1 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3224db3aa937b7de80b81813628c309c.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=sQiDKc8u5aua38t-Xn0ise8hEDTTHKn3wkKvS-VlcEf-ECrf77EAFQF0hX15J2uysRNUvt6GWJifQopW-rDPMc3g7vAOIpOk%7EY3PiPI2TuXjty8B5MwW%7EJupOaTPUzByxhHH9S0LFBXT4vKV%7EUEG4VKBuXZNbGlyUWtR0b59zRbQA-2hTVf-S4U2vDpfImV6a9kDzW5CRacCtXj0sgsE7hc3oZXRsbxf5ChkniWCWcXPQZHisJkTv1Ee96y-cz2TyxNVvMawbCcReUxbCb0GG1NISH1Q3qCkETCElLVXi4vzVhTaRqunhcErqpY4xXqZQ4iahkI3DpGJfpAcgIWOog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7d058292252481749b9e91f9ce8eb03e PDF Text Text THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION AN LETTER OPEN TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALIFAX, N.S. —BY— CHARLES WATTS Editor of “ Secular Thought.Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,” “ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De­ structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?” “Bible Morality,” ^Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and Influence,'’ “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,” “ Superstition of the Christian Sunday : A Plea for Liberty and Justice, ” ‘ ‘ The Horrors of the French Revolution,” Ac., Ac. In this Letter the following subjects are dealt with : 1. Why do the Clergy Avoid Debate 1 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towar Is Christianity. 3. Freethought and Men of Science. 4. The Dif­ ference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ and Heroism. 6. Christianity and Slavery. TORONTO : “ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE, 31 Adelaide St. East. PRICE - 5 CENTS. �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMP1ION. -AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALTFAX, N.S. Reverend Sir :—In No. 1 of The Theologue, a magazine issued apparently under the auspices of the Presbyterian College at Halifax, N.S., you have published a lengthy article purporting to be a reply to “ A Canadian Agnostic,” although it is evidently intended to refer to myself. You commence by saying:—“ For between two and three years past the Maritime Provinces have received periodical visits from the chief champion of Agnosticism in Canada.” Is it not rather surprising that a reverend gentle­ man of your position, influence, and ability should have remained so long silent and allowed this “ Canadian Agnostic ” to have made his “periodical visits,” and to have given utterance to what you are pleased to term “ unsupported statements and pitiful perversions,” without seeking to reply to him face to face, cor­ recting the mischief which you suppose that he wrought upon the minds of his hearers ? Is it not your duty as a Christian minister to “ defend the faith ” in the presence of those before whom it is attacked ? Are you not aware that the Bible enjoins, «tnd that your Master and his chief successor, St. Paul, set you the example, to “ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself ” ? t(Prov. 25:9). Do we not read in the “ Word of God,” “ Come now and let us reason together ” (Isaiah 1 : 18) ; also, that very •early in his career Jesus was found in the temple in the midst of doctors, “ both hearing them and asking them questions,” and that St. Paul “ disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him, and spake boldly for the space of three months ” (Acts 17 : 17 ; 19: 8). Pardon me, Reverend Sir, for sasking what reason you assign for avoiding the injunction of �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 3 your “ sacred book,” and the “ sublime example ” set you by Christ and St. Paul ? Are we to regard such neglect upon your part as an illustration of practical Christianity ? How many Secular halls have you gone into and “ spake boldly ” with Agnostics ? Is your absence from these “ temples and syna­ gogues ” to be ascribed to the fact that you have discovered that such “ disputing ” would not be profitable to your cause, or that for personal reasons you have found that in this, as in many other instances, it is not always wise for rev. gentlemen to at­ tempt in this practical age to emulate their Lord and Master ? While your discretion in thus “ avoiding the enemy ” may indi­ cate your sagacity, it does not show that you have too much con­ fidence in the faith you preach. Rest assured, Rev. Sir, that principles or systems that will not stand the test of honest criti­ cism in fair and gentlemanly debate, have but little claim upon the intelligence of the present day. Probably you may urge that you have come to the rescue of the Faith in the article. you have penned in The Theologue. But purely that mode of warfare can scarcely be looked upon as being either very safe or very heroic. You virtually admit, in the article in question, that you base your comments upon mere hear­ say of what your opponent is supposed to have said at periods varying from one to three years ago, and you deal with the “ reports ” of his statements where he is unable to correct or answer you. Moreover, the probability is that but few of your readers ever heard one of his lectures, and therefore they have only an ex parte account from which to judge. Now, does it not occur to you that it would have been far more heroic and “ Christlike ” in you, and would have given greater satisfaction to the public, had you attended the “ Canadian Agnostic’s ” lectures and availed yourself of the opportunity always afforded on such occasions to reply there and then ? In that case, “ the bane and antidote ” would both have been offered to those present, al­ lowing them to decide for themselves which was the bane and which was the antidote. If, however, for some reason this ^arrangement was not convenient to you, why did you omit to �4 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. accept his invitation, which was published more than once in the Halifax papers, to a public debate ? Can it be that you fail to realise the force of Milton’s opinion that truth will never suffer .in its conflict with error ? The policy adopted by the orthodox clergy of shunning public controversy may please the older members of the Churches, who unfortunately have been trained to accept their views upon trust, but it will never satisfy the young and intelligent minds seeking to know the reason why they should endorse the faith submitted to them. Blind belief and passive submission belong to the theological darkness of the past, not to the intellectual light of the present. Your article appears to me to be remarkable for its theological presumption and groundless allegations. I wish you to particu­ larly understand that I do not use the term presumption in any offensive sense whatever. It is not my custom or desire to know­ ingly initiate the very objectionable feature, too prevalent in some discussions, of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of thosewho differ from me. Such conduct too often inflames the passions but seldom wins the assent of reason. All controversy should be governed by intellectual discrimination, not by angry disputation. Truth should invariably be the goal in such con­ flicts, and the best and most dignified me'ans of reaching it is calm and kind investigation. By applying the word presump­ tion to your article I wish it to be understood that in it you make statements upon mere supposition and that you substitute opinions for facts. In no one instance throughout the article do you deign to make an effort to prove what you assert, but you urge with marvellous confidence your allegations as if they were beyond question. This, I regret to say, is a common practice with theologians; they seldom acquaint themselves with the real nature of the opinions or principles they assail, and thus they ; frequently mislead their hearers or readers with unfair conclu­ sions drawn from false premises. You say : “ Very pertinent and ' pointed was the reply of Sir Isaac Newton to the astronomer Haley when he spouted infidelity in his presence. ‘ Sir,’ said that Prince of philosophers, ‘ you have never studied these sub- �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION, 5 jects and I have. Do not disgrace yourself as a philosopher by presuming to judge on questions you have never examined.’ ” If this anecdote is a fair reflex of Newton’s mind it is clear that his theology, which, by the way, was exceedingly small from an orthodox point of view, did not protect him from a fair share of egotism and conceit. This incident, however, which you have selected, has a most significant meaning in reference to your article in The Theologue, for, evidently, “ you have not studied ” with too great care the subjects upon which you therein write. For instance, where did you obtain from Agnostic philosophy a justification for your assertion that Agnosticism was “a system of accumulated negation,” and that it taught, “ we are sure only of what is present and visible ? ” This, Sir, is a pure theological fiction, caused by an utter lack of knowledge upon the part of the assertor as to the facts about which he was writing. You seem to entirely misunderstand our position as Secularists and Agnostics in reference to Christianity. It may, therefore, be of some service to inform you in a few words what that posi­ tion really is. There are three principal modes of criticising the modern Orthodox pretensions set forth on behalf of popular Christianity. First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely destitute of truth, and that they have been of no service what­ ever to mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse. Many of the superstitions of the world have been allied with some fact, and have in their exercise upon the minds of a portion of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful purpose. In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard it as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in our opinion, is unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess what they hold to be true as we have to entertain views which we believe to be correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted by intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The third and, probably, the most sensible and fair mode of dealing with Christianity is to regard it as not being the only system of truth; as not having had a special origin ; as not being suited to all minds; as having fulfilled its original purpose, and as possess- �6 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. ing no claim of absolute domination. This is the true position of Secularism and of Agnosticism towards popular orthodoxy. Such a position is based upon the voice of history, the law of mental science, and the philosophy of the true liberty of thought. Having dealt with these introductory points, the main issuesin your article are reached, and here your “ sins of omission and of commission ” come glaringly to view. Your “ sins of omission ” consist mainly in your not even making the attempt to prove what you so readily assert n your article, and not in any way verifying your nu­ merous allegations. You reproduce old statements that have been refuted again and again, and leave your innocent readers to suppose that what is advanced are undisputed facts. Such an orthodox procedure may be expected from the pulpit, but it is sadly out of place in a magazine, particularly where you profess to answer an Agnostic opponent. You apparently penned the article under the impression that your Christian friends would be satisfied, without evidence of the correctness of your position, and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that your desire was to convince those who are adverse to your theological views. But surely you are not so oblivious of the intellectual activity of the times as not to recognise that for you to succeed in this laudable effort something more than vague assertion is necessary. This, Sir, is not an age of mere blind belief or of passive submission,— at least, it is not so outside the church. Facts are required, and evidence is necessary, when dealing with the Agnostic position, and it is your neglect in supplying these very essentials that constitutes, in my estimation, your “ sins of omission.” You accuse “ A Canadian Agnostic ” of misapplying the term Freethought to certain “ leaders in the departments of Science and Statesmanship, of Literature and the Arts,” but you do not furnish a single verification of your charge. What “ names ” of “leaders” has the Agnostic claimed as belonging to the Freethought ranks who were not Freethinkers ? You omit to men­ tion one in support of your statement. True, you say, “ Some �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 7 of the names noted, e.g., Darwin, Huxley, Martineau (both Har­ riet and James), cannot be included in the Infidel class.” If, Sir, by the term “ Infidel ” you mean a disbeliever in orthodox Chris­ tianity, then undoubtedly the four persons whose names you. mention were “Infidels” in the fullest sense of the word. Is itnot a fact, wThen in 1859 Darwin published his “ Origin of. Species,” and when in 1877 he issued his “Descent of Man/’ thathe was branded by both the press and the pulpit as an “ Infidel ?” Even such a high-class journal as the Saturday Review said of the assault Darwinism made upon religion:—“ It tends to trench upon the territory of established religious belief,” and. the Quarterly Review exclaimed that the teachings of Darwin were “ absolutely incompatible, not only with single expressions in the word of God on that subject of natural science with which it is not immediately concerned, but .... with the whole representation of that moral and spiritual condition of man which is its proper subject matter.” Dr. Andrew Dickson White, in his “ Warfare of Science” (p. 149,) quotes Bishop Cummings, who wrote: “Christians should resist to the last Darwinism ; for that it is evidently contrary to Scripture.” Tne Dr. also refers (p. 147,) to the Rev. Dr. Hodge as saying,. Darwinism “is a denial of every article of the Christian faith/ In 1871 the Rev. W. Mitchell, Vice-President of the Victoria Institute, wrote : “ Any theory which comes in with an attempt to ignore design as manifested in God’s creation, is a theory, I say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the theory of Dar­ win does endeavour to do ... So far as I can understand the arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavour to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the deity.” Another amiable minister of the “ Gospel of love ” in 1882 went so far as'to say that Charles Darwin, who had then recently died, “ was burning in hell.” Do you not know, Sir, that both Darwin and Huxley openly and frankly avowed themselvesAgnostics ? Professor Huxley was the originator of the term as it / is at present understood, and he is now on,e of its ablest exponents. Freethought is an essential element in Agnosticism, and, there- �8 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. fore, was it not quite right to name these two scientists as Free­ thinkers? You utterly ignore these facts, which either shows that you were not acquainted with them, or else that you pur­ posely omitted to mention them. In either case the omission is not calculated to enhance your reputation as a trustworthy student and expositor of history. You mention Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Goethe, Carlyle and others to substantiate your views upon Christianity and the Bible ; yet it is to be regretted that you make no effort to vindi­ cate in what way either of those writers refutes the position taken upon these subjects by “ A Canadian Agnostic.” Surely you do not contend that those “ burning and shining lights ” regarded orthodox Christianity as being perfect or the Bible as an infallible book. The whole tenor of Locke’s philosophy is based on know­ ledge, while theological teachings are founded on faith. Newton contended that the universe was guided by natural law, and not as your system alleges, by the alleged supernatural. As for Carlyle, Professor Tyndall and Moncure Conway have recently demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the “ Sage of Chelsea ” was a thorough sceptic to the orthodox religion. It is clear from your article that you are under the delusion that “ A Canadian Agnostic ” sees no good in the Bible, while the fact is that he recognises much in that book which is true and useful; but he also finds much therein that is erroneous, and which would, if acted upon, be injurious both to individual and na­ tional progress. Forgive me, Rev. Sir, if I am unable to accept the ■Queen of England, or “the dying words of Sir Walter Scott” as authorities upon the true value of the Bible. The English throne •or a death bed are not the best places fiom which to obtain efficient and impartial evidence to justify claims that are contra­ dicted by investigations made at the seats of learning by such men as Davidson, Jones, Westcott and the author of “Super­ natural Religion,” while they were in health and possessing mental vigour. It is upon the candid researches of scholars like these that Freethinkers rely for the facts as to the history, na­ ture and worth of the Bible. If it be true that Walter Scott �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 9 whispered just -before his death, “ Bring me the Book,” meaning the Bible, he did no more than probably a devout believer in the Vedas, the Zendavesta or the Koran would have done under similar circumstances. But, again, you omit to do the very thing which it was necessary you should have done in your case,— namely, to show in what possible manner such a request could prove that your Bible was superior to all other existing books. You appear to attach too much importance to the opinions of eminent men without first ascertaining upon what grounds such ■opinions are formed. This is a grave omission upon the part of a rev. gentleman in your position. Of course every person has a right to entertain his or her opinion, but its real value can only be estimated by discovering its relation to facts. Moreover, when you cite opinions in support of your contentions it is due to the cause of truth that your citations should, so far as they •affect the questions at issue, be given fairly and in full. This you have not done in your article. For instance, in reference to your testimony to the character of Christ, you only produce partial statements and thereby cause an erroneous conclusion to be arrived at. Take as an illustration of the truth of my charge the following passage from your article: “ Men the reverse of friendly to Christianity, as we understand it, such as Strauss, Theodore Parker, Renan, and Rousseau, have endorsed Richter’s judgment on Jesus,‘He is the purest among the mighty, the mightiest among the pure.’ ” Now, Sir, you ought to know that, as you have put these words, they are likely to mislead your readers. Not one of the four men you have quoted “ endorsed” what you teach from your pulpit as to the character and mission of Christ. Why did you not state that Rousseau’s “ testimony ” was put into the mouth of his “ Vicar of Savoy,” who subse­ quently adds in reference to the Gospel containing the supposed sayings and doings of Christ, “ Nevertheless this same gospel is full of incredible things, things which contradict reason, and which it is impossible for any sensible man to conceive or admit.” You might also have added that Renan in his “ Life of Jesus” says that: Christ had “no knowledge of the general conditions �10 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with science, “ be­ lieved in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons ” (pp. 79-80) ; he was “ harsh ” towards his family, and was “ no philosopher ” (pp. 81-83); he “ went to excess ’(p.174); he “ aimed less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm “ sometimes his in­ tolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and ap­ parently absurd ” (pp. 274,275); and “Bitterness and reproach became more and more manifest in his heart ” (p. 278). I have now sufficiently supplied your omissions to enable a better opportunity for a just judgment to be formed as to the worth of the opinions of your witnesses upon the character of' Christ. I would not have you mistake my objections to omissions. I grant that at times it may be right, nay necessary, to omit certain things, but the sin comes in when persons are misled by the omissions as to the facts of the matter under con­ sideration. Such is the great drawback pertaining to a large portion of your article. It bears the semblance more of special pleading, than a candid statement of the whole truth. It reads like the production of the partial theologian, instead of the work of a just and equitable reasoner. Your article is so replete with inaccurate statements, bold asser­ tions and erroneous conclusions, that it would occupy more space than I have allowed myself to deal with all of your “ sins of commission.” A few instances, however, will suffice to show your lack of historical precision and logical deduction. You say that George Washington declared, “ It is impossible to govern the world without God,” and you refer to him as if he were a Christian, whereas you should know that he was a Deist and did not in any way accept orthodox Christianity. The God in whom* Washington believed was certainly not the Bible Deity, and his religion was far more Secular than it was theological. You next insinuate that I slander the character of Christ Now, Sir, to slander is to utter that which is false and maliciouswhich I have never done in reference to Christ. Judging from his alleged biographies, I admit that he possessed some excellent traits of character, and I applaud his strong denunciation of �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 11 certain evils of his day. Regarding him as one possessing but limited education, surrounded by unfavourable influences for in tellectual acquirements, belonging to a family not very remarkable for literary culture, retaining many of the failings of his pro­ genitors, and having but little care for the world or the things of the world, there is much to admire in the life and conduct of Jesus. But when he is raised upon a pinnacle of great­ ness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the production of any age or country, being equal to God himself , he is then exalted to a position which, in my opinion, he does not merit, and which deprives him of that credit which other­ wise he would be entitled to. True, I cannot endorse your unsupported assertion that Christ was perfect and that he “ died the death of a god,” for if your teaching be correct, he came on earth with a mission to perform, a part of which was to die on the Cross ; yet, when the time arrived for his destiny to be ful­ filled, he sought to avoid his fate, and shrank from that death which was said to give life to a fallen world. So ovei vhelmed was he with grief and anxiety of mind, that he “ began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “ My soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even unto death.” At last, overcome with grief, he implores his father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting him. If Christ knew in three days he should rise again ; that his death was to be little more than a sleep of a few hours’ duration; if he were conscious that ultimately he should tri­ umph over death, wherefore all this trouble and mental suffering ? In reference to the statement of “ A Canadian Agnostic ” that Christianity is not original you exclaim : “ He however took good care not to attempt showing it.” If you will read my pamphlet on “Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence,’’ you will find that I did attempt to show it; and if you require additional proof it is only for you to accept an invitation, which I now offer you, to discuss the claims of Christianity either upon the platform or through the pages of The Theologue, where your article appeared, and in Secular Thought. In speaking of Christ you remark he “ imperceptibly drew all �12 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. classes of men to him—lifted them up from the horrible pit in which they were imbedded, into heavenly places, till poverty gave place to comfort, intellectual degradation to intellectual development.” This statement is almost an unpardonable sin upon the part of a scholar who should know that “ all classes of men ” never were drawn to Christ either in the past or at the present time. Even the Rev. Dr. A. Burns, of Hamilton, Ont., admits: “ No dialectical skill, nor witchery of logic or rhetoric, can justify the attitude of the church toward the nine hundred millions who have yet to hear the first Christian sermon. On what principle can the Church affirm that Christianity is for the healing of the nations ? Do Christians believe that ? Could they make the sceptic believe that they were sincere ? ” As to your allegation that comfort and intellectual development replaced poverty and degradation under the influence of the church, history records the very opposite as being the fact; poverty and submission are the essential teachings ascribed to Christ, and during the greater part of seventeen hnndred years of Christian rule the masses throughout Christendom were the victims of want, misery, ignorance, and mental degradation. If you read Professor Draper’s “ Conflict between Religion and Science,” and “ The History of European Morals,” by Lecky, you will discover that for centuries, when Christianity was paramount and unrestrained, there was “ A night of mental and moral darkness,” as recorded by Lecky, who further adds: “Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth of Scepticism. . . . The splendid discoveries of physical science would have been impossible but for the scientific scepti­ cisms of the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of Europe passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and industrial independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the intellectual revival of Europe begin.” Equally reprehensible is it on your part to allege that the Church has been opposed to slavery and that “ its complete sup- �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 13- pression is due mainly to the operation of Christian influences.” It would be almost impossible for a more groundless assertion than this to be uttered; and if such reckless writing is to be taken as a fair sample of the historical knowledge possessed by the clergymen of Halifax, no marvel that they avoid debate and publish their perversions of facts where no correction can be given. It is thus that theological presumption thrives and ortho­ dox errors are perpetuated. The truth is that slavery is a Bible institution, that while some professed Christians opposed the crime it was fostered by the Church, and many of those who condemned its cruelty and injustice were designated by Chris­ tians as “ Infidels.’ Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before than it was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to Christianity many of the slaves had political power, they were educated, and allowed to mix in the domestic circles of their masters, but subse­ quent to the Christian advent the fate of the slave was far more ev ere; hence, Lecky observes, “ The slave code of imperial Rome compares not unfavourably with those of some Christian countries.” (“ Hist, of Morals,” Vol. I, p. 327.) The Council of Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church communion without the consent of their masters. The Council of Orleans (541) ordered that the descendants of slave parents might be captured and replaced in the servile condition of their ancestors. The Council of Toledo (633) forbade Bishops to liberate slaves belonging to the Church. Jews having made fortunes by slave­ dealing, the Council of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the selling of Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws were also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Latern Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots and bishops held slaves. The Abbey of St, Germain de Pres owned 80,000 slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. Let me suggest that you carefully read that excellent work : “ Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” by Parker Pillsbury, and “The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery,” by James G. Birney, and you will then learn how the Churches op- �14 THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. posed the abolition of the slave trade. It is stated in “ The Life and Times of Garrison ” that at a convention held in May, 1841, Mr. Garrison proposed : “ That among the responsible classes in the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the existence of slavery, the religious professors, and especially the clergy, stand wickedly pre-eminent, and ought to be unsparingly ex­ posed and reproved before all the people.” In a recent editorial in Voice (N.Y.) appears the following: “Even the powerful East New York M. E. Conference publicly reprimanded five of its members, one of whom was the late Rev. Dr. Curry, for the sin of attending an Abolition meeting addressed by Wendell Phillips ! This is the way Mr. Phillips found it necessary to lash the hesitating, time-serving clergy of Boston in his speech on the surrender of Sims in 1852 : ‘ I do not forget that the Church all the while this melancholy scene was passing [the surrender of the fugitive slave Sims] stood by and upheld a merciless people in the execution of an inhuman law, accepted the barbarity and baptised it Christian duty.’ ” Theodore Parker said that if the whole American Church had “ dropped through the Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause would have been further on.” (His Works, Vol. 6, p. 233). He pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract among all its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even Wilberforce himself declared that the American Episcopal Church “ raises no voice against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.” Your identifying Secularism with “ Robert Elsmere ” and calling it the “ Gospel of Despair ” is evidence that you do not understand what Secular philosophy really is. It is not pre­ tended that “ Robert Elsmere ” was a Secularist. Permit me to remind you that Secular principles enable a man to live a noble and a happy life and die a contented and peaceful death, with the belief that if there be another existence or a continuation of the �THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION. 15 present one, he is safe to realise all its advantages. With the Secularist there is no despair, no fear of hell with its inhuman tortures, but the highest consolation born of confidence in the result of meaning well and of doing well. I have now pointed out enough of your sins of omission and of commission to exhibit to the candid reader how recklessly you have written upon matters to which you clearly have not given .much thought and attention. In conclusion allow me to express a sincere hope that in future you will seek to learn the facts of anything you oppose before hastily condemning it, and that thereby you may avoid violating the Bible command not to “ bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Charles Watts. SECULARISM : Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient to Meet the Needs of Mankind ? DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS, EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT. WITH PREFATORY LETTERS BY GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE and COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL AND AN INTRODUCTION BY HELEN 60 pages, price 25 cents. H. GARDENER. Secular Thought Office, Toronto. �Charles Watts’ Works. THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WITH Orthodox Christianity. 96 pages. Price 25 cents. SECULARISM : IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND? Debate be­ tween the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Charles Watts. With Prefatory Letters by George Jacob Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener. 60 pages, 25 cents. A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S “ TACTICS of INFIDELS.” 20 cents, post free. CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE. 32 pages, price 15 cents. THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION : THEIR CAUSES. 24 pages, price 10 cents SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 22 pages in cover ; price 10c. BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c. AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price 10 cents. EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 10 cents. SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH ? 24 pages in cover : price 10c. THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY: A Plea for Liberty and Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c. “THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.” 22 pages in cover; price 10c. NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL; or, BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE. 24 pages, price 10 cents. THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND the Justice of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover; price 10c. THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr- R. F Burns, of Halifax, N.S. r6 pages, price 5c. New Work by Mrs. Watts. Just published. CHRISTIANITY : DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY. By Kate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price 10 cents. Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? II. “ Our Father which art in Heaven.” III. The Fall and the Atonement. IV. The Basis and Incentive of Orthodox Christianity, V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind. SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT. � 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 Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Toronto Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm. Notes: Publisher's list on back cover. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles, 1836-1906 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Secular Thought Office 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 (Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.), 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> Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA841 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 Secularism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b87110da396212b9a5c37ec125ad77ad.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=aqKbA67QS70mrNiWRkpgL3HTtg%7EUMoyofaEq52zS9RGZe80QJ4FRD3Sfnv0JlmXwSbEoXuvnaHg42aaQcxzWUfv6PsarTjS-VzdmQeaNMMRvX0KdH2QFCNaG%7ED9QNqV-2rvIRN6WrABVPLusMQCH9jSM0fcKXuta8IH0p4324umFoZjZ3OkqF5puWbzgEwGqa-2UISOdIBAJeB1zHsuzYrsWUlnGciQF6kuxIMrt5sDIgsiTVvYAvPyaNVgyCmai2mDEIcG%7ET7s9Nfwy1EjCPtnU7sPiMPazF176xlItMmealkUr7nrWMTDVW5WDsLx4f-XZimM8gfWqrw%7Epkyaung__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bb99dc6ddd013ba11acd1dc578c4ee44 PDF Text Text 3 '1 ? 4- NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY siin-s SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE ANTAGONISTIC. BY CHARLES WATTS. The study of science, and its relation to Biblical records, should be both interesting and instructive. Science is defined as being an investigation into the phenomena of ex­ istence, and the best application of the lessons derived there­ by to the requirements of life. Science may be further described as meaning facts reduced to a system; not a fixed, cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the acquirement of additional knowledge. It has been urged that we can have no complete system of science. To some extent this is true; for no science is perfect, if by perfection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But the disco­ veries that have been made, and the scientific truths that have been brought to light, are sufficient to show the fallacy of many Biblical teachings. For instance, so far as man has investigated the statements of the Bible, and the lessons of science, their antagonism to each other has become apparent. This is recognised by some professing Chris­ tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the orthodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general improvement. The national and individual condi­ tion of society would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science. For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science, is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to have been written under ■divine inspiration for the guidance and instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, but should ex­ pound its truths in such a concise and practical manner, that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should •also commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest of the land. But there can be no doubt that the Bible does refer to scientific subjects, only, unfortunately, in so doing, it exhibits its shortcomings by stating the very �2 opposite to what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the phenomena of the solar system, and how diseases and death entered the world, are scientific ques­ tions. These, with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a reference to its statements thereon will show that science and the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. This may be expected from the history and nature of the book. It was evidently written at a remote period, by persons who possessed little or no scientific knowledge, and its teachings are alleged to be fixed for all time and all people. Progress is thus, so far, practically ignored. No matter what subsequent ages may reveal, upon the Christian hypothesis, the Biblical statements must be adhered to. This places the book in direct opposition to science, and dan­ gerous to the development of an advancing civilisation. No book whose teachings are stationary can accord with modern wants and aspirations. That which in the days of Moses might have been considered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as natural laws, subsequent experi­ ence has shown to be in opposition to scientific discoveries. Science and the Bible, therefore, differ widely—the one being progressive, and the other stationary. Science has stamped its valuable impress on the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore hitherto' unknown regions ; by its aid we can descend into the depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological errors that have too long held captive the human mind ; by its aid we can not only avert many of the diseases to which “ flesh is heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its manifold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations from a state of bar­ barism to partial civilisation, and stimulated man to eman­ cipate himself from the curse of degrading superftitions. That which was hid from the gaze of the ancient world has, _ by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com­ municate with our Atlantic friends by that cable which connects nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very length and breadth of the land. As the �3 late Prince Albert said in 1855 : “ No human pursuits make any material progress until science is brought to bear upon them........... Look at the transformation which has gone on around us since the laws of gravitation, electricity, mag­ netism, arid the expansive power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the whole state of existence— one might say, the whole face of the globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is saddening to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or igno­ rant misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too frequently its usefulness has been im­ paired, and its exponents have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own senses. Perhaps from a theological standpoint we could not expect aught else. A study of the histories of Bible believers will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in those discoveries which show the errors of their faith. There have been but few revelations of any magnitude, in any important branch of science, but what have exhibited the fallacy of Bible re­ cords. The antiquity of man has been proved to be consider­ ably greater than Moses alleges ; geology has demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years anterior to the Jewish account; the Christian theory that all mankind des­ cended from one primeval pair is now given up as unreli­ able ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded; the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific supporters; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded supersti­ tion ; the teaching of the New Testament that the world, and its contents, are to be destroyed by fire, has but few believers; a burning hell for the “wicked souls of the de­ parted,” is deemed too revolting and absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction. In every field the “ sacred writings” ap­ pear the very antithesis of science. Fortunately, truth has so far triumphed, that notwithstanding all opposition, science is now appreciated, and existence is regulated by its laws. The Bible but nominally exists, and its teachings are sup­ planted by those of a higher and a more practical nature. In demonstrating the difference that exists between the �4 Bible and science, the supposed creation of the world and the origin of man are the first subjects that suggest them­ selves for consideration. Accepting the chronology of the Hebrew records, there is but little difficulty in ascertaining how long man has been on the earth. For instance, in Genesis, we read that whenAdam was 130 years old his son Seth was born ; when Seth was 105, Enos was born ; when Enos was 90, Cainan was born ; when Cainan was 70, Mahalaleel was born • when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born; when Jared was 162, Enoch was born ; when Enoch was 65, Methusaleh was born; when Methusaleh was 187, Lamechwas born ; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah, 1056 years ; 600 years after this, the flood appears, making from the creation of man to the flood, 1,656 years. Then reckoning from the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the present time, 1874, we have a total of 6031 years since man first appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus xx. it is said that “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is,” and in Genesis i. we read that “ God created man on the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this adequate proof that the Bible teaches that the world and man have existed only a little over six thousand years? This was really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford, who, in his recent lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old and New Testament,” delivered for the Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture, is the short­ ness of the time into which all history is (or at any rate ap­ pears to be) compressed by the chronological statements, especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews, is fixed by many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus, according to the numbers of our English ver­ sion, but a very little exceeds a thousand years. . Conse­ quently, it has beenusual to regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all mankind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six centuries of the Christian era; and, therefore, that all history, and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races of men were formed, by which languages developed into their numerous and �5 diverse types, by which civilisation and art emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within the narrow ■ space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insufficient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms, which reach back (according to the most moderate of mo­ dern critical historians) to about the time at which. the numbers of our English Bible place the’ deluge. Consider­ able diversities of language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly different physical types appear not much subsequently; civilisation in Egypt has, about the pyramid period, which few now place later than b.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts exist in the shape in which they were known in the country at its most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our English Bible do not allow.” That the Biblical assumptions are contradicted by sci­ ence is beyond all doubt. Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geological lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage, that “ the mass of evi­ dence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irresistible and so unshaken by any oppos­ ing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of observing the facts and appreciating the reasoning can for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent their Jives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclusion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the earth’s firstUormation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all competent persons that the formation even of those strata which are nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably millions of years, in arriving at their pre­ sent state.” In reply to this, it is urged by Bible believers that a long period elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first two chapters of that book was only a re-adapta­ tion of the chaos of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is made to animals or plants as being .existence before the time referred to by Moses ? Is it �6 not said by this writer that light was created on the first of the six days, and the sun on the fourth ? Admit this correct, and then, previous to that time, there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the earth, indicating thereby that no new creation, took place 6,000 years ago ? It is also equally conclusive that man existed upon the earth long anterior to the time fixed by Moses. Professor Huxley writes : “ Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption, that man co-existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles Lyell supports the statement, that “North America was peopled more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr. Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire of hereditary kings to 5413 b.c. “It is now generally conceded,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon earth ; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or millions of years beyond our reach. The spurious systems of Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by preju­ dice, to the' monumental records of Egypt as our best guide. Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primi­ tive state of man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages; for the Egyptian Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from the barbarous stage....... These authorities, in support of the extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the lead­ ing geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so extreme for man’s existence on earth may shock some pre­ conceived opinions, it is none the less certain thatlhe rapid �| 7 accumulation of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have already carried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such archaeologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt, &c., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick, Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have, really mastered the monu­ ments of Egypt. Nor do these monuments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full tide of civilisa­ tion, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold inter­ course with Egypt at the present day............ In short, we know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to the deluge of Noah^or even to the creation of the world.” The Bible and science also disagree as to the time occu­ pied in the so-called creation of the world. According to the ist chapter of Genesis, this creation was accomplished in six days, and this theory is confirmed by the words of the Decalogue as given in Exodus xx. n, Mr. Priaulx says “ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined by any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless, no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twenty-four hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation by a cha­ otic period. Geologists, on the contrary, declare that the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous periods of time during their formation, and that even in the vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual change in the organic world. Now, what is the theological explanation of this antagonism between the Bible and geology? Why, it is said that the days men­ tioned by Moses were not natural days of twenty-four hours, but long periods of thousands of years. The objections to �8 this assumption are numerous. The Mosaic periods weredivided into two parts—one of light, and the other of dark­ ness. If, therefore, the day in Genesis meant a thousand years of light, the night represented the same period of darkness. Moreover, it is declared by Moses that God rested the seventh day, so that upon the hypothesis that the day was a thousand years we have the admission that for ten hundred years the universe continued its course without the aid of God. But, says Dr. Sexton, in his “Con­ cessions of Theology to Science, “the greatest objection, and one which is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days as including all the ages that have passed away, during which those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not the same in. the two cases. According to geology, there is a gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all the inhabitants of the waters in another— the two separated from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as creeping things, and as high as man, which certainly does not accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of existence, are represented as having made their appearance with the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also contrary to fact. The sun too does not exist till the epoch after the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the theory that light had been previously formed, and that therefore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s rays is equally as indispensable to vegeta­ tion as the luminous portion that we call light.” The Bible account of the material from which man was. m?de differs from the facts discovered by scientific investi­ �9 gation. According to Genesis, man was made from the dust of the earth; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved dust does not contain the elements found in the human organisation. The late Dr. Herapath, of Bristol, wrote thus boldly upon this subject :—“From our days of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us that ‘ that man was made out of the dust of the earth and, ‘ as dust thou art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion if literally true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as oneof the elements of organisedstrUcture,for no soil or earthy material capable of being employed by agriculturists, can be found without alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits, by those who have neg­ lected the study of true science, but still profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organised material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this fluid certainly cannot be found in dust. The principal elementary substances to be found in our bodies are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon ; these are absent from dust, except a trifling modicum of oxygen. Silicon, which is observable in dust, can scarcely be recognised in the human body. The Lamaic creed supposes man is the production of water. Priaulx suggests had the writer of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat nearer the truth. Moses alleges that mankind have descended from one pair, named Adam and Eve. To indicate the fallacy of this, it is only necessary to refer to the fact, so unmistakably proved, that man and woman were on the earth thousands of years before the time of Adam and Eve. “ The theory,” remarks Gliddon, “ that all nations are made of one blood, is en­ tirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that all man­ kind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distinction characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the case. “We know,” observe Nott andGliddon,“ of �IO no archaeologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as distinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes, Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monuments of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age. Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the multi­ farious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock; because the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they are now; just as they all were then from co­ existent Negroes. Such a miracle, indeed, has been in­ vented, and dogmatically defended ; but it is a bare postu­ late, and positively refuted by scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr. Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt! prove beyond all question that the Caucasian and the ’Negro races were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years ago as they are now. If then the difference which we find existing between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced by external causes, such change must have been effected according to Bible chronology in about 1000 years. This theory is decidedly contradicted by science and experi­ ence.” Another Bible doctrine which clashes with science is, that “ by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;” that is, that through the supposed disobedience of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a punishment, is to many “ a consummation devoutly to be wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a curse upon man pot to die.” Are there not thousands who suffer a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis, how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into realms of �II bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead of remaining in this “vale of tears,” ought certainly to be accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his con­ dition. But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of death, involves a few difficulties. If death had not been introduced, could the world contain its everincreasing inhabitants ? And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient to support such an immense multitude? Suppose tjie serpent had not played its “ little game,” could a man that had no knowledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in a furnace and not be burnt to death ? Or if he were in a coal-mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further, did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ? If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read, “ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If, however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of their kind took a prominent part in what is termed “the fall of man?” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law. As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to that change until we progress to a given point; then our organisation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely exhaust life's power, and death ensues as certain as a fire will cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” deatlrwas not a necessary conse­ quence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the contrary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure, how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ in kind from those who give them birth. So unscien­ tific does this Biblical doctrine appear even to many wellinformed clergymen that they have ceased to regard it as a literal fact. They view it as figurative language or Hebrew poetry; and it requires no great prophetic power to foretell that, when science sheds its light more fully among man­ kind, facts will take the place of the Bible, and the truths �12 of nature will supplant the teachings of an ancient and mis­ leading theology. Modern researches have unmistakeably established the fact that between science and the Mosaic account of the flood there is an absolute antagonism. The Bible states that less than five thousand years ago, God discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con­ tinually.” Not two thous^ad years before this, so the book, relates, God had made man pure and morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine superintendence, and. subsequently the edification of the preaching of Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind degenerating so rapidly that the Lord repented “that he had made man, and it grieved him at his heart.” God possessed, it is said, infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all, excepFone family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment of justice and every feeling of benevolence. No being with a spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent God could have found other means to correct the work of his own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and warning, the cold water process proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better after the deluge than they were before. Even Noah, upon whom God bestowed his preserving care, was not made moral by the experiment, for on landing from his excursion he immediately became intoxicated, acted indecently, and indulged in a tyrant’s curse at the expense of an unoffending posterity.. < My object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern inves­ tigations and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palpable that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in error, inasmuch as it clearly �i3 z teaches the universality of the deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, vi. and vii. : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth ; both man and beast, and the creep­ ing thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all flesh died that moved fipon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, •died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Bishop Colenso says that the flood described in Genesis, whether it be re­ garded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in­ credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his work “ The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have doubted the universality of the deluge............ I need not refer more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood; this seems to me even more asto­ nishing than the universal.” Professor Hitchcock ob­ serves : “ I am willing to acknowledge that the language of the Bible on this subject, seems at first view to teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the suppo­ sition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to know what prevented the "water from finding its level ? Moreover, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found. Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family, together with “two of every sort,” could have emigrated to those parts which the deluge was not to visit. Some of the objections to. the Mosaic account of the flood may be thus stated :— �1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demon­ stration that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progressing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Rev. Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c., who once referred the ‘ diluvium’ to the one period of the historic deluge, have now publicly withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh l^ilser, in his “ Testimony of the Rocks,” says : “ In various parts of the world, such as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna, there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes, which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent materials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calculations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain provinces of France, Kalisch, in his Genesis, observes : “ Distinct mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and animal life bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition of our planet........... That extraordinary region contains rocks, consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits ; one of the rocks is sixty feet in thickness; and a moderate calculation shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote than the date of the Noachian flood; they show not the slightest trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge; their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has Men subject to many floods, it has never been visited bv one as described in the Bible. 2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says : “ And the waters prevailed exceediagly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further, “ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, therefore, required to cover this moun­ tain would be, in the estimation of Dr. Pye Smith, Pro­ fessor Hitchcock, and many '’other eminent writers, eight �I5< times greater than what already existed. Was it supplied ? If so, whence did it come ? 3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have Been not more than 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45 feethigh; yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but “ two of every living thing of all flesh:” According to Hugh Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have furnished accommoda­ tion for this vast congregatWTL? Space, too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob­ tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to the existence of some forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for so long a period the carni­ vorous and the herbivorous animals—the swallows, ant­ eaters, spiders, and flies ? There is a little difficulty also about the light. There were, it appears, three stories in the Ark, and but one window. Now, where was the window positioned ? In the uppel^tory ? Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two stories of the Ark were in the dark, where many of those have since been who have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of science. 4. The Collection of Animals. The difficulties attend­ ing the narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are thus aptly put by Mr. T. R. R. Stebbing, M.A. : “ To achieve it he [Noah] must have gone in person, or sent expeditions^o Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ; the hippopota­ mus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the apteryx, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought toge­ ther by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game, caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas, and titmice mnst all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be employed to secure therruuninjured. They must be fed and cared for during a journey, perhaps, of thousands of miles, till they reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one another while the search is continued for] rats, and bats, and vipers, jmd toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch, specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace, would naturally wish �and naturally be selected to transmit as a boon to his favoured descendants.” * 5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that, after the waters begsffi to subside, the inhabitants of the.'-'Ark existed for nearly eight months in a temperature “■ 3,00'G'feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely will not be contended' tnM this statement harmonises with science any more than the record of an olive tree retaining its life after being underlie pressure of several tons’ weight of water for nearly tfiree-qf^te^ of a year. Colenso says : “The difficulty, that so long an immersion in deep water Would kill the olive, had, no cjbubt, never occurred to the Wfiter, who may have observed that trees survived ordinary R^Urtial floods, and inferred that they would just aS well be I -able to sustain the deluge ta'which his irnaginattofrsubjected ■ them.’^ Kalisch observes It is agreed by all botanical . authorities, that, though pa^fial inundations of rivers do not Idtih.'•or. materially change the vegetation of a region, the infukldn of great quantities,of .salt water destroys it entirely for long periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine 'immediately after the’ta&fation of the Deluge.” In addition to the discrepancies between the Bible and .Science a,bpve pointed out, tgp following may be mentioned. The Bible teaches that mai&ind has degenerated from a state of perfection; science, fn the contrary, indicates that the career of mati fias beeti'iiugressive, and that each age, profiting by d^bb'ffehce, hasten superior to its predecessor. \ The Bible affiftris that at a catain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares that such an event could * never have happened. The/B^ble asserts that all the king­ doms of the world were exhibited from a certain high mountain ; geography teaches that there are many parts of the world totally invisible frjfoc any one elevation. The Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the 'water; experience proves thi^i^be impossible. The Bible alleges that the earth and all tnings therein will ultimately be destroyed by fire ; scientific.Tacts are against the truth of such an allegation. Thus it is seen that the Bible and science are so antagonistic that afcy attempt to harmonise them is hopeless. PRICE TM&PENCE. 1 —.... •- .------------ Printed and Published by C. WArrs, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, Londo% 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 Science and the Bible antagonistic Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles [1836-1906] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [C. Watts] 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 N675 Subject The topic of the resource Science Agnosticism Bible 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 (Science and the Bible antagonistic), 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 Science and Religion https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/62d3528316601b71d06dead15744cfee.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=t4swgRGhCGYax5F6MqA5EVKRMcUNr2yK8iOGrvrahP-dZzOXrj5vXxaQobeKgX-S97hQxzBmSgUNOmspQS0po6N2rd4irqZ48OuN0WtsdYQLDT18wv%7Elyl6hz2BU39BrxQy7Rm3wsXlGtWWBIvxi%7Es2zcVUKuTmSC13tdH5CuWyitktVIgylMfl0xEa5WqjXj4621d0qXbmF7%7EDqAwxKTRE28vnSrtwpjYm93krz7rkEWV3gHDngGEnOGBYVmf1A5zD6CU6YrOI4JwV0hUksqdjjjnHmAPVnq2jChOyzNxxicZoZJPTXWcejiyJchGJsgbXnbb1oBO139BIZcMne2g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 27cd7d425e8712431a4470e175273041 PDF Text Text AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM I Which is the More Reasonable ? « By CHARLES WATTS. CONTENTS: (1) What is Agnosticism? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and Christian Theism ; (3) Is it sufficient to satisfy man’s intellectual requirements? The Natural and the Supernatural. Price Ten Cents. SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, Toronto, Ont. �omhmm �AGNOSTICISM & CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? I. WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ? This is pre-eminently a critical age, when the right to examine teach­ ings submitted for our acceptance is more than ever recognized. In the light of modern thought, no subject is too sacred for honest criti­ cism, and no opinion too ancient for reasonable investigation. Rea-on is now rapidly taking the place of blind belief, and serfdom to authority issyielding to the influence of mental freedom. Christian Theism as taught by the Churches has been so long regarded by its adherents as being the embodiment of absolute truth, that to in any way question its pretensions has been condemned as almost an unpar­ donable sin. Every new philosophy that has challenged the positive claims of Theism has been avoided and misrepresented apart from its -pertinency and value. This has been the case particularly with the philosophy of Agnosticism. It will, therefore, be interesting to in­ quire, What is this Agnostic phase of thought ? In answering this question, the reply will be classified under three divisions—(1) What is Agnosticism ? (2) Its relation to the Universe and Christian Theism; and (3) Is it sufficient' to satisfy man’s intellectual require­ ments 1 What is Agnosticism ? The word is one that has become tolerably familiar to a large section of society in sound, if not in its strictest philosophical signification. It has come into use within the last few years, and has achieved a great popularity. Friends arid foes alike employ it—the former to approve it and the latter to condemn it, and both to describe a certain phase of thought which is recognised as being very extensive. Like most technical phrases, the term is derived from the Greek, and signifies “ not knowing.” An Agnostic, therefore, is one who confesses that he has no knowledge upon those subjects to which his Agnosticism is applicable. �4 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : Although the word Agnostic is comparatively new, that which it represents is as old as humanity. Men are not now for the first time discovering that there are questions which lie altogether beyond their gnosis or knowledge. That discovery was made at the dawn of human thought. A knowledge of his own ignorance was one of the qualities which Socrates boasted that he possessed, and which distinguished him. in such a marked manner from his wily antagonists, the Sophists ; and at Athens, two thousand years ago, St. Paul is said to have found an altar, the remaining one of many, dedicated to an “ Unknown God.”' The limits of human knowledge have been recognized by the foremost, men of the race in all lands and in every age. Before the mighty mysteries of the universe the greatest thinkers have stood awe-stricken,, aghast and dumb. The intellect has again and again been paralyzed in its ineffectual attempts to read the riddles of existence, before which those of the Sphinx are lost in their insignificance ; and no GEdipus hasyet been found competent to the task of furnishing the solution. “ Alli things,” said the schoolmen, “ run into the inscrutable,”—a thought equivalent to one to be found in Professor Tyndall’s “ Belfast Address.”' Therein that eminent scientist says : “ All we see around and all wefeel within us....... have their unsearchable roots in a cosmical life....... an infinitesimal span of which is offered to the investigation of man.”' Thus it will be seen that Agnosticism is an old friend with a new name,, and perhaps a few additional qualities. We meet with it under certain, forms in the pages of the history of every age. The profoundest intel­ lects have been familiar with its character, and have not felt themselves ashamed to confess to the attitude of mind which it represents. It should be distinctly understood that Agnosticism is not to be in any way confounded with ignorance as that phrase is used in every-day life. Herein consists ©ne of the errors into which our orthodox op­ ponents are continually falling. They use the words Agnosticism and general ignorance as if they were synonymous, which is misleading, to say ^the least of it—that is, unless the latter term be employed as the direct /antithesis of omniscience. No one pretends to know everything, and the knowledge of many persons is considerably less than they in their own opinion imagine. It is stated that an admirer of Dr. Johnson began on one occasion to praise him for the great extent of his know­ ledge. “Pooh,” said Johnson, “you would say I had great knowledge even though you did not think so.” “ And,” rejoined the admirer, “ you would think so even though I did not say it.” The fault of �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? 5 'Over-estimating our own knowledge is very common, and frequently begets an egotism of a very dangerous nature. Invariably, the less a man knows the more dogmatic he becomes, and the weaker the evidence upon which his convictions are based the more positively will he assert them to be true. It should require no extensive self-examination to convince the careful thinker that, even if he knew all that can be known upon every subject within the range of human gnosis, still then the domain into which his knowledge does not extend would be infinitely large compared with that small sphere which his information has covered. In that larger province he is an Agnostic, and it would be very unfair to designate him an ignorant person on that account. Therefore, although Agnosticism means “ not knowing,” it is in no way the equivalent of general ignorance. The word Agnostic, however, in its philosophical sense, has a still broader meaning. An Agnostic is not simply a person who is profossedly ignorant concerning many subjects upon which other persons pretend to have an extensive knowledge ; but he maintains that there are problems the solution of which by man is impossible at the present stage of his mental development. Further, an Agnostic is one who limits the human mind by the measure of its capacity. That the finite can never become infinite is probably a matter about which there can be no difference of opinion, inasmuch as such a statement is a self-evident truth, or as axiomatic as a proposition of Euclid. On the other hand, a mind which is less than infinite cannot possess all knowledge. The ■consequence is, that there must always remain a wide field beyond the range of the human faculties. In relation to that field every man must be Agnostic, for the simple reason that his knowledge cannot penetrate therein. Even the most orthodox believer proclaims his Agnosticism, in a sense—that is, he admits that there are subjects which he not only does not know, but which, from their very nature, he can never know, since they relate to that which lies outside the sphere of thought. As Herbert Spencer observes : “ At the utmost reach of discovery there arises, and must ever arise, the question, What lies beyond ? ” (“First Principles.”) And that beyond does not diminish, but rather widens, •as knowledge increases ; for, the more we know, the more we discover we have to learn. “ The power which the universe manifests to us,” remarks the same writer, “ is utterly inscrutable.” Why should there be any hesitation in admitting this truth ? No one looks upon it as derogatory to human nature to admit that his power is limited, and �6 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : that there are things which he cannot do. Why, therefore, should it beconsidered humiliating to confess that man’s knowledge, is limited, and that there are topics which he does not and cannot know ? Not simply that he has not advanced sufficiently in intellectual research to grapple with them, but that they lie completely outside his sphere of thought. In nature we can never know more than phenomena; and yet thesevery phenomena involve the necessity of the existence of something which is their ground and support—that something being to us un­ knowable. The unknown is postulated in the very terms we are com­ pelled to use when speaking of the unknown. “ The senses,” as Lewes observes, “perceive only phenomena; never noumena” (“History of Philosophy ”). This opinion is not of modern origin, since Anaxagoras maintained it, and Plato gave it his support. Thus it will be seen that Agnosticism is not only not synonymous with what is generally termed ignorance, but that it is compatible with the very highest and most profound knowledge of which the human mind is capable. Agnosticism being a philosophical, or certainly a quasi-philosophical, question, must be judged of in the same manner as any other subject of philosophy. Dogmatism is out of place in regard to it, and those who accept its teachings must be content to practise humility and to lay aside all arrogant assumptions of their great superiority to other men whose views may not be identical with their own. As the ancient philosopher observed : “We are never more in danger of being sub­ dued than when we think ourselves invincible.” The object of the whole Agnostic system is to learn, as far as possible, the limits of the human mind in reference to the acquisition of knowledge, and, having, done this, to use every effort to effect improvement wherever it is possible, and to leave the useless and impracticable labour of sowing the wind to those who seek to know the unknowable and to perform the impossible. Wesley, in one of his hymns referring to the death of Christ, says : “ Impassive he suffers, immortal he dies ”■—that is, in­ capable of suffering, he did suffer; incapable of dying, he did die. Now, is not this the very height of absurdity ? And yet, in reality, it is not a whit more absurd than much that is put forth by those who claim a knowledge of matters which lie beyond the sphere of human reason. Agnostics, refusing to profess a knowledge they cannot com­ mand, aim to differentiate the knowable from the unknowable, and then devote their time and energies to widening the sphere of that within human gnosis. Whatever else is possible, it is certain that we �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE? 7 can never extend the domain of the known into the unknown by in­ dulging in wild flights of the imagination respecting the unknowable, A® Socrates wisely observes : “ Having searched into all kinds of science, we discover the folly of neglecting those which concern human life and involving ourselves in difficulties about questions which are but mere notions. We should confine ourselves to nature and reason. Fancies beyond the reach of understanding, and which have yet been made the objects of belief—these have been the source of all the dis­ putes, errors and superstitions which have prevailed in the world. Such notional mysteries cannot be made subservient to the right use of humanity.” “ Fear not to scan The deep obscure or radiant light. Heed not the man Who draws old creeds to keep thee tight. Examine all creeds, old and new : Test all with reason through and through.” II. THE RELATION OF AGNOSTICISM TO THE UNIVERSE AND TO THEISM. Agnosticism maintains that the teachings of theology relative to the origin and nature of the universe, the existence of God, and immor­ tality are simply questions of speculation, and that reason, science and general knowledge do not support their dogmatic claims. Tne theologian, on the other hand, contends that sufficient is known upon these teachings to entitle them to our credence. In the face of these two contentions, it will be profitable to ascertain as far as possible which is the correct one. When the truth upon the matter is made manifest, the wisdom of confining ourselves to the known and knowable of existence yill probably be more readily recognized. What, then, are those subjects which are dogmatized upon by the theologian, and to which our attitude is purely Agnostic ? THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. This is a question which, to us, is involved in absolute mystery. Not only can it not be fathomed by the human mind, but no approach can be made towards the solution of the'problem by the mightiest efforts of the human intellect. We may go back millions of years in imagination, �8 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : but even then we are no nearer to a beginning than we were before. Indeed, the possibility of such a beginning at all cannot be thought— in other words, is not thinkable. As Mr. Mansel observes, “ Creation is, to the human mind, inconceivable.” Precisely the same with the other alternative, of an external existence, whether of matter or spirit. It presents no idea that we can deal with intellectually, because it ^sembles nothing of which we have had, or can have, the smallest possible experience. Something must have existed from all eternity ; that is a necessary truth, from which there is no escape. And yet the how of that eternal existence lies utterly beyond the sphere of human thought. To waste time in trying to comprehend it, to say nothing of making it the subject of discussion, much less of dogmatism, is the supremest folly. Nor can we have the slightest idea as to what was, or is, the eternal existence. The dogmatic Theist ascribes it to God, and the positive Atheist declares it to be matter • but what in reality either the one or the other means, in the strictest sense, by the terms used, neither of them knows. For what is God, and what is matter < Are they the same, or are they two different existences ? The Mate­ rialist, of course, denies the existence of spirit, and hence by matter he means something other than spiritj-but what ? Matter is simply a name given to that which originates in us sensations. But all that is known of this is phenomenal, and phenomena, as before pointed out, cannot exist by themselves, but must be supported by something which underlies them. What that something is, however, no one knows, since it lies completely outside the sphere of sensation. Besides, modern science has clearly shown that the existence of which alone we can be said to have any knowledge is not matter, but force. But, then, force can only make itself manifest by motion, and where there is motion something must be moved. Say that this moving body is matter, as it probably is, and then comes the question, Which was the eternal existence, force or matter, or both ? If force, how could it exist as motion when there was nothing to be moved ? And, if matter, how could theje be motion —and we have no conception of matter without motion—in the ab­ sence of force, which is the cause of motion ? If it be contended that both—matter and force—were eternal, then have we not two absolute and infinite existences, which is a contradiction ? The Theist postulates spirit; but that only adds a fresh difficulty, as will be seen presently. Here Agnosticism at once declares the whole subject to be outside of our gnosis, and, therefore, one which does not concern us, and of which �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE? nothing is known, or can be known. Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks that, on the origin of the universe, three hypotheses only are possible: —1. That it is self-existent (Atheism). 2. That it is self-created (Pan­ theism). 3. That it is created by an external agency (Theism). Mr. Spencer has, at very considerable length, examined each of these theories, and shown them all to be unthinkable. His position is, that a self-existent universe, which is a universe existing without a begin­ ning, is inconceivable. We cannot even think clearly of “ existence without beginning.” And, if we could, it would afford no kind of explanation of the universe itself. The first theory, therefore, is un­ tenable. But no less so is the second—that of a created universe. To hold this, it is necessary, in Mr. Herbert Spencer’s words, to “ conceive potential existence passing into actual existence.” Is it possible, how­ ever, to form a conception of potential existence except as something which is, in fact, actual existence—the very thing which it is not I It cannot be supposed as “nothing,” for that involves two absurdities— (1) That nothing can be represented in thought; (2) That some one nothing is so far separated from other nothings as to be capable of passing into something, Again, existence passing from one state to another without some external agency implies a “ change without a cause—a thing of which no one idea is possible.” A self-created uni­ verse is, consequently, inconceivable. There is still left the third theory —that the universe was created by some external agency. But here a difficulty arises in the attempt to think of “ the production of matter out of nothing.” Moreover, there is still greater difficulty if we suppose the creation of space. If space were created, then there was a time when it was non-existent, which is also utterly inconceivable. But suppose all these difficulties overcome, there is yet another, the greatest of all. What is the external agency referred to ? And how came it into being ? These are questions to which no satisfactory answers have been or can be given. Thus the origin of the universe belongs to a regior into which no human mind can enter, and therefore Agnosticism is the only possible attitude of thought we can consistently take with regard to the matter. THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE. In connection with this question we encounter speculations in abundance ; but demonstrative facts are nowhere to be discovered. Herbert Spencer has shown that every sensation we experience com­ pels us, whether wo will or not, to infer a cause, and this- �10 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : idea of causation drives us irresistibly to a First Cause. And yet the moment we have reached it we are landed in all kinds of contradictions and absurdities. For instance, is this First Cause infinite or finite ? If infinite, it is beyond our comprehension, outside the sphere of our knowledge; and if finite, then there must be something beyond its bounds, and it is no longer the First Cause. The Duke of Argyle, in his “ Reign of Law,” observes :— “We cannot reach final causes any more than final purposes ; for every cause which we can detect there is another cause which lies be­ hind ; and for every purpose which we can see, there are other purposes which lie beyond.” By holding that the Universe is infinite, to use the words of Spencer himself, “ we tacitly abandon the hypothesis of causation altogether.” The First Cause must also be either independent or dependent. But if independent, we can have no idea of it at all, because everything we know and think of is dependent. If, however, the First Cause be dependent, then it must, being dependent, depend on something else, and that something else becomes the First Cause, to which the same argument will apply. In a similar manner, this cause must be absolute, and yet, as Mansel has shown, “ A cause cannot, as such, be absolute ; the absolute, as such, cannot be a cause.” The reason of this is very obvious; the cause, as a cause, exists only in relation to the effect. But the absolute must be out of all relation, or it would cease to be absolute. But, in truth, we cannot conceive of the absolute at all. It lies beyond the reach of finite faculties to grapple with; hence, we are compelled to relegate the entire matter to the domain of the unknowable. The power which manifests itself in the universe is utterly inscrutable, and therefore we are driven to Agnos­ ticism to find in it a solid resting-place in reference to the origin and nature of the universe. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. This is another question which, as already demonstrated, lies beyond z the reach of finite powers. Let us glance at some of the various methods that have been pursued—indeed, are still resorted to—to prove the existence of God. The object in doing this, be it observed, is not to attempt the foolish impossibility of proving the non-existence of God. That would not be Agnosticism ; but the desire here is to indicate that the question of the existence of God is a subject upon which man, to be logical, must, from the very nature of the case be Agnostic. Demonstration of the existence of God will hardly �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? II be contended for, except perhaps by the advocates of the a priori method, and that need not be noticed here, since few representative Theists resort to it, and fewer still have any idea what it really means. The kinds of proof that are conceivable to be relied upon in this mat­ ter are as follows :— (a) The Senses.—These, however, can never furnish an argument to prove the existence of God, inasmuch as our organs of sense have no power to perceive anything that does not belong to the mere pheno­ menal part of matter, and, hence, can never show us the noumenon underlying appearances, much less an existence which is said to be in no 5^ay material. If God has given a revelation, such revelation may be seen or heard; but this, of itself, can only prove the revelation, not God. Suppose we heard a voice, in tones of thunder which shook the earth and reached every human ear, declare “ There is a God,” it would prove nothing but the voice—not the God proclaimed. The senses would perceive a sound, to which a very definite meaning might be attached ; but the sound would not be God. It will not be denied by any intelligent Theist that God can never become an object of sense, and, therefore, that method of proof may be dismissed as totally unavailing in the case. (b) Scientific Research.—“ Canst thou by searching find out God 1” is a question that was asked some thousands of years ago, and only one answer has ever been, or probably ever can be, given, and that is a negative one. Science, mighty and potent as it is for good, much as it has done to ameliorate the condition of mankind, and great as its triumphs are likely to be in the future, can never transcend sense knowledge. All its processes are of a material character ; its instru­ ments, together with the subjects which they explore, are material, the phenomena with which it deals are material, and all its discoveries are reported to the bodily organs of sense. Beyond the physical domain of appearances no scientific investigations can ever go ; no telescope or microscope can show us a trace of spirit; nor, in fact, of that, whatever it may be, which underlies phenomena. Scientific facts may lead up to philosophical generalizations ; but such generalizations are reached by ratiocination (process of reasoning), and are no longer exclusively scientific—in fact, are in a sense altogether independent of science. A scientific fact and the interpretation of the fact are totally different things. We may use science as a means for reading the riddles of nature ; the reading, however, is not science, but philosophy; and �19 v. AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : science has but helped us to the facts which process that is not scientific has to explain. The Theist tells us, with Newton, that science leads up to God ; but it will be seen that the upward road has ceased to be withm the domain of science long before its termination is reached. Logveal Reasoning.—Here, of course, it will be argued by the heist that we start on firm and solid ground. A moment’s reflection, however, will show that this is by no means the case. Our starting point and the conclusion at which we seek to arrive lie so far apart that by no process of logic can we pass from one to the other. There is, in truth, a great gulf between them, and we do not and cannot possess the means of bridging it over. Xu all mathematical reasoning we start from some axiom or necessary truth, which we find in our minds, and which, by a law of our mentation, cannot be got rid of. This we make the basis of all our reasoning and the foundation of the entire super­ structure that we desire to erect. In geometry, in arithmetic, and in logic this is equally the case. Now, all these starting points, whether they be axioms relating to space, notions regarding quantity, or mental conceptions, lie in our own minds, and are only known to us by the fact that we find them there. From these we may reason, form­ ing a long chain of logical links, until, at the end, we reach some truth of a marvellous and startling character, which is as easy of demonstra. tion as the concept or axiom with which we started. In this way Theists endeavour to reason up to God. But it requires no very profound thought to show that the process must break down before it reaches that point. For instance, there is the fact that the conclusion must be of the same quality as the starting point. If the primary truth with which we commenced be internal to our minds, so must the conclusion be at which we arrive. Beginning with ourselves, we must continue and end with ourselves, and by no possibility can we reach anything that is exterior to us. If, therefore, we reason up to a concept to which the name of God is given, we shall be as far as ever from a demonstration of his actual being. We. shall still be dealing with an idea which exists simply in our own minds, and may or may not__for here demonstration ceases and the logical argument breaks down_ be a measure of some real existence. But there is another reason why this logical process must fail. The attributes ascribed to God are of that character about which we cannot reason. However exalted the conception at which we arrive, it must be finite, relative, and condi- �\ WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE? 13 tioned, while God is said to be infinite, absolute, and unconditioned. It is, therefore, impossible that God can be the last term of a logical induction. Of course, this does not furnish conclusive proof that the absolute and unconditioned has no existence; it does, how■ever, prove that we cannot know everything of it, since it transcends all our powers and faculties. It belongs to a sphere to which we have no access. Hence, in all our research, investigation, and thought, we bait when we approach the domain of the unknowable, bow our heads and unfurl the banner of Agnosticism. For a person to assert positively that he knows that a God exists, who is an infinite personal being, is, in the face of the present limita­ tion of human knowledge, to betray an utter disregard of accuracy of expression. With the majority of orthodox believers, the term God is a phrase used to cover a lack of information. Persons behold certain phenomena ; the why and wherefore they cannot explain • and because to them such events are mysterious, they pause at the threshold of inquiry, and to avoid what appear to be inscrutable difficulties, allege that such phenomena are caused by God. Dr. Young, the Christian Theist, in his “Provinceof Reason,” says :— “ That concerning which I have no idea at all, is to me nothing, in -every sense nothing.............To believe in that respecting which I can form no notion is to believe in nothing; it is not to believe at all.’r This represents t-he position of Christian Theism. Although a person may picture an object in his mind from an analogous subject, it has yet to be shown how an idea can be formed of that upon which no knowledge exists, either analogous or otherwise. All notions that have been entertained of Gods have been but reflexes of human weaknesses, human desires, and human passions, and therefore do not represent an infinite personal Being. Xenophanes is reported to have said, that “ If horses and lions had hands, and should make their deities, they would respectively make a horse and a lion.” Luther, too, remarked : “ God is a blank sheet, upon which nothing is found but what you yourselves have written.” Schiller also stated : “ Man depicts himself in his Gods.” The history of the alleged God-ideas justifies the truth of those statements ; hence, we find that in different nations, at various times, the most opposite objects have been adored as deities. The sun, -moon, and stars, wood, and stone, and rivers, cows, cats, hawks, bats, /monkeys, and rattlesnakes, all have had their worshippers. Even now the professed ideas of God in Christendom are most discrepant. The �14 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : God acknowledged by “ Advanced Theists ” is not the same Being in many respects as the one depicted by Talmage and his school. Neither does the object worshipped by the Deist correspond with the “Supreme Power of the Pantheist. Then, if we go to the Bible, we discover very different notions of God therein recorded. He is there described as material, and then as immaterial j first as all-wise, and then again as betraying a lack of wisdom j in one place as being all-powerful, and in another as being exceedingly weak ; at one time as being loving, merci­ ful, and unchangeable, at another as being revengeful, cruel and fickle in the extreme. Surely, to rely on such absurd and contradictory descriptions of a Being as these is more unreasonable than to frankly admit that, if God exist, he is and must be unknown to us. This is not a denial, but an honest confession that mentally no more than physically can we perform the impossible. It is alleged that the “God idea” is firmly rooted in the human mind. What folly ! What is meant in this instance by an idea ? A mental picture of something external to the individual. But where is that“ something ” corresponding with the many and varied representations of a God ? The truth is, this supposed “ idea ” is no reality whatever, but simply a vague “ idea ” of an “ idea,” of which, in fact, no idea exists. Besides, the term “ Infinite Personal Being ” is a contradiction. Personality is that which constitutes an individual a distinct being. This definition implies three requisites : First, that the person shall be a personage ; second, that he shall be distinct from other things • and thirdly, that he shall be bounded, that is, limited. But a bounded, limited being is a finite being, and, therefore, cannot be an infinite personal being. Is the assumed personality of God differentm fro mine 1 If so, where is the difference ? Furthermore, is my personality a part of God’s personality ? If it is, my personality is “ divine ; ” if it is not, then there are two personalities, neither of which can possibly be infinite, for where there are two each must be finite. Furthermore,. personality is only known to us as a part of a material organization. If, therefore, God is material, he is part of the universe. If he be a part, he cannot be infinite, inasmuch as the part cannot be equal to the whole. Personality involves intelligence, and intelligence implies ; 1. Acquirement of knowledge, which indicates that the time was when, the person who gained additional information lacked certain wisdom. 2. Memory, which is the power of recalling past events ; but with the • �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE 1 15 "infinite there can be no past. 3. Hope, which is based on limited per­ ception, and which shows the uncertain condition of the mind wherein the aspiration is found. Now, if God possesses these imperfect, faculties he is finite; while, on the other hand, if they do not belong to him, he is not an intelligent being. Neither does the Theistic definition of God, as being infinite, har­ monize with our reasoning faculties. Reason is based upon experience, but an Infinite Being must be outside the domain of experience , reason implies reflection, but we cannot reflect upon infinity, because it is unthinkable ; reason implies comparison, but the Infinite Being cannot be compared, for there is nothing with which to compare him; reason implies judgment, but the finite is totally incompetent to judge of the infinite ; reason is bounded by the capacity of the mind in which it resides, but the mind to conceive the infinite must be unbounded; reason follows perception, but we have no faculties for perceiving or recognizing the infinite. Therefore, is not the Agnostic position of silence as to the unknown the more reasonable ? If it be urged that it is no part of Agnostic philosophy to consider these Theistic assump­ tions, the answer is, that if such notions are well founded on demon­ strated facts, there is no reason for the Agnostic attitude towards them. It is the proving that Theistic allegations are unsupported by observed truths which renders Agnosticism logical and justifiable. Let it be distinctly understood that it is not against the existence and nature of a God, per se, that exception is here taken—of that we know nothing, but against the positive claims urged in reference to these subjects. To these our indictment is directed. The Orthodox notion of the “ innate consciousness of God’s exist­ ence ” does not strengthen the position of the Christian Theist, for the reason that it is groundless in fact. No doubt the error upon this point has arisen with many persons through their regarding consciousness as a separate faculty of the mind, whereas James Mill, Locke, Brown and Buckle have shown it to be a condition of the mind produced by ■early training and surrounding associations. George Grote, in his Review of J. S. Mill’s Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Phi­ losophy,” aptly remarks : “ Each new-born child finds its religious creed ready prepared for him. In his earliest days of unconscious in­ fancy, the stamp of the national, gentle, phratric God, or Gods, is imprinted upon him by his elders.” Thus it happens that what are too frequently but the consequences of youthful impressions and subsequent �AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : tuition are regarded as veritable realities. If this “ God idea” were innate, is it not reasonable to suppose that all persons would have it ? But there are thousands of persons who are ready to acknowledge that ey have it not; and those who profess to have it are unable to ex­ plain what it is. Probably, if a child never heard of God in the morn­ ing of life, it would have no fancies concerning him in its mature age. t is to be feared that these Theistic pretensions arise from an inade­ quate acquaintance with the now admitted natural forces. There is however, this hope, that as knowledge still more advances, dogmatism will proportionately disappear, priestcraft will yield to mental freedom, and work in controlling Nature and reliance on her prolific resources will more than ever take the place of supplicating for, and dependence on, alleged supernatural help. The once favourite argument drawn from design in the Universe affords no justification for the positive allegations of Theism. As Pro­ fessor Taylor Lewis admits :— “ Nature alone cannot prove the existence of a Deity possessed of moral attributes.” Has it ever occurred to Theists that at the very most the God of the design argument can only be a finite being, for nowhere amongst what are supposed to be the marks of design in Nature is an infinite designer indicated ? Now, a God that is finite isneither omniscient, omnipotent, nor eternal. The design argument, moreover, points to no unity in God. According to natural theology, there may be one God or hundreds of Gods. The Rev. S. Faber fairly observes : “ The Deist never did, and he never can, prove without the aid of Revelation that the Universe was designed by a single­ designer,” Paley’s well-known comparison of the eye and the telescopeproves the very opposite of that for which it was used. It should beremembered that, but for the imperfection of the eye, the telescope had not been required. Plainly, the argument may be stated thus :_ Designer of the telescope, man; designer of the eye, God ; telescope imperfect, hence its designer w^s imperfect; the eye more imperfect, since the telescope was invented to improve its power • ergo, God, the designer of eyes, was still less perfect than man, the designer of telescopes. Dr. Vaughan, in his work “The Age and Christianity,” declares : “ No attempt of any philosopher to harmonize our ideal notions as to the sort of world which it became a Being of infinite perfection to create, with the world existing around us, can ever be pronounced sue- �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE? 17 -cessful. The facts of the moral and physical world seem to justify inferences of an opposite de-cription from the benevolent.” The Rev. George Gilfillan, in his “Grand Discovery of the Fatherhood,” noticing the horrors and the evils that exist around us, asks : “ Is this the spot chosen by the Father for the education of his children, or is it a den of banisment or torture for his foes ? Is it a nursery, or is it a hell ? there is nb discovery of the Father in man, in his science, philosophy, history, art, or in any of his relations.” If nothing else rebuked the dogmatic assumption of the Christian Theist, the existence of so much misery, evil, and inequality in the world, should do so. What man or woman having the power, would hesitate to use it to alleviate the affliction, to cure the wrong, and to destroy the injustice which cast such a gloom over so large a portion of society ? Let the many records of the world’s benevolence, devotion, and kindness give the reply. To lessen the pain of the afflicted, to assist the needy, to help the oppressed, are characteristics of human nature which its noblest sons and daughters have ever felt proud to manifest in their deeds of heroic self-denial. Contemplating the suc­ cess of crime, the triumph of despotism, the prevalence of want, the struggles on the part of many to obtain the mere means of existence, the appalling sights of physical deformity—beholding all these wrongs this sadness and despair, who shall dogmatically exclaim, “ All Nature proclaims a Fatherhood of of ^df?The question of immortality scarcely belongs to the same class of subjects as the others which have here been discussed; nevertheless, even upon this subject, the Agnostic position appears to me to be the correct one. Personally, I refuse to dogmatise either one way or the other; and the question, after all, is but of little consequence. Our business, for the present at all events, is with this world; and the, affairs of the next may be left until we land upon its shores, if such shores there be. To ignore the teachings said to refer to another life is not necessarily to deny the existence of that life. One thing is cer­ tain, and that is our present existence. Furthermore, experience teaches us that time is too short, duties too imperative, and consequences too important to justify us in wasting our resources and displaying a ‘disturbing anxiety about, to us, an unknown future. “ Life’s span forbids us to extend our cares, And stretch our hopes beyond our years.” �18 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : DOES AGNOSTICISM SATISFY MAN’S INTELLECTUAL REQUIREMENTS 1 There are two objections frequently urged against the Agnostic posi­ tion which with some people have considerable force. The first is, that Agnosticism robs man of the great consolation and incentive imparted by the belief in the certainty of the existence of a “ Heavenly Father” and a future life. In the second place, it is contended that Agnosticism fails to satisfy the demands of the human intellect. Let us exa.m in e these objections, with a view of ascertaining whether or not they pos­ sess any weight bearing upon the present question. The first objection supposes that without Theism and its teachings there is no adequate comfort and peace for the human race ; that this life of itself is but little more than “ a vale of tears,” alike destitute of the sunshine of joy and the power of imparting happiness in every­ day life. Persons who entertain these gloomy ideas regard existence as being necessarily full of trouble, aud think that mankind are incapable with mere natural resources of enjoying a high state of felicity, and that true bliss is only to be secured by believing in God and entertaining the hope of pleasure in another world. Such morbid notions are born of a dismal faith, and find no sanction in the real healthy view of life’s mission. Existence is not a mere blank ; its condition depends largely upon the use mankind make of it. To some the world may be as a garden adorned with the choicest of flowers, and to others as a wilder­ ness covered with worthless weeds. Life of itself is not destitute of beauty, glory, solace and love. True, it is sometimes darkened with clouds, but it is also enlivened with sunshine ; it is degraded by serf­ dom, and elevated by freedom ; it is shaded by isolation, and illumin­ ated by fellowship ; it is chilled by misery and persecution, and warmed by kindness and affection ; it is blasted by poverty and want, and in­ vigorated by wealth and comfort; it is marred by shams and inequalities, and glorified by realities and equity ; it is humiliated by unequal and exce sive toil, and dignified by fair and honest labour; it has its punishments through wrong and neglect, but it has its rewards in right and correct action. The lesson of experience teaches us unmistakably that life is worth having even if Theism and the teachings in reference to a future existence be nothing more than emotional speculations. In the language of the Rev. Minot J. Savage, in his work, “ The Morals of Evolution,” “ I believe there is not a healthy man, woman, or child �WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE? 19' on earth who will not join me in saying that life is worth living simply for its own sake, to-day, whether there ever was a yesterday or there ever will be a to-morrow. Have you ever stood, as I have, on a moun­ tain summit, with the broad ocean spread out at your feet on the one side, a magnificent lake or bay on the other, the valley dotted with towns, with growing fields of greenness, or turning brown with har­ vest ? Have you ever looked up at the sky at night, thick with its stars, glorious with the moon walking in her brightness ? Have you listened to the bird-song some summer morning ? Have you stood by the sea, and felt the breeze fan your weary brow, and watched the breakers curling and tumbling in upon the shore ? Have you looked into the faces of little children, seen the joy and delight they experi­ ence simply in breathing and living, beheld the love-light in their eyes,, heard their daily prattle, their laughter, their shouts of joy and play i Have you, in fact, ever tasted what life means 1 Have you realized that, with a healthy body, in the midst of this universe you are an instrument finely attuned, on which all the million fingers of the uni­ verse do play, every nerve a chord to be touched, every sense thrilling with ecstacy and joy ? No matter where I came from, no matter where I am going to, I live an eternity in this instant of time. Is it not a mistake, in the face of facts like these, to say that life is not worth, living unless it is supplemented by a heaven ? ” “ Tell me not, in mournful numbers, Life is but an empty dream.” As to the second objection, it is said that man is born to inquire ; his whole nature is bent in the direction of discovery ; curiosity to pry into the secrets of nature and being forms one of his leading character­ istics ; therefore, Agnosticism, which places a barrier to his further investigation, must be objectionable, because it fixes the limits beyond which he may not’ go. This allegation, if worth anything, must be urged, not against Agnosticism, but against the limit of human powers. To tell man that there are subjects which he can never master, not for lack of time to look into them, but because they lie in a domain to which, by the very nature of the case, he can gain no access, should certainly not be calculated to stop his inquiry with regard to matters upon which knowledge is to be obtained. The Theist believes that he can never fully comprehend God; but does that prevent him from �20 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. endeavouring to learn what he can? Agnosticism has not placed limits to the human mind, but only defined them; it has not erected the barrier beyond which the human intellect cannot pass, but only described it j it has not invented the line which has separated the knowable from the unknowable, but only indicated its position. The mind of man is, therefore, free to inquire to the utmost extent of its powers, and the complaint that it cannot do more is foolish in the extreme. Agnosticism is sufficient for all the purposes of life, and more than that cannot surely be needed. There is no human duty that it is not compatible with, no human feeling that it does not allow full play to, and no intellectual effort that it would attempt to place restrictions upon. It leaves man in possession of all his mental force, seeking only to direct that force into a legitimate channel where it may find full scope for its use. In a beautiful passage in his Belfast address, Pro­ fessor Tyndall remarks : “ Given the masses of the planets and their distances asunder, and we can infer the perturbations consequent upon their mutual attrac. tions. Given the nature of disturbance in water, or ether, or air, and from the physical properties of the medium we canlinfer how its parti­ cles will be affected. The mind runs along the line of thought which connects the phenomena, and from beginning to end finds no break in the chain. But when we endeavour to pass, by a similar process, from the physics of the brain to the phenomena of consciousness, we meet a problem which transcends any conceivable expansion of the powers we now possess. We may think over the subject again and again, it eludes all intellectual presentation.” These words present a great truth, indicating, as they do, the proper scope of man’s intellectual activity. The Agnostic does not fail to carry on his investigations into Nature to the utmost extent of his ability. He seeks to wring from her secrets hidden through all the ages of the past; he pushes his inquiries from point to point, and learns all that can be known of the marvellous processes of life and mind, and only stops when he confronts the unknowable, beyond whose barrier he cannot pass. His are the fields, the groves, the woods, the sea, and all the earth contains ; the starry sky, too, is his domain to explore All nature, with its majestic varieties, lies before him, presenting sub­ jects of the keenest interest. In these he revels with delight; but the �NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. 21 incomprehensible he seeks not to comprehend, the unknowable he does not make the idle attempt to know. In a word, he is a man, and he aims not at the impossible task of becoming a God. Is not this course more courageous, more dignified, and more candid than that adopted by the dogmatic theologian, who, yearning for a knowledge of the absolute, and yet failing to discover it, lacks the courage to avow his inability to achieve the impossible ? “ Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.” NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. There have been a large number of books written on this subject, some of them by men of eminence in their respective departments of thought. It has been dealt with from very different standpoints, and therefore exceedingly conflicting arguments have been brought to bear upon it. Two able American writers, Dr. Bushnell and Dr. McCosh, have discussed it with considerable learning ; but one has to put down their works with a great degree of dissatisfaction, since nothing like clear definition is to be found in their pages. In England the subject has been made the theme of several large works, of hundreds of magazine articles, and of thousands of pulpit discourses, an<J yet the whole subject is enveloped in the densest darkness. There must be some cause for this, and the cause, I think, is not far to seek. The natural we know f but the supernatural, what is that ? Of course, as its name implies, it is something higher than nature—something above nature. But, if there is a sphere higher than nature, and yet often breaking through nature, nature itself must be limited by something, and the question that at once arises is, By what is such limitation fixed, and what is the boundary line which marks it off and separates it from the supernatural ? And this is just what no two writers seem to be agreed upon. But, further supposing such a line to be discovered, and to be well known, so that no difficulty could arise in pointing it out, a still more difficult problem presents itself for solution—namely, how man, who is a part of nature, �-22 NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. and able only to come into contact with nature, can push his knowledge into that other sphere which, being non-natural, cannot be at all ac­ cessible to a natural being ? If the supernatural region be synonymous with the unknowable, it cannot clearly concern us, simply because we have no faculties with which to cognize it, and no powers capable of penetrating into its profound depths. In this case, as far as we are concerned, there is practically no supernatural, for none can operate on that sphere in which man lives and moves and displays his varied and in some respects very marvellous powers. According to many writers, the physical is the supernatural, because dt is not under the control of natural law. But why ? If man be partly a spiritual being, why should not natural law extend into the ■ sphere of his spiritual nature ? Indeed, an able writer on the Christian ■ side,-whose work has been enthusiastically received by all religious denominations—Professor Drummond—has maintained this position, the very title of his book stating the whole case : “ Natural Law in the Spiritual World.” The great German philosopher, Kant, calls nature the realm of sensible phenomena, conditioned by space, and speaks of another sphere as a world above space, depleted of sense, and free from natural law, and therefore supersensible and supernatural. But this is to make the supernatural spaceless and timeless—in fact, a mere negation of everything, and therefore nothing. Now, the only light in which we can look at this subject, with a view to obtain anything like clear and correct views, is that of modern science. By her the boundary of our knowledge has been greatly enlarged, and through her discoveries we have been enabled to obtain more sound information regarding the laws of the universe than it was possible for our fathers, with the limited means at their disposal, to possess. If there be a sphere where the supernatural plays a part and exer­ cises any control, it must clearly be in some remote region, of which we have, and can have, no positive knowledge; and the forces in v operation must be other than those with which we are conversant upon this earth. Science cannot recognize the supernatural, because she has no instruments which she can bring to bear upon, and no means at her disposal for, its investigation. She leaves to the theologian all useless . speculations regarding such a region, contenting herself with reminding him that he is. in all such discussions, travelling outside the domain of facts into a province which should be left to poets and dreamers, and �NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. 23 which belongs solely to the imagination. All law is and must be natural law, from a scientific standpoint, because we can have access to nature, and to nature only. It is impossible to get beyond her domain, even in imagination. The supernatural, if it exist, must reveal itself through nature, for in no other way can it reach us so as to produce any impression upon the human mind. But, if it come through nature, then how can it be distinguished from the phenomena of nature ? It will be quite impos. sible to differentiate between them. We are quite precluded from saying, Nature could not do this, and is unable to do that. No man can fix a limit to the possibilities of power in nature. She has already done a thousand things which our forefathers would have declared im­ possible, and she will doubtless in the future, under further discoveries and advances in science, do much more which would look impossible to us. Whatever, therefore, comes through nature must be natural, for the very reason that it comes to us in that way. And the business of science is to interpret in the light of natural law. Even if she should prove herself incompetent to the task, it would only show that some phenomena had been witnessed which had for a time baffled explana­ tions, not that anything supernatural had occurred. And the business of science would be to at once direct itself to the new class of facts, with a view to finding the key with which to open and disclose the secret of the power by which they were produced. But what is nature ? Of course every man knows what is meant by nature, in part at all events ; and the only difference in opinion or de­ finition that can arise will be as to its totality. There are a thousand facts lying all around us, and a thousand phenomena of which we are every day eye-witnesses, that all will agree to call nature. The ques­ tion, however,, does not concern these, but others, real or imaginary, which differ somewhat from them, and which are supposed, therefore, to be incapable of being classed under the same head. Those who de­ sire to obtain a clear and accurate idea of nature cannot do better than read carefully Mr. John Stuart Mill’s excellent essay on the subject, published after his death. He gives two definitions, or rather two senses, in which we use the word in ordinary, every-day language. The first is that in which we mean the totality of all existence, and the other that in which we use the term as contradistinguished from art— nature improved by man. But it must be borne in mind that this is �24 NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL. still . nature. Nature improved by man is only one part of nature modified by another; for man is as much a portion of nature as the earth on which he treads, or the stars which glow in the midnight sky over his head. Nature, therefore, as I understand it, and as Mill de­ fines it m his first sense, is everything that exists, or that can possibly come into existence in the hereafter—that is, all the possibilities of existence, whether past, present, or future. If I am asked on what ground I include in my definition that which to-day does not exist, but may come into existence hereafter, I reply : Because that which will be must be, potentially at least, even now. No new entity can come into being; all that can occur is the commencement of some new form of existence, which has ever had a being potentially anyhow. No new force can appear, some new form of force may. But, then, that, when it comes, will be as much a part of nature as the rest—is indeed even now a part of nature, since it is latent somewhere in the universe. Man’s beginnings were in nature ; his every act is natural, his thoughts are natural, and in the end the great universe will fold him in its embrace, close his eyes in death, and furnish in her own bosom his last and final resting-place. Beyond her he cannot go. She was his cradle, and will be his grave ; while between the two she furnishes the stage on which he plays his every part. And more, she has made him, the actor, to play the part. Nature is one and indivisible. She had no beginning, and can have no end. She is the All-in-all. Com­ bined in her are the One and the Many which so perplexed the philo­ sophers of ancient times. Charles Watts. ��DATE DUE Z7 JU L 2012 I Demco, Inc. 38-293 � 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 and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable? Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Toronto Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watts, Charles Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [n.d.] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism Theism 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 and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable?), 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> Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RA1651 RA1853 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 Theism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a6614aa4e32e506592f6e8ac0ce5348.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=Tu9HUPrFA2Y0rnIjIMWI3oBUG4z92Aae4DBDJ20TXrjtD4fqg4CJ-qdXzG1S-rsB3jKh24sshlIghjvQpseUVcQ1-7UkgyWP7VCwohg0yMDYFuVUrP2oHNUNSTwzx-CmVB%7EB9knEHCIMQr9UeXKDUEjFOWIxDVD6pR3DPWeAfGmHEaN8qI%7EpkjUc%7E%7EpUO9l%7EZKxcIr1Xc54buB0YS7EjNcXLI6NHMyXPI6t1Dp7jb%7EhhnNCfmkn42ABdRu9%7EJHukq6IS1tBSsJXzXLRz5N3jGNlgIpvC%7ExFzsv%7EE6lh-nyrF3dyCcvI6ReBaI9UROWfsWbi%7EExZo9G4XOO-CxNsjcg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 808ec0848457e086da0b0464311c6f8d PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. BY SAMUEL LAING, Author of “Modern Science and Modern ThoughtilA Modern Zoroastrian,” “Problems of the Future,” etc. ISSUED FOR THE Jress OmmifteL London : WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St. Price One Penny. �OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE. This Committee has been formed for the purpose of assisting in the production and circulation of liberal publications. The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr. Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles A. Watts. It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the principles of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many will read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture hall. At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might be dissipated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer wins his thousands, the penman his tens of thousands. The aim of the various writers will be to obtain converts by persuasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular creeds. All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re­ quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their means will allow. The names of donors will not be published without their consent. On the ist of January of each year a report and balance-sheet will be forwarded to subscribers. The books of the Committee are always accessible to donors. Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should be crossed “Central Bank of London, Blackfriars Branch.” PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY MESSRS. WATTS & CO. Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions ■of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint. By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d. post free. Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern Science and Modern Thought,” etc. id., by post ij^d. Special terms for quantities. Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters, id., by post i%d. .Special terms for quantities. LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE. 'This Committee has been formed for procuring the passing of a law legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes. As the law now stands, all legacies left for the diffusion and main­ tenance of Secular or Free Thought principles can be confiscated. Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may ,be sent to Mr. Charles A. Watts, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C., or to the care of the Hon. Secretary, Mr. H. L. Braekstad, 138, Loughborough Park, London, S.W. �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. a To be, or not to be, that is the question ”—a question which has been asked before and after Hamlet, in all ages and countries where mankind has risen from blank savagery to thought and intelligence. The love of life, the horror of annihilation, are instincts common to men and to the whole animal creation. In civilised man this instinct rises beyond the vague terror of death and fear of the unknown. He “ looks before and after his sense of justice longs for a future life to redress the wrongs and sufferings of the present one; his affections crave for a sight of faces which he has loved and lost; all the feelings of his complex nature cry out for some assurance of a continued existence. On the other hand, all positive knowledge and experience fail to give him this assurance, and rather tell him that, as his individual existence began with birth, so it will terminate with death. How stands this most momentous of all problems in the light of modern science, and of that development of it which is fast invading modern thought under the compendious term of “ Agnosticism ” ? To attack a problem we must begin by clearly defining its conditions. What do we mean when we talk of a “ future life ” and of “ immortality ” ? Clearly, for all practical purposes, we mean a life in which we retain our personal identity and individual consciousness. To be absorbed in some metaphysical essence, or soul of the universe, as some tiny rivulet is in the pathless ocean, is tantamount to annihilation. Extremes meet, and the Nirvana, which is the ultimate goal of the most �2 AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. purely metaphysical religion, that of Buddhism, lands us practically in the same conclusion as that of the Mate­ rialist, to whom life and consciousness are but functions of particular modes of cell-motions. It is important to keep this distinction well in mind, for it bears upon the next stage of the inquiry—viz., what are the historical facts of the problem ? What are the views of it which have been entertained by different nations and in different ages ? Do they show such a general consensus of opinion as may establish at any rate a frima facie case for any definite conclusion, and show it to be a necessary product of the evolution of the human mind ? Or are they so conflicting as to neutralise one another, and show that no common con­ clusion holds the field, which remains open for inquiries conducted with all the latest resources of modern know­ ledge ? The answer must be that the latter is undoubt­ edly the true state of the case. If we take immortality to mean the preservation of conscious personal identity after death, the majority of mankind have had no such belief. The countless millions of Brahmins and Buddhists do not get nearer to it than to assume some vague absorption into the soul of the universe, after more or less transmigration through other forms of life. Plato and his followers had much the same idea, in a more refined and philoso­ phical form, of an unconscious pre-existence in the universal- spirit before birth, and return to it after death —a speculation which we find in the creeds of almost all our modern poets, and which is stated with much force and precision by Wordsworth in his ode on “Immortality.” Other nations, such as the Chinese and Japanese, have no distinct ideas on the subject beyond a vague veneration for departed ancestors, and their educated classes accept either the Agnosticism, pure and simple, of Confucius, or some vague concep­ tion of Buddhistic philosophy. The lower classes, and savage and semi-civilised races generally, have a sort of rude faith in ghosts, which are scarcely distinguishable from the evil spirits in which unknown or injurious forces of Nature are personified. The first dawn of a belief in a continued personal �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. 3 existence after death is found in the interments of the neolithic period, in which weapons and food were de­ posited for the use of a departed chief in the happier hunting-ground of another world, and slaves were sacri­ ficed so as to give him an appropriate retinue. From this germ arose the Egyptian creed, which was for so many centuries by far the most powerful and practical exemplification of a belief in a future existence by a great civilised nation. They looked, as Herodotus tells us, on their tombs as their permanent abodes, and the homes in which they lived as mere temporary occu­ pations. Their idea was that every existence, animate or inanimate, consisted of two parts, the material body and the seol, or incorporeal spirit, which could wander about in dreams, and, after death, continue a shadowy existence, living on shadowy food, and taking pleasure in shadowy geese and kine and other belongings. But this seol must have a corporeal body, or semblance of its old material self, as a basis for its existence, and hence the care and expense which were lavished on mummies and on paintings on the walls of tombs. It is remarkable that, wherever the faith in a personal immortality of the soul has been at all strong, it has been associated with an equally strong faith in the resurrection of the body. The old Egyptians and the early Christians equally shared this belief; and even in the more shadowy mythology of the Greek and Roman world due funeral rites to the body were considered necessary to save the departed soul from wandering, as a shivering, bodiless ghost, on the banks of the melan­ choly Styx. Another remarkable nation, the Jews, entirely ignored the idea of a future existence—a most singular circum-, stance, considering that they were so long in contact with the Egyptians, with whom it was the pervading fact of their daily life, and that the Jews were supposed to be a chosen people, specially instructed by Jehovah. And yet nothing can be clearer than that, from the time of Moses down to that of Ecclesiastes—and even later, as held by the Sadducees, the conservative aristocracy, who clung most tenaciously by the old law—the pure Jewish faith was that death was annihilation, and rewards �4 AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. and punishments were dispensed either to the individual in this life or to his posterity. Nothing can be more explicit than the words of Ecclesiastes which are put in the mouth of the great preacher, King Solomon, as the result of his long expe­ rience and deep wisdom : “ A living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward.” And again : “ There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.” It is not a little surprising that a religion like Chris­ tianity, in which eternal life and future rewards and punishments are such essential elements, should have originated from the matter-of-fact and almost Materialistic creed of Mosaic Judaism. Orthodox theologians will,, of course, say that it was because it pleased God to con­ ceal these things from former generations, and to teach them for the first time by a new revelation. The retort is obvious : if Jehovah were a just and benevolent Deity,, why should he mislead his own chosen people by allowing Moses, Abraham, and other pious patriarchs after his own heart, to believe and teach the direct opposite of these essential truths ? But the retort, however obvious, is effective only against the idolaters of the Bible; for its sincere students it is more to the purpose to observe that the assumption that these Christian dogmas are taught by Divine inspiration is met at the very outset by this staggering objection. What Jesus, St. Paul, and the Apostles taught respecting the immortality of the soul was this: that our personal identity after death would be preserved by a resurrection of the body, which was to take place in the lifetime of some of the existing generation. This is stated over and over again in the most distinct and positive terms, and, if the prophecy failed, there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to teach us anything certain as to any future life. The last judgment is, in like manner, inextricably mixed up with the advent of Jesus in a cloud, with a trumpet and angels, within the prescribed time. Now, it is historically certain that the prophecy was a mistake; 1800 years have elapsed, and the end of the �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. 5 world, the bodily resurrection, and the Day of Judgment, as described by Jesus and St. Paul, have not come. It is equally certain that, scientifically, no resurrection of the material body is possible. Death resolves the atoms and energies of which it was composed into new and simpler forms, which enter into totally different combi­ nations. What becomes, then, of the superstructure of a personal identity after death, when it is based on two pillars which have crumbled into dust? It is.as though it had never been made, and the fact remains that in no religion of ancient or modern times can we find any reliable information, or general consensus of opinion, as to that greatest of all mysteries—what may be “ behind the veil.” If from Theology we fall back on Science, we have real and accurate information up to a certain point; but the final step escapes us. We know in the most precise and accurate manner that all we call soul, spirit, thought, memory, will, perception, and con­ sciousness are indissolubly connected with definite motions of minute cells in the cortex or grey enveloping matter of the brain. Given the motions of given cells, and the corresponding effects will follow with the same certainty as if we were nothing but an electric battery, with nerves for conducting wires. And, conversely, without the proper inducing motions of nerve-cells the effects will not follow. This has been proved by such innumerable experiments that I shall confine myself to noticing a few which have the most direct bearing on the question of soul or personal identity. Memory is clearly at the bottom of this feeling of personality. It links together past perceptions, and makes us feel that they are not isolated phenomena, but have an unity and connection, as having happened to one and the same person—viz., ourselves. Now, it is quite possible to obliterate portions of the memory by destroying portions of the grey matter of the brain appro­ priated for remembering that particular class of impres­ sions. For instance, there is in the back part of the brain a tract of grey matter, connected by a collection of fine conducting wires, called the optic nerve, with the retina, which enables us to see. Surrounding this is another tract of grey matter, connected with the former, �6 AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. which serves as a sort of register office for messages sent from the eye to the central telegraph office—or, in other words, which is appropriated to the memory of visual perceptions. Destroy the first or central office, and we can no longer see. Leave it untouched, but destroy the second or register office, and we can see, but no longer remember what is seen. In like manner with the sense of hearing: there is a central office by which we hear, and a connected register office by which we remember what we have heard. Destroy the latter, and all memory of all we have ever heard passes away from us. Memory, therefore, is clearly proved to be not merely a general function of the brain en masse, but a special function of special portions of the brain, told off for the purpose of converting mechanical impressions received from the outer world, through the senses, into registered messages, which form the raw material of what we call memory, which is itself the substratum of consciousness. The will is another faculty which is commonly attri­ buted to personal identity, and yet it also is indissolubly associated with brain motion. Nothing can well be more mechanical than straining the eye to look at a black wafer stuck on a white wall. And yet, by this purely mechanical process, a state called hypnotism can be frequently induced, in which the will is apparently lost, and the will of another personality—that of the operator—is substituted for it. Thus, in the well-known experiment of Dr. Braid, a puritanical old lady, to whom dancing was an invention of Satan, was sent capering about the room to a reel tune, when told to do so by the Doctor. Nay, further, it is shown, by the careful experiments scientifically conducted at the Salpetriere by eminent French physicians, that a suggestion to an hypnotised patient may affect his or her brain move­ ments in such a way as to give rise to the corresponding actions of nerves and muscles weeks after the suggestion was made and the hypnotic state had passed away. Thus a moral person may be irresistibly impelled to commit an atrocious crime on a specified person at a specified date, which would have been utterly repugnant to the patient’s normal nature. �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. 7 In like manner, visible things may be rendered invis­ ible, and invisible things visible, by this hypnotic sug­ gestion. And, what is even more extraordinary and more directly materialistic, these suggested emotions and perceptions may be transferred into one another by the action of a magnet. A case is recorded in Binet and Fere’s volume on the Salpetriere experiments in which a patient told to hate one of the doctors endeavoured to strike him; but, on a magnet being held near the back of her head, hate was changed into love, and she tried to embrace him. Another case is interesting as bearing on the question of personal identity. A female patient, -On being told that she was one of the doctors, imme­ diately assumed his gait and manner, and stroked an imaginary moustache; and, being asked if she knew her real self, replied : “ Oh, yes, there is an hysterical patient of that name who is not over-wise.” The same phenomenon of a dual personality is fre-quently found in persons who have received some injury to the brain, and are subject to trances. They have two personalities—one of a real, the other of a trance life, which are quite distinct and each unconscious of the •other; so that Smith may be alternately Jones or Smith, .as he falls into or awakes from a succession of trances. In other words, the brain is like a barrel organ, which plays one tune in its normal state and a different one when the stops have been altered by some abnormal influence. In short, the last word of physiological science is that all which we call soul, mind, conscious­ ness, or personality, are functions of matter and motion. Observe, however, that, when we ticket the facts with the word function, we explain nothing, but simply sum up the results by affirming that, as far as human experi­ ence goes, the two phenomena go necessarily and inevit­ ably together. There is another class of experiments recorded by the eminent French physician, M. Binet, in the columns of the Open Court, which bears very directly on this .question of a conscious personality. It is not uncommon with hysterical patients to find portions of the body or particular limbs which are subject to what is called .ansesthesia. That is, they are insensible to pain, as in �8 AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. the case of chloroform, and cut off from all connection with the conscious self, as completely as if they were external pieces of matter. But, if certain motions are suggested to the paralysed limb, the same results will follow as if they had been dictated by will and accom­ panied by consciousness. Thus, if a pen be put in the ansesthetic hand between the thumb and the index finger, without the subject seeing or being in any way conscious of it, he will seize it, and his other fingers and arm assume the attitude necessary for writing. Suppose, next, we make the pen write a familiar word, such as the subject’s name ; after a short interval, the unconscious and paralysed hand will write the word over again, some­ times five or six times. And, what is still more extra­ ordinary, if we purposely write the word with a wrong or superfluous letter, when the subject repeats the word the anaesthetic hand will hesitate when it comes to the mistake, and, after several attempts, frequently end by correcting it. Now, in this experiment we have clearly proved, as Binet says, an unconscious perception, an unconscious reasoning and memory, and an unconscious volition. It is clear, therefore, that, in such a case, the essential elements, not merely of unconscious reflex movements of nerve and muscle, but of all that we are accustomed to consider as mind or spirit, have been reduced to un­ conscious or mechanical conditions. As Huxley puts it, you may suppress consciousness, and yet all physiolo­ gical phenomena will continue to be performed auto­ matically just as before; objects will continue to be perceived, unconscious reasonings will develop, followed by acts of adaptation. This is not “ Agnosticism,” but science and hard fact, with which the orthodox believers in soul or spirit have to reckon, just as much as those who fail to discover in the problem anything that can be solved by human faculty. In fact, no one can state this more explicitly than one of the ablest of modern theo­ logians, Principal Caird, in his sermon preached before the British Medical Association in 1888, in which he says : “ Of the thoughts, emotions, volitions, which in endless multiplicity and variety constitute our conscious life, there is not one which is not correlated to some �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. 9 physical change or motion in the brain-matter of the thinker; and, as far as we know, the growth, develop­ ment, decline, the healthy or morbid action of the human mind, is invariably connected with corresponding changes of nervous or brain tissue.” But Dr. Caird, who is not a mere commonplace theologian, but candid, sincere, and. thoroughly acquainted with the latest discoveries of science, falls back on two arguments to refute the con­ clusions of Materialism—the first scientific, the second metaphysical. The first invokes the principle of the “ Conservation of Energy.” Dr. Caird argues that the soul, as distinct from the body, is an energy, and, there­ fore, indestructible. In the first place, if it were true, it would point rather to the Brahminical and Buddhistic doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and ultimate merger in the one universal and eternal energy. But the premise involves the fallacy so common in all theo­ logical arguments, that known to theologians as the petitio principn. It assumes a soul which is at one and the same time immaterial and material. That is, imma­ terial as being subject to none of the ordinary laws of matter, such as gravity, form, and extension; material as being subject to the law of indestructibility, which is known to us only as another attribute of ordinary matter and energy. If there be a soul or spirit, how do we know that this law applies to it; or, if it did, that it is not transformed into some sort of dead or potential energy after the active energy comes to an end with the disso­ lution of the material frame, in association with which we alone have any knowledge of it ? For there is no fact more certain than that we have absolutely no know­ ledge of any soul apart from this association. No man of sane mind will assert that he has any recollection of anything that occurred before he was born, or that he has received any authentic message from any world of spirits inhabited by the dead. The last word of science is—“ Behind the veil.” The second or metaphysical argument is that the very existence of matter implies thought. We know nothing of matter and motion in themselves, but only as they appear to us, which is after they have been transfigured, by something antecedent to and independent of them, �IO AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. which we call thought or consciousness. It is argued, therefore, that all phenomena require us to assume the existence of an universal mind in which they are con­ ceived, and that, to constitute the reality of the outward world, the presence and the comparing, discriminating and unifying activity of thought is pre-supposed. There­ fore, there is an universal, eternal thought or soul of the universe, which, expressed in anthropomorphic language, is called God, of whom we may say, with St. Paul: “ Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.” This seems a stupendous superstructure of assertion to raise on the slender foundation that, as a matter of fact, according to the experience of the inhabitants of our tiny planet, thought or consciousness, and brain or nerve motion, do commonly, though, as we have seen, not invariably, go together. It is not by any means clear, even in man’s limited sphere of knowledge, which of the two is the post hoc and which the propter hoc; and no real assurance can result from the double guess - first, that our own mind is the propter hoc, or originat­ ing fact of our own existence; and, secondly, that, if so, the same is true of all existence in the universe. The fact is that these metaphysical solutions of the mysteries of the universe never give any certain assur­ ance even to the acutest philosopher, and to the great mass of mankind they are not even intelligible. More­ over, it is to be remarked that, even if philosophers could establish the truth of their proposition as to mind and thought, it would not take us one step further towards proving what is the real object of our hopes and fears —the continuance of our personal identity after death. On the contrary, Dr. Caird’s whole argument tends to the conclusion of Brahmins, Buddhists, and Platonists that individual existences come from, and return to, the great universal soul or energy of the universe, like the waves which rise and fall, rippling for an instant the surface of the pathless ocean. To carry this one step further and arrive at a personal God, with intelligence and feelings like those of a magnified man, even such an acute reasoner as Dr. Caird has to fall back on wishes rather than reasons. He finds that “ a God outside of knowledge, the dark, impenetrable background of the �AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. II phenomenal world,” is not 11 the boon he wants,” and he accordingly postulates something nearer to him and more in accordance with his personal aspirations and feelings. But wishes are not proofs, and there are many things which, although we desire them ever so ardently, do not come to pass. What can be more intense or more legi­ timate than the longing of a mother to receive some message from a lost child ?—and yet it has never been gratified. How many lovers have been parted, how many minds extinguished, in the full maturity of powers which might have benefitted mankind, and where are their hopes and fears, their ardent affections, their far-reaching plans ? Buried in the grave, where there is “ no work, nor device, nor knowledge ” beyond that “ undiscovered bourne from which no traveller returns.” And it is to be noticed that, even if we were to admit as proved the arguments for a personal God and an inspired revelation, we should not be one step advanced towards any certain assurance of a personal immortality. For what this personal God is assumed to teach us by His inspired record in the Bible is this : Firstly, by the Old Testament, that there is no future life; secondly, by the New Testament, that there is a future life, but coupled with the condition of a resurrection of the body within the lifetime of a generation who have all been dead for 1800 years. Clearly there is nothing in this which approaches within a hundred miles of anything like certain and definite knowledge. What, then, is the attitude of Agnosticism towards this great question of personal immortality ? All gnostic forms of religions and philosophies—that is, all systems which teach that the question is knowable, and within the range of human faculties, either with or without the aid of revelation—break down under critical and candid investigation. If I were placed in the position of a conscientious juryman, who was told that the court is competent and the case closed, and that I was bound to deliver a verdict “Aye” or “No” upon the evidence as it stands, I should feel constrained, however reluctantly, to say “ No.” But this would not be my true deliver­ ance. I should much prefer to return a verdict of “Not proven,” or rather I should say the court has no jurisdic- �12 AGNOSTICISM AND IMMORTALITY. tion, and should walk out without giving any verdict at all. This an Agnostic may do with perfect good faith. He believes that our little knowable world is encircled by a great Unknowable, in which all things are possible. He stands, like the Ulysses of the poet, on the margin of that great ocean beyond the setting sun, on which so many millions of millions have embarked, and not one has returned. He, too, like the rest, must soon follow, and turn his prow westwards. What fate is in store for him ? Shall the gulfs wash him down and merge forever his frail bark of hopes in the fathomless depths of a sleep where there are no dreams; or shall he perchance arrive at some fortunate islands of the West where' he may survive in some newer and better life, “ See the great Achilles whom we knew,” and, dearer than the great Achilles, once more behold the faces of those whom he has loved and lost ? He knows not: no voice on earth, no message from thq dead, ever reaches him, and one thing only remains— to possess his soul with patience, and to oppose “ one equal temper of heroic hearts ” to the decrees of destiny and of the irrevocable future. But in the meantime he may dream his dreams and indulge in his visions without fear of contradiction, and without vitiating his manhood by pretending to believe as certain where there is no certainty. Surely this is better than to pin his faith on assurances of certainty which break down under the first touch of the Ithuriel spear of candid and critical investigation, and leave him either shivering in the cold creed of “ dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return,” or wrapped in an unhealthy mantle of prejudices and prepossessions, impervious to the invigorating breezes of truth, of candour, and of sincerity. �WATTS & CO.’S LIST. A Lay Sermon. By S. Laing (Author of “ Modern Science and Modern Thought and “A Modern Zoroastrian ”). This booklet is an impartial and vigorous statement of the attitude of Agnosticism towards Christianity, and sets forth the moral advantages likely to accrue from the acceptance of Agnosticism. Single copies 6d, by post 7d; 13, 5s post free ; 50, 18s carriage paid. Agnosticism and Christianity. Thoughtful, lucid, practical, liberal in sentiment, and high in moral tone. It is a delightful little book, which does the spirit and the temper good to read, for it is large in charity, never offensive, and most welcome in counsel......... full of thought most lucidly expressed.—Secular Review. Agnostic Morality. By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Single copies 6d, by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free ; 50s, 18s carriage paid. “ Agnostic Morality ” is excellent....... Dr. Bithell has a fair grasp of the subject, and much perspicacity.—Progress. By B. Russell. A Concise and Popular Exposition, in Language Understanded of the People. 4d, by post 5d. The Case for Agnosticism. The Popular Faith Exposed. By Julian. This is a critical and scholarly examination of Orthodox Christianity, and is strongly recommended. Single copies 6d, by post 7^5 13, 5s post free ; 50, 18s carriage paid. Bible Words: Human, not Divine. By Julian. This is a pamphlet setting forth, in common-sense language, and free from exaggeration and vituperation, the most glaring absurdities and contradictions of the Bible. Price 3d, by post 3%d ; 13, 2s 6d post free ; 50, 9s carriage paid. The Future of Morality, as Affected by the Decay of Prevalent Religious Beliefs. By M. S. Gilliland, Single copies 4d, by post 4%d; 13, 3s 6d post free ; 50, 12s carriage paid. The Confession of Agnosticism. By G. M. McC. Chapter I. Introductory. Chapter II. Misconceptions. Chapter III. Fundamentals. Chapter IV. The Perfect Life. Chapter V. The Other Side of Agnosticism. Chapter VI. Faith and Manners. Single copies 6d, by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free ; 50, 18s carriage paid. The Excellent Religion. An Essay on the Relations be­ tween Agnosticism, the Polar Theory of Being, and the Higher Theism. By G. C. Griffith-Jones (Lara). Single copies 6d, by post 7d ; 13, 5s post free 5'50, 18s carriage paid. A Friendly Correspondence with Mr. Gladstone about Creeds. By S. Laing. This pamphlet contains the Articles of the Agnostic Creed drawn up at the request of Mr. Gladstone. 6d, by post 7d. London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C. �Demy 8vo, handsomely bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d. post free, CHEAP POPULAR EDITION OF AGNOSTIC PROBLEMS. BEING AN EXAMINATION OF SOME QUESTIONS OF THE: DEEPEST INTEREST, AS VIEWED FROM THE AGNOSTIC STANDPOINT. By RICHARD BITHELL, B.Sc., Ph.D. The volume is fascinatingly interesting, remarkably complete, and sothoroughly explains the Agnostic position that the merest tyro in metaphysics may grasp its contents....... “Agnostic Problems” has filled a gap that had remained too long open ; and, without any desire to flatter Dr. Bithell, it may be truthfully said that it has filled it with such solid material that it will re­ quire more than all the united strength of the opponents of Agnosticism to shatter one single stone of the substantial edifice thus put together. The work is one that ought to be read by every thinking man, be he Christian, Jew, Agnostic, or Atheist.—Secular Review. Handsomely bound in cloth, price is. 6d., by post is. 8d., Stepping-Stones to Agnosticism. By F. J. GOULD. With Introduction by G. J. Holyoake. Contents.—I. Ecce Deus; or, A New God. II. Miracles Weighed in the Balances. III. Our Brother Christ. IV. The Immortal Bible. V. The Noble Path. VI. Agnosticism Writ Plain. Bound in cloth, price 2s., by post 2s. 3d., AGNOSTIC FIRST PRINCIPLES. Being a Critical Exposition of the Spencerian System of Thought. By ALBERT SIMMONS (Ignotus). With Preface by Richard Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &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 and immortality Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Laing, Samuel [1812-1897] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Publisher's list inside and on back cover. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA, 2003), Appx. 1. 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 [1890] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N428 Subject The topic of the resource Agnosticism Immortality 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 and immortality), 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 Immortality NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e4388cf1e70834be45575fc50ab34d76.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=GqxabwrQPc6IgOI0llpsxxvesF934pE5RdG440kvET4DK27SLPATGmsOPK%7E2WZ1KoJGO3ORbFiwGtDKJfjaOJ0d77mOofFjlyUUQSqW--rdFnvX9hRtaagwco9a-vY3Yz3-69OaX1iHKzYLn-ZXNuoaGq2ufsLCGpdD%7Em-cizXYAIVwPxZ2U%7Eh6ifFSTpnzEM3gF3g2X5qk0Lsf6YOuzX1zOG0%7E3Oi9cTqzHeajaYlM8sffMZcakoVf9JhrJZbL3BwR1H5fO6n5WIxTLgQlRI40SVJhKIMxOAuqz0lGGS0U9aSgieYZLHZPCUQ5-tteA2Gv8QTWzwSiA3LqzBUvF4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 24130d6aa440635deab51b5713c7b3f3 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY / WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC? PRICE TWOPENCE. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C. 1902. �WORKS BY The Late R. G. INGERSOLL The House of Death. Funeral Orations and Addresses, is. Mistakes of Moses, is. Cloth, 2s. 6d. The Devil. 6d. Superstition. 6d. Shakespeare. 6d. The Gods. 6d. The Holy Bible. 6d. Reply to Gladstone. With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. 4d. Rome or Reason ? A Reply to Cardinal Man­ ning. 4d. Crimes against Criminals 3dOration on Walt Whit­ man. 3d. Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Abraham Lincoln. 3d. Paine the Pioneer. 2d. Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Paine. 2d. Ernest Renan and Jesus Christ. 2d. Three Philanthropists. 2d. Love the Redeemer. 2d. The Ghosts. 3d. What Must I do to be Saved ? 2d. What is Religion ? 2d. Is Suicide a Sin ? 2d. Last Words on Suicide. 2d. God and the State. 2d. Faith and Fact. Reply to Dr. Field. 2d. God and Man. Second reply to Dr. Field. 2d. The Dying Creed. 2d. The Limits of Tolera­ tion. A Discussion with the Hon. F. D. Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford. 2d. Household of Faith. 2d. Art and Morality. 2d. Do I Blaspheme ? 2d. Social Salvation. 2d. Marriage and Divorce. 2d. Skulls. 2d. The Great Mistake, id. Live Topics, id. Myth and Miracle, id. Real Blasphemy, id. Why am I an Agnostic ? 2d. Christ and Miracles. id. Creeds and Spirituality. id. The Christian Religion. 3d- Orders to the amount of 5s. and ibpwards sent post free. London: THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING Co., Ltd., 2 Newcastle Street, Farringdon Street, E.C. �WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? ------- ♦------- The same rules or laws of probability must govern in religious questions as in others. There is no subject— and can be none—concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence. Neither is there any intelligent being who can, by any possibility, be flattered by the exercise of ignorant credulity. The man who, without prejudice, reads and understands the Old and Old Testaments will cease to be an orthodox Christian. The intelligent man who investigates the religion of any country without fear and without pre­ judice will not and cannot be a believer. 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. He will find it impossible to account for pesti­ lence and famine, for earthquake and storm, for slavery, for the triumph of the strong over the weak, for the countess victories of injustice. He will find it impos­ sible to account for martyrs—for the burning of the good, the noble, the loving, by the ignorant, the malicious, and the infamous. How can the Deist satisfactorily account for the sufferings of women and children ? In what way will �4 he justify religious persecution—the flame and sword of religious hatred ? Why did his God sit idly on his throne and allow his enemies to wet their swords in the blood of his friends ? Why did he not answer the prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless ? And when he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why did he not also hear the prayer of the slave ? And when children were sold from the breasts of mothers, why was he deaf to the mother’s cry ? 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 comprehend­ ing the supernatural, or of conceiving of an infinite personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver, and Providence, all meaning falls. The mind of man pursues the path of least resistance, and the conclusions arrived at by the individual depend upon the nature and structure of his mind, on his experi­ ence, on hereditary drifts and tendencies, and on the countless things that constitute the difference in minds. One man, finding himself in the midst of mysterious phe­ nomena, comes to the conclusion that all is the result of design; that back of all things is an infinite personality —that is to say, an infinite man ; and he accounts for all that is by simply saying that the universe was created and set in motion by this infinite personality, and that it is miraculously and supernaturally governed and pre­ served. This man sees with perfect clearness that matter could not create itself, and therefore he imagines a creator of matter. He is perfectly satisfied that there is design in the world, and that, consequently, there must have been a designer. It does not occur to him that it is necessary to account for the existence of an infinite personality. He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created, and that its creator was not. He assumes �5 that a creator existed from eternity, without cause, and created what is called “matter” out of nothing; or, whereas there was nothing, this creator made the some­ thing that we call substance. Is it possible for the human mind to conceive of an infinite personality ? Can it imagine a beginning-less being, infinitely powerful and intelligent ? If such a being existed, then there must have been an eternity during which nothing did exist except this being; because, if the universe was created, there must have been a time when it was not, and back of that there must have been an eternity during which nothing but an infinite personality existed. Is it possible to imagine an infinite intelligence dwelling for an eternity in infinite nothing ? How could such a being be intelligent ? What was there to be intelligent about ? There was but one thing to know—namely, that there was nothing except this being ? How could such a being be powerful ? There was nothing to exercise force upon. There was nothing in the universe to suggest an idea. Relations could not exist—except the relation between infinite intelligence and infinite nothing. The next great difficulty is the act of creation. My mind is so that I cannot conceive of something being created out of nothing. Neither can I conceive of any­ thing being created without a cause. Let me go one Stop further. It is just as difficult to imagine something being created with, as without, a cause. To postulate a cause does not in the least lessen the difficulty. In spite of all, this lever remains without a fulcrum. We cannot conceive of the destruction of substance. The stone can be crushed to powder, and the powder can be ground to such a fineness that the atoms can only be distinguished by the most powerful microscope, and we can then imagine these atoms being divided and subdivided again and again ; but it is impossible for us to conceive of the annihilation of the least possible imaginable fragment of the least atom of which we can think. Consequently, the mind can imagine neither creation nor destruc­ tion. From this point it is very easy to reach the �6 generalisation that the indestructible could not have been created. These questions, however, will be answered 'by each individual according to the structure of his mind, accord­ ing to his experience, according to his habits of thought, and according to his intelligence or his ignorance, his prejudice or his genius. Probably a very large majority of mankind believe in the existence of supernatural beings, and a majority of what are known as civilised nations, in an infinite per­ sonality. In the realm of thought majorities do not determine. Each brain is a kingdom, each mind is a sovereign. The universality of a belief does not even tend to prove its truth. A large majority of mankind have believed in what is known as God, and an equally large majority have as implicitly believed in what is known as the Devil. These beings have been inferred from phenomena. They were produced for the most part by ignorance, by fear and by selfishness. Man in all ages has endeavored to account for the mysteries of life and death, of substance, of force, for the ebb and flow of things, for earth and star. The savage, dwelling in his cave, subsisting on roots and reptiles, or on beasts that could be slain with club and stone, surrounded by count­ less objects of terror, standing by rivers, so far as he knew, without source or end, by seas with but one shore, the prey of beasts mightier than himself, of diseases strange and fierce, trembling at the voice of thunder, blinded by the lightning, feeling the earth shake beneath him, seeing the sky lurid with thev olcano’s glare—fell prostrate and begged for the protection of the Unknown. In the long night of savagery, in the midst of pesti­ lence and famine, through the long and dreary winters, crouched in dens of darkness, the seeds of superstition were sown in the brain of man. The savage believed, and thoroughly believed, that everything happened in reference to him ; that he by his actions could excite the anger, or by his worship placate the wrath, of the Unseen. He resorted to flattery and prayer. To the �7 best of his ability, he put in stone, or rudely carved in wood, his idea of this God. For this idol he built a hut, a hovel, and at last a cathedral. Before these images he bowed, and at these shrines, whereon he lavished his wealth, he sought protection for himself and for the ones he loved. The few took advantage of the ignorant many. They pretended to have received messages from the Unknown. They stood between the helpless multitude ajnd the gods. They were the carriers of flags of truce. At the court of heaven they presented the cause of man, and upon the labor of the deceived they lived. The Christian of to-day wonders at the savage who bowed before his idol; and yet it must be confessed that the god of stone answered prayer and protected his worshippers precisely as the Christian’s God answers prayer and protects his worshippers to-day. My mind is so that it is forced to the conclusion that substance is eternal; that the universe was without beginning and will be without end ; that it is the one eternal existence; that relations are transient and evanescent; that organisms are produced and vanish; that forms change—but that the substance of things is from eternity to eternity. It may be that planets are born and die, that constellations will fade from the infinite spaces, that countless suns will be quenched— but the substance will remain. The questions of origin and destiny seem to be beyond the powers of the human mind. Heredity is on the side of superstition. All our ignorance pleads for the old. In most men there is a feeling that their ancestors were exceedingly good and brave and wise, and that in all things pertaining to religion their conclusions should be followed. They believe that their fathers and mothers were of the best, and that that which satisfied them should satisfy their children. With a feeling of reverence they say that the religion of their mother is good enough and pure enough and reasonable enough for them. In this way the love of parents and the reverence for ancestors have unconsciously bribed the reason �8 and put out, or rendered exceedingly dim, the eyes of the mind. There is a kind of longing in the heart of the old to live and die where their parents lived and died—a ten­ dency to go back to the homes of their youth. Around the old oak of manhood grow and cling these vines. Yet it will hardly do to say that the religion of my mother is good enough for me, any more than to say the geology, or the astronomy, or the philosophy of my mother is good enough for me. Every human being is entitled to the best he can obtain ; and if there has been the slightest improvement on the religion of the mother, the son is entitled to that improvement, and he should not deprive himself of that advantage by the mistaken idea that he owes it to his mother to perpetuate, in a reverential way, her ignorant mistakes. If we are to follow the religion of our fathers and mothers, our fathers and mothers should have followed the religion of theirs. Had this been done, there could have been no improvement in the world of thought. The first religion would have been the last, and the child would have died as ignorant as the mother. Progress would have been impossible, and on the graves of ancestors would have been sacrificed the intelligence of mankind. We know, too, that there has been the religion of the tribe, of the community, and of the nation, and that there has been a feeling that it was the duty of every member of the tribe or community, and of every citizen of the nation, to insist upon it that the religion of that tribe, of that community, of that nation, was better than that of any other. We know that all the prejudices against other religions, and all the egotism of nation and tribe, were in favour of the local superstition. Each citizen was patriotic enough to denounce the religions of other nations and to stand firmly by his own. And there is this peculiary about man : he can see the absur­ dities of other religions while blinded to those of his own. The Christian can see clearly enough that Mohammed was an imposter. He is sure of it, because the people �9 of Mecca who were acquainted with him declared that he was no prophet; and this declaration is received by Christians as a demonstration that Mohammed was not inspired. Yet these same Christians admit that the people of Jerusalem who were acquainted with Christ rejected him ; and this rejection they take as proof positive that Christ was the Son of God. The average man adopts the religion of his country, or, rather, the religion of his country adopts him. He is dominated by the egotism of race, the arrogance of nation, and the prejudice called patriotism. He does not reason—he feels. He does not investigate—he believes. To him the religions of other nations are absurd and infamous, and their gods monsters of ignorance and cruelty. In every country this average man is taught, first, that there is a supreme being ; second, that he has made known his will; third, that he will reward the true believer ; fourth, that he will punish the unbeliever, the scoffer and the blasphemer; fifth, that certain ceremonies are pleasing to his god; sixth, that he has established a church; and seventh, that priests are his representatives on earth. And the average man has no difficulty in determining that the god of his nation is the true God ; that the will of this true God is contained in the sacred scriptures of his nation ; that he is one of the true believers, and that the people of other nations—that is, believing other religions—are scoffers ; that the only true church is the one to which he belongs; and that the priests of his country are the only ones who have had or ever will have the slightest influence with this true God. All these absurdities to the average man seem self-evident propositions; and so he holds all the other creeds in scorn, and congratulates himself that he is a favourite of the one true God. If the average Christian had been born in Turkey, he would have been a Mohammedan; and if the average Mohammedan had been born in New England and educated at Andover, he would have regarded the damnation of the heathen as the “ tidings of great j°y-” �IO Nations have eccentricities, peculiarities, and halluci­ nations, and these find expression in their laws, customs, ceremonies, morals, and religions. And these are in great part determined by soil, climate, and the countless circumstances that mould and dominate the lives and habits of insects, individuals, and nations. The average man believes implicitly in the religion of his country, because he knows nothing of any other and has no desire to know. It fits him because he has been deformed to fit it, and he regards this fact of fit as an evidence of its inspired truth. Has a man the right to examine, to investigate, the religion of his own country—the religion of his father and mother ? Christians admit that the citizens of all countries not Christian have not only this right, but that it is their solemn duty. Thousands of missionaries are sent to heathen countries to persuade the believers in other religions not only to examine their superstitions, but to renounce them, and to adopt those of the mission­ aries. It is the duty of a heathen to disregard the religion of his country and to hold in contempt the creed of his father and of his mother. If the citizens of heathen nations have the right to examine the foundations of their religion, it would seem that the citizens of Christian nations have the same right. Christians, however, go further than this; they say to the heathen: You must examine your religion, and not only so, but you must reject it; and, unless you do reject it, and, in addition to such rejection, adopt ours, you will be eternally damned. Then these same Christians say to the inhabitants of a Christian country: You must not examine; you must not investigate; but whether you examine or, you must believe, or you will be eternally damned. If there be one true religion, how is it possible to ascertain which of all the religions the true one is ? There is but one way. We must impartially examine the claims of all. The right to examine involves the necessity to accept or reject. Understand me, not the right to accept or reject, but the necessity. From this conclusion there is no possible escape. If, then, we �II have the right to examine, we have the right to tell the conclusion reached. Christians have examined other religions somewhat, and they have expressed their opinion with the utmost freedom—that is to say, they have denounced them all as false and fraudulent, have called their gods idols and myths, and their priests impostors. The Christian does not deem it worth while to read the Koran. Probably not one Christian in a thousand ever saw a copy of that book. And yet all Christians are perfectly satisfied that the Koran is the work of an impostor. No Presbyterian thinks it is worth his while to examine the religious systems of India; he knows that the Brahmins are mistaken, and that all their miracles are falsehoods. No Methodist cares to read the life of Buddha, and no Baptist will waste his time Studying the ethics of Confucius. Christians of every sort and kind take it for granted that there is only one true religion, and that all except Christianity are abso­ lutely without foundation. The Christian world believes that all the prayers of India are unanswered ; that all the sacrifices upon the countless altars of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome were without effect. They believe that all these mighty nations worshipped their gods in vain ; that their priests were deceivers or deceived ; that their ceremonies were wicked or meaningless ; that their temples were built by ignorance and fraud, and that no god heard their songs of praise, their cries of despair, their words of thankfulness; that on account of their religion no pestilence was stayed ; that the earthquake and volcano, the flood and storm, went on their ways of death—while the real God looked on and laughed at their calamities and mocked at their fears. We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage of the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of education, on the liberty of thought and action ; and that in this mighty panorama of national life reason has built and superstition has destroyed. �12 Being satisfied that all believe precisely as they must, and that religions have been naturally produced, I have neither praise nor blame for any man. Good men have had bad creeds, and bad men have had good ones. Some of the noblest of the human race have fought and died for the wrong. The brain of man has been the trysting-place of contradictions. Passion often masters reason, and “ the state of man, like to a little kingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrection.” In the discussion of theological or religious questions, we have almost passed the personal phase, and we are now weighing arguments instead of exchanging epithets and curses. They who really seek for truth must be the best of friends. Each knows that his desire can never take the place of fact, and that, next to finding truth, the greatest honor must be won in honest search. We see that many ships are driven in many ways by the same wind. So men, reading the same book, write many creeds and lay out many roads to heaven. To the best of my ability, I have examined the religions of many countries and the creeds of many sects. They are much alike, and the testimony by which they are substantiated is of such a character that to those who believe is promised an eternal reward. In all the sacred books there are some truths, some rays of light, some words of love and hope. The face of savagery is some­ times softened by a smile—the human triumphs and the heart breaks into song. But in these books are also found the words of fear and hate, and from their pages crawl serpents that coil and hiss in all the paths of men. For my part, I prefer the books that inspiration has not claimed. Such is the nature of my brain that Shakespeare gives me greater joy than all the prophets of the ancient world. There are thoughts that satisfy the hunger of the mind. I am convinced that Humboldt knew more of geology than the author of Genesis; that Darwin was a greater naturalist than he who told the story of the Flood ; that Laplace was better acquainted with the habits of the sun and moon than Joshua could have been, and that Haeckel, Huxley, and Tyndal �13 know more about the earth and stars, about the history of man, the philosophy of life—more that is of use, ten thousand times—than all the writers of the sacred books. I believe in the religion of reason—the gospel of this world ; in the development of the mind, in the accumu­ lation of intellectual wealth, to the end that man may free himself from superstitious fear, to the end that he may take advantage of the forces of nature to feed and clothe the world. Let us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of countless mysteries; standing beneath the boundless heaven sown thick with constellations; knowing that each grain of sand, each leaf, each blade of grass, asks of every mind the answerless question ; knowing that the simplest thing defies solution ; feeling that we deal with the superficial and the relative, and that we are for ever eluded by the real, the absolute—let us admit the limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage and the candor to say: We do not know. The Christian religion rests on miracles. There are no miracles in the realm of science. The real philo­ sopher does not seek to excite wonder, but to make that plain which was wonderful. He does not endeavor to astonish, but to enlighten. He is perfectly confident that there are no miracles in nature. He knows that the mathematical expression of the same relations, contents, areas, numbers and proportions must forever remain the same. He knows that there are no miracles in chemistry; that the attractions and repulsions, the loves and hatreds, of atoms are constant. Under like conditions, he is certain that like will always happen ; that the product has been and forever will be the same ; that the atoms or particles unite in definite, unvarying proportions—so many of one kind mix, mingle, and harmonise with just so many of another, and the surplus will be forever cast out. There are no exceptions. Substances are always true to their natures. They have no caprices, no prejudices, that can vary or control their action. They are “ the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” �i4 In this fixedness, this constancy, this eternal integrity, the intelligent man has absolute confidence. It is use­ less to tell him that there was a time when fire would not consume the combustible, when water would not flow in obedience to the attraction of gravitation, or that there ever was a fragment of a moment during which substance had no weight. Credulity should be the servant of intelligence. The ignorant have not credulity enough to believe the actual, because the actual appears to be contrary to the evidence of their senses. To them it is plain that the sun rises and sets, and they have not credulity enough to believe in the rotary motion of the earth—that is to say, they have not intelligence enough to comprehend the absur­ dities involved in their belief, and the perfect harmony between the rotation of the earth and all known facts. They trust their eyes, not their reason. Ignorance has always been and always will be at the mercy of appear­ ance. Credulity, as a rule, believes everything except the truth. The semi-civilised believe in astrology, but who could convince them of the vastness of astronomical spaces, the speed of light, or the magnitude and number of suns and constellations ? If Hermann and Humboldt could have appeared before savages, which would have been regarded as a god ? When men knew nothing of mechanics, nothing of correlation of force, and of its indestructibility, they were believers in perpetual motion. So when chemistry was a kind of sleight-of-hand, or necromancy, something accomplished by the aid of the supernatural, people talked about the transmutation of metals, the universal solvent, and the philosopher’s stone. Perpetual motion would be a mechanical miracle; and the transmutation of metals would be a miracle in chemistry; and if we could make the result of multiplying two by two five, that would be a miracle in mathematics. No one expects to find a circle the diameter of which is just one-fourth of the circumference. If one could find such a circle then there would be a miracle in geometry. �i5 In other words, there are no miracles in any science. The moment we understand a question or subject, the miraculous necessarily disappears. If anything actually happens in the chemical world, it will under like condi­ tions happen again. No one need take an account of this result from the mouths of others: all can try the experiment for themselves. There is no caprice, and no accident. It is admitted, at least by the Protestant world, that the age of miracles has passed away, and, consequently, miracles cannot at present be established by miracles ; they must be substantiated by the testimony of wit­ nesses who are said by certain writers—or, rather, by uncertain writers—to have lived several centuries ago ; and this testimony is given to us, not by the witnesses themselves, not by persons who say that they talked with those witnesses, but by unknown persons who did not give the sources of their information. The question is : Can miracles be established except by miracles ? We know that the writers may have been mistaken. It is possible that they may have manufac­ tured these accounts themselves. The witnesses may have told what they knew to be untrue, or they may have been honestly deceived, or the stories may have been true as first told. Imagination may have added greatly to them, so that after several centuries of accre­ tion a very simple truth was changed to a miracle. We must admit that all probabilities must be against miracles, for the reason that that which is probable cannot by any possibility be a miracle. Neither the probable nor the possible, so far as man is concerned, can be miraculous. The probability therefore says that the writers and witnesses were either mistaken or dis­ honest. We must admit that we have never seen a miracle ourselves, and we must admit that, according to our experience, there are no miracles. If we have mingled with the world we are compelled to say that we have known a vast number of persons—including ourselves— to be mistaken, and many others who have failed to tell �the exact truth. The probabilities are on the side of our experience, and, consequently, against the miraculous ; and it is a necessity that the free mind moves along the path of least resistance. The effect of testimony depends on the intelligence and honesty of the witness and the intelligence of him who weighs. A man living in a community where the supernatural is expected, where the miraculous is sup­ posed to be of almost daily occurrence, will, as a rule, believe that all wonderful things are the result of super­ natural agencies. He will expect providential inter­ ference, and, as a consequence, his mind will pursue the path of least resistance, and will account for all phenomena by what to him is the easiest method. Such people, with the best intentions, honestly bear false witness. They have been imposed upon by appear­ ances, and are victims of delusion and illusion. In an age when reading and writing were substantially unknown, and when history itself was but the vaguest hearsay handed down from dotage to infancy, nothing was rescued from oblivion except the wonderful, the miraculous. The more marvellous the story, the greater the interest excited. Narrators and hearers were alike ignorant and alike honest. At that time nothing was known, nothing suspected, of the orderly course of nature —of the unbroken and unbreakable chain of causes and effects. The world was governed by caprice. Every­ thing was at the mercy of a being, or beings, who were themselves controlled by the same passions that dominate man. Fragments of facts were taken for the whole, and the deductions drawn were honest and monstrous. It is probably certain that all the religions of the world have been believed, and that all the miracles have found credence in countless brains ; otherwise they could not have been perpetuated. They were not all born of cunning. Those who told were as honest as those who heard. This being so, nothing has been too absurd for human credence. All religions, so far as I know, claim to have been miraculously founded, miraculously preserved, and mira- �i7 culously propagated. The priests of all claimed to have messages from God, and claimed to have a certain authority, and the miraculous has always been appealed to for the purpose of substantiating the message and the authority. If men believe in the supernatural, they will account for all phenomena by an appeal to supernatural means or power. We know that formerly everything was accounted for in this way except some few simple things with which man thought he was perfectly acquainted. After a time men found that under like conditions like would happen, and as to those things the supposition of Supernatural interference was abandoned ; but that inter­ ference was still active as to all the unknown world. In other words, as the circle of man’s knowledge grew, supernatural interference withdrew, and was active only just beyond the horizon of the known. Now, there are some believers in universal special providence™that is, men who believe in perpetual inter­ ference by a supernatural power, this interference being for the purpose of punishing or rewarding, of destroying or preserving, individuals and nations. Others have abandoned the idea of providence in ordinary matters, but still believe that God interferes on great occasions and at critical moments, especially in the affairs of nations, and that his presence is manifest in great disasters. This is the compromise position. These people believe that an infinite being made the universe and impressed upon it what they are pleased to call “ laws,” and then left it to run in accordance with those laws and forces ; that as a rule it works well, and that the divine Maker interferes only in cases of accident, pr at moments when the machine fails to accomplish the original design. There are others who take the ground that all is natural; that there never has been, never will be, never can be, any interference from without, for the reason that Nature embraces all, and that there can be no without or beyond. The first class are Theists pure and simple; the �i8 second are Theists as to the unknown, Naturalists as to the known; and the third are Naturalists without a touch or taint of superstition. What can the evidence of the first class be worth ? This question is answered by reading the history of those nations that believed thoroughly and implicitly in the supernatural. There is no conceivable absurdity that was not established by their testimony. Every law or every fact in nature was violated. Children were born without parents; men lived for thousands of years; others subsisted without food, without sleep ; thousands and thousands were possessed with evil spirits, controlled by ghosts and ghouls ; thousands confessed themselves guilty of impossible offences, and in courts, with the most solemn forms, impossibilities were substantiated by the oaths, affirmations, and confessions of men, women, and children. These delusions were not confined to ascetics and peasants, but they took possession of nobles and kings; of people who were at that time called intelligent; of the then educated. No one denied these wonders, for the reason that denial was a crime punishable generally with death. Societies, nations, became insane—victims of ignorance, of dreams, and, above all, of fears. Under these conditions human testimony is not, and cannot be, of the slightest value. We now know that nearly all of the history of the world is false, and we know this because we have arrived at that phase or point of intel­ lectual development where and when we know that effects must have causes, that everything is naturally produced, and that, consequently, no nation could ever have been great, powerful, and rich, unless it had the soil, the people, the intelligence, and the commerce. Weighed in these scales, nearly all histories are found to be fictions. The same is true of religions. Every intelligent American is satisfied that the religions of India, of Egypt, Greece and Rome, of the Aztecs, were and are false, and that all the miracles on which they rest are mistakes. Our religion alone is excepted. Every �i9 intelligent Hindoo discards all religions and all miracles except his own. The question is When will pceple see the defects in their own theology as clearly as they perceive the same defects in every other ? All the so-called false religions were substantiated by miracles, by signs and wonders, by . prophets and martyrs, precisely as our own. Our witnesses are no better than theirs, and our success is no greater. If their miracles were false, ours cannot be true. Nature was the same in India as in Palestine. One of the corner-stones of Christianity is the mir­ acle of inspiration, and this same miracle lies at the foundation of all religions. How can the fact of. in­ spiration be established ? How could even the inspired man know that he was inspired ? If he was influenced to write and did write, and did express thoughts and facts that to him were absolutely new, on subjects about which he had previously known nothing, how could he know that he had been influenced by an infinite being ? And if he could know, how could he convince others ? What is meant by inspiration ? Did the one inspired set down only the thoughts of a supernatural being ? Was he simply an instrument, or did his personality color the message received and given ? Did he.mix his ignorance with the divine information, his prejudices and hatreds with the love and justice of the deity ? If God told him not to eat the flesh of any beast that dieth of itself, did the same infinite being also tell him to sell this meat to the stranger within his gates ? A man says that he is inspired—that God appeared to him in a dream, and told him certain things. Now, the things said to have been communicated may have been good and wise; but will the fact that the communication is good or wise establish the inspiration ? If, on the other hand, the communication is absurd or wicked., will that conclusively show that the man was not inspired ? Must we judge from the communication ? In other words, is our reason to be the final standard ? How could the inspired man know that the communi­ cation was received from God ? If God in reality should �20 appear to a human being, how could this human bein°know who had appeared ? By what standard would he judge . Upon this question man has no experience ; he is not familiar enough with the supernatural to know gods even if they exist. Although thousands have pre­ tended to receive messages, there has been no message m which there was, or is, anything above the invention 0 ,man< There are just as wonderful things in the unin­ spired as in the inspired books, and the prophecies of the heathen have been fulfilled equally with those of the Judaean prophets. If, then, even the inspired man cannot certainly know that he is inspired, how is it possible for him to demonstrate his inspiration to others ? The last solution of this question is that inspiration is a mir­ acle about which only the inspired can have the least knowledge, or the least evidence, and this knowledge and this evidence not of a character to convince even the inspired. There is certainly nothing in the Old or the New Testament that could not have been written by unin­ spired human beings. To me there is nothing of any particular value in the Pentateuch. I do not know of a solitary scientific truth contained in the five books com­ monly attributed to Moses. There is not, as far as I know, a line in the book of Genesis calculated to make a human being better. The laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are for the most part puerile and cruel. Surely there is nothing in any of these books that could not have been produced by unin­ spired . men. Certainly there is nothing calculated to excite intellectual admiration in the book of Judges or in the wa.rs of Joshua ; and the same may be said of Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. The history is extremely childish, full of repetitions, of useless details, without the slightest philosophy, without a generalisation born of a wide sur­ vey. Nothing is known of other nations; nothing im­ parted of the slightest value; nothing about education, discovery, or invention. And these idle and stupid annals are interspersed with myth and miracle, with flattery for kings who supported priests, and with curses �21 and denunciations for those who would not hearken to the voice of the prophets. If all the historic books of the Bible were blotted from the memory of mankind, nothing of value would be lost. Is it possible that the writer or writers of First and Second Kings were inspired, and that Gibbon wrote “ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ” without supernatural assistance ? Is it possible that the author of Judges was simply the instrument of an infinite God, while John W. Draper wrote “ The Intellectual Develop­ ment of Europe ” without one ray of light from the other world ? Can we believe that the author of Genesis had to be inspired, while Darwin experimented, ascertained, and reached conclusions for himself? Ought not the work of a God to be vastly superior to that of a man ? And if the writers of the Bible were in reality inspired, ought not that book to be the greatest of books? For instance, if it were contended that certain statues had been chiselled by inspired men, such statues should be superior to any that uninspired man has made. As long as it is admitted that the Venus de Milo is the work of man, no one will believe in inspired sculptors—at least until a superior statue has been found. So in the world of painting. We admit that Corot was uninspired. Nobody claims that Angelo had super­ natural assistance. Now, if some one should claim that a certain painter was simply the instrumentality of God, certainly the pictures produced by that painter should be superior to all others. I do not see how it is possible for an intelligent human being to conclude that the Song of Solomon is the work of God, and that the tragedy of “ Lear ” was the work of an uninspired man. We are all liable to be mistaken, but the Iliad seems to me a greater work than the book of Esther, and I prefer it to the writings of Haggai and Hosea. ^Eschylus is superior to Jeremiah, and Shakes­ peare rises immeasurably above all the sacred books of the world. It does not seem possible that any human being ever tried to establish a truth—anything that really happened �22 by what is called a miracle. It is easy to understand how that which was common became wonderful by accre­ tion—by things added, and by things forgotten—and it is easy to conceive how that which was wonderful became by accretion what was called supernatural. But it does not seem possible that any intelligent, honest man ever endeavored to prove anything by a miracle. As a matter of fact, miracles could only satisfy people who demanded no evidence; else how could they have believed the miracle ? It also appears to be certain that, even if miracles had been performed, it would be im­ possible to establish that fact by human testimony. In other words, miracles can only be established by miracles, and in no event could miracles be evidence except to those who were actually present; and in order for miracles to be of any value, they would have to be perpetual. It must also be remembered that a miracle actually performed could by no possibility shed any light on any moral truth, or add to any human obligation. If any man has ever been inspired, this is a secret miracle, known to no person, and suspected only by the man claiming to be inspired. It would not be in the power of the inspired to give satisfactory evidence of that fact to anybody else. The testimony of man is insufficient to establish the supernatural. Neither the evidence of one man nor of twelve can stand when contradicted by the experience of the intelligent world. If a book sought to be proved by miracles is true, then it makes no difference whether it was inspired or not ; and if it is not true, inspiration cannot add to its value. The truth is that the Church has always—unconsci­ ously, perhaps—offered rewards for falsehood. It was founded upon the supernatural, the miraculous, and it welcomed all statements calculated to support the foun­ dation. It rewarded the traveller who found evidences of the miraculous, who had seen the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot had been changed, and the tracks of Pharoah’s chariots on the sands of the Red Sea. It heaped honors on the historian who filled his pages with �23 the absurd and the impossible. It had geologists and astronomers of its own, who constructed the earth and the constellations in accordance with the Bible. With sword and flame it destroyed the brave and thoughtful men who told the truth. It was the enemy of investiga­ tion and of reason. Faith and fiction were in partner­ ship. To-day the intelligence of the world denies the mira­ culous. Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric must fall. The natural is true. The miraculous is false. �FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS. THE AGE OF REASON (The Twentieth Century Edition). By Thomas Paine, With a Biographical Introduction and Annotations. By G. W. Foote. And a Beautiful ortrait of Paine. Price 6d. Postage of single copies, 2d. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d. THE BIBLE HANDBOOK for Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians. Edited by G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. A new edition, revised, and handsomely printed. Cheap Edition, paper covers, Is. 6d. ; cloth, 2s. 6d. FLOY ERS OF FREETHOUGHT. First Series. Fiftyone Selected Articles and Essays ; 221 pages. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; postage 3d. Second Series (cloth), 2s. 6d. BIBLE ROMANCES. By G. W. Foote. The Second (Revised) Edition Complete. 160 Pages. Bound in Cloth. Price Two Shillings. CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine. (2) Constantine to Hypatia. (3) Monkery, (4) Pious Forgeries. (5) Pious Frauds. (6) Rise of the Papacy. (7) Crimes of the Popes. (8) Persecution of the Jews. (9) The Crusades. 224 pp., cloth, 2s. 6d.; postage 3d. Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities. No pains have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswer­ able Indictment of Christianity. The Tree is judged by its Fruit. FOREIGN MISSIONS : Their Dangers and Delusions. Bv C. Cohen. Price 9d. GRAND- OLD BOOK, THE. A Reply to the Grand Old Man. An Exhaustive Answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone s Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture, Is. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d., postage lid. Published Every Thursday, “THE FREETHINKER.” One of Liveliest and Most Outspoken Journals in the World. Edited by G. W. Foote. Price Twopence. the Send for Specimen Copy. Post Free, With Catalogue of the Company’s Publications. The Freethought Publishing Company, Limited, 2 Newcastle St., Farringdon St., E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Why am I an agnostic? 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: 23 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements inside front cover and on back cover. No. 93d in Stein checklist. 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 1902 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N413 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 (Why am I an agnostic?), 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/6de107ecb6cb1c012e8ef8d4e1665667.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=WwMFabO3z6yXhqgdI5GXEe5KJ2kC391Y203QJAtLXxakp1UxMlgH%7ED4WXD0vzTBWicot%7EtKNMyo%7ERzsb5bRf%7EM79SNqx-5HNbdCjpFJoEZJZg0a-A3Vdl13YCBDweo7igaw5G3Aq6DAi4vcstim6ibQLSGjnQy2ThJ8qyyLVqvkkkoV0t%7EMrlJzb-K6nkeRuG9WOktRbhdcIYgJ5KQIsNQwMbvp5ZLGPK-YhwPqYqd3DliqdX0kd-s8iBi8Bf7JV2Rzq0FUp4RhR-S4qj-rX0f1fZiU50udaLEIYDno6ObpBB4pVSctX-m4UAXMyfBRU1Iwjq9pSjEsVS10MUtzt8w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7c494523eee86ac7949e014048d24231 PDF Text Text national secular scc7^ MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE AN AGNOSTIC’S VIEW. BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL. Price Twopence. LONDON: R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �LONDON: PRINTED BY G. W. EOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �V9 0-73 0 M374- During November and December, 1889, the North American Review printed a number of articles by repre­ sentative men on the subject of Divorce. The editor framed a series of four questions, which the various writers replied to. Colonel Ingersoll answered them seriatim and fully, without the least evasion or reserve, having a habit, not only of meaning what he says, but of saying what he means. His article is now reproduced for the benefit of English readers. It is a very important contribution to the literature of the marriage question, and it is to be hoped that those who are privileged to read it will circulate it amongst their friends and acquaintances. ��MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Question (1). Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances ? The world for the most part is ruled by the tomb, and the living are tyrannised over by the dead. Old ideas, long after the conditions under which they were produced have passed away, often persist in surviving. Many are disposed to worship the ancient—to follow the old paths, without inquiring where they lead, and without knowing exactly where they wish to go themselves. Opinions on the subject of divorce have been for the most part inherited from the early Christians. They have come down to us through theological and priestly channels. The early Christians believed that the world was about to be destroyed, or that it was to be purified by fire; that all the wicked were to perish, and that the good were to be caught up in the air to meet their Lord —to remain there, in all probability, until the earth was prepared as a habitation for the blessed. With this thought or belief in their minds, the things of this world were of comparatively no importance. The man who built larger barns in which to store his grain was re­ garded as a foolish farmer, who had forgotten, in his greed for gain, the value of his own soul. They regarded prosperous people as the children of Mammon, and the unfortunate, the wretched, and diseased, as the favorites of God. They discouraged all worldly pursuits, except the soliciting of alms. There was no time to marry or to be given in marriage ; no time to build homes and have families. All their thoughts were centred upon the heaven they expected to inherit. Business, love, all secular things, fell into disrepute. �6 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Nothing is said in the Testament about the families of the Apostles ; nothing of family life, of the sacredness of home; nothing about the necessity of .education, the im­ provement and development of the mind. These things were forgotten, for the reason that nothing, in the pre­ sence of the expected event, was considered of any importance, except to be ready when the Son of Man should come. Such was the feeling, that rewards were offered by Christ himself to those who would desert their wives and children. Human love was spoken of with contempt. “Let the dead bury their dead. What is that to thee ? Follow thou me.” They not only believed these things, but acted in accordance with them; and, as a consequence, all the relations of life were denied or avoided, and their obligations disregarded. Marriage was discouraged. It was regarded as only one degree above open and unbridled vice, and was allowed only in consideration of human weakness. It was thought far better not to marry—that it was something grander for a man to love God than to love woman. The exceedingly godly, the really spiritual, believed in celibacy, and held the opposite sex in a kind of pious abhorrence. And yet, with that inconsistency so characteristic of theo­ logians, marriage was held to be a sacrament. The priest said to the man who married: “ Remember that you are caught for life. This door opens but once. Before this den of matrimony the tracks are all one way.” This was in the nature of a punishment for having married. The theologian felt that the contract of marriage, if not contrary to God’s command, was at least contrary to his advice, and that the married ought to suffer in some way, as a matter of justice. The fact that there could be no divorce, that a mistake could not be corrected, was held up as a warning. At every wedding­ feast this skeleton stretched its fleshless finger towards bride and groom. Nearly all intelligent people have given up the idea that the world is about to come to an end. . They do not now believe that prosperity is a certain sign of wicked­ ness, or that poverty and wretchedness are sure, certificates of virtue. They are hardly convinced that Dives should have been sent to hell simply for being rich, or that �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 7 Lazarus was entitled to eternal joy on account of his poverty. We now know that prosperous people may be good, and that unfortunate people may be bad. We have reached the conclusion that the practice of virtue tends in the direction of .prosperity, and that a violation of the conditions of well-being brings, with absolute certainty, wretchedness and misfortune. There was a time when it was believed that the sin of an individual was visited upon the tribe, the community, or the nation to which he belonged. It was then thought that if a man or woman had made a vow to God, and had failed to keep the vow, God might punish the entire com­ munity ; therefore it was the business of the community to see to it that the vow was kept. That idea has been abandoned. As we progress, the rights of the individual are perceived, and we are now beginning dimly to discern that there are no rights higher than the rights of the individual. There was a time when nearly all believed in the reforming power of punishment—in the beneficence of brute force. But the world is changing. It was at one time thought that the Inquisition was the savior of society; that the persecution of the philosopher was requisite to the preservation of the State; and that, no matter what happened, the State should be preserved. We have now more light. And standing upon this luminous point that we call the present, let me answer your questions. Marriage is the most important, the most sacred, con­ tract that human beings can make. No matter whether we call it a contract or a sacrament, or both, it remains precisely the same. And no matter whether this contract is entered into in the presence of magistrate or priest, it is exactly the same. A true marriage is a natural concord and agreement of souls, a harmony in which discord is not even imagined; it is a mingling so perfect that only one seems to exist; all other considerations are lost; the present seems to be eternal. In this supreme moment there is no shadow—or the shadow is as luminous as light. And when two beings thus love, thus unite, this is the true marriage of soul and soul. That which is said before the altar, or minister, or magistrate, or in the presence of witnesses, is only the outward evidence of that which has �8 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. already happened within; it simply testifies to a union that has already taken place—to the uniting of two mornings that hope to reach the night together. Each has found the ideal: the man has found the one woman of all the world—the impersonation of affection, purity, passion, love, beauty, and grace; and the woman has found the one man of all the world-—her ideal, and all that she knows of romance, of art, courage, heroism, honesty, is realised in him. The idea of contract is lost. Duty and obligation are instantly changed into desire and joy, and two lives, like uniting streams, flow on as one. Nothing can add to the sacredness of this marriage, to the obliga­ tion and duty of each to each. There is nothing in the ceremony except the desire on the part of the man and woman that the whole world should know that they are really married, and that their souls have been united. Every marriage, for a thousand reasons, should be public, should be recorded, should be known; but, above all, to the end that the purity of the union should appear. These ceremonies are not only for the good and for the protection of the married, but also for the protection of their children, and of society as well. But, after all, the marriage remains a contract of the highest possible character—a contract in which each gives and receives a heart. The question then arises, Should this marriage, under any circumstances, be dissolved ? It is easy to understand the position taken by the various Churches ; but back of theological opinions is the question of contract. In this contract of marriage the man agrees to protect and cherish his wife. Suppose that he refuses to protect; that he abuses, assaults, and tramples upon the woman he wed. What is her redress ? Is she under any obligation to him ? He has violated the contract. He has failed to protect, and, in addition, he has assaulted her like a wild beast. Is she under any obligation to him 1 Is she bound by the contract he has broken ? If so, what is the con­ sideration for this obligation ? Must she live with him for his sake ? or, if she leaves him to preserve her life, must she remain his wife for his sake ? No intelligent man will answer these questions in the affirmative. If, then, she is not bound to remain his wife for the �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 9 husband’s sake, is she bound to remain his wife because the marriage was a sacrament ? Is there any obligation on the part of the wife to remain with the brutal husband for the sake of God ? Can her conduct affect in any way the happiness of an infinite being ? Is it possible for a human being to increase or diminish the well-being of the Infinite ? The next question is as to the right of society in this matter. It must be admitted that the peace of society will be promoted by the separation of such people. Certainly society cannot insist upon a wife remaining with a husband who bruises and mangles her flesh. Even married women have a right to personal security. They do not lose, either by contract or sacrament, the right of self-preservation; this they share in common, to say the least of it, with the lowest living creatures. This will probably be admitted by most of the enemies of divorce; but they will insist that, while the wife has the right to flee from her husband’s roof and seek protection of kindred or friends, the marriage the sacrament—must remain unbroken. Is it to the interest of society that those who despise each other should live together ? Ought the world to be peopled by the children of hatred or disgust, the children of lust and loathing, or by the welcome babes of mutual love ? Is it possible that an infinitely wise and compassionate God insists that a helpless woman shall remain the wife of a cruel wretch 1 Can this add to the joy of Paradise, or tend to keep one harp in tune ? Can anything be more infamous than for a Government to compel a woman to remain the wife of a man she hates—of one whom she justly holds in abhor­ rence ? Does any decent man wish the assistance of. a constable, a sheriff, a judge, or a church, to keep his wife in his house ? Is it possible to conceive of a more con­ temptible human being than a man who would appeal to force in such a case ? It may be said that the woman is free to go, and that the courts will protect her from the brutality of the man who promised to be her protector; but where shall the woman go ? She may have no friends; or they may be poor ; her kindred may be dead. Has she no right to build another home ? Must this woman, full of kindness, affection, health, be tied and chained to this living corpse ? Is there no future for �10 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. her ? Must she be an outcast for ever—deceived and betrayed for her whole life ? Can she never sit by her own hearth,, with the arms of her children about her neck, and with a husband who loves and protects her ? Is she to become a social pariah, and is this for the bene­ fit of society ?—or is it for the sake of the wretch who destroyed her life ? The ground has been taken that woman would lose her dignity if marriage could be annulled. Is it necessary to lose your liberty in order to retain your moral character—in order to be pure and womanly ? Must a woman,, in order to retain her virtue, become a slave, a serf, with a beast for a master, or with society for a master, or with a phantom for a master ? If an infinite being is one of the parties to the contract, is it not the duty of this being to see to it that the con­ tract is carried out ? What consideration does the infinite being give ? What consideration does he receive ? If a wife owes no duty to her husband because the husband has violated the contract, and has even assaulted her life, is it possible for her to feel towards him any real thrill of affection ? If she does not, what is there left of marriage ? What part of this contract or sacrament remains in living force ? She cannot sustain the relation of wife, because she abhors him ; she cannot remain under the same roof, for fear that she may be killed. They sustain, then, only the relations of hunter and hunted—of tyrant and victim. Is it desirable that this relation should last through life, and that it should be rendered sacred by the ceremony of a church ? Again I ask, Is it desirable to have families raised under such circumstances ? Are we in need of children born of such parents ? Can the virtue of others be preserved only, by this destruction of happiness, by this perpetual imprisonment ? A marriage without love is bad enough, and a marriage for wealth or position is low enough; but what shall we say of a marriage where the parties actually abhor each other 1 Is there any morality in this ? any virtue in this ? Is there virtue in retaining the name of wife, or husband, without the real and true relation ? Will any good man say, will any good woman declare, that a true, �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 11 loving woman should be compelled to be the mother of children whose father she detests ? Is there a good woman in the world who would not shrink from this her­ self ; and is there a woman so heartless and so immoral that she would force another to bear that from which she would shudderingly and shriekingly shrink ? Marriages are made by men and women, not by society; not by the State; not by the Church; not by supernatural beings. By this time we should know that nothing is moral that does not tend to the well-being of sentient beings j that nothing is virtuous the result of which is not good. We know now, if we know anything, that all the reasons for doing right, and all the reasons against doing wrong, are here in this world. We should have imagination enough to put ourselves in the place of another. Let a man suppose himself a helpless woman beaten by a brutal husband—would he advocate divorces then ? Few people have an adequate idea of the sufferings of women and children, of the number of wives who tremble when they hear the footsteps of a returning husband, of the number of children who hide when they hear the voice of a father. Few people know the number of blows that fall on the flesh of the helpless every day, and few know the nights of terror passed by mothers who hold babes to their breasts. Compared with these, all the hardships of poverty borne by those who love each other are as nothing. Men and women truly married bear the suffer­ ings and misfortunes of poverty together. They console each other. In the darkest night they see the radiance of a star, and their affection gives to the heart of each perpetual sunshine. The good home is the unit of the good government. The hearth-stone is the corner-stone of civilisation. Society is not interested in the preservation of hateful homes, of homes where husbands and wives are selfish, cold, and cruel. It is not to the interest of society that good women should be enslaved, that they should live in fear, or that they should become mothers by husbands whom they hate. Homes should be filled with kind and generous fathers, with true and loving mothers; and when they are so filled the world will be civilised. Intelligence will rock the cradle; justice will sit in the courts; wisdom in the �12 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. legislative halls; and above all and over all, like the dome of heaven, will be the spirit of liberty. Although marriage is the most important and the most sacred contract that human beings can make, still, when that contract has been violated, courts should have the power to declare it null and void upon such conditions as may be just. As a rule, the woman dowers the husband with her youth, her beauty, her love—with all she has; and from this contract certainly the husband should never be released, unless the wife has broken the conditions of that contract. Divorces should be granted publicly, precisely as the marriage should be solemnised. Every marriage should be known, and there should be witnesses, to the end that the character of the contract entered into should be understood; the record should be open and public. And the same is true of divorces. The conditions should be determined, the property should be divided by a court of equity, and the custody of the children given under regulations pre­ scribed. Men and women are not virtuous by law. Law does not of itself create virtue, nor is it the foundation or fountain of love. Law should protect virtue, and law should protect the wife, if she has kept her contract, and the husband, if he has fulfilled his. But the death of love is the end of marriage. Love is natural. Back of all ceremony burns and will forever burn the sacred flame. There has been no time in the world’s history when that torch was extin­ guished. In all ages, in all climes, among all people, there has been true, pure, and unselfish love. Long before a ceremony was thought of, long before a priest existed, there were true and perfect marriages. Back of public opinion is natural modesty, the affections of the heart; and, in spite of all law, there is and forever will be the realm of choice. Wherever love is, it is pure; and everywhere, and at all times, the ceremony of marriage testifies to that which has happened within the temple of the human heart. Question (2). Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry under any circumstances 2 This depends upon whether marriage is a crime. If it is not a crime, why should any penalty be attached ? Can �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 13 anyone conceive of any reason why a woman obtaining a divorce, without fault on her part, should be compelled as a punishment to remain forever single ? Why should she be punished for the dishonesty or brutality of another ? Why should a man who faithfully kept his contract of marriage, and who was deserted by an unfaithful wife, be punished for the benefit of society ? Why should he be doomed to live without a home ? There is still another view. We must remember that human passions are the same after as before divorce. To prevent remarriage is to give excuse for vice. Question (3). What is the effect of divorce upon the integrity of the family 2 The real marriage is back of the ceremony, and the real divorce is back of the decree. When love is dead, when husband and wife abhor each other, they are divorced. The decree records in a judicial way what has really taken place, just as the ceremony of marriage attests a contract already made. The true family is the result of the true marriage, and the institution of the family should above all things be preserved. What becomes of the sacredness of the home, if the law compels those who abhor each other to sit at the same hearth ? This lowers the standard, and changes the happy haven of home into the prison-cell. If we wish to preserve the integrity of the family, we must preserve the democracy of the fireside, the republicanism of the home, the absolute and perfect equality of husband and wife. There must be no exhibition of force, no spectre of fear. The mother must not remain through an order of court, or the command of a priest, or by virtue of the tyranny of society; she must sit in absolute freedom, the queen of herself, the sovereign of her own soul and of her own body. Real homes can never be preserved through force, through slavery, or superstition. Nothing can be more sacred than a home, no altar purer than the hearth. Question (4). Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, contribute to the moral purity of society 2 We must define our terms. What is moral purity ? The intelligent of this world seek the well-being of them­ �14 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. selves and others. They know that happiness is the only good; and this they strive to attain. To live in accordance with the conditions of well-being is moral in the highest sense. To use the best instrumentalities to attain the highest ends is our highest conception of the moral. In other words, morality is the melody or the perfection of conduct. A man is not moral because he is obedient through fear or ignorance. Morality lives in the realm of perceived obligation, and where a being acts in accordance with perceived obligation, that being is moral. Morality is not the child of slavery. Ignorance is not the corner­ stone of virtue. The first duty of a human being is to himself. He must see to it that he does not become a burden upon others. To be self-respecting, he must endeavor to be self-sustaining. If by his industry and intelligence he accumulates a margin, then he is under obligation to do with that margin all the good he can. He who lives to the ideal does the best he can. In true marriage men and women give not only their bodies, but their souls. This is the ideal marriage; this is moral. They who give their bodies, but not their souls, are not married, whatever the ceremony may be; this is immoral. If this be true, upon what principle can a woman continue to sustain the relation of wife after love is dead 1 Is there some other consideration that can take the place of genuine affection 1 Can she be bribed with money, or a home, or position, or by public opinion, and still remain a virtuous woman ? Is it for the good of society that virtue should be thus crucified between Church and State ? Can it be said that this contributes to the moral purity of the human race 1 Is there a higher standard of virtue in countries where divorce is prohibited than in those where it is granted 1 Where husbands and wives who have ceased to love cannot be divorced there are mistresses and lovers. The sacramental view of marriage is the shield of vice. The world looks at the wife who has been abused, who has been driven from the home of her husband, and the world pities ; and when this wife is loved by some other man, the world excuses. So, too, the husband who cannot live in peace, who leaves his home, is pitied and excused. �MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 15 Is it possible to conceive of anything more immoral than for a husband to insist on living with a wife who has no love for him ? Is not this a perpetual crime ? Is the wife to lose her personality ? Has she no right of choice ? Is her modesty the property of another ? Is the man she hates the lord of her desire ? Has she no right to guard the jewels of her soul ? Is there a depth below this ? And is this the foundation of morality ? this the corner-stone of society ? this the arch that supports the dome of civilisa­ tion ? Is this pathetic sacrifice on the one hand, this sacri­ lege on the other, pleasing in the sight of heaven ? To me, the tenderest word in our language, the most pathetic fact within our knowledge, is maternity. Around this sacred word cluster the joys and sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, of the human race. The mother walks in the shadow of death that she may give another life. Upon the altar of love she puts her own life in pawn. When the world is civilised, no wife will become a mother against her will. Man will then know that to enslave another is to imprison himself. �Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, of Moses. The only complete edition in England. Accurate as Colenso, and fascinating as a novel. 132 pp. Is. Superior paper, cloth Is. 6d. Defence of Freethought. A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. 6d. The Gods. 6d. Reply to Gladstone. With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler. 4d. Rome or Reason? A Reply to Cardinal Manning. 4d. Crimes against Criminals. 3d. Oration on Walt Whitman. 3d. Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Abraham Lincoln. 3d. Paine the Pioneer. 2d. Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Paine. 2d. Ernest Renan and Jesus Christ. 2d. True Religion. 2d. The Three Philanthropists. 2d. Love the Redeemer. 2d. Is Suicide a Sin? 2d. Last Words on Suicide. 2d. Some Mistakes God and the State. 2d. Why am I an Agnostic Part I. 2d. Why am I an Agnostic ? Part II. 2d. Faith and Fact. Reply to Dr. Field. 2d God and Man. Second reply to Dr. Field. 2d. The Dying Creed. 2d. The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with the Hon. F. D. Ooudert andGrov. S. L. Woodford. 2d. The Household of Faith. 2d. Art and Morality. 2d. Do I Blaspheme ? 2d. The Clergy and Common Sense. 2d. Social Salvation. 2d. Marriage and Divorce. An Agnostic’s View. 2d. Skulls. 2d. The Great Mistake, id. Live Topics. Id. Myth and Miracle. Id. Real Blasphemy. Id. Repairing the Idols. Id. Christ and Miracles. Id. Creeds & Spirituality. Id. COL. INGERSOLL’S NEW LECTURE, ABOUT THE HOLY BIBLE. Price Sixpence. READ THE FREETHINKER, Edited by G. W. FOOTE. ■Published every Thursday. Price Twopence. London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &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 Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 15 p. ; 20 cm. Notes: No. A5 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by Stein). Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Reproduced from the North American Review. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1890?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N374 Subject The topic of the resource Marriage 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 (Marriage and divorce : an agnostic's view), 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 Divorce Marriage NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/70cf2bac7fdd57726d77172875d774ce.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=Vf7UkZz88bLisu5arqWmpa0CWj4BMYJBysGVZjgzXZg-P5a7qsBCbe6Y6DZw9qyLQMtRip6maaziYa0m-BTHzNExWDyh2p9L-ThJ6NtWEQk9bkgM%7EFqaK%7EmLGIS3h%7EDwRzrJHTG2pewBMUCHTjs35LzCz6ez3gGJ%7EPAxupiYh%7EePGnv0ODGghKR8hxRziLEa5Guz6C8kAXd2kew54X83xWj-k3gJxJ9259nE3TRpOjb9WzotdTLJFnlzZRre-jYDWifURMTPpFvZ5B-CXnwzQJzynTmIT0UozWgqvfcospMGBXhpnexc0Mfa1HBHaFRKas1yzSuJfJwwr1BI1tiSRA__&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 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8afc5440a07d4b55795692d73788f5ac.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=Na%7ERIwrjcjgowsRwfnZI0rAd2yoPhzmImpBmJotJStR6KKKtUjRBgZcFyaKchb-QWAB3aPw0sVxco16pwnwHR16mFxpGZ2khVglAjJY4K0IJnFxXIZyhqhFuJmjOgZnBevlFGo0X3W%7EFh0D1tNxRrebsfu%7El4qU0%7ERP2Pz0QVjefDvSdZPQpdK4eJU9bctvbRE-a8G8t6-%7E2xmGn62m7S-cGH3iCeuMLzWfYg9Os7mH9ZxYL3xEzvUcsZtNe48pCm8KG4FTZFBZJjx4bnCfqpKji-YZoWnXrZUgY9VFc6piAuAM6Di-%7ERbwadpPkuxwlQO27GHGSopI1AxNr6rNhfA__&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/24c34cd4c1b095f5732418f32019beec.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=X9mXmEVJiNnYPWaE8FWEB9Ue2oalYJnaBgYPm4ogSMnihSFRAr%7Eh49h1F2J2sQlSzapSOasY0QWWba78ExzKIW-aHtSNMM0W9p9UK4E4XBF61ikeNntW7dPaiUeCG%7Ex2HqlRM-mnmiXjTtNTBBinVjMqZg10XAClyOx1iJ1gXvj5FyaiAsjcip-CWRwMByO-W6%7EVv3%7E6xNgq%7EE0aVfNvHCZOwEBS2BZeq5JTpaay4JL8SDgngbXGzEy2k6hGrtVd71RpNT3lfIAqCezAhjybWA9L27HjDwDcpFeTvczn1cQFS6j-u%7ELYqWpOhRm058ET-MyqBuff3nJpnKgcnK2I9A__&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/3d772fe12215b949e1edf4f05e54d6ab.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=juKH-T1Bo8798Y7F0oI4S5chqxmvNYHApyZs2lxFBDrqch4Pkj8Rjcq2dQuJpDePYSSq29NQJnevQgDRbPhq4RcNgn3m85i7vHcV7mqdF%7ESKnCs7qc5mq4jZT8MrjHeJBxYHzx3ZwQPuC3GPtQI0pCcUqhYQXeZMe4zW%7E2jPSi%7E41k5GcspG0xKnl6u94Ztemht0UzK2jDjqHBBadvZgjptY5fxM0OzqT7l01z6UUOM54LeSFefI7qmpAyWuiByIA1kDbuCCuYB5Xd-xH0XecKcLZTos0UXfiDVTmawrpypzNsFHkNgdcPE3uRvmp5bx0A0RnuQAWnhvA46HDDcKxg__&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