1
10
12
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1765e0dad8abc68f59ef9dc12e7c30ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cKHh78amMfrNnse2WO6%7ElaHc3qildLxfv%7EJrS92VhK64cjuzxoBTH4gDdZWcODEO05ZcbcNg9s9wS2RJniOqyb74LP7XOqIGB%7EoCFa8uZZjo93aZnIEniP0sE9PenhFlM41QjOa4Jofpis9Dxa8l98-c9lRKPBJjfntIFihV3yDjJfDqFSPrfNBErgBBa4hO-3HZ0Mt-nHmrJHgDPfRI8g1lRAXOxqEEW9iS6vdjPt0vxommrzNLXY5bhOw3AiDUmmOmLvs73qINcqk63w%7E--eqxYOvP1IgQqrD3TiFQWBsjdmbH-iFmOTnFPbUtvrN5lS%7EquIEfMUxB1H6TtWulHA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a0d0b294115746983cd069719d6cf28a
PDF Text
Text
THOUGHTS ON DEATH.
By “ ROSEMARY.”
The idea of death being a consequence of man’s
succumbing to evil seems untenable. The remains
of pre-Adamite animals show that death reigned
triumphant over them before man is said by his deed
to have involved all the brute creation in his own
doom. The passage from this to any other world
must have been made denuded of the flesh (no matter
what man’s moral state), for how can we banish
gravitation? It is supposed by some that the act of
dying in itself is not necessarily painful,—allow this
to be the rule ; do away with bodily suffering, which
may probably with truth be considered the conse
quence of sin, let man choose the moment when he
will quit this world for another, and we should pro
bably see as many voluntary travellers to other worlds,
by the conveyance called Death, as at present to other
countries by any known means of transit. The
endless diversity of earth’s flowers suggests the idea
that each of the countless worlds around us, which
have been aptly termed the “ flowers of the sky,”
�2
may possess a beauty all its own and distinct from
the rest. What exquisite colouring must the planet
Jupiter possess with four moons of various hues!
How revelling in light must Saturn be with his
luminous bands, and what may not be the wondrous
glories of Neptune with
i attendant satellites !
If it be our high privilege to visit each, and find in
each fresh cause to reverence our Maker’s wisdom
and reciprocate His love, the undying Soul could
bear unharmed the heights and depths of adoration
never before called forth; but these poor bodies, for
which even Earth’s emotions often prove too strong,
would not the fate of the surcharged Leyden jar be
theirs?—shivered by excess of what it-was meant to
contain ? If so, where would be the use of carrying
them with us ?—supposing it were possible they could
traverse Space without the subversion of every known
law of nature. How insupportable would be the
idea of Eternity were it not for the counterbalancing
one of Space! Unlimited Time may well be em
ployed in learning the glories of unlimited Space.
If we are destined to see the works of the Creator
in various worlds, it follows as a matter of course
that Death is an “ Institution ” whereby the Soul lays
aside a covering, which its further requirements
render useless, to take another more in accordance
with them and with the specific gravity of whatever
world is its next destination ; and, on quitting that
world, Death must probably again be the Soul’s
�3
mode of transit, and we need seek no further for the
reason of Death than in the universal law, whereby
everything no longer suited to its first purpose is put
to another; hence, when by manifestations of Divine
Wisdom and Love hitherto unimagined the Soul will
be exalted by adoration never before called forth, a
body suited to its higher requirements will doubtless
be provided by the Creator; while thriftly mother
Nature, after various revivifying processes; re-adapts
these worn out frames to the requirements of her
younger children.
We all know that great dread—even though cause
less—is intense agony. Those who have witnessed
two children of different temperaments, led by their
father, approach a frightful shadow thrown by the
magic lantern, can realise this. Neither child could
really be hurt by the ugly shadow; but how fearful is
the suffering of the timid one, compared to that of him
who feels perfect security, because it is his father*s
hand which leads him. “ The Valley of the Shadow
of Death” is a suggestive expression!* Perhaps
we should derive more courage from it than we do;
at any rate, if Death, once passed, should prove but
a terrific Shadow, can it ever again excite fear; or will
it not, perhaps, be hailed as the invigorator of the
Soul, as Sleep is now of the Body ? or granted even
that there may be aught of peril to the Soul in Death,
* See “ Exposition of Twenty-third Psalm,” by Rev. John
Stevenson.—Jackson ; London, 1847.
�4
which is a proposition the Writer cannot for a moment
entertain, still, if we have once passed in safety through
it under shelter of the “ Everlasting Arms,” shall we
ever again distrust their power?
Therefore, though
Life and Death may alternate through all Eternity, as
Day and Night do through all Time, there is no
reason why Death’s recurrence should ever again
inspire dread. It is rare, however great a man’s
troubles may have been, to hear him declare he
would rather never have lived; then may we not trust
the same Providence which ordered our lot in this
world (so that at least it is bearable) without mis
giving for the future ?
WERTHEIMER, LEA AND CO., PRINTERS, FINSBURY CIRCUS.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Thoughts on death
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Yeates Crashaw, Rose Mary
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 4 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: "Rosemary" is the pseudonym of Rose Mary Yeates Crashaw. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Finsbury Circus, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1869]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5266
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Thoughts on death), 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
Conway Tracts
Death
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b42412427fcf9b3e0f95be8c782cfbe6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ql2Qt3uV6yqACnZTkfYWV7edicMVtqR45ei5S2GkYloH7YyLRTof1iFhPax2zaJEvRUrMjX2Oi-PJNpb%7EF98N%7ElWPwnC8Sr3OZsC2IrNtVLE8Fw0uAo%7Ed3YtUUUx8ZH7aOyjvIC1UIg7YZHQZgwTFVRfr1z6pgV77WjQEbrwFjKL66zjAbq0DBE-fFU3osBC%7Ec8lBhQo6XzWkgAUC98a6CEtJqC9VphgsYa7zBDT7stiTcijFYpKn9JOts3aGks1b523B8Nd7HLvAlXLujC2OZ3GQFaNrv1IuXM7TZHrbeFg9i2o4ke3NC%7EWM1Nvrnybikkf%7E-TiPa4boS74kBnmSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b0733a8bb7653276a5d4ee3a1f6c4b78
PDF Text
Text
erne
/
THE CUSTOM OF WEARING
“ MOURNING.”
TO THE EDITOR OF “ THE INDEX.”
Sir,
I will follow up my last letter on Funeral Rites by a few
remarks on the custom of wearing black as a sign of mourning
for the dead.
The most obvious objections to it are—that it adds unneces
sarily to the gloom and dejection already caused by bereave
ment, where grief really exists ; that where there is no real
grief, the putting on of signs of grief is a contemptible sham;
that the custom of wearing “mourning” tends greatly to per
petuate unhappy—and, as I conceive, false—views of death;
and it is also objectionable in being compulsory upon many
families who are too poor to bear the expense. I will say
something upon each of these objections.
1. That it adds needlessly to the gloom and dejection of really
afflicted relatives must be apparent to all who have ever taken
part in these miserable rites. The houses are generally closed
until the burial is over, and this of itself is a glaring instance of
self-inflicted torture. When the physical frame is already
weakened by long watchings, want of sleep, and floods of tears,
common sense would direct the sufferers to seek the refreshing
stimulants of air and sunshine ; to throw open doors and win
dows and let in God’s heavenly messengers of “sweetness and
light;” to endeavour to turn the thoughts as much as possible
away from the troubled past, and to relieve the dull pain at the
�2
heart by objects and occupations of cheerfulness; to avoid a
darkened chamber, or a black dress, as one would avoid the
devil—if there were any such “ enemy of mankind.” But no
sooner is the breath gone from the body of one of the household,
than all the blinds are drawn down and the shutters closed, and
a fearful race against time is begun with the horrid prepara
tions for “mourning.” Dressmakers are in demand, the anxieties
of economical shopping are multiplied, often at the very time
when every penny is needed for coming wants or for past
doctor’s bills. And all is black—crape—jet ; everything
hideously black, the blackness only deepened by the white cap
or white edging in which it is set. A poor widow, for instance,
must shudder afresh over all the realities of her woe, the first
time she looks in the mirror after having put on the hateful
garb. Her sorrow was surely enough without her being com
pelled to bear about on her own body its ghastly tokens.
At the funeral, this is made worse still by “mourning coaches,”
and that most repulsive thing that moves on earth—the hearse
—with its plumes of black stuck all over it, waving and nodding
like so many fiends mocking at your grief as they are carrying off
their prey. Long and costly hatbands of crape and silk, dozens
of costly black gloves which seldom fit, cloaks of the same
eternal, infernal black—all contrived to make you feel as
miserable and wretched as possible, while the woe at your heart
is almost unendurable! Why should we be reminded for months
afterwards, by outward tokens, of our sad loss ? Every time we
brush the little ring of hat left us by the undertaker, we are
carried back to that terrible day on which the crape or cloth was
first put on, and the very things we ought to try to forget are
forced upon our notice at every turn in our lives.
2. But when, as is often the case, there is no real grief, but
perhaps a good deal of real rejoicing over the death, the putting
on of “mourning” is a piece of hypocrisy and falsehood which
nothing can justify. No one will contend that “ mourning ’ is
anything but a sign of grief; therefore if the sign be assumed
when there is no grief, it is an acted lie, and helps to corrupt
�3
society and make it love shams and pretences and varnished
deceit. I greatly honour those really broken-hearted widows
who keep their “ mourning” on all their days, for it is with
them a true token, an outward and visible sign of an inward
and heartfelt grief which must abide with them through all
their weary pilgrimage ; but I utterly despise the custom of
putting on 11 mourning” because it is the fashion, and because
“ people would talk so, you know,” if the “ mourning” were to
be omitted. As a sign of grief, ‘ ‘ mourning ” would often be
much more suitable before the death than after it, inasmuch as
the grief of watching a beloved one pass through weeks and
weeks of physical torture, with the certainty of no recovery, far
exceeds the grief of bereavement. It is only a truism to say
that death is often the greatest possible relief to the poor sufferer
himself, and to the sorrowing relatives. The number of cases
in which the grief before far exceeds the grief after death, is
much larger than is generally supposed.
3. I come now to the last and perhaps most important objec
tion of all. “ Mourning” tends to perpetuate unhappy and
1
false views of death. To those who have no belief in immor
tality and re-union with our dear ones after death, it might
f
seem only natural to give oneself up to despair and to all its
fl E horrible outward signs.
But to those who profess to believe,
Efci
and who really do believe, that the dead are still living in a
I'M happier world, free from earthly pain and sorrow, it ought to
be quite natural to rejoice and give thanks “ that it hath pleased
A
Almighty God to take unto himself the soul of the departed,
a» and to deliver him from the miseries of a sinful world,”—to
quote from the Christian Burial Service. Death ought to
ed be looked upon as at least as much of a heavenly boon to the be
fol loved one, as a source of bitter pain to ourselves. But that pain
raff! itself would be greatly diminished if we were trained to think
■aol of death as we are trained to talk about it; if we were brought
nJ
up to feel that it is a manifest and real benefit, and however
£Ij1 distressing to survivors, is not to be regarded from its dark
side. By refusing to darken our homes and to gird ourselves in
�4
black raiment, we would make our protest against the melan
choly—the unmitigated melancholy—of the popular views of
death. We would shake off as much as we could that morbid
weeping and sighing which are so destructive to health and
enfeebling to the mind. We would let the world know that how
ever great our loss, however irreparable it might be on earth,
we still trusted in the loving kindness of God, and unselfishly
resigned into His hands the soul of our nearest and dearest,
believing that He can and will, as a faithful Creator, give us a
happy meeting in a brighter home above.
I have myself resolved never to put on “ mourning ” again—
not even for my children or my wife ; and I will do my best to
persuade others to get rid of this most cruel and oppressive
burden. (In the case of a public “mourning,” I would make
an exception ; but this would be altogether on different grounds,
and would be worn for the sake of strangers who know not my
private opinions.) One thing seems very clear; it is our
bounden duty to'mitigate and remove all the grief we possibly
can. We have no right to add to our natural distress by
artificial means, nor to bemoan any loss longer than we can
possibly help. If we believed in God and in His fidelity more,
we should be the better assured of our meeting again beyond
the tomb.
I am, Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Voysey.
Dulwich, S.E., March 31s^, 1873.
Wertheimer, Lea & Co,, Printers, Circus Place, Finsbury.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The custom of wearing "mourning"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A letter to the Editor of "The Index". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea & Co,., London.
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
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT116
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 custom of wearing "mourning"), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Mourning
Conway Tracts
Death
Funeral Rites and Ceremonies
Mourning
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cb0de6ef7363b65eb851fa4a15bfd190.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=i3chqoqRto9OfHJAqgrqs4DSm8pnyysxMJ8JPkxNG2lRsiJuUFdlHrx93LSx2YaovWkUGjc1RbtwiTP4L1NGDwgZ-qdpRDRP2iTIvlO8dZ%7EBA5-5%7ES2auODw%7El%7E92t8KI9HKTDg6PRInxUvg%7EDCrORFl1Mr6LBVtZrwI0HSeoQ2nblcFW8lEgvWziZx6oJNiEzGk4JaUKeix-enS8zhMwECuN9DpK141supcWGiECdgAd-0E53gbydRDBf6u9HE2MrwXfFzl2CohLgRy49BNlOYiJNrOJzAdymh7pb2NLFFLD8EnoQ-Uzbp8X%7EdATFE0zltErRTzFnQoFfIR98Tbyg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9520394cdd0bcc750d6c6146bc6ef50f
PDF Text
Text
REFORM IN BURIAL RITES.
LETTER
BY
REV. CHARLES VOYSEY, B.A.,
IN THE “INDEX,” Aran. 12, 1873.
Editor of the Index,
Sib,—'Without waiting to know the effect upon your
readers of my last letter about Euthanasia, I proceed to give
them another violent shock.
From my past experience of human kind, I feel convinced
that it is much more difficult to effect a change in their social
customs than in their ethics. In every country the births,
marriages, and deaths are attended by certain social rites which
are more imperious than any demands of conscience, and it
would be easier far to relax or to tighten the restraints of
morality than to alter one of the social ceremonies. I half
expect then that, for every one whom I may have startled by
my last letter, there will be a score to be horrified by what I
am going to say in this.
I wish to revolutionize our funeral rites. I want to abolish
the burial of the dead, and the wearing of •‘mourning.”
If the reader should lose his breath here, let me pause for a
moment and tell him that my object originates in pure pity. I
desire to relieve mankind of a great and needless burden; to
remove some of the greatest aggravations to which we have
foolishly submitted in times of our deepest grief; and to insti
tute customs which will be an unspeakable relief to the poor.
My objections to the present system of interment, with its
distressing paraphernalia of Under takerism, are as follows :—
To
the
�The first and least important objection is that it is needlessly
expensive and an undoubted hardship on the poor. Second,
that it is sooner or later a source of great injury to the public
health. Third, that our cemeteries occupy a vast amount of
space which could be more profitably filled. Fourth,—and this
I reckon to be the chief of all objections,—it is a needless and
' cruel aggravation of our physical and mental pain in bereave
ment, to witness the process of interment.
There may be some persons whose feelings are not harrowed
by this sight; but I can speak for myself and for thousands of
persons of equally sensitive nerves and strong imagination, that
it is positive torture to witness the burial of the body of a very
near and dear relative. The outward form which we have loved
and caressed we place in a coffin, close fitting to the outline of
a human body (a coffin is in itself a melancholy object, quite
apart from its associations); and this gloomy case, containing
our beloved dead, we follow to the dark vault or deep grave,
into which it is lowered amid choking sobs and a dead weight
at our hearts. We leave the loved object at the bottom of a
cold, dark pit, in which we picture to ourselves, for months and
years afterwards, all the foul and revolting processes of chemical
decay, our thoughts being positively scourged by this haunting
picture. It is bad enough to lose our friends and to miss them
• day by day ; but it is a monstrous aggravation of our physical
pain in losing them, to be tortured by such visions, such
memories.
Now what I would propose is this. As soon as death is per
fectly assured,—after such an interval as would render it
impossible for a medical man to doubt that death had ensued,—
the body should be chemically destroyed. It should be placed in
some receptacle containing those powerful agents known to
chemical science, which would simply annihilate the outward
forip. and practically destroy it. There would necessarily be
some deposit, which one might call the “ashes” of the dead;
and these might be reverently gathered and placed in a beauti
ful urn or vase, to be disposed of according to the wishes of the
.survivors. They might easily be deposited in consecrated places,
in niches in the walls of churches, or in mortuary chapels
designed for their reception. This, too, might be accompanied
by a religious service ; so that. the religious element is left
untouched by my revolutionary proposal.
The advantage of all this to people of highly-wrought feel
ings would be immense. I can imagine the peaceful calm which
would steal over the mind when one could take reverently into
�3
one’s hands the sacred urn and say, “ This holds all that remains
of my beloved.” No horror of dark vaults and damp graves,
with their seething corruption. No precious body being eaten
piecemeal by worms of the earth, or melting away in a loath• some stream. The form is changed; the substance really
remaining after chemical burning is not in the least degree sug
gestive of the past or the future. The body is saved thereby
from every possible dishonour, purified from every decay. No
words can describe the relief which such a process would bring
to many and many an afflicted soul.
On the ground of health to the community, it would also
be most salutary. We little know, in England at least, what
mischief is brewing for us in our seething cemeteries. They
are getting fuller and fuller, at the rate of I know not how
many hundreds of corpses a day, the later ones being nearer
and nearer the surface. Many are within four feet of the turf,
and that is not enough to prevent the escape of the most foul
and pestilential gases. I know of one old cemetery which is
now occupied by a cooperage, and which is constantly wet
with stagnant water. All around it typhus fever is perpetually
raging. The danger would not be so great if the bodies were
buried without a coffin. The earth would sooner disinfect
them; but as it is, the mischief is nursed and multiplied a
hundred-fold by the process of decay being delayed.
It is quite possible that an outcry might be made on the plea
of my scheme being impracticable. I can only say that our
Undertakers might take this' subject into their consideration,
* and see whether they could not furnish all that was necessary,
and conduct the business of destroying the body with decency
and skill. Science will not fail to furnish the best chemi cal
agents for performing this service speedily and inoffensively.
I should not have touched on the question of economy but
for my sad experience amongst the poor. The most ordinary
burial costs them five pounds; that is a fearful sum for a really
poor family to contribute, and that often after heavy medical
expenses. Whereas my plan ought to be quite within the cost
of a fifth of that sum, let it be done in the best manner
possible.
As for the rites of burial in themselves, no wise man would
care what became of his own dead body, so long as it was not
left to be an injury to the living. I should not mind being sent
to the dissecting room, or to the kennels. But the rites of
burial assume a very important aspect in the interests of the
surviving relatives and friends. And for their sakes I plead
�4
that those rites may be made as little harrowing as possible ;
may conduce as much as possible to console and cheer them, and
leave no artificially cruel memories and associations behind
them. It is on this ground that I object to the barbarous prac
tice of‘ ‘Christian” burial and would do my utmost to revolutionize
our customs in this matter, and introduce -a refined method of
burning instead. Christianity is deeply to blame for aggrava
ting our fear of death, and for aggravating our grief when
death visits our homes. It is time that we turned such a reli
gion out of doors; not only expelling it from our hearts and
minds, but driving out its offensive and oppressive customs,—thus
claiming the privileges of consolation under bereavement,
which are ours by nature.
In another letter I must write a word or two on the subj ect
of wearing 11 mourning.’’
I am very sincerely yours,
Charles Voysey.
Camden House,
Dulwich, S.E., March 14, 1873.
P. S. I have mentioned the subject to some of my most
admired and cultivated friends, and I never met yet with a
disc ouraging remark from them. All we want is for some brave
family to set the example.
The Index is published weekly in Toledo, Ohio.
Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Printers, Finsbury Circus, 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 & 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
Reform in burial rites: letter by Rev. Charles Voysey
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 9 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Finsbury Circus, London. Reprinted from The Index, April 12 1873. The Index is published weekly in Toledo, Ohio.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5527
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Reform in burial rites: letter by Rev. Charles Voysey), 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
Burial
Conway Tracts
Funeral Rites and Ceremonies
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/df4508f5bad97194e3f9827c6d14c934.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JF5jpbdQDzTpaXITiYNflBIRcY2TtjPVb4fZpUjirfLFshATl2DOGfIcvY6CUG1jeePx9cFd1-ZnvXU4M%7Ep3GfDGSYVTWwmFym48oaUkxeC3vvoIZbOzvjEWPTgFDKoJvRW5H2pyMj3QBzsW7GDv%7EEktU2uZI-t9IxMSE9GW4LWeBkYoXxws6voptgJ2QEynlKYvXGl0V7O5YrS5ERytLq3v-BTuE3UsaicGV2LBPbi7km2PdbnCpErRrQZ7orR4DhulpZ17hViFtxZO0CSK33pKdraiwh81zgV%7Eanu3rryNy5RwzQjenZjPvU6B4B8EmHwdjKsqn9zC2T9SgabHaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52d88b744ccd6caa311de8f534d29c7a
PDF Text
Text
CREMATION
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH
BY
SIR HENRY THOMPSON, F.R.C.S., M.B.Lond.
SURGEON EXTRAORDINARY TO H.M. THE KING OF THE BELGIANS
PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND PATHOLOGY TO THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
CONSULTING SURGEON TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL
ETC.
THIRD EDITION
TOGETHER WITH A PAPER ENTITLED
‘CREMATION OB BURIAL’
By Sir T. Spencer Wells, Bart.
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE
ROYAL
COLLEGE
OF SURGEONS
AND THE
CHARGE OE SIB JAMES STEPHEN
RECENTLY DELIVERED AT CARDIFF
LONDON
SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE
1884
[All rights reserved]
��INTRODUCTION.
Early in the year 1874, I introduced the subject of Cremation
to the English public by an article in the ‘ Contemporary
Review.’
It attracted a good deal of favourable attention,
and also much adverse criticism; a notable example of the
latter being an elaborate reply from the Medical Inspector of
Burials for England and Wales, which was presented in the
following number of the Review.
And my rejoinder to this
appeared in the succeeding issue.
My two Papers were shortly afterwards published in the
form of a pamphlet, a large edition of which was soon
exhausted, but no further reprint took place.
The result of the interest thus excited was the formation
of the ‘Cremation Society of England’ in the year 1875.
This Society has quietly but unceasingly pursued its ob
jects ; viz., the dissemination of information on the subject of
Cremation; co-operation with similar Societies on the Conti
nent, and the purchase of a freehold site (at Woking), with the
construction of a crematorium there on the most approved
principles.
Ever since its foundation, the Council of the Society has
encountered serious opposition in certain official quarters, and
for some years felt it therefore desirable to maintain a cautious
attitude.
By this means they escaped hostile action on the
pqrt of their antagonists, who had threatened to take steps
to make the employment of cremation illegal, or at all events
extremely difficult.
�VI
INTRODUCTION.
Recent events, however, have greatly altered the situation.
Sir Janies Stephen’s late decision has dispelled all doubts as
to the legality of the Society’s aims, and created anew interest
in them throughout the country.
A reprint of the two Papers
referred to has been widely demanded.
The Council of the
Society, of which I have the honour to be President, have
decided to republish them, together with a very able paper
presented by Sir Spencer Wells to the British Medical Associ
ation at their meeting in Cambridge in 1880.
They think it
desirable also to publish the correspondence which took place
between themselves and Her Majesty’s Government in 187980, referred to in the preceding paragraph.
And last, but
not least, the elaborate judgment of Sir James Stephen is
appended, appropriately completing a collection of material,
which it is hoped may be useful to those who are seeking
information upon this important subject.
Henry Thompson.
April,
1884.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. v
CREMATION. By Sir Henry Thompson................................................... 1
CREMATION OR BURIAL ? By Sir T. S. Wells, Bart.
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
THE
CREMATION
.
.
39
SOCIETY
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.........................................50
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION
.
59
��CREMATION :
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH.
By Sir Henry Thompson.
After Death ! The last faint breath had been noted, and
another watched for so long, but in vain. The body lies there,
pale and motionless, except only that the jaw sinks slowly but
perceptibly. The pallor visibly increases, becomes more leaden
in hue, and the profound tranquil sleep of Death reigns where
just now were life and movement. Here, then, begins the
eternal rest.
Rest! no, not for an instant. Never was there greater
activity than at this moment exists in that still corpse.
Activity, but of a different kind to that which was before.
Already a thousand changes have commenced. Forces in
numerable have attacked the dead.
The rapidity of the
vulture, with its keen scent for animal decay, is nothing to
that of Nature’s ceaseless agents now at full work before us.
That marvellously complex machine, but this moment the
theatre of phenomena too subtle and too recondite to be
comprehendeddenotable only by phraseology which stands
for the unknown and incomputable-—vital, because more than
physical, more than chemical—is now consigned to the action
of physical and chemical agencies alone.
And these all
operating in a direction the reverse of that which they held
before death. A synthesis, then, developing the animal being.
The stages of that synthesis, now, retraced, with another end,
still formative, in view. Stages of decomposition, of decay,
B
�2
CREMATION.
with its attendant putrescence; process abhorrent to the
living, who therefore desire its removal. ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight,’ is the wholly natural sentiment of the survivor.
But Nature does nothing without ample meaning; nothing
without an object desirable in the interest of the body politic.
It may then be useful to inquire what must of necessity happen
if, instead of burying or attempting to preserve the dead,
Nature follows an unimpeded course, and the lifeless animal is
left to the action of laws in such case provided.
It is necessary first to state more exactly the conditions
supposed to exist. Thus, the body must be exposed to air ;
and must not be consumed as prey by some living animal.
If it is closely covered with earth or left in water, the same
result is attained as in the condition first named, although the
steps of the process may be dissimilar.
The problem which Nature sets herself to work in dispos
ing of dead animal matter is always one and the same. The
order of the universe requires its performance ; no other end
is possible. The problem may be slowly worked, or quickly
worked: the end is always one.
It may be thus stated : The animal must be resolved into—
a. Carbonic Acid [CO2], Water [HO,], and Ammonia
[NH3].
&. Mineral constituents, more or less oxidised, elements
of the earth’s structure: Lime, Phosphorus, Iron, Sulphur,
Magnesia, &c.
The first group, gaseous in form, go into the atmosphere.
The second group, ponderous and solid, remain where the
body lies, until dissolved and washed into the earth by rain.
Nature’s object remains still unstated: the constant result
of her work is before us; but wherefore are these changes ?
In her wonderful economy she must form and bountifully
nourish her vegetable progeny; twin-brother life, to her, with
that of animals. The perfect balance between plant exist
ences and animal existences must always be maintained,
while ‘ matter ’ courses through the eternal circle, becoming
each in turn.
To state this more intelligibly by illustration: If an
�3
CREMATION.
■animal be resolved into its ultimate constituents in a period,
according to the surrounding circumstances, say, of four
hours, of four months, of four years, or even of four thousand
years—for it is impossible to deny that there may be instances
of all these periods during which the process has continued—
those elements which assume the gaseous form mingle at once
with the atmosphere, and are taken up from it without delay
by the ever open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand
pores in every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the
atmosphere unfit for animal life is absorbed, the carbon being
separated and assimilated to form the vegetable fibre, which,
as wood, makes and furnishes our houses and ships, is burned
for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for coal. All
this carbon has played its part, ‘ and many parts,’ in its time,
as animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany
of to-day has been many negroes in its turn, and before the
African existed was integral portions of many a generation of
extinct species. And when the table which has borne so well
some twenty thousand dinners, shall be broken up from pure
debility and consigned to the fire, thence it will issue into the
atmosphere once more as carbonic acid, again to be devoured
by the nearest troop of hungry vegetables—green peas or
cabbages in a London market garden, say—to be daintily
served on the table which now stands in that other table’s
place, and where they will speedily go to the making of ‘ Lords
of the Creation.’ And so on, again and again, as long as the
world lasts.
Thus it is that an even balance is kept—demonstrable to
the very last grain if we could only collect the data—between
the total amounts of animal and of vegetable life existing to
gether at any instant on our globe. There must be an un
varying relation between the decay of animal life and the food
produced by that process for the elder twin, the vegetable
world. Vegetables first, consumed by animals either directly
or indirectly, as when they eat the flesh of animals who live
on vegetables. Secondly, these animals daily casting off effete
matters, and by decay after death providing the staple food
for vegetation of every description. One the necessary comB 2
�4
CREMATION.
plement of the other. The atmosphere, polluted by every
animal whose breath is poison to every other animal, being
every instant purified by plants, which, taking out the deadly
carbonic acid and assimilating carbon, restore to the air its
oxygen, first necessary of animal existence.
I suppose that these facts are known to most readers, but
I require a clear statement of them here as preliminary to my
next subject; and in any case it can do no harm to reproducea brief history of this marvellous and beautiful example of
intimate relation between the two kingdoms.
I return to consider man’s interference with the process in
question just hinted at in the quotation, ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight.’
The process of decomposition affecting an animal body is
one that has a disagreeable, injurious, often fatal influence
on the living man if sufficiently exposed to it. Thousands of
human lives have been cut short by the poison of slowly de
caying, and often diseased animal matter. Even the putre
faction of some of the most insignificant animals has sufficed
to destroy the noblest. To give an illustration which comes
nearly home to some of us—the grave-yard pollution of air
and water alone has probably found a victim in some social
circle known to more than one who may chance to read this
paper. And I need hardly add that in times of pestilence
its continuance has been often due mainly to the poisonous
influence of the buried victims.
Man, then, throughout all historic periods, has got rid of
his dead kin after some fashion. He has either hidden the
body in a cave and closed the opening to protect its tenant
from wild beasts, for the instinct of affection follows most
naturally even the sadly changed remains of our dearest
relative; or, the same instinct has led him to embalm and
preserve as much as may be so preservable—a delay only of
Nature’s certain work;—-or, the body is buried beneath the
earth’s surface, in soil, in wood, in stone, or metal:—each
mode another contrivance to delay, but never to prevent, the
inevitable change. Or, the body is burned, and so restored
at once to its original elements, in which case Nature’s work
�CREMATION.
5
is hastened, her design anticipated, that is all. And after
burning, the ashes may be wholly or in part preserved in
some receptacle in obedience to the instinct of the survivor,
referred to above. All forms of sepulture come more or less
under one of these heads.1
One of the many social questions waiting to be solved, and
which must be solved at no very remote period, is, Which of
these various forms of treatment of the dead is the best for
survivors ?
This question may be regarded from two points of view,
both possessing importance, not equal in degree perhaps; but
neither can be ignored.
A. From the point of view of Utility : as to what is best
for the entire community.
B. From the point of view of Sentiment: the sentiment of
affectionate memory for the deceased, which is cherished by
the survivor.
I assume that there is no point of view to be regarded as
specially belonging to the deceased person, and that no one
believes that the dead has any interest in the matter. We
who live may anxiously hope—as I should hope at least—to
■do no evil to survivors after death, whatever we may have
■done of harm to others during life. But, being deceased, I
take it we can have no wishes or feelings touching this subject.
What is best to be done with the dead is then mainly a ques
tion for the living, and to them it is one of extreme import
ance. When the globe was thinly peopled, and when there
were no large bodies of men living in close neighbourhood,
the subject was an inconsiderable one and could afford to wait,
•and might indeed be left for its solution to sentiment of any
kind. But the rapid increase of population forces it into
notice, and especially man’s tendency to live in crowded cities.
There is no necessity to prove, as the fact is too patent, that
-our present mode of treating the dead, namely, that by burial
beneath the soil, is full of danger to the living. Hence intra
mural interment has been recently forbidden, first step in
1 ‘ Burial at Sea ’ is a form of exposure, the body being rapidly devoured by
marine animals.
�6
CREMATION.
a series of reforms which must follow. At present we whodwell in towns are able to escape much evil by selecting a
portion of ground distant—in this year of grace 1873—some
five or ten miles from any very populous neighbourhood, and
by sending our dead to be buried there:—laying by poison,
nevertheless, it is certain, for our children’s children, who will
find our remains polluting their water sources, when that now
distant plot is covered, as it will be, more or less closely by
human dwellings. For it can be a question of time only when
every now waste spot will be utilized for food-production or
for shelter, and when some other mode of disposing of the
dead than that of burial must be adopted. If, therefore,
burial in the soil be certainly injurious either now or in the
future, has not the time already come to discuss the possi
bility of replacing it by a better process ? We cannot too
soon cease to do evil and learn to do well. Is it not indeed a
social sin of no small magnitude to sow the seeds of disease
and death broadcast, caring only to be certain that they
cannot do much harm to our own generation ? It may be
granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite possible that
the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not all, of their
faculty for doing mischief by the time that the particular soil
they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays, although
this is by no means certain; but it is beyond dispute that the
margin of safety as to time grows narrower year by year, and
that pollution of wells and streams which supply the living
must ere long arise wherever we bury our dead in this country.
Well, then, since every buried dead body enters sooner or later
into the vegetable kingdom, why should we permit it, as it
does in many cases, to cause an infinity of mischief during
the long process ?
Let us at this point glance at the economic view of the
subject, for it is not so unimportant as, unconsidered, it may
appear. For it is an economic subject whether we will it or
not. No doubt a sentiment repugnant to any such view must
arise in many minds, a sentiment altogether to be held in
respect and.sympathy. Be it so, the question remains strictly
a question of prime necessity in the economic system of a
�CREMATION.
7
crowded country. Nature will have it so, whether we like it
or not. She destines the material elements of my body to
enter the vegetable world on purpose to supply another animal
organism which takes my place. She wants me, and I must
go. There is no help for it. When shall I follow—with quick
obedience, or unwillingly, truant-like, traitor-like, to her and
her grand design ? Her capital is intended to bear good
interest and to yield quick return : all her ways prove it—
‘ increase and multiply ’ is her first and constant law. Shall
her riches be hid in earth to corrupt and bear no present fruit;
or be utilised, without loss of time, value, and interest, for the
benefit of starving survivors ? Nature hides no talent in a
napkin; we, her unprofitable servants only, thwart her ways
and delay the consummation of her will.
Is a practical illustration required ? Nothing is easier.
London was computed, by the census of 1871, to contain
3,254,260 persons, of whom 80,430 died within the year.
I have come to the conclusion, after a very carefully made
estimate, that the amount of ashes and bone earth, such as is
derived by perfect combustion, belonging to and buried with
those persons, is by weight about 206,820 lbs. The pecuniary
value of this highly concentrated form of animal solids is very
considerable. For this bone-earth may be regarded as equi
valent to at least six or seven times its weight of dried but
unburned bones, as they ordinarily exist in commerce. The
amount of other solid matters resolvable by burning into the
gaseous food of plants, but rendered unavailable by burial for,
say, fifty or a hundred years or more, is about 5,584,000 lbs.,
the value of which is quite incalculable, but it is certainly
enormous as compared with the preceding.
This is for the population of the metropolis only : that of
the United Kingdom for the same year amounted to 31,483,700
persons, or nearly ten times the population of London. Taking
into consideration a somewhat lower death-rate for the imperial
average, it will at all events be quite within the limit of truthful
statement to multiply the above quantities by nine in order to
obtain the amount of valuable economic material annually
diverted in the United Kingdom for a long term of years
�8
CREMATION.
from its ultimate destiny by our present method of inter
ment.
The necessary complement of this ceaseless waste of com
modity most precious to organic life, and which must be
replaced, or the population could not exist, is the purchase by
this country of that same material from other countries less
populous than our own, and which can, therefore, at present
spare it. This we do to the amount of much more than half
a million pounds sterling per annum.1
Few persons, I believe, have any notion that these impor
tations of foreign bones are rendered absolutely necessary by
the hoarding of our own some six feet below the surface. The
former we acquire at a large cost for the original purchase and
for freight. The latter we place, not in the upper soil where
they would be utilised, but in the lower soil, where they are
not merely useless, but where they often mingle with and
pollute the streams which furnish our tables. And in order
to effect this absurd, if not wicked, result, we incur a lavish
expenditure ! I refer, of course, to the enormous sums which
are wasted in effecting burial according to our present custom,
a part of the question which can by no means be passed over.
For the funeral rites of the 80,000 in London last year, let
a mean cost of ten pounds per head be accepted as an estimate
which certainly does not err on the side of excess.2 Eight
1 Value of Bones imported into the United Kingdom, of which by far the
larger part is employed for manure, was, in—
1866 ............................................................£409,590
1869
600,029
1872
753,185
Statistical Abstract, 20th Number. Spottiswoode, 1873.
2 Items comprised in the calculation—
1. Cost of shroud, coffin, labour of digging a grave—essential now in all
burials.
2. Cost of funeral carriages, horses, trappings, and accoutrements.
Ornamental coffins in wood and metal.
Vaults and monumental art—more or less employed in all funerals
above the rank of pauper.
The cost of simple modes of transit are not included in the calculation,
because necessary in any case, whatever the destination of the body. The
above-named items are only necessary in the case of interment in a grave, and
not one would be required, for example, in the case of cremation or burning of
the body.
�CREMATION.
9
hundred thousand pounds must therefore be reckoned as
absolute loss, to the costs already incurred in the mainte
nance of the system. Thus we pay every way and doubly for
our folly.
What, then, is it proposed to substitute for this custom of
burial ? The answer is easy and simple. Do that which is
■done in all good work of every kind—follow Nature’s indica
tion, and do the work she does, but do it better and more
rapidly. For example, in the human body she sometimes
throws off a diseased portion in order to save life, by slow and
clumsy efforts, it is true, and productive of much suffering;
the surgeon performs the same task more rapidly and better,
follows her lead, and improves on it. Nature’s many agents,
laden with power, the over-action of which is harmful, we
■cannot stop, but we tame, guide, and make them our most
profitable servants. So here, also, let us follow her. The
naturally slow and disagreeable process of decomposition
which we have made by one mode of treatment infinitely
more slow and not less repulsive, we can by another mode of
treatment greatly shorten and accomplish without offence to
the living. What in this particular matter is naturally the
work of weeks or months, can be perfectly done in an hour or
two.
The Problem to be worked is : Given a dead body, to
resolve it into carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, and the
mineral elements, rapidly, safely, and not unpleasantly.
The answer may be practically supplied in a properly con
structed furnace. The gases can be driven off without offen
sive odour, the mineral constituents will remain in a crucible.
The gases will ere night be consumed by plants and trees.
The ashes or any portion of them may be preserved in a
funeral urn, or may be scattered on the fields, which latter is
their righteous destination. No scents or balsams are needed,
as on Greek and Roman piles, to overcome the noxious effluvia
of a corpse burned in open air. Modern science is equal to
the task of thus removing the dead of a great city without
instituting any form of nuisance; none such as those we
tolerate everywhere from many factories, both to air and
�10
CREMATION.
streams. Plans for the accomplishment of this have been
considered; but discussion of the subject alone is aimed at
here. To treat our dead after this fashion would return
millions of capital without delay to the bosom of mother earth,
who would give us back large returns at compound interest for
the deposit.
Who can doubt now that the question is one of vital
economy to the people of this country ? This is still no reason
why it should not be considered from the point of view of sen
timent. And what has sentiment to urge on behalf of the
present process ? Let us see what the process by burial is.
So far as I dare ! for could I paint in its true colours the
ghastly picture of that which happens to the mortal remains
of the dearest we have lost, the page would be too deeply
stained for publication. I forbear, therefore, to trace the steps
of the process which begins so soon and so painfully to mani
fest itself after that brief hour has passed, when ‘ she lay
beautiful in death.’ Such loveliness as that I agree it might
be treason to destroy, could its existence be perpetuated, and
did not Nature so ruthlessly and so rapidly blight her own
handy-work, in furtherance of her own grand purpose. The
sentiment of the survivor on behalf of preserving the beauty
of form and expression, were it possible to do so, would, I
confess, go far to neutralise the argument based on utility,
powerful as it is. But a glimpse of the reality which we
achieve by burial would annihilate in an instant every senti
ment for continuing that process. Nay, more ; it would arouse
a powerful repugnance to the horrible notion that we too must
some day become so vile and offensive, and, it may be, so
dangerous; a repugnance surmountable only through the firm
belief that after death the condition of the body is a matter of
utter indifference to its dead life-tenant. Surely if we, the
living, are to have sentiments, or to exercise any choice about
the condition of our bodies after death, those sentiments and
that choice must be in favour of a physical condition which
cannot be thought of either as repulsive in itself or as injurious
to others.
There is a source of very painful dread, as I have reason
�CREMATION.
11
to know, little talked of, it is true, but keenly felt by many
persons at some time or another, the horror of which to some
is inexpressible. It is the dread of a premature burial; the
fear lest some deep trance should be mistaken for death, and
that the awakening should take place too late. Happily such
occurrences must be exceedingly rare, especially in this country,
where the interval between death and burial is considerable,
and the fear is almost a groundless one. Still, the conviction
that such a fate is possible, which cannot be altogether denied
—will always be a source of severe trial to some. With
cremation no such catastrophe could ever occur ; and the com
pleteness of a properly conducted process would render death
instantaneous and painless if by any unhappy chance an in
dividual so circumstanced were submitted to it.
But the
guarantee against this danger would be doubled, since inspec
tion of the entire body must of necessity immediately precede
the act of cremation, no such inspection being possible under
the present system.
In order to meet a possible objection to the substitution
of cremation for burial, let me observe that the former is
equally susceptible with the latter of association with religious
funereal rites, if not more so. Never could the solemn and
touching words ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust,’ be more appro
priately uttered than over a body about to be consigned to the
furnace; while, with a view to metaphor, the dissipation of
almost the whole body in the atmosphere in the ethereal form
of gaseous matter is far more suggestive as a type of another
and a brighter life, than the consignment of the body to the
abhorred prison of the tomb.
I do not propose to describe here the processes which have
been employed, or any improved system which might be
adopted for the purpose of ensuring rapid and perfect combus
tion of the body, although much might be said in reference to
these matters. There is no doubt that further experiments
and research are wanting for the practical improvement of the
process, especially if required to be conducted on a large scale.
Something has been already accomplished and with excellent
results. I refer to recent examples of the process as practised by
�12
CREMATION.
Dr. L. Brunetti, Professor of Pathological Anatomy in the
University of Padua. These were exhibited at the Exposition
of Vienna, where I had the opportunity of examining them
with care. Professor Brunetti exposed the residue from bodies
and parts of bodies on which he had practised cremation by
different methods, and the results of his latest experience may
be summarised as follows : The whole process of incineration
of a human adult body occupied three and a half hours. The
ashes and bone earth weighed 1*70 kilo., about three pounds
and three-quarters avoirdupois. They were of a delicate white,
and were contained in a glass box about twelve inches long,
by eight inches wide, and eight deep. The quantity of wood
used to effect absolute and complete incineration, may be
estimated from its weight, about 150 pounds. He adds that
‘ its cost was one florin and twenty kreuzers,’ about two
shillings and fourpence English. The box was that marked
No. IX. in the case, which was No. 4149 in the Catalogue :
Italian.1
In an adjacent case was an example of mummification by
the latest and most successful method. By a series of chemical
processes it has been attempted to preserve in the corpse the
appearance natural to life, as regards colour and form. Ad
mirable as the result appears to be in preserving anatomical
and pathological specimens of the body, it is, in my opinion,
very far from successful when applied to the face and hand.
At best a condition is produced which resembles a badlycoloured and not well-formed waxen image. And the conscious
ness that this imperfect achievement is the real person and
not a likeness, so far from being calculated to enhance its
value to the survivor, produces the very painful impression, as
it were, of a debased original; while, moreover, it is impos
sible not to be aware that the substitution of such an image
for the reality must in time replace the mental picture which
exists, of the once living face lighted by emotion and intelli
gence, of which the preserved face is wholly destitute.
To return to the process of cremation. There are still
numerous considerations in its favour which might be adduced,
1 Far better results have been since attained (1884).
�CREMATION.
13.
of which I shall name only one; namely, the opportunity it
offers of escape from the ghastly but costly ceremonial which
mostly awaits our remains after death. How often have the
slender shares of the widow and orphan been diminished in
order to testify, and so unnecessarily, their loving memory of
the deceased, by display of plumes and silken scarves about
the unconscious clay. And again, how prolific of mischief to
the living is the attendance at the burial ground, with un
covered head, and dampstruck feet, in pitiless weather, at the
chilling rite of sepulture. Not a few deaths have been clearly
traceable to the act of offering that ‘ last tribute of respect.’
Perhaps no great change can be expected at present in the
public opinions current, or rather in the conventional views
which obtain, on the subject of burial, so ancient is the prac
tice, and so closely associated is it with sentiments of affection
and reverence for the deceased. To many persons, any kind
of change in our treatment of the dead will be suggestive of
sacrilegious interference, however remote, either in fact or by
resemblance to it, such change may be. Millions still cherish
deep emotions connected both with the past and the future in
relation to the ‘ Campo Santo,’ and the annual ‘ Jour des
Morts.’ And many of these might be slow to learn that, if
the preservation of concrete remains and the ability to offer
the tribute of devotion at a shrine be desired, cremation equally,
if not better than burial, secures those ends. On the other
hand, I know how many there are, both in this country and
abroad, who only require the assurance that cremation is
practically attainable to declare their strong preference for it,,
and to substitute it for what they conceive to be the present
defective and repulsive procedure. A few such might, by com
bination for the purpose, easily examine the subject still further
by experiment, and would ultimately secure the power if they
desired to put it in practice for themselves. And the con
sideration of the subject which such examples would afford
could not fail to hasten the adoption of what I am fairly
entitled to call the Natural, in place of the present Artificial*
Treatment of the body after death.
�14
CREMATION.
[ The foregoing paper having appeared in the 1 Contemporary ’ of January, 1873,
a reply from Mr. Holland took place in February; the following paper,
defending his original statements, was published by Sir Henry Thompson
in the March number of that journal.]
CREMATION :
A REPLY TO CRITICS AND AN EXPOSITION OF THE PROCESS.
I confess that it is not without some surprise that I find my
proposal to substitute Cremation for Burial as a sanitary
reform formally opposed in the last number of the ‘ Contem
porary ’ by a member of the Medical Profession. From the
general public, on account of its natural and tender sympathy
with ancient customs, especially when hallowed by religious
rite, I had expected adverse criticism. From those who are
interested, or believe themselves to be so, in the celebration
of funereal pomps and ceremonials of all kinds, a protest was
also not unlikely to be heard.
In all this, however, I have been mistaken. So far from
encountering opposition, I have received encouragement and
support from all classes to an extent which would have been
to me almost incredible had I not witnessed it.
Clergymen are anxious to demonstrate how few are the
words requiring change in our Burial Service to render it
wholly applicable to Cremation. The public Press has all but
unanimously spoken favourably of the scheme, demanding
only to be assured on certain grounds of possible objection,
with which presently I shall have to deal. Persons in all ranks
and stations of life write me to say there is nothing they
would more gladly obtain than the assurance that their wish
to be burned after death could be realised without difficulty.
And, lastly, I am bound to say that the much—perhaps
too much—abused undertaker, with a knowledge of the world
and a breadth of view for which some might not have given
�CREMATION.
15
him credit, has said to me: ‘I only desire to supply the
public want: as long as the public demands funeral cars,
magnificent horses, display of feathers, and a host of atten
dants in black, I must furnish them ; but I am equally ready
to perform Cremation to-morrow if the public demand it, and
if you will tell me how to do it properly.’ And I find him an
ally at once, and not an enemy.
Surprised, then, as I am, equally at the number of my
friends, and at the quarter from whence my one opponent
arises, it is with no little satisfaction, since I am to have an
opponent, that I find him to be one so well qualified for the
task; the writer of the article in question being no less an
authority than the Medical Inspector of Burials for England
and Wales to the Home Department. I feel sure, then, that
all which can be said in defence of Burial and in opposition
to Cremation will be urged by so experienced and redoubtable
an antagonist: one who, according to his own showing, has
had a large share in controlling and directing the public money
for the establishment of Cemeteries during the last twenty
years. And, after all, I cannot wonder, seeing how extensive
is his acquaintance with the present state of these matters,
and how closely he himself is identified with them, that he
should intimate at the outset that in itself my paper ‘ is not
worth a reply,’ ‘ the theory on which its main conclusion is
based being so entirely without reasonable foundation.’
He, nevertheless, consents to discuss the subject, although
he fails to specify the theory thus stigmatised. As I intend
to examine the article carefully, the omission will probably
not be important. The following may be accepted as a fair
summary of the views expressed in it. Mr. Holland admits
the great evils of burial when it is adopted within the limits
of the town; but believes that ‘ amply large and well-situated
Cemeteries ’ having been established, for which ‘ a heavy
expense has been incurred ; ’ if, furthermore, they are not too
much crowded at first, and are not too soon disturbed after
wards, it is ‘ possible for burial to be continued without
danger, that is, without, not the possibility, but the proba
bility of injury.’ All these advantages granted, even then
*
�16
CREMATION.
Cemeteries ‘ may be mismanaged so as to become unsafe/
‘ for so long as men are men, mistakes, and worse than mis
takes, will occasionally occur; ’ and he states that ‘ the real
danger from a well-situated and well-managed Cemetery, large
in proportion to the number of its burials, is not larger than
that of a well-managed railway.’
We learn, then, from her Majesty’s Inspector that Burial
is by no means a certainly innocuous procedure : although,
provided all the conditions named above are present, which,
by the way, is by no means always the case in our very
popular suburban Cemeteries, much mischief may not occur.
In addition to this he combats at some length views which
he quite erroneously attributes to me; and also imputes in
accuracy in a statement of mine relative to chemical changes,
which imputation I shall prove to be wholly without foundation.
It is on these grounds that Mr. Holland advocates burial,
and he is bold enough to assert its superiority to Cremation,
although, it appears, he has had no experience whatever of
the latter process ! I doubt whether he ever witnessed an
experiment, much less has performed one himself; indeed, I
am compelled to infer from his remarks that he knows nothing
of it beyond the account which in my last paper I gave of the
experiments by Brunetti of Padua, the results of which, al
though excellent, are, as I intimated more than once, very
inferior to those which might easily be attained. He feels
bound to admit that, ‘ no doubt, if sufficient care be taken, no
actual nuisance need be caused ’ by Cremation, but qualifies
the admission by suggesting that the process ‘ is far more
liable to mishaps ’ than burial, ‘ such mishaps as must be
occasionally expected causing far more disgusting nuisance,
far more difficult of concealment.’
To all this I shall reply : first, that the evils of Burial are
far too lightly estimated by Mr. Holland, respecting which I
will adduce overwhelming testimony of a kind that he will not
question or deny.
Secondly, that the plan of Cremation I have myself
adopted and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of
the kind Mr. Holland has imagined to exist: that it is com
�CREMATION.
17
plete in its results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or
■offence to others.
The evils inflicted on the living by the burial of the dead,
I find myself compelled to demonstrate. In my original article
I assumed these to be well known and universally admitted, and
had no idea that evidence on this subject could be required.
This, however, was an error. Thus I have several times been
asked quite gravely by young men, well educated and intelli
gent, if it were an ascertained fact that decaying dead bodies
within a grave could really induce disease in the living: true,
they might give rise to horrible effluvia, and be very disagree
able, but were they positively harmful ? And one respectable
journal suggests, as worthy of consideration, whether solicitude
on these matters does not betray an undue care for the pre
servation of life, and regards an attempt to control this fertile
source of disease, as dictated by ‘ a constant and morbid fear
of death ’ ! For all this remarkable ignorance of the subject
I can only account by the fact, that a generation has risen up
since there was made that notable revelation of horrors in the
London churchyards which the older men of our time can
never forget, but which the younger men never knew.
Some five-and-twenty years have now elapsed since a
systematic examination of the churches and graveyards of the
Metropolis was made by the most eminent and trustworthy
men of the day, when details were brought to light which, at
that time, smote the public with horror.
The result was that Acts of Parliament were passed pro
hibiting intramural interment. The poisonous abominations
were removed, vaults were hermetically sealed, and the dead
were carried miles away; nevertheless the same detestable
process of putrefaction goes on, although it is, at present,
beyond the reach of our senses, and only now and then
obtrudes itself on our notice.
My task, however, becomes yet more necessary, since we
have before us to-day a Medical Inspector of Burials, who,
while admitting, with manifest reluctance, that some danger
still attaches to the process of interment, comes forward to
advise the public, with all the weight of his experience, to
c
�18
CREMATION.
continue that practice, instead of inquiring, which he has not
done, whether a mode of disposing of the body may not exist
which is absolutely harmless and devoid of all the evils named
above.
It is clear then that, for the sake of the general reader at
all events, it is necessary to refer, although briefly, to the in
dubitable evidence which exists relative to this subject.
For his information let me state that the 1 General Board
of Health ’ made, in 1849, a special investigation, commission
ing for the purpose Southwood Smith, Chadwick, Milroy,
Sutherland, Waller Lewis, and others, to conduct a searching
inquiry into the state of the burial-grounds of London and
large provincial towns : and to devise a scheme for extramural
sepulture. From their report,1 which abounds in information,
I shall make two or three extracts.
Happily, any minute description of the state of the grave
yards and their contents which resulted from ‘ the present
practice of interment in towns ’ need not be given. It will
suffice for our purpose to observe that the reporters say
‘ We shall be under the necessity of making statements of a
very painful nature, and sometimes of representing scenes
which we feel most reluctant publicly to exhibit; but we
should ill discharge the duty entrusted to us if we were to
shrink from the full disclosure of the truth; more especially
as a thorough knowledge of the evil is indispensable to an
appreciation of the only effectual remedy.’2
Passing over these details, I quote again as follows :—‘ We,’
say the reporters, ‘ may safely rest the sanitary part of the
1 Report on a General Scheme for Extramural Sepulture. (Clowes and
Sons, 1850.)
(Signed)
Carlisle.
Ashley.
Edwin Chadwick.
T. Southwood Smith.
The subject had been examined before by official authority; and at an earlyperiod by Walker, whose work on Graveyards is well known, and contains much
information. (Longmans, London, 1839.)
A Special Inquiry into the Practice of Interment in Toions; by Edwin
Chadwick (London, 1843), is replete with evidence, and should be read by those
who desire to pursue the inquiry further.
- Report on a General Scheme, &c., p. 5.
�CREMATION.
19
case on the single fact, that the placing of the dead body in a
grave and covering it with a few feet of earth does not prevent
the gases generated by decomposition, together with putrescent
matters which they hold in suspension, from permeating the
surrounding soil, and escaping into the air above and the
water beneath.’
After supporting this statement by illustrations of the
enormous force exercised by gases of decomposition, in burst
ing open leaden coffins whence they issue without restraint,
the reporters quote the evidence of Dr. Lyon Playfair (late
H.M. Postmaster-General) to the following effect:—
4 I have examined,’ he says, ‘ various churchyards and
burial-grounds for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
layer of earth above the bodies is sufficient to absorb the
putrid gases evolved. The slightest inspection shows that
they are not thoroughly absorbed by the soil lying over the
bodies. I know several churchyards from which most foetid
smells are evolved; and gases with similar odour are emitted
from the sides of sewers passing in the vicinity of churchyards,
although they may be more than thirty feet from them.’
.... He goes on to estimate the amount of gases which
issue from the graveyard, and estimates that for the 52,000
annual interments of the Metropolis 1 no less a quantity than
2,572,580 cubic feet of gases is emitted, ‘the whole of which,
beyond what is absorbed by the soil, must pass into the water
below or the atmosphere above.’
The foregoing is but one small item from the long list of
illustrative cases proving the fact that no dead body is ever
buried within the earth without polluting the soil, the water,
and the air around and above it: the extent of the offence
produced corresponding with the amount of decaying animal
matter subjected to the process.
But ‘ offence ’ only is proved : is the result not only dis
agreeable but injurious to the living ?
1 A number which has already reached 80,000, in 1873, so rapid is the
increase of population. The above was written in 1849.
It has been stated by some that the mere contact of the corpse with fresh
earth suffices for safe disinfection! Such a monstrous delusion is disposed of
by this evidence.
c 2
�20
CREMATION.
The Report referred to gives notable examples of the fatal
influence of such effluvia when encountered in a concentrated
form ; one being that of two gravediggers who, in 1841,
perished in descending into a grave in St. Botolph’s church
yard, Aidgate. Such are, however, extremely exceptional in
stances ; but our reporter goes on to say that there is abundant
evidence of the injurious action of these gases in a more
diluted state, and cites the well-demonstrated fact that ‘ cholera
was unusually prevalent in the immediate neighbourhood of
London graveyards.’ I cannot cite, on account of its length,
a paragraph by Dr. Sutherland attesting this fact: while the
many pages detailing Dr. Milroy’s inspection of numerous
graveyards are filled with evidence which is quite conclusive,
and describes scenes which must be read by those who desire
further acquaintance with the subject.1
Dr. Waller Lewis reports the mischievous results of breath
ing the pestiferous air of vaults and the kind of illness pro
duced by it.2 His long and elaborate report of the condition
of these excavations beneath the churches of the metropolis,
presents a marvellous view of the phenomena, which, ordi
narily hidden in the grave, could be examined here, illustrating
the many stages of decay; a condition which he describes as
a ‘ disgrace to any civilisation.’ But it may be said all this
is changed now ; intramural interment no longer exists : why
produce these shocking records of the past ?
Precisely because they enable us to know what it is which
we have only banished to our suburban cemeteries ; that we
may be reminded that the process has not changed, that all
this horrible decomposition removed from our doors—although
this will not long be the case, either at Kensal Green or
Norwood, to say nothing of some other cemeteries—goes on as
ever, and will one day be found in dangerous vicinity to our
homes. And here I must make an explanation which I think
can be necessary to very few who read my former article,
although Mr. Holland misunderstands me, and bases the
1 See independent examples on each of pages 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28,
43-46, and many others in the Report above quoted, p. 29.
2 See also Chadwick’s Special Inquiry, for numerous illustrations.
�CREMATION.
21
greater part of his paper upon the utter misrepresentation of
my meaning he is pleased to make. Because I said that in
burying the corpses of to-day in distant graves we were £ lay
ing by poison for our children’s children,’ he takes special
pains to inform me that probably these particular corpses
must at that future time be as innocuous as if they had been
burned. No doubt they will be so ; but as years pass on, the
close neighbourhood and ultimate contact of the putrefying
dead with our living descendants must arrive.
It is only a question of time. And it was expressly for the
purpose of guarding against the misapprehension I complain
of, and which has furnished my opponent with such large
opportunity of needless remark, that I added the following
passage, which it is only charitable to suppose he must have
overlooked (although it forms the immediate sequel to that
which he quoted) :—
£ It may be granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite
possible that the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not
all, their power of doing mischief by the time that the par
ticular soil they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays,
although this is by no means certain ; but it is beyond dispute
that the margin of safety as to time grows narrower and
narrower year by year, and that pollution of wells and streams
which supply the living must ere long arise wherever we bury
our dead in this country.’
Now there is no doubt that the passage which has been
thus unfairly separated from its context, and so made to
appear the exponent of views I do not hold, and have, indeed,
expressly disclaimed, is that in which he professes to find
ground for his statement that the £ theory on which my main
conclusion is based is entirely without reasonable foundation.’
What then becomes of this sweeping assertion ?
At this point let me call another witness on this important
subject.
Perhaps it would be difficult to name a higher
authority in this country on any question of public health,
than that of Dr. Edmund Parkes, Professor of Military
Hygiene of the Army Medical School at Netley. With the
particular part of his writings which I am about to quote, I
�22
CREMATION.
was unacquainted until the last few days, perhaps because they
appear in a work ‘ prepared especially for use in the medical
service of the army.’ That at all events must be my excuse
for not having them within reach before.1 In a short, but
suggestive, chapter ‘ on the disposal of the dead,’ he proposes
the following question :—
‘ What, then, is the best plan of disposing of the dead so
that the living may not suffer ? At present the question is not
an urgent one ; but if peace continue, and if the population of
Europe increase, it will become so in another century or two.
Already in this country we have seen, in our own time, a great
change; the objectionable practice of interment under and
around churches in towns has been given up, and the popula
tion is buried at a distance from their habitations. For the
present, that measure will probably suffice, but in a few years
the question will again inevitably present itself.
‘ Burying in the ground appears certainly the most in
sanitary plan of the three methods.2 The air over cemeteries is
constantly contaminated (see p. 76), and water (which maybe
used for drinking) is often highly impure. Hence in the
vicinity of graveyards two dangers to the population arise, and
in addition, from time to time, the disturbance of an old
graveyard has given rise to disease. It is a matter of noto
riety that the vicinity of graveyards is unhealthy.’
To return to our reporters: we have seen the condition of
graveyards in towns, but it will not be undesirable to glance
at the evidence relating to the condition of provincial church
yards, where, in the midst of a sparse population, the pure
country air circulates with natural freedom—numbers of such
spots are mentioned—let one single example be ‘ Cadoxton
Churchyard, near Neath.’
Respecting this, the reporter
writes :—‘ I do not know how otherwise to describe the state
of this churchyard than by saying that it is truly and
thoroughly abominable. The smell from it is revolting. I
could distinctly perceive it in every one of the neighbouring
houses which I visited, and in every one of these houses there
1 A Manual of Practical Hygiene. (London, Churchill, 1864.)
2 Burial in the Land, or at Sea, and Burning, p. 458.
�CREMATION.
23,
have been cases of cholera or severe diarrhoea.’ This is, not a
selected specimen, some are even worse ; for further examples
see below.1
I next complain that there is insufficient recognition in
Mr. Holland’s paper, of the unhealthy character of the ema
nations which result from the process of putrefaction when,
affecting the human body. He lays great stress on the fact
that at the encl of those long stages of decay which burial
renders necessary, the result is as harmless as at the end of
the process of Cremation, passing over as not worth notice the
fact that for long years the corpse is replete with influences,
which are mischievous to anything which may come within
them range; absolute isolation being the only condition of
safety. Conversely stated, this is precisely my own argument,
and demonstrates triumphantly the superiority of Cremation.
I affirm that, by burning, we arrive in one hour, without
offence or danger, at the very stage of harmless result which
burying requires years to produce. True, indeed, it is, 1 that
the ultimate result is the same,’ but an infinity of mischief
may happen by his process, and none can happen by mine.
And, after all, he can only on his own showing claim a perfect
result by burial ‘if no more dead be buried than the free oxy
gen contained in rain and dew carried through it, will decom
pose; and if such soil be left undisturbed, &c., and i/the use
of such ground for burial be discontinued,’ &c., &c. Again,
there is another instance of Mr. Holland’s insufficient recog
nition of the unhealthy character of cadaveric emanations
which I must particularly call attention to. I had stated that
in the resolution of an animal body the gaseous products
were carbonic acid, water, and ammonia. He impeaches my
correctness, saying that I am—
‘ Not, however, quite accurate in describing that result to
be the formation of water, of ammonia, and of carbonic acid,
as the chief products; for if the decomposition either with or
without fire be complete, no ammonia will be formed in the
soil; or, if formed, it will be converted before it need escape
1 Op. cit., p. 48. Report of Mr. Bowie, describing graveyards at Merthyr
Tydvil; Hawick, Roxburghshire ; Greenock, and other places.
�24
CREMATION.
either into the air, or be carried off by water, in the form either
of uncombined nitrogen, or changed into some compound of that
element with oxygen, such as nitric or nitrous acid, &c.’
I never said the ultimate result of the resolution in question
was ammonia, but I repeat that ammonia is an intermediate
formation in large quantity, by which nitrogen passes off be
fore it comes to be ‘the nitric or nitrous acid ’ he speaks of, the
latter being, by the way, no more an ultimate step in the process
than is ammonia. At what point shall we stop if we are to
trace to their last stages the volatile component elements of
the body ? Why, certainly not at ammonia, nor at nitric acid,
but at carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. I chose to
rest at ammonia, because the evolution of ammonia is an im
portant fact, and I re-assert that it is largely produced. So
much for the a priori statement. Now what is the evidence
from observation in this matter ? Was I right or was I wrong,
as Mr. Holland says I am, in stating that the body is resolved
among other things into ammonia ? Any intelligent witness
will do for me, but we have Dr. Parkes still in the box: let us
interrogate him. That same short chapter almost commences
with the following passage:—
‘ After death the buried body returns to its elements, and
gradually, and often by the means of other forms of life which
prey on it, a large amount of it forms carbonic acid, ammonia,
sulphuretted and carburetted hydrogen, nitrous and nitrie
acid, and various more complex gaseous products, many of
which are very foetid, but which, however, are eventually all
oxygenised into the simpler combinations.’1
In another part of the volume, in speaking of the air of
churchyards, he writes :—
‘ The decomposition of bodies gives rise to a very large
amount, of carbonic acid..............Ammonia and an offensive
putrid vapour are also given off.’
‘ In vaults, the air contains much carbonic acid, carbonate
or sulphide of ammonium, nitrogen, hydrosulphuric acid, and
organic matter.’2
Parkes, p. 457.
2 Op. tit., p. 76.
�CREMATION.
25
My readers will agree with me, I think, that this matter is
disposed of.
I now arrive at the second part of my subject, in which I
have to show that the plan of Cremation I have myself adopted,
and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of the kind
Mr. Holland has imagined to exist; that it is complete in its
results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or of offence to
any.
Many persons have expressed to me the opinion that I ought
in my first paper to have described what I believed to be the
best mode of performing Cremation. May I say that this was
also desired by the Editor of this Journal. I felt, however,
although I was prepared to give the information in question,
that it was impossible to judge beforehand what might be the
reception by the public of my project, and that I might per
haps go too far and weight it too heavily if I actually sketched
the process by which each reader could realise for himself its
nature and mode of operation. I think the reticence was
prudent, although it might possibly have been unnecessary.
I think it is fair to myself to say that, before that first
article was published, a scheme for burning two thousand
bodies a week for London (the average present requirement
being about sixteen hundred) was quite completed, and that I
had satisfied myself that to accomplish this would not be a
difficult task, and that it would occasion no nuisance whatever.
Without entering on those details, I will give an example
of what I have done in the matter of resolving the body into
its ultimate elements by heat.
And first of all I must request the reader to dismiss from
his mind all the allegations against the practice of Cremation
which Mr. Holland has made, grounded on what he imagines
that process to be. He states that it ‘ would necessarily
require the active superintendence of a class of men whose
services for such an office it wTould be scarcely possible always
to obtain : while it is evident that imperfectly conducted
burning of the dead would be inexpressibly shocking, and apt
not rarely to occur.’ The point first named is a matter barely
worth contesting; but the last five words are absolutely with
�26
CREMATION.
out foundation, and I challenge him to show a tittle of evidence
to support the very grave allegation they contain.
A powerful reverberating furnace will reduce a body of
more than average size and weight, leaving only a few white
and fragile portions of earthy material, in less than one hour.
I have myself personally superintended the burning of two
entire bodies, one small and emaciated of 47 lbs. weight, and
one of 140 lbs. weight, not emaciated, and possess the pro
ducts—in the former case, weighing 1| lbs.; in the latter,
weighing about 4 lbs. The former was completed in twentyfive minutes, the latter in fifty. No trace of odour was per
ceived—indeed, such a thing is impossible,—and not the
slightest difficulty presented itself. The remains already de
scribed were not withdrawal till the process was complete, and
nothing can be more pure, tested by sight or smell, than they
are, and nothing less suggestive of decay or decomposition.
It is a refined sublimate, and not a portion of refuse, which I
have before me. The experiments took place in the presence
of several persons. Among the witnesses of the second ex
periment was Dr. George Buchanan, the well-known medical
officer of the Local Government Board, who can testify to the
completeness of the process.
I challenge my opponent to produce so fair a result from
all the costly and carefully-managed cemeteries in the king
dom, and I offer him twenty years in which to elaborate the
process.
In the proceedings above described, the gases which leave
the furnace chimney during the first three or four minutes
of combustion are noxious: after that time they cease to be
so, and no smoke would be seen. But those noxious gases
are not to be permitted to escape by any chimney, and will
pass through a flue into a second furnace, where they are
entirely consumed ; and the chimney of the latter is smokeless
—no organic products whatever can issue by it. A complete,
combustion is thus attained.
Not even a tall chimney is
necessary, which might be pointed at as that which marked
the site where Cremation is performed. A small jet of steam
quickening the draught of a low chimney is all that is requisite.
�CREMATION.
27
If the process is required on a large scale, the second furnace
could be utilised for Cremation also, and its products passed
through another, and so on without limit.
Subsequent experiments, however, by another method,
have resulted in a still greater success. By means of one of
the furnaces invented by Dr. Wm. Siemens, I have obtained
even a more rapid and more complete combustion than before.
The body employed was a severe test of its powers, for it
weighed no less than 227 lbs., and was not emaciated. It
was placed in a cylindrical vessel about seven feet long by
five or six in diameter, the interior of which was already heated
to about 2000° Bahr. The inner surface of the cylinder is
smooth, almost polished, and no solid matter but that of the
body is introduced into it.
The product, therefore, can be
nothing more than the ashes of the body. No foreign dust
can be introduced, no coal or other solid combustible being
near it: nothing but a heated hydrocarbon in a gaseous form
and heated air. Nothing is visible in the cylinder before using
it but a pure almost white interior, the lining having acquired
a temperature of white heat. In this case, the gases given
off from the body so abundantly at first, pass through a highly
heated chamber among thousands of interstices made by in
tersecting fire-bricks, laid throughout the entire chamber,
lattice-fashion, in order to minutely divide and delay the
current, and expose it to an immense area of heated surface.
By this means they were rapidly oxidised, and not a particle
of smoke issued by the chimney : no second furnace, therefore,
is necessary by this method to consume any noxious matters,
since none escape. The process was completed in fifty-five
minutes, and the ashes, which weighed about five pounds,
were removed with ease.
The foregoing is a very meagre
sketch of Dr. Siemens’ furnace, the principle of which is well
known to engineers, and to scientific men generally, and need
not be described in detail here.
I will now add—not that it affects the process in the
slightest degree as to results—that all my experiments
hitherto have been made with the lower animals.
As a rough and unfinished sketch of a system to be
�28
CREMATION.
followed when Cremation is generally adopted, I would suggest
the following :—
When death occurs and the necessary certificate has been
given (relative to which an important suggestion will be made
hereafter), the body is placed in a light wood shell, then in a
suitable outside receptacle preparatory to removal for religious
rites or otherwise. After a proper time has elapsed, it is
conveyed to the spot where Cremation is to be performed.
There, nothing need be seen by the last attendant or atten
dants than the placing of a shell within a small compartment,
and the closing of the door upon it. It slides down into the
heated chamber, and is left there an hour, till the necessary
changes have taken place. The ashes are then placed at the
disposal of the attendants.
I now come to a very serious matter, treated of by Mr.
Holland in a manner of which I am compelled to complain.
He is pleased to make merry himself, and to suggest that
I am joking—or, to use his own phraseology, ‘ poking fun ’—
when calling attention to my remarks relative to the ‘ econo
mical ’ view of Cremation.
In speaking of this, I stated that ‘ it is an economic sub
ject, whether we will it or not.’ Now I wish him and all my
readers to understand that I was never more serious, never
more earnest in my life than I was then and am at this
moment, and in consideration of this question of ‘ economy.’
Anything like ‘ fun ’ or a ‘joke,’ wherever else it may be
tolerated, is wholly out of place here. Seeing that the Great
Power which has ordained the marvellous and ceaseless
action which transmutes every animal body as quickly as
possible into vegetable matter and rice versa, and has
arranged that this harmonious cycle should be the absolute
and necessary law for all existence, I have space for no other
sentiments than those of submission, wonder, and admira
tion. If any say that it is in bad taste, or does violence to
some right feeling, to speak of the fate that inevitably awaits
every one of us, in that, on some future day, the elements of
our bodies must enter into that other life of the vegetable
world, whence once they came, let the complaint thereof be
�CREMATION.
29
carried to the Highest Court of the Universe, and let the
question be asked there, Whether ‘ the Judge of all the earth
doth right ’ ?
Meantime it suffices us to know that the very existence of
these cavillers is solely due to that Divine fecundity which
pervades all nature, and is regulated by economical principles,
the beneficent operation of which we may feebly postpone,
doing some notable harm thereby, but happily can never
resist in the end.
My charge against Mr. Holland, however, is not this, but
something much more serious. Alluding to the small modi
cum of remains in the form of ashes after Cremation, and
which I was content should be preserved in an urn, stating
only that the fields were their ‘ righteous ’ destination—as
they are—he speaks of the latter suggestion as a ‘ desecra
tion ’ and as ‘ outraging family affection ; ’ and actually
associates it in some fashion with savagery and cannibalism.
Yet, can we believe it, he, so tender of sentiment on this
subject of deceased remains, himself actually advocates and
practises the utilising of by far the greater part of those
remains for the production of grass and other vegetables for
the express purpose of keeping his cemeteries sweet and
wholesome!
The gaseous elements of these buried bodies,
which, as I particularly insisted upon when dealing with that
question of economy, are by far the greater part, being incal
culable in amount in relation to the ashes, which are by
comparison a mere trifle, and which alone he is pleased to
mention. That greater part, I say, he not only uses himself,
but he knows that this very utilisation of it is the only way
he has of preserving a cemetery in a tolerable condition. He
knows perfectly well that the presence of abundant plant
growth is essential in the cemetery to assimilate the noxious
gases arising from the buried bodies before alluded to, and
that those plants owe their life and structure to the very ele
ments of our ‘ friends and relatives,’ about whom he professes
to be so utterly shocked that I should conceive it possible to
utilise them for any economical purpose ! I charge my oppo
nent then, his professions notwithstanding, as in part the
�30
CREMATION.
manager of the cemeteries of this country during twenty
years, with having presided over perhaps the largest institution that ever existed for transmuting the human body into
vegetable growth of various kinds. My one objection to his
system is that it does it so slowly, so offensively, and so
dangerously.
Now, lest perchance someone not himself acquainted with
the facts alluded to may desire, for such a statement, other
authority than my own, let us listen once more, and for the
last time, to Dr. Parkes. In order to oxidise the foetid organic
exhalations of the burying-ground, he says : ‘ The only means
which present themselves, as applicable in all cases, are the
deep burial and the use of plants closely placed in the ceme
tery. There is no plan which is more efficacious for the
absorption of the organic substances, and perhaps of the
carbonic acid, than plants; but it would seem a mistake
to use only the dark, slow-growing evergreens ; the object
should be to get the most rapidly growing trees and shrubs,’
&C.1
But even this is not my opponent’s crowning inconsistency.
So determined is he not to accept Cremation, that he suggests
another mode, ‘ that of sinking the dead in the depths of the
ocean,’ as having ‘ far more to recommend it.’ No doubt
there is much to be said in its favour ; much more certainly
than for burial. Yet shocked as he is at the notion that his
father’s ashes should ever fertilise the field, he would consign
the body to a place whence, almost instantly, it would be
devoured by fish and crustaceans, whose numbers would be
multiplied correspondingly by their benefactor’s enormous
contribution of food, as the public markets soon would tes
tify. No animal multiplies more rapidly than fish, and the
‘ economic ’ question would be determined in a manner more
complete, and more direct, and with a more remunerative result
than any which I had ever dared, or still should dare, to
suggest!
This remarkable proposal appears actually on the same
page as that in which he affects to be outraged by my sugges1 P. 458. Dr. Sutherland also strongly! nsists on the same practice.
�CREMATION.
31
tion that burning the body would necessarily contribute to the
‘ food production ’ of the earth.
And here I shall take leave of Mr. Holland, to seek some
less formidable antagonist. Possibly in this light may be
regarded the writer of an article in the ‘ Spectator ’ newspaper,1
whose objection, supposing it to be seriously urged, is almost
the only one besides those already noticed which has appeared
within the range of our periodical literature.
By stretch of charity one might almost imagine it to be a
joke, seeing it is the writer’s only way of retreat from a wholly
untenable position. He urges that as the present generation
is doing its best to exhaust ‘ the rivers, the rainfall, the mines,
and the natural fertility of the earth,’ we ought to leave our
dead remains ‘ in bank for our descendants; ’ or, in other
words—for the generous sentiment is repeated—‘ it is well that
such a deposit as the dead of generations should be left to our
posterity ! ’ Waiving altogether the greatest objection to this
testamentary provision for our grandchildren—viz., the amount
of disease and death which is unquestionably produced by
burial in the soil—the writer ought to have known that the
‘ bank ’ in question, to use his own simile, pays no interest ■
and that it is perfectly certain that such capital rendered pro
ductive at once, according to nature’s design, must yield a far
greater profit, even for posterity, than his own notable one of
burying this one talent in a napkin as an offset against what
he is pleased to consider our present exhaustion of ‘ rivers and
rainfall,’ which he declares is taking place at ‘ railway speed ! ’
As if consumption of water in any form, were it a million-fold
what it is, could exhaust or diminish the common stock a
single drop ! No modern schoolboy could make such a blunder
as this; nevertheless, it is only a specimen of others existing
within the short limits of that article, and equally easy to ex
pose, if need be. I cannot pass over, however, one statement
that this writer has dared to make. He speaks of my figures
relative to the number buried in London in 1873, and esti
mating the amount of bone-earth and ashes belonging thereto
as ‘ very debateable,’ and, further, that they ‘ arc open to
1 Spectator, January 3, 1874.
�32
CREMATION.
question.’ After saying this, he declines ‘ to fight so eminent
a physicist on so small a point of detail.’ Is the point so
small ? I declare those figures to be below, and not above,
the truth, and am amply prepared to prove it. My veracity
is at stake, for I know no higher crime than to issue mislead
ing or exaggerated numerical statements in order to prove a
case, unless, indeed, it be to utter insinuations, without offer
ing a tittle of proof to support them, that an accurate
numerical statement is untrue.
I now desire to afford explanations which have been asked
relative to the following very important subject. It has been
said, and most naturally, what guarantee is there against
poisoning if the remains are burned, and it is no longer
possible, as after burial, to reproduce the body for the purpose
of examination ? It is to my mind a sufficient reply that, re
garding only ‘ the greatest good for the greatest number,’ the
amount of evil in the shape of disease and death, which results
from the present system of burial in earth, is infinitely larger
than the evil caused by secret poisoning is or could be, even
if the practice of the crime were very considerably to increase.
Further, the appointment of officers to examine and certify in
all cases of death would be an additional and very efficient
safeguard. But,—and here I touch on a very important
subject,—Is there reason to believe that our present precau
tions in the matter of death-certificate against the danger of
poisoning are what they ought to be ? I think that it must
be confessed that they are defective, for not only is our system
inadequate to the end proposed, but it is less efficient by
comparison than that adopted by foreign governments. Our
existing arrangements for ascertaining and registering the
cause of death are very lax, and give rise, as we shall see, to
serious errors. In order to attain an approach to certitude
in this important matter, I contend that it would be most
desirable to nominate in every district a properly qualified
inspector to certify in all cases to the fact that death has
taken place, to satisfy himself as far as possible that no foul
play has existed, and to give the certificate accordingly. This
would relieve the medical attendant of the deceased from any
�33
CREMATION.
disagreeable duty, relative to inquiry concerning suspicious
circumstances, if any have been observed. Such officers exist
throughout the large cities of France and Germany, and the
system is more or less pursued throughout the provinces. In
Paris, no burial can take place without the written permission
of the ‘ Medecin-Verificateur; ’ and whether we adopt Crema
tion or not, such an officer might, with advantage, be appointed
here.1
For perhaps it is not generally known, even, as it would
seem, by those who have emphasized so notably the objection
in question to Cremation, that many bodies are buried in this
country without any medical certificate at all; and that among
these any number of deaths by poison may have taken place
for anything that anybody knows. Is it in the provinces
chiefly that this lax practice exists ? No doubt, and more
1 The practice referred to is thus regulated :—
The following is the text of the French law. Code Napoleon, Article 77.
‘ Aucune inhumation ne sera faite sans une autorisation, sur papier libre et
sans frais, de l’officier de l’btat civil, qui ne pourra la delivrer qu’apres s’etre
transports aupres de la personne decedee pour s’assurer du decbs, et que 24
heures apres le decSs, hors les cas prevus par les rSglements de police.’
Thus the verification of the deceased must always be made by a civil officer
in person; viz., by the Mayor of the town, or by someone he shall appoint. The
law, however, is executed differently in Paris and in the provinces. In Paris,
the verification is made exclusively by medical men appointed for this purpose
in each ‘ quartier.’ Their functions are defined by an Act of the 31st of
December, 1821. As soon as a death is reported, the civil officer communicates
with the medical man of the ‘ quartier ’ in which the deceased resided, and
awaits the report to decide (in concert with the deceased’s friends) at what hour
burial should take place. The medical man attends at the residence indicated,
acquaints himself with all the circumstances of the illness, and reports in
writing relative to the following particulars:—1. The Christian and surname
of the deceased; 2. The sex; 3. If married or not; 4. The age ; 5. The pro
fession ; 6. The exact date and hour of the decease ; 7. The ‘ quartier,’ the
street, the number and story of the house in which it occurred ; 8. The nature
of the illness, and if there be any reason for making an autopsy ; 9. The
duration of the illness ; 10. The name of the persons who provided the medi
cines ; 11. The names of the doctors and others who attended the case.
Besides this verification made by the doctors belonging to each ‘ quartier ’ of
Paris, by an order of the Prefect of the Seine, April, 1839, a committee was
formed to watch over the service. The medical men who attest the facts
connected with death at Paris are called the ‘ Medecins-V6rificateurs des d£c£s.’
In Vienna, a similar document is always prepared, and perhaps with still
greater care and minuteness. The same may be said of Munich, Frankfort,
Geneva, and other Continental cities.
D
�34
CREMATION.
particularly in the principality of Wales. But it occurs also
in the heart of London. A good many certificates of death
are signed every year in London by some non-medical persons.
In one metropolitan parish, not long ago, which I can name,
but do not, above forty deaths were registered in a year on
the mere statement of neighbours of the deceased. No medical
certificate was procurable, and no inquest was held ; the bodies
were buried without inquiry. This practice is not illegal;
and, in my opinion, it goes far to make a case for the appoint
ment of a ‘ Medecin-Verificateur.’ During the existence of
pestilence especially, such a safeguard is necessary. Before I
quit this subject, let me make a brief extract from evidence
given by Mr. Simon before the Royal Sanitary Commission in
186.9, from which it appears that medical certification of death
is not the rule, but the exception, in some districts of Wales.
He says :—
‘ The returns of death made to the Registrar-General are
necessarily imperfect. . . . We had to make inquiry on one
occasion as to the supposed very large prevalence of phthisis
in some of the South Wales counties. ... It turned out
that this great appearance of phthisis in the death registers
depended upon the fact that the causes, of death were only
exceptionally certified by medical men. I remember that in
one case only 15 per cent, of the deaths had been medically
certified. The non-medical certifiers of death thought that
“ consumption ” was a good word to cover death generally,
so that any one who died somewhat slowly was put down as
dying of “consumption,” and this appeared in the RegistrarGeneral’s returns as phthisis.’
Dr. Sutherland long ago called attention to this matter.
I quote his remarks from the work above named. Referring
to Paris, Munich, and other cities, he says:—
‘ Where there are regularly appointed verificators ....
who are generally medical men in practice .... the districts
of the city are divided between them. . . . The instructions
under which these officers act are of a very stringent cha
racter, and the procedure is intended to obviate premature
interment, and to detect crime. The French and the German
�35
CREMATION.
method of verification is intended to
preventive. A number
of instances were mentioned to me in which crimes which
would otherwise have escaped notice were detected by the
keen and practised eye of the Verificator, and the general
opinion certainly was that much crime was prevented.’ 1
This is but an episode in treating of Cremation; a very
important one nevertheless. I have therefore thought it right
to take this opportunity of advocating a more stringent pro
vision than now exists for an official inspection and certificate
in all cases of death.
Lastly, it would be possible, at much less cost than is at
present incurred for burial, to preserve, in every case of death,
the stomach, and a portion of one of the viscera, say for fifteen
or twenty years or thereabouts, so that in the event of any
suspicion subsequently occurring, greater facility for examina
tion would exist than by the present method of exhumation.
Nothing could be more certain to check the designs of the
poisoner than the knowledge that the proofs of his crime, in
stead of being buried in the. earth (from whence, as a fact,
not one in a hundred thousand is ever disinterred for exami
nation) are safely preserved in a public office, and that they
can be produced against him at any moment. The universal
application of this plan, although easily practicable, is how
ever obviously unnecessary. It is quite certain that no pretext
for such conservation can exist in more than one instance in
every five hundred deaths. In the remainder, the fatal result
would be attributed without mistake to some natural cause—
as decay, fever, consumption, or other malady, the signs of
which are clear even to a tyro in the medical art. But in
any case in which the slightest doubt arises in the mind of
the medical attendant, or in which the precaution is desired
or suggested by a relative, or whenever the subject himself
may have desired it, nothing would be easier than to make
the requisite conservation. As before stated, the existence of
an official verificator would relieve the ordinary medical at
tendant of the case from active interference in the matter. If
then the public is earnest in its endeavour to render exceedOp. cit.
d
2
�36
CREMATION.
ingly difficult or impossible the crime of secret poisoning,—
and it ought to be so if the objection to Cremation on this
ground is a valid one, the sooner some measures are taken to
this end the better, whether burial in earth or Cremation be
the future method of treating our dead.
I must add one word in reply to a critic who rather hastily
objected that the estimate in my original paper of the mean
cost of burials in London as about 10Z. per head is too high.
I have re-examined my calculations and find it, if in error at
all, too low. Curiously enough, in going through Dr. Edwin
Chadwick’s work, already referred to, for other purposes, I
find that he also made a similar calculation thirty years ago,
and that his estimate is rather higher than mine. He puts it
at more than 600,000Z. for the metropolis, when the popula
tion was a little more than one-half what it is now; I reck
oned 800,000Z. for the year 1873. And he considers the cost
of funerals for England and Wales to be, at that time, nearly
five millions sterling. He includes cost of transit, which I
omit, as being necessary equally with Cremation and burial,
so that the difference between us is not considerable.
To sum up :—
For the purposes of Cremation nothing is required but an
apparatus of a suitable kind, the construction of which is well
understood and easy to accomplish. With such apparatus the
process is rapid and inoffensive, and the result is perfect.
The space necessary for the purpose is small, and but little
skilled labour is wanted.
Not only is its employment compatible with religious rites,
but it enables them to be conducted with greater ease and
with far greater safety to the attendants than at a cemetery.
For example, burial takes place in the open air, and necessi
tates exposure to all weathers, while Cremation is necessarily
conducted within a building, which may be constructed to
meet the requirements of mourners and attendants in relation
to comfort and taste.
Cremation destroys instantly all infectious quality in the
body submitted to the process, and effectually prevents the
possibility of other injury to the living from the remains at
�37
CREMATION.
any future time. All care to prevent such evil is obviously
unnecessary, and ceases from the moment the process com
mences. The aim of Cremation is to prevent the process of
putrefaction.
On the other hand, Burial cannot be conducted without
serious risks to the living, and great care is required to ren
der them inconsiderable with our present population. Costly
cemeteries also are necessary with ample space for all possible
demands upon it, and complete isolation from the vicinity of
the living, to ensure, as far as possible, the absence of danger
io them.
It is a process designed essentially to prolong decay and
putrefaction with all its attendant mischief; and the best that
can be affirmed of it is, that in the course of many years it
arrives, by a process which is antagonistic to the health of
survivors, at results similar to, but less complete, than Cre
mation produces in an hour without injury to any.
Henry Thompson.
��CBEMATION OB BUBIAL P
BY
SIR T. SPENCER WELLS, Bart.,
Late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Surgeon to the Queen's
Household, <&c.
A Paper
read at the Meeting of the British Medical
Association in Cambridge, August 1880.
There are, no doubt, many members of the British Medical
Association who have not thought very much about the evils
of the present mode of burying the dead in this and many
other parts of the world. There are many more who have not
heard at all, or have thought very little, of recent proposals to
reform the present system, or to substitute for it one which
can be proved to be far better. It is scarcely forty years since
the causes of the high rate of mortality, and the means of pre
venting disease, attracted much attention in our profession ;
and the necessity for sanitary regulations was impressed upon
public opinion. The influence of light and air, of a supply of
pure water, of good drainage, ventilation, and cleanliness, as
means of preventing disease and prolonging life in large towns,
populous districts, and the country generally ; the influence of
employments upon health; the habits of different classes of the
people; the condition of their dwellings ; the injurious effects
of many nuisances, and the inadequacy of power for prevent
ing them, are all subjects of recent study, and do not yet form
a sufficiently defined part of medical education.
It is quite unnecessary here to remind you of the beneficial
influence upon the public health and the longevity of the nation
exercised by our profession during the last forty years; but
it does appear to me to be necessary to call for the earnest
�40
. CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
attention of the Association to one source of danger which is
increasing every year—the burial of the dead. It is about
forty years since a member of our body, Mr. Walker, wrote
the remarkable work on graveyards which led to the special
inquiry into the practice of interment in towns, and the
admirable report of Mr. Edwin Chadwick, which was presented
to Parliament in 1843. The evidence he adduced as to the
propagation of disease from decaying or putrefying human
bodies was amply sufficient to prove the dangerous tendency
of all interments in churches or in towns, and led to the
removal of many burial-places from towns or crowded districts
into suburban cemeteries.
The effects have been salutary.
But, with a rapid increase of population, we are now beginning
to suffer from the evils which Mr. Chadwick foretold, namely,
‘ shifting the evil from the centre of the populous districts to
the suburbs, and deteriorating them ’ ... ‘ increasing the
duration and sum of the existing evils.’ Many of our sub
urban cemeteries are now very much in the condition of town
graveyards forty years ago; and the attention of thoughtful
men outside the bounds of our profession has already been
directed to a growing evil. Only last year, at the opening of
the Social Science Congress at Manchester, the respected and
beloved bishop of the diocese, in opening the congress, thus
referred to the recent consecration of anew cemetery. ‘ Here,’
he said, ‘ is another hundred acres of land withdrawn from
the food-producing area of the country for ever.’ And he
added, ‘ I feel convinced that, before long, we shall have to
face this problem, How to bury our dead out of our sight,
more practically and more seriously than we have hitherto
done. In the same sense in which the “ Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath,” I hold that the earth was
made, not for the dead, but for the living. No intelligent faith
can suppose that any Christian doctrine is affected by the
manner in which, or the time in which, this mortal body of
ours crumbles into dust and sees corruption.’ And he con
cludes : ‘ This is a subject that will have to be seriously con
sidered before long. Cemeteries are becoming not only a diffi
culty, an expense, and an inconvenience, but an actual danger.’
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
41
In the debate on the Burials Bill in the House of Lords on
June 24th, the Earl of Beaconsfield said that what is called
‘ God’s acre ’ is ‘ really not adapted to the country which we
inhabit, the times in which we live, and the spirit of the age.
What I should like to see would be a settlement of this ques
tion by the shutting up of all God’s acres throughout the
country. I think the churchyard of the ordained minister, and
the graveyard of the dissenting minister, alike, are institutions
which are very prejudicial to. the health of the people of this
country ; and their health ought to be, if not the first, at any
rate, one of the first considerations of a statesman. Now we
have been moving gradually in the direction of these views,
and there has been for some years a notion, soon about to
amount, I believe, to a conviction, that the institution of
churchyards is one which is highly prejudicial to the public
health. I think it would be a much wiser step if we were to
say that the time has arrived, seeing the vast increase of
population in this country and the increase which we may
contemplate, when we should close all these churchyards, and
when we should take steps for furnishing every community
with a capacious and ample cemetery, placed in a situation in
which, while it would meet all the requirements of the society
for which it was intended, would exercise no prejudicial in
fluence on the public health.’ And he concluded his speech
in these terms :—‘ I think the direction in which we ought to
have moved would have been to shut all these churchyards
and graveyards, and to have assisted the Government in some
adequate proposal which would have furnished the country
with cemeteries in which none of these painful controversies
could have occurred, and which would have conduced to the
preservation of the health and welfare of the country.’
The impressive exhortation of the Bishop of Manchester,
from which I have just quoted, was the result, as he tells us,
of the perusal of two very able papers written by one of the
most distinguished members of our own body, Sir H. Thomp
son, and published in the ‘ Contemporary Review ’ in 1874.
The first paper, on the ‘ Treatment of the Body after Death,,
led to a reply from Mr. Holland, then Medical Inspector of
�42
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
Burials in England, which contains a summary of all that can
be said in defence of cemeteries. But the rejoinder of Sir H.
Thompson is a masterly exposition of the evils of our present
mode of interment, with an answer to many of the objections
to cremation as a substitute for burial, and some account of
modern improved apparatus for burning dead bodies at a
moderate expense, without any nuisance, and with due regard
to the sentiments of surviving relatives. I trust that Sir
Henry may be induced to reprint his papers in a form easily
accessible to the people. One of the first effects of the perusal
of Sir H. Thompson’s papers was the association together of
a small number of men, and the formation of the Cremation
Society of England, numbering, among members of this
Association, notably Mr. Ernest Hart and Mr. Lord. I have
here the first part of the Transactions of this Society. It
forms a pamphlet of only sixty-six pages, but it contains a
great deal of information as to cremation at home and abroad,
up to the date of the sixth anniversary of the Society last
January. It may surprise many to learn that cremation is
already legalised in parts of Germany and in Italy ; that cre
matoria have been erected and used in Gotha and in Milan
and Lodi, and that a society has been established in Rome.
A phrase in the sanitary laws of Switzerland which forbade
cremation has been removed, and a piece of ground in the new
cemetery at Zurich has been set apart for the erection of a
crematorium.
On June 16tli last, Professor Polli (whose researches on the
antiseptic action of the sulphites and hyposulphites I brought
before the Association in this town sixteen years ago, in an
address on the causes of excessive mortality after surgical
operations) who, in late years, had been one of the most
ardent supporters of cremation, who had himself proposed a
method which was the first tried in Italy, had his body, by his
own express desire, cremated, and his ashes were consigned
to their resting-place, with all due solemnity, in the presence
of mourning relatives. This cremation was the sixty-eighth
which has taken place in Milan since January 1876.
Several large cremation societies have been formed in
�CREMATION OR BURIAL?
43
Switzerland. One large society in Holland has several branches.
In France, the Paris Municipality has called for designs for
the best form of furnace. In Belgium, one society in Brussels
has more than four hundred members, and M. Creteur has
been thanked by the Government for the successful cremation
of the bodies of soldiers killed near Sedan. In America, cre
mation has already been practised at Washington, and several
societies have been formed; and the Brazilian Government is
about to erect a crematorium at Bio de Janeiro.
While all this has been going on in the European continent
and in America, the Cremation Society of England has been
working on quietly but earnestly, has purchased an acre of
freehold land near Woking, has erected a Crematorium on the
model of the Gorini furnace, which is the most approved in
Italy, and has experimentally proved that the body of an
animal may be reduced to a clean innocuous ash, weighing
about a twentieth of the unburnt body, at a very small cost,
and without any appreciable odour or visible smoke.
The Society has obtained the very highest legal authority,
and the admission of the late Home Secretary, that cremation
is not illegal, provided it be practised without nuisance, or
leading to a breach of the peace. But Sir B. Cross obtained
from the Council a promise that, before burning a human
body, they would endeavour to carry a short Bill through
Parliament, or to obtain the insertion of a clause in some
Burial Bill, affirming that cremation might be legally prac
tised, and under proper regulations. Hitherto, the Council
have been unable to obtain this parliamentary sanction, and
it remains to be seen how far Sir William Harcourt will con
sider the Council bound to the present Government by their
promise to his predecessor in the Home Office. After any
discussion which may follow this paper, I trust many of you
will sign an address to him, which I will read after I have
asked you whether the time has not arrived when cremation
should be supported by the British Medical Association, col
lectively, and by each of its branches. The sanitary advan
tages over burial in coffins, or in wicker baskets, are undeniable
and very great. Most of them are so well known to you all,
�44
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
that I may pass them by without further mention ; but I
must allude to one most remarkable argument in favour of
cremation which has just been advanced by Pasteur, after his
examination of the soil of fields where cattle had been buried,
whose death had been caused by that fatal disease known as
‘ charbon,’ or splenic fever. The observations of our own Dar
win ‘on the formation of mould,’ made more than forty years
ago, when he was a young man, are curiously confirmatory of
the recent conclusions of Pasteur. In Darwin’s paper, read
at the Geological Society of London, in 1837, he proved that,
in old pasture-land, every particle of the superficial layer of
earth, overlying different kinds of subsoil, has passed through
the intestines of earth-worms. The wTorms swallow earthy
matter, and, after separating the digestible or serviceable por
tion, they eject the remainder in little coils or heaps at the
mouth of their burrows. In dry weather the worm descends
to a considerable depth, and brings up to the surface the
particles which it ejects. This agency of earth-worms is not
so trivial as it might appear. By observation in different
fields, Mr. Darwin proved, in one case, that a depth of more
than three inches of this worm-mould had been accumulated
in fifteen years; and, in another, that the earth-worms had
covered a bed of marl with their mould in eighty years to an
average depth of thirteen inches.
Pasteur’s recent researches on the etiology of ‘ charbon ’
show that this earth-mould positively contains the specific
germs which propagate the disease ; and that the same specific
germs are found within the intestines of the worms. The
parasitic organism, or bacteridium, which, inoculated from a
diseased to a healthy animal, propagates the specific disease,
may be destroyed by putrefaction after burial. But, before
this process has been completed, germs or spores may have
been formed which will resist the putrefactive process for
many years, and lie in a condition of latent life, like a grain
of corn, or any flower-seed, ready to germinate, and commu
nicate the specific disease. In a field in the Jura, where a
diseased cow had been buried two years before, at a depth of
nearly seven feet, the surface-earth not having been disturbed
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
45
in the interval, Pasteur found that the mould contained germs
which, introduced by inoculation into a guinea-pig, produced
charbon and death. And, further, if a worm be taken from
an infected spot, the earth in the alimentary canal of the worm
contains these spores or germs of charbon, which, inoculated,
propagate the disease. And the mould deposited on the sur
face by the worms, when dried into dust, is blown over the
grass and plants on which the cattle feed, and may thus spread
the disease. After various farming operations of tilling and
harvest, Pasteur has found the germs just over the graves of
the diseased cattle, but not to any great distance. After rains,
or morning dews, the germs of charbon, with a quantity of
other germs, were found about the neighbouring plants : and
Pasteur suggests that, in cemeteries, it is very possible that
germs capable of propagating specific diseases of different
kin da, quite harmless to the earth-worm, may be carried to
the surface of the soil ready to cause disease in the proper
animals. The practical inferences in favour of cremation are
so strong that, in Pasteur’s words, they ‘ need not be enforced.’
And now a word as to the sentimental objections to cre
mation. The Bishop of Manchester, in the address to which I
before alluded, admits that his sentiments are ‘ somewhat
revolted by the idea of cremation; ’ but he adds, ‘ they are,
perhaps, illogical and unreasonable sentiments.’ We all know
how difficult it is to convince illogical and unreasonable people ,*
they must be left to the influence of time and example. But
it is of importance to show to all that reason, and true senti
ment, and good feeling of reverence for the dead, of affection
ate regard for their memory, are more logically and reason
ably associated with a purifying fire than with decay, putre
faction, and danger to the living; and on this important part
of the subject I am glad to bring before you the book of my
friend Mr. Robinson, who has done so much of late years to
improve our gardens, parks, and open spaces, and who is one of
the Council of the Cremation Society. He calls this book ‘ God’s
Acre Beautiful, or the Cemeteries of the Future.’ He argues
that the resting-places of the dead should be ‘ permanent, un
polluted, inviolate ; ’ that permanent beautiful cemeteries could
�46
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
be easily maintained if urn-burial were practised; that existing
graveyards and cemeteries can only be of temporary use; that
their monuments and memorial stones soon decay or crumble
away; and that urn-burial might lead in the future, as it has
done in the past, to more noble and enduring monuments.
Let me read to you a page from Mr. Robinson’s book.
‘ By the adoption of urn-burial, all that relates to the
artistic embellishment of a cemetery would be at once placed
on a very different footing. One of the larger burial-grounds
now closed, perforce, in a less time than that of an ordinary
life, would accommodate a like number of burials on an im
proved system for many ages. The neglect and desecration
of the resting-places of the dead, inherent to the present
system, would give place to unremitting and loving care, for
the simple, reason that each living generation would be as much
interested in the preservation of the cemetery as those that
had gone before were at any previous time in its history. We
should at once have what is so much to be desired from artistic
and other points of view—a permanent resting-place for our
dead. With this would come the certainty that any memorials
erected to their memory would be carefully preserved in the
coming years, and free from the sacrilege and neglect so often
seen. Hence an incentive to art which might be not unworthy
of such places. The knowledge that our cemeteries would be
sacred—would be sacred to all, and jealously preserved by
all, through the coming generations—would effect much in
this new field for artistic effort. In days when careful attention
is bestowed upon the designs of trifling details of our houses,
it is to be hoped that we shall soon be ashamed of the present
state of what should be the beautiful and unpolluted rest
garden of all that remains of those whom we have known, or
loved, or honoured in life, or heard of in death as having lived
not unworthy of their kind. Such a revolution in our burial
arrangements will not come suddenly ; but perhaps a little
reflection may serve to convince those who have feelings of
repulsion to urn-burial that, as a matter of fact, less dis
honour is done to the remains of those whom one loves in
subjecting them to a fire which reduces them to ashes which
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
47
can be carefully preserved, than in allowing them to become
the subjects of the loathsome process of corruption first, and
then subjecting them to the chance of being ultimately carted
away to make room for some metropolitan or local improve
ment.’
The preservation of inscriptions and memorials,
whether in or around churches and public buildings, the
erection of beautiful tombs with urns as family burying-places,
would be worthy objects for the best efforts of artistic design.
As to the ceremony of burial and performance of any
religious service, distinguished members of the clergy of the
Church of England have shown that scarcely any alteration
would be called for in our burial-service ; and it is felt that,
as urn-burial might be practised to any extent and for any
length of time in or around churches and public buildings, in
towns as well as in distant cemeteries, and without the ex
pensive transport and ugly expensive forms of our present
system of burial, men might again, as of old, rest in death
near the scene of their work in life ; and the restoration of
the family tomb to the chapel or crypt would renew and add
to the tie between the family and the church. Our places of
worship and the spaces which surround them, if urn-burial
became general, would be amply sufficient for the preservation
of the remains of our dead for generations to come, and would
enable us to convert existing cemeteries, which are rapidly
becoming sources of danger to the public health, into perma
nently beautiful gardens. Instead of filling up large spaces
with decaying dead bodies, we should have natural gardens,
open lawns, pure air, fine trees, lovely flowers, and receptacles
for vases, which, as well as the cinerary urns and chests
themselves, might be made important helps in the culture of
art. In country houses, urn-burial would lead to family
burial places within the grounds, and encourage monumental
work of high artistic merit; and, in the country church, the
ashes of the people might repose in the place where they
worshipped, instead of polluting the earth of the surrounding
churchyard and the water drunk by the surviving population,
or being carried to a distant cemetery, which overcrowding
must in time make only a very temporary resting-place.
�48
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
The ‘ earth to earth ’ system, as it is called, so ably advo
cated by my friend Mr. Haden—the burial in porous wicker
baskets, instead of wooden or leaden coffins—has some advan
tages. It is somewhat cheaper, and decay is more rapid; but
the ground is for a long time occupied by what pollutes earth,
air, and water. Mr. Haden’s argument that, as a body, after
coffinless burial, decays away in about six years, we may
‘ bury again in the same ground with no other effect than to
increase its substance and to raise its surface,’ surely strikes
at the root of all sentiment of reverence or affection for the
dead—and, with what hazard to the living, the recent re
searches of Pasteur are amply sufficient to prove. In addition
to the dangers from simple putrefaction polluting earth, air,
and water, we have to consider the dissemination of the germs
of specific contagious diseases. Liquid animal matter oozing
from putrefying corpses in a churchyard may possibly be so
purified by the oxidising power of a few feet of earth as to be
bright, clear, and inoffensive to any of our senses ; but water
which is neither cloudy nor stinking, but rather enticing and
popular, like the water of the Broad Street pump in 1874,
has carried cholera to those who drank it.
How often
typhoid fever has been caused in the same manner, who
can tell ?
But I must not detain you longer. Here is the Address
to the Home Secretary, and I hope it may be signed by many
who are convinced that the present custom of burying the
dead is associated with evils which ought to be remedied.
‘ We, the undersigned members of the British Medical
Association assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present
custom of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some
mode which shall rapidly resolve the body into its component
elements by a process which cannot offend the living, and
may render the remains absolutely innocuous. Until some
better mode is devised, we desire to promote that usually
known as cremation. As this process can now be carried out
without anything approaching to nuisance, and as it is not
illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose the practice
when convinced that proper regulations are observed, and
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
49
that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
In conclusion, let me ask you to think on the following
propositions :—
Decomposing human remains so pollute earth, air, and
water, as to diminish the general health and average duration
of the life of our people.
Existing churchyards and cemeteries are not well fitted as
safe, secure, permanent, innocuous places of repose for the
remains of our dead.
The expense of funerals and interment in graves presses
unduly upon the means of the middle and labouring classes.
The present system of registration of death is so imperfect,
that common causes of preventible disease are not detected ;
and life is also rendered insecure by the omission of efficient
arrangements for the due verification of the fact and causes
of death.
These evils might be mitigated or prevented—(1) if
national cemeteries were provided and maintained, under the
direction of duly qualified officers of public health, and not
left, as now, to be sources of private gain to commercial
companies; (2) if no interment were allowed without a cer
tificate of the fact and the cause of death by an officer of
public health.
All this should be urged by those who are content to im
prove on our present mode of burial. Those who will go
further, who will assist in the attempt to arrest the evils in
separable from even the very best mode of burial, who would
add to our reverence for the remains of the dead, ensure an
impressive religious service, and at a reduced expenditure
provide for permanent monuments in beautiful open public
spaces, may at the same time prove the influence which our
Association can exert, and ought to exert, upon the health
and morals of the Nation.
�50
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CREMATION
SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND HER MAJESTY’S
GOVERNMENT. 1879-80.
A considerable amount of correspondence has taken place
between the Cremation Society of England and the two
Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Sir Richard
A. Cross and Sir William V. Harcourt; and the Council of
the Cremation Society has published the following corre
spondence. The whole will doubtless be read with consider
able interest, seeing that this sanitary reform has been
already practised in Italy and in Germany.
The Cremation Society was founded in January 1874 by
a number of gentlemen eminent in science and art, and has
since been more or less actively occupied in prosecuting the
objects for which it was instituted. These have on one occa
sion only been brought before Parliament—viz. in March,
1879, when the action of the Society was made the subject of
a question in the House of Lords, followed, however, by no
practical result.
The following is a copy of the correspondence referred to,
which began immediately after the reception by Sir R. Cross
of a deputation from Woking and the neighbourhood, protest
ing against the building of a crematorium, which was then
in course of erection near that place.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right Hon. R. A.
Cross, Secretary of State for the Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 3, 1879.
Sir,—Referring to the published report of the proceedings on
the occasion of a deputation which waited upon you relative to the
establishment of a crematory at Woking, I am instructed by the
�51
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
executive body of the council of the Cremation Society, for -which I
act, a list of which council is herewith attached, to lay before you
the following facts :—
The Cremation Society of England was founded in 1874, with
purely public objects, and not for gain, by a number of scientific
and other gentlemen, on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been very numerously signed. Cremation Society.—Crema
tion having now been performed with perfect success, a society has
been constituted on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been influentially signed :—‘ We disapprove the present custom
of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall
rapidly resolve the body into its component elements by a process
which cannot offend the living, and shall render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better method is devised we desire
to adopt that usually known as cremation.’ A great number of
adhesions to this were afterwards sent in, and subscriptions were
received. The earliest duty of the council was to ascertain whether
cremation could be legally performed in this country, and a case
was drawn up and submitted to eminent counsel. A copy of
opinion is enclosed herewith, and being in favour of the proposed
reform the council decided to go on. A still more decidedly favour
able opinion was given in writing, although unofficially, by Lord
Selborne to one of the council. In 1875 it was proposed to erect a
building for the performance of the rite, and a large sum of money
was subscribed for the purpose. A piece of ground was offered to
the society in the Great Northern Cemetery of London, and a
building would have been at once erected had the bishop of the
diocese not objected to its establishment in consecrated ground.
The history of the society at this stage will be seen in the report
sent herewith. Soon after this it appeared that in several parts of
Europe and in America cremation was becoming permissive, and
several cremations took place in Milan, Dresden, and other places.
Still later on, cremation was permitted in Gotha. A paper, de
scriptive of the systems in use in Europe and America, also accom
panies this communication. This paper also furnishes a list of the
modern cremations up to that date. The last cremation at Gotha
was attended by a great many of the clergy. A short translation
from a journal describing this ceremony is enclosed. After much
seeking for a secluded yet accessible spot, a piece of ground not far
from the cemetery at Woking was obtained, and the council of the
society thought this a suitable site for a crematory pyre, as being
near the Necropolis, and having a service of trains suitable for the
conveyance of the dead. It may here be repeated that the society
E 2
�52
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
is not in any way a trading society, but simply a scientific society.
In order that the scope and aim of the society may be fully under
stood, I enclose a copy of No. 1 of the Transactions of the society,,
in which are set forth its rules and regulations. I am further in
structed to say that some of the members of council will be happy towait upon you, if agreeable to your wish, with further information, or
for the purpose of learning your views in the matter of their further
procedure, at any time you may appoint. The society have through
out aimed at carrying on what they believe to be hygienic reform,
with thoughtful consideration of the sentiments and interests of
other persons concerned, and they are anxious at this stage, as at
all others, to proceed in the same spirit.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie, C.E.,
Engineer and Secretary to the Society.
The Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Cremation
Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 7, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State 'to acknowledge1
the receipt of your letter of the 3rd inst., and enclosures explaining
the objects of the society calling itself the Cremation Society, and
giving the names of the principal members constituting the council
of the society; and with reference to the wish conveyed in your
letter of the council of the society to see the Secretary of State on
the subject of the objections in the way of carrying out the design
of the society, I am to inform you that the Secretary of State will
shortly make an appointment for the purpose of receiving such a
deputation.—I am, &c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., C.E., 11 Argyll Street, W.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 21, 1879.
Sir,—With reference to your letter and enclosures of the 3rd
inst., I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to request that you will
bring before the gentlemen, forming the council of the association
calling itself the Cremation Society, the following observations on
the subject of the introduction into this country of the practice of
burning the remains of the dead, now generally known as the prac
tice of cremation, which it appears that the above society has been
organised to promote. Mr. Cross does not propose to enter intothe question whether or not the system of cremation is in accord-
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
53
aneo with the feelings of the public, or with respect due by law to
-dead bodies ; it is sufficient for him to point out that it is a system
which, in this country, is entirely novel, and that, whether or not
the law forbids it altogether, the public interest requires that it
should not be adopted until many matters of great social import
have been duly considered and provided for. Burial can be followed
by exhumation, but the process of cremation is final; the result of
the practice therefore would be, that it would tend, in cases where
death has been occasioned by violence or poison, to defeat the
-ends of justice ; there will no longer be an opportunity for that ex
amination, which, in so many cases, has led to the detection and
punishment of crime. The practice of ordinary burial has become
interwoven with the legislative arrangements of the country, and is
■closely connected with various safeguards respecting death, with
the statistics of death, and with the evidence of death. The
minister buries a corpse on the production of a certificate of death
and its cause ; the burial ensures the certificate, the certificate
ensures the certainty of death, and is a check against foul practices.
Again, the form in which the certificate is produced to the minister
is that given by the Registrar, who issues the certificate in exchange
for that of the medical attendant, and thus the statistical object is
secured. Further, the certificate of burial is, in all legal proceed
ings, the proper and most economical form of the evidence of death.
All these objects would be frustrated by the practice of cremation,
unless that practice were in its turn surrounded by legislative pro
visions analogous to those which surround burial. I am, therefore,
to acquaint you, for the information of the promoters of the Crema
tion Society, that Mr. Cross cannot acquiesce in the continuance of
the undertaking of the society to carry out the practice of cremation,
either at their works now in progress at Woking or elsewhere in
this country, until Parliament has authorised such a practice by
either a special or general Act, and that if the undertaking is
persisted in it will be his duty either to test its legality in a court
of law or to apply to Parliament for an Act to prohibit it until
Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the whole subject.
-—I am, &c.,
Godfrey Lushington.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society,
11 Argyll Street, London, W.
�54
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right ITon. R. A.
Cross, Her Majesty1 s Secretary of State, Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 28, 1879.
Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter referring to the practice of cremation, and beg to state that I
will, as soon as possible, call a meeting of the council of the
Cremation Society, and lay it before them, after which I will take
the first opportunity of communicating to you the results of that
meeting.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society. •
March 18, 1879.
Sir,—I am desired by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., and to acquaint you, in
reply, that he will be glad to receive a deputation from the pro
moters of inquiry into the value of cremation at 12.30 o’clock on
Tuesday, the 20th inst.
I am to add that the Secretary of State particularly requests
that the deputation may be as few in number as possible.—I am,
&c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A deputation, consisting of the President, Sir Henry
Thompson, T. Spencer Wells, Esq., Ernest Hart, Esq.,
W. Robinson, Esq., and other members of Council, with the
Hon. Sec., Mr. W. Eassie, C.E., waited upon the Secretary
of State, and explained to him their views upon the subject
of cremation, and several members of the deputation briefly
addressed him.
Some portions of the bones of a horse
burned in the society’s crematory near Woking, on March 17$
a few days previously, were also exhibited to Mr. Secretary
Cross, in order to show the perfection of the process.
Mr. Cross, in reply, suggested that a bill might be brought
into the House of Lords so as to determine the matter upon
a legal basis, and remove any doubt as to the wisdom of
permitting cremation, as well as with a view of establishing
a proper system of registration.
On the receipt of a note from the President of the Cre
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
55
mation Society, stating that the society wished to act in
conformity with the Government, in their procedure in the
matter, the next following letter was addressed to the Presi
dent of the society :—-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to Sir Henry
Thompson.
Whitehall: March 24, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 20th inst., stating that it is the
intention of yourself and friends to act in strict conformity with the
wishes and directions of the Government in regard to the practice
of cremation.—I am, Sir,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A change of Government having taken place, and the
council wishing to ascertain the views of the present Govern
ment, the Secretary wrote as follows :—
The Right Hon. Sir W. Harcourt, Secretary of State to the Home
Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 11,1880.
Sir,—I am instructed by the council of the Cremation Society
of England to write and ask you when it will be convenient for you
to receive a small deputation from the council, who desire to hand
you a memorial in favour of cremation, signed by members of the
British Association and others.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your
most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 16,1880.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 11th inst., requesting him to receive
a deputation from the council of the Cremation Society who desire
to present a memorial on the subject of cremation, and I am to
acquaint you that the Secretary of State is unable to receive the
proposed deputation, and to suggest that the council will submit
their views in writing.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
�56
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Hight Hon. Sir
William Harcourt, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the
Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 24, 1880.
Sir,—In a letter of the 16th inst. you desire that, instead of
receiving a deputation from the Cremation Society, the council
should submit to you their views in writing. I am desired by the
council of the society to forward for your consideration an address
which was agreed to at a meeting, held last August in Cambridge,
of the Public Health section of the British Medical Association, and
which has been signed by one hundred and forty-three gentlemen,
whose names are appended to the address.
I also forward copies of a paper which was read at Cambridge
by Mr. T. Spencer Wells, one of the council of the Cremation
Society, and also a copy of the first part of the Transactions of the
society. Passages are marked both in the paper and in the Trans
actions, which set forth the result of a correspondence and of an
nterview with the late Secretary for the Home Department.
The present object of the council is to support the concluding
request of the Cambridge address, and to express the hope that we
may receive from you an assurance that the Government will not
oppose the practice of cremation in their crematorium, on the widertaking by the council that nothing like a nuisance can be caused
there, and that more ample guarantees of death having occurred
from natural causes will be insisted upon than are now required for
burial in churchyards or cemeteries.
The council desire at the same time to inform you that they
have found so much difficulty in acting upon the suggestion of Sir
Bichard Cross, as to obtaining a discussion in either House of Par
liament, that they do not consider the promise made to him as any
longer binding upon them, and they express the confident hope that
you will not consider Sir Richard Cross’s alternative of introducing
a prohibitory Act into Parliament as binding upon you.—I have the
honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The address agreed to at Cambridge, mentioned above,
was as follows :—
4 We, the undersigned members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present custom of burying
the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall rapidly
resolve the body into its component elements by a process which
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
57
cannot offend the living, and may render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better mode is devised, we desire to
promote that usually known as cremation. As this process can
now be carried out without anything approaching to nuisance,
and as it is not illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose
the practice when convinced that proper regulations are observed,
and that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
The Secretary of State for the Some Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 31, 1880.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Harcourt to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., forwarding
a memorial signed by members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge (and other papers), praying that Her
Majesty’s Government may think fit not to interfere in the event
of the practice of cremation of bodies of the dead being adopted in
this country.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., 11 Argyll Street, London, W.
To the Hon. A. F. 0. Liddell, Home Office, Whitehall.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Jan. 28, 1882.
Sir,—Referring to my letter of December 24, 1880, as Secre
tary of the Cremation Society, and your letter of December 81
acknowledging its receipt, the council not having received any
further reply to the questions submitted to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, Sir William Harcourt, begs leave now
to.submit the following question addressed to them by one of the
trustees of the society, Mr. Higford Burr :—‘ Supposing I were to
die now, directing my executors to have my body burnt in our
crematory at Woking, would my executors be liable to prosecution ? ’
They have also been asked to cremate the bodies of the mother
and wife of Captain Hanham, R.N., who have been buried under the
usual certificates, but who had expressed an earnest desire that
their bodies should be cremated. As the council are extremely
unwilling to proceed with any cremation without the knowledge
of the Home Secretary, and under conditions which shall ensure
the legality of the proceedings, I am desired to ask you to favour
the council with his decision as to the legality of cremation as
proposed by them. I am also instructed to ask if you will allow
�58
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT,
the council to submit to you for approval regulations in the practice
of cremation intended to prevent the destruction of evidence of
poisoning.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie,- Hon. Sec.
Whitehall: Feb. 14, 1882.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Vernon Harcourt
to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, in
quiring in behalf of the Cremation Society as to the legality of
their proposed method of disposing of the remains of the dead by
process of burning. And I am to acquaint you, for the information
of the gentlemen forming the above society, that Sir William Har
court can give no opinion in matters which belong to the jurisdiction
and decisions of courts of law. He can only refer the society to
the letters addressed to you from this department on February 21,
1879.
In Sir William Harcourt’s opinion the practice of cremation
ought not to be sanctioned except under the authority and regula
tion of an Act of Parliament.
It is the duty of those who desire to pursue such a practice to
obtain such an authority, and, until it is granted, Sir William Har
court must adhere to the view expressed by his predecessor in
office, as stated hi the letter above referred to.—I am, Sir, your
obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
The correspondence up to the present time here closes.
�MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN
ON
THE LAW OF CREMATION.
Charge
to the
Grand Jury, at
in
the
Crown Court, Cardiff,
February 1884.
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—There are a considerable
number of cases on the calendar, but, with one exception, they
are of the most ordinary kind, and the circumstances attending
them are of such a usual character that I shall not weary you
with dwelling upon them at all. One of the cases to be brought
before you is so singular in its character, and involves a legal
question of so much novelty and of such general interest, that
I propose to state at some length what I believe to be the law
upon the matter. I have given this subject all the considera
tion I could, and I am permitted to say that, although I alone
am responsible for what I am about to read to you, Lord
Justice Fry takes the same view of the subject as I do, and
for the same reasons. William Price is charged with a mis
demeanour under the following circumstances. He had in his
house a child five months old, of which he is said to be the
father. The child died. Mr. Price did not register its death.
The coroner accordingly gave him notice on a Saturday that
unless he sent a medical certificate of the cause of death, he
(the coroner) would hold an inquest on the body on the
following Monday. Mr. Price on the Sunday afternoon took
the body of the child to an open space, put it into a ten gallon
cask of petroleum, and set the petroleum on fire. A crowd
collected; the body of the child, which was burning, was
covered with earth and the flames extinguished, and Mr. Price
�60
MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
was brought before the magistrates and committed for trial.
He will be indicted before you on a charge which in different
forms imputes to him as criminal two parts of what he is said
to have done—first, in having prevented the holding of an
inquest on the body; and secondly, in his having attempted to
burn the child’s body. With respect to the prevention of the
inquest, the law is that it is a misdemeanour to prevent the
holding of an inquest, which ought to be held, by disposing of
the body. It is essential to this offence that the inquest which
it is proposed to hold is one which ought to be held. The
coroner has not an absolute right to hold inquests in every
case in which he chooses to do so. It would be intolerable
if he had power to intrude without adequate cause upon
the privacy of a family in distress, and to interfere in their
arrangements for a funeral. Nothing can justify such an
interference, except a reasonable suspicion that there may
have been something peculiar in the death, and that it may
have been due to other causes than common illness. In such
cases the coroner not only may, but ought, to hold an inquest,
and to prevent him from doing so by disposing of the body in
any way—for an inquest must be held on the view of the
body—is a misdemeanour.
The depositions in the present
case do not very clearly show why the coroner considered an
inquest necessary. If you think that the conduct of Dr. Price
was such as to give him fair grounds for holding one, you
ought to find a true bill, for beyond all question he did as
much as in him lay to dispose of the body in such a manner
as to make an inquest impossible. The other part charged as
criminal is the attempt made by Dr. Price to burn his child’s
body, and this raises, in a form which makes it my duty to
direct you upon it, a question which has been several times
discussed, and which has attracted some public attention,
though, so far as I know, no legal decision upon it has
ever been given—the question, namely, whether it is a
misdemeanour at common law to burn a dead body
instead of burying it.
As there is no direct authority
upon the question, I have found it necessary in order to
form an opinion to examine several branches of the law
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
61
which bear upon it more or less remotely, in order to
ascertain the principles on which it depends. The practice of
burning dead bodies prevailed to a considerable extent under
the Romans, as it does to this day among the Hindoos, though
it is said that the practice of burial is both older and more
general. It appears to have been discontinued in this country
and in other parts of Europe when Christianity was fully
established, as the destruction of the body by fire was con
sidered, for reasons to which I need not refer here, to be
opposed to Christian sentiment; but this change took place
so long ago, and the substitution of burial for burning was so
complete, that the burning of the dead has never been for
mally forbidden, or even mentioned or referred to, so far as I
know, in any part of our law. The subject of burial was
formerly and for many centuries a branch of the ecclesiastical
or canon law. Among the English writers on this subject little
is to be found relating to burial. The subject was much more
elaborately and systematically studied in Roman Catholic
countries than in England, because the law itself prevailed
much more extensively in those countries. In the ‘ Jus Ecclesiasticum’ of Van Espen, a great authority on the subject,
there is an elaborate discourse, filling twenty-two folio pages
in double column, on the subject of burial, in which every
branch of the subject is systematically arranged and discussed,
with references to numerous authorities. The only import
ance of it is that it shares the view of the Canonists on thesubject, which view had great influence on our own eccle
siastical lawyers, though only a small part of the canon law
itself was ever introduced into this country. Without giving
specific reference, I may say that the whole of the title in Van
Espen regards the participation in funeral rites as a privilege
to which, subject to certain conditions, all the members of the
Church were entitled, and the deprivation of which was a kind
of posthumous punishment analogous to the excommunication
of the living. The great question with which the writer
occupies himself is—In what cases ought burial to-be denied?
The general principle is that those who are not worthy of
Church privileges in life are also to be excluded from them in
�62
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
death. As to the manner in which the dead bodies of persons
deprived of burial were to be disposed of, Van Espen says only
that although in some instances the civil power may have
entirely forbidden burial, whereby bodies may remain un
buried or exposed to the sight of all, to be devoured by beasts
or destroyed by the weather (he considers the dissection of
criminals as a case of this kind), the Church has never made
such a provision, and has never prohibited the covering of
dead corpses with the earth. This way of looking at the sub
ject seems to explain how the law came to be silent on ex
ceptional ways of disposing of dead bodies. The question was
in what cases burial must be refused. As for the way of dis
posing of bodies to which it was refused, the matter escaped
attention, being probably regarded as a matter which affected
those only who were so unfortunate as to have charge
of such corpses.
The famous judgment of Lord Stowell
in the case of iron coffins (Gilbert v. Buzzard, 2 Haggard,
Consistory Reports 333) which constitutes an elaborate trea
tise on burial, proceeds upon the same principles.
The
law presumes that every one will wish that the bodies
of those in whom he was interested in their lifetime should
have Christian burial. The probability of a man enter
taining and acting upon a different view is not considered.
These considerations explain the reason why the law is silent
as to the practice of burning the dead. Before I come to con-,
sider its legality directly, it will be well to examine some analo
gous topics which throw light upon it. There is one practice
which has an analogy to funereal burning, inasmuch as it
constitutes an exceptional method of dealing with dead bodies.
I refer to anatomy. Anatomy was practised in England as
far back as the very beginning of the seventeenth century. It
continued to be practised, so far as I know, without any inter
ference on the part of the legislature, down to the year 1832,
in which year was passed the Act for regulating the Schools of
Anatomy. This Act recites * the importance of anatomy, and
that the legal supply of human bodies for such anatomical
study is insufficient fully to provide the means of such know
ledge.’ It then makes provision for the supply of such bodies
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
63
by enabling any executor or other party having lawful posses
sion of the body of any deceased person to permit the body to
be dissected except in certain cases. The effect of this has
been that the bodies of persons dying in various public in
stitutions, whose relatives were unknown, were so dissected.
The Act establishes other requisitions not material to the
present question, and enacts that after examination the bodies
shall be decently interred. This Act appears to me to prove
clearly that Parliament regarded anatomy as a legal practice;
and, further, that it considered that there was such a thing
as a ‘ legal supply of human bodies,’ though that supply was
insufficient for the purpose. This is inconsistent with the
opinion that it is an absolute duty on the part of persons in
charge of dead bodies to bury them, and this conclusion is
rather strengthened than otherwise by the provision in Sec. 13
of the Act, ‘ the party removing the body shall provide for its
decent burial after examination.’ This seems to imply that
apart from the Act the obligation to bury would not exist,
and it is remarkable that the words are not as in the earlier
section, ‘ executor or other party,’ which seems to point to the
inference that the executor stood in a different position as to
burial from the party having ‘ lawful possession,’ and has a
wider discretion on the matter. I come now to a series of
cases more clearly connected with the present case. As is
well known, the great demand for bodies for anatomical
purposes not only led in some cases to murders the object
of which was to sell the bodies of the murdered persons, but
also to robberies of churchyards by what were commonly
called ‘resurrection men.’ This practice prevailed for a con
siderable length of time, as appears from the case of E. v.
Lynn (2 T. E. 738) decided in 1788, forty-four years before
the Anatomy Act. In that case it was held to be a misde
meanour to disinter a body for the purpose of dissection,
the court saying that common decency required that the
practice should be put a stop" to, that the offence was cog
nizable in a criminal court as being highly indecent and contra
bonos mores, at the bare idea alone of which nature revolted.
Many also said that ‘ it had been the regular practice of the
�64
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
Old Bailey in modern times to try charges of this nature.’
It is to be observed in reference to this case that the act
done would have been a peculiarly indecent theft if it had not
been for the technical reason that a dead body is not the
subject of property. A case, however, has been carried a step
further in modern times. It was held in Reg. v. Sharp (1 Dew
and Bell, 160) to be a misdemeanour to disinter a body at
all without lawful authority, even when the motive of the
offender was pious and laudable, the case being one in
which the son disinterred his mother in order to bury her
in his father’s grave, but he got access to her grave and
opened it by false pretence. The law to be extracted from
these authorities seems to me to be this : the practice of ana
tomy is lawful and useful, though it may involve an un
usual means of disposing of dead bodies; but to open a
grave and disinter a dead body without authority is a mis
demeanour even if it is done for a laudable purpose. These
cases, for the reasons I have given, have some analogy to the
case of burning a dead body, but they are remote from it.
They certainly do not in themselves warrant the proposition
that to burn a dead body is in itself a misdemeanour. There
are two other cases which come rather nearer to the point.
They are R. v. Van, 2 Den. 325, and R. v. Stewart, 12 A. and
E. 773-779. Each of these cases lays down in unqualified
terms that it is the duty of certain specified persons to bury
in particular cases. The case of R. v. Stewart lays down the
following principles:—‘ Every person dying in this country,
and not within certain exclusions laid down by the ecclesiastical
law, has a right to Christian burial, and that implies the right
to be carried from the place where his body lies to the parish
cemetery.’ It adds, ‘ the individual under whose roof a poor
person dies, is bound (i.e. if no one else is so bound, as appears
from the rest of the case) to carry the body, decently covered,
to the place of burial. He cannot keep him unburied, nor do
anything which prevents Christian burial. He cannot, there
fore, cast him out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to
offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; for
those reasons he cannot carry him uncovered to the grave?
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
65
In the case of R. v. Van, the court held 1 that a man is bound
to give Christian burial to his deceased child if he has the
means of doing so; but he is not liable to be indicted for a
nuisance if he has not the means of providing burial for it.’
These cases are the nearest approach which I have been able
to find to an authority directly upon the present point; for if
there is an absolute duty upon a man having the means to
bury his child, and if it is a duty to give every corpse Christian
burial, the duty must be violated by burning it. I do not
think, however, that the cases really mean to lay down any
such rule. The question of burning was not before the court
in either case. In R. v. Stewart the question was whether
the duty of burial lay upon the parish officers or on some
other person. In R. v. Van the question was whether a man
who has not the means to bury his child was bound to incur
a debt in order to do so. In neither case can the court have
intended to express themselves with complete verbal accuracy,
for in the case of R. v. Stewart the court speaks of the ‘ right ’
of a dead body, which is obviously a popular form of expression,
a corpse not being capable of rights, and in both cases the
expression Christian burial is used, which is obviously inapplic
able to persons who are not Christians—Jews, for instance, Mahommedans, or Hindoos. To this I may add that the attention
of neither court was called to the subject of anatomy already
referred to. Skeletons and anatomical preparations could not
be innocently obtained if the language of the cases referred to
was construed, as it was intended to be, severely, and literally
accurate. There is only one other case to be mentioned.
This is the case of Williams v. Williams, which was decided
two years ago by Mr. Justice Kay in the Chancery Division of
the High Court, and is reported in the L.R. 20 Ch. Div. 659.
In this case one H. Crockenden directed his friend, Eliza
Williams, to burn his body, and directed his executors to pay
her expenses. The executors buried the body. Miss Williams
got leave from the Secretary of State to disinter it, in order,
as she said, to be buried elsewhere. Having obtained posses
sion of it by misrepresentation, she burnt it, and sued the
executors for her expenses. I need not trace out all the
�66
mb;’ justice stephen on
points in the case, as it avowedly leaves the question now
before us undecided. The purpose was, says Mr. Justice
Kay, ‘ confessedly to have the body buried, and thereupon
arises a very considerable question whether that is or is not a
lawful purpose according to the law of this country. That is
a question which I am not going to decide.’ He held that in
the particular case the removal of the body and its burning
were both illegal, according to the decision of R. v. Sharp,
already referred to. ‘ Giving the lady credit,’ he said, 1 for
the best of motives, there can be no kind of doubt that the
act of removing the body by that licence and then burning it
was as distinct a fraud on that licence as anything could
possibly be.’ This was enough for the particular case, and
the learned judge accordingly expressed no opinion- on- the
question on' which it now becomes my duty to direct you.
It arises in the present case' in a perfectly clear and simple
form, unembarrassed by any consideration as applied to the
other cases to which I have referred. There is no question
here of the gross illegality which marked the conduct of those
described as resurrection men, of the artifices, not indeed
criminal, but certainly disingenuous, by which the possession
of the body was obtained in the cases of R. v. Sharpe, and
Williams v. Williams. Dr. Price had lawful possession of the
child’s body, and it was certainly not only his right but his
duty to dispose of it by burying, or in any other manner not
in itself illegal. Here I must consider the question whether
to burn a dead body instead of burying it is in itself an illegal
act. After full consideration, I am of opinion that a person
who burns instead of burying a dead body does mot commit a
criminal act unless he does it in such a manner as to amount
to a public nuisance at common law. The reason for this
opinion is, that upon the fullest examination of the authorities,
I have, as the present review of them shows, been unable
to discover any authority for the proposition that it is a
misdemeanour to burn a dead body, and in the absence of
such authority I feel that I have no right to declare it to
be one.
There are some instances, no doubt, in which
courts of justice have declared acts to be misdemeanours
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
67
which had never previously been decided to be so ; but
I think it would be found that in every such case the act
involved great public mischief or moral scandal. It is not
my place to offer any opinion of the comparative methods
of burning and burying corpses, but before I could hold that
it must be a misdemeanour to burn a dead body I must be
satisfied not only that some people, or even many people,
object to the practice, but that it is on plain, undeniable
grounds highly mischievous, or grossly scandalous ; even then
I should pause long before I held it to be a misdemeanour,
but I cannot even take the first step. Sir Thomas Browne
finishes his famous essay on Urn Burial with a quotation from
Lucan, which in eight Latin words translated by eight English
words seems to sum up the matter, ‘ Tabesne cadavera solvat
an rogus haud refert.’ ‘ Whether decay or fire destroys
corpses matters not.’ The difference between the two pro
cesses is, the one is quick, the other slow. Each is so horrible
that every earthly imagination would turn away from its
details, but one or the other is inevitable, and each may be
concealed from observation by proper precautions. There
are, no doubt, religious considerations and feelings connected
with the subject which every one would wish to treat with
respect and tenderness, and I suppose there is no doubt that
as a matter of historical fact the disuse of burning bodies was
due to the force of religious sentiments. I do not think, how
ever, that it can be said that every practice which startles and
jars upon the religious sentiments of the majority of the
population is for that reason a misdemeanour at common law.
The statement of such a proposition is a sufficient refutation
of it, but nothing short of this will support the conclusion
that to burn a dead body must be a misdemeanour. As for
the public interest in the matter, burning, on the one hand,
effectively prevents the bodies of the dead from poisoning the
living; on the other hand, it might, no doubt, destroy the
evidences of crime. These, however, are matters for the legis
lature and not for me. The great leading rule of criminal
law is that nothing is a crime unless it is plainly forbidden by
law. This rule is, no doubt, subject to exceptions, but they
�68
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION.
are rare, narrow, and to be administered with the greatest
reluctance, and only upon the strongest reasons. This brings
me to the last observation I have to make. Though I think
that to burn a body decently and inoffensively is lawful, or at
the very least not criminal, it is obvious that if it is done in
such a manner as to be offensive to others, it is a nuisance,
and one of an aggravated kind. A common nuisance is an
act which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the
public in the exercise of right common to all her Majesty’s
subjects. To burn a dead body in such a place, or in such a
manner, as to annoy persons passing along public roads, or
other places where they have a right to go, is beyond all doubt
a nuisance, as nothing more offensive, both to sight and
smell, can be imagined. The depositions in this case do not
state very distinctly the nature of the place where the act was
done; but if you think, upon inquiry, that there is evidence of
its having been done in such a situation and manner as to be
offensive to any considerable number of persons, you should
find a true bill. This must depend upon details on which it
would be improper, and, indeed, impossible to address you.
I must conclude with a few words explanatory of the reasons
which have led me to address you at so much length. The
novelty of the matter, and the interest which many persons
take in it, are a reason for going into it fully. The difficulty
which a petty jury would find is avoided by my addressing
myself to you rather than to them. The fact also that if I
am wrong my error is in favour of the defendant, is another
reason for staring my views fully to you, for if he should be
acquitted upon my direction there would be no means of car
rying the case to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
�CREMATION.
69
The Cremation Society, in consequence of the foregoing
decision, issued at once the following paper, embodying their
views and intentions :—
‘ The Cremation Society of England.
‘ The Council of the Cremation Society of England purchased,
in the year 1878, a freehold site at St. John’s, Woking, in
Surrey, especially adapted by position for the purpose, and
erected thereon a building, with an apparatus of the most
approved kind for effecting cremation of the dead.
‘ They next tested it by experiment, and found that
it accomplished the purpose required without occasioning
nuisance of any kind.
‘ Since that time the place has been maintained in perfect
order, but has not been used, owing to a doubt raised, soon
after the date referred to, as to the legality of adopting the
process at present in this country.
‘ A recent decision, however, of Mr. Justice Stephen declares
that the cremation of a dead body, if effected without nuisance
to others, is a legal proceeding.
‘ Under these circumstances the Cremation Society feel it
a duty to indicate, without delay, those safeguards which they
deem it essential to associate with the proceeding in order to
prevent the destruction of a body which may have met death,
by unfair means. They are aware that the chief practical
objection which can be urged against the employment of cre
mation consists in the opportunity which it offers, apart from
such precautions, for removing the traces of poison or other
injury which are retained by an undestroyed body.
‘ The following, therefore, are the conditions on which the
employment of the Crematorium will alone be permitted by
the Council:—
‘ I. An application in writing must be made by the friends
or executors of the deceased—unless it has been made by the
�70
CREMATION.
deceased person himself. during life—stating that it was the
wish of the deceased to be cremated after death.
‘ II. A certificate must be sent in by one qualified medical
man at least, who attended the deceased until the time of death,
unhesitatingly stating that the cause of death was natural, and
what that cause was.
‘ III. If no medical man attended during the illness, an
autopsy must be made by a medical officer appointed by the
Society, or no cremation can take place.
‘ These conditions being complied with, the Council of the
Society reserve the right in all cases of refusing permission
for the performance of the cremation, and, in the event of
permitting it, will offer every facility for its accomplishment
in the best manner.
‘ Signed on behalf of the Executive Council,
‘Wm. Eassie, C.E.,
‘ Hon. Secretary.
‘ To whom communications may be addressed, as well as sub
scriptions and donations to the funds of the Society; which, in
present circumstances, are much icanted.
111 Argyll Street, Regent Street, W.:
March, 1884.’
LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODB AND CO., NEW-STREET 6QUARB
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
�SMITH, ELDER, & CO.’S PUBLICATIONS.
Crown 8vo. With Illustrations.
CREMATION
OF
85. 6d.
THE DEAD.
By WILLIAM EASSIE, C.E.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. Is.
TRANSACTIONS of the CREMATION SOCIETY of ENGLAND.
Containing a Short History of the Subject of Cremation at Home and Abroad
up to the date of the Eighth Anniversary of the Society, January 13, 1880.
Edited by W. EASSIE, C.E.,
Engineer and Eon. Secretary of the Society,
AND PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
HANDBOOK of RURAL SANITARY SCIENCE. Illustrating the
best means of securing Health and preventing Disease. Edited by Lory
Marsh, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians, London; Member
of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.
‘ The essays- are all of a high order of merit,
and are full of suggestions and hints invaluable
alike to landlords, tenants, and sanitary boards.’
'' Standard.
‘ Such facts should quicken the general desire
for the inauguration of a policy of drainage.
The essays are of a practical kind, and are full
of suggestive hints, not only to the medical pro
fession, but to all who study the law of health
and the prevention of illness.’—Globe.
Demy 8vo. 6s.
PURIFICATION of WATER-CARRIED SEWAGE. Data for the
Guidance of Corporations, Local Boards of Health, and Sanitary Authorities.
By Henry Robinson, M.Inst. C.E., and John Charles Melliss, A.Inst. C.E.
8vo. 10s. 6<Z.
LECTURES on STATE MEDICINE. Delivered before the Society
of Apothecaries, at their Hall in Blackfriars, in May and June 1875. By
F. S. B. Francois de Chaumont, M.D., F.R.C.S., &c. &c.
8 vo. 12s.
ESSAYS and PAPERS on SOME FALLACIES of STATISTICS
CONCERNING LIFE and DEATH, HEALTH and DISEASE, with Sug
gestions towards an Improved System of Registration. By Henry W. Rumsey,
M.D., F.R.S., Author of ‘ Essays on State Medicine,’ ‘ Sanitary Legislation,’ &c.
Eleventh Edition, with numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.
HOUSEHOLD MEDICINE : containing a Familiar Description of
Diseases, their Nature, Causes, and Symptoms, the most approved Methods
of Treatment-, the Properties and Uses of Remedies, &c., and Rules for the
Management of the Sick Room. Expressly adapted for Family Use. By
John Gardner, M.D.
Second Edition.. Crown 8vo. 10s. Qd.
A MANUAL of DIET in HEALTH and DISEASE. By Thomas King
Chamrkrs, M.D. Oxon., F.R.C.P. Lond.; Honorary Physician to H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales: Consulting Physician to St. Mary’s and the Lock Hospitals;
Lecturer on Medicine at St. Mary’s School; Corresponding Fellow of the
Academy of Medicine, New York, &c.
London : SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�THE
SANITARY
RECORD:
A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
EDITED BY ERNEST HART.
The SANITARY RECORD is a Monthly Journal of the progress of the Hygiene of
Cities, Towns, Rural Districts, Mines, Factories, and Habitations; the Food, Water,
Gas Supply, and Drainage of Towns, and Rural Districts; the Vital Statistics of
Population ; the Influence on Health of Trades and Occupations and the Operation of
Acts bearing upon Public Health.
Annual Subscription, 10s. per annum, paid in advance.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
nitrnatianHl
SOUTII
KEJSTSIISTGrTOISr,
1884.
The Proprietors of the Sanitary Record have much pleasure in intimating
that they have decided to publish a Weekly Supplement, to be termed the
‘SANITARY RECORD EXHIBITION SUPPLEMENT,’
commencing simultaneously with the opening of the Exhibition. The Supplement
will be devoted exclusively to a description of the various Exhibits, Illustrations will
be used where practicable, and the publication will be continued until a full report
of the Exhibition has been given, when it will be withdrawn.
This Supplement will not in any way interfere with the Sanitary Record proper,
which will be published as usual on the 15th of each month; but the contents of
the Supplement will afterwards appear in the Sanitary Record and London
Medical Record, so that a full report of the Exhibition, as it will affect the readers
of both of these Journals, will be provided to the Subscribers.
The Supplement will be sold in the Building at 2<Z. per copy.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
WHERE TO TAKE A HOLIDAY.
Under this Title will be published, on June lsif next, Price One Shilling, the Second
Annual Issue
OF THE
HOLIDAY
NUMBER
OF the
LONDON MEDICAL RECORD.
The leading features of this issue will he an account of the principal Watering-Places and Health
Resorts of the United Kingdom and the Continent, as regards their salubrity, sanitary condition,
climatic and meteorological influences, Hotel and Lodging-House accommodation, &c.
There will be a large circulation of the Number, which will be distributed in every wateringplace mentioned in it, as well as amongst the profession and a selected portion of the public.
London: SMITH, ELDER," & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Modern cremation: the treatment of the body after death
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 3rd
Place of publication: London
Collation: vi, 70, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Together with a paper entitled 'Cremation or Burial' by Sir. T. Spencer Wells and the Charge of Sir James Stephen recently delivered at Cardiff. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher's selection of titles of related interest on unnumbered pages at the end. Contains 'Mr Justice Stephen on the Law of Cremation' given to the Grand Jury, at the Crown Court, Cardiff in February 1884.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thompson, Henry [1820-1904]
Wells, T. Spencer Wells [Sir]
Stephen, James Fitzjames
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Smith, Elder & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5216
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Cremation: the treatment of the body after death), 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
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/42facb6730faa37f0344e1f1045a7189.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aDvWgRedNaQG7RpGB0z0NU0CJc9qSXXq7s-zehiAVVyIg2N-IUDTgNgs0O5WQfiN3td%7ES8Fgjo3%7EdpaaA-R8i7RVrdGOK5lFlMcmQnQBiemCm0tTWECEfzgAxxeO-J5zW3xFXIzCgICKRNhE1n5P%7Eu7r6KNq6sy-ttjRsSVO1YabnBrJt4Lmk68nxWHfbDCrwR9kR8eDurtFbpx4x2rd53gBk0OcNC31ZbBv4NK8XDuW2UEbz9aAB67nGIVHjxKWmfU95r3KRxGGy1MPyoYJ1aHS0z5DiHNW83jZxIPd4yaAr7Q0BESrff-Ouak34WPuwq9noMz9vwaNfQTl7zF0qQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
731b2d345e3f5fda1434de66473e2a9d
PDF Text
Text
83^3
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
'7 3/0$
LIFE, DEATH,
AND
IMMORTALITY
f
i
TWO ESSAYS
AN
EXTRACT
AND
A SONNET.
BY
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY,
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
B. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1892.
�( 4 )
What is life ? Thoughts and feelings arise, with or with
out our will, and we employ words to express them. We are
born, and our birth is unremembered, and our infancy
remembered but in fragments : we live on, and in living we
lose the apprehension of life. How vain is it to think that
words can penetrate the mystery of our being 1 Rightly used
they may make evident our ignorance to ourselves, and this
is much. For what are we ? Whence do we come ? and
whither do we go ? Is birth the commencement, is death
the conclusion of our being P What is birth and death?
The most refined abstractions of logic conduct to a view of
life, which, though startling to the apprehension, is, in fact,
that which the habitual sense of its repeated combinations
has extinguished in us. It strips, as it were, the painted
curtain from this scene of things. I confess that I am one of
those who am unable to refuse my assent to the conclusions
of those philosophers who assert that nothing exists but as
it is perceived.
It is a decision against which all our persuasions struggle,
and we must be long convicted before we can be convinced
that the solid universe of external things is “ such stuff as
dreams are made of.” The shocking absurdities of the
popular philosophy of mind and matter, its fatal conse
quences in morals, and their violent dogmatism concerning
the source of all things, had early conducted me to materi
alism. This materialism is a seducing system to young
and superficial minds. It allows its disciples to talk, and
dispenses them from thinking. But I was discontented with
such a view of things as it afforded; man is a being of
high aspirations, “looking both before and after,” whose
“ thoughts wander through eternity,” disclaiming alliance
with transience and decay; incapable of imagining to him
self annihilation; existing but in the future and the past;
being, not what he is, but what he has been' and shall be.
Whatever may be his true and final destination, there is a
spirit within him at enmity with nothingness and dissolution.
This is the character of all life and being. Each is at once
the centre and the circumference; the point to which all
things are referred, and the line in which all things are con
tained. Such contemplations as these, materialism and the
�( 5 )
popular philosophy of mind and matter alike forbid; they
are only consistent with the intellectual system.
It is absurd to enter into a long recapitulation of argu
ments sufficiently familiar to those inquiring minds, whom
alone a writer on abstruse subjects can be conceived to
address. Perhaps the most clear and vigorous statement of
the intellectual system is to be found in Sir William Drum
mond’s Academical Questions. After such an exposition, it
would be idle to translate into other words what could only
lose its energy and fitness by the change. Examined point
by point, and word by word, the most discriminating intel
lects have been able to discern no train of thoughts in the
process of reasoning, which does not conduct inevitably to
the conclusion which has been stated.
What follows from the admission p It establishes no new
truth, it gives us no additional insight into our hidden nature,
neither its action nor itself. Philosophy, impatient as it may
be to build, has much work yet remaining, as pioneer for the
overgrowth of ages. It makes one step towards this object;
it destroys error, and the roots of error. It leaves, what it
is too often the duty of the reformer in political iand ethical
questions to leave, a vacancy. It reduces the mind to that
freedom in which it would have acted, but for the misuse of
words and signs, the instruments of its own creation. By
signs, I would be understood in a wide sense, including what
is properly meant by that term, and what I peculiarly mean.
In this latter sense, almost all familiar objects are signs,
standing, not for themselves, but for others in their capacity
of suggesting one thought which shall lead to a train of
thoughts. Our whole life is thus an education of error.
Let us recollect our sensations as children. What a distinct
and intense apprehension had we of the world and of our
selves 1 Many of the circumstances of social life were then
important to us which are now no longer so. But that is not
the point of comparison on which I mean to insist. We less
habitually distinguished all that we saw and felt, from our
selves. They seemed as it were to constitute one mass.
There are some persons who, in this respect, are always chil
dren. Those who are subject to the state called reverie, feel
as if their nature were dissolved into the surrounding
�( 6 )
universe, or as if the surrounding universe were absorbed
into their being. They are conscious of no distinction. And
these are states which precede, or accompany, or follow an
unusually intense and vivid apprehension of life. As men
grow up this power commonly decays, and they become
mechanical and habitual agents. Thus feelings and then
reasonings are the combined result of a multitude of entangled
thoughts, and of a series of what are called impressions,
planted by reiteration.
The view of life presented by the most refined deductions
of the intellectual philosophy, is that of unity. Nothing
exists but as it is perceived. The difference is merely nominal
between those two classes of thought, which are vulgarly
distinguished by the names of ideas and of external objects.
Pursuing the same thread of reasoning, the existence of
distinct individual minds, similar to that which is employed
in now questioning its own nature, is likewise found to be a
delusion. The words I, you, they, are not signs of any actual
difference subsisting between the assemblage of thoughts
thus indicated, but are merely marks employed to denote the
different modifications of the one mind.
Let it not be supposed that this doctrine conducts to the
monstrous presumption that I, the person who now write and
think, am that one mind. I am but a portion of it. The
words I, and you, and they are grammatical devices invented
simply for arrangement, and totally devoid of the intense and
exclusive sense usually attached to them. It is difficult to
find terms adequate to express so subtle a conception as that
to which the Intellectual Philosophy has conducted us. We
are on that verge where words abandon us, and what wonder
if we grow dizzy to look down the dark abyss of how little
we know.
The relations of things remain unchanged, by whatever
system. By the word things is to be understood any object
of thought, that is any thought upon which any other thought
is employed, with an apprehension of distinction. The rela
tions of these remain unchanged; and such is the material
of our knowledge.
What is the cause of life ? that is, how was it produced, or
what agencies distinct from life have acted or act upon life P
�( 7 )
All recorded generations of mankind have wearily busied
themselves in inventing answers to this question ; and the
result has been—Religion. Yet, that the basis of all things
cannot be, as the popular philosophy alleges, mind, is suffi
ciently evident. Mind, as far as we have any experience of
its properties, and beyond that experience how vain is
argument! cannot create, it can only perceive. It is said
also to be the cause. But cause is only a word expressing a
certain state of the human mind with regard to the manner
in which two thoughts are apprehended to be related to each
other. If anyone desires to know how unsatisfactorily the
popular philosophy employs itself upon this great question,
they need only impartially reflect upon the manner in which
thoughts develop themselves in their minds. It is infinitely
improbable that the cause of mind, that is, of existence, is
similar to mind.
ON A FUTURE STATE.
It has been the persuasion of an immense majority of human
beings in all ages and nations that we continue to live after
death—that apparent termination of all the functions of
sensitive and intellectual existence. Nor has mankind been
contented with supposing that species of existence which
some philosophers have asserted; namely, the resolution of
the component parts of the mechanism of a living being into
its elements, and the impossibility of the minutest particle of
these sustaining the smallest diminution. They have clung
to the idea that sensibility and thought, which they have
distinguished from the objects of it, under the several names
of spirit and matter, is, in its own nature, less susceptible of
division and decay, and that, when the body is resolved into
its elements, the principle which animated it will remain
�( 8 )
perpetual and unchanged. Some philosophers—and those to
whom we are indebted for the most stupendous discoveries
in physical science, suppose, on the other hand, that intelli
gence is the mere result of certain combinations among the
particles of its objects; and those among them who believe
that we live after death, recur to the interposition of a super
natural power, which shall overcome the tendency inherent
in all material combinations to dissipate and be absorbed into
other forms.
Let us trace the reasonings which in one and the other
have conducted to these two opinions, and endeavor ta
discover what we ought to think on a question of such
momentous interest. Let us analyse the ideas and feelings
which constitute the contending beliefs, and watchfully
establish a discrimination between words and thoughts. Let
us bring the question to the test of experience and fact; and
ask ourselves, considering our nature in its entire extent,
what light we derive from a sustained and comprehensive
view of its component parts, which may enable us to assert,
with certainty, that we do or do not live after death.
The examination of this subject requires that it should be
stript of all those accessory topics which adhere to it in the
common opinion of men. The existence of a God, and a
future state of rewards and punishments, are totally foreign
to the subject. If it be proved that the world is ruled by a
Divine Power, no inference necessarily can be drawn from
that circumstance in favor of a future state. It has been
asserted, indeed, that as goodness and justice are to be num
bered among the attributes of the Deity, he will undoubtedly
compensate the virtuous who suffer during life, and that he
will make every sensitive being, who does not deserve
punishment, happy for ever. But this view of the subject,
which it would be tedious as well as superfluous to develop
and expose, satisfies no person, and cuts the knot which we
now seek to untie. Moreover, should it be proved, on the
other hand, that the mysterious principle which regulates
the proceedings of the universe, is neither intelligent nor
sensitive, yet it is not an inconsistency to suppose at the
same time, that the animating power survives the body which
it has animated, by laws as independent of any supernatural
�( 9 )
agent as those through which it first became united with it.
Nor, if a future state be clearly proved, does it follow that it
will be a state of punishment or reward.
By the word death, we express that condition in which
natures resembling ourselves apparently cease to be that
which they were. We no longer hear them speak, nor see
them move. If they have sensations and appreciations, we
no longer participate in them. We know no more than that
those external organs, and all that fine texture of material
frame, without which we have no experience that life or
thought can subsist, are dissolved and scattered abroad.
The body is placed under the earth, and after a certain period
there remains no vestige even of its form. This is that con
templation of inexhaustible melancholy, whose shadow
eclipses the brightness of the world. The common observer
is struck with dejection at the spectacle. He contends in
vain against the persuasion of the grave, that the dead indeed
cease to be. The corpse at his feet is prophetic of his own
destiny. Those who have preceded him, and whose voice
was delightful to his ear; whose touch met his like sweet
and subtle fire; whose aspect ’spread a visionary light upon
his path—these he cannot meet again. The organs of
sense are destroyed, and the intellectual operations dependent
on them have perished with their sources. How can a corpse
see or feel ? its eyes are eaten out, and its heart is black and
without motion. What intercourse can two heaps of putrid
clay and crumbling bones hold together? When you can
discover where the fresh colors of the faded flower abide, or
the music of the broken lyre, seek life among the dead. Such
are the anxious and fearful contemplations of the common
observer, though the popular religion often prevents him
from confessing them even to himself.
The natural philosopher, in addition to the sensations
common to all men inspired by the event of death, believes
that he sees with more certainty that it is attended with
the annihilation of sentiment and thought. He observes the
mental powers increase and fade with those of the body, and
even accommodate themselves to the most transitory changes
of our physical nature. Sleep suspends many of the faculties
of the vital and intellectual principle; drunkenness and
�( 10 )
disease will either temporarily or permanently derange them.
Madness or idiotcy may utterly extinguish the most excellent
and delicate of those powers. In old age the mind gradually
withers; and as it grew and was strengthened with the
body, so does it together with the body sink into decrepitude.
Assuredly these are convincing evidences that so soon as the
organs of the body are subjected to the laws of inanimate
matter, sensation, and perception, and apprehension, are at
an end. It is probable that what we call thought is not an
actual being, but no more than the relation between certain
parts of that infinitely varied mass, of which the rest of the
universe is composed, and which ceases to exist as soon as
those parts change their position with regard to each other.
Thus color, and sound, and taste, and odor exist only
relatively. But let thought be considered as some peculiar
substance, which permeates, and is the cause of, the animation
of living things. Why should that substance be assumed to
be something essentially distinct from all others, and exempt
from subjection to those laws from which no other substance
is exempt ? It differs, indeed, from all other substances, as
electricity, and light, and magnetism, and the constituent
parts of air and earth, severally differ from all others. Each
of these is subject to change and to decay and to conversion
into other forms. Yet the difference between light and earth
is scarcely greater than that which exists between life, or
thought, and fire. The difference between the two former
was never alleged as an argument for the eternal permanence
of either, in that form under which they first might offer
themselves to our notice. Why should the difference between
the two latter substances be an argument for the prolongation
of the existence of one and not the other, when the existence
of both has arrived at their apparent termination p To say
that fire exists without manifesting any of the properties of
fire, such as light, heat, etc., or that the principle of life
exists without consciousness, or memory, or desire, or motive,
is to resign, by an awkward distortion of language, the
affirmative of the dispute. To say that the principle of life
may exist in distribution among various forms, is to assert
what cannot be proved to be either true or false, but which,
were it true, annihilates all hope of existence after death, in
�(11)
any sense in which that event can belong to the hopes and
fears of men. Suppose, however, that the intellectual and
vital principle differs in the most marked and essential
manner from all other known substances; that they have all
some resemblance between themselves which it in no degree
participates. In what manner can this concession be made
an argument for its imperishability? All that we see or
know perishes and is changed. Life and thought differ
indeed from anything else. But that it survives that period,
beyond which we have no experience of its existence, such
•distinction and dissimilarity affords no shadow of proof, and
nothing but our own desires could have led us to conjecture
or imagine.
Have we existed before birth ? It is difficult to conceive
the possibility of this. There is, in the generative principle
of each animal and plant, a power which converts the sub
stances by which it is surrounded into a substance homo
geneous with itself. That is, the relations between certain
elementary particles of matter undergo a change, and submit
to new combinations. For when we use the words principle,
power, cause, etc., we mean to express no real being, but only
to class under those terms a certain series of co-existing
phenomena; but let it be supposed that this principle is a
certain substance which escapes the observation of the
chemist and anatomist. It certainly may be; though it is
sufficiently unphilosophical to allege the possibility of an
-opinion as a proof of its truth. Does it see, hear, feel, before
its combination with those organs on which sensation
depends ? Does it reason, imagine, apprehend, without those
ideas which sensation alone can communicate ? If we have
hot existed before birth; if, at the period when the parts of
our nature on which thought and life depend, seem to be
woven together, they are woven together; if there are no
■reasons to suppose that we have existed before that period at
which our existence apparently commences, then there are
no grounds for supposition that we shall continue to exist
after our existence has apparently ceased. So far as thought
and life is concerned, the same will take place with regard
to us, individually considered, after death, as had place before
our birth.
�( 12 )
It is said that it is possible that we should continue to
exist in some mode totally inconceivable to us at present.
This is a moEt unreasonable presumption. It casts on the
adherents of annihilation the burthen of proving the negative
of a question, the affirmative of which is not supported by a
single argument, and which, by its very nature, lies beyond
the experiences of the human understanding. It is sufficiently
easy, indeed, to form any proposition, concerning which we
are ignorant, just not so absurd as not to be contradictory in
itself, and defy refutation. The possibility of whatever
enters into the wildest imagination to conceive is thus
triumphantly vindicated. But it is enough that such asser
tions should be either contradictory to the known laws of
nature, or exceed the limits of our experience, that their
fallacy or irrelevancy to our consideration should be demon
strated. They persuade, indeed, only those who desire to be
persuaded.
This desire to be for ever as we are; the reluctance to a
violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all
the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe, is,
indeed, the secret persuasion which has given birth to the
opinions of a future state.
FUTURE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT.
The writer of a philosophical treatise may, I imagine, at this
advanced era of human intellect, be held excused from
entering into a controversy with those reasoners, if such there
are, who would claim an exemption from its decrees in favor
of any one among those diversified systems of obscure opinion
respecting morals, which, under the name of religions, have
in various ages and countries prevailed among mankind.
�( 13 )
Besides that if, as these reasoners have pretended, eternal
torture or happiness will ensue as the consequence of certain
actions, we should be no nearer the possession of a standard
to determine what actions were right and wrong, even if this
pretended revelation, which is by no means the case, had
furnished us with a complete catalogue of them. The
•character of actions as virtuous or vicious would by no means
be determined alone by the personal advantage or disad
vantage of each moral agent individually considered.
Indeed, an action is often virtuous in proportion to the
greatness of the personal calamity which the author willingly
draws upon himself by daring to perform it. It is because
an action produces an overbalance of pleasure or pain to the
greatest number of sentient beings, and not merely because
its consequences are beneficial or injurious to the author of
that action, that it is good or evil. Nay, this latter considera
tion has a tendency to pollute the purity of virtue, inasmuch
as it consists in the motive rather than in the consequences
of an action. A person who should labor for the happiness
of mankind lest he should be tormented eternally in hell,
would, with reference to that motive, possess as little claim
to the epithet of virtuous, as he who should torture, imprison,
and burn them alive, a more usual and natural consequenee
of such principles, for the sake of the enjoyments of
heaven.
My neighbor, presuming on his strength, may direct me
to perform or to refrain from a particular action; indicating
a certain arbitrary penalty in the event of disobedience
within his power to inflict. My action, if modified by his
menaces, can in no degree participate in virtue. He has
afforded me no criterion as to what is right or wrong. A
king, or an assembly of men, may publish a proclamation
affixing any penalty to any particular action, but that is not
immoral because such penalty is affixed. Nothing is more
■evident than that the epithet of virtue is inapplicable to the
refraining from that action on account of the evil arbitrarily
attached to it. If the action is in itself beneficial, virtue
would rather consist in not refraining from it, but in firmly
•defying the personal consequences attached to its per
formance.
�Some usurper of supernatural energy might subdue the
whole globe to his power; he might possess new and
unheard-of resources for enduing his punishments with the
most terrible attributes of pain. The torments of his victims
might be intense in their degree, and protracted to an
infinite duration. Still the “ will of the lawgiver ” would
afford no surer criterion as to what actions were right or
wrong. It would only increase the possible virtue of those
who refuse to become the instruments of his tyranny.
�( 15 )
SONNET.
Ye hasten to the dead ! What seek ye there,'
Ye restless thoughts and busy purposes
Of the idle brain, which the world’s livery wear ?
0 thou quick Heart, which pantest to possess
All that anticipation feigneth fair 1
Thou vainly curious Mind which wouldest guess
Whence thou didst come, and whither thou mayest go,
And that which never yet was known wouldst know—
Oh, whither hasten ye, that thus ye press
With such swift feet life’s green and pleasant path,
Seeking alike from happiness and woe
A refuge in the cavern of grey death ?
0 heart, and mind, and thoughts! What thing do you
Hope to inherit in the grave below ?
�FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED
By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by
J Al. Wheeler. Is
FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins.
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations
by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by
J. M. Wheeler. Is. Superior edition, cloth, 2s.
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach. Is.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Ingersoll. Is. ; cloth, Is. 6d.
THE RIGHTS OF MAN. By Thomas Paine. Price Is.
Superior edition, in cloth, 2s.
COMPLETE THEOLOGICAL WORKS. By Thomas Paine,
(including the “ Age of Reason”). Cloth 2s. 6d.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J.
McCann. Is. Superior edition, in cloth, Is. 6d.
DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote. Price 6d. Superior
edition, in cloth, Is.
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. 2nd edition,
enlarged, 8d.
Superior edition, cloth Is. 3d.
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp., Is.
COMIC SER40NS & OTHER FANTASIAS. By G. W.
Foote. Price, 8d.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
BIBLE HANDBOOK for FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING.
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Com
plete, paper covers, Is. 4d. Superior edition, on superfine
paper, bound in cloth, 2s.
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST, By G. W. Foote and
J. M. Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous
Notes, 6d. Superior edition, cloth, Is.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp., 2s. 6d.
SATIRES & PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
Price 18
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Bound, 7s. 6d.
BIBLE STUDIES By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, 2s. 6d.
A. REFUTATION OF DEISM. In a Dialogue. By Shelley.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. 4d.
Complete Catalogue post free on application to
Robert Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Life, death, and immortality : two essays, an extract and a sonnet
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Shelley, Percy Bysshe [1792-1822]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover. 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
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N612
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Life, death, and immortality : two essays, an extract and a sonnet), 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
Death
Immortality
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d7b0a036996bd862cc15889979e36d3b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=C1GUAVs7F8Vzv17zJWbU8He8hbiabUKLAOi474k6h%7ELSzOmMd7ufpa9pf9Gqqw56sa9Y0D6W0eFlZtdJCFubFmktP2IWHM5ns8DRZXbCCFZvVyzufWuDaoKTD40CgdsS9w-P6Y97GxM3n7QrD9gdvzUal0Ze%7EIuVfXFwORdshbsgxBilGVEkio4XiZDCVSs0pye%7EbklPO%7ExevTF4mlVMIC0ofFM20TfCsHnG2tsVeTm14DAR407JDQeFGcONulOYKYUuGFRmjntqYoYIM-VG7DhTXAr-eSVHteZ72QV0Z2t7mxQABPVfzfDDRYIpVl3plr7lhSrVVVnLfX84Ol9lTw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b18a1949245d81eda6fdd087999a837
PDF Text
Text
ON THIS AND THE OTHER WORLD.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Sixpence
��THIS WORLD AND THE OTHER WORLD.
HE title I have assumed for this tract may appear
gigantesque : hut the reader will kindly remember
that no author need attempt to exhaust his subject. In
fact, I do but intend to make various remarks chiefly
on one writer who has devoted intense effort to the
topic. The philosophers who will have no theology,
except such as can be elicited by the study of that
which is external to the human mind, may attain to a
belief in some world-ruling Supreme Being, but in no
case are likely to have even the faintest expectation of
renewed existence for individual man after death. In
extreme contrast to this, such Theists as were Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, and, recently deceased, Theo
dore Parker and Mazzini, make human immortality a
first principle of religion. So is it with the Bengali
Theists, members of the Brahmo Somaj ; to whom I
cannot allude without expressing admiration and sym
pathy. My friend, Miss F. P. Cobbe, an ardent ad
mirer of Theodore Parker, is by far the most vigorous
and prominent advocate of this doctrine among ourselves;
which, in spite of the double-edged nature of the argu
ments on which she relies, deeply moves me.
In republishing her Essays on Life after Death, which
appeared in the Theological Review, she has prefixed an
elaborate, and, in many respects, valuable Preface,
commenting on Mr J. S. Mill’s three Posthumous
Essays. Perhaps it may seem needless to say, that in
T
�4
On this World and the other World.
everything which Miss Cobhe writes, there is sure to
be much that commands my interest and true sym
pathy ; but I avow this distinctly now, because I am
about to express strong dissent from her cardinal argu
ments and statements : and it may be well here to quote
from her what I regard as a primary truth, p. iii.
“We shall never obtain our truest and most reliable
idea of God from the inductions which science may help
us to draw from the external world. Spiritual things
must be spiritually discerned, or we must be content
never to discern them truly at all. In man’s soul
alone, so far as we may yet discover, is the moral
nature of his Maker revealed,” as in a mirror..............
“ If (as we must needs hold for truth), there be a moral
purpose running through all the physical creation, its
scope is too enormous, its intricacy too deep, the cycle
of its revolution too immense, for our brief and blind
observation. It must be enough for us to learn what
God bids us to be of just and merciful and loving, and
then judge what must be his justice, his mercy, his
love,” &c., &c.
One caution I desire here to add. Owing to essen
tial differences of nature, we need to practise virtues
which cannot exist in God. The exhortation, “ to
imitate him,” in order that we may attain high virtue,
is a precept in the Sermon on the Mount, which Miss
Cobbe, with many assenting, regards as high wisdom,
p. 216 ; but to me it seems a profound mistake, vir
tually reproved by my quotation from her, just made.
We do not see by our outward eyes the moral virtues
of the most High. We find nothing of him outside
of us to imitate ; we only gain some knowledge of him
by first knowing and feeling pure and noble impulses
in ourselves. But when Miss Cobbe deduces from this
precept of imitating God’s indiscriminateness, “ which,
for eighteen centuries has rung in men’s ears,” that
“ we ought to make the same sacrifices for the vicious,
as we should readily make for a beloved friend,” she
�On this World and the other World.
5
seems to forget that we cannot imagine the possibility
of God making any sacrifices at all. At least I do not
yet believe that she would seriously assert that “ mak
ing sacrifices ” is one of his virtues. When from an
imaginary quality in Him, she deduces a superlatively
high-flown and doubtful duty for us, this may warn us
how dangerous is the method she employs.
Nay,
poetry may sternly warn us :—
“ Must innocence and guilt
Perish alike ?—Who talks of innocence ?
Let them all perish. Heav’n will choose its own.
Why should their children live ? The earthquake whelms
Its undistinguish’d thousands, making graves
Of peopled cities in its path ; and this
Is neav’n’s dread Justice ; ay, and it is well.
Why then should we be tender, when the skies
Deal thus with man ? ”
(Mks Hemans’ Vespers of Palermo.)
Surely this is as good an argument as that based upon
the Rain. We cannot be wise in imitating the action
of the elements. All such precepts are an ignis fatuus.
In my belief, duty must stand on its own basis, as a
purely human science, to which religious knowledge
contributes absolutely nothing.
Upon pre-existing
morals, spiritual judgments are built. Religion cannot
tell us what is moral, though it can give great force to
moral aspirations. It can immensely aid us to self
restraint and sacrifice for the attainment of virtue,
hereby in turn making individuals nobler, and conduc
ing to more delicate moral perception, out of which
rises an advance of moral science itself.
But I proceed to Miss Cobbe’s topic, The Hopes of
the Human Race,—that is, the doctrine of human im
mortality. The new Hindoo Theists propound it as a
spiritual axiom. Apparently this was Theodore Parker’s
idea, who, nevertheless, also reasoned for it, if I re
member, from the alleged universal yearning of man
kind. The fact that all men so yearn, always appeared
�6
On this World and the other World.
to me very doubtful; nay, from the history of Hebrew
religious thought, a formidable objection arises : nor is
any such yearning of unspiritual men to me a worthy
argument. Indeed, what do they want ? A life as
closely like this life as possible, only more comfortable.
How can such desires, however universal, be an omen
that they will be gratified ? But when it is asserted,
that in proportion as men become sounder in morals,
and purer in religion, so does this belief of an after
existence, in which sin shall be subjugated, and evil
practically annihilated, grow up and take deep root;
the assertion (if true), comes to me with great weight.
It may not be decisive against objections, but I (cannot
make light of it; and the very possibility of an after
life, has, in my belief, a specific influence on spiritual
thought and feeling.
But to Miss Cobbe mere * possibilities and probabi
lities seem feeble : she is a bolder reasoner. To express
my own judgment, I fear I must say, she is an audaci
ous reasoner. The “ existence of evil ” is with her I a
dread mystery,” which (I am glad to say), she tries to
present as an exception; yet, she only doubtfully admits
Paley’s assertion, that “ it is a happy world after all
and calls his solution (pp. xlii., xliii.) “ an easy-going
optimism.” Truly, in my sentiment, the surrender of
this fact (for, a fact I consider it) would inflict on
Theism a most formidable wound. If there be no
future life, “ Man (she says), is a failure, the consum
mate failure of creation.” On this assertion she bases
the belief, that there must be a future life, to set right
what was wrong here. Seeing that we (the few) are
here happy, and that others, “ no worse than we, and
often far better,” (i drag out lives of misery and priva
tion of all higher joy, and die, perhaps, at last, so far
as their own consciousness goes, in final alienation and
revolt from God and goodness,” therefore, we demand
for these [Italics in the original] “ another and a better
life at the hands of the Divine Justice and Love: and
�On this World and the other World.
7
in as far as any one loves both God and man, so far he
is incapable of renouncing that demand.
One who
thanks God for hisTown joys, and is satisfied without
making “ demand for farther existence for himself or
anybody else,” she entitles “ selfish,” pp. lxiv., lxv.
Now, I try to apply this by taking the case of some
singularly wicked man, whose crimes or vices bring
him to a shameful death; and I ask myself, Could I
approach God in prayer, with this man’s name on my
lips, and say : “Thou hast created him, and hast not
hitherto shown him common justice, or common kind
ness ; thou hast allowed him to become depraved and
miserable ; therefore, I demand of thee a renewed life
for him, in which thou mayst redress thy injustices
and neglects.” To my feelings, such an address is the
height of presumption : even a harsher word may seem
appropriate. It reminds me of a much milder prayer,
that of a Frenchman, opening with the words “ Fear
not, 0 my God, that I am about to reproach thee.”
Yet I cannot see wherein my hypothetical prayer differs
from Miss Cobbe’s argument, except that the one is
said inwardly to one’s self, the other is said inwardly to
him who reads the heart. In substance they are the
same. My reason, as well as my sentiment, is shocked
by it; yet, she “ commends it to us as the true method
of solving the problem of a life after death,” p. lxvii.
Such an avowal is to me very revolting; and from one
whose many high qualities are justly appreciated,
cannot be passed over without definite protest and
disavowal.
Why are we to admit that man, as we see and know
him in this world, “is a failure,—the consummate
failure of creation?” This is a natural idea to those
who believe that the first man was perfect in virtue, and
that a golden age was succeeded by ages of silver, of
brass, of iron, and of clay. “2Etas parentum pejor
avis,” &c. 1 From one who not only has laid aside the
fables of Gentile religions, but reads Lubbock, Darwin,
�8
On this World and the other World.
and Tyndall, we might far rather expect a cheerful
light-heartedness, if not a joyful exultation, that by the
mysterious guidance of a hidden providence, our race is
ever advancing. History is to me a book so bitter of
digestion, that when consulted by aspiring ladies, I
have never dared to advise their study of it, without
warning them how very painful it is. Yet history
brings to me an unshaken conviction that man is no
failure, but a noble success,—the noblest success in the
only world open to our moral sight. The men of the
present day, collectively and on the average, are far
superior in virtue, as well as in knowledge, to those
of oldr
“ Atrides ! speak not falsely, when
Rightly to speak thou knowest.
For us, our boast it is to be
Far better than our fathers.”
Let those who tremble at crumbling creeds fancy
that man is becoming viler and viler, that the ages of
faith and goodness are past, and that we are ripening
for a fiery deluge, as Noah’s contemporaries for the
flood. But from Miss Cobbe I claim a clear perception
that the sway of reason is ever winning on passion and
caprice; that compassion wins on selfish recklessness ;
forethought how crime may be hindered, wins on rude
vengeance ; mild rule wins on severity; woman wins
on man; slavery is fast dying, serfdom is doomed; the
millions obtain a consideration never before accorded to
them; not only is public war less inhuman, less reck
less, less permanent in its ravages, but insurgents too
are less frenzied and milder in their successes ; nor are
foreigners so alienated as once. Man claims foreign
men for brethren as never before. Superstition,
bigotry, persecution are disowned, and are marvellously
abated. All the civilized profess, however little they
practise, equal morality to all races of men ; in all the
strongest communities, science and literature unite
many nations. The increased brilliancy of our light
�On this World and the other World.
9
discloses, alas ! the blackness of our guilt as never
before ; but this is a necessary part of our shame, our
repentance, and our purification. Our crimes and our
vices cause thousands of English hearts to weep
inwardly, as if they were daily afflicted by great
domestic calamity. We will not dissemble nor dis
parage the guilt, which is our common disgrace, and, to
the right-minded, the greatest of afflictions; yet it is
good to be thus afflicted, and it is a part of the agency
by which our nation and all the foremost nations of the
world are to be elevated; yes, and we may boldly say,
this ennobling process is perpetually going on, and
that, with very sensible acceleration. What more
(David Hume well asks) can we wish for than the
gratification of a [noble] passion ? and what passion can
be, in a man, more noble than the longing after a
better and better future for mankind? Miss Cobbe
herself expects this better future; “To judge from
irresistible analogy (she says), every future generation
will have a livelier sympathy with the joys and
sorrows of all sentient beings, such as scarcely in
their tenderest hours the most loving souls of former
ages experienced” (p. xx.). If human nature thus
advances, why does she account man to be a consum
mate failure, if there be no life after death ? Certainly
I, for one, cannot allow that to contribute to the
permanent and true welfare of the human race, of
which we are organic parts, is a slight honour, an
insufficient reward for a whole life of virtue; and
whether from Miss Cobbe, or from anyone else, I must
regard it as mischievous, delusive, and morbid, to pre
tend that life is a mournful dream, an empty bubble,
unless it is to be followed by an immortality. If
seventy years of life are worthless, so are seven
millions. The multiplication of bubbles gives nothing
but bubbles : it cannot change the quality. Life, in
the instinctive belief even of the miserable, is worth
having,—is intrinsically full of joy to every healthy
�io
On this World and the other World.
being. At least, suicides are but a fraction of the
race, and Miss Cobbe will not claim them as par
ticularly sound-minded. To the sound-minded, life
is surely precious; and if it have many pangs, of body
or mind, she herself does not wish it otherwise. Every
great birth comes forth with severe travail; and the
less we have to grieve for personally, the greater the
heartache which must be borne for others. Neverthe
less, every good man joyfully accepts this, nor can it
disturb his serene peace. To hold that pain is an
essential part of the high-training through which God’s
wisdom leads mankind, will not be called by Miss
Cobbe “ an easy-going optimism.” It has long
appeared to me that Virgil, in his treatment of this
whole topic, showed himself a wise philosopher,—
wiser than Christians and wiser than Atheists. “ Pater
ipse colendi Haud facilem esse viam voluit, &c., ...”
“ It was Jupiter (says he) who added evil venom to the
hideous serpent, and ordered the wolves to prowl and
the sea to heave; and shook down the honey from the
leaves, and hid away the fire, and stopped the wine
that ran abroad in rills; that use by practice might,
little by little, hammer out diverse arts—.” To earn
bread by the sweat of the brow, was, in Virgil’s belief,
no curse fulminated from an angry God on the human
race, but a stem necessity imposed by a wise God,
counselling for our exaltation, and “forbidding his
realms to become benumbed in drowsiness.” Miss
Cobbe, in her Intuitive Morals, emphatically proclaims
that virtue is the highest human good, which also it is
the grand unchanging purpose of God to promote in
his human world. She evidently has not changed from
this conviction. She must refuse to admit that the
physical pains suffered by the human race (however
inexplicable in separate instances), do at all in a broad
view affect the great argument of Theism. Moral evil
alone can, in her view, weigh against it.
Consider then the two opposite extreme cases of
�On this World and the other World.
11
her moral argument quoted above. Take, first, a
robber tribe—from the hills of India or from an
Eastern archipelago—or take a family of Thugs.
They were brought up from childhood with a very
narrow moral horizon. Duty to their nearest kin or to
their tribe, they understood; but truthfulness, or mercy,
or justice, to any beyond their tribe, they no more
dreamed of as duty, than an English sportsman thinks
of truthfulness or justice to salmon or hares, or an
ancient Greek or Roman to barbarians whom it was
convenient to attack. Surely it is a great mistake to
account men as wholly without virtue, or wholly miser
able, because the circle within which their virtue is to
be exercised is deplorably narrow. To deny the piety,
or morality, or mental happiness of an ancient Hebrew
king, because of his ferocity to Moabites or Ammonites,
does not belong to a very deep philosophy. His con
science did not condemn him. The Thug had a still
stranger and more perverse religion, coupling itself
more visibly with avarice. He perhaps may be cor
rectly described as having never had a chance of
attaining a noble moral state, and at last dying under
the English hangman, “in alienation to God” Yet
few persons, I think, will see in the fact any proof
that Thugs have a claim on God for a future life in
order to win a nobler morality. In contrast to this,
take the deplorable case of a man of high and refined
genius, subtle talent, poetical gift, easy and fluent
eloquence—acceptable alike to the cultivated and the
rude—a man reared in the highest cultivation both of
the family and of the schools (such a man was well
known in my youth)—who nevertheless surrendered
himself to the love of wine, beer, spirits, laudanum—
in short, any narcotic; and first disgraced himself
beyond recovery, becoming enamoured of the coarsest
company, and before long went down into the grave,
a miserable victim of his debaucheries. Will Miss
Cobbe say, “ God is neither just nor merciful, unless
�12
On this World and the other World.
he doom this man to be saved in another and a better
life ? ” To me the whole argument seems inadmissible;
but I must leave it to the reader’s judgment.
At the bottom of all seems to reside an assumption,
that if God permits wrongs and “undeserved suffering”
in this life, he must needs give retribution in another
life. Man, she says, is bound to do justice and mercy
without delay; but God, having an eternity to work in,
may put it off to a distant time (p. xxxvi.). In early
theology, the Divine Ruler was compared to a human
king, who had his throne and his court, his errand
bearers, his armies, his judges or judge, his executioners
and his prison. Minos, 2Eacus, Rheadamanthys, accord
ing to 2Egypto-Greek notions, judged the dead, as Jesus
for the Christians. Retribution for the crimes of earth
was of course a paramount object in such mythology.
Retribution for our sins or errors we often suffer here,
and therefore may suffer also in a future world; but in
neither case (in my estimate) barely because God is just.
Miss Cobbe propounds (p. 117), as a solemn fact of the
future, a mental purgatory of awful misery, and con
cludes its description by the words, “ when it has been
accomplished, the blessed justice of God will be vindi
cated” (p. 119). Perhaps by justice she here means
nearly the same as goodness; in which case I reverently
accept the thought as possible: yet I fear that the word
contains with her the idea of retribution—of forensic
punishment—which is notoriously the prevalent creed.
“Virtue,” says she (p. 28), “cannot be without reward;
nor can the crimes which human tribunals fail to reach
escape retribution for ever” (so p. 41, 42). But the
analogy from human to divine punishments breaks
down entirely. Indeed, no wise law-giver punishes
for retribution’s sake. Though, without past guilt, the
judge has nothing to punish (for of course he dares not
to touch the innocent); yet the purpose of punishment
is to prevent guilt in the future. ~Li the officer of law
could have prevented it in the past, and did not, he
�On this World and the other World.
13
would be himself to blame. What theology will pro
nounce that God was incapable of hindering sin in the
past, but will be capable of it in the future ? or that,
having been capable in the past, he neglected his duty,
but he will be more attentive in the future ? To put a
chasm and a convulsion between his present and his
future action, seems to me both morally and intellectu
ally inadmissible. The argument that he can delay
punishment, because he has an eternity to work in, is
singularly weak, as if his convenience were the matter
in question; but we have to consider what is equitable
and beneficial to his frail creatures. Elsewhere I have
used a comparison, which I venture here to reproduce,
of punishments by a schoolmaster. These should be
applied day by day, to keep the boys from offence.
The quicker the punishment follows the offence, the
more effective it is as a preventive : hereby it is kept
light—mere chidings may suffice for good discipline.
But if the master were to reserve all punishment to the
year’s end, and meanwhile only threaten and warn, the
volatile temper of children, unable to look far forward,
would make his warnings vain. Impunity would over
throw all discipline, and lead on into actual crime.
Then we should severely blame the master, and almost
exculpate the children. Now, if we are to reason
morally concerning the divine action, we cannot believe
him to leave the guilty unpunished in the present
world, and then to reserve severe punishments for them
in the distant unknown hereafter; nay, without even
public intelligible warning of a future tribunal; though,
indeed, to men as frail and short-sighted as children, no
such warning could be of avail. For this reason, all
idea of future retribution, as such, seems to me quite
untenable in the present stage of knowledge. Such a
Theodice as Leibnitz made an axiom, has no plausi
bility. The punishment of guilt Miss Cobbe regards
as entirely purifying, remedial, and beneficial. Good.
But for the innocent, and for those guilty ones whose
�14
On this World and the other World.
guilt is their misfortune, she intensely demands redress
of wrongs.
“ A tortured slave, a degraded woman,
must be immortal; for God’s creature could not have
been made for torture and pollution” (p. 49). It
would be unjust in the Creator (she alleges, p. xxxvii.)
to create a being “who endured on the whole more
misery than he enjoyed happiness.” An infant which
is born sickly, and, after lingering in undeserved pain
(p. xli.), dies without enjoying life, in her estimate is
injured by its Creator unless it has hereafter a balance
of happiness—a dialect more like to Bentham than we
might expect from her. Of course animals have never
“deserved” the torments which cruel men inflict on
them: must not a just God give them future redress ?
It is almost necessary for her, and she seems not averse,
to adopt from Bishop Butler the immortality of dead
animals. I will only here say, that such a theory
seems to break down with its own weight.
The
essence of justice (she says, p. 42) is, that 11 no one
being shall suffer more than he has deserved, or undergo
the penalty of another’s guilt.” What moral beings
have “ deserved ” is hard to know; that we must suffer,
one for and from another, is involved in the unity of
our race, but not as a forensic penalty.
What perhaps shocks me most, is the instability of
faith to which Miss Cobbe’s logic would lead us. After
much discussion, she brings out the flat avowal, as the
net result (p. 48)—“ Either man is immortal, or God is
not just!1 The whole passage seems to glance at what
I have myself written: my kind friend evidently hopes
to lead me forward to her more elevated position, while,
alas ! she repels me. She seems quite to forget how
limited is our knowledge of the possible and the im
possible ; and that it is by no means certainly beyond
the sphere of external science to establish that the
re-existence of an individual man, whose body has
crumbled to dust, is a physical contradiction. Wherein
Identity consists, no one seems able to say. We know
�On this World and the other World.
15
that our minds and souls were either bom with our
bodies; or, if with Plato we say they pre-existed, their
previous existence was nothing to us. I cannot shut
my eyes to the possibility of its being hereafter accepted
as a physical and metaphysical certainty, that a disem
bodied soul of man is a monstrous idea, against nature,
intrinsically absurd, and incapable of being identified
with a man who has lived in organic flesh. If this
were proved to me beyond dispute, should I then con
clude (or would my friend draw the inference) there
fore God is unjust ? Miss Cobbe herself seems nearly
convinced that memory has been scientifically proved to
depend on “the brain-tablet” (pp. 74-77). What would
future existence be to any of us, if it cut away all the
memory of the present world 1 I confess, if my con
fidence that God is just, depended on the certainty that
man is immortal, while the latter opinion is possibly
disprovable by science, I could have no firm faith in
the attributes of God at all. Miss Cobbe means to
make faith in God primary, and a belief of man’s
immortal life secondary (p. xiii.). Most rightly; but
in fact her proposed dilemma overthrows faith in God,
if immortality be disproved. This I hold to be a very
grave mischief. We censure those preachers who assert
that all moral law rests on supernatural evidence, on
miracles, on an infallible Bible, and that whoever dis
believes miracles may as well be immoral as moral. We
say that such preachers lay a trap for men’s feet, and
prepare for them a career of profligacy so soon as they
unlearn superstitions. But is not Miss Cobbe laying a
net for our feet, a dilemma to cast us into black darkness
of religious sentiment, if ever the progress of external
science happen to prove (which, for anything which she
or I know, may happen) that identity is absolutely
irrecoverable when the vital organs are all dissolved ?
If this were established to-morrow, my cheerful, happy
faith in God would remain undisturbed. I cannot
look with terror on science, but believe that all truth
�16
On this World and the other World.
is good for us. That God works under strict conditions,
all thoughtful persons know, who ascribe wisdom to
him. Mr J. S. Mill, it seems, imagined religious people
to be unaware of this, and thinks to refute them, when
he is saying, coarsely indeed, yet in substance the same,
as they say reverently; but this merely shows how
little intercourse he ever held with any high religious
mind. But only the fanatical can insist that reverence
for God shall depend on his doing for us things intrin
sically impossible.
Miss Cobbe seems anxious to
possess us with an agonizing despair concerning this
present world, if there be not an immortality awaiting
us. She fancies that nothing but clear light or total
darkness is possible: any intermediate position she
calls “playing fast and loose with our beliefs in
immortality” (p. xi.). But between certain knowledge
that a proposition is true and certain knowledge that it
is false, there must very often (and oftenest in the
highest inquiries) be an intermediate state of great
uncertainty; and if this be inevitable to our present
condition, it must be accepted as best for us by all who
revere God.
Spasmodic discontent with inevitable
ignorance, is a morbid state. It is not our task to
govern the world. As we are not “ equal to eternal
cares,” how can we wisely undertake to decide what
conduct is required from the divine justice? It is
astonishing to me that a deeply pious mind can enter
on such an argument. Never did I imagine that on a
religious question I should find myself on the side of
Mr J. S. Mill, and against Miss Cobbe: but so it
seems now to turn out. Sadly and scornfully she
rejects his declaration that the benefit of the doctrine
of immortality I consists less in any specific hope than
in the enlargement of the scale of the feelings.”
Specific hope 1—I never had any, and I am convinced
that very few people have; but the intellectual con
ception of a life after death I feel to be enlarging and
ennobling, though incapable of being fixed. Mr Mill,
�On this World and the other World.
17
I think, does not exhort us to cultivate delusions con
cerning it: he only insists that immortality is not
(cannot he) a proved and certain truth.
That no
proof has hitherto been attained available for all
spiritual minds, appears to me an undeniable certainty.
Not the less is it possible, that always to discuss the
topic and never settle it, enlarges the human senti
ment.
No argument seems to me less weighty than that
favourite one, “ I could not have a day’s happiness,
unless I believed I should meet my babe, or my
husband, or my sister, in Paradise : therefore there
must be a Paradise.” This is certainly very deep in
Miss Cobbe, who indicates that she was brought to a
belief in immortality by the death of one deeply
beloved.
Deep grief has its values,—grief for the
loss of friends, as well as grief of other kinds: I
certainly do not plead for heartlessness or apathy.
But as, when a revered parent departs in very full
age, grief is milder and soon fades into sweet and
sacred remembrance, so too ought it surely to be with
every loss, though for a while acuter. But to nourish
perpetual grief, to refuse every consolation but a belief
in immortality,—vowing to be miserable for life, if we
cannot attain this conviction,—presents itself to me as
emphatically morbid.
With the educated, the whole idea of God’s govern
ment of the world is essentially changed, since the
time that Christianity became prevalent.
Jew and
Christian, Manichaean and Arab, Saxon and Celt, so
far as they believed in any divine government at all,
supposed it to be carried on by direct intervention.
Jesus himself (if we believe his biographer), announced
the doctrine : “ If I pray to my Father, he will
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels.”
While this angelic theory was current, all the reasonings
concerning divine rule were different from what we
can now accept. At present neither of our Protestant
Archbishops, nor yet Archbishop Manning, expects
�18
On this World and the other World.
divine aid for the church through the swords of angels.
We hold universally, that divine influence follows
subtler paths for working its designs; a procedure
for which there must be profound reasons. Some
reasons we understand, but our knowledge must ever
remain mutilated and very partial.
If cruel and
undeserved torture had been prevented, that of course
would be the thing to rejoice us; that it has not been
prevented, startles us dreadfully; but after it has been
permitted, it cannot be undone. If it be an imputa
tion on the Divine Justice, let it have what weight it
may. To raise animals or men from the dead, and
give them a balance of happiness as a late compensation
for injustice, does not exalt my idea of the divine rule;
and for man to devise, this method of divine compensa
tion for injuries, which, according to our barbarian
reasoning, God ought to have prevented, strikes me
as reasoning equally barbarian.
This leads to a matter already touched on,—the
assumption that God’s future rule is to differ from his
past rule. If theology could be a web spun entirely
out of the head and heart, we might abide by our own
theories of divine rule, unmolested by material science.
But in fact it is from the outer world, reasoned on by
us, that the first suggestion of a World Spirit comes,
and from our own spirits we reason out some of the
attributes of that Spirit from whom is our origin.
Then we are bound to check our notions by observed
facts. We cannot disregard external attestations: then
we discover to our dismay that the divine rule is
wonderfully, nay, terribly, different from what we
expected.
Surely then humility should conclude;
“We are somewhere in mistake : God is wiser and
better than we, and our fancies were folly.”
How
then can we add, “ Because he has not done now what
we thought he ought to do, we are quite sure he will
do it hereafter, else he would not be just.” I had
fancied that only an infantine philosophy could expect
God’s future rule to differ from his past; that is, a
�On this World and the other World.
19
different law of justice to rule in a future (or in an
unseen), world, from that which exists in the seen and
known world.
To argue: “ This present world is
terribly bad, therefore there is an unseen world in
which everything is good; or if not, then God is
unjust,” appears to me to be planting the germ of
Atheism, and not at all to attain the wisdom, or even
the humility, of modern science. I cannot consent to
condemn as bad, the only world of God which I surely
know. There is evil in it which appals us, and evil
against which we are bound all our lives to struggle ;
but it is not, therefore, simply bad, and requiring a
supplementary world to be believed in, before we will
praise God for the present world. To say so, is to
throw contumely on all the religion of the early
Hebrews. Yet with its abundant infantine errors, it
originated for us that inward piety, which Miss Cobbe
with me values as life ; a piety, which according to
her, if I rightly understand her logic, was with them
groundless, because they did not believe in immortality..
But again, the future world which Christians
imagine (and apparently Miss Cobbe also), is to have
no evil in it. Whether this mean physical or moral
evil, in both cases it seems to me incredible. Beings
which have no bodies cannot have bodily pain j yet if
we imagine a community of personalities without
wants, none seem to have duties : something of want
and possible pain appears even desirable.
And if
there be duties (without which we are not moral
beings) finite creatures must always make partial
failures and be liable to error, wrong-doing, sin; and
virtue, which in a finite being cannot be divinely
perfect, must always need effort, sometimes even
struggle, to rise. Is it credible, that our Creator, who
put us in this world for present duty, should intend us
to hammer out for ourselves the image of an unrevealed
world, and plant this in the front of our adoration of
him, as something to be believed as firmly as his
existence and goodness 1 I confess, nothing has made
�20
On this World and the other World.
me so sympathize with the Secularists, as reading this
Book of Miss Cobhe. A future life which can only
be conceived most dimly, hidden away in the back
ground and reverentially contemplated as possible, acts
on us profoundly, like gazing into nightly darkness, and
seeing the mysterious infinite universe. It acts much
on the sentiment, little on the intellect; it does not
use up the mind by fruitless activity, nor has it any
influence at all for evil. As for its reasonableness,
even so severe a reasoner as J. S. Mill does not
censure, and rather commends it. But a doctrine of
immortality, thrust into the front of religion, intruded
upon us as a condition without which we may not
believe God to be just, distorts all proportions and
perspective, and perniciously carries minds into endless
argumentation hostile to tranquil serene reverence.
Thereby it defeats the end which my very devout
friend sincerely proposes to herself.
I more than ever doubt, whether religious thought
concerning these particular matters has changed since
the age of Cicero. In his dialogues are found sub
stantially all that our materialists can now urge against
a divine rule. It has often occurred to me, that the
Oriental doctrine of the stubbornness of matter was
perhaps only their mode of stating, that God works
under conditions,—partially known to us.
Side by
side with Atheism or Pantheism, were men, like
Cleanthes, who held to the belief of a perfect and just
God. The Stoics and Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus
did not need the belief of future existence (though like
Socrates many of them half believed it), to maintain
that virtue was the chief good, and that this remained
true even to a martyr dying on the rack. If Miss
Cobbe, assuming the character of a Satanic tempter,
had put to Thrasea her question, “ Why is it worth
while for you to persevere in virtue, when you are in
five or ten minutes to be annihilated 1 ” he would have
replied, “simply because virtue is the chief good;”
and I think she would applaud.
�INDEX TO MB SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS,
ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.
The, following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS
SCO TT, No. 11, The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
Price
». d.
ABBOTT, FRANCIS E., Editor of ‘Index,’Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Impeachment of Christianity. With Letters from Miss F. P. Cobbe and
Prof. F. W. Newman, giving tlieir reasons for not calling themselves Christians 0 3
Truths for the Times
-03
ANONYMOUS.
A Plain Statement,
-03
Address on the Necessity of Free Inquiry and Plain Speaking,
- 0 3
A. I. Conversations. By a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II., and III., 6d. each 1 6
Christianity and its Evidences
-06
Euthanasia; an Abstract of the Arguments for and against it,
- 0 3
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible -10
Euthanasia,
-.
-03
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
-00
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.”
-06
Nine Yea'rs a Curate -03
One Hundred and One Questions to which the Orthodox, &c. Per dozen
- 1 0
On Public Worship
----03
Our First Century
.06
Primitive Church History --09
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I.—Its Influence
on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the Development of the Con
science. 6d each Part
- ’
- 1 0
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint ’ ---JO
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
- 0 6
The Twelve Apostles
■ -06
Via Catholica-; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country Parson
Parts I., II., and III., Is. 3d. each Part
- 3 9
Woman’s Letter
-03
AN EX-CLERGYMAN.
What is jhe Church or England ? A Question for the Age.
_ -' _ - 0 6
BARRISTER, A.- Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ - 0 6
Orthodox Theories of Prayer
-.-03
BASTARD, THOMAS HORLOOK. Scepticism and Social Justice - 0 3
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation - 1 0
The Evangelist and the Divine
-10
The Gospel of the Kingdom »
-06
BENTHAM, JEREMY. The Church of England Catechism Examined. Reprint 1 0
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Critically Examined 1 0
BESANT, Mrs A.
Natural Religion, versus Revealed Religion
- 0 4
On Eternal Torture -06
On the Deity of Jesus. Parts I. and IL, 6d. each Part
- 1 0
On The Atonement
' -06
BRAY, CHARLES.
Illusion and Delusion ; or Modern Pantheism versus Spiritualism,
- 0 6
The Reign of Law in Mind as in Matter. Parts I. and II., 6d each Part
- 1 0
Toleration: with Some Remarks on Professor Tyndall’s Address at Belfast,
- 0 6
BROOK, W. 0. CARR. Reason versus Authority - 0 3
BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds
- 0 3
Sunday Lyrics -03
The New Doxology
-03
CANTAB, A. Jesus versus Christianity
-06
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “The Present Dangers of the Church of
England”
■ -06
�List of Publications—continued.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cs co ca co os os so
0
0
0
M co«o
1
co
0
co
0
sooscosocost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
os os
CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An examination of Liddon’s Bampton Lecture
----Dr Farrar’s “ Life of-Christ.” A Letter to Thomas Scott
Letter and Spirit
--------The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil The Question of Method, as affecting Religious Thought Rational Piety and Prayers for Fair Weather Spiritual Gambling; or, The Calculation of Probabilities in Religion,
CONWAY, MONCURE, D.
Consequences, ---------The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
• The Voysey Case
--------COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part
-----COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity. Review of a paper by Dr Lang
CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
On the Existence of Evil
------On the Formation of Religious Opinions '
On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology
----The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought
.
.
God’s Method of Government,
—
----On Responsibility,
--Positive Religion—Four Lectures, ----each
DEAN, PETER. The Impossibility of knowing what is Christianity Dr CARPENTER at Sion College ; or
The View of Miracles Taken by Men of Science DUBLIN DIVINITY STUDENT—Christianity and its Evidences—No. I.
DUPUIS. Christianity a form of the great Solar Myth F. H. I. Spiritual Pantheism -------FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
The Efficacy of Prayer, a Letter to Thomas Scott
Everlasting Punishment. A Letter to Thomas Scott,
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH. On Religion
GELDART, Rev E. M.. The Living God
-----GRAHAM, A. D.
On Faith ----------Cruelty and Christianity : A Lecture,
-----HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology --------HARE, The Right Rev FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the
Scriptures
------HENNELL, SARA S.
On The Need of Dogmas in Religion. A letter to Thos. Scott
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
Another Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we
0
0
0
0
6
6
9
6
0
0
0
0
3
6
6
3
0 8
0 6
0 4
0 6
0
6
CANNOT RELY ON THE BIBLE
-06
to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What
is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death ?”-06
A Reply to the Question—“Shall I seek Ordination in the Church of
England ?”
-06
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
A Reply
HOPPS, Rev J. PAGE.
Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. With Portrait
HUTCHISON, THOMAS DANCER—The Free-Will Controversy, -
- 0 3
- 0 6
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age.
Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
-10
Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, Considered 0 6
The Prayer Book Adapted to the Age
-03
KALISCH, M. Ph.D.,
Theology of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of his Commen
tary on Leviticus. With Portrait -10
�List of Publications—continued.
s. d.
KIRKMAN. The Rev THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
------On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part
Orthodoxy from the Hebrew Point of View. Parts I. and II. 6d. each,
LAKE, J. W.
Plato, Philo, and Paul; or, The Pagan Conception of a “Divine Logos,” shew
to have been the basis of the Christian Dogma of the Deity of Christ, LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey - LAYMAN, A, and M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds --------Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
-----LEWIS, TERESA. Cremation.............................................................................
MAOFIE, MATT.
Religion Viewed as Devout Obedience to the Laws of the Universe The Religious Faculty : Its Relation to the other Faculties, and its Perils,
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism traced to their origin, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I., IL. in. and IV. 6d. each Part
MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D. The Souls of the Children MACLEOD, JOHN
Recent Theological Addresses. A Lecture
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education: or, the Use and Abuse of the
Bible in the Schoolroom
-------How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
The Utilization of the Church Establishment MUIR, J., D.C.L.
Religious and Moral Sentiments. Freely translated from Indian Writers,
Three Notices of the “ Speaker’s Commentary,” translated from the Dutch
of Dr. A. Kuenen,
---M.P., Letter by. The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation
NEALE, EDWARD VANSIT TART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
I
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory
Remarks
---------The Mi'thical Element in Christianity
-----The New Bible Commentary' and the Ten Commandments
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion James and Paul
----On the Causes of Atheism.
With Portrait
_
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism ; and On the Galla Religion On the Historical Depravation of Christianity On this World and the other World,
-----Reply to a Letter from an Evangelical Lay Preacher The Controversy about Prayer
----.
_
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrine
. The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil The Two Theisms
-------Ancient Sacrifice,
----OLD GRADUATE. Remarks on Paley’s Evidences
OXLEE, The Rev JOHN, a Confutation of the Diabolarchy PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.. Is Death the end of all things for Man? PHYSICIAN, A.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and Philosophical
Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
------The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of our Age
Part I.—Genesis, Is. 6d. Part II.—Exodus, Is. Part III.—Leviticus, Is.
Part IV.—Numbers, Is. Part V.—Deuteronomy, Is. Part VI.—Joshua, 6d., PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of
the Church of England
H
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education
1
1
1
1
0
0
6
0
0
0 &
0 6
0 «
0 3
0
0
0
2 0
0 3
0 3
1 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
1 0
1 0
0 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
6 O
0 G
0 6
�List of Publications—continued.
s. d.
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Ooupar-Angus.
Intellectual Libertt
-66
The Finding of the Book
-20
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
.
-09
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christi'an Commentators
in Two Parts. 6d. each Part
-10
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prater."
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in its Bearing
on the Truth of Christianity
. ... 0 6
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society
- 0 6
SHAEN, MISS—Prayer and Love to God, per doz. 1 0
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and defended by
T. L. Strange
.06
An Address to all Earnest Christians
.....
Clerical Integrity
...
-03
Communion with God .....
...03
The Bennett Judgment
....
...03
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?”
-06
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed
-26
The Christian Evidence Society
.
-03
The Exercise of Prayer,
.
.
-03
SUFFIELD, Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
The Resurrection An Easter Sermon at the Free Christian Church, Croydon - 0 3
Five Letters on Conversion to Roman Catholicism
- 0 3
The Vatican Decrees and the “Expostulation,” - 0 6
VOYSEY, The R6v. OHAS. On Moral Evil
- 0 6
W. E. B.
An Examination of some Recent Writings about Immortality - 0 6
The Province of Prater,
-06
WHEELWRIGHT, Rev. GEORGE.
The “Edinburgh Review” and Dr Strauss
- 0 3
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian Evidence
Society’s Lectures,
-06
WORTHINGTON, The Rev W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion
- 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.
The Origin and the Abstract and Concrete Nature of the Devil, -03
SCOTT’S “ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS.”
In One Volume, 8vo, bound in cloth, post free, 4s. 4d.,
SECOND EDITION OF
THE
ENGLISH
LIFE
OF JESUS.
RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,
THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Notice.—Post Office Orders to be made payable to Thomas Scott,
Westow Hill Office, Upper Norwood, London, S.E.
Friends to the cause ofu Free Inquiry and Free Expression,” are
earnestly requested to give aid in the wide dissemination of these
publications.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On this and the other world
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20, [4] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. Critique of Frances Power Cobbe's 'Essays on life after death' republished from Theological Review, with an added 'elaborate, and, in many respects, valuable Preface commenting on Mr. J.S. Mill's three Posthumous essays'. p. [3]. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
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
[1875]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4857
G5501
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (On this and the other world), 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
Afterlife
Conway Tracts
Frances Power Cobbe
Future Life
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3aaa58cd9e6980e8093a73428d7c1d28.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uhnhk6RJhnzyEcym1exvmjVyN27hnBiLJpp5lyWCgBtr3Qlq3xPspXXxq3THkDCdBKrja9w99oqiGtFbHMwO5O4bj9toxnGB4Vgqx61CKjNCRuyYhqg0LKo5ZViCB5wr31BQRchZB9Et54ELFAqVIvnDf73rI7PpiJqcZ67OFRj01YMAd%7ExJmnreJ4q-Dun4hHhbFIOrxGLvi4P1Md31fzh5cCxg8-6bLznttAdNyGpSndh%7EzKpVyqRswWxJVTJ8cgHfcyzkJHjtK6JlucCtr%7E1w6I24cQIjQ8%7ECv0AuV1ouDtxgWq4uscaniCzv%7E8bmDqtRacOpWHyMIHgpQ3qqxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de7fb5c29702b05d959d422d53307d01
PDF Text
Text
THE
Logic of Death,
Qi, fclju sfyonlb i^re
fear to
?
By G. J. Holyoake.
“Even in the 'last dread scene of all’ personal conviction Is sufficient to produce
calmness and confidence. There was one, who for three months suffered agonies
unutterable, who evAla-imod in his anguish, ‘ So much torture, O God, to trill a
poor worm! Yet if by one word I could shorten this misery, I would not say it.
And at lasi^ folded his arms, and calmly said, ‘ Now I die!’ Yet this man was
an avowed infidel, and worse, an apostate priest.”—Spoken by Father Nbwmah
yn the Oratory of St. Philip Neri) of Blanco White.
[EIGHTIETH THOUSAND—
ENLARGED AND REVISED EDITION.]
LONDON:
AUSTIN & Co., JOHNSON’S COURT, E.C.
1870.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�il
' I1'
Hi
I
J
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH
When the cholera prevailed in London in 1848, many were carried
away without opportunity or power to testify to the stability of
those conclusions which had been arrived at when life was calm, and
the understanding healthy. The slightest summary of opinions,
concientiously prepared, would have been sufficient to prevent mis
representation after death, provided the person who had drawn up
such statements had strength to revert to them, and to make some sign
that a conviction of their correctness remained. Mr. Hetherington
and myself drew up brief statements of tenets which appeared to us
to be true. He, as we know, sealed his in death. In several lectures
delivered, at the time when no man could calculate on life an hour,
I recited the grounds on which the Atheist might repose, and it has
since appeared that their publication would be useful. The book, of
which a second volume has since appeared, entitled 4 The Closing
Scene,’ by the Rev. Erskine Neale (in which the old legends about
infidel death-beds are revived), lauded by the Times, and patronised
by the upper classes, is proof that there are some priests going up and
down like roaring lions, seeking consciences which they may devour,
and proof of the necessity of some protest on this subject.
Since my trial before Mr. Justice Erskine, in 1842,1 have in some
measure been identified with sceptics of theology, and many ask the
opinions of such on death. If the world ask in respect, or curiosity,
or scorn, I answer for myself alike respectfully and distinctly. I love
the world in spite of its frowning moods. For years I have felt
neither anger nor hatred of any living being, and I will not advisedly
resuscitate those distorting passions through which we see the errors
of each other as crimes.
In my youth I was in such rude contact with the orern realities of life,
that the visions with which theology surrounded my childhood were
eventually dispelled, and now (so far as I can penetrate to it) I look
at destiny face to face. Cradled in suffering and dependence, I was
emboldened to think, and I took out of the hands of the churches,
where I was taught to repose them, the great problems of Life, Time,
and Death, and attempted the solution for myself. It was not long
hidden from me that if I followed the monitions of the pulpit, the
�4
THE EOGJC OF DEATH.
Those who must answer for themselves, have the right to think for themselves.
responsibility was all my own : that at the ‘ bar of God,’ before which
I was instructed all men must one day stand, no preacher would take
my place if, through bowing to his authority, I adopted error. As I,
therefore, must be reponsible for myself, I resolved to think for
myself—and since no man would answer for me, I resolved that no
man should dictate to me the opinion I should hold: for he is impo
tent indeed, and deserves his fate, who has not the courage to act
where he is destined to suffer. My resolution was therefore taken,
and I can say with Burke, ‘ my errors, if any, are my own: I have
[and will have] no man’s proxy.’
In the shade of society my lot was cast, and there I struggled
for more light for myself and brethren. For years I toiled, with
thousands of others, who were never remunerated by the means of
paltriest comfort, and whose lives were never enlivened by real
pleasure. In turning from this I had nothing to hope, nor fear, nor lose.
Since then my days have been chequered and uncertain, but they have
never been criminal, nor servile, nor sad: for the luxury of woe, and the
superfluous refinement of despair, may be indulged in, if by any, by
those only who live in drawing-rooms—sorrow is too expensive an
article to be consumed by the cottager or garreteer. The rightminded in the lowest station may be rich, accepting the wise advice
of Carlyle:—‘ Sweep away utterly all frothiness and falsehood from
your heart: struggle unweariedly to acquire what is possible for every
man—a free, open, humble soul; speak not at all, in any wise, till
you have somewhat to speak; care not for the reward of your
speaking : but simply, and with undivided mind, for the truth of your
speaking: then be placed in what section of Space and of Time soever,
do but open your eyes, and they shall actually see, and bring you
real knowledge, wondrous, worthy of belief.’ Thus have I en
deavoured to see life; and it is from this point of view that I explain
my conceptions of death.
The gates of heaven are considered open to those only who believe
as the priest believes. The theological world acts as if we did not come
here to use our understandings, as if all religious truth was ascertained
2000 years ago, and we are counselled to accept the conclusions of the
Church, on pain of forfeiting the fraternity of men, and the favour of
God. I know the risks I am said to run, but ‘ I am in that place,’ to use
the expression of brave old Knox, ‘ in which it is demanded of me to
speak the truth; and the truth I will speak, impugn it whoso lists.'
And after all, the world is not so bad as antagonism has painted it.
It will forgive a man for speaking plainly, providing he takes care to
speak justly. To give any one pain causes me regret; but, while I
respect the feelings of others, I, as conscience and duty admonish me,
respect the truth more—and by this course I may be society’s friend,
for he who will never shock men may often deceive them.
It becomes me therefore to say that I am not a Christian. If I
could find a consistent and distinctive code of morality emanating
from Jesus I should accept it, and in that sense consent to be called
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
fl
The four tenets of the popular theology.
•
Christian. Butl cannot do it. Nor am I a believer in the Inspiration
of the Bible. That which so often falls below the language of men,
I cannot, without disrespect, suppose to be the language of God.
Whatever I find in the Bible below morality (and I find much), I
reject; what I find above it, I suspect; what I find coincident with
morality (whether in the Old Testament or the New), I retain. 1
make morality a standard. I am therefore the student of Moralism
rather than Christianity. It seems to me that there is nothing in
Christianity which will bear the test of discussion or the face of day,
nothing whereby it can lay hold of the world and move it, which is
not coincident with morality. Therefore morality has all the strength
of Christianity, without the mystery and bigotry of the Bible.
But I am not a Sceptic, if that is understood to imply general doubt;
for though I doubt many church dogmas, I do not doubt honour, or
truth, or humanity. I am not an Unbeliever, if that implies the
rejection of Christian truth—since all I reject is Christian error.
There are four principal dogmas of accredited Christianity which I
do not hold:—
1. The fall of man in Eden. 2. Atonement by proxy. 3. The siy
of unbelief in Christ. 4. Future punishment.
A disbeliever in all these doctrines, why should I fear to die ? I
will state the logic of death, as I conceive it, in relation to these
propositions.
1. If man fell in the Garden of Eden, who placed him there ? It is
said, God! Who placed the temptation there ? It is said, God!
Who gave him an imperfect nature—a nature of which it was fore
known that it would fall? It is said, God! To what does this amount?
If a parent placed his poor child near a fire at which he knew it
would be burnt to death, or near a well into which he knew it would
fall and be drowned, would any deference to creeds prevent our giving
speech to the indignation we should feel ? And can we pretend to
believe God has so acted, and at the same time be able to trust him ?
If God has so acted, he may so act again. This creed can afford
no consolation in death. If he who disbelieves this dogma fears to
die, he who believes it should fear death more.
2. Salvation, it is said, is offered to the fallen. But man is not
fallen, unless the tragedy of Eden really took place. And before
man can be accepted by God he must, according to Christians, own
himself a degraded sinner. But man is not degraded by the misfortune
of Adam. No man can be degraded by the act of another. Dis
honour can come only by his own hands. Man, therefore, needs not
this salvation. And if he needed it, he could not accept it. Debarred
from purchasing it himself, he must accept it as an act of grace. But
can it be required of us to go even to heaven on sufferance? We
despise the poet who is a sycophant before a patron, we despise the
citizen who crawls before a throne, and shall God be said to have
less love of self-respect than man ? He who deserves to be saved thus
hath most need to fear that he shall perish, for he seems to deserve it.
�6
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The offence of sin reaches not to Deity. Proof by Jonathan Edwards.
3. Then in what way can there be a sin of unbelief ? Is not the
understanding the subject of evidence ? A man, with evidence before
him, can no more help seeing it, or feeling its weight, than a man with
his eyes or ears open can help seeing the stars above him or trees
before him, or hearing the sounds made around him. If a man
disbelieve, it is because his conviction is true to his understanding.
If I.disbelieve a proposition, it is through lack of evidence; and the
act is as virtuous (so far as virtue can belong to that which is inevit
able) as the belief of it when the evidence is perfect. If it is meant
that a man is to believe, whether he see evidence or not, it means that
he is to believe certain things, whether true or false—in fine, that he
may qualify himself for heaven by intellectual deception. It is of no
use that the unbeliever is told that he will be damned if he does not
believe; what human frailty may do is another thing; but the judg
ment is clear, that a man ought not to believe, nor profess to believe,
what seems to him to be false, although he should be damned. The
believer who seeks.to propitiate Heaven by this deceit ought to fear
its wrath, not the unbeliever, who rather casts himself on its justice.
4. There is the vengeance of God. But is not the idea invalidated
as soon as you name it ? Can God have that which man ought not
to have—vengeance ? The jurisprudence of earth has reformed itself;
we no longer punish absolutely, we seek the reformation of the
offender. And shall we cherish in heaven an idea we have chased
from earth ? But what has to be punished ? Can the sins of man
disturb the peace of God? If so, as men exist in myriads, and action is
incessant, then is God, as Jonathan Edwards has shown, the most
miserable of beings and the victim of his meanest creatures. Surely
we must see, therefore, that sin against God is impossible. All sin is
finite and relative—all sin is sin against man. Will God punish
this which punishes itself ? If man errs, the bitter consequences are
ever with him. Why should he err ? Does he choose the ignorance,
incapacity, passion, and blindness through which he errs ? Why is
he precipitated, imperfectly natured, into a chaos of crime ? Is not
his destiny made for him ? and shall God punish eternally that sin
which is his misfortune rather than his fault ? Shall man be con
demned to misery in eternity because he has been made wretched,
and weak, and erring in time ? But if man has fallen at his
conscious peril—has thoughtlessly spurned salvation—has wilfully
offended God—will God therefore take vengeance ? Is God with
out magnanimity? If I do wrong to a man who does wrong to
me, I come down (has not the ancient sage warned me ?) to the
level of my enemy. Will God thus descend to the level of vindic
tive man? Who has not thrilled at the lofty question of Volumnia
to Coriolanus ?—
‘ Think’st thou it honourable for a noble man
Still to remember wrongs?’
Shall God be less honourable, and remember the wrong done against
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
|
Christ’s death the great testimony against eternal retribution.
him, not by his equals, but by his own frail creatures ? To be un
able to trust God is to degrade him. Those passages in the New
Testament which we feel to have most interest and dignity, are the
parables in which a servant is told to forgive a debt to one who had
forgiven him; in which a brother is to be forgiven until seventy
times seven (that is unlimitedly): and in the prayer of Christ,
where men claim forgiveness as they have themselves forgiven
others their trespasses.
What was this but erecting a high
moral argument against the relentlessness of future punishment of
erring man ? If, therefore, man is to forgive, shall God do less ?
Shall man be more just than God ? Is there anything so grand in
the life of Christ as his forgiving his enemies as he expired on the
cross ? Was it God the Sufferer behaving more nobly than will God
the Judge? Was this the magnificent teaching of fraternity to
vengeful man, or is it to be regarded as a sublime libel on the
hereafter judgments of heaven ? The infidel is infidel to falsehood, but
he believes in truth and humanity, and when he believes in God, he
will prefer to believe that which is noble of him. Holding by no
conscious error, doing no dishonour in thought, and offering his
homage to love and truth, why should the unbeliever fear to die ?
Seeing the matter in this light, of what can I recant ? The perspicuity
of truth may be dimned by the agonies of death, but no amount of
agony can alter the nature of moral evidence.
To say (which is all I do say) that theology has not sufficient
evidence to make known to us the existence of God, may startle those
who have not thought upon the matter, or who have thought through
others—but has not experience said the same thing to us all ? Where
the intellect fails to perceive the truth, it is said that the feelings
assure us of it by its relieving a sense of dependence natural to man.
How ? Man witnesses those near and dear to him perish before his
eyes, and despite his supplications. He walks through no rose-water
world, and no special Providence smoothes his path. Is not the sense
of dependence. outraged already ?
Man is weak, and a special
Providence gives him no strength—distracted, and no counsel—
ignorant, and no wisdom—in despair, and no consolation—in distress,
and no relief—in darkness, and no light. The existence of God,
therefore, whatever it may be in the hypotheses of philosophy,
seems not recognisable in daily life. It is in vain to say, ‘God
governs by general laws.’
General laws are inevitable fate.
General laws are atheistical. They say practically, ‘ We are without
God in the world—man, look to thyself: weak though thou mayest
be, Nature is thy hope.’ And even so it is. Would I escape the keen
wind’s blast, I seek shelter—from the yawning waves, I look up, not
to heaven, but to naval architecture. In the fire-damp, Davy is
more to me than the Deity of creeds. All nature cries with one voice,
‘ Science is the Providence of man.’ Help lies not in priests, nor in the
prayer : it lies in no theories, it is written in no book, it is contained
in no theological creed—it lies in science, art, courage, and industry.
�8
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
Atheism suspensive worship.
Some who regard all profession of opinion as a mere matter of
policy, and not of the understanding, will tell me that I can believe as
I please, and that I may call the Deity of theology what name I please:
forgetful that names are founded on distinctions, and that he who does
not penetrate to them is unqualified to decide this matter. It is in
vain to say believe as I please, or entitle things as I please—philoso
phical evidence and classification leave no choice in the matter.
The existence of God is a problem to which the mathematics of
human intelligence seem to me to furnish no solution. On the
threshold of the theme we stagger under a weight of words. We
tread amid a dark quagmire bestrewed with slippery terms. Now
the clearest miss their w.Q,y, w the cautions stumble, now the
strongest fall.
If there be a Deity to whom I am indebted, anxious for my grati
tude or my service, I am as ready to render it as any one existent, so
soon as I comprehend the nature of my duty. I therefore protest
against being Cviisidered, as Christians commonly consider the
unbeliever, as one who hates God, or is without a reverential spirit.
Hatred implies knowledge of the objectionable thing, and cannot
exist where nothing is understood. I am not unwilling to believe in
God, but I am unwilling to use language which conveys no adequate
idea to my own understanding.
Deem me not blind to the magnificence of nature or the beauties of
art, because T Zflerjc’et their language differently from others. I
thrill in the presence^of the dawn of day, and exult in the glories of
the setting sun. Whether the world wears her ebon and jewelled
crown of night, or the day walks wonderingly forth over the face of
nature, to me—
‘ Not the lightest leaf but trembling teems
With golden visions and romantic dreams.’
It is not in a low, but in an exalted estimate of nature that my rejec
tion of the popular theology arises. The wondrous manifestations of
nature indispose me to degrade it to a secondary rank. I am driven
to the conclusion that the great aggregate of matter which we call
Nature is eternal, because we are unable to conceive a state of things
when nothing was. There must always have been something, or
there could be nothing now. This the dullest feel. Hence we arrive
at the idea of the eternity of matter. .And in the eternity of matter
we are assured of the self-existence of matter, and self-existence is the
most majestic of attributes, and includes all others. That which has
the power to exist independently of a God, has doubtless the power to
act without the delegation of one. It therefore seems to me that
Nature and God are one—in other words, that the God whom we
seek is the Nature which we know.
I will not encumber, obscure, or conceal my meaning with a cloud
of words. I recognise in Nature but the aggregation of matter. The
term God seems to me inapplicable to Nature. In the mouth of the
�THE LOGIC OS’ DEATH.
The distinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist.
Theist, God signifies an entity, spiritual and percipient, distinct from
matter. With Pantheists the term God signifies the aggregate of
Nature—but nature as a Being, intelligent and conscious. It is my
inability to subscribe to either of these views which prevents me
being ranked with Theists. I can conceive of nothing beyond
Nature, distinct from it, and above it. The language invented
by Pope, to the effect that ‘we look through Nature up to
Nature’s God,’ has no significance for me, as I know nothing be
sides Nature and can conceive of nothing greater. The majesty of
the universe so transcends my faculties of penetration, that I pause
in awe and silence before it. It seems not to belong to man to com
prehend its attributes and extent, and to affirm what lies beyond it.
The Theist, therefore, I leave; but while I go with the Pantheist so
far as to accept the fact of Nature in the plenitude of its diverse,
illimitable, and transcendent manifestations, I cannot go farther and
predicate with the Pantheist the unity of its intelligence and
consciousness. This is the inability, rather than any design of my
own, which has exposed me to the unacceptable designation of
Atheist.
One has said, I know not whether in the spirit of scorn or suffering,
but I repeat it in the spirit of truth—‘ What went before and what
will follow me, I regard as two black impenetrable curtains, which
hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no living
man has yet drawn aside. Many hundreds of generations have
already stood before them with their torches, guessing anxiously what
lies behind.. On the curtain of futurity many see their own shadows,
the forms of their passions enlarged and put in motion; they shrink
in terror at this image of themselves.. Poets, philosophers,, and
founders of states, have painted this curtain with their dreams, more
smiling or more dark as the sky above them was cheerful or gloomy;
and their pictures deceive the eye when viewed from a distance.
Many jugglers, too, make profit of this our universal curiosity: by
their strange mummeries they have set the outstretched fancy in
amazement. A deep silence reigns behind this curtain ; no one once
within will answer those he has left without; all you can hear is a
hollow echo of your question, as if you shouted into a chasm.’*
Theology boasts that it has obtained an answer. What is it ? The
world will stand still to hear it. Worshipper of Jesus, of Jehovah,
of Allah, of Bramah—in conventicle, cathedral, mosque, temple, or in
unbounded nature—what is the secret of the universe, and the destiny
of man ? What knowest thou more than thy fellows, and what dost
thou adore? He has no secret to tell. You have still the old
dual answer of centuries, given in petulance or contempt—‘ All the
world have heard it, and so has youor, ‘ None can understand the
Infinite, and you must submit.’ The solution of the problem must
therefore be sought independently.
Separate individual man from the traditions of theology, and what
is his history? A few years ago he sprang into existence like 9
�It,
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The actuality of life apart from theology
*
bubble on the ocean, or a flower on the plain. He came from the
blank chaos of the past, where consciousness was never known, where
no gleam of the present ever pierces, no voice of the future is ever
heard. He exists—but in what age he appears, or among what people
or circumstances he is thrown, is to him a matter of accident; To him
no control, no choice is vouchsafed. His physical constitution, his
powers and susceptibilities, his proportion of health or disease, are
made for him: and fettered in nature and fixed in sphere, he goes
forth to struggle or to triumph, and encounter the war of elements
and strife of passion, and oppose himself to ignorance, error, and
interest, as best he may.
Three or four years pass away before sentient existence is lighted
with the spark of consciousness, which burns faintly, intensely, or
flickeringly till death. Gradually the phenomena of the universe
disclose themselves to man. The ocean in its majesty, or the earth in
its variety, engage him—spring is exhilarating, summer smiling,
autumn foreboding, winter stern. By day the sun, by night the moon
and stars, look down like the eyes of Time watching his movements.
Above him is inconceivable altitude—around him, unbounded dis
tance—below, unfathomable profundity; and he arrives at such idea
as man has of the infinite. What is, seems to exist of its own inherent
power. It always wvas, or it could not be. The idea of universal
non-entity is instinctively rejected. Utter annihilation never enters
into his most desultory conceptions. The sentiment of the Everlasting
seems the first fruit of meditation, as an impression of the Infinite was
the first lesson of comprehensive observation. Man stands connected
with the infinite by position, and is related to the eternal in his
origin, and an emotion of conscious dignity follows the first exercise
cf his reason—and his pride and his confidence are strengthened by
perceiving that this infinite is the infinite of phenomena, and the
eternal that of matter. He may be but the spray dashed carelessly
against the shore, or the meteor-flash that for a moment illumines a
speck of cloud—or a sand of the desert which the whirlwind sweeps
into a transient elevation with scarcely time for distinction: yet he is
sustained by conscious connection with the ever-existing,though ever
changing—his home is with the everlasting, and when he sinks, it is
into the bosom of nature, the magnificent womb and mausoleum of all
life.
As youth advances, and his experience increases, he finds his
knowledge amplified. With nothing intuitive but the aptitude to
learn, he feels that his wisdom is ever commensurate with his industry
or observation—and as even aptitude is but progressively manifested,
he perceives that to attempt the untried, is to develop his being more.
Prematurely wasted by sudden efforts to change the order of society
or influences of things, he sees that nature never hastens, and that in
measured continuity of action lies the rule of success. Neither the
* Thomas Garlyle.
�THE LOGIC Gif xmCATH.
11
The epitaph of a student of nature.
muscle of the gladiator, nor the brain of Newton, acquired at once
their volume or power—the leveling of the mountain or the raising
of the pyramid is not the result of a single hasty attempt, but of
repeated and patient efforts. Thus, while man learns that his degree
of intelligence depends upon his industry and observation, his con
quests depend on the strength of his perseverance—and he looks to
himself, to the exercise of his faculties, and the right direction of his
exertions, both for his knowledge and his power. His lot may be cast
in barbarian caves, where ignorance and wildness ever frown, or under
gilded pinnacle, where learning and refinement are lustrous : he may
have to tread the very rudimental steps of civilisation, or he may
have but to stretch forth his hand to appropriate its spoils—still what
he will be will depend on his aptitudes, and what he will acquire on
his discrimination, application, assiduity, and intrepidity.
As his improvement, so also his protection depends on his own pre
cautions. lie defends himself from the inclemency of the elements
by suitable clothing—for health he seeks the salubrious locality,
wholesome, nutritious food, exercise, recreation, and rest in due pro
portion, and observes temperance in all things. His security on land
is the well-built habitation—on the sea, the firmly-built vessel. His
relation to the external world, and the conditions of fraternity with
his fellows, are the physical and social problems he has to solve. He
sees the strength of passion and the educative force of circumstances,
and he studies them to control them. The affairs of men are a process
which he seeks to wisely regulate, not blindly and violently thwart.
The world has two ages—those of fear and love. The barbarian and
incipient past has been the epoch of fear. Even now its dark shadows
lower over us. Love has never yet emerged from poesy and passion,
has not yet put forth half its strength, nor kindness half its power.
These graceful forces of humanity, whose victory is that of peace,
have scarcely invaded the dominions of war—but Love will one day
step into the throne of Fear, the arts of peace become the business
of life, and fraternity the watch-word of joyous nations. Plainly, as
though written with the finger of Orion on the vault of night, does
man read this future in his heart. The impulse of affection that leaps
unbidden in his breast, though suppressed in competitive strife, or
withered by cankering cares, yet returns in the woodland walk and
the midnight musing, ever whispering of something better to be
realised than war, and dungeons, and isolated wealth have yet brought
us. The student of self and nature, thus impressed, goes forth in the
busy scene of life, to improve and to please. The attributes which
rationalism prescribes to man, are perennial discretion and kindness.
Thus I have believed. I accepted the order of things I found with
out complaint, and I attempted their improvement without despair—
and it might be written on my tomb,
‘ I was not troubled with the time which drova
O'er my content its strong necessities,
But let determined things to destiny
xlold unbewailed their way.’
�19
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The physical fear of death as groundless as the theological.
And looking out from the bed of death, over the dim sea of the
future, on which no voyager’s bark is seen returning, I can place no
dependence on priestly dogmas, which all life has belied. The paltry
visions of gilt trumpets and angels’ wings seem like the visions of
irony or levity. The reality it is more heroic to contemplate. The
darkness and mystery of the future create a longing for unravelment.
The enigma of life makes the poetry of death, and. invests with a
sublime interest the last venture on untried existence.
Many honest and intelligent persons, who do not feat the future,
fear the transit to it. Novelists and dramatists, in illustrating a false
theory of crime, adopted from the Churches, have drawn exaggerated
pictures of the aspects of death, through which the popular idea of
dying has become melodramatic, and as far from truth and nature, as
is the extravagance of melodrama from the pure tone of simple and
noble tragedy.
A little reflection will show us that the physical fear some have of
death is as groundless as the moral. Eminent physicians have shown
that death being always preceded by the depression of the nervous
system, life must always terminate without feeling While appre
hension is vivid, while a scream of terror or pain can be uttered, death
is still remote. Organic disease, or a mortal blow, may end existence
with a sudden pang, but in the majority of cases men pass out of life as
unconsciously as they came into it. To the well-informed, death, in
its gradualness and harmlessness, is, what Homer called it—the half
brother of sleep: and the wise expect it undisturbed; and if they
have no reason to welcome it, bear it like any other calamity.
Were we not from childhood the victims of superstitions, we should
always regard death thus; but priests make death the rod whereby
they whip the understanding into submission to untenable dogmas.
For men know no independence, and are at the mercy of every strong
imposition, while they fear to die. That ancient spoke a noble truth
who said nothing could harm that man—tyranny had no terrors with
which it could subdue him who had conquered the fear of the grave.
How often progress has been arrested—how often good men have
faltered in their course—how often philosophy has concealed its light,
and science denied its own demonstrations, only because the priest
has pointed to his distorted image of death!
Among people of cultivated intelligence the idea of a punishing
God is morally repulsive. It is rejected as a fact because demoralising
as an example. The Unitarian principle, which trusts God and never
fears him, is the instinct of civilisation: it gains ground every day
and in every quarter. The parent coerces his child in order to cor
rect him, because the parent wants patience, or time, or wisdom, or
humanity. But as God is assumed to want none of these qualities, he
can attain any end of government he wishes by instruction, for in
moral discipline ‘it is not conduct but character which has to be
changed.’ In Francis William Newman’s portraiture of Christian
attributes, he enumerates ‘love, compassion, patience, disinterested-
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The Golden Rule considered as a maxim of the Last Judgment.
aess,’ qualities incompatible with the sentiment of eternal punishment
—and as was before observed, God cannot be supposed as falling short
of the virtues of cultivated Christians. If we accept the hypothesis of
God, we must agree with Mr. Newman that ‘ all possible perfectness
of man’s spirit must be a mere faint shadow of the divine perfection.’
‘ The thought that any should have endless woe,
Would cast a shadow on the throne of God,
And darken heaven.’
The greatest aphorism ascribed to Christ, called his Golden Rule,
tells us that we should do unto others as we would others should do
unto us. It is not moral audacity, but a logical and legitimate
application of this maxim, to say that if men shall eventually stand
before the bar of God, God will not pronounce upon any that appalling
sentence, ‘ Cast them into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth;’ because this will not be doing to others as he, in
the same situation, would wish to be done unto himself. If frail man is
to ‘ do good to them that hate him,’ God, who is said to be also Love,
will surely not burn those who, in their misfortune and blindness,
have erred against him. He who is above us all in power, will be also
above us all in magnanimity.
Wonderful is the imbecility of the people! The rich man is con
ceded the holiest sepulchre in the Church, although his wealth be won
by extortion or chicane, or selfishly hoarded while thousands of his
brethren have perished, while children have grown up hideous for
want of food, while women have stooped consumptive over the needle,
and men have died prematurely of care and toil. The priest-soothed
conscience feels no terror on the pillow of plethoric affluence—then
why should the poor man be uneasy in death ? Kings and queens, who
cover their brows with diadems stained with human blood, and main
tain their regal splendour out of taxes extorted from struggling
industry, are, in their last hours, assured by the highest spiritual
authorities of their free admission to Heaven, and Poets-Laureat have
sung of their welcome there—then why should the obscure man be
tremulous as to acceptance at the hand of Him who is called the God
of the poor ? The aristocracy pass from time unmolested by death-bed
apprehensions, although they hold fast to privilege and splendour,
though their tenants expire on the fireless hearth, or on the friendless
mattrass of the Poor Law Union—then why should the people enter
tain dread ? While every tyrant who has fettered his country—and
every corrupt minister who has plotted for its oppression, or betrayed
its freedom to the ‘ Friends of Order ’—is committed to the grave ‘ in
the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection ’—why should the
indigent patriot fear to die ? While even the bishop, who federates
with the despots, and gives his vote almost uniformly against the people
—while the Priests, Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenting, work into the
hands of the government against the poor, and fulminate celestial
menaces against those whose free thoughts reject the fetters of
their creeds—while these can die in peace, what have the honest
�14
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
It is only the slave soul that imagines a tyrant God.
and the independent to fear ?
If the insensate monarch, the
sordid millionaire, the rapacious noble, the false politician, and
the servile clergyman, meet death with assurance, surely humble
industry, patient merit, and enduring poverty, need not own a
tremor or heave a sigh ! If we choose to live as freemen, let us at
least have the dignity to die so, nor discredit the privilege of liberty
by an unmanly bearing. If we have the merit of integrity, we should
also have its peace—while we have the destiny of suffering we should
not have less than its courage !
The truth is, if we do not know how to die, it is because we do not
know how to live. If we know ourselves, we know that when we
can preserve the temper of love, and of service, by which love is
manifested, and of endurance, by which love is proved, we acquire
that healthy sense of duty done which casts out fear. They who
constantly mean well and do well, know not what it is to dread ill.
And the fearless are also the free, and the free have no foreboding.
‘It is only the slave soul which dreads a tyrant God.’* Therefore—
‘ So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, that moves
To that mysterious realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry slave at night
Scourged to his dungeon; but approach thy gravo
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.’f
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH*
13
The Queen’s Views.
Since this article was written in 1849, the religions doctrine o'
death in England has entirely changed. The highest minds in
the Church of England, the most cultivated preachers among the
Dissenters have, in some cases, since originated, and in others, now
accept views similar in spirit to those advocated in these pages.
Bishop Colenso found that when the honest and clear thinking
Kafir of Natal was told of the “dreadful judgment of God,” which
an ignorant orthodox Missionary carried to him, he replied with
great simplicity but with natural dignity and resolution—‘ If
that be so we would rather not hear about it;’ and the
Bishop has found the means of proving, even from St. Paul him
self, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is alien to the genius
of Christianity and must be given up. Professor Maurice, the
most influential name in the Church of England, now teaches
that the conception of punishment by physical pain is a gross idea,
and that the sense of having incurred God’s moral displeasure is the
deepest natural punishment to the spiritual man. Her Majesty
the Queen has authorised the publication, since the death of the
Prince, of ‘ Meditations on Death and Eternity, of which the
*
leading idea is that even ‘ sudden death is a sudden benefit ’ to
those who live well, and that those ‘ who endeavour to make
amends for every fault by noble actions’ ought no more ‘to
dread to appear before God ’ ‘ than a child ought to fear to ap
pear before its loving parent, even though it had not yet con
quered all its faults.’ This is nobler and more humane doctrine
than was ever taught by authority in this country before. But
incomparably the finest passage in the whole compass of litera
ture, which depicts the spirit in which all should conduct life so
as to meet death in a patient and noble way, is from the pen of
Mazzini. It occurred in a criticism upon George Sand, in an
article in the Monthly Chronicle in 1839. It contains the whole
of that philosophy which has given to Italy its heroes and its
freedom, .and taught the Italian patriots in so many forlorn
struggles how to die without sadness and without regret. The
sublime passage is this—‘ Schiller, the poet of grand thoughts,
Las said, I Those only love that love without hope.” There is in
these few words more than poetry ; they contain a whole religious
philosophy that we do not yet well understand, but that futurity
will. Life is a mission; its end is not the search after happiness,
but the knowledge andfulfilment of duty. Love is not enjoyment,
it is devotedness. If on the path of duty and devotedness God
sends us some beams of happiness, let us bless God, and bask our
limbs enfeebled by the fatigues of the journey ; but let us not
suspend it for long; let us not say—“We have found the secret
of existence, for the action of the law of our existence cannot be
concentrated in ourselves; its development must be pursued from
'Without. And if we meet only suffering, still march on ; suffer and
�THE LOGIC i'F DEATH.
Mazzini’s Views.
ad. God will measure our progress towards him not by what
we have suffered, but by how much we have desired to diminish the
sufferings of others, by how much our efforts have been directed to
the saving and the perfecting our brethren.''' Of those who believe
in God intelligently, this is the language they hold—and those
who are not Theists, this is the doctrine they trust. People who
say they could not be happy with the convictions of the Atheist,
the Sceptic, or the Heretic, speak merely for themselves; they do
not speak for us. With regard to us, they speak of that of which
they know nothing, and of that of which they have no experience.
With their views what they say may be true. But different views
and different principles bring with them their own consolations.
Conviction makes all the difference. It is not the formal creed
which gives mental support, but the consciousness of truth and
integrity and pure intent. Nothing can disturb the peace of mind
of those armed by a fortitude founded on love and justice, on rec
titude and reason.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: Enlarged and rev. ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Eightieth thousand edition. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, G.J.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4958
CT14
N310
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Conway Tracts
Death
Death-Religious aspects-Comparative studies
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/713e3a63908e9da4db3d6fa70b004c67.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MhqkNispXGWJ-NHJ46pvierwZlO5VCYFTNUka-RFqyk2hvbySMvneh1u3iMvKNYQcYgiM-yNKZhvu3-LviUdUshNMFsi9L98F1eFm1lcxW4ediVcWn8ZwiHSGsG10nX39n5Kdkv6KR1-FSH-mI-zkmUxLEeJLFRL-TLdyaN-77Nc%7EkjAZrXkz-roIDjPdcnSM3OXuZEN2gbtJwXCx2CL6M3jY4RSiFNymztqrX5XAWLmpzswX%7EnlsbF1iD8gsDx8ro0QGXB5pHPampHSHQra%7E8-VIoRJhPf-EbZaQmvWyYUnhuoOdbrT4iNHWHzMgEfVKFIPHhO-toMgZQg3qqz4yw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9759235cc68687ed8f7f56b3f7defe60
PDF Text
Text
mtltir tamtmits.
A BURIAL SERVICE.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
�I
�A BURIAL SERVICE.
The following is designed as one of the services for the little
Manual of Secular Ceremonies. Having lost the nearest and
dearest relatives a man can know—having passed, I may say,
through a baptism of bereavement, I know but too well the
agony of the grave side. I have endeavoured—but very
inadequately, I am sure—to produce a short service which
shall afford consolation and reconcilement to the sorrowing,
from a Secular point of view. The service as it now stands
is suitable to be said over the grave of an adult male; it
may, with slight effort, by altering the gender, be made
suitable for a female also. It is almost impossible to write
that which would be applicable to all persons of all ages. It
■can always be sufficiently individualised by some friend of
the deceased introducing a few remarks of a personal nature.
We this day consign to the earth the body of
our departed friend ; for him life’s fitful dream
is over, with its toils, and sufferings, and dis
appointments. He derived his being from the
bountiful mother of all ; he returns to her capa
cious bosom, to again mingle with the elements.
He basked in life’s sunshine for his allotted time,
and has passed into the shadow of death, where
sorrow and pain are unknown. Nobly he per-
�4
A Burial Service.
formed life’s duties on the stage of earth; the
impenetrable curtain of futurity has fallen, and
we see him no more. But he leaves to his
sorrowing relatives and friends a legacy in the
remembrance of his virtues, his services, his
honour, and truth. He fought the good fight
of Free Inquiry, and triumphed over prejudice
and the results of misdirected education. His
voyage through life was not always on tranquil
seas, but his strong judgment steered him clear
of the rocks and quicksands of ignorance, and
for years he rested placidly in the haven of selfknowledge. He had long been free from the
fears and misgivings of superstitious belief. He
worked out for himself the problem of life, and
no man was the keeper of his conscience. His
religion was of this world—the service of human
ity his highest aspiration. He recognised no
authority but that of Nature ; adopted no
methods but those of science and philosophy ;
and respected in practice no rule but that of
conscience, illustrated by the common sense of
mankind. He valued the lessons of the past,
but disowned tradition as a ground of belief,
whether miracles and supernaturalism be claimed
or not claimed on its side. No sacred Scripture
or ancient Church formed the basis of his faith.
By his example, he vindicated the right to think
and to act upon conscientious conviction. By a
career so noble, who shall say that his domestic
affections were impaired, or that his love for those
near and dear to him was weakened ? On the
contrary, his independent method of thought
�A Burial Service.
5
tended to develop those sentiments which have
their source in human nature—which impel and
ennoble all morality—which are grounded upon
intelligent personal conviction, and which mani
fest themselves in worthy and. heroic actions,
especially in the promotion of Truth, Justice,
and Love. For worship of the unknown, he sub
stituted Duty; for prayer, Work; and the record
of his life bears testimony to his purity of heart;
and the bereaved ones know but too well the
treasure that is lost to them for ever. If perfect
reliance upon any particular belief in the hour
of death were any proof of its truth, then in the
death of our friend the principles of Secularism
would be triumphantly established. His belief
sustained him in health ; during his illness, with
the certainty of death before him at no distant
period, it afforded him consolation and en
couragement ; and in the last solemn moments
of his life, when he was gazing as it were into
his own grave, it procured him the most perfect
tranquillity of mind. There were no misgivings,
no doubts, no tremblings lest he should have
missed the right path; but he went undaunted
into the land of the great departed, into the
silent land. It may be truly said of him, that
nothing in life became him more than the manner
of his leaving it. Death has no terrors for the
enlightened; it may bring regrets at the thought
of leaving those we hold dearest on earth, but
the consciousness of a well-spent life is allsufficient in the last sad hour of humanity. Death
is but the shadow of a shade, and there is noth-
�6
A Buriat Service.
ing in the name that should blanch the cheek
or inspire the timid with fear. In its presence,
pain and care give place to rest and peace. The
sorrow-laden and the forlorn, the unfortunate
and the despairing, find repose in the tomb—all
the woes and ills of life are swallowed up in
death. The atoms of this earth once were living
man, and in dying, we do but return to our
kindred who have existed through myriads of
generations.
[Here introduce any personal matters relating to the
deceased.]
Now our departed brother has been removed,
death, like a mirror, shows us his true reflex.
We see his character undistorted by the pas
sions, the prejudices, and the infirmities of life.
And how poor seem all the petty ambitions
which are wont to sway mankind, and how
small the advantages of revenge. Death is so
genuine a fact, that it excludes falsehood, or
betrays its emptiness; it is a touchstone that
proves the gold, and dishonours the baser metal.
Our friend has entered upon that eternal rest,
that happy ease, which is the heritage of all.
The sorrow and grief of those who remain,
alone mar the thought that the tranquil sleep
of death has succeeded that fever of the brain
called living. Death comes as the soothing
anodyne to all our woes and struggles, and we
inherit the earth as a reward for the toils of life.
The pain of parting is poignant, and cannot for
�A Burial Service.
7
a time be subdued; but regrets are vain. Every
form that lives must die, for the penalty of life
is death. No power can break the stern decree
that all on earth must part; though the chain
be weaved by affection or kindred, the beloved
ones who weep for us will only for a while re
main. There is not a flower that scents the
mountain or the plain, there is not a rose-bud
that opes its perfumed lips to the morning sun,
but, ere evening comes, may perish. Man
springs up like the tree: at first the tender plant,
he puts forth buds of promise, then blossoms for
a time, and gradually decays and passes away.
His hopes, like the countless leaves of the forest,
may wither and be blown about by the adverse
winds of fate, but his efforts, springing from
the fruitful soil of wise endeavour, will fructify
the earth, from which will rise a blooming
harvest of happy results to mankind. In the
solemn presence of death—solemn, because a
mystery which no living being has penetrated—
on the brink of that bourne from whence no
traveller returns, our obvious duty is to emu
late the good deeds of the departed, and to
resolve so to shape our course through life, that
when our hour comes we can say, that though
our temptations were great—though our educa
tion was defective—though our toils and priva
tions were sore—we never wilfully did a bad
act, never deliberately injured our fellow-man.
The reward of a useful and virtuous life is the
conviction that our memory will be cherished
by those who come after us, as we revere the
�8
A Burial Service.
memories of the great and good who have gone
before. This is the only immortality of which
we know—the immortality of the great ones of
the world, who have benefitted their age and
race by their noble deeds, their brilliant thoughts,
their burning words. Their example is ever
with us, and their influence hovers round the
haunts of men, and stimulates to the highest
and happiest daring Man has a heaven too,
but not that dreamed of by some—far, far away,
beyond the clouds ; but here on earth, created by
the fireside, and built up of the love and respect
of kindred and friends, and within the reach of
tlie humblest who work for the good of others
and the perfectibility of humanity. As we drop
the tear of sympathy at the grave now about
to close over the once loved form, may the
earth lie lightly on him, may the flowers bloom
o’er his head, and may the winds sigh softly as
they herald the coming night. Peace and re
spect be with his memory. Farewell, a long
farewell!
LONDON":
AUSTIN & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COUBT, FLEET STBEET, E.C.
PEICE ONE PENNY.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Secular ceremonies. A burial service.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin [1826-1874]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Inscription in ink on the title page: "M.D. Conway for P. Truelove Dec 2/74". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Austin & Co., Fleet Street, London. Tentative date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1869?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT19
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Secular ceremonies. A burial service.), 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
Burial
Ceremonies
Conway Tracts
Funerals
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2d69c6892583b928b1947b0db27bc976.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vZ-Jr2r6UoKsNs8Zfgn-EVPe3lG4H8W-f1yp-kSh3Vjoc9H0mYiKyKS-tjSdPCzzrzVd0D%7EHqetjTsib0cUpHIqlTE7%7EeKw3OtyejVrJchI8AQUE%7EXpq5XoYSyLWWArQLjcgKq2U5s4aQGWMdiol9MjIgbme0UX-hqnhCj6Jd92BuLCAAVyQCvdIsK539HLR6MQK1MLzFJhPHFedbBJaXSa6sg0VOTgDDgJCIvA-b6vDK3-LyaAK5uiA5%7E%7E7nKKrJ1Brsjh8oeR9IEnYguO%7E6bpfJn4MBMRIRQCmzJLkqJEHRHaJmD-He%7E5E4sCyECTTeIL4KcZj2jmayl28oxV9xg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ee2c6aab5b642dc78563ff3059d18c98
PDF Text
Text
6
INFIDEL
FOOTE.
Idle Tales of Dying Horrors.
—CAffiLYEE.
PUBLISHING
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
��NATIONAL SEOUL' ' —'THIY
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
■>
“ Idle Tales of Dying Horrors."
—Carlyle.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1886.
�LONDON:
FEINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
----------- f-----------
Infidel death-beds have been a fertile theme of pulpit elo
quence.
The priests of Christianity often inform their
congregations that Faith is an excellent soft pillow, and
Reason a horrible hard bolster, for the dying head. Freethought, they say, is all very well in the days of our health
and strength, when we are buoyed up by the pride of carnal
intellect; but ah! how poor a thing it is when health and
strength fail us, when, deserted by our self-sufficiency, we
need the support of a stronger power. In that extremity the
proud Freethinker turns to Jesus Christ, renounces his wicked
scepticism, implores pardon of the Savior he has despised,
and shudders at the awful scenes that await him in the next
world should the hour of forgiveness be past.
Pictorial art has been pressed into the service of this plea
for religion, and in such orthodox periodicals as the British
Workman, to say nothing of the horde of pious inventions
which are circulated as tracts, expiring sceptics have been
portrayed in agonies of terror, gnashing their teeth, wringing
their hands, rolling their eyes, and exhibiting every sign of
despair.
One minister of the gospel, the Rev. Erskine Neale, has not
thought it beneath his dignity to compose an extensive series
of these holy frauds, under the title of Closing Scenes. This *
work was, at one time, very popular and influential; but its
specious character having been exposed, it has fallen into
disrepute, or at least into neglect.
The real answer to these arguments, if they may be called
SBich, is to be found in the body of the present work. I have
narrated in a brief space, and from the best authorities, the
“ closing scenes ” in the lives of many eminent Freethinkers
during the last three centuries. They are not anonymous
persons without an address, who cannot be located in time or
space, and who simply serve “to point a moral or adorn a
tale.” Their names are in most cases historical, and in some
�4
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
cases familiar to fame; great poets, philosophers, historians,
and wits, of deathless memory, who cannot be withdrawn
from the history of our race without robbing it of much of its
dignity and splendor.
In some instances I have prefaced the story of their deaths
with a short, and in others with a lengthy, record of their
lives. The ordinary reader cannot be expected to possess a
complete acquaintance with the career and achievements of
every great soldier of progress; and I have therefore-; con
sidered it prudent to afford such information as might be
deemed necessary to a proper appreciation of the character,
the greatness, and the renown, of the subjects of my sketches.
When the hero of the story has been the object of calumny
or misrepresentation, when his death has been falsely related,
and simple facts have been woven into a tissue of lying ab
surdity, I have not been content with a bare narration of the
truth ; I have carried the war into the enemy’s camp, and
refuted their mischievous libels.
One of our greatest living thinkers entertains “ the belief
that the English mind, not readily swayed by rhetoric, moves
freely under the pressure of facts.”* I may therefore venture
to hope that the facts I have recorded will have their proper
effect on the reader’s mind. Yet it may not be impolitic to
examine the orthodox argument as to death-bed repentances.
Carlyle, in his Essay on Voltaire, utters a potent warning
against anything of the kind.
“ Surely the parting agonies of a fellow-mortal, when the spirit
of oui- brother, rapt in the whirlwinds and thick ghastly vapors of
death, clutches blindly for help, and no help is there, are not the
scenes where a wise faith would seek to exult, when it can no longer
hope to alleviate ! For the rest, to touch farther on those their idle
tales of dying horrors, remorse, and the like ; to write of such, to
believe them, or disbelieve them, or in anywise discuss them, were
but a continuation of the same ineptitude. He who, after the imper
turbable exit of so many Cartouches and Thurtells, in every age of
the world, can continue to regard the manner of a man’s death as a
test of his religious orthodoxy, may boast himself impregnable to
merely terrestrial logic. ”f
There is a great deal of truth in this vigorous passage. I
fancy, however, that some of the dupes of priestcraft are not
absolutely impregnable to terrestrial logic, and I discuss the
* Dr. E. B. Tylor: Preface to second edition of Primitive Culture.
t Essays, Vol. II., p. 161 (People's edition).
�INTBODUCTION.
5
subject for their sakes, even at the risk of being held guilty
of “ineptitude.”
____
Throughout the world, the religion of mankind is determined
by the geographical accident of their birth. In England men
grow up Protestants-; in Italy, Catholics ; in Russia, Greek
Christians ; in Turkey, Mohammedans ; in India, Brahmans ; >
in China, Buddhists or Confucians. What they are taught
in their childhood, they believe in their manhood; and they
die in the faith in which they have lived.
Here and there a few men think for themselves. If they
discard the faith in which they have been educated, they are
never free from its influence. It meets them at every turn,
and is constantly, by a thousand ties drawing them back to
the orthodox fold. The stronger resist this attraction, the
weaker succumb to it. Between them is the average man,
whose tendency will depend on several things. If he is iso
lated, or finds but few sympathisers, he may revert to the
ranks of faith ; if he finds many of the same opinion with
himself, he will probably display more fortitude. Even
Freethinkers are gregarious, and in the worst as well as the
best sense of the words, the saying of Novalis is true—“ My
F
11
1
''
”’
jther.”
Lut m all cases ot reversion, the sceptic invariably returns
to the creed of his own country. What does this prove ?
Simply the power of our environment, and the force of early
training. When “ infidels ” are few, and their relatives are
orthodox, what could be more natural than what is called “ a
death-bed recantation ?” Their minds are enfeebled by dis
ease, or the near approach of death; they are surrounded by
persons who continually urge them to be reconciled to the
popular faith ; and is it astonishing if they sometimes yield to
these solicitations ? Is it wonderful if, when all grows dim,
and the priestly carrion-crow of the death-chamber mouths his
perfunctory shibboleths, that the weak brain should become
dazed, and the poor tongue mutter a faint response ?
Should the dying man be old, there is still less reason for
surprise. Old age yearns back to the cradle, and as Dante
Rossetti says—
“ Life all past
Is like the sky when the sun sets in it,
Clearest where furthest off.”
The “recantation” of old men, if it occurs, is easily under
�6
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
stood. Having been brought up in a particular religion, their
earliest and tenderest memories may be connected with it;
and when they lie down to die they may mechanically recur
to it, just as they may forget whole years of their maturity,
and vividly remember the scenes of their childhood. Those
who have read Thackeray’s exquisitely faithful and pathetic
narrative of the death of old Col. Newcome, will remember
that as the evening chapel bell tolled its last note, he smiled,
lifted his head a little, and cried “ Adsum 1”—the. boy’s answer
when the names were called at school.
Cases of recantation, if they were ever common, which
does not appear to be true, are now exceedingly rare ; so rare,
indeed, that they are never heard of except in anonymous
tracts, which are evidently concocted for the glory of God,
rather than the edification of Man. Sceptics are at present
numbered by thousands, and they can nearly always secure
at their bedsides the presence of friends who share their un
belief. Every week, the Freethought journals report quietly,
and as a matter of course, the peaceful end of “ infidels ”
who, having lived without hypocrisy, have died without fear^.
They are frequently buried by theirTieterodox friends, and
never a week passes without the Secular Burial Service, or
some other appropriate words, being read by sceptics over a
sceptic’s grave.
. Christian ministers know this. They usually confine
themselves, therefore, to the death-bed stories of Paine and
Voltaire, which have been again and again refuted. Little,
if anything, is said about the eminent Freethinkers who
have died in the present generation. The priests must wait
half a century before they can hope to defame them wiih
success. Our cry to these pious sutlers is “ Hands off 1”
Refute the arguments of Freethinkers, if you can ; but do
not obtrude your disgusting presence in the death chamber,
or vent your malignity over their tombs.
Supposing, however, that every Freethinker turned Chris
tian on his death-bed. It is a tremendous stretch of fancy,
but I make it for the sake of argument. What does it prove ?
Nothing, as I said before, but the force of our surroundings
and early training. It is a common saying among Jews,
when they hear of a Christian proselyte, “ Ah, wait till he
comes to die !” As a matter of fact, converted Jews generally
die in the faith of their race; and the same is alleged as to
�INTRODUCTION.
7
the native converts that are made by our missionaries in
India.
Heine has a pregnant passage on this point. Referring to
Joseph Schelling, who was “an apostate to his own thought,”
who “ deserted the altar he had himself consecrated,” and
“ returned to the crypts of the past,” Heine rebukes the “ old
believers ” who cried Kyrie eleison in honor of such a con
version. “ That,” he says, “ proves nothing for their doctrine.
It only proves that man turns to religion when he is old and
fatigued, when his physical and mental force has left him,
when he can no longer enjoy nor reason. So many Free
thinkers are converted on their death-beds ! . . . But at least
do not boast of them. These legendary conversions belong
at best to pathology, and are a poor evidence for your cause.
After all, they only prove this, that it was impossible for you
to convert those Freethinkers while they were healthy in
body and mind.”*
Renan has some excellent words on the same subject in his
delightful volume of autobiography. After expressing a
rooted preference for a sudden death, he continues : “ I should
be grieved to go through one of those periods of feebleness,
in which the man who has possessed strength and virtue is
only the shadow and ruins of himself, and often, to the great
joy of fools, occupies himself in demolishing the life he has
laboriously built up. Such an old age is the worst gift the
gods can bestow on man. If such a fate is reserved for me,
I protest in advance against the fatuities that a softened
brajp iiMiy-.TXLa.kft thr say or sign. It is Renan souncHrTheart
and head, such as I am now, and not Renan half destroyed
by death, and no longer himself, as I shall be if I decompose
gradually, that I wish people to listen to and believe.”f
To find the best passage on this topic in our own literature
we must go back to the seventeenth century, and to Selden’s
Table Talk, a volume in which Coleridge found “ more
weighty bullion sense ” than he “ ever found in the same
number of pages of any uninspired writer.” Selden lived in a
less mealy-mouthed age than ours, and what I am going to
quote smacks of the blunt old times; but it is too good to
miss, and all readers who are not prudish will thank me for
citing it. “ For a priest,” says Selden, “ to turn a man
* De L'Allemagne, Vol. I., p. 174.
JU
(M-
f Souvenirs D'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 377.
�8
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
when he lies a dying, is just like one that hath a long time
solicited a woman, and cannot obtain his end; at length he
makes her drunk, and so lies with her.” It is a curious thing
that the writer of these words helped to draw up the West
minster Confession of Faith.
For my own part, while I have known many Freethinkers
who were stedfast to their principles in death, I have never
known a single case of recantation, The fact is, Christians
are utterly mistaken on this subject, It is quite intelligible
that those who believe in a vengeful God, and an everlasting
hell, should tremble on “the brink of eternity ” ; and it is
natural that they should ascribe to others the same trepida
tion. But a moment’s reflection must convince them that this
is fallacious. The only terror in death is the apprehension
of what lies beyond it, and that emotion is impossible to a
sincere disbeliever. Of course the orthodox may ask “ But
is there a sincere disbeliever ?” To which I can only reply,
like Diderot, by asking “ Is there a sincere Christian ?”
Professor Tyndall, while repudiating Atheism himself, has
borne testimony to the earnestness of others who embrace it.
“ I haygjinown.some of the most pronounced among them,” he
* C-says, “not only in lHeT5uFm"3feath-—seen them approaching
with open eyes the inexorable goal, with no dread of a hang
man’s whip, with no hope of a heavenly crown, and still as
mindful of their duties, and as faithful in the discharge of
them, as if their eternal future depended on their latest deeds.”*
Lord Bacon said “ I do not believe that any man fears to
be dead, but only the stroke of death.” True, and the
physical suffering, and the pang of separation, are the same
for all. Yet the end of life is as natural as its beginning,
and the true philosophy of existence is nobly expressed in
the lofty sentence of Spinoza, “A free man thinks less of
nothing than of death.”
~
“ So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, which moves
To that mysterious realm, where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night,
Scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed
By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave,
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.”!
Fortnightly Review, November, 1S77.
t Bryant, Thanatopsis.
�LORD AMBERLEY.
Viscount Amberley, the eldest son of the late Earl Russell,
and the author of a very heretical work entitled an Analysis
of Religious Belief, lived and died a Freethinker. His will,
stipulating that his son should be educated by a Sceptical
friend, was set aside by Earl Russell; the law of England
being such, that Freethinkers are denied the parental rights
which are enjoyed by their Christian neighbors.
Lady
Frances Russell, who signs with her initials the Preface to
Lord Amberley’s book, which was published after his death,
writes : “ Ere the pages now given to the public had left the
press, the hand that had written them was cold, the heart—
of which few could know the loving depths—had ceased to
beat, the far-ranging mind was for ever still, the fervent
spirit was at rest. Let this be remembered by those who
read, and add solemnity to the solemn purpose of the book.”
LORD BOLINGBROKE.
Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, was born in 1672
at Battersea, where he also died on December 12, 1751. His
life was a stormy one, and on the fall of the Tory ministry,
of which he was a distinguished member, he was impeached
by the Whig parliament under the leadership of Sir Robert
Walpole. It was merely a party prosecution, and although
Bolingbroke was attainted of high treason, he did not lose a
friend or forfeit the respect of honest men. Swift and Pope
held him in the highest esteem; they corresponded with him
throughout their lives, and it was from Bolingbroke that Pope
derived the principles of the Essay on Man. That Bolingbroke’s
abilities were of the highest order cannot be gainsaid. His
political writings are masterpieces of learning, eloquence, and
wit, the style is sinewy and graceful, and in the greatest heat
of controversy he never ceases to be a gentleman. His philo
sophical writings were published after his death by his literary
executor, David Mallet, whom Johnson described as “a beggarly
Scotchman ’’who was “ left half-a-crown ” to fire off a blunder
�10
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
bus, which his patron had charged, against “ religion and moral
ity.” Johnson’s opinion on suchasubject is, however, of trifling
importance. He hated Scotchmen and Infidels, and he told
Boswell that Voltaire and Rousseau deserved transportation
more than any of the scoundrels who were tried at the Old
Bailey.
Bolingbroke’s philosophical writings show him to have been
a Deist. He believed in God but he rejected Revelation. His
views are advanced and supported with erudition, eloquence,
and masterly irony. The approach of death, which was pre
ceded by the excruciating disease of cancer in the cheek, did
not produce the least change in his convictions. According
to Goldsmith, ‘ ‘ He was consonant with himself to the last;
and those principles which he had all along avowed, he con
firmed with his dying breath, having given orders that none
of the clergy should be permitted to trouble him in his last
moments.”*
GIORDANO BRUNO.
This glorious martyr of Freethought did not die in a
quiet chamber, tended by loving hands. He was literally
“ butchered to make a Roman holiday.” When the assassins of
“ the bloody faith ” kindled the fire which burnt out his
splendid life, he was no decrepit man, nor had the finger of
Death touched his cheek with a pallid hue. The blood
coursed actively through his veins, and a dauntless spirit
shone in his noble eyes. It might have been Bruno that
Shelley had in mind when he wrote those thrilling lines in
Queen Mab :
“ I was an infant when my mother went
To see an Atheist burned. She took me there:
The dark-robed priests were met around the pile,
The multitude was gazing silently;
And as the culprit passed with dauntless mien,
Tempered disdain in his unaltering eye,
Mixed with a quiet smile, shone calmly forth:
The thirsty fire crept round his manly limbs;
His resolute eyes were scorched to blindness soon;
His death-pang rent my heart! The insensate mob
Uttered a cry of triumph, and I wept.”
Giordano Bruno was born at Nola, near Naples, in 1548,
Life of Lord Bolingbroke; Works, Vol, IV, p. 248. Edition: Tegg, 1835.
�GIORDANO BRUNO.
11
ten years after the death of Copernicus, and ten years before
the birth of Bacon. At the age of fifteen he became a novice
in the monastery of San Domenico Maggiore, and after his
year’s novitiate expired he took the monastic vows. Study
ing deeply, he became heretical, and an act of accusation was
drawn up against the boy of sixteen. Eight years later he
was threatened with another trial for heresy. A third pro
cess was more be to dreaded, and in his twenty-eighth year
Bruno fled from his persecutors. He visited Borne, Noli,
Venice, Turin and Padua. At Milan he made the acquain
tance of Sir Philip Sidney. After teaching for some time in
th® university, he went to Chambery, but the ignorance and
bigotry of its monks were too great for his patience. He
next visited Geneva, but although John Calvin was dead, his
dark spirit still remained, and only flight preserved Bruno
from the fate of Servetus. Through Lyons he passed to
Toulouse, where he was elected Public Lecturer to the
University. In 1579 he went to Paris. The streets were still
foul with the blood of the Bartholomew massacres, but Bruno
declined a professorship at the Sorbonne, a condition of which
Was attending mass. Henry the Third, however, made him
Lecturer Extraordinary to the University. Paris at length
became too hot to hold him, and he went to London, where
he lodged with the French ambassador. His evenings were
mostly spent with Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, Dyer,
and Hervey. So great was his fame that he was invited to
read at the University of Oxford, where he also held a public
debate with its orthodox professors on the Copernican
astronomy. Leaving London in 1584, he returned to Paris,
and there also he publicly disputed with the Sorbonne. His
safety being once more threatened, he went to Marburg, and
thence to Wittenburg, where he taught for two years. At
Helenstadt he was excommunicated by Boetius. Bepairing
to Frankfort, he made the acquaintance of a Venetian noble
man, who lured him to Venice and betrayed him to the
Inquisition. Among the charges against him at his trial were
these : “ He is not only a heretic, but an heresiarch. He has
Witten works in which he highly lauds the Queen of England
and other heretical monarchs. HeThas written divers things'
touching religion, which are contrary to the faith.” The
Venetian Council transferred him to Borne, where he languished
for seven years in a pestiferous dungeon, and was repeatedly
�12
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
tortured, according to the hellish code of the Inquisition.
At length, on February 10, 1600, he was led out to the
■church of Santa Maria, and sentenced to be burnt alive, or,
as_the Holy Church hypocritically phrased it, to be punished
'~77as mercifully as possible, and without effusion of blood.”
Haughtily raising his head, he exclaimed : “ You are more
afraid to pronounce my sentence than I to receive it.” He
was allowed a week’s grace for recantation, but without avail;
and on the 17th of February, 1600, he was burnt to death
on the Field of Flowers. To the last he was brave and
'defiant; he contemptuously pushed aside the crucifix they
presented him to kiss; and, as one of his enemies said, he
died without a plaint or a groan.
Such heroism stirs the blood more than the sound of a
trumpet. Bruno stood at the stake in solitary and awful
grandeur. There was not a friendly face in the vast crowd
around him. It was one man against the world. Surely the
knight of Liberty, the champion of Freethought, who lived
such a life and died such a death, without hope of reward on
earth or in heaven, sustained only by his indomitable man
hood, is worthy to be accounted the supreme martyr of all
time. He towers above the less disinterested martyrs of
Faith like a colossus ; the proudest of them might walk under
him without bending.
HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE.
The author of the famous History of Civilisation believed in
God and immortality, but he rej ected all the special tenets of
Christianity. He died at Damascus on May 29, 1862. His
incoherent utterances in the fever that carried him off showed
that his mind was still dwelling on the uncompleted purpose
of his life. “Oh my book,” he exclaimed, “ my book, I
shall never finish my book I ” * His end, however, was quite
peaceful. His biographer says : “ He had a very quiet night,
with intervals of consciousness ; but at six in the morning a
sudden and very marked change for the worse became but
too fearfully evident; and at a quarter past ten he quietly
breathed his last, with merely a wave of the hand.” f
* Pilgrim Memories, by J. Stuart Glennie, p. 508.
t Life and Writings of Henry Thomas Buckle, by A. Huth; Vol. II. 252.
�LORD BYRON.
LORD
13
BYRON.
No one can read Byron’s poems attentively without seeing
that he was not a Christian, and this view is amply corrobo
rated by his private letters, notably the very explicit one to
Hobhouse, which has only been recently published. Even
the poet’s first and chief biographer, Moore, was con
strained to admit that “ Lord Byron was, to the last, a
sceptic.”
Byron was born at Hoiles Street, London, on January 22,
1788. His life was remarkably eventful for a poet, but its
history is so easily accessible, and so well known, that we need
not summarise it here. His death occurred at Missolonghi
on April 19, 1824. Greece was then struggling for indepen
dence, and Byron devoted his life and fortune to her cause.
His sentiments on this subject are expressed with power and
dignity in the lines written at Missolonghi on his thirty-sixth
birthday. The faults of his life were many, but they were
redeemed by the glory of his death.
Exposure, which his declining health was unfitted to bear,
brought on a fever, and the soldier-poet of freedom died with
out proper attendance, far from those he loved. He conversed
a good deal at first with his friend Parry, who records that
“ he spoke of death with great composure.” The day before
he expired, when his friends and attendants wept round his
bed at the thought of losing him, he looked at one of them
steadily, and said, half smiling, “ Oh questa e una bella
scena 1”—Oh what a fine scene ! After a fit of delirium, he
called his faithful servant Fletcher, who offered to bring pen
and paper to take down his words. “ Oh no,” he replied,
“ there is no time. Go to my sister—tell her—go to Lady
Byron—you will see her, and say------ .” Here his voice be
came indistinct. For nearly twenty minutes he muttered to
himself, but only a woi;d now and then could be distinguished
He then said, “ Now, I have told you all.” Fletcher replied
that he had not understood a word. “ Not understand me ?”
exclaimed Byron, with a look of the utmost distress, “ what a
pity !—then it is too late ; all is over.” He tried to utter a
few more words, but none were intelligible except “my sister
—my child.” After the doctors had given him a sleeping
draught, he muttered “ Poor Greece !—poor town !—my poor
servants !—my hour is come !—I do not care for death—but
�14
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
why did I not go home ?—There are things that make the
world dear to me : for the rest I am content to die.” He
spoke also of Greece, saying “ I have given her my time, my
means, my health—and now I give her my life! what could I
do more ?” About six o’clock in the evening he said “ Now
I shall go to sleep.” He then fell into the slumber from
which he never woke. At a quarter past six on the following
day, he opened his eye3 and immediately shut them again.
The physicians felt his pulse—he was dead.
*
His work was done. As Mr. Swinburne wrote in 1865,
“ k little space was allowed him to show at least an heroic
purpose, and attest a high design; then, with all things un
finished before him and behind, he fell asleep after many
troubles and triumphs. Few can have ever gone wearier to
the grave ; none with less fear.”f The pious guardians of
Westminster Abbey denied him sepulture in its holy precincts,
but he found a grave at Hucknall, and “ after life’s fitful fever
he sleeps well.”
RICHARD CARLILE.
Richard Carlile was born at Ashburton, in Devonshire, on
December 8, 1790. His whole life was spent in advocating
Freethought and Republicanism, and in resisting the Blas
phemy laws. His total imprisonments for the freedom of
the press amounted to nine years and four months. Thir
teen days before his death he penned these words : ‘ The
enemy with whom I have to grapple is one with 'who m no
peace can be made. Idolatry will not parley ; superstition
will not treat on covenant. They must be uprooted for
public and individual safety.” Carlile died on February 10,
1843. He was attended in his last illness by Dr. Thomas
Lawrence, the author of the once famous Lectures on Man.
Wishing to be useful in death as in life, Carlile devoted his
body to dissection. His wish was complied with by the
family, and the post-mortem examination was recorded in
the Lancet. The burial took place at Kensal Green Cemetary, where a clergyman insisted on reading the Church
Service over his remains. “ His eldest son Richard,” says
Mr. Holyoake, “ who represented his sentiments as well as
* Byrons Life and Letters by Thomas Moore, pp. £84—688.
t Fieface (p. 28, to a Selection from Byron's poems, 1865.
�WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD.
15
his name, very properly protested against the proceedings, as
an outrage upon the principles of his father and the wishes
of the family. Of course the remonstrance was disre
garded, and Richard, his brothers, and their friends, left
the ground.”* After their departure, the clergyman called
the great hater of priests his “ dear departed brother,” and
declared that the rank Materialist had died “ in the sure and
certain hope of a glorious resurrection.”
WILLIAM KING-DON CLIFFORD.
Professor Clifford died all too early of consumption on
March 3, 1879. He was one of the gentlest and most amiable
of men, and the centre of a large circle of distinguished
friends. His great ability was beyond dispute ; in the higher
mathematics he enjoyed a European reputation. Nor was his
courage less, for he never concealed his heresy, but rather
proclaimed it from the housetops. A Freethinker to the
heart’s core, he “utterly dismissed from his thoughts, as
being unprofitable or worse, all speculations on a future or
unseen world ” ; and “as never man loved life more, so never
man feared death less.”' He fulfilled, continues Mr. Pollock,
“ well and truly the great saying of Spinoza, often in his
mind and on his lips : Homo liber de nulla re minus quam
de mortc cogitat. [A free man thinks less of nothing than
of death.J’t Clifford faced the inevitable with the utmost
calmness.
“ Foi’ a week he had known that it might come at any moment, and
looked to it stedfastly. So calmly had he received the warning which
conveyed this knowledge that it seemed at the instant as if he did not
understand it. . . . He gave careful and exact directions as to the
disposal of his works. . . . More than this, his interest in the outer
world, his affection for his friends and his pleasure in their pleasures,
did not desert him to the very last. He still followed the course of
events, and asked for public news on the morning of his death, so
strongly did he hold fast his part in the common weal and in active
social life.”J
Clifford was a great loss to “ the good old cause.” He was
a most valiant soldier of progress, cut off before a tithe of
his work was accomplished.
* Life and Character of Richard Carlile, by G. J. Holyoake.
t Lectures and Essays, by Professor Clifford. Pollock’s Introduction, p. 25.
t Ibid, p. 26.
�16
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
ANTHONY COLLINS.
Anthony Collins was one of the chief English Freethinkers
of the eighteenth century. Professor Fraser calls him “ this
remarkable man,”* Swift refers to him as a leading sceptic
of that age. He was a barrister, born of a good Essex family
in 1676, and dying on Dec. 13, 1729. Locke, whose own cha
racter was manly and simple, was charmed by him. “ He
praised his love of truth and moral courage,” says Professor
Fraser, “ as superior to almost any other he had ever known,
and by his will he made him one of his executors.”* Yet
f bigotry was then so_ rampant, that Bishop Berkeley, who,|
7 according to Pope, had every—virtue under heaven,|
| actually said in the Guardian that the author of AT(
j Discourse, on Freethinking—“ deserved—io—he—deniecL the_>
common benefits of air and water.” Collins afterwards
engaged in controversy with the clergy, wrote against
priestcraft, and debated with Dr. Samuel Clarke “ about
necessity and the moral nature of man, stating the argu
ments against human freedom with a logical force unsur
passed by any necessitarian.”j" With respect to Collins’s con
troversy on “ the soul,” Professor. Huxley. says : “I do not
think anyone can read the letters which passed between
Clarke and Collins, without - admitting that Collins, who
writes with wonderful power and closeness of reasoning, has
by far the best of the argument, so far as the possible materiality of the soul goes ; and that in this battle the Goliath
of Freethinking overcame the champion of what was con
sidered Orthodoxy.’’^ According to Berkeley, Collins had
announced “ that he was able to demonstrate the impossibility of God’s existence,” but this is probably the exaggera
tion of an opponent. We may be sure, however, that he was
a very thorough sceptic with regard to Christianity. His
death is thus referred to in the Biographia Britannica
“Notwithstanding all the reproaches cast upon Mr. Collins as an
enemy to all religion, impartiality obliges us to remark, what is said,
and generally believed to be true, upon his death-bed he declared
‘ That, as he had always endea vored to the best of his abilities, to serve
his God, his king, and his country, so he was persuaded he was going
to the place which God had designed for those who love him ’: to
which he added that ‘ The catholic religion is to love God, and to love
* Berkeley, by A. O. Fraser, LL.D., p. 99.
t Critiques and Addresses, p. 324.
t Ibid, p. 99.
�17
CONDORCET.
man’; and he advised such as were about him to have a constant
regard to these principles.”
There is probably a good deal apocryphal in this passage,
but it is worthy of notice that nothing is said about any
dread of death. Another memorable fact is that Collins left
his library to an opponent, Dr. Sykes. It was large and
curious, and always open to men of letters. Collins was so
earnest a seeker for truth, and so candid a controversialist,
that he often furnished his antagonists with books to confute
himself.
CONDOBCET.
Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas, Marquis de Condorcet, was
born at Bibemont in Picardy, in 1743. As early as 1764 he
composed a work on the integral calculus. In 1773 he was
appointed perpetual secretary of the French Academy. He
was an intense admirer of Voltaire, and wrote a life of that
great man.
At the commencement of the Bevolution he
ardently embraced the popular cause. In 1791 he represented
Paris in the Legislative Assembly, of which he was imme
diately elected secretary. It was on his motion that, in the
following year, all orders of nobility were abolished. Elected
by the Aisne department to the new Assembly of 1792, he
was named a member of the Constitutional Committee, which
also included Danton and Thomas Paine. After the execu
tion of Louis XVI., he was opposed to the excesses of the
extreme party. Always showing the courage of his convic
tions, he soon became the victim of proscription. “ He cared
as little for his life,” says Mr. Morley, “ as Danton or St. Just
cared for theirs. Instead of coming down among the men of
the Plain or the frogs of the Marsh, he withstood the Mountain
to its face.” While hiding from those who thirsted for his
blood, and burdened with anxiety as to the fate of his wife
and child, he wrote, without a single book to refer to, his novel
and profound Esquisse d'un Tableau Historique des Proges de
I’Esprit Humain. Mr. Morley says that “Among the many
wonders of an epoch of portents this feat of intellectual
abstraction is not the least amazing.” Despite the odious law
that whoever gave refuge to a proscribed person should suffer
death, Condorcet was, offered shelter by a noble-hearted womam.
. who said “ If you are outside the law, we are not outside
humanity.” But he would not bring peril upon her house
B
�J8
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
and he went forth to his doom. Arrested at Clamart-sousMeudon, he was conducted to prison at Bourg-la-Reine.
Wounded in the foot, and exhausted with fatigue and priva
tion, he was flung into a miserable cell. It was the 27th of
March, 1794. “On the morrow,” says Mr. Morley, “when
the gaolers came to see him, they found him stretched upon
the ground, dead and stark. So he perished—of hunger and
weariness, say some; of poison ever carried by him in a ring,
say others.”* The Abbe Morellet, in his narrative of the
death of Condorcet (Memoires, ch. xxiv.), says that the poison
was a mixture of stramonium and opium, but he adds that
the surgeon described the death as due to apoplexy. In any
case Condorcet died like a hero, refusing to save his life at
the cost of another’s danger.
ROBERT COOPER.
Robert Cooper was secretary to Robert Owen and editor of
the London Investigator. His lectures on the Bible and the
Immortality of the Soul still enjoy a regular sale, as well as
his Holy Scriptures Analysed. He was a thorough-going
Materialist, and he never wavered in this philosophy. He died
on May 3, 1868. The National Reformer of July 26, 1868,
contains a note written by Cooper shortly before his death.
“ At a moment when the hand of death is suspended over me, my
theological opinions remain unchanged; months of deep and silent
cogitation, under the pressure of long suffering, have confirmed rather
than modified them. I calmly await therefore all risk attached to
these convictions. Conscious that, if mistaken, I have always been
sincere, I apprehend no disabilities for impressions I cannot resist.”
It may be added that Robert Cooper was no relation to
Thomas Cooper.
DANTON.
Danton, called by Carlyle the Titan of the Revolution, and
certainly its greatest figure after Mirabeau, was guillotined on
April 5, 1794. He was only thirty-five, but he had made a
name that will live as long as the history of France. With
all his faults, says Carlyle, “ he was a Man ; fiery-real, from
the great fire-bosom of Nature herself.” Some of his phrases
are like pyramids, standing sublime above the drifting
MUcellantei.
Y.j John Morley. Vol. I., p. 75.
�DALTON.
19
sand of human speech. It was he who advised “ daring, and
still daring, and ever daring.” It was he who cried “ The
coalesced kings of Europe threaten us, and as our gage of
battle we fling before them the head of a king.” It was he
who exclaimed, in a rapture of patriotism, “Let my name be
blighted, so that France be free.” And what a saying was
that, when his friends urged him to flee from the Terror,
“ One does not carry his country with him at the sole of his
shoe!”
Danton would not flee. “ They dare not ” arrest him, he
said ; but he was soon a prisoner in the Luxembourg. “ What
is your name and abode ?” they asked him at the tribunal.
“ My name is Danton,” he answered, “ a name tolerably known
in the Revolution : my abode will soon be Annihilation ; but
I shall live in the Pantheon of History.” Replying to his
infamous Indictment, his magnificent voice “reverberates
with the roar of a lion in the toils.” The President rings his
bell, enjoining calmness, says Carlyle, in a vehement manner.
“ What is it to thee how I defend myself ?” cries Danton;
“ the right of dooming me is thine always. The voice of a
man speaking for his honor and life may well drown the
jingling of thy bell!”
Under sentence of death he preserved, as Jules Claretie
says, that virile energy and superb sarcasm which were the
basis of his character. Fabre d’Eglantine being disquieted
about his unfinished comedy, Danton exclaimed “Des vers ! Des
vers ! Dans huit jours tu en feras plus que tu ne voudras !”• Then
he added nobly, “We have finished our task, let us sleep.”
Thus the time passed in prison.
On the way to the guillotine Danton bore himself proudly.
Poor Camille Desmoulins struggled and writhed in the cart,
which was surrounded by a howling mob. “ Calm, my
friend,” said Danton, “heed not that vile canaille.” Herault
de Sechelles, whose turn it was to die first, tried to embrace his
friend, but the executioners prevented him. “ Fools,” said
Danton, “you cannot prevent our heads from meeting in the
basket.” At the foot of the scaffold the thought of home
flashed through his mind. “ 0 my wife,” he exclaimed, “ my
well-beloved, I shall never see thee more then !” But recover
ing himself, he said “Danton, no weakness!” Looking the
executioner in the face, he cried with his great voice, “ You
will show my head to the crowd; it is worth showing ; you
�20
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
don’t see the like in these days.” The next minute that
head, the one that might have guided France best, was severed
from his body by the knife of the guillotine. What a man
this Danton was ! With his Herculean form, his huge black
head, his mighty voice, his passionate nature, his fiery cour
age, his strong sense, his poignant wit, his geniality, and his
freedom from cant, he was a splendid and unique figure. An
Atheist, _hg__ perished in. trying to arrestbloodshed. Eobespiere, the Deist^ continued the bloodshed till it drowned him.
The two men were as diverse in nature as in creed, and Danton
killed by Eobespierre, as Courtois said, was Pyrrhus killed by a
woman!
[The reader may consult Carlyle's French Revolution, Book vi.,
ch. ii.; and Jules Claretie’s Camille Desmoulins et les Dantonistes, ch. vi.,
DENIS DIDEEOT.
Earely has the world seen a more fecund mind than
Diderot’s. Voltaire called him Pantophile, for everything
came within the sphere of his mental activity. The twenty
volumes of his collected writings contain the germ-ideas of
nearly all the best thought of our age, and his anticipations
of Darwinism are nothing less than extraordinary. He had
not Voltaire’s lightning wit and supreme grace of style, nor
Eousseau’s passionate and subtle eloquence; but he was
superior to either of them in depth and solidity, and he was
surprisingly ahead of his time, not simply in his treatment
of religion, but also in his view of social and political prob
lems. His historical monument is the great Encyclopcedia.
For twenty years he labored on this colossal enterprise,
assisted by the best heads in France, but harassed and
thwarted by the government and the clergy. The work is
out of date now, but it inaugurated an era : in Mr. Morley’s
words, “ it rallied all that was then best in France round
the standard of light and social hope.” Diderot tasted im
prisonment in 1749, and many times afterwards his liberty
was menaced. Nothing, however, could intimidate or divert
him from his task ; and he never quailed when the ferocious
beast of persecution, having tasted the blood of meaner
victims, turned an evil and ravenous eye on him.
Carlyle’s brilliant essay on Diderot is ludicrously unjust.
The Scotch puritan was quite unable to judge the French
�DENIS DIDEROT.
21
atheist. A greater than Carlyle wrote: “ Diderotis Diderot,
a peculiar individuality; whoever holds him or his doings
cheaply is a Philistine, and the name of them is legion.”
Goethe’s dictum outweighs that of his disciple.
Diderot’s character, no less than his genius, was misunder
stood by Carlyle. His materialism and atheism were in
tolerable to a Calvinist steeped in pantheism ; and his freedom
of life, which might be pardoned or excused in a Scotch
poet, was disgusting in a French philosopher. Let not the
reader be biassed by Carlyle’s splenetic utterances on Diderot,
but turn to more sympathetic and impartial judges.
Born at Langres in 1713, Diderot died at Paris 1784. His
life was long, active and fruitful. His personal appearance
is described by Mr. Morley :—“ His admirers declared his
head to be the ideal head of an Aristotle or a Plato. His
brow was wide, lofty, open, gently rounded. The arch of
the eyebrow was full of delicacy ; the nose of masculine
beauty; the habitual expression of the eyes kindly and
sympathetic, but as he grew heated in talk, they sparkled
like fire ; the curves of the mouth bespoke an interesting
mixture of finesse, grace, and geniality. His bearing was
nonchalant enough, but there was naturally in the carriage
of his head, especially when he talked with action, much
dignity, energy and nobleness.”*
His conversational powers were great, and showed the
fertility of his genius. “When I recall Diderot,” wrote
Meister, “ the immense variety of his ideas, the amazing mul
tiplicity of his knowledge, the rapid flight, the warmth, the
impetuous tumult of his imagination, all the charm and all
the disorder of his conversation, I venture to liken his cha
racter to nature herself, exactly as he used to conceive her—
rich, fertile, abounding in germs of every sort, gentle and
fierce, simple and majestic, worthy and sublime, but without
any dominating principle, without a master and without a
God.”
Diderot was recklessly prodigal of his ideas, flinging them
without hesitation or reticence among his friends. He was
equally generous in other respects, and friendship was of the
essence of his life. “ He,” wrote Marmontel in his Memoirs,
“ he who was one of the. most enlightened men of the century,
* Diderot and the Encyclopaedists. By John Morley, Vol. I., pp. 39-40.
�22
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
was also one of the most amiable ; and in everything that
touched moral goodness, when he spoke of it freely, I cannot
express the charm of his eloquence. His whole soul was in
his eyes and on his lips; never did a countenance better
depict the goodness of the heart.”
*
Chequered as Diderot’s life had been, his closing years were
full of peace and comfort. Superstition was mortally wounded,
the Church was terrified, and it was clear that the change the
philosophers had worked for was at hand. As Mr. Morley
says, “ the press literally teemed with pamphlets, treatises,
poems, histories, all shouting from the house-tops open
destruction to beliefs which fifty years before were actively
protected against so much as a whisper in the closet. Every
form of literary art was seized and turned into an instru
ment in the remorseless attack on L’Infame.” Diderot rejoiced
at all this, as largely the fruit of his own labors. He was
held in general esteem by the party of progress throughout
Europe. Catherine the Great’s generosity secured him a
steady income, which he had never derived from his literary
labors. His townsmen of Langres placed his bust among the
worthies in the town hall. More than a hundred years later
a national statue of Diderot was unveiled at his native place,
and the balance of subscriptions was devoted to publishing a
popular selection of his works. Truly did this great Atheist
say, looking forward to the atoning future, “ Posterity is for
the philosopher what the other world is for the devout.
In the spring of 1784 Diderot was attacked by what he felt
was his last illness. Dropsy set in, and in a few months the
end came. A fortnight before his death he was removed
from the upper floor in the Rue Taranne, which he had occu
pied for thirty years, to palatial rooms provided for him by
the Czarina in the Rue de Richelieu. Growing weaker every
day, he was still alert in mind.
“He did all he could to cheer the people around him, and amused
himself and them by arranging his pictures and his books. In the
evening, to the last, he found strength to converse on science and
philosophy to the friends who were eager as ever for the last gleanings
of his prolific intellect. In the last conversation that his daughter
heard him carry on, his last words were the pregnant aphorism that
the first step towardsphilosophy is incredulity^^
“ Orf the evening of the 30th of July, 1784 he sat down to table, and
at the end of the meal took an apricot. His wife, with kind solicitude,
remonstrated. Mais quel diable de mal veux-tu que cela me fasse 1 fHow
�DENIS DIDEROT.
23
the deuce can that hurt me ?] he said, and ate the apricot. Then he
rested his elbow on the table, trifling with some sweetmeats. His
wife asked him a question ; on receiving no answer, she looked up and
saw that he was dead. He had died as the Greek poets say that men
died in the golden age—they passed away as if mastered by sleep’'
*
Grimm gives a slightly different account of Diderot’s death,
omitting the apricot, and stating that his words to his wife
were, “ It is long since I have eaten with so much relish.”!
With respect to the funeral, Grimm says that the cure of
St. Eoch, in whose parish he died, had scruples at first about
burying him, on account of his sceptical reputation and the
doctrines expounded in his writings ; but the priest’s scruples
were overcome, partly by a present of “ fifteen or eighteen
thousand livres.”
According to Mr. Morley, an effort was made to convert
Diderot, or at least to wring from him something like a
retractation.
“ The priest of Saint Sulpice, the centre of the philosophic quarter,
came to visit him two or three times a week, hoping to achieve at least
the semblance of a conversion. Diderot did not encourage conversation
on theology, but when pressed he did not refuse it. One day when
they found, as two men of sense will always find, that they had ample
common ground in matters of morality and good works, the priest
ventured to hint that an exposition of such excellent maxims, accom
panied by a slight retractation of Diderot’s previous works, would have
a good effect on the world. ‘ I dare say it would, monsieur le cure,
but confess that I should be acting an impudent lie.’ And no word of
retractation was ever made.”J
If judging men by the company they keep is a safe rule, we need
have no doubt as to the sentiments which Diderot entertained
to the end. Grimm tells us that on the morning of the very
day he died “ he conversed for a long time and with the
greatest freedom with his friend the Baron D’Holbach,” the
famous author of the System of Nature, compared with
whom, says Mr. Morley, “ the most eager Nescient or Denier
to be found in the ranks of the assailants of theology in our
own day is timorous and moderate.” These men were the
two most earnest Atheists of their generation. Both were
genial, benevolent, and conspicuously generous. D’Holbach
_was learned, eloquent, and trenchant; and Diderot, inTlbnrtff-s——_
opinion, was the greatest genius of the eighteenth century.
* Morley, Vol. II., pp. 259, 260.
t Quoted, from the Revue Retrospective in Assfeat's complete edition of Diderot.
j Morley, Vol. II., p. 258.
�24
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
GEORGE ELIOT.
Marian Evans, afterwards Mrs. Lewes, and finally Mrs.
Cross, was one of the greatest writers of the third quarter of
this century. The noble works of fiction she published under
the pseudonym of George Eliot are known to all. Her earliest
writing was done for the IFesYmmsfer Tfm’ew, a magazine of
marked sceptical tendency. Her inclination to Freethought
is further shown by her translation of Strauss’s famous Life
of Jesus and Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity the latter,
being the work of a profound Atheist. George Eliot was, to
some extent, a disciple of Comte, and reckoned a member of
the Society of Positivists. Mr. Myers tells us that in the last
conversation he had with her at Cambridge, they talked of
God, Immortality and Duty, and she gravely remarked how
hypothetical was the first, how improbable was the second,
and how sternly real the last. Whenever in her novels she
speaks in the first person she breathes the same sentiment.
Her biography has been written by her second husband, who
says that “ her long illness in the autumn had left her no
power to rally. She passed away about ten o’clock at night
on the 22nd of December, 1880. She died, as she would
herself have chosen to die, without protracted pain, and with
every faculty brightly vigorous.”* Her body lies in the next
grave to that of George Henry Lewes at Highgate Cemetery ;
her spirit, the product of her life, has, in her own words,
joined “ the choir invisible, whose music is the gladness of
the world.”
FREDERICK THE GREAT.
Frederick the Great, the finest soldier of his age, the
maker of Prussia, and therefore the founder of modern
Germany, was born in January, 1712. His life forms the
theme of Carlyle’s masterpiece. Notoriously a disbeliever in
Christianity, as his writings and correspondence attest, he
loved to surround himself with Freethinkers, the most con
spicuous of whom was Voltaire. When the great French
heretic died, Frederick pronounced his eulogium before the
Berlin Academy, denouncing “the imbecile priests,” and
declaring that “ The best destiny they can look for is that
Zife and Letters of George Eliot, by J. W. Cross, Vol. III., p. 439.
�LEON GAMBETTA,
25
they and their vile artifices will remain forever buried in the
darkness. o£ oblivion,, while the fame of Voltaire .will., in.er.eaae__
from age., toage, and transmit his name to immortality.” , , ,
When the old king was on his death-bed, one of his
subjects, solicitous about his immortal soul, sent him a letter
full of pious advice. “Let this,” he said, “be answered
•civilly ; the intention of the writer is good.” Shortly after,
on August 17, 1786, Frederick died in his own fashion.
Carlyle says:
“For the most part he was unconscious, never more than half
conscious. As the wall clock above his head struck eleven, he asked :
‘ What o’clock ?’ ‘ Eleven,’ answered they. ‘ At four,’ murmured he,
I will rise.’ One of his dogs sat on its stool near him ; about mid
night he noticed it shivering for cold : ‘ Throw a quilt over it,’ said or
beckoned he ; that, I think, was his last completely conscious utter
ance. Afterwards, in a severe choking fit, getting at last rid of the
phlegm, he said, La montagne est passe, nous irons mieux—We are on
the hill, we shall go bettei’ now.’ ”*
Better it was. The pain was over, and the brave old king,
who had wrestled with all Europe and thrown it, succumbed
quietly to the inevitable defeat which awaits us all.
LEON GAMBETTA.
Gambetta was the greatest French orator and statesman
of his age. He was one of those splendid and potent figures
who redeem nations from commonplace. To him, more than
to any other man, the present Republic owes its existence.
He played deeply for it in the great game of life and
death after Sedan, and by his titanic -organisation of the
national defence he made it impossible for Louis Napoleon
to reseat himself on the throne with the aid of German
bayonets. Again, in 1877, he saved the Republic he loved
so well from the monarchical conspirators. He defeated their
base attempt to subvert a nation’s liberties, but the struggle
sapped his enormous vitality, which had already been im
paired by the terrible labors of his Dictatorship. He died
at the early age of forty-four, having exhausted his strength
in fighting for freedom. Scarcely a dark thread was left in
the leonine mane of black hair, and the beard matched the
whiteness of.his shroud.
France mourned like one man at the hero’s death. The
Frederick the Great, Vol. VI., p. 694; edition, 1869.
�26
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
people gave him a funeral that eclipsed the obsequies of
r
I
kings. He was carried to his grave by a million citizens.
Yet in the whole of that vast throng, as Mr. Frederic
Harrison remarked, “ there was no emblem of Christ, no priest
of God, not one mutter of heaven, no hollow appeal to the
mockery of the resurrection, no thought but for the great
human loss and human sorrow. It was the first time in the
history of Europe that a foremost man had been laid to rest
/ by a nation in grief, without priest or church, prayer or
hymn.”
Like almost every eminent Republican, Gambetta was a
Freethinker. As Mr. Frederic Harrison says, “ he systemati
cally and formally repudiated any kind of acceptance of
theology.” During his lifetime he never entered a church,
even when attending a marriage or a funeral, but stopped
short at the door, and let who would go inside and listen to
the mummery of the priest. In his own expressive words,
he declined to be “rocked asleep by the myths of childish^
religions.’’. He professed himself an admirer And^a'disciple
of Voltaire—Vadmirateur et le disciple de Voltaire. Every
member of his ministry was a Freethinker, and one of them,
the eminent scientist Paul Bert, a militant Atheist. Speaking
at a public meeting not long before his death, Gambetta
called Comte the greatest thinker of this century ; that Comte
who proposed to “ reorganise society, without God and with
out king, by the systematic cultus of humanity.”
When John Stuart Mill died, a Christian journal, which
died itself a few weeks after, declared he had gone to hell,
and wished all his friends and disciples would follow him.
Several pious prints expressed similar sentiments with regard
to Gambetta. Passing by the English papers, let us look at a
few French ones. The Due de Broglie’s organ, naturally
anxious to insult the statesman who had so signally beaten
him, said that “ he died suddenly after hurling defiance at
God.” The Pays, edited by that pious bully, Paul de Cassagnac, said—“He dies, -poisoned by his own blood. He
set himself up against God. He has fallen. It is fearful.
Bat it is just.” The Catholic Univers said “While he was
recruiting his strength and meditating fresh assaults upon
the Church, and promising himself victory, the tlivine Son
of the Carpenter was preparing his coffin.”
These tasty exhibitions of Christian charity show that
�LEON GAMBETTA.
27
Gambetta lived and died a Freethinker. Yet the sillier sort
of Christians have not scrupled to insinuate and even argue
that he was secretly a believer.
One asinine priest, M.
Feuillet des Conches, formerly Vicar of Notre Dame des
Victoires, and then honorary Chamberlain to the Pope, stated
in the London Times that, about two years before his death,
Gambetta came to his church with a brace of big wax tapers
which he offered in memory of his mother. He also added
that the great orator knelt before the Virgin, dipped his finger
in holy water, and made the sign of the cross. Was there
ever a more absurd story ?
Gambetta was a remarkable
looking man, and extremely well known. He could not have
entered a church unobserved, and had he done so, the story
would have gone round Paris the next day.
Yet nobody
heard of it till after his death. Either the priest mistook
some portly dark man for Gambetta, or he was guilty of a
pious fraud.
According to another story, Gambetta said “ I am lost ”
when the doctors told him he could not recover. But the
phrase Je suis perdu has no theological significance. Nothing
is more misleading than a literal translation. Gambetta
simply meant “It is all over then.” This monstrous per
version of a simple phrase could only have arisen from sheer
malice or gross ignorance of French.
While lying on his death-bed Gambetta listened to Rabelais,
Moliere, and other favorite but not very pious authors, read
aloud by a young student who adored him. Almost his last
words, as recorded in the Tinies, were these—“Well, I have
suffered so much,, it will be a^deliverance/’ The words are
calm, collected, and truthful. There is no rant and no quail
ing. It is the natural language of a strong man confronting
Death after long agony. Shortly after he breathed his last.
The deliverance had come. Still lay the mighty heart and
the fertile brain that had spent themselves for France, and
the silence was only broken by the sobs of dear friends who
would have died to save him. No priest administered “ the
consolations of religion,” and he expressly ordered that he
should be buried without religious rites. His great heroic
genius was superior to the creeds, seeing through them and
over them. He lived and died a Freethinker, like nearly all
the great men since Mirabeau and Danton who have built
up the freedom and glory of France.
�.28
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
ISAAC GENDRE,
The controversy over the death of this Swiss Freethinker
was summarised in the London Echo of July 29, 1881.
“A second case of death-bed conversion of an eminent Liberal to
Roman Catholicism, suggested probably by that of thp great French
philologist Littre, has passed the round of the Swiss papers. A few
days ago the veteran leader of the Freiburg Liberals, M. Isaac Gendre,
died. The Ami du Peuple, the organ of the Freiburg Ultramontanes,
immediately set afloat the sensational news that when HL Gendre
found that his last hour was approaching, he sent his brother to fetch
n priest, in order that the last sacraments might be administered to
him, and the evil which he had done during his life by his persistent
Liberalism might be atoned by bis repentance at the eleventh hour.
This brother, M. Alexandre Gendre, now writes to the papei’ stating
that there is not one word of truth in this story. What possible
benefit can any Church derive from the invention of such tales ?
Doubtless there is a credulous residuum which believes that there
must be ‘ some truth ’ in anything which has once appeared in print.’’
It might be added that many people readily believe what
pleases them, and that a lie which has a good start is very
hard to run down.
EDWARD GIBBON.
Edward Gibbon, the greatest of modern historians, was
born at Putney, near London, on April 27, 1737. His
monumental work, the Decline and Fall of the Homan Empire,
which Carlyle called “ the splendid bridge from the old world
to the new,” is universally known and admired. To have
your name mentioned by Gibbon, said Thackeray, is like
having it written on the dome of St. Peter’s which is seen by
pilgrims from all parts of the earth. Twenty years of his
life were devoted to his colossal History, which incidentally
•conveys his opinion of many problems. His views on Chris
tianity are indicated in his famous fifteenth chapter, which
is a masterpiece of grave and temperate irony. When
Gibbon wrote that “ it was not in this world that the primitive
Christians were desirous of making themselves either agree
able or useful,” every sensible reader understood his meaning.
The polite sneer rankled in the breasts of the clergy, who
replied with declamation and insult. Their answers, how
ever, are forgotten, while his merciless sarcasms live on, and
help to undermine the Church in every fresh generation.
Gibbon did not long survive the completion of his great
�GOETHE.
29
work. The last volumes of the Decline and Fall were pub
lished on M4y 8, 1788, and he died on January 14, 1794.
His malady was dropsy. After being twice tapped in
November, he removed to the house of his devoted friend,
Lord Sheffield. A week before he expired he was obliged,
for the sake of the highest medical attendance, to return to
his lodgings in St. James’s Street, London. The following
account of his last moments was written by Lord Sheffield :
“ During the evening he complained much of his stomach, and of a
feeling of nausea. Soon after nine he took his opium draught and
went to bed. About ten he complained of much pain, and desired that
warm napkins might be applied to his stomach.’ He almost inces
santly expressed a sense of pain till about four o’clock in the morning,
when he said he found his stomach much easier. About seven the
servant asked whether he should send for Mr. Farquhar [the doctor].
He answered, No ; that he was as well as the day before. At about
half-past eight he got out of bed, and said he was ‘ plus adroit ’ than
he had been for three months past, and got into bed again without
assistance, better than usual. About nine he said he would rise. The
servant, however, persuaded him to remain in bed till Mr. Farquhar,
who was expected at eleven, should come. Till about that hour he
spoke with great facility. Mr. Farquhar came at the time appointed,,
and he was then visibly dying. When the valet-de-chambr'e returned,
after attending Mr. Farquhar out of the room, Mr. Gibbon said,
‘ Pourquoi est ce que vous me quittez ?’ [Why do you leave me ?]
This was about half-past eleven. At twelve he drank some brandy
and water from a teapot, and desired his favorite servant to stay with
him. These were the last words he pronounced articulately. To the
last he preserved his senses ; and when he could no longer speak, his
servant having asked a question, he made a sign to show that he
understood him. He was quite tranquil, and did not stir, his eyes half
shut. About a quarter before one he ceased to breathe. The valetde-chambre observed that he did not, at any time, evince the least
sign of alarm or apprehension of death.”
Mr. James Cotter Morison, in his admirable monograph on
Gibbon, which forms a volume of Macmillan’s “ English Men
of Letters ” series, quotes the whole of this passage from
Lord Sheffield with the exception of the last sentence. It
is not easy to decide whether Mr. Morison thought the sen
tence trivial, or hesitated to affront his readers’ susceptibilities.
In our opinion the words we have italicised are the most im
portant in the extract, and should not have been withheld.
GOETHE.
The greatest of German poets died at a ripe old age on
March 22, 1832. He was a Pantheist after the manner of
�30
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
Spinoza, and his countrymen called him the “ great pagan.”
In one of his epigrams he expresses hatred of four things—
garlic, onions, bugs, and the cross. Heine, in his De I'Allentrigne, notices Goethe’s “ vigorous heathen nature,” and his
“ militant antipathy to Christianity.” His English biographer
thus describes his last moments :
“His speech was becoming less and less distinct. The last words
audible were: More light.' The final darkness grew apace, and he
whose eternal longing had been for more Light, gave a parting cry for
it, as he was passing under the shadow of death. He continued to
express himself by signs, drawing letters with his forefinger in the
air, while he had strength, and finally as life ebbed away drawing
figures slowly on the shawl which covered his legs. At half-past
twelve he composed himself in the corner of the chair. The watcher
placed a finger on her lips to intimate that he was asleep. If sleep
it was, it was a sleep in which a great life glided from the world.”*
Let us add that infinite nonsense, from which even Lewes
was obviously not free, has been talked and written about
Goethe’s cry “ More light.” His meaning was of course
purely physical. The eyesight naturally fails in death, all
things grow dim, and the demand for “more light” is
common enough at such times.
HENRY HETHERINGTON.
Henry Hetherington, one of the heroes of “ the free press,”
was born at Compton Street, Soho, London, in 1792. He
very early became an ardent reformer. In 1830 the Gov
ernment obtained three convictions against him for publishing
the Poor Man’s Guardian, and he was lodged for six months
in Clerkenwell gaol. At the end of 1832 he was again im
prisoned there for six months, his treatment being most
cruel. An opening, called a window, but without a pane of
glass, let in the rain and snow by day and night. In 1841
__ he was a third time incarcerated in the Queen’s Bench prison
for four months. This time his crime was “ blasphemy,” in
other words, publishing Haslam’s Petters to the Clergy. He
died on August 24, 1849, in his fifty-seventh year, leaving
behind him his “ Last Will and Testament,” from which we
take the following extracts :
“ As life is uncertain, it behoves every one to make preparations
for death; I deem it therefore a duty incumbent on me, ere I quit
this life, to express in writing, for the satisfaction and guidance of
Life of Goethe, by G. H. Lewes, p. 559.
�HENRY HETHERINGTON.
31
•esteemed friends, my feelings and opinions in reference to our com
mon principles. I adopt this course that no mistake or misapprehen
sion may arise through the false reports of those who officiously and
«
obtrusively obtain access to the death-beds of avowed infidels to
priestcraft and superstition; and who, by their annoying importuni
ties, labor to extort from an opponent, whose intellect is already worn
out and subdued by protracted physical suffering, some trifling ad
mission, that they may blazon it forth to the world as a Death-bed
Confession, and a triumph of Christianity over infidelity.
“ In the first place, then, I calmly and deliberately declare that I
4© not believe in the popular notion of the existence of an Almighty,
All-Wise and Benevolent God—possessing intelligence, and conscious
of his own operations ; because these attributes involve such a mass
of absurdities and contradictions, so much cruelty and injustice on
his part to the poor and destitute portion of his creatures—that, in my
opinion, no rational reflecting mind can, after disinterested investiga
tion, give credence to the existence of such a Being. 2nd. I believe
death to be an eternal sleep—that I shall never live again in this
world, or another, with a consciousness that I am the same identical
person that once lived, performed the duties, and exercised the func
tions of a human being. 3rd. I consider priestcraft and superstition._____
the greatest_obstacle to human improvement and happiness. During
' mf life I have, to the best of my ability, sincerely'anastrenubusly ex
posed and opposed them, and die with a firm conviction that Truth,
Justice, and Liberty will never be permanently established on earth
till every vestige of priestcraft and superstition shall be utterly de
stroyed. 4th. I have ever considered that the only religion useful to
man consists exclusively of the practice of morality, and in the mutual
interchange of kind actions. In such a religion there is no room for
priests—and when I see them interfering at our births, marriages,
and deaths, pretending to conduct us safely through this state of
being to another and happier world, any disinterested person of the
least shrewdness and discernmentmust perceive that their sole aim
js to stultify the minds of the people by theirincohipi-ehensTbre 4oc=------- Ti-ines,' that theymayYhre more eiteef ua Uv fleece the poor deludecTsheep
who listen to their empty babblings and mystifications. 5th. As I have
lived so I die, a determined opponent to their nefarious and plundering
system. I wish my friends, therefore, to deposit my remains in un
consecrated ground, and trust they will allow no priest, or clergyman
of any denomination, to interfere in any way whatever at my
funeral. My earnest desire is, that no relation or friend shall wear
black or any kind of mourning, as I consider it contrary to our
rational principles to indicate respect for a departed friend by com
plying with a hypocritical custom. 6th. I wish those who respect
me, and who have labored in our common cause, to attend my re
mains to their last resting-place, not so much in consideration of
the individual, as to do honor to our just, benevolent and rational
principles. I hope all true Rationalists will leave pompous disp ays
to the tools of priestcraft and superstition.”
Hetherington wrote this Testament nearly two years before
his death, but he signed it with a firm hand three days before
�82
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
he breathed his last, in the presence of Thomas Cooper, who
left it at the Reasoner office for “ the inspection of the curious
or sceptical.” Thomas Cooper is now a Christian, but he
cannot repudiate what he printed at the time, or destroy his
“ personal testimony,” as he called it, to the consistency with
which Hetherington died in the principles of Freethought.
THOMAS HOBBES.
The philosopher of Malmesbury, as he is often called, was
one of the clearest and boldest thinkers that ever lived. His
theological proclivities are well expressed in his witty aphorism
that superstition is religion out of fashion, and religion super
stition in fashion. Although a courageous thinker, Hobbes
was physically timid. This fact is explained by the circum
stances of his birth. In the spring of 1588 all England was
alarmed at the news that the mighty Spanish Armada had
set sail for the purpose of deposing Queen Elizabeth, bringing
the country under a foreign yoke, and re-establishing the
power of the papacy. In sheer fright, the wife of the vicar
of Westport, now part of Malmesbury, gave premature birth
to her second son on Good Friday, the 5 th of April. This
seven months’ child used to say, in later life, that his
mother brought forth himself and a twin brother Fear. He
was delicate and nervous all his days. Yet through strict
temperance he reached the great age of ninety-one, dying on
the 4th of December, 1679.
This parson’s son was destined to be hated by the clergy
for his heresy. The Great fire of 1666, following the Great
Plague of the previous year, excited popular superstition, and
to appease the wrath of God, a new Bill was introduced in
Parliament against Atheism and profaneness. The Committee
to which the Bill was entrusted were empowered to “ receive
information touching ” heretical books, and Hobbes’s Levia
than was mentioned “ in particular.” The old philosopher,
then verging on eighty, was naturally alarmed. Bold as he
was in thought, his inherited physical timidity shrank from
the prospect of the prison, the scaffold, or the stake. He
made a show of conformity, and according to Bishop Kennet,
who is not an irreproachable witness, he partook of the
sacrament. It was said by some, however, that he acted
thus in compliance with the wishes of the Devonshire family,
�THOMAS HOBBES.
*
33
who were his protectors, and whose private chapel he attended.
A noticeable fact was that he always went out before the
sermon, and when asked his reason, he answered that “ they
could teach him nothing but what he knew.” He spoke of
th® chaplain, Dr. Jasper Mayne, as “ a very silly fellow.”
Hated by the clergy, and especially by the bishops ; owing
hig liberty and perhaps his life to powerful patrons ; fearing
that some fanatic might take the parsons’ hints and play the
part of an assassin ; Hobbes is said to have kept a lighted
candle in his bedroom. The fact, if it be such, is not men
tioned in Professor Croom Robertson’s exhaustive biography.
*
It is perhaps a bit of pious gossip. But were the story
authentic, it would not show that Hobbes had any super
natural fears. He was more apprehensive of assassins than
of ghosts and devils. Being very old, too, and his life pre
carious, he might well desire a light in his bedroom in case of
accident or sudden sickness. The story is too trivial to de
serve further notice. Orthodoxy must be hard pushed to
dilate on so simple a thing as this.
According to one Christian tract, which is scarcely worth
mention, although extensively circulated, Hobbes when
dying said “he was about to take a leap in the dark.”
Every dying man might say the same with equal truth. Yet
the story seems fictitious. I can discover no trace of it in
any early authority.
Hobbes does not appear to have troubled himself about
death. Bishop Kennet relates that only “ the winter before
he died he made a warm greatcoat, which he said must last
him three years, and then he. would have such another.”
Even so late as August, 1676, four months before his decease,
he was “ writing somewhat ” for his publisher to “ print in
English.” About the middle of October he had an attack of
strangury, and “ Wood and Kennet both have it that, on
Bearing the trouble was past cure, he exclaimed, ‘ I shall be
glad then to find a hole to creep out of the world at.’
This story was picked up thirty years after Hobbes’s death,
and is probably apocryphal. If the philosopher said anything
©f the kind, he doubtless meant that, being very old, and
without wife, child, or relative to care for him, he would be
glad to find a shelter for his last moments, and to expire in
* Hobbes. By George Croom Robertson. Blackwood and Sons; 1886.
t Robertson, p. 203.
C
�34
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
comfort and peace. At the end of November his right side
was paralysed, and he lost his speech. He “ lingered in a
somnolent state ” for several days, says Professor Robertson,
and “ then his life quietly went out.”
Bishop Kennet was absurd enough to hint that Hobbes’s
“ lying some days in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to
his mind, more than his body.”* An old man of ninety-one
suffers a paralytic stroke, loses his speech, sinks into unconsciouness, and quietly expires. What could be more natural ?
Yet the Bishop, belonging to an order which always scents a
brimstone flavor round the heretic’s death-bed, must explain
this stupor and inanition by supposing that the moribund
philosopher was in a fit of despair. We have only to add
that Bishop Kennet was not present at Hobbes’s death. His
theory is, therefore, only a professional surmise; and we may
be sure that the wish was father to the thought.
AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
This stedfast Freethinker was a younger brother of George
Jacob Holyoake. He was of a singularly modest and amiable
nature, and although he left many friends he left not a
single enemy. He was entirely devoted to the Freethought
cause, and satisfied to work hard behind the scenes whilfi
more popular figures took the credit and profit. His assiduity
in the publishing business at Fleet Street, which was osten
sibly managed by his better-known and more fortunate
brother, induced a witty friend to call him “ Jacob’s ladder.”
Afterwards he threw in his lot with Charles Bradlaugh, then
the redoubtable “Iconoclast,” and became the printer and
in part sub-editor of the National lieformer, to whose columns
he was a frequent and welcome contributor. He died on
April 10, 1874, and was interred at Highgate Cemetery, his
funeral being largely attended by the London Freethinkers,
including C. Bradlaugh, C. Watts, G. W. Foote, James Thomson,
and G. J. Holyoake. The malady that carried him off was
consumption; he was conscious almost to the last; and his
only regret in dying, at the comparatively early age of forty
seven, was that he could no longer fight the battle of freedom,
nor protect the youth of his little son and daughter.
* Afemoin of the Cavendiih Family, p, 108.
�VICTOR HUGO.
35
Two days before his death, Austin Holyoake dictated his
last thoughts on religion, which were written down by his
devoted wife, and printed in the National Reformer of April
19, 1874. Part of this document is filled with his mental
history. In the remainder he reiterates his disbelief in the
cardinal doctrines of Christianity. The following extracts are
interesting and pertinent:
“ Christians constantly tell Freethinkers that their principles of
‘ negation,’ as they term them, may do very well for health ; but when
the hour of sickness and approaching death arrives they utterly break
down, and the hope of a ! blessed immortality ’ can alone give con
solation. In my own case I have been anxious to test the truth of
this assertion, and have therefore deferred till the latest moment I
think it prudent to dictate these few lines.
“ To desire eternal bliss is no proof that we shall ever attain it;
and it has long seemed to me absurd to believe in that which we wish
for, however ardently. I regard all forms of Christianity as founded
in selfishness. It is the expectation held out of bliss through all
eternity, in return for the profession of faith in Christ and him cruci
fied, that induces the erection of temples of worship in all Chris
tian lands. Remove the extravagant promise, and you will hear very
little of the Christian religion.
“ As I have stated before, my mind being free from any doubts on
these bewildering matters of speculation, I have experienced
for twenty years the most perfect mental repose ; and now I find that
the near approach of death, the ‘ grim King of Terrors,’ gives me not
the slightest alarm. I have suffered, and am suffering, most
intensely both by night and day; but this has not produced the least
symptom of change of opinion. No amount of bodily torture can
alter a mental conviction. Those who, under pain, say they see the
error of their previous belief, had never thought out the subject for
themselves.”
These are words of transparent sincerity; not a phrase is
strained, not a line aims at effect. Beading them, we feel
in presence of an earnest man bravely confronting death, con
sciously sustained by his convictions, and serenely bidding the
world farewell.
VICTOR HUGO.
The greatest French poet of this century, perhaps the
greatest French poet of all time, was a fervent Theist,
reverencing the prophet of Nazareth as a man, and holding that
“ the divine tear” of Jesus and “ the human smile” of
Voltaire “compose the sweetness of the present civilisation.”
But he was perfectly free from the trammels of' creeds, and
he hated priestcraft, like despotism, with a perfect hatred.
�36
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
In one of his striking later poems, Religion et les Religions, he
derides and denounces the tenets and pretensions of Chris
tianity. The Devil, he says to the clergy, is only the monkey
of superstition ; your Hell is an outrage on Humanity and a
blasphemy against God ; and when you tell me that your
deity made you in his own image, I reply that he must be
very ugly.
As a man, as well as a writer, there was something magni
ficently grandiose about him. Subtract him from the nine
teenth century, and you rob it of much of its glory. For
nineteen years on a lonely channel island, an exile from the
land of his birth and his love, he nursed the conscience of
humanity within his mighty heart, brandishing the lightnings
and thunders of chastisement over the heads of the political
brigands who were stifling a nation, and prophesying their
certain doom. When it came, after Sedan, he returned to
Paris, and for fifteen years he was idolised by its people.
There was great mourning at his death, and “ all Paris ”
attended his funeral.' But true to the simplicity of his life,
he ordered that his body should lie in a common coffin, which
contrasted vividly with the splendid procession. France
buried him, as she did Gambetta; he was laid to rest in the
Church of St. Genevieve, re-secularised as the Pantheon for
the occasion ; and the interment took place without any
religious rites.
Hugo’s great oration on Voltaire, in 1878, roused the ire
of the Bishop of Orleans, who reprimanded him in a public
letter. The freethinking poet sent a crushing reply :
“ France had to pass an ordeal. France was free. A man traitor
ously seized her in the night, threw her down, and garroted her. If a
people could be killed, that man had slain France. He made her dead
enough for him to reign over her. He began his reign, since it was a
reign, with perjury, lying in wait, and massacre. He continued it by
oppression, by tyranny, by despotism, by an unspeakable parody of
religion and justice. He was monstrous and little. The Te Deum,
Magnificat, Salvum fac, Gloria tibi, were sung for him. Who sang
them ? Ask yourself. The law delivered the people up to him. The
church delivered God up to him. Under that man sank down right,
honor, country; he had beneath his feet oath, equity, probity, the glory
of the flag, the dignity of men, the liberty of citizens. That man’s
.prosperity disconcerted the human conscience. It lasted nineteen
years. During that time you were in a palace. I was in exile. I pity
you, sir.”
Despite this terrible rebuff to Bishop Dupanloup, another
�DAVID HUME.
37
priest, Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop of Paris, had the temerity
and bad taste to obtrude himself when Victor Hugo lay dying
in 1885. Being born on February 26, 1802, he was in his
eighty-fourth year, and expiring naturally of old age. Had
the rites of the Church been performed on him in such cir
cumstances, it would have been an insufferable farce. Yet
the Archbishop wrote to Madame Lockroy, offering to bring
personally “ the succor and consolation so much needed in
these cruel ordeals.” Monsieur Lockroy at once replied as
follows:
“ Madame Lockroy, who cannot leave the bedside of her father-in?
law, begs me to thank you for the sentiments which you have ex
pressed with so much eloquence and kindness. As regards M. Victor
Hugo, he has again said within the last few days, that he had no wish
during his illness to be attended by a priest of any persuasion. We
should be wanting in our duty if we did not respect his resolution.”*
Hugo’s death-chamber was thus unprofaned by the presence
of a priest. He expired in peace, surrounded by the beings
he loved. According to the Times correspondent in Paris,
“ Almost his last words, addressed to his granddaughter,
were, ‘ Adieu, Jeanne, adieu!’ And his last movement of
consciousness was to clasp his grandson’s hand.”
The
hero-poet bade his charming grandchildren adieu ; but the
world will not bid them adieu, any more than him, for he
has immortalised them in his imperishable A’Art d’etre Grandpere, every page of which is scented with the deathless per
fume of adorable love.
DAVID HUME.
Professor Huxley ventures to call David Hume “ the most
acute thinker of the eighteenth century, even though it pro
duced Kant.”t Hume’s greatness is no less clearly acknow
ledged by Joseph De Maistre, the foremost champion of the
Papacy in our own century. “ I believe,” he says, “ that
taking all into account, the eighteenth century, so fertile in
this respect, has not produced a single enemy of religion who
can be compared with him. His cold venom is far more
dangerous than the foaming rage of Voltaire. If ever, among
men who have heard the gospel preached, there has existed a
veritable Atheist (which I will not undertake to decide) it is
he.”J Allowing for the personal animosity in his estimate
* London Times, May 23, 1885: Paris Correspondent’s letter,
t Lay Sermons, p. 141.
J Lettres sur V Inquisition, pp. 147, 148.
�38
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
of Hume, De Maistre is as accurate as Huxley. The immor
tal Essays attest both his penetration and his scepticism ; the
one on Miracles being a perpetual stumbling-block to Christian
apologists. With superb irony, Hume closes that portentous
discourse with a reprimand of “ those dangerous friends or
disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have under
taken to defend it by the principles of human reason.” He
reminds them that “our most holy religion is founded on
faith, not on reason” He remarks that Christianity was “ not
only attended by miracles, but even at this day cannot be
believed by any reasonable person without one.” For
“whoever is moved by faith to assent to it, is conscious
of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all
the principles of his understanding, and gives him a deter
mination to believe what is most contrary to custom and ex
perience.”
Hume was bom at Edinburgh on April 26, 1711. His life
was the uneventful one of a literary man. Besides his Essays,
he published a History of England, which was the first serious
effort in that direction. Judged by the standard of our day
it is inadequate ; but it abounds in philosophical reflections of
the highest order, and its style is nearly perfect. Gibbon,
who was a good judge of style, had an unbounded admiration
for Hume’s “ careless inimitable beauties.”
Fortune, however, was not so kind to him as fame. At the
age of forty, his frugal habits had enabled him to save no
more than £1,000. He reckoned his income at £50 a year,
but his wants were few, his spirit was cheerful, and there
were few prizes in the lottery of life for which he would have
made an exchange. In 1775 his health began to fail.
Knowing that his disorder (hemorrhage of the bowels) would
prove fatal, he made his will, and wrote My Own Life, the
conclusion of which, says Huxley, “ is one of the most cheer
ful, simple and dignified leave-takings of life and all its con
cerns, extant.” He died on August 25, 1776, and was buried
a few days later on the eastern slope of Calton Hill, Edinburgh,
his body being “ attended by a great concourse of people, who
seem to have anticipated for it the fate appropriate to wizards
and necromancers.”*
Dr. Adam Smith, the great author of the Wealth of Nations,
Ilume, by Professor Huxley, p. 43.
�M. LITTRE.
39
was one of Hume’s most intimate friends. He tells us that
Hume went to London in April, 1776, and soon after his re
turn he “ gave up all hope of recovery, but submitted with
the utmost cheerfulness, and the most perfect complacency
and resignation.” His cheerfulness was so great that many
people could not believe he was dying. ft Mr. Hume’s mag
nanimity and firmness were such,” says Adam Smith, “ that
his most affectionate friends knew that they hazarded nothing
in talking and writing to him as a dying man, and that, so
far from being hurt by this frankness, he was rather pleased
and flattered by it.” His chief thought in relation to the
possible prolongation of his life, which his friends hoped,
although he told them their hopes were groundless, was that
he would “ have the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of
some of the prevailing systems of superstition.” On August 8,
Adam Smith went to Kirkcaldy, leaving Hume in a very
weak state but still very cheerful. On August 28, he received
the following letter from Dr. Black, the physician, announcing
the philosopher’s death.
“ Edinburgh, Monday, Aug. 26,1776. Dear Sir, Yesterday, about
four o’clock, afternoon, Mr. Hume expired. The near approach of
his death became evident in the night between Thursday and Friday,
when his disease became excessive, and soon weakened him so much,
that he could no longer rise out of his bed. He continued to the last
perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of distress. He
never dropped the smallest expression of impatience; but when he
had occasion to speak to the people about him, always did it with
affection and tenderness. I thought it improper to write to bring you
over, especially as I heard that he had dictated a letter to you, desiring
you not to come. When he became weak it cost him an effort to speak,
and he died in such a happy composure of mind that nothing could
exceed it.”
“Thus,” says Adam Smith, “died our most excellent and
never to be forgotten friend. . . . Upon the whole, I have
always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death
as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and
virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will
permit.”*
M. LITTRE.
This great French Positivist died in 1882 at the ripe age
of eighty-one. M. Littre was one of the foremost writers in
* Letter to William Strahan, dated November 9, 1776, and usually prefixed to
Hume’s History of England.
�40
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
France. His monumental “ Dictionary of the French Lan
guage ” is the greatest work of its kind in the world. As a
scholar and a philosopher his eminence was universally recog
nised. His character was so pure and sweet that a Catholic
lady called him “ a saint who does not believe in God.”
Although not rich, his purse was ever open to the claims of
parity. He was one who “did good by stealth,” and his
benefactions were conferred without respect to creed. A
Freethinker himself, he patronised the Catholic orphanage near
his residence, and took a keen interest in the welfare of its
inmates. He was an honor to France, to the world, and to
the Humanity which he loved and served instead of God.
M. Littre’s wife was an ardent Catholic, yet she was
allowed to follow her own religious inclinations without the
least interference. The great Freethinker valued liberty of
conscience above all other rights, and what he claimed for
himself he conceded to others. He scorned to exercise autho
rity even in the domestic circle, where so much tyranny is
practised.
His wife, however, was less scrupulous. After
enjoying for so many years the benefit of his steadfast tolera
tion, she took advantage of her position to exclude his friends
from his death-bed, to have him baptised in his last moments,
and to secure his burial in consecrated ground with pious
rites. Not satisfied with this, she even allowed it to be under
stood that her husband had recanted his heresy and died in
the bosom of the Church. The Abbe Huvelin, her confessor,
who frequently visited M. Littre during his last illness, assisted
her in the fraud.
There was naturally a disturbance at M. Littre’s funeral.
As the Standard correspondent wrote, his friends and dis
ciples were “ very angry at this recantation in extremis, and
claimed that dishonest priestcraft took advantage of the dark
ness cast over that clear intellect by the mist of approaching
death to perform the rites of the Church over his semi
inanimate body.” While the body was laid out in Catholic
fashion, with crucifixes, candles, and priests telling their
beads, Dr. Galopin advanced to the foot of the coffin and
spoke as follows :—
“ Master, you used to call me your son, and you loved me. I remain
your disciple and your defender. I come, in the name of Positive
*
Philosophy, to claim the rights of universal Freemasonry. A deception
has been practised upon us, to try and steal you from thinking
�M. LITTRE.
41
humanity. But the future will judge your enemies and ours. Master
we will revenge you by making our children read your books.;"
At the grave M. Wyrouboff, editor of the Comtist review,
La Philosophic Positive, founded by M. Littre, delivered a
brief address to the Freethinkers who remained, which con
cluded thus—
“ Littre proved by his example that it is possible for a man to
possess a noble and generous heart, and at the same time espouse a
doctrine which admits nothing beyond what is positively real and
which prevents any recantation. And gentlemen, in spite of deceptive
appearances, Littre died as he had lived, without contradictions or weak
ness. All those who knew that calm and serene mind—and I was of
the number of those who did—are well aware that it was irrevocably
closed to the ‘ unknowable,’ and that it was thoroughly prepared to
meet courageously the irresistible laws of nature. And now sleep in
peace, proud and noble thinker ! You will not have the eternity of a
world to come, which you never expected ; but you leave behind you
your country that you strove honestly to serve, the Republic which
you always loved, a generation of disciples who will remain faithful
to you; and last, but not least, you leave your thoughts and your
virtues to the whole world. Social immortality, the only beneficent
and fecund immortality, commences for you to-day.”
M. Wyrouboff has since amply proved his statements.
The English press creditably rejected the story of M.
Littre’s recantation. The Daily News sneered at it, the
Times described it as absurd, the Standard said it looked untrue. But the Morning Advertiser was still more outspoken.
It said:—
s‘ There can hardly be a doubt that M. Littre died ■ a steadfast ad
herent to the principles he so powerfully advocated during his laborious
and distinguished life. The Church may claim, as our Paris corres
pondent, in his interesting note on the subject, tells us she is already
claiming, the death-bed conversion of the great unbeliever, who for
the last thirty-five years was one of her most active and formidable
enemies. She has attempted to take the same posthumous revenge
on Voltaire, on Paine, and on many others, who were described by
Roman Catholic writers as calling in the last dreadful hour for the
Spiritual support they held up to ridicule in the confidence of health
and. the presumption of their intellect.”
In the Paris Gaulois there appeared a letter from the Abbe
Huvelin, written very ambiguously, and obviously intended to
mislead. But one fact stands out clear. This priest was
only admitted to visit M. Littre as a friend, and he was not
allowed to baptise him. The Archbishop of Paris also, in
his official organ, La Semaine Religieuse, admitted that “he
received the sacrament of baptism on the morning of the very
�42
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
day of his death, not from the hands of the priest, who had not
yet arrived, but from those of Madame Littrg.” The Arch
bishop, however, insists that he “ received the ordinance in
perfect consciousness and with his own full consent.” Now
as M. Littre was eighty-one years old, as he had been for
twelve months languishing with a feeble hold on life, during
which time he was often in a state of stupor, and as this was
the very morning of his death, I leave the reader to estimate
the value of what the Archbishop calls “ perfect consciousness
and full consent.” If any consent was given by the dying
Freethinker, it was only to gratify his wife and daughter, and
at the last moment when he had no will to resist; for if he
had been more compliant they would certainly have baptised
him before. Submission in these circumstances counts for
nothing ; and in any case there is forceful truth in M. Littre’s
words, written in 1879 in his “Conservation, Revolution, et
Positivisme”—a whole life passed without any observance of
religious rites must outweigh the single final act.”
Unfortunately for the clericals, there exists a document
which may be considered M. Littrd’s last confession. It is an
article written for the Comtist review a year before his death,
entitled, “ Pour la Derniere Fois ”—For the Last Time.
While writing it he knew that his end was not far off. “ For
many months,” he’says, “my sufferings have prostrated me
with dreadful persistence. . . Every evening when I have
to be put to bed, my pains are exasperated, and often I have
not the strength to stifle cries which are grievous to me and
grievous to those who tend me.” After the article was com
pleted his malady increased. Fearing the worst, he wrote to
his friend, M. Caubet, as follows :—
“ Last Saturday I swooned away for a long time. It is for that
reason I send you, a little prematurely, my article for the Review.
If 1 live, I will correct the proofs as usual. If I die, let it be printed
and published in the Review as a posthumous article. It will be a
last trouble which I venture to give you. The reader must do his
best to follow the manuscript faithfully.”
If I live—If I die ! These are the words of one in the
shadow of Death.
Let us see what M. Littre’s last confession is. I translate
two passages from the article. Referring to Charles Greville,
he says:
“ I feel nothing of what he experienced. Like him, I find it im
�HARRIET MARTINEAU.
43
possible to accept the theory of the world which Catholicism prescribes
*
to all true believers; but I do not regret being without such doctrines,,
and I cannot discover in myself any wish to return to them.”
And he concludes the article with these words :
“ Positive Philosophy, which has so supported me since my thirtieth
year, and which, in giving me an ideal, a craving for progress, the
vision of history and care for humanity, has preserved me from being
a simple negationist, accompanies me faithfully in these last trials.
The questions it solves in its own way, the rules it prescribes by virtue
of its principle, the beliefs it discountenances in the name of our igno
rance of everything absolute ; of these I have in the preceding pages
made an examination, which I conclude with the supreme word of the
commencement: for the last time.”
So much for the lying story of M. Littre’s recantation. In
the words of M. Wyrouboff, although his corpse was accom
panied to the grave by priests and believers, his name will go
down to future generations as that of one who was to the end
servant to science and an enemy to superstition.”
HARRIET MARTINEAU.
This gifted woman died on May 27, 1876, after a long
a®d useful life, filled with literary labor in the cause of
progress. On April 19, less than six weeks before her death,
she wrote her last letter to Mr. H. G. Atkinson, from which
the following is taken.
“ I cannot think of any future as at all probable, except the ‘ annihila
tion’from which some people recoil with so much horror. I find
myself here in the universe—I know not how, whence, or why. I see
everything in the universe go out and disappear, and I see no reason
for supposing that it is an actual and entire death. And for my part,
I have no objection to such an extinction. I well remember the passion
with which W. E. Forster said to me ‘ I had rathei- be damned than
annihilated.’ If he once felt five minutes’ damnation, he would be
thankful for extinction in preference. The truth is, I care little about
it any way. Now that the event draws near, and that I see how fully
my household expectmy death pretty soon, the universe opens so widely
before my view, and I see the old notions of death, and scenes to follow
so merely human—so impossible to be true, when one glances through
the range of science,—that I see nothing to be done but to wait, without
fear or hope or ignorant prejudice, for the expiration of life. I have
no wish for future experience, nor have I any fear of it. Under the
weariness of illness I long to be asleep.”f
These are the words of a brave woman, who met Death
• To a Frenchman, Catholicism and Christianity mean one and the same thing
t Autobiography of Hariiet Mart/neaw, Vol. Ill, p. 454; edition 1877.
�44
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
with the same fortitude as she exhibited in the presence of
the defenders of slavery in the United States.
JOHN STUART MELL.
Mill was born in Rodney Street, Pentonville, London, on
May 20, 1806, and he died at Avignon on May 8, 1873. Not
withstanding the unguarded admissions in the one of his
three Essays on Religion which he never prepared for the
press, it is certain that he lived and died a Freethinker. His
father educated him without theology, and he never really
imbibed any afterwards. Professor Bain, his intimate friend
and his biographer, tells us that “ he absented himself during
his whole life from religious services,” and that “ in every
thing characteristic of the creed of Christendom he was a
thorough-going negationist. He admitted neither its truth
nor its utility.”* Mr. John Morley also, in his admirably
written account of the last day he spent with Mill,! says that
he looked forward to a general growth of the Religion of
Humanity. There is no extant record of Mill’s last moments,
but there has never been any pretence that he recanted or
showed the least alarm. One Christian journal, which died
itself soon after, declared its opinion that his soul was burn
ing in hell, and expressed a pious wish that his disciples
would soon follow him. We may therefore conclude that
Mill died a Freethinker as he had always lived.
MIRABEAU.
Gabriel Honore Riquetti, son and heir of the Marquis de
Mirabeau, was born on March 9, 1749. He came of a wild
strong stock, and was a magnificent “ enormous ” fellow at
his birth, the head being especially great. The turbulent
life of the man has been graphically told by Carlyle in his
Essays and in the French Revolution. Faults he had many,
but not that of insincerity ; with all his failings, he was a
•gigantic mass of veracious humanity. “ Moralities not a few,”
says Carlyle, “ must shriek condemnatory over this Mirabeau ;
the Morality by which he could be judged has not yet got
uttered in the speech of men.”
John Stuart Mill, by Alexander Bain, pp. 139,140.
t Miscellanies, Vol. III.
�MIRABEAU.
45
Mirabeau’s work in the National Assembly belongs to
history. It was mighty and splendid, but it cannot be recited
here. His life burned away during those fateful months,
the incessant labor and excitement almost passing credibility.
“ If I had not lived with him,” says Dumont, “ I never
should have known what a man can make of one day, what
things may be placed within the interval of twelve hours.
A day for this man was more than a week or a month is for
others.” One day his secretary said to him “ Monsieur le
Comte what you require is impossible.” Whereupon Mira
beau started from his chair, with the memorable ejaculation,
“ Impossible ! Never name to me that blockhead of a word ”
—Ne me elites jamais ce bete de mot.
But the Titan of the Revolution was exhausted before his
task was done. In January, 1791, he sat as President of theAssembly with his neck bandaged after the application of
leeches. At parting he said to Dumont “ I am dying, my
friend ; dying as by slow fire.” On the 27th of March he
stood in the tribune for the last time. Four days later he
was on his death-bed. Crowds beset the street, anxious but
silent, and stopping all traffic so that their hero might not
be disturbed. A bulletin was issued every three hours.
“ On Saturday the second day of April,” says Carlyle, “ Mira
beau feels that the last of the Days has risen for him ; that
on this day he has to depart and be no more. His death is
Titanic, as his life has been! Lit up, for the last time, in the
glare of the coming dissolution, the mind of the man is all
glowing and burning; utters itself in sayings, such as men
long remember. He longs to live, yet acquiesces in death,
argues not with the inexorable. *
Gazing out on the Spring sun, Mirabeau said, Si ce n’est
pas Id Dieu, cest du moins son cousin germain—If that is not
God, it is at least his cousin german. It was the great utter
ance of an eighteenth-century Pagan, looking across the
mists of Christian superstition to the saner nature-worship of
antiquity.
Power of speech gone, Mirabeau made signs for paper and
pen, and wrote the word Dormir “ To sleep.” Cabanis, the
great physician, who stood beside him, pretended not to
understand this passionate request for opium. Thereupon,
* French Revolution Vol. II., p. 120.
�46
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
writes the doctor, “ he made a sign for the pen and paper to
be brought to him again, and wrote,-‘Do you think
that Death is dangerous ?’—Seeing that I did not comply
with his demand, he wrote again,-' . . . How can you
leave your friend on the wheel, perhaps for days ?’ ” Oabanis
and Dr. Petit decided to give him a sedative. While it was
sent for “the pains became atrocious.” Recovering speech a
little under the torture, he turned to M. de la Marek, saying,
“ You deceive me.” “ No,” replied his friend, “ we are not
deceiving you, the remedy is coming, we all saw it ordered.”
“ Ah, the doctors, the doctors !” he muttered. Then, turn
ing to Oabanis, with a look of mingled anger and tenderness,
he said, “ Were you not my doctor and my friend ? Did you
not promise to spare me the agonies of such a death ? Do
you wish me to expire with a regret that I trusted you ?”
“ Those words,” says Cabanis, “ the last that he uttered,
ring incessantly in my ears. He turned over on the right
side with a convulsive movement, and at half-past eight in
the morning he expired in our arms.”* Dr. Petit, standing
at the foot of the bed, said “ His sufferings are ended.”
“ So dies,” writes Carlyle, “ a gigantic Heathen and Titan ;
stumbling blindly, undismayed, down to his rest.”
Mirabeau was an Atheist, and he was buried as became his
philosophy and his greatness. The Assembly decreed a
Public Funeral; there was a procession a league in length,
and the very roofs, trees, and lamp-posts, were covered with
people. The Church of Sainte-Genevieve was turned into a
Pantheon for the Great Men of the Fatherland, Aux Grands
Hommes la Patrie reconnaissante. It was midnight ere the
ceremonies ended, and the mightiest man in France was left
in the darkness and silence to his long repose. Of him, more
than most men, it might well have been said, “ After life’s
fitful fever he sleeps well.” Dormir “ To sleep,” he wrote
in his dying agony. Death had no terror for him ; it was
only the ringing down of the curtain at the end of the drama.
From the womb of Nature he sprang, and like a tired child
he fell asleep at last on her bosom.
ROBERT OWEN.
Robert Owen, whose name was once a terror to the clergy
* Journal de la Maladieet de la Mort d'Honors—Gabriel Mirabeau. Paris, 1791;
p. 263.
�ROBERT OWEN.
47
and the privileged classes, was born at Newtown, Mont
gomeryshire, on May 14, 1771. In his youth he noticed the
inconsistency of professing Christians, and on studying the
various religions of the world, as he tells us in his Auto
biography, he found that “ one and all had emanated from
the same source, and their varieties from the same false
imaginations of our early ancestors.” We have no space to
narrate his long life, his remarkable prosperity in cotton
spinning, his experiments in the education of children, his
disputes with the clergy, and his efforts at social reform,
to which he devoted his time and wealth, with sin
gular disinterestedness and simplicity. At one time his in
fluence even with the upper classes was remarkable, but he
seriously impaired it in 1817, by honestly stating, at a great
meeting at the City of London Tavern, that it was useless
to hope for real reform while people were besotted by “ the
gross errors that have been combined with the fundamental
notions of every religion.” After many more years of labor
for the cause he loved, Owen quietly passed away on No
vember 17, 1858, at the great age of eighty-eight. His last
hours are described in the following letter by his son, Robert
Dale Owen, which appeared in the newspapers of the time,
and is preserved in Mr. G. J. Holyoake’s Last Days of Robert
Owen.
“ Newtown, November 17, 1858. My dear father passed away this
morning, at a quarter before seven, and passed away as gently and
quietly as if he had fallen asleep. There was not the least struggle,
not a contraction of a limb, of a muscle, not an expression of pain on
his face. His breathing gradually became slower and slower, until at
last it ceased so imperceptibly, that, even as I held his hand, I could
scarcely tell the moment when he no longer breathed. His last words
distinctly pronounced about twenty minutes before his death, were
‘Relief has come.’ About half an hour before he said ‘Very easy
and comfortable.’ ”
Owen’s remains were interred in the churchyard of St.
Mary’s, Newtown, and as the law then stood, the minister
had a right, which he exercised, of reading the Church of
England burial service over the heretic’s coffin, and the Free
thinkers who stood round the grave had to bear the mockery
as quietly as possible. In Owen’s case, as in Carlile’s, the
Church appropriated the heretic’s corpse. Even Darwin’s
body rests in Westminster Abbey, and that is all of him the
' Church can boast.
�48
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
THOMAS PAINE.
George Washington has been called the hero of American
Independence, but Thomas Paine shares with him the honor.
The sword of the one, and the pen of the other, were both
necessary in the conflict which prepared the ground for
building the liepublic of the United States. While the
farmer-general fought with unabated hope in the darkest
hours of misfortune, the soldier-author wrote the stirring
appeals which kindled and sustained enthusiasm in the sacred
cause of liberty. Common Sense was the precursor of the
Declaration of Independence. The Rights of Man, subse
quently written and published in England, advocated the
same principles where they were equally required. Replied
to by Government in a prosecution for treason, it brought
the author so near to the gallows that he was only saved by
flight. Learning afterwards that the Rights of Man can
never be realised while the people are deluded and degraded
by priestcraft and superstition, Paine attacked Christianity
in The Age of Reason. That vigorous, logical, and witty
volume has converted thousands of Christians to Freethought.
It was answered by bishops, denounced by the clergy, and
prosecuted for blasphemy. But it was eagerly read in fields
and workshops ; brave men fought round it as a standard of
freedom; and before the battle ended the face of society was
changed.
Thomas Paine was bom at Thetford, in Norfolk, on January
29, 1736. His scepticism began at the early age of eight,
when he was shocked by a sermon on the Atonement, which
represented God as killing his own son when he could not
revenge himself in any other way. Becoming acquainted
with Dr. Franklin in London, Paine took his advice and emi
grated to America in the autumn of 1774. A few months
later his Common Sense announced the advent of a masterly
writer. More than a hundred thousand copies were sold, yet
Paine lost money by the pamphlet, for he issued it, like all
his other writings, at the lowest price that promised to cover
expenses. Congress, in 1777, appointed him Secretary to the
Committee for Foreign Affairs. Eight years later it granted
him three thousand dollars on account of his “ early, un
solicited, and continued labors in explaining the principles of
the late Revolution.” In the same year the State of Pen-
�49
THOMAS PAINE.
sylvania presented liim with £500, and the State of New York
gave him three hundred acres of valuable land.
Returning to England in 1787, Paine devoted his abilities
to engineering. He invented the arched iron bridge, and the
first structure of that kind in the world, the cast-iron bridge
over the Wear at Sunderland, was made from his model. Yet
he appeals to have derived no more profit from this than
from his writings.
Burke’s Reflections appeared in 1790. Paine lost no time
in replying, and his Rights of Man was sold by the hundred
thousand. The Government tried to suppress the work by
bribery; and that failing, a prosecution was begun. Paine’s
defence was conducted by Erskine, but the jury returned a
verdict of Guilty “ without the trouble of deliberation.” The
intended victim of despotism was, however, beyond its reach.
He had been elected by the departments of Calais and Ver
sailles to sit in the National Assembly. A splendid reception
awaited him at Calais, and his journey to Paris was marked by
popular demonstrations. At the trial of Louis XVI., he spoke
and voted for banishment instead of execution. He was one of
the Committee appointed to frame the Constitution of 1793,
but in the close of that year, having become obnoxious to
the Terrorists, he was deprived of his seat as “a foreigner,”
and imprisoned in the Luxembourg for no better reason. At
the time of his arrest he had written the first part of the
Age of Reason. While in prison he composed the second
part, and as he expected every day to be guillotined, it was
penned in the very presence of Death.
Liberated on the fall of Robespierre, Paine returned to
America; not, however, without great difficulty, for the British
cruisers were ordered to intercept him. From 1802 till his
death he wrote and published many pamphlets on religious
and other topics, including the third part of the Age of Reason.
His last years were full of pain, caused by an abscess in the
side, which was brought on by his imprisonment in Paris.
He expired, after intense suffering, on June 8, 1809, placidly
and without a struggle.
*
Paine’s last hours were disturbed by pious visitors who
wished to save his immortal soul from the wrath of God.
One afternoon a very old lady, dressed in a large scarlet-hooded
* Life of Thomas Paine. By Olio Rickman.
1819. P. 187.
D
�50
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
cloak, knocked at the door and inquired for Thomas Paine. Mr
Jarvis, with whom Mr. Paine resided, told her he was asleep. ‘ I am
very sorry,’ she said, ‘ for that, for I want to see him particularly.’
Thinking it a pity to make an old woman call twice, Mr. Jarvis took
her into Mr.'Paine’s bedroom and awoke him. He rose upon one elbow;
then, with an expression of eye that made the old woman stagger back
a step or two, he asked ‘ What do you want ?’ ‘ Is your name Paine ?’
‘ Yes.’ ‘ Well then, I come from Almighty God to tell you, that if you
do not repent of your sins, and believe in our blessed Savior Jesus
Christ, you will be damned and—’ 1 Poh, poh, it is not true; you were
not sent with any such impertinent message: Jarvis make her go
away—pshaw! he would not send such a foolish ugly old woman
about his messages : go away, go back, shut the door.’”*
Two weeks before his death, his conversion was attempted
by two Christian ministers, the Bev. Mr. Milledollar and the
Bev. Mr. Cunningham.
“ The latter gentleman said, ‘ Mr. Paine, we visit you as friends and
neighbors : you have now a full view of death, you cannot live long,
and whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ will assuredly be
damned.’ ‘ Let me,’ said Mr. Paine, 1 have none of your popish stuff;
get away with you, good morning, good morning.’ The Rev. Mr.
Milledollar attempted to address him, but he was interrupted in the
same language. When they were gone he said to Mrs. Hedden, his
housekeeper, ‘ do not let them come here again; they intrude upon
me.’ They soon renewed their visit, but Mrs. Hedden told them they
could not be admitted, and that she thought the attempt useless, for
God did not change his mind, she was sure no human power could.”f
Another of these busybodies was the Bev. Mr. Hargrove,
a Swedenborgian or New Jerusalemite minister. This gentle
man told Paine that his sect had found the key for interpreting
the Scriptures, which had been lost for four thousand years.
“ Then,” said Paine, “ it must have been very rusty.”
Even his medical attendant did not scruple to assist in this
pious enterprise. Dr. Manley’s letter to Cheetham, one of
Paine’s biographers, says that he visited the dying sceptic at
midnight, June 5-6, two days before he expired. After
tormenting him with many questions, to which he made
no answer, Dr. Manley proceeded as follows :
“ Mr. Paine, you have not answered my questions : will you answer
them ? Allow me to ask again, do you believe, or—let me qualify
the question—do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God ? After a pause of some minutes he answered, ‘ I have no wish,
to believe on that subject.’ I then left him, and know not whether he
afterwards spoke to any person on the subject.”
Hickman, pp. 182—18;.
t Rickman, p. 184.
�THOMAS PAINE.
51
Sherwin confirms this statement. He prints a letter from
Mr. Clark, who spoke to Dr. Manley on the subject. “ I
asked him plainly,” says Mr. Clark, “ did Mr. Paine recant
his religious sentiments ? I would thank you for an explicit
answer, sir. He said, ‘No he did not.'' ”*
Mr. Willet Hicks, a Quaker gentleman who frequently
called on Paine in his last illness, as a friend and not as a
soul-snatcher, bears similar testimony. “ In some serious
conversation I had with him a short time before his death,”
said Mr. Hicks, “he said his sentiments respecting the
Christian religion were precisely the same as they were
when he wrote the Age of Reason.'f
Lastly, we have the testimony of Cheetham himself, who
was compelled to apologise for libelling Paine during his life,
and whose biography of the great sceptic is a continuous
libel. Even Oheetham is bound to admit that Paine “ died
as he had lived, an enemy to the Christian religion.”
Notwithstanding this striking harmony of evidence as to
Paine’s dying in the principles of Freethought, the story of
his “recantation” gradually developed, until at last it was
told to the children in Sunday-schools, and even published
by the Religious Tract Society. Nay, it is being circulated to
this very day, as no less true than the gospel itself, although
it was triumphantly exposed by William Oobbett over sixty
years ago. “ This is nota question of religion,” said Cobbett,
“ it is a question of moral truth. Whether Mr. Paine’s
opinions were correct or erroneous, has nothing to do with
this matter.”
Cobbett investigated the libel on Paine on the very spot
where it originated. Getting to the bottom of the matter,
he found that the source of the mischief was Mary Hinsdale,
who had formerly been a servant to Mr. Willet Hicks. This
gentleman sent Paine many little delicacies in his last illness,
and Mary Hinsdale conveyed them. According to her story,
Paine made a recantation in her presence, and assured her
that if ever the Devil had an agent on earth, he who wrote
the Age of Reason was undoubtedly that person: When she
was hunted out by Oobbett, however, “ she shuffled, she evaded,
she affected not to understand,” and finally said she had “no
recollection of any person or thing she saw at Thomas Paine’s
* Sherwin’s Life of Paine, p 225.
t Cheetham’s Life of Paine, p. 152.
�52
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
house.” Cobbett’s summary of the whole matter commends
itself to every sensible reader.
“ This is, I think, a pretty good instance of the lengths to which
hypocrisy will go. The whole story, as far as it relates to recantation,
. . is a lie from beginning to end. Mr. Paine declares in his last Will,
that he retains all his publicly expressed opinions as to religion. His
executors, and many other gentlemen of undoubted veracity, had the
same declaration from his dying lips. Mr. Willet Hieks visited hiifc to
nearly the last. This gentleman says that there was no change
of opinion intimated to him; and will any man believe that Paine
would have withheld from Mr. Hieks that which he was so forward to
communicate to Mr. Hicks's servant girl?”*
I have already said that the first part of the Age of Reason
was entrusted to Joel Barlow when Paine was imprisoned at
Paris, and the second part was written in gaol in the very
presence of Death. Dr. Bond, an English surgeon, who was
by no means friendly to Paine’s opinions, visited him in the
Luxembourg, and gave the following testimony :
“ Mr. Paine, while hourly expecting to die, read to me 'parts of his
Age of Reason; and every night when I left him to be separately
locked up, and expected not to see him alive in the morning, he always
expressed his firm belief in the principles of that book, and begged I
would tell the world such were his dying opinions.”!
Surely when a work was written in such circumstances, it
is absurd to charge the author with recanting his opinions
through fear of death. Citing once more the words of his
enemy Cheetham, it is incontestible that Thomas Paine “ died
as he had lived, an enemy to the Christian religion.”
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.
This glorious poet of Atheism and Republicanism was born
at Field Place, near Horsham, Sussex, on August 4, 1792.
His whole life was a daring defiance of the tyranny of Custom.
In 1811, when less than nineteen, he was expelled from Oxford •
University for writing The Necessity of Atheism. After writing
Queen Mob and several political pamphlets, -besides visiting
Ireland to assist the cause of reform in that unhappy island,
he was deprived of the guardianship of his two children by
Lord Chancellor Eldon on account of his heresy. Leaving
England, he went to Italy, where his principal poems were
composed with remarkable rapidity during the few years of
life left him. His death occurred on July 8, 1822. He was
Republican, February 13, 1824, Vol. IX., p. 221.
+ Hickman p. 194.
�PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.
53
barely thirty, yet he had made for himself a deathless fame
as the greatest lyrical poet in English literature.
Shelley was drowned in a small yacht off Leghorn. The
only other occupants of the boat were his friend Williams
and a sailor lad, both of whom shared his fate. The squall
which submerged them was too swift to allow of their taking
proper measures for their safety. Shelley’s body was re
covered. In one pocket was a volume of JEschylus, in the
other a copy of Keats’s poems, doubled back as if hastily
thrust away. He had evidently been reading “ Isabella ” and
“Lamia,” and the waves cut short his reading for ever. It
was an ideal end, although so premature ; for Shelley was
fascinated by the sea, and always expressed a preference for
death by drowning. His remains were cremated on the sea
coast, in presence of Leigh Hunt, Trelawney, and Byron.
Trelawney snatched the heart from the flames, and it is still
preserved by Sir Percy Shelley. The ashes were coffered,
and soon after buried in the Protestant cemetery at Rome,
close by the old cemetery, where Keats was interred—a beau
tiful open space, covered in summer with violets and daisies,
of which Shelley himself had written “ It might make one in
love with death to think that one should be buried in so sweet
a place.” Trelawney planted six young cypresses and four
laurels. On the tomb-stone was inscribed a Latin epitaph by
Leigh Hunt, to which Trelawney added three lines from
Shakespeare’s Tempest, one of Shelley’s favorite plays.
Percy Bysshe Shelley.
cor CORDIUM
Natus iv. Aug. MDOCXCII
Obit vii. Jul. MDCOOXXII
“ Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.”
And there at Rome, shadowed by cypress and laurel,
covered with sweet flowers, and surrounded by the crumbling
ruins of a dead empire, rests the heart of hearts.
Shelley’s Atheism cannot be seriously disputed, and Tre
lawney makes a memorable protest against the foolish and
futile attempts to explain it away.
“ The principal fault I have to find is that the Shelleyan writers
being Christians themselves, seem to think that a man of geniuo
cannot be an Atheist, and so they strain their own faculties to disprovs
�54
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
what Shelley asserted from the very earliest stage of his career to the
last day of his life. He ignored all religions as superstitions. ... A
clergyman wrote in the visitors’ book at the Mer de Glace, Chamotmi,
something to the following effect: ‘No one can view this sublime
scene, and deny the existence of God.’ Under which Shelley, using a
Greek phrase, wrote ‘ P. B. Shelley, Atheist,’ thereby proclaiming his
opinion to all the world. And he never regretted having done so.”*
Trelawny’s words should be printed on the forefront of
Shelley’s works, so that it might never be forgotten that “ the
poet of poets and purest of men ” was an Atheist.
BENEDICT SPINOZA.
Benedict Spinoza (Baruch Despinosa) was born at Amster
dam on November 24, 1632. Hi^ father was one of the
Jewish fugitives from Spain who settled in the Netherlands
to escape the dreaded Inquisition. With a delicate constitu
tion, and a mind more prone to study than amusement, the
boy Spinoza gave himself to learning and meditation. He
was soon compelled to break away from the belief of his
family and his teachers ; and, after many vain admonitions,
he was at length excommunicated.
His anathema was
pronounced in the synagogue on July 27, 1656. It was a
frightful formula, cursing him by day and night, waking and
sleeping, sitting and standing, and prohibiting every Jew from
holding any communication with him, or approaching him
within a distance of four cubits. Of course it involved his
exile from home, and soon afterwards he narrowly escaped a
fanatic’s dagger.
The rest of Spinoza’s life was almost entirely that of a
scholar. He earned a scanty livelihood by polishing lenses,
but his physical wants were few, and he subsisted on a few
pence per day. His writings are such as the world will not
willingly let die, and his Ethics places him on the loftiest
heights of philosophy, where his equals and companions may
be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Through Goethe
and Heine, he has exercised a potent influence on German,
and therefore on European thought. His subtle Pantheism
identifies God with Nature, and denies to deity all the attri
butes of personality.
His personal appearance is described by Colerus, the Dutch
pastor, who some years after his death gathered all the inRecords of Byron and Shelley, Vol. I., pp. 243-245
�BENEDICT SPINOZA.
55
formation about him that could be procured. He was of
middle height and slenderly built; with regular features, a
broad and high forehead, large dark lustrous eyes, full dark
eyebrows, and long curling hair of the same hue. His
character was’worthy of his intellect. He made no enemies
except by his opinions. “Even bitter opponents,” as Mr.
Martineau says, “ could not but own that he was singularly
blameless and unexacting, kindly and disinterested. Children,
young men, servants, all who stood to him in any relation of
dependence, seem to have felt the charm of his affability and
sweetness of temper.”*
Spinoza was lodging, at the time of his death, with a poor
Dutch family at the Hague. They appear to have regarded
him with veneration, and to have given him every attention.
But the climate was too rigorous for his Southern tempera
ment.
!! The strict and sober regimen which was recommended by frugality
Was not unsuited to his delicate constitution: but, in spite of it, his
emaciation increased ; and, though he made no change in his habits,
he became so far aware of his decline as on Sunday, the 20th of Feb
ruary, 1677, to send for his medical friend Meyer from Amsterdam.
That afternoon Van der Spijck and his wife had been to church, in
preparation for the Shrovetide communion next day: and on their
return at 4 p.m., Spinoza had come downstairs and, whilst smoking
his pipe, talked with them long about the sermon. He went early to
bed; but was up again next morning (apparently before the arrival of
Meyer), in time to come down and converse with his host and hostess
before they went to church. The timely appearance of the physician
enabled her to leave over the fire a fowl to be boiled for a basin of
broth. This, as well as some of the bird itself, Spinoza took with a
relish, on their return from church about midday. There was nothing
to prevent the Van der Spijcks from going to the afternoon service.
But on coming out of the church they were met by the startling news
that at 3 p.m. Spinoza had died; no one being with him but his
physician. ”f
Mr. Martineau hints that perhaps “the philosopher and
the physician had arranged together and carried out a method
of euthanasia,” but as he admits that “ there is no tittle of evi
dence for such a thing,” it is difficult to understand why he
makes such a gratuitous suggestion.
Pious people, who judged every philosopher to be an
Atheist, reported that Spinoza had cried out several times in
dying “ Oh God, have mercy on me, a miserable sinner 1 ”
* 4 Study of Spinoza. By Dr. James Martineau, p. 104.
t Ibid, pp. 101 102
�56
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
Colerus investigated this story and found it an invention.
Dr. Meyer was the only person with Spinoza when he died,
so that it was impossible for the scandal-mongers to have
heard his last words. Besides, his hostess denied the truth
of all such statements, adding that “ what persuaded her of
the contrary was that, since he began to fail, he had always
shown in his sufferings a stoical fortitude.”*
DAVID FREDERICK STRAUSS.
Strauss’s Life of Jesus once excited universal controversy
in the Christian world, and the author’s name was opprobrious
in orthodox circles. So important was the work, that it was
translated into French by Littre and into English by George
Eliot. Subsequently, Strauss published a still more heterodox
book, The Old Faith and the New, in which he asserts that
“if we would speak as honest, upright men, we must acknow
ledge we are no longer Christians,” and strenuously repudiates
all the dogmas of theology as founded on ignorance and super
stition.
This eminent German Freethinker died in the spring of
1874, of cancer in the stomach, one of the most excruciating
disorders.
“But in these very sufferings the mental greatness and moral
strength of the sufferer proclaimed their most glorious victory. He
was fully aware of his condition. With unshaken firmness he adhered
o the convictions which he had openly acknowledged in his last
work [The Old Faith and the IVew] and he never for a moment retpented having written them. But with these convictions he met
death with such repose and with such unclouded serenity of mind,
that it was impossible to leave his sick room without the impression
of a moral sanctity which we all the more surely receive from great
ness of soul and mastery of mind over matter, the stronger are the
hindrances in the surmounting of which it is manifested.”!
Strauss left directions for bis funeral. He expressly for
bade all participation of the Church in the ceremony, but on
the day of his interment a sum of money was to be given to
the poor. “On February 10 [1874] therefore,” says his bio
grapher, “ he was buried without ringing of bells or the pre
sence of a clergyman, but in the most suitable manner, and
amid the lively sympathy of all, far and near.”
* La Vie de Spinoza, par Oolerus: Saisset’s CEuvres de Spinoza, Vol. II.. p. xxxvii.
t Edward Zdier, David Frederick Strauss in his Life andWritings, p. 148.
�JOHN TOLAND.
57
JOHN TOLAND.
Toland was one of the first to call himself a Freethinker.
He was born at Redcastle, near Londonderry, in Ireland, on
November 30, 1670 ; and he died at Putney on March 11,
1722. His famous work Christianity not Mysterious was
brought before Parliament, condemned as heretical, and
ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.
One
member proposed that the author himself should be
burnt; and as Thomas Aitkenhead had been hung at Edin
burgh for blasphemy in the previous year, it is obvious that
Toland incurred great danger in publishing his views.
Among other writings, Toland’s Letters to Serena achieved
distinction. They were translated into French by the famous
Baron D’Holbach, and Lange, in Tris great History of Materi
alism, says that “ The second letter handles the kernel of the
whole question of Materialism.” Lange also says that
“ Toland is one of those benevolent beings who exhibit to us
a great character in the complete harmony of all the sides of
human existence.”
For some years before his death, Toland lived in obscure
lodgings with a carpenter at Putney. His health was broken,
and his circumstances were poor. His last illness was pain
ful, but he bore it with great fortitude. According to one
of his most intimate friends, he looked earnestly at those in
the room a few minutes before breathing his last, and on
being asked if he wanted anything, he answered “ I want
nothing but death.” His biographer, Des Maizeaux, says
that “ he looked upon death without the least perturbation
of mind, bidding farewell to those that were about him, and
telling them he was going to sleep.”
LUCILIO VANINI.
Lucilio Vanini was born at Taurisano, near Naples, in
1584 or 1585. He studied theology, philosophy, physics,
astronomy, medicine, and civil and ecclesiastical law. At
Padua he became a doctor of canon and civil law, and was
ordained a priest.
Resolving to .visit the academies of
Europe, he travelled through France, England, Holland, and
Germany. According to Fathers Mersenne and Garasse, he
formed a project of promulgating Atheism over the whole of
Europe. The same priests allege that he had fifty thousand
�58
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
Atheistic followers at Paris ! One of his books was con
demned to the flames by the Sorbonne. Vanini himself met
eventually with the same fate. Tried at Toulouse for heresy,
he was condemned as an Atheist, and sentenced to the stake.
At the trial he protested his belief in God, and defended the
existence of Deity with the flimsiest arguments; so flimsy,
indeed, that one can scarcely read them, without suspecting
that he was pouring irony on his judges. They ordered him
to .have his tongue cut out before being burnt alive. It is
said that he afterwards confessed, took the communion, and
declared himself ready to subscribe the tenets of the Church.
But if he did so, he certainly recovered his natural dignity
when he had to face the worst. Le Mercure Franqais, which
cannot be suspected of partiality towards him, reports that
“ he died with as much constancy, patience, and fortitude as
any other man ever seen ; for setting forth from the Conciergerie joyful and elate, he pronounced in Italian these
words—‘Come, let us die cheerfully like a philosopher!’”
There is a report that, on seeing the pile, he cried out “ Ah,
my God !’ ” On which a bystander said, “ You believe in
God, then.” “No,” he retorted, “it’s a fashion of speaking.”
Father Garasse says that he uttered many other notable
blasphemies, refused to ask forgiveness of God, or of the
king, and died furious and defiant. So obstinate was he,
. that pincers had to be employed to pluck out his tongue.
President Gramond, author of the History of France Under
Louis XIII., writes: “I saw him in the tumbril as they led
him to execution, mocking the Cordelier who had been sent
to exhort him to repentance, and insulting our Savior by
these impious words, ‘ He sweated with fear and weakness,
_ . and L I die undaunted.”’ ... _
Vanini’s martyrdom took place at Toulouse on February
19, 1619. He was only thirty-four, an age, as Camille Des
moulins said, “ fatal to revolutionists.”
[The reader may consult M. X. Rousselot’s (Euvres Philosophique
de Vanini, Avec une Notice sur sa Vie et ses Ouvrages. Paris, 1842].
VOLNEY.
The author of the famous Ruins of Empires was a great
traveller, and his visits to Oriental countries were described
so graphically and philosophically, that Gibbon wished he
�VOLTAIRE.
59
miglit go over the whole world and record his experiences for
the delight and edification of mankind. I have not been
able to ascertain how he died, but I have tracked for exposure
a very foolish story about his “ cowardice ” in a storm in
America, which is still circulated in pious tracts. It is said
that he threw himself on the deck of the vessel, crying in
agony, “Oh, my God, my God !” “There is a God, then,
Monsieur Volney?” said one of the passengers. “Oh, yes,”
he exclaimed, “ there is ! there is ! Lord save me 1” When
the vessel arrived safely in port, says the story, he “ returned
to his Atheistical sentiments.” I have traced this nonsense
back to the Tract Magazine for July, 1832, where it appearsvery much amplified, and in many respects different. It
appears in a still different form in the eighth volume of the
Evangelical Magazine. Beyond that it is lost in obscurity.
The story is an evident concoction ; it bears every appearance
of being “ worked up ” for the pious public ; and it could not
be credited for a moment by any one acquainted with Volney’s
life and writings.
VOLTAIRE.
Francois Marie Arouet, generally known by the name of
Voltaire, was born at Chatenay on February 20, 1694. He
died at Paris on May 30, 1778. To write his life during
those eighty-three years would be to give the intellectual his
tory of Europe.
While Voltaire was living at Ferney in 1768, he gave a
curious exhibition of that diabolical sportiveness which was a
strong element in his character. On Easter Sunday he took
his secretary Wagniere with him to commune at the village
church, and also “ to lecture a little those scoundrels who
steal continually.” Apprised of Voltaire’s sermon on theft,
the Bishop of Anneci rebuked him, and finally “ forbade
everycurate, priest, and monk of his diocese to confess, absolve
or give the communion to the seigneur of Ferney, without his
express orders, under pain of interdiction.” With a wicked
light in his eyes, Voltaire said he would commune in spite of
the Bishop; nay, that the ceremony should be gone through
in his chamber. Then ensued an exquisite comedy, which
shakes one’s sides even as described by the stolid Wagniere.
Feigning a deadly sickness, Voltaire took to his bed. The-
�€0
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
surgeon, who found his pulse was excellent, was bamboozled
into certifying that he was in danger of death. Then the
priest was summoned to administer the last consolation. The
poor devil at first objected, but Voltaire threatened him with
legal proceedings for refusing to bring the sacrament to a
dying man, who had never been excommunicated. This was
accompanied with a grave declaration that M. de Voltaire
“had never ceased to respect and to practise the Catholic
religion.” Eventually the priest came “half dead with
fear.” Voltaire demanded absolution at once, but the
Capuchin pulled out of his pocket a profession of faith, drawn
up by the Bishop, which Voltaire was required to sign. Then
the comedy deepened. Voltaire kept demanding absolution,
and the distracted priest kept presenting the document for
his signature. At last the L or d of Ferney had his way. The
priest gave him the wafer, and Voltaire declared, “Having
my God in my mouth,” that he forgave his enemies. Directly
he left the room, Voltaire leapt briskly out of bed, where a
minute before he seemed unable to move. “I have had a
little trouble,” he said to Wagniere, “with this comical
genius of a Capuchin ; but that was only for amusement, and
to accomplish a good purp ose. Let us take a turn in the
garden. I told you I would be confessed and commune in my
bed, in spite of M. Biord.”*
Voltaire treated Christianity so lightly that he confessed
and took the sacrament for a joke. Is it wonderful if he
did the same thing on his death-bed to secure the decent
burial of his corpse ? He r em embered his own bitter sorrow
and indignation, which he expressed in burning verse, when
the remains of poor Adrienne Lecouvreur were refused
sepulture because she died outside the pale of the Church.
Fearing similar treatment himself, he arranged to cheat the
Church again. By the agenc y of his nephew, the Abbe Mignot,
the Abbe Gautier was brought to his bedside, and according
to Condorcet he “confessed Voltaire, receiving from him a
profession of faith, by which he declared that he died
in the Catholic religion, wherein he was bom.”t This
story is generally credited, but its truth is by no means in
disputable : for in the Abbe Gautier’s declaration to the
Prior of the Abbey of Scellieres, where Voltaire’s remains
Parton’s Life of Voltaire, Vol. IL. pp. 410—415.
Condorcet's Vie de Voltaire, p. 144.
�VOLTAIRE.
61
were interred, he says that when he vis’ited M. de Voltaire,
he found him “ unfit to be confessed.”
The curate of St. Sulpice was annoyed at being forestalled
by the Abbe Gautier, and as Voltaire was his parishioner,
he demanded “ a detailed profession of faith and a disavowal
of all heretical doctrines.” He paid the dying Freethinker
many unwelcome visits, in the vain hope of obtaining a full
recantation, which would be a fine feather in his hat. The
last of these visits is thus described by Wagniere, who was
an eyewitness to the scene. I take Carlyle’s translation :
“ Two days before that mournful death, M. l’Abbe Mignot, his
nephew, went to seek the Cure of St. Sulpice and the Abbe Gauthier,
and brought them into his uncle’s sick room : who, on being informed
that the Abbe Gautier was there, ‘ Ah'; well!’ said he, ‘ give him my
compliments and my thanks.’ The Abbe'spoke some words to him,
exhorting him to patience. The Cure of St. Sulpice then came forward,
having announced himself, and asked of M. de Voltaire, elevating his
voice, if he acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ? The
sick man pushed one of his hands against the Cure'’s calotte (coif),
shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side, ‘Let
me die in peace (Laissez-moi mourir en paix).’ The Cure seemingly
considered his person soiled, and his coif dishonored, by the touch of
the philosopher. He made the sick-nurse give him a little brushing,
and then went out with the Abbe Gautier.”*
A. further proof that Voltaire made no real recantation lies
in the fact that the Bishop of Troyes sent a peremptory dis
patch to the Prior of Scellieres, which lay in his diocese,
forbidding him to inter the heretic’s remains. The dispatch,
however, arrived too late, and Voltaire’s ashes remained there
until 1791, when they were removed to Paris and placed in
the- Pantheon, by order of the N ational Assembly.
Voltaire’s last moments are re corded by Wagniere. I again
take Carlyle’s translation.
“ He expired about a quarter past eleven at night, with the most
perfect tranquility, after having suffered the ciuelest pains, in conse
quence of those fatal drugs, which his o wn imprudence, and especially
that of the persons who should have looked to it, made him swallow.
Ten minutes before his last breath he took the hand of Morand, his
valet-de-chambre, who was watching him; pressed it, and said,
1 Adieu, mon cher Morand, je me meurs'-—‘Adieu, my dear Morand, I
am gone.’ These are the last words uttered by M. de Voltaire.”f
Such are the facts of Voltaire’s decease. He made no re
cantation, he refused to utter or sign a confession of faith,
* Carlyle's Essays, Vol. II. (People’s Edition), p. 161.
t Carlyle, Vol. II. p. 160.
�€2
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
but with, the connivance of his nephew, the Abbe Mignot, he
tricked the Church *nto granting him a decent burial, not
i
choosing to be flung into a ditch or buried like a dog. His
heresy was never seriously questioned at the time, and the
clergy actually clamored for the expulsion of the Prior who
had allowed his body to be interred in a church vault.
*
Many years afterwards the priests pretended that Voltaire
died raving.
They declared that Marshal Richelieu was
horrified by the scene and obliged to leave the chamber.
From France the pious concoction spread to England, until it
was exposed by Sir Charles Morgan, who published the
following extracts from a letter by Dr. Burard, who, as
assistant physician, was^constantly about Voltaire in his last
moments :
“ I feel happy in being able, while paying homage to truth, to
destroy the effects of the lying sto ries which have been told respecting
the last moments of Mons, de Vol taire. I was, by office, one of those
who were appointed to watch the whole progress of his illness, with
M. M. Tronchin, Lorry, and Try, his medical attendants. I never left
him for an instant during his last moments, and I can certify that we
invariably observed in him the sa me strength of character, though his
disease was necessarily attended with horrible pain. (Here follow the
details of his case.) We positive ly forbade him to speak in order to
prevent the increase of a spitting o f blood, with which he was attacked ;
still he continued to communicate with us by means of little cards, on
which he wrote his questions ; we replied to him verbally, and if he
was not satisfied, he always ma de his observations to us in writing.
He therefore retained his facult ies up to the last moment, and the
fooleries which have been attr ibuted to him are deserving of the
greatest contempt. It could not even be said that such or such person
had related any circumstance of his death, as being witness to it; for
at the last, admission to his chamber was forbidden to any person.
Those who came, to obtain intelligence respecting the patient, waited
in the saloon, and other apartments at hand. The proposition, there
fore, which has been put in the mouth of Marshal Richelieu is as
unfounded as the rest.”
(Signed) “ Bubabd.”
“ Paris, April 3rd, 1819.” f
Another slander appears to emanate from the Abbe
Barruel, who was so well infor med about Voltaire that he
calls him “the dying Atheist,” when, as all the world knows,
he was a Deist.
“ In his last illness he sent for Dr. Tronchin. When the Doctor
came, he found Voltaire in the greatest agony, exclaiming with the
utmost horror—‘ I am abandoned by God and man.’ He then said,
4 Doctor, I will give you half of what I am worth, if you will give me
* Parton, Vol. II., p. 615.
t Philosophy of Moralf, by Sir Charles Morgan.
�JAMES WATSON.
63
six months’ life.’ The Doctor answered, ‘ Sir, you cannot live six
weeks.’ Voltaire replied, ‘ Then I shall go to hell, and you will go with
me !’ and soon after expired.”
When the clergy are reduced to manufacture such con
temptible rubbish as this, they, must indeed be in great
straits. It is flatly contradicted by the evidence of every
contemporary of Voltaire.
My readers will, I think, be fully satisfied that Voltaire
neither recanted nor died raving, but remained a sceptic to
the last; passing away quietly, at a ripe old age, to “ the un
discovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns,”
and leaving behind him a name that brightens the track of
time.
JAMES WATSON.
James Watson was one of the bravest heroes in the struggle
for a free press. He was one of Richard Carlile’s shopmen,
and took his share of imprisonment when the Government
tried to suppress Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason and
several other Freethought publications. In fighting for the
unstamped press, he was again imprisoned in 1833. As a
publisher he was notorious for his editions of Paine, Mirabaud, Volney, Shelley and Owen. He died on November 29,
1874, aged seventy-five, “passing away in his sleep, without
a struggle, without a sigh.’’*
JOHN WATTS.
John Watts was at one time sub-editor of the Reasoner,
and afterwards, for an interval, editor of the National Reformer.
He was the author of several publications, including Half
Hours ivith Freethinkers in collaboration with Charles Bradlauc^^^I death took place on October 31, 1866, and the
His
] account of it was written by Dr. George Sexton,
ished in the National Reformer of the following week.
SO
|out half-past seven in the evening he breathed his last, so
gentlymat although I had one of his hands in mine, and his brother
the other in his, the moment of his death passed almost unobserved
by either of us. No groan, no sigh, no pang indicated his departure.
He died as a candle goes out when burned to the socket.”
George Sexton has since turned Christian, at least by
profession; but, after what he has written of the last
moments of John Watts, he can scarcely pretend that unIh^ievers have any fear of death.
James Watson, by W. J. Linton, p. 86.
�64
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS.
WOOLSTON.
Thomas Woolston was born at Northampton in 1669, and
he died at London in 1733. He was educated at Sidney
College, Cambridge, taking Jp.is M.A. degree, and being elected
a fellow. Afterwards he was deprived of his fellowship for
heresy. Entering into holy orders, he closely studied divinity,
and gained a reputation for scholarship, as well as for
sobriety and benevolence. His profound knowledge of
ecclesiastical history gave him a contempt for the Fathers,
in attacking whom he reflected on the modern clergy. He
maintained that miracles were incredible, and that all the
supernatural stories of the New Testament must be regarded
as figurative. For this he was prosecuted on a charge of
blasphemy and profaneness, but the action dropped through
the honorable intervention of Whiston. Subsequently he
published Six Discourses on Miracles, which were dedicated
to six bishops. In these the Church was assailed in homely
language, and her doctrines were mercilessly ridiculed.
Thirty thousand copies are said to have been sold. A fresh
prosecution for blasphemy was commenced, the AttorneyGeneral declaring the Discourses to be “the most blas
phemous book that ever was published in any age whatever.”
Woolston ably defended himself, but he was found guilty,
and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of £100.
Being too poor to pay the fine, Christian charity detained
him permanently in the King’s Bench Prison. With a noblejw
jjourage he refused to purchase his jelease by promising to
refrain from promulgating his views, and prison fever at length
released him from his misery. The following account of his
last moments is taken from the Daily Coura^. Don, thlay,
January 29, 1733
« On Saturday night, about nine o’clock, died Mr.
T
athor
of the ‘ Discourses on our Savior’s Miracles,’ in the si.x,
a year
of his age. About five minutes before he died he uttered tnese words :
This is?a struggle which all men must go through, and which I bear
not only with patience but'willingness.’ Upon which he closed his
eyes, and shut his lips, with a seeming design to compose his face
with decency, without the help of a friend’s hand, and then he
expired.” .
<
Without the help ofa friend's hand ! Helpless and friendlesj^
pent in a prison cell, the brave old man faced Death in
tary grandeur, yielding, for the first and last time, tci—
lord of all.
��BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS.
ARRANGED IN PARALLEL COLUMNS.
.Being Part I, of a
BIBLE HANDBOOK FOR FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING CHRISTIANS.
EDITED BY
G. W. Foote & W. P. Ball.
With a SPECIAL INTRODUCTION by G. W. FOOWS.
“ It is the,most painstaking work of the kind we have Jet seen.”—
Seculai Review.
“ A convenient and useful arrangement.”—Monro's Ironclad Age.
“ It is questionable whether a more effective impression could be
made on an ordinary Christian than by getting him to go through
this little handbook. . . . The collection has the merit of giving in
abundance the contradictions not only of the letter but of the spirit.
The antitheses are always precise and forcible.”—Our Corner
----- 0----In Paper Wrapper, FOURPENCE.
BIBLE
ABSURDITIES.
Being Part II. of “ The Bible Handbook,”
EDITED BY
G.
W.
FOOTE
and
B^LLige whatever''''
found guilty,
fcfme of £100.
■\y detained
~
—■
c
ztth a noble
him permanently in
*> —o
/promising to
.Qpurage he refused to purchase
z& fever at length
refrain from promulgating his view
nXg account of his
released him from his misery. Th |
last moments is taken from the JO ft, | (ur^C- 'Vtion, tday,
^pp&elieu
January 29, 1733 :—
-, -AyBURART ,
Containing all the chief absurd!/
tion, conveniently and strikinglid
(^headlines, giving the point of <
“ On Saturday night, about nine o’clocS^med Mr.
i
Jthor
n year
of the ‘ Discourses on our Savior’s Miracles,’ in the Si.\,
of his age. About five minutes before he died he uttered these words:
This is a struggle which all men must go through, and which I bear
not only with patience but'willingness.’ Upon which he closed his
eyes, and shut his lips, with a seeming design to compose his face
with decency, without the help of a friend’s hand, and then he
expired.” .
<
Without the help of a friend’s hand ! Helpless and friendles^ A
pent in a prison cell, the brave old man faced Death in p f f
tary grandeur, yielding, for the first and last time, tc-—
lord of all.
e
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Infidel death-beds
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: 64 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Annotations in pencil, red crayon and red ink. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N245
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Death
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 (Infidel death-beds), 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
Freethinkers-Biography
Last Words
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/09c233b79a06177a209bcc6ff6fa95be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SOuZ8xwD2eW%7EcfSYFtN-r0J4h2Y76EovECl7e6JHy4SnVWUzXmiOAF4lRs2HcQpk00wg0QypTUlbe7COCo2IODCuLw4tEk7e2p1jsIF9tnxqRmY22WDTdSd7TEytAXkhQZlaQa6Ud6X5cC6YuKfcdzwaAksJOFmXPfm2z8tMYf3Bo3SIpkWCgBo4%7E-RpDYsJaJaeUwvdQIoZJibW3%7EvFl55nySxYO0ADYfrDgLeleZUrWrk1M--geMeEYahwBszSKQmaeKTspQZsTGRjYGj1nJzG29liYPUgBREyjqTGy%7EePM3czkoLxEHDzdclvcQaQyNM0twZbcKWhTfuD6xjyiA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0e1aa0aa3a569110d10b2e84fd7acad
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
Fnjv??
■
StL.
S’
. ,
'
80, PiCGAS'.LLY, HANLEi
/---------------------- -------- —,
’
DEATH'S TESTt^
OR
CHRISTIAN LIES ABOUT DYING INFIDELS.
“Those thetr idle tales of dying horrors.”— Carlyle.
There has recently been hawked about the streets of
London a penny pamphlet, called “ Death’s Test on
Christians and Infidels—Echoes from Seventy Death Beds.”
It is not an original performance, but has been “compiled
by R. May,” who appears to be a city missionary, and who
evidently possesses about as much intelligence and know
ledge of literature as usually belongs to that class of men.
Intrinsically, the pamphlet is beneath contempt, but it may
deceive many unsuspecting minds, and in response to
numerous invitations I have decided to honor it with a
reply. Reuben May is an insignificant person; yet like
other venomous little creatures he may cause annoyance to
his betters. I detest all vermin and would gladly shun
them. But sometimes they pester one beyond endurance,
and then one is obliged to sacrifice his dignity and to act
in the spirit of Swift’s maxim, “ If a flea bite me I’ll kill it
if I can.”
Before, however, I reply to Reuben May’s ridiculous com
pilation, let me deal briefly with the subject of
Death-Bed Repentance.
Carlyle, in his essay on Voltaire, has a memorable passageon this subject.
Reuben May, with other Christian
scribblers, is probably alike ignorant and careless of its
existence; but the great authority of Carlyle will have its
due weight in the minds of unprejudiced seekers for truth.
“ Surely the parting agonies of a fellow-mortal, when the
spirit of our brother, rapt in the whirlwinds and thick _ ghastly
vapours of death, clutches blindly for help, and no help is there,
are not the scenes where a wise faith would seek to exult, when
it can no longer hope to alleviate! For the rest, to touch
farther on those their idle tales of dying horrors, remorse, and the
�2
death’s test.
like ; to write of such, to believe them, or disbelieve them, or in
anywise discuss them, were but a continuation of the same
ineptitude. He who, after the imperturbable exit of so many
Cartouches and Thurtells, in every age of the world, can continue
to regard the manner of a man’s death as a test of his religious
orthodoxy, may boast himself impregnable to merely terrestrial
logic.”—“ Essays,” vol. ii., p. 161.
Reuben May and his silly coadjutors are no doubt “ im
pregnable to merely terrestrial logic.” It would probably
require a miracle to drive common sense into their heads.
But I trust there are other readers more accessible to reason,
and it is for them I write, even at the risk of being thought
guilty of “ the same ineptitude ” as those who manufacture
or believe the “ idle tales of dying horrors.”
Suppose an “ infidel” recants his heresy on his death-bed,
what does it prove ? Simply nothing. Infidels are com
paratively few, their relatives are often orthodox; and if,
when their minds are enfeebled by disease or the near
approach of death, they are surrounded by persons who
continually urge them to be reconciled with the religion they
have denied, it is not astonishing that they sometimes yield.
But such cases are exceedingly rare. Most men die as they
have lived.
Old men form the majority of these rare cases, and them
recantation is easily understood. Having usually been
brought up in the Christian religion, their earliest and
tenderest memories are probably connected with it; and
when they lie down to die they may naturally recur to it,
just as they may forget whole years of their maturity and
vividly remember the scenes of their childhood. Old age
yearns back to the cradle, and as Dante Rossetti says—
“Life all past
Is like the sky when the sun sets in it,
Clearest where furthest off.”
It is said that converted Jews always die Jews ; and mission
aries in India know well that converts to Christianity
frequently, if not generally, die in their native faith. The
reason is obvious. Only strong minds can really emanci
pate themselves from superstition, and it needs a lifetime of
settled conviction to undo the work of the pious misguiders
-of our youth.
Christians who attach importance to the “ death-bed
�DEATIl’S TEST.
3
Decantations of infidels ” pay their own religion a poor com
pliment. They imply that the infidel’s rejection of their
creed while his mind is clear and strong is nothing to his
acceptance of it when his mind is weak and confused. They
virtually declare that his testimony to the truth of their
creed is of most value when he is least capable of judging
it. At this rate Bedlam and Colney-Hatch should decide
our faith. There are some people who think it could not
be much more foolish if they did.
Cases of recantation are rarer now than ever. Sceptics
are numbered by thousands and they can nearly always
secure the presence at their bedsides of friends who share
their unbelief. Freethought journals almost every week
report the quiet end of sceptics who having lived without
hypocrisy have died without fear.
Christians know this. They therefore abandon the idea
of manufacturing fresh death-bed stories, and stick to the
old ones which have been refuted again and again. But
surely it is time we had some fresh ones. Voltaire and
Paine have been dead a long time, and many great Free
thinkers have died since. Why do we hear nothing about
them 2 Why have not the recantation-mongers concocted a
nice little story about the death of John Stuart Mill, of
Professor Clifford, of Strauss, of Feuerbach, or of Comte ?
Because they know the lie would be exposed at once. They
must wait until these great Freethinkers have, like Voltaire
and. Paine, been dead a century, before they can hope to
defame them with success. Our cry to such pious rascals is
“Hands off!” Refute the arguments of Freethinkers if
you can, but do not obtrude your disgusting presence in the
death chamber, or vent your malignity over their graves.
On the Continent, however, there have been a few recent
attempts in this line. One was in the case of
Isaac Gendre,
the
Swiss Freethinker.
The controversy over this gentleman’s death was sum
marised in the London Echo, of July 29th, 1881.
“A second case of death-bed conversion of an eminent
'Liberal to Roman Catholicism, suggested probably by that of
the great French philologist Littre, has passed the round of the
Swiss papers. A few days ago the veteran Leader of the Frei
burg Liberals, M. Isaac Gendre, died. The Ami du Peuple, the
�4
death’s test.
organ of the Freiburg Ultramontanes, immediately set afloat the
sensational news that when M. Gendre found that his last hour
was approaching he sent his brother to fetch a priest, in order
that the last sacraments might be administered to him, and the
evil which he had done during his life by his persistent Liberalism
might, he atoned by his repentance at the eleventh hour. This
brother, IV!. Alexandre Gendre, now writes to the paper stating
that there is not one word of truth in the story. What possible
benefit can any Church derive from the invention of such tales ?
Doubtless there is a credulous residuum which believes that
there must be ‘some truth ’ in anything which has once appeared
in print.”
It might be added that many people readily believe what
pleases them, and that a lie which has a good start is very
hard to run down.
Another case was that of
M. Littee,
the great French Positivist, who died a few months ago at
the ripe age of eighty-one. M. Littre was one of the fore
most writers in France. His monumental “ Dictionary of
the French Language ” is the greatest work of its kind in
the world. As a scholar and a philosopher his eminence
was universally recognised. His character was so pure and
sweet that a Catholic lady called him “ a saint who does not
believe in God.” Although not rich, his purse was ever
open to the claims of charity. He was one who “ did good
by stealth,” and his benefactions were conferred without
respect to creed. A Freethinker himself, he patronised the
Catholic orphanage near his residence, and took a keen
interest in the welfare of its inmates. He was an honor to
France, to the world, and to the Humanity which he loved
and served instead of God.
M. Littre’s wife was an ardent Catholic, yet she was
allowed to follow her own religious inclinations without the
least interference. The great Freethinker valued liberty of
conscience above all other rights, and what he claimed for
himself he conceded to others. He scorned to exercise
authority even in the domestic circle, where so much tyranny
is practised. His wife, however, was less scrupulous. After
enjoying for so many years the benefit of his steadfast tole
ration, she took advantage of her position to exclude his
friends from his death-bed, to have him baptised in his last
�DEATH S TEST.
O
moments, and to secure his burial in consecrated ground
with pious rites. Not satisfied with this, she even allowed
it to be understood that her husband had recanted his heresy
-and died in the bosom of the church. The Abbe Huvelin,
her confessor, who frequently visited M. Littre during his
last illness, assisted her in the fraud.
There was naturally a disturbance at M. Littre’s funeral.
As the Standard correspondent wrote, his friends and
-disciples were “ very angry at this recantation in extremis,
and claimed that dishonest priestcraft took advantage of the
■darkness cast over that clear intellect by the mist of
approaching death to perform the rites of the church over
his semi-inanimate body.” While the body was laid out in
Catholic fashion, with crucifixes, candles, and priests telling
their beads, Dr. Galopin advanced to the foot of the coffin,
•and spoke as follows :
“ Master, you used to call me your son, and you loved me. I
remain your disciple and your defender. I come, in the name of
Positive Philosophy, to claim the rights of universal Freemasonry.
A deception has been practised upon us, to try and steal you
from thinking humanity. But the future will judge your enemies
and ours. Master, we will revenge you by making our children
read your books.”
At the grave, M. Wyrouboff, editor of the Comtist review,
La Philosophic Positive, founded by M. Littre, delivered a
‘brief address to the Freethinkers who remained, which con
cluded thus:—
“ Littre proved by his example that it is possible for a man to
possess a noble and generous heart, and at the same time espouse
a doctrine which admits nothing beyond what is positively real,
and which prevents any recantation. And, gentlemen, in spite
of deceptive appearances, Littre died as he had lived, without contra
dictions or weakness. All those who knew that calm and serene
mind—and I was of the number of those who did—are well
aware that it was irrevocably closed to the ‘ unknowable,’ and
that it was thoroughly prepared to meet courageously the irre
sistible laws of nature. And now sleep in peace, proud and noble
thinker! You will not have the eternity of a world to come
which you never expected; but you leave behind you your
■country that you strove honestly to serve, the Republic which
you always loved, a generation of disciples who will remain
faithful to you, and last, but not least, you leave your thoughts
And your virtues to the whole world. Social immortality, the
�f
q
death’s test.
only beneficent and fecund immortality, commences for you
to-day.”
M. Wyrouboff has since amply proved his statements.
The English press creditably rejected the story of M.
Littre’s recantation. The Daily News sneered at it, the Times
described it as absurd, the Standard said it looked untrue.
But the Morning Advertiser was still more outspoken. It
said—
“ There can hardly be a doubt that M. Littre died a steadfast
adherent to the principles he so powerfully advocated during his
laborious and distinguished life. The Church may claim, as our
Paris correspondent in his interesting note on the subject tells us
she is already claiming, the death-bed conversion of the great un
believer, who for the iast thirty-five years was one of her most
active and formidable enemies. She has attempted to take the
same posthumous revenge on Voltaire, on Paine, and on many
others who are described by Roman Catholic writers as calling
in the last dreadful hour for the spiritual support they held up to
ridicule in the confidence of health and the presumption of their
intellect.”
In the Paris Gaulois there appeared a letter from the
Abbe Huvelin, written very ambiguously and obviously
intended to mislead. But one fact stands out clear. This
priest was only admitted to visit M. Littre as a friend, and
he was not allowed to baptise him.
The Archbishop of
Paris also, in his official organ, La Semaine lleligieuse,
admits that “ he received the sacrament of baptism on the
morning of the very day of his death, not from the hands of
the priest, who had not yet arrived, hut from those of Madame
LittreT The Archbishop, however, insists that he “ received
the ordinance in perfect consciousness and with his own
full consent.” Now as M. Littre was eighty-one years old,
as he had been for twelve months languishing with a feeble
hold on life, during which time he was often in a state of.
stupor, and as this was the very morning of his death, I
leave the reader to estimate the value of what the Arch
bishop calls “ perfect consciousness and full consent.” If
any consent was given by the dying Freethinker it was only
to gratify his wife and daughter, and at the last moment
when he had no will to resist; for if he had been more com
pliant they would certainly have baptised him before. Sub
mission in these circumstances counts for nothing ; and in
any case there is forceful truth in M. Littre’s words, written.
�death’s test.
in 1879 in his “Conservation, Revolution, et Positivisme ”
—“ a whole life passed without any observance of religious rites
must outweigh the single final act.”
Unfortunately for the clericals there exists a document
which may be considered M. Littre’s last confession. It is
an article written for the Comtist review a year before his
death, entitled “Pour la Derniere Fois”—For the Last
Time. While writing it he knew that his end was not far
off. “For many months,” he says, “my sufferings have
prostrated me with dreadful persistence. . . . Every evening,
when I have to be put to bed my pains are exasperated, and
often I have not the strength to stifle cries which are
grievous to me and grievous to those who tend me.” After
the article was completed his malady increased. Fearing
the worst he wrote to his friend, M. Caubet, as follows :—
“ Last Saturday I swooned away for a long time. It is for
that reason I send you, a little prematurely, my article for the
Review. If 1 live, I will correct the proofs as usual. If I die,
let it be printed and published in the Review as a posthumous
article. It will be a last trouble which I venture to give you.
The reader must do his best to follow the manuscript faithfully.”
If I live—If I die ! These are the words of one in the
shadow of Death.
Let us see what M. Littre’s last confession is. I trans
late two passages from the article. Referring to Charles
G-reville, he says :—
“I feel nothing of what he experienced. Like him, I find it
impossible to accept the theory of the world which Catholicism
*
prescribes to all true believers; but I do not regret being with
out such doctrines, and I cannot discover in myself any wish to
return to them.”
And he concludes the article with these words :—
“Positive Philosophy, which has so supported me since my
thirtieth year, and which, in giving me an ideal, a craving for
progress, the vision of history and care for humanity, has pre
served me from being a simple negationist, accompanies me
faithfully in these last trials. The questions it solves in its own
way, the rules it prescribes by virtue of its principle, the beliefs
it discountenances in the name of our ignorance of every thing
absolute ; of these I have, in the preceding pages made an ex* To a Frenchman Catholicism and Christianity mean one and the
same thing.
�8
death’s test.
amination, which I conclude with the supreme word of the com
mencement : for the last time.”
So much for the lying story of M. Littre’s recantation.
In the words of M. Wyrouboff, although his corpse was
accompanied to the grave by priests and believers, his name
will go down to future generations as that of one who was
to the end “ a servant of science and an enemy to super
stition.”
Having disposed of M. Littre’s case I return to Reuben
May’s trumpery pamphlet, dealing first with
His Pkefa.ce,
which is a wonderful piece of writing. His fitness to write
on any subject is shown by the following passage:
“I have avoided selecting cases which some would call ‘dying
fancies,’ ‘imagination,’ and ‘ visions.’ Such cases there are, both
on record and within the observation of many of those who have
widely attended the sick and dying; and although we refrain
from entering into the subject here, this is remarkable about
such cases, viz., that they are generally of two distinct classes—
(1) visions of angels, hearing beautiful music, seeing beautiful
places, etc.; (2) of those who have great fear, despondency, and
alarm; seeing fiends, smelling brimstone, feeling scorched by a
huge fire, etc. I believe invariably the first are those who have
professed religion in health, and the latter those who have
neglected it. Anyhow, my personal observation confirms this
opinion.”
If ever a Colney Hatch Gazette is started the proprietors
would do well to engage Reuben May as editor.
Another passage is very interesting:
“There is an intelligent man, close upon fourscore years of
age, now residing in the centre of London, and who I hope is a
Christian, who has for the greater part of his life—for reasons
not necessary to mention here—been conversant and mixed up
with, the followers of the leading infidel lecturers, past and
present, who says, that he has had an opportunity to watch very
many such to their closing earthly days, and that never has a
single instance come under his notice but that there was a
desire to turn from infidelity and in most to receive the con
solations of religion.”
Why is not this “ intelligent man’s ” name given ? Be•cause the lie might then be exposed. Why has he watched
so many infidel death-beds, and how did he obtain so many
opportunities ? Why does Mr. May only hope the man is a
�death’s test.
9
Christian ? If he does not know him well enough to be
sure, how can he have the audacity to publish such a
sweeping assertion on the man’s bare word ? Against this
anonymous and general testimony I put the specific fact that
our journals constantly publish cases of Freethinkers who
have died thoroughly convinced of the truth of their prin
ciples, and without the slightest misgiving ; cases in which
the names and addresses are given, not only of the deceased,
but also of the friends who were with him to the last. For
my own part, I have known many Freethinkers who were
steadfast unto death, but I have never known a single case of
recantation. Nor do I believe Reuben May has. If he has
let him give name, address, place and time, so that it may
be authenticated.
A word as to this pious scribbler’s method of compilation.
He says that “ the cases selected are from various published
and acknowledged authentic works.” What does the man
mean ? An authentic work is simply one written by the
author whose name it bears. Am I to suppose that Mr.
May believes everything he sees in print ? If not, I should
like to know what trouble he has taken to verify the stories
he has printed. My belief is that he has taken none. He
seems to have become possessed of a few antiquated works,
and to have spoiled a quantity of good paper in copying
from them what suited his purpose. What are
His Authorities?
Dr. Simpson’s “ Plea for Religion,” the Rev. Erskine
Neale’s “ Closing Scenes,” and a few more works of that
kind. They are all written by special pleaders ; not one of
them has any authority in the world of literature ; and at
the very best they are worth very little, since none of their
authors witnessed the scenes which are alleged to have taken
place at the death-beds of infidels. Mr. May should have
gone to original sources. No doubt his meagre acquaintance
with literature prevented him from doing so, and perhaps he
thought any stick was good enough to beat the infidel dog.
In exposing him, however, I shall go to original sources, and
the information I give may be useful to ignorant Reuben
May as well as to other readers.
.Erskine Neale’s “ Closing Scenes ” is first laid under con
tribution in the case of
�10
death’s test.
Thomas Paine
The author’s strong bias is apparent in almost' every line.
He describes “ Common Sense ” as a “ clever but malignant
pamphlet.” He states that Paine, when he returned to
America in 1802, was suffering from “intemperance and a
complication of disorders.” He does not cite any authority
in support of the charge of intemperance, nor does he inform
the reader that hard drinking was the custom in Paine’s
time. Fox, the great Whig statesman, was frequently
inebriated, and his great Tory rival, William Pitt, the
Premier of England, was often carried drunk to bed. Mr.
Neale also omits to mention the honorable circumstance
that Paine’s “ complication of disorders ” was brought on by
his long imprisonment in a dungeon of the Luxembourg, for
having, as a member of the National Assembly, spoken and
voted against the execution of Louis XVI.
Mr. Neale cites “an eyewitness” of Paine’s “closing
scene,” but this anonymous person does not pretend that
*
Paine recanted.
He dwells on the fact that the dying
infidel “ required some person to be with him at night, urging
as his reason that he was afraid he should die unattended.”
There is, however, nothing wonderful in this. Few men, I
presume, would like to be left alone on their death-bed.
He further states that Paine called out, in his paroxysms of
pain, “ O Lord, help me 1 God, help me I Jesus Christ,
help me I O Lord, help me ! ” But surely no man would
attach any importance to ejaculations like these. Hospital
attendants will tell you that patients utter all sorts of cries
in their agony, without meaning anything by them. Vanini,
who was burnt to death as an Atheist at Toulouse, in 1619,
is reported to have cried out on seeing the stake, “Ah, my
God 1 ” On which a bystander said, “ You believe in God,
then ; ” and he retorted, “ No, it’s a fashion of speaking.”
This anonymous eyewitness himself refutes the story of
Paine’s recantation, in the following passage:—
“ I took occasion, during the night of the 5th and 6th of June,
to test the strength of his opinions respecting revelation. I pur
posely made him a very late visit; it was a time which seemed
to suit my errand ; it was midnight. He was in great distress,
constantly exclaiming the words above-mentioned, when, after a
Probably Dr. Manley.
�death’s test.
11
considerable preface, I addressed him in the following manner,
the nurse being present:—
“ ‘Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the com
munity, have been treated with deference ; you have never been
in the habit of mixing in your conversation words of coarse
meaning; you have never indulged in the practice of profane
swearing ; you must be sensible that we are acquainted with
your religious opinions, as they are given to the world. What
must we think of your present conduct? Why do you call
upon Jesus Christ to help you ? Do you believe that he can
help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Come, now, answer me honestly; I want an answer as from the
lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not live
twenty-four hours.’ I paused some time at the end of every
question. He did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above
manner. Again I addressed him: ‘Mr. Paine, you have not
answered my questions : will you answer them ? Allow me to
ask again, do you believe, or—let me qualify the question—do
you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”
After a pause of some minutes he answered, ‘ I have NO WISH TO
believe on that subject.’ I then left him, and know not whether
he afterwards spoke to any person on any subject, though he
lived, as I before observed, a few hours longer—in fact, till the
morning of the Sth.”
Reuben May probably thought it impolitic to rest here.
He therefore made another extract from “ The Life and
Gospel Labours of Stephen Grellet.” This pious worthy
states that a young woman, named Mary Roscoe, frequently
took Paine some delicacies from a neighbor. To this young
woman, according to Stephen Grellet, he confided a secret
which he never revealed to his dearest friends. He told
her, With respect to his “Age of Reason,” that “ if ever the
devil ■ had • any agency in any work, he has had it in my
writing that book ; ” and she repeatedly heard him exclaim
“ Lord Jesus, have mercy on me ! ”
Now this young woman is no doubt Mary Hinsdale, the
servant of . Mr. Willett Hicks, a Quaker gentleman who
showed Paine great kindness during his last days. Her
story was published and widely circulated by the Religious
Tract Society in 1824. William Cobbett, who admired
Paine as a politician although he dissented strongly from his
religious views, published a conclusive reply.
While in
America he had investigated the affair. He had called on
Mary Hinsdale herself, at the instance of Charles Collins,
who wanted him to state in his contemplated Life of Paine
�12
death’s test.
that he had recanted. She shuffled, evaded, and equivo
cated ; she said it was a long time ago, and she could
not speak positively. Cobbett left in disgust, thinking the
woman a match for the Devil in cunning. He concludes his
exposure of the recantation story thus:
“ This is, I think, a pretty good instance of the lengths to
which hypocrisy will go. . _ . . . Mr. Paine declares in his last
will, that he retains all his publicly expressed opinions as to
religion. His executors, and many other gentlemen of un
doubted veracity, had the same declaration from his dying lips.
Mr. Willett Hicks visited him to nearly the last. This gentleman
says that there was no change of opinion intimated to him ; and
will any man believe that Paine would have withheld from Mr.
Hicks that which he was so forward to communicate to Mr.
Hicks’s servant girl ? ”
Cheetham, who libelled Paine in everything else, acknow
ledged that he died without any change in his opinions.
And this Mary Hinsdale, subsequently trying to play the
same trick on the reputation of an obnoxious young lady,
Mary Lockwood, as she had played on Paine’s, was proved
by the young lady’s friends to be a deliberate liar.
Perhaps the best answer to the lying story of Paine’s re
cantation, is to be found in the fact that he wrote the
second part of his “Age of Reason” in the Luxembourg, while
under apprehension of the guillotine. He states this in the
Preface. “ I had then,” he writes, “ little hope of surviving.
I know, therefore, by experience, the conscientious trial of
my principles.” Clio Kickman (p. 194) gives also the
testimony of Dr. Bond, an English surgeon in the suite of
General O’Hara, who said:
“Mr. Paine, while hourly expecting to die, read to me parts
of his “ Age of Reason and every night when I left him to be
separately locked up, and expected not to see him alive in the
morning, he always expressed his firm belief in the principles of
that book, and begged I would tell the world such were his
dying opinions.” .
The subject may be left here. I think I have disposed of
Reuben May’s authorities, and satisfactorily shown that
Thomas Paine died as he lived “ an enemy to the Christian
religion.”
Next comes the case of
V OLTAIRE.
This splendid Freethinker, whose name is a battle-flag in
�death’s test.
13
the hottest strife between Reason and Faith, has been the
•subject of more malignant slander than even Thomas Paine.
Superstition has reeled from the blows of his arguments and
writhed from the shafts of his wit, but it has partly avenged
itself by heaping upon his memory a mountain of lies.
Reuben May does not name the author of his section on
Voltaire. Most of it is a translation from the Abbe Barruel,
■who evidently wrote for pious readers ready to believe any
thing against “ infidels.” His diatribe bristles with false
hoods and absurdities.
Voltaire is charged with “ a want of sound learning and
.moral qualifications,” which will “ ever prevent him from
being ranked with the benefactors of mankind by the wise
■and good.” The writer meant by hypocrites and fools!
Voltaire’s reputation is too firmly established to be over
thrown by Christian scribblers. Our greatest living poet,
Robert Browning, salutes him thus—
Ay, sharpest shrewdest steel that ever stabbed
To death Imposture through the armor-joints! *
'Carlyle, who is very grudging in his admissions of Voltaire’s
worth, says “ He gave the death-stab to modern supersti
tion,” and adds “It was a most weighty service.”f Else
where Carlyle reluctantly admits his nobility of character:
“ At all events, it will be granted that, as a private man,
his existence was beneficial, not hurtful, to his fellow-men :
the Calases, the Sirvens, and so many orphans and outcasts
whom he cherished and protected, ought to cover a multi
tude of sins.”j:
Buckle, the historian of civilisation, writes:—
“No one could reason more closely than Voltaire, when
reasoning suited his purpose. But he had to deal with men im
pervious to argument; men whose inordinate reverence for
antiquity had only left them two ideas, namely, that everything
old is right, and that everything new is wrong. To argue against
these opinions would be idle indeed; the only other resource
was, to make them ridiculous, aud weaken their influence, by
holding up their authors to contempt. This was one of the
tasks Voltaire set himself to perform, and he did it well. He,
therefore, used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the
scourge of folly. And with such effect was the punishment
* “ The Two Poets of Croisie.”
t “Essays.” Vol. II., p. 181.
St. 107.
J Ibicl.
P. 154.
�14
DEATH S TEST.
administered, that not only did the pedants and theologians of
his own time wince under the lash, but even their successors feel
their ears tingle when they read his biting words; and they
revenge themselves by reviling the memory of that great writer,
whose works are as a thorn in their side, and whose very name
they hold in undisguised abhorrence........... His irony, his wit,
his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the
gravest arguments could have done ; and there can be no doubt
that he was fully justified in using those great resources with
which nature had endowed him, since by their aid he advanced
the interests of truth, and relieved men from some of their most
inveterate prejudices.”—“ History of Civilisation,” Vol. II.,
p. 308-9.
Taking him as a whole, Buckle thinks he is probably the
greatest historian Europe has produced. Lamartine cha
racterises him as “ ce genie non le plus haut, metis le plus vaste
de la France ”—not the loftiest but the greatest genius of
France. And lastly, Brougham, in his “ Life of Voltaire,”
says—
“Nor can any one since the days of Luther be named, to
whom the spirit of free inquiry, nay, the emancipation of the
human mind from spiritual tyranny, owes a more lasting debt of
gratitude.”
What does Reuben May think now ? These great writers
regard Voltaire as a “ benefactor of mankind.” Surely they
are as “ wise ” as Reuben May’s anonymous author, and
probably as “ good.”
The Abbe Barruel’s first misstatement is glaring and
unpardonable. He writes of Voltaire as “ the dying
Atheist.” Now, Voltaire was a Theist, and he penned
arguments in favor of the existence of God such as few
theologians have equalled. He is 'credited with the saying
that “ If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent
him.” He described an Atheist as a monster created by
nature in a moment of madness. He quarreled with some
of the most eager spirits engaged on the great Encyclo
pedia for going too far in a negative direction. During his
last visit to Paris, only a few weeks before his death, when
Benjamin Franklin’s grandson was presented to him, he
said “ God and Liberty, that is the only benediction which
befits the grandson of Dr. Franklin.”* Yet the Abbe
Condorcet, Vie de Voltaire, p. 111.
�death’s test.
15
Barruel calls Voltaire an Atheist. A writer so grossly
inaccurate is scarcely worth notice.
He also says that Voltaire in his famous phrase Ecrasez
L’Infame (crush the Infamous) referred to Jesus Christ.
This is another gross mistake. Voltaire had great respect
and admiration for Jesus as a man. By the Infamous he
meant the Church with its dogmas, its priestcraft, its op
pressions, and its crimes.
He states that the Abbe Gauthier, with the curate of St.
Sulpice, was unable to gain admission to Voltaire’s apart
ment, in consequence of Diderot, D’Alembert, and other
“ conspirators ” surrounding him. This is another false
hood, as the sequel will show.
Now for the story of Voltaire’s “ recantation.” In those
days every Freethinker wrote with the halter round his
neck. Voltaire was always in peril, from which only his
wonderful adroitness saved him. He disliked martyrdom,
had no wish to be burnt to please the faithful, and thought
he could do Truth more service by living than by courting
death. Consequently, his whole life was more or less an
evasion of the enemy. Many of his most trenchant attacks
on Christianity were anonymous; and although everyone
knew that only one pen in France could have written them,
there was no legal proof of the fact. When Voltaire came
to die, he remembered his own bitter sorrow and indigna
tion, which he expressed in burning verse, at the ignominy
inflicted many years before on the remains of the poor
actress, Adrienne Lecouvreur, which were refused sepulture
because she died outside the pale of the Church. Fearing
similar treatment himself, he is said to have sent for the
Abbe Gauthier, who, according to Condorcet, “ confessed
Voltaire, and received from him a profession of faith, by
which he declared that he died in the Catholic religion
wherein he was born.” This story is generally credited,
but its truth is by no means indisputable ; for in the Abbe
Gauthier’s declaration to the Prior of the Abbey of Scellieres,
where Voltaire’s remains were interred, he says that “when
he visited M. de Voltaire he found him unfit to be confessed!
The Curate of St. Sulpice was annoyed at being fore
stalled by the Abbe Gauthier, and as Voltaire was his
parishioner, he demanded “ a detailed profession of faith
and a disavowal of all heretical doctrines.” He paid the
�16
death’s test.
dying Freethinker many unwelcome visits, in the vain hope
of obtaining a full recantation, which would be a fine
feather in his hat. The last of these visits is thus described
by Wagniere, one of Voltaire’s secretaries, and an eye
witness of the scene. I take Carlyle’s translation :—
Two days before that mournful death, M. l’Abbe Mignot, his
nephew, went to seek the Cure of Saint Sulpice and the Abbe
Gauthier, and brought them into his uncle’s sick-room ; who, on
being informed that the Abbe Gauthier was there, “Ah, well! ”
said he, “ give him my compliments and my thanks.” The
Abbe spoke some words to him, exhorting him to patience. The
Cure of Saint Sulpice then came forward, having announced
himself, and asked of M. de Voltaire, elevating his voice, if he
acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? The sick
man pushed one of his hands against the Cure’s calotte (coif),
shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side,
“ Let me die in peace (Laissez-moi mourir en paix) !” The
Cure seemingly considered his person soiled, and his coif dis
honored, by the touch of a philospher. He made the sick-nurse
give him a little brushing, and then went out with the Abbe
Gauthier.
A further proof that Voltaire made no real recantation
lies in the fact that the Bishop of Troyes sent a peremptory
dispatch to the Prior of Scellieres, which lay in his diocese,
forbidding him to inter the heretic’s remains. The dispatch,
however, arrived too late, and Voltaire’s ashes remained
there until 1791, when they were removed to Paris, and
placed in the Pantheon, by order of the National Assembly.
Having disposed of the “ recantation,” I must refute
another lie. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that—
“In his last illness he sent for Dr. Tronchin. When the
Doctor came, he found Voltaire in the greatest agony, exclaiming
with the utmost horror—I am abandoned by God and man.’
He then said, “Doctor, I will give you half of what I am worth,
if you will give me six month’s life.’ The Doctor answered,
‘Sir, you cannot live six weeks.’ Voltaire replied, ‘Then I
shall go to hell, and you will go with me! ’ and soon after
expired.”
Was there ever a sillier story ? Who, except a lunatic or a
Christian, could believe it ? Why did Voltaire want exactly
six months’ life? He was then in his eighty-fifth year,
and had surely lived long enough. Why did he say he was
going to hell when he believed there was no such place ?
And why did he suppose the Doctor would go to hell too for
�death’s test.
17
being unable to prolong his existence ? The person who
invented this story was a fool, and Reuben May is a ninny
to print it.
The story is an evident lie. After this funny conversa
tion, Voltaire “ soon expired.” Now Wagniere has left
an account of Voltaire’s end which disproves this. Carlyle
translates it thus :—
“ He expired about quarter past eleven at night,
the most
perfect tranquillity, after having suffered the cruelest pains, in
consequence of those fatal drugs, which his own imprudence, and
especially that of the persons who should have looked to it,
made him swallow. Ten minutes before his last breath, he took
the hand of Morand, his valet-de-chambre, who was watching
him ; pressed it, and said, “ Adieu, mon cher Morand, je me meurs ”
Adieu, my dear Morand, I am gone.” These are the last words
uttered byM. de Voltaire.”
Wagniere’s narrative looks true, unlike the rubbish of Dr.
Tronchin, the Abbe Barruel, and Reuben May.
Further on in Reuben May’s pamphlet we read of a parson
who was told by another parson that a friend of his had
seen an old nurse who waited on Voltaire in his last illness,
and who declared that “ not for all the wealth of Europe
would she see another infidel die.” But as no one who
visited Voltaire mentions this woman, and as no nurse is
alluded to by friend or enemy, I unceremoniously dismiss
her as “ a mockery, a delusion and a snare.”
My readers must, I think, be fully satisfied that Voltaire
neither recanted nor died raving, but remained a sceptic to
the last, and passed away quietly to “ the undiscovered
country from whose bourne no traveller returns.”
I take next a foolish story about
Volney,
another great Frenchman, and author of the famous “ Ruins
of Empires ” :—
“ Volney in a Storm.—Volney, a French infidel, was on board
a vessel during a violent storm at sea, when the ship was in
imminent danger of being lost. He threw himself on the deck,
crying in agony, ‘ Oh, my God ! my God 1 ’ “ There is a God,
then, Monsieur Volney ?’said one of the passengers to him.
‘Oh, yes,’ exclaimed the terrified infidel, “there is! there is!
Lord, save me! ’ The ship, however, got safely into port. Volney
was extremely disconcerted when his confession was publicly re
�18
death’s test.
lated, but excused it by saying that he was so frightened by the
storm that he did not know what he said, and immediately
returned to his atheistical sentiments.”
Reuben May gives no authority for this story. He seems
to think that his readers, like himself, will believe anything
they see in print. I have traced it back to the “ Tract Maga
zine ” for July, 1832, where it appears very much amplified
and in many respects different. It appears, in a still dif
ferent form, in the eighth volume of the “ Evangelical
Magazine,” where it professes to be taken from Weld’s
“ Travels in America ” This date is a great many years
after Volney’s time. I cannot find any earlier trace of the
story, and I therefore ask the reader to reject it as false
and absurd.
The next case is that of “ the noble Altamont,” but as I
cannot discover who the noble Altamont was, and suspect
him to be the aristocratic hero of some eighteenth-century
romance, I pass on to the case of
Hobbes.
This great thinker, who knew Bacon, Selden, and Ben Jonson
in his youth, and Dryden in his old age, lived to be upwards
of ninety. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that, when dying,
he said “ he was about to take a leap in the dark.” Well,
that was only an emphatic way of expressing his doubt
whether there is a future life or not. We are also told that
he always had a candle burning in his bedroom, as he was
afraid of the dark. So are thousands of true believers. In
Hobbes’s case, this was partly due to an accident which
caused his premature birth, and partly to the fact that at
the time of the “ candle” story he was a very old man, and
in dread that some religious fanatic might carry out the
threats of assassination which were frequently made. He
knew that the Church of England wanted to burn him
alive, and that he was saved from martyrdom only by the
protection of eminent personages in the State.
Cooke, the Leicester Murderer
is the next case. He attributed his wickedness to “ infidel
associations.” But we have no statement from his own
hand, and his “ confession,” like that of Bailey, the
Gloucester murderer, was no doubt fabricated or improved
�death’s test.
19
by the chaplain. All the other murderers of this century
have been undoubted Christians.
David Hume
comes next. Reuben May gives an extract from one of his
essays, but says nothing about his end. I will supply the
omission. Dr. Adam Smith, author of the “Wealth of
Nations,” received the following letter from Dr. Black,
Hume’s physician, the day after his death:—
“Edinburgh, August 26th, 1776.—Dear Sir,—Yesterday,
about four o’clock, Mr. Hume expired. The near approach of
his death became evident in the night between Thursday and
Friday, when his disease became excessive, and soon weakened
him so much that he could not rise out of bed. He continued
to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings
of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of im
patience, but, when he had occasion to speak to the people about
him, he always did it with affection and tenderness............. When
he became very weak it cost him a great effort to speak, and he
died in such a happy composure of mind that nothing could
exceed it.”
Adam Smith, in sending this letter to his friend William
Stratham, wrote:
“Upon the whole I have always considered him, both in his
life-time and since his death, as approaching as near to the ideal
■of the perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of
human frailty will admit.”
What a contrast to Doctor Johnson, his great contem
porary, the champion of piety as Hume was of scepticism,
who had such a morbid horror of death I While the pious
Johnson quailed at the very thought of death, the sceptical
Hume confronted it placidly, regarding it only as the ringing
down of the curtain after the great drama of life.
Let us take another sceptic, whom Reuben May does not
mention, the great historian,
Edward Gibbon.
Lord Shaftesbury, his confidential friend, wrote thus of
his death:
“ To the last he preserved his senses, and when he could no
longer speak, his servant having asked him a question, he made
a sign to him that he understood him. He was quiet, tranquil,
■and did not stir; his eyes half shut. About a quarter of an hour
before one he ceased to breathe. The valet-de-chambre observed.
�20
death’s test.
that he did not, at any time, evince the least sign of alarm or
apprehension of death.”
In his second pamphlet Reuben May gives a long extract
on the death of
Frederic the Great.
He admits that the old king remained a sceptic to the
last, and when a pious Christian wrote to him on his death
bed about the prospects of his soul, he only remarked, “ Let
this be answered civilly : the intention of the writer is
good.”
Reuben May fills up the rest of his stupid pamphlets with
cases of dying Christians. The first of these is unfortunate.
Addison, when nearing his end, sent for his noble son-inlaw to “See in what peace a Christian can die.” Now Joseph
Addison was a frightful brandy-drinker, and it has been
satirically hinted that in order to go through this pious and
edifying performance he braced himself up with half-a-pint
of his favorite liquor.
The rest I leave without comment. Christians, like other
people, doubtless die in the religion of their childhood.
The adherents of every other creed do the same. My
purpose is simply to show that Freethinkers neither recant
their heresy nor quail before inevitable death, and I think I
have succeeded.
When Mirabeau, the mighty master-spirit of the Revolu
tion, lay dying in Paris amid the breathless hush of a whole
nation, he was attended by the great Cabanis. After a
night of terrible suffering, he turned to his physician and
said, “My friend, I shall die to-day. When one has come
to such a juncture there remains only one thing to do, that
is to be perfumed, crowned with flowers, and surrounded
with music, in order to enter sweetly into that slumber from
which there is no awakening.” Then he had his couch
brought to the window, and there the Titan died, with his
last gaze on the bright sunshine and the fragrant flowers.
He was an Atheist. Why should the Atheist fear to die ?
From the womb of nature he sprang and he will take his last
sleep on her bosom.
PRICE
TWOPENCE, j
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., E.C-
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels
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: 20 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1882]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N189
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels), 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
Death
Last Words
NSS