing its steps—going steadily back towards barbaric night. A few infidels—a few heretics cried “ Halt!” to the great rabble of ignorant devotion, and made it �Oration on the Gods. 33 possible for the genius of the nineteenth century to revolutionise the cruel creeds and superstitions of mankind. The thoughts of man, in order to be of any real worth, must be free. Under the influence of fear, the brain is paralysed, and instead of bravely solving a problem for itself, trembling adopts the solution of another. As long as a majority of men will cringe to the very earth before some petty prince or king, what must be the infinite abjectness of their little souls in the presence of their supposed creator and God ? Under such circumstances, what can their thoughts be worth ? The originality of repetition, and the mental vigor of acquiescence, are all that we have any right to expect from the Christian world. As long as every question is answered by the word “god,” scientific inquiry is simply impossible. As fast as phenomena are satisfactorily explained, the domain of the power, supposed to be superior to nature, must decrease, while the horizon of the known must as constantly continue to enlarge. It is no longer satisfactory to account for the fall and rise of nations by saying: “ It is the will of God.” Such an explanation puts ignorance and education upon an exact equality, and does away with the idea of really accounting for anything whatever. Will the religionist pretend that the real end of science is, to ascertain how and why God acts ? Science, from such a standpoint, would consist in investigating the law of arbitrary action, and in a grand endeavor to ascertain the rules necessarily obeyed by infinite caprice. From a philosophic point of view, science is a knowledge of the laws of life ; of the conditions of happiness ; of the facts by which we are surrounded, and the relations we sustain to men and things—by which man, so to speak, subjugates nature, and bends the elemental powers to his will, making blind force the servant of his brain. A belief in special providence does away with the spirit of investigation, and is inconsistent with personal effort. Why should man endeavor to thwart the c �34 Oration on the G-ools. designs of God ? “ Which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature ?” Under the influence of this belief, man, basking in the sunshine of a delusion, considers the lilies of the field and refuses to take any thought for the morrow. Believing himself in the power of an infinite being, who can, at any moment, dash him to the lowest hell or raise him to the highest heaven, he necessarily abandons the idea of accomplishing anything by his own efforts. As long as this belief was general, the world was filled with ignorance, superstition and misery. The energies of man were wasted in a vain effort to obtain the aid of this power, supposed to be superior to nature. For countless ages, even men were sacrificed upon the altar of this impossible god. To please him, mothers have shed the blood of their own babes ; martyrs have chanted triumphant songs in the midst of flame; priests have gorged themselves with blood ; nuns have foresworn the ecstasies of love : old men have trem­ blingly implored ; women have sobbed and entreated ; every pain has been endured, and every horror has been perpetrated. Through the dim, long years that have fled, humanity has suffered more than can be conceived. Most of the misery has been endured by the weak, the loving, and the innocent. Women have been treated like poisonous beasts, and little children trampled upon as though they had been vermin. Numberless altars have been reddened, even with the blood of babes ; beautiful girls have been given to slimy serpents; whole races of men doomed to centuries of slavery, and everywhere there has been outrage beyond the power of genius to express. During all these years, the suffering have supplicated ; the withered lips of famine have prayed ; the pale victims have implored, and Heaven has been deaf and blind. Of what use have the gods been to man ? It is no answer to say that some god created the world, established certain laws, and then turned his attention to other matters, leaving his children weak, ignorant, and unaided, to fight the battle of life alone. It is no solution to declare that in some other world �Oration on the Gods. 35 this god will render a few, or even all, his subjects happy. What right have we to expect that a perfectly wise, good, and powerful being will ever do better than he has done, and is doing ? The world is filled with imperfections. If it was made by an infinite being what reason have we for saying that he will render it nearer perfect than it now is ? If the infinite “ Father ” allows a majority of his children to live in ignorance and wretchedness now, what evidence is there that he will ever improve their condition ? Will God have more power ? Will he become more merciful ? Will his love for his poor creatures increase ? Can the conduct of infinite wisdom, power, and love ever change ? Is the infinite capable of any improvement whatever ? We are informed by the clergy that this world is a kind of school; that the evils by which we are surrounded are for the purpose of developing our souls, and that only by suffering can men become pure, strong, virtuous, and grand. Supposing this to be true, what is to become of those who die in infancy ? The little children, according to this philosophy, can never be developed. They were so unfortunate as to escape the ennobling influences of pain and misery, and as a consequence, are doomed to an eternity of mental inferiority. If the clergy are right on this question, none are so unfortunate as the happy, and we should envy only the suffering and distressed. If evil is necessary to the development of man in this life, how is it possible for the soul to improve in the perfect joy of paradise ? Since Paley found his watch, the argument of “ design ’’ has been relied upon as unanswerable. The Church teaches that this world, and all it contains, was created substantially as we now see it; that the grasses, the flowers, the trees, and all animals, including man, were special creations, and that they sustain no necessary relation to each other. The most orthodox will admit that some earth has been washed into the sea, that the sea has encroached a little upon the land, and that some mountains may be �36 Oration on the Gods. a trifle lower than in the morning of creation. The theory of gradual development was unknown to our fathers ; the idea of evolution did not occur to them. That most wonderful observer, Charles Darwin, had not then given to the world his wonderful philosophy. Our fathers looked upon the then arrangement of things as the primal arrangement. The earth appeared to them fresh from the hands of a deity. They knew nothing of the slow evolutions of countless years, but supposed that the almost infinite variety of vegetable and animal forms had existed from the first. Suppose that upon some island we should find a man a million years of age, and suppose that we should find him in the possession of a most beautiful carriage, constructed upon the perfect model. And suppose further that he should tell us that it was the result of several hundred thousand years of labor and of thought ; that for fifty thousand years he used as flat a log as he could find, before it occurred to him that, by splitting the log, he could have thè same surface with only half the weight ; that it took him many thousand years to invent wheels for this log ; that the wheels he first used were solid, and that fifty thousand years of thought suggested the use of spokes and tire ; that for many centuries he used the wheels without linch­ pins ; that it took a hundred thousand years more to think of using four wheels instead of two ; that for ages he walked behind the carriage when going down hill, in order to hold it back, and that only by a lucky chance he invented the tongue—would we conclude that this man, from the very first, had been an infinitely ingenious and perfect mechanic ? Suppose we found him living in an elegant mansion, and he should inform us that he lived in that house for five hundred thousand years before he thought of putting on a roof, and that he had but recently invented windows and doors, would we say that from the beginning he had been an infinitely accomplished and scientific architect ? Does not improvement in the things created show a corresponding improvement in the creator ? Would an infinitely wise, good, and powerful God, �Oration on the Gods. 37 intending to produce man, commence with the lowest possible forms of life—with the simplest organism that can be imagined—and, during immeasurable periods of time, slowly and almost imperceptibly, improve upon the rude beginning until man was evolved ? Would countless ages thus be wasted in the production of awkward forms, afterwards abandoned ? Can the intelligence of man discover the least wisdom in covering the earth with crawling, creeping horrors, that live only upon the agonies and pangs of others ? Can we see the propriety of so constructing the earth that only an insignificant portion of its surface is capable of producing an intelligent man ? Who can appreciate the mercy of so making the world that all animals devour animals, so that every mouth is a slaughter-house and every stomach a tomb? Is it possible to discover infinite intelligence and love in universal and eternal carnage ? What would we think of a father who should give a farm to his children, and before giving them possession should plant upon it thousands of deadly shrubs and vines; should stock it 'with ferocious beasts and poisonous reptiles; should take pains to put a few swamps in the neighborhood to breed malaria ; should so arrange matters that the ground would occasionally open and swallow a few of his darlings, and, besides all this, should establish a few volcanoes in the imme­ diate vicinity, that might at any moment overwhelm his children with rivers of fire ? Suppose that this father neglected to tell his children which of the plants were deadly ; that the reptiles were poisonous ; failed to say anything about the earthquakes, and kept the volcano business a profound secret, would we pronounce him angel or fiend ? And yet this is exactly what the orthodox God has done. According to the theologians, God prepared this globe expressly for the habitation of his loved children, and yet he filled the forests with ferocious beasts, placed serpents in every path, stuffed the world with earthquakes, and adorned its surface with mountains of flame. �38' Oration on the Gods. Notwithstanding all this, we are told that the world is perfect ; that it was created by a perfect being, and is therefore necessarily perfect. The next moment the same persons will tell us that the world was cursed, covered with brambles, thistles, and thorns, and that man was doomed to disease and death, simply because our poor dear mother ate an apple contrary to the com­ mand of an arbitrary God. A very pious friend of mine, having heard that I had said the world was full of imperfections, asked me if the report was true. Upon being informed that it was, he expressed great surprise that anyone could be guilty of such presumption. He said that, in his judgment, it was impossible to point out an imperfection. “ Be kind enough,” said he, “ to name even one improvement that you could make, if you had the power.” “ Well,” said I, “ I would make good health catching, instead of disease.” The truth is, it is impossible to harmonise all the ills, and pains, and agonies of this world with the idea that we were created by, and are watched over and protected by, an infinitely wise, powerful, and beneficent God, who is superior to, and inde­ pendent of, nature. The clergy, however, balance all the real ills of this life with the expected joys of the next. We are assured that all is perfection in heaven ; there the skies are cloudless, there all is serenity and peace. Here empires may be overthrown ; dynasties may be extinguished in blood ; millions of slaves may toil beneath the fierce rays of the sun and the cruel strokes of the lash ; yet all is happiness in heaven. Pestilence may strew the earth with corpses of the loved ; the survivors may bend above them in agony—yet the placid bosom of heaven is unruffled. Children may expire vainly asking for bread ; babes may be devoured by serpents, while the gods sit smiling in the clouds ; the innocent may languish unto death in the obscurity of dungeons; brave men and heroic women may be changed to ashes at the bigot’s stake, while heaven is filled with song and joy. Out on the wide sea, in darkness and in storm, the shipwrecked struggle with the cruel waves, while the angels play upon their �Oration on the Gods. 39 golden harps. The streets of the world are filled with the diseased, the deformed, and the helpless; the chambers of pain are crowded with the pale forms of the suffering, while the angels float and fly in the happy realms of day. In heaven they are too happy to have sympathy ; too busy singing to aid the implor­ ing and distressed. Their eyes are blinded, their ears are stopped, and their hearts are turned to stone by the infinite selfishness of joy. The saved mariner is too happy when he touches the shore to give a moment’s thought to his drowning brothers. With the indiffer­ ence of happiness, with the contempt of bliss, heaven barely glances at the miseries of earth. Cities are devoured by the rushing lava; the earth opens and thousands perish; women raise their clasped hands towards heaven, but the gods are too happy to aid their children. The smiles of the deities are unacquainted with the tears of men. The shouts of heaven drown the sobs of earth. In all ages man has prayed for help, and then helped himself. Having shown how man created gods, and how he became the trembling slave of his own creation, the question naturally arises: How did he free himself, even a little, from these monarchs of the sky ; from these despots of the clouds ; from this aristocracy of the air ? How did he, even to the extent that he has, outgrow his ignorant, abject terror, and throw off the yoke of superstition ? Probably, the first thing that tended to disabuse his mind was the discovery of order, of regularity, of periodicity in the universe. From this, he began to suspect that everything did not happen purely with reference to him. He noticed that, whatever he might do, the motions of the planets were always the same ; that eclipses were periodical, and that even comets came at certain intervals. This convinced him that eclipses and comets had nothing to do with him. He perceived that they were not caused for his benefit nor injury. He thus learned to regard them with admira­ tion instead of fear. He began to suspect that famine was not sent by some enraged and revengeful deity, but �40 Oration on the Gods. resulted often from the neglect and ignorance of man. He learned that diseases were not produced by evil spirits. He found that sickness was occasioned by natural causes, and could be cured by natural means. He demonstrated, to his own satisfaction at least, that prayer is not a medicine. He found by sad experience that his gods were of no practical use, as they never assisted him, except when he was perfectly able to help himself. At last he began to discover that his indi­ vidual action had nothing whatever to do with strange appearances in the heavens; that it was impossible for him to be bad enough to cause a whirlwind, or good enough to stop one. After many centuries of thought, he about half concluded that making mouths at a priest would not necessarily cause an earthquake. He noticed, and no doubt with considerable astonishment, that very good men were occasionally struck by lightning, while very bad ones escaped. He was frequently forced to the painful conclusion (and it is the most painful to which any human being ever was forced) that the right did not always prevail. He noticed that the gods did not interfere in behalf of the weak and innocent. He was now and then astonished by seeing an unbeliever in the enjoyment of most excellent health. He finally ascertained that there could be no possible connection between an unusually severe winter and his failure to give a sheep to a priest. He began to suspect that the order of the universe was not con­ stantly being changed to assist him because he repeated a creed. He observed that some children would steal after having been regularly baptised. He noticed a vast difference between religion and justice, and that the worshippers of the same god took delight in cutting each others’ throats. He saw that these religious disputes filled the world with hatred and slavery. At last he had the courage to suspect that no god at any time interferes with the order of events. He learned a few facts, and these facts positively refused to har­ monise with the ignorant superstitions of his fathers. Finding his sacred books incorrect and false in some particulars, his faith in their authenticity began to be shaken ; finding his priests ignorant upon some points, �Oration on the Oods. 41 he began to lose respect for the cloth; this was the commencement of intellectual freedom. The civilisation of man has increased just to the same extent that religious power has decreased. The intellectual advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth. The Church never enabled a human being to make even one of these exchanges ; on the contrary, all her power has been used to prevent them. In spite, however, of the Church, man found that some of his religious conceptions were wrong. By reading his Bible, he found that the ideas of his god were more cruel and brutal than those of the most depraved savage. He also discovered that this holy book was filled with ignorance, and that it must have been written by persons wholly unacquainted with the nature of the phenomena by which we are sur­ rounded, and now and then some man had the goodness and courage to speak his honest thoughts. In every age some thinker, some doubter, some investigator, some hater of hypocrisy, some despiser of sham, some brave lover of the right, has gladly, proudly, and heroically braved the ignorant fury of superstition for the sake of man and truth. These divine men were generally torn in pieces by the worshippers of the gods. Socrates was poisoned because he lacked reverence for some of the deities. Christ was crucified by a religious rabble for the crime of blasphemy. Nothing is more gratifying to a reli­ gionist than to destroy his enemies at the command of God. Religious persecution springs from a due admixture of love towards God and hatred towards man. The terrible religious wars that inundated the world with blood tended, at least, to bring all religion into disgrace and hatred. Thoughtful people began to question the divine origin of a religion that made its believers hold the rights of others in absolute con­ tempt. A few began to compare Christianity with the religions of heathen people, and were forced to admit that the difference was hardly worth dying for. They also found that other nations were even happier and �42 Oration on the Gods. more prosperous than their own. They began to suspect that their religion, after all, was not of much real value. For three hundred years the Christian world endea­ vored to rescue from the “ Infidel ” the empty sepulchre of Christ. For three hundred years the armies of the Cross were baffled and beaten by the victorious hosts of an impudent impostor. This immense fact sowed the seeds of distrust throughout all Christendom, and millions began to lose confidence in a God who had been vanquished by Mohammed. The people also found that commerce made friends where religion made enemies, and that religious zeal was utterly incompatible with peace between nations’ or indi­ viduals. They discovered that those who loved the gods most were apt to love men least; that the arro­ gance of universal forgiveness was amazing ; that the most malicious had the effrontery to pray for their enemies ; and that humility and tyranny were the fruit of the same tree. For ages a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius on the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, “ Think !” The many have said “ Believe ?” The first doubt was the womb and the cradle of progress, and from the first doubt man has continued to advance. Men began to investigate and the Church began to oppose. The astronomer scanned the heavens, while the Church branded his grand forehead with the word “ infidel,” and now not a glittering star in all the vast expanse bears a Christian name. In spite of all religion the geologist penetrated the earth, read her history in books of stone, and found hidden within her bosom souvenirs of all ages. Old ideas perished in the retort of the chemist, and useful truths took their places. One by one religious conceptions have been �Oration on the Gods. 43- placed in the crucibles of science, and thus far nothing but dross has been found. A new world has been discovered by the microscope ; everywhere has been found the infinite ; in every direction man has investi­ gated and explored, and nowhere, in earth nor stars, has been found the footstep of any being superior to or independent of nature. Nowhere has been dis­ covered the slightest evidence of any interference from without. These are the sublime truths that enabled man to throw off the yoke of superstition. These are the splendid facts that snatched the sceptre of authority from the hands of priests. In that vast cemetery called the past are most of the religions of men, and there, too, are nearly all their gods. The sacred temples of India were ruins long ago. Over column and cornice, over the painted and pictured walls, cling and creep the trailing vines. Brahma, the golden, with four heads and four arms ; Vishnu, the sombre, the punisher of the wicked, with his three eyes, his crescent, and his necklace of skulls ; Siva, the destroyer, red with seas of blood ; Kali, the goddess ; Draupadi, the white-armed ; and Chrishna, the Christ—all passed away and left the thrones of heaven desolate. Along the banks of the sacred Nile, Isis no longer wandering weeps, searching for the dead Osiris. The shadow of Typhon’s scowl falls no more upon the waves. The sun rises as of yore, and his golden beams still smite the lips of Memnon, but Memnon is as voiceless as the Sphinx. The sacred fanes are lost in desert sands ; the dusty mummies are still waiting for the resurrection promised by their priests, and the old beliefs, wrought in curiously sculptured stone, sleep in the mystery of a language lost and dead. Odin, the author of life and soul, Vili and Ve, and the mighty giant Yamir, strode long ago from the icy halls of the North ; and Thor, with iron glove and glittering hammer, dashes mountains to the earth no more. Broken are the circles and cromlechs of the ancient Druids ; fallen upon the summits of the hills and covered with the centuries’ moss are the sacred cairns. �44 Oration on the Gods. The divine fires of Persia and of the Aztecs have died out in the ashes of the past, and there is none to re­ kindle and none to feed the holy flames. The harp of Orpheus is still ; the drained cup of Bacchus has been thrown aside ; Venus lies dead in stone, and her white bosom heaves no more with love. The streams still murmur, but no Naiads bathe ; the trees still wave, but in the forest aisles no Dryads dance. The gods have flown from high Olympus. Not even the beautiful women can lure them back, and even Danae lies un­ noticed, naked to the stars. Hushed for ever are the thunders of Sinai; lost are the voices of the prophets, and the land, once flowing with milk and honey, is but a desert waste. One by one the myths had faded from the clouds ; one by one the phantom hosts have dis­ appeared ; and one by one facts, truths, and realities have taken their places. The supernatural has almost gone, but the natural remains. The gods have fled, but man is here. “Nations, like individuals, have their periods of youth, of manhood, and decay.” Religions are the same. The same inexorable destiny awaits them all. The gods, created by the nations, must perish with their creators. They were created by men, and like men they must pass away. The deities of one age are the bye-words of the next. The religion of our day and country is no more exempt from the sneer of the future than the others have been. When India was supreme, Brahma sat upon the world’s throne. When the sceptre passed to Egypt, Isis and Osiris received the homage of mankind. Greece, with her fierce valor, swept to empire, and Jove put on the purple of authority. The earth trembled with the tread of Rome’s intrepid sons, and Jupiter grasped with mailed hand the thunderbolts of heaven. Rome fell, and Christians from her territory, with the red sword of war, carved out the ruling nations of the world, and now Christ sits upon the old throne. Who will be his successor ? Day by day religious conceptions grow less and less intense. Day by day the old spirit dies out of book and creed. The burning enthusiasm, the quenchless zeal �Oration on the Gods. 45 of the early Church have gone, never, never tc return. The ceremonials remain, but the ancient faith is fading out of the human heart. The worn-out arguments fail to convince, and denunciations that once blanched the faces of a race excite in us only derision and disgust. As time rolls on, the miracles grow mean and small, and the evidences our fathers thought conclusive utterly fail to satisfy us. There is an “ irrepressible conflict ” between religion and science, and they cannot peaceably occupy the same brain nor the same world. While utterly discarding all creeds, and denying the truth of all religions, there is neither in my heart nor upon my lips a sneer for the hopeful, loving, and tender souls who believe that from all this discord will result a perfect harmony ; that every evil will in some mysterious way become a good, and that above and over all there is a being who in some way will reclaim and glorify every one of the children of men. But for the creeds of those who glibly prove that salvation is almost impossible ; that damnation is almost certain ; that the highway of the universe leads to hell; who fill life with fear, and death with horror ; who curse the cradle and mock the tomb ;—it is impossible to entertain other than feelings of pity, contempt, and scorn. Reason, Observation, and Experience—the Holy Trinity of Science—have taught us that happiness is the only good : that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If, by any possibility, the existence of a power superior to and independent of nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel. Until then let us stand erect. Notwithstanding the fact that Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with tearing down without building again. The Church should by this time know that it is utterly impossible to rob men of their opinions. The history of religious per­ secution fully establishes the fact that the mind neces­ sarily resists and defies every attempt to control it by �46 Oration on the Gods. violence. The mind necessarily clings to old ideas until prepared for the new. The moment we com­ prehend the truth, all erroneous ideas are of necessity east aside. A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease ; of the curative properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air, and light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be restored. These remarks were so full of good sense, and discovered so much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, “ Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They are my only support, and without them I should be miserable indeed !” “ I am not going,” said the sur­ geon, “ to take away your crutches ; I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the crutches awav yourself.” For the vagaries of the clouds the infidels propose to substitute the realities of earth ; for superstition, the splendid demonstrations and achievements of Science; and for theological tyranny, the chainless liberty of Thought. We do not say that we have discovered all ; that our doctrines are the all-in-all of truth. We know of no end to the development of man. We cannot unravel the infinite complications of matter and of force. The history of one monad is as unknown as the uni­ verse ; one drop of water is as wonderful as all the seas ; one leaf as all the forests ; and one grain of sand as all the stars. We are not endeavoring to chain the future, but to free the present. We are not forging fetters for our children, but we are breaking those our fathers made for us. We are the advocates of inquiry, of investiga­ tion, and thought. This of itself is an admission that we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions. Philosophy has not the egotism of faith. While super­ stition builds Walls and creates obstructions, science opens all the highways of thought. We do not pretend �Oration on the Gods- 47 to have circumnavigated everything, and to have solved all difficulties, but we do believe that it is better to love men than to fear gods ; that it is grander and nobler to think and investigate for yourself than to repeat a creed or quote scripture like a religious parrot, with the countenance of a dyspeptic owl. We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven. We do not expect to accomplish everything in our day ; but we want to do what good we can, and to render all the service possible in the holy cause of human progress. We know that doing away with gods and supernatural persons and powers is not an end. It is a means to an end, the real end being the happiness of man. Felling forests is not the end of agriculture. Driving pirates from the sea is not all there is of commerce. We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future—not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people—wherein, with appropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease producing millionaires and mendicants—gorged indolence and famished industry —truth in rags and superstition robed and crowned. We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable, when the true shall be the beautiful, and when Reason, throned upo$ the world’s brain, shall be the King of kings and God of gods. ���WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL. g (J MISTAKES OF MOSES ... ... ...10 Superior edition, in cloth 1 f; DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT 77. 77 o 6 Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by J. M. Wheel er ... ... ... ..04 ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4 CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS ... ... 0 3 AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN... o 3 ORATION ON VOLTAIRE ... . . o 3 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ... o 3 PAINE THE PIONEER ... 7i 0 2 HUMANITY’S DEBT TO THOMAS PAINE 7. 0 2 ERNEST RENAN AND JESUS CHRIST 0 2 THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS ... 0 2 TRUE RELIGION ... ... ... ’7 o 2 FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field ... 0 2 GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field ... 0 2 SKULLS ... . 02 THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH 7. *” 0 2 LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2 THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION ... ... 0 2 A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Ooudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford THE DYING CREED o 2 DO I BLASPHEME ? ... *7 0 2 THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE*’ 7. 0 2 SOCIAL SALVATION ... ... o 2 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ... ... *02 GOD AND THE STATE ... ... .7. 0 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? ... o 2 WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II*” . o 2 ART AND MORALITY ... ... o 2 CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY 0 1 CHRIST AND MIRACLES 0 1 THE GREA.T MISTAKE ... ” 0 1 LIVE TOPICS ... ”*0 1 REAL BLASPHEMY 77 ”* *01 REPAIRING THE IDOLS ... ’ * 0 1 MYTH AND MIRACLE ’*’ ” 0 1 Printed by G, W. Foote, 14 Clerkenweil-green, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Oration on the gods 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. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Cover title: "The gods: an oration". "Works by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 28j in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. 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 N354 Subject The topic of the resource God Agnosticism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Oration on the gods), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Agnosticism Gods NSS