2
10
35
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b9b5f71adb506bd3db7f4009e394e0e8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LnT2P1Wj-Mr07kkhywbBmh23EnqgKxt6TNcKrJq70Np61ov07B2NkcNYed6SJvSHNnTR%7E-K4Yf-VRAxWbwTQ%7EuSHmsPCtsD1QPd5ad3KNYoga5jY9x8180H5VsFkLYmuL7pIts6QgRlMLMM1m0x8oe6D3-2LS76ILoqy0OyWXZ%7E6b9gxIJeCSWLr3BboLQEMrKbOTuCCid5wKY-NCP3KMD3%7EdNHTDhzSn4e4Oq-6eHfl07jlCUQfpYOUFEb4GXbDKqwudgmAkfWUQOp9JqyJ449v49jrV%7ELBcMjttxA9TzQkU5KaHTYSuV6ES7kZ0bHXRt4-l7rXY7Jay2u87orP9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
df5b5d3089e9a4d20abf0b5ec4515518
PDF Text
Text
THE BOOK OF ESTHER:
A SPECIMEN OF WHAT PASSES AS THE INSPIRED
WORD OF GOD.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKB.
The Book of Esther ! What is there in that worthy of special notice ?
It is a part of Holy Writ seldom or never referred to in the controver
sies of the time, and rarely used to point an argument or adorn a tale
in pulpit sermons. Some may say, why drag an obscure, unimportant
book into prominence, and attack that which is not of much moment
even to Christians ? To this it may be answered, that to a true believer,
nothing in the sacred book is trivial—all is inspired, and therefore all
is vital truth. If we view it in that light, it will be found to be our
strongest argument. The Book of Esther is still retained in all autho
rised editions of the Bible, and the most orthodox members of the
Church maintain that you cannot eliminate a single word or passage
withoiit incurring the wrath of Almighty God ; and we see how even
a bishop may bring down upon his devoted head the severest eccle
siastical censure, and be maligned, and shunned, and prosecuted by his
brethren of the cloth for daring to doubt the accuracy of some accounts
of events which never could have taken place as there related. But it
is not necessary now to go particularly into the question of inspiration.
We will take the book as we find it, and see what passes as the inspired
Word of God, and by following the text closely see how much better it
is than other writings. It must strike any observant reader that there
is nothing whatever on the surface of this part of the Bible that can
account for its being placed as a canonical book. It does not relate
any of God’s doings among his favourite children ; the Lord does not
direct the massacres ; Jehovah is not the patron of Mordecai and his
amiable niece—in short, neither God, the Lord, nor Jehovah are men
tioned at all throughout the whole ten chapters. One might say, if he
possessed the confidence of a priest, that this book was never inspired
by God. There are thousands who believe this book to be inspired,
because they dare not doubt. They have been taught to believe, and
they do believe. The human mind, once given to a belief in the super
natural, is open to receive anything as truth, however absurd or con
trary to experience it may be. Where are you to stop ? What are to
be the bounds of belief? Is not everything possible to a God of infinite
power ? And shall petty mortals dare to limit the eternal ? If an oc
currence is not easily comprehensible, what a relief it is to one’s head
to say, “ God did it.” That is sufficient, with some people, to account
for anything.
The Book of Esther, if perused as a narrative, will be found to be a
plain, unvarnished tale, possessing but few of the graces of rhetoric,
and chronicling the doings of by no means brilliant characters.
In the year 518 before Christ, commenced the reign of Ahasuerus, a
very small hero in his way, but through whose influence and by whose
sanction many extraordinary deeds were done, and many atrocities com
mitted. He was a king reigning over a vast region, extending from
�2
The Book of Esther.
India to Ethiopia, and including a hundred and twenty-seven provinces.
Marian Evans, in her translation of Feuerbach, says something to the
effect that Christianity is a religion of gourmands, as throughout the
Bible there is a continual record of feasting and jollity. Even the
Lord himself was entertained at dinner by Abraham. Accordingly, the
Book of Esther opens with an account of a great feast given by the
king, in the third year of his reign, to all his princes and his servants;
the power of Persia and of Media, the nobles and princes of the pro
vinces being before him. This carouse lasted a hundred and four score
days, during which time he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom
and the honour of his excellent majesty. Not content with the first
feast, at the end of this time he commenced again, and made a feast
unto all the people that were in Shushan the palace, both unto great
and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the palace. The
number seven is frequently used in this book, and it is a favourite number
with Bible writers, and no doubt accounts for the fact that the whole
book is in a state of “ sixes and sevens 1” A minute account is given
of the upholstery of the apartments, and of the metal of which the
drinking cups were made. There was royal wine in abundance, and
the drinking was according to law—that is, every man was to do accord
ing to his pleasure, and no doubt many of them took more than was
good for them, for the king himself set the example. Also Vashti, the
queen, made a feast for the women in the royal house. Now, Vashti
is the only woman in the book who displays any virtues or qualities
worthy of admiration ; but her virtues, which should have been her
glory and protection, are her ruin, and the treatment she received can
not be justified in modern times upon any principle of justice or morality.
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine
(in plain English, when he was intoxicated), he commanded his seven
chamberlains to bring Vashti, the queen, before him, with the crown
royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty, for she was fair
to look on. But, like a modest and sedate woman, she refused to pre
sent herself to the rude gaze of the king and his court. Therefore was
the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. He at once went
to law about the matter, by consulting the wise men who understood
the law, also the seven princes of Persia and Media, among whom wa$
one Memucan. The king asked what should be done with Vashti for
disobeying his orders, for he seemed terribly afraid of a disobedient
wife. Memucan answered and said, the queen hath not done wrong to
the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are
in all the provinces, when it should become known, for the wives would
despise their husbands if they should learn that the king had allowed
the queen to disobey his commands without rebuke. This noble prince
ended his address for the prosecution by the following suggestion : If
it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, ana
let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it
be not altered, that Vashti come no more before King Ahasuerus ; and
let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.
And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published
throughout all his empire (for it is great), all the wives shall give to
their husbands honour, both to the great and small. . The queen was
never called upon to offer an explanation or justification of her conduct,
there was no speech for the defence, and the king, who sat as Judge
Ordinary, decided on his own case, and immediately pronounced a
decree nisi, condemning the respondent in all costs. And thus poor
�The Book of Esther.
3
Vashti was divorced and disgraced for possessing a virtue which is
universally admired among enlightened and refined people.
Now if there is any meaning at all in this disgraceful transaction—
and of course there must be a meaning of deep import in every word
of the sacred book, for do not preachers and commentators weave won
derful discourses out of half lines and incomplete sentences, showing
what the inspired penmen meant to say, and even what the Deity him
self was thinking of, but which unfortunately the text itself in its
entirety furnishes no clue to ?—now if there is any meaning in this dis
graceful divorcement of Queen Vashti, it is, that women are to be
subject to their husbands in all things, whether their personal liberty
be endangered or their moral sense outraged or not. The translators
have called it “the decree of men’s sovereignty.” It is a transaction,
nevertheless, in which all the honour attaches to the queen who was
punished, and the odium to the king who is praised for the deed. It
is continually so with Bible morality—the good is put as the bad, and
the bad as the good. But, happily for humanity, they are rapidly out
growing such misleading teaching.
And out of this questionable transaction arise all the subsequent blood
and murder recorded in this delectable book. If any good is supposed
to have accrued to the world from the doings of Mordecai and Esther,
the Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways ! After the decree had
gone forth, the king cooled down, and when he became sober he thought
of Vashti, and how harsh he had been to her • but those who had coun
selled her banishment, not wishing him to relent, lest their own wives
might expect to be forgiven after having been condemned, suggested
that all the officers in all the provinces should be commissioned with
the very agreeable task of collecting together all the pretty girls they
could find and bringing them to Shushan, for the king to choose one from,
who should be queen instead of Vashti. This idea pleased him, and
he ordered it to be done. Now as the kingdom consisted of 127 pro
vinces, and all the pretty girls were collected together, the bevy of
beauties at Shushan must have been the finest ever seen at one exhibi
tion. But notwithstanding all these charms and counter-charms, the
king was really able to make a choice. The wonder is that the poor
man was not so overpowered, that he resolved to keep the whole of
them ! However, it took him nearly four years to make up his mind.
His choice ultimately fell upon Esther, the lady whose name furnishes
the title to the sacred book in which her career is recorded. She had
seven maidens to wait upon her, and was chosen in the seventh year of
thè reign of the king. We are not told what her age was at this time ;
but that is not remarkable, as it is generally very difficult to learn what
any lady’s age is I Esther was an orphan and a Jewess, but this latter
fact was carefully concealed from the king by order of Mordecai, the
“nursing father” of Esther, as he is called—as fine a specimen of the
cunning Hebrew as is to be found on record. The Jews at this time
were in captivity—a state little better than slavery. Mordecai and
Esther were first cousins, and Mordecai promptly availed himself of the
opportunity of selling his interesting relative to the highest bidder, but
with a shrewd eye to his own interests at the same time. During the
long while Esther was waiting her turn to be presented to the king,
Mordecai walked every day before the court of the women’s house, to
know how Esther did, and what should become of her. As soon as
Esther was crowned, Mordecai came forward, and “sat in the gate of
the king.” It is not clear what this means—it is very much like being
�4
The Book of Esther.
allowed to sit on the door step. Whilst he was thus “hanging about,”
he overheard two of the door-keepers express some intention of laying
hands on the king. This was an opportunity sent by Providence to
enable Mordecai to show his loyalty. He at once improved the occa
sion, and told Esther, who told the king, at the same time making the
king understand to whom he was indebted for the information. The
two conspirators were hanged, but Mordecai was not rewarded for his
zeal.
Haman was promoted to be chief over all the princes. All the king’s
servants, as in duty bound, bowed down and reverenced Haman ; but
Mordecai, being annoyed at being passed over, refused to bow down,
notwithstanding he was spoken to about it daily. He threw off his
reserve now that his cousin was queen, and told them that he belonged
to the “stiff-necked” race. This incensed Haman very much, and he
resolved to be revenged not alone on Mordecai, but upon his whole tribe.
Haman told the king that there was a certain people scattered abroad
and dispersed among the provinces of the kingdom, whose laws were
different, and who did not obey the king’s laws, therefore it was not for
the king’s profit to suffer them—mildly suggesting that they should be
destroyed, and offering ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of
those who should have the charge of the slaughter. As in the case of
poorVashti, the king without hesitation acquiesced, and seemed in a
hurry to get that bit of business off his hands. Letters were despatched
into every province, written in all the languages of the people, and
sealed with the king’s ring, with orders “ to destroy, to kill, and to
cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women,
in one day, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.” After this,
“ the king and Haman sat down to drink.”
It is the fashion with some people to praise Mordecai for his stubborn
will and manly spirit in refusing to bow down to the First Minister of
State, as though he had done it from a wholesome contempt of the
pomp and pride of court hirelings. But there is nothing in the text to
warrant that interpretation. In fact, no word is vouchsafed in explana
tion of why he refused, except that he was a Jew, and that certainly
gave him no virtue in the matter, for if he objected to the pride of
Haman the Gentile, it was only with the greater pride of Mordecai the
Jew. Mordecai belonged to the “ chosen people,” and we see in our
own day how people will strut and plume - themselves when clothed in
the garments of self-righteousness.
When Mordecai heard of the sanguinary decree, of course he was very
much alarmed, and did that silly and dirty trick peculiar to the favour
ites of the Lord—he tore his clothes and put on sack-cloth and ashes.
He went before the palace crying with a loud and bitter cry, but he was
too dusty to be allowed to enter into the king’s gate. Information of
Mordecai’s grief was conveyed to Esther, also of the state of his ward
robe, when she immediately sent him fresh raiment, with orders to take
away the sack-cloth and ashes ; but he preferred his rags and dirt.
Then the queen sent her chamberlain to Mordecai to know what troubled
him, and how it was. He sent her a copy of the decree, together with
all the particulars, with a request that she would go to the king and
make supplication for her people. There was some danger attendant
upon the carrying out of this request, as a law existed whereby all who
came to the king into the inner court without being called, should be
put to death, unless the king pardoned them ; and as the queen had not
seen her loving husband for a month, she was afraid to go to him un-
�The Book of Esther.
5
called. This was conveyed to Mordecai, wno replied—“ Think not
with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all
the Jews.” This determined Esther, who told Mordecai to gather to
gether all the Jews who were in town, and with them to fast three days
and three nights, and she and her maidens would do likewise. This
species of praying for success, is at best but an empty supplication.
Paine says the Jews never prayed but when they were in trouble, and
never for anything but victory, vengeance, and riches. But she said —
‘ ‘ I will go to the king, which is not according to the law : and if I
perish, I perish.” This was noble—this was daring, and worthy of a
heroine. One might expect from this that Esther was full of all noble
qualities. On the contrary, she had the smoothness of the leopard
with the ferocity of the tiger. Here she resolved, at all hazards to
herself, to beg for the lives of the Jews. But listen to the result of her
mission.
On the third day she ventured unbidden into the royal presence, and
to her great relief the king was overjoyed to see her, and said : “ What
wilt thou, Queen Esther ? and what is thy request ? it shall be even
given thee to the half of the kingdom ?” The king was a mighty man
at a feast, and Esther, knowing his strong point, and also anticipating
it would be favourably received, had prepared a banquet, to which she
invited him, including Haman in the invitation. Throughout Bible
history, it will be found that the pot and the platter formed either the
prelude or the sequel to nearly all great undertakings or events. Of
course the king accepted the invitation to dine out in his own house,
and Haman was only too happy and proud to attend him. After the
wine had gone round, the king again repeated his offer, that whatever
request Esther made, even to the half of his kingdom, it should be
granted. She was still cautious and hesitating, not being sure that the
roystering monarch was fed up to the proper pitch for her purpose; so
she said that if the king and Haman would come to another feast on the
following day, she would then make known her request. This was
agreed to. Then went Haman forth that day joyful and with a glad
heart. But his exultation was of short duration, for he had not gone
far before he nearly fell over that obstinate old Mordecai, who refused
to get up or move out of his way. This filled him with indignation,
but still he restrained himself till he reached home, when he sent for
his friends and for.Zeresh, his wife. “ And Haman told them of the
glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and all the things
wherein the king had promoted him,” for he was a man of great self
importance, and was quite overpowered if he did not receive a proper
amount of deference from his presumed inferiors. After recounting
his wonderful position, he said : “Yet all this availeth me nothing so
long a,s I.see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.” His wife
and his friends told him to cheer up, and get a gallows made fifty cubits
high, and at the morrow’s banquet to speak unto the king that Mor
decai might be hanged thereon. This humane suggestion pleased
Haman much, and, like a modern Governor Eyre, he thereupon issued
his order for the erection of that neat piece of architecture—an instru
ment still used in this country to finish the education which the priest
begins.
It so happened, and very fortunately so for Mordecai, that the night
before this second banquet the king was not able to sleep, so he thought
he would read awhile, and therefore ordered the book of records to be
brought, and in this he found chronicled the name and services of Mor*
�6
The Book of Esther.
decai in informing of the two doorkeepers who had got up a little con
spiracy agaifist himself. The king asked what honour and dignity had
been done to Mordecai for this. He was told nothing. He exclaimed,
Who is in the court ? He was answered, Haman. Now, Haman, un
fortunately for himself, had gone there post haste, not waiting till the
morning, to crave the boon of being allowed to elevate poor Mordecai
fifty cubits high. It was an ominous moment for him. He was ordered
into the king’s presence, who, not giving him time to speak, asked :
“What shall be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to
honour?” Now, Haman thought in his heart, To whom would the
king delight to do honour more than to myself? He therefore resolved
not to underdo the matter, and modestly proposed that the happy indi
vidual should be decked out in the royal apparel, the crown put upon
his head, the whole mounted upon the king’s horse, and led through
the streets of the city by one of the noblest princes, and to be pro
claimed before him, “ Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king
delighteth to honour.” But what was Haman’s utter astonishment and
consternation when he was told to make haste and do all he had said
unto Mordecai the Jew, the man whom he hated above all other men.
But this was not the last time in which Haman was destined to be
caught in his own trap. He hurried home hiding his head, and told
his wife and friends of his disappointment. He was a fallen Minister,
and they all felt that Mordecai, the Benjamin Disraeli of his time, would
lead the Opposition on to the Treasury benches. And while they were
talking, the messenger came to summons Haman to the second banquet
which Esther had prepared. But he was in no mood for eating. He
had not yet digested the bitter pill of Mordecai’s advancement. The
king again asked Esther what boon she craved. She said : “ Let my
life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request. For we
are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish.”
Though five years had elapsed since their marriage, this appears to have
been the first time the king knew that his wife was a Jewess. He
asked, ‘ ‘ Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart
to do so ?” The king had forgotten all about the decree he had made
and signed with his own ring, for the utter destruction of the people
who were scattered throughout all his provinces. That was too small
a matter to dwell in his memory. Esther answered and said, “The
adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman.” Thq king rushed into
the garden in great fury, and whilst he was gone Haman became much
alarmed for his own»safety ; and when the king returned he found
Haman on his knees beseeching Esther to intercede with the king on
his behalf. The king mistook the meaning of the supplication, and
became jealous as well as angry. This sealed the fate of poor Haman,
who was immediately seized and his face covered. An obliging cham
berlain who was standing by, with the usual readiness of court syco
phants to help a fallen favourite, told the king that Haman had got
a gallows already erected, which was intended for Mordecai, the rising
minister. Upon this hint the king spake, and told them to hang Haman
thereon. “ So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had pre
pared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified.” Thus
Haman was literally the architect of his own fortune, and ultimately
graced his own structure. But the king was not blameless in the matter
—he was more to blame than Haman himself, for he signed a san
guinary decree at the first time of asking, and without making the
slightest inquiry into the justice of what he was about to do. Yet this
�The Book of Esther.
7
is the man into whose hands God had committed the care of a portion
of his “ chosen people. ” This justifies the saying that Christianity is
much indebted for its preservation to the vilest and silliest characters in
all ages and countries.
The king, as is the wont of monarchs, bestowed the dead man’s pro
perty upon his favourite, and Esther became enriched by Haman’s
death. Mordecai also experienced rapid promotion, as he was for the
first time introduced to the king as Esther’s relative. And the king
took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto
Mordecai ; and Esther set Mordecai over Jhe House of Haman. The
Jews’ star was now in the ascendant. The queen then besought the
king to revoke his edict against the Jews, which had been issued at
the instigation of Haman. Being a most yielding man, and having the
amiable weakness of granting everything to everybody at the moment
of asking, whether it was the slaughter of a whole race, or the hanging
of an individual even on his own new gallows, he consented without a
murmur to reverse what he had done a short time before, and com
manded Mordecai, saying—“ Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh
you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring ; for the writ
ing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring,
may no man reverse. ” Mordecai’s patience and perseverance were at
length rewarded, and his day of triumph had arrived. Having carte
blanche from the king, he availed himself of it to the fullest extent. He
■sent proclamations into all the provinces, in which he said “ the king
had granted the Jews in every city to gather themselves together, and
to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all
the power of the people and province that would assault them, both
little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.” Not
content with telling the Jews they might destroy, slay, and cause to
perish all who assaulted them, he ordered them all to be in readiness
on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month to avenge themselves on their
enemies. Mordecai then strutted out like a peacock to show his fine
feathers. He went out “ in royal apparel of blue and white, and with
a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple :
and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad. The Jews had light,
and, gladness, and joy, and honour. And in every province, and in
every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came,
the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of
the people of the land became Jews ; for the fear of the Jews fell upon
them.”
V
Accordingly, on the fatal thirteenth of the twelfth month, the day on
which the Jews were to have been killed, the order of things was re
versed, for the Jews gathered themselves together in all the cities to lay
hands on such as sought their hurt ; and no man could withstand them ;
for the fear of them fell upon all people. All the king’s officials,
throughout the kingdom, like true time-servers and worshippers of
power, because the Prime Minister was a Jew, joined with the Jews
against their own countrymen ; and thus as bloody a coup a'état was
perpetrated in Asia in the year 509 before Christ, as that which took
place in France on the 2nd of December, 1851 years after this precious
Gospel came to bless mankind ! “ Thus the Jews smote all their
enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction,
and did what they would unto those that hated them. And in Shushan
the palace, the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men.” The ten
sons of Haman slew they, thus carrying out the barbarous doctrine
�8
The Book of Esther.
taught in this holy book, of visiting the sins of the father upon the
children. “On that day the number of those that were slain in Shushan
were brought before the king. And the king said unto Esther the
queen—The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan
the palace, and the ten sons of Haman ; what have they done in the
rest of the king’s provinces ? now what is thy petition ? and it shall be
granted thee : or what is thy request further? And it shall be done.”
Mark the fiendish answer of this tigress, sent of course by God to be
an instrument in the preservation of his favourite people. “ Then said
Esther—If it please the kin£, let it be granted to the Jews which are in
Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let
Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows ! And the king com
manded it so to be done ; and the decree was given at Shushan ; and
they hanged Haman’s ten sons.” This was diabolical ferocity, prompted
by the direst spirit of revenge. Esther could not have forgotten that a
few minutes before the king had told her that the ten sons of Haman
had been slain, and therefore to hang them on the gallows was not with
the idea of killing them a second time, but merely for the gratification
of gloating over the ghastly corpses of ten men who had never injured
her, but who had the misfortune to be the sons of her enemy. This is
Bible morality, of which there are innumerable instances in this sacred
word of God. And so the slaughter went on, and the Jews gathered
themselves together on the fourteenth day, and in Shushan butchered
three hundred more men, and those in the provinces made up the total
number of victims seventy-five thousand. After this the Jews fell to
feasting and rejoicing, and called it a day of gladness, and resolved, at the
suggestion of Mordecai, to celebrate both the thirteenth and fourteenth
of the twelfth month as a festival every year. “ Then Esther the queen,
and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this, and
sent letters unto all the Jews in the 127 provinces, with words of peace
and truth.” “For Mordecai the Jew was next unto King Ahasuerus,
and great among the Jqws, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren,
seeking the wealth of bis people, and speaking peace to all his seed. ”
And thus ends this eventful history.
We close this blood-stained Book of Esther with feelings of loathing
and disgust. There is not one principle of morality inculcated through
out the entire narrative ; there is but one estimable or worthy character
depicted therein, and she is a victim ; the incidents recorded are inci
dents of drunkenness, domestic tyranny, lust, ambition, vacillation,
revenge, and wholesale and brutal murder of innocent men, women,
and children. There is no inspiration, no instruction, no moral eleva
tion in it. It is one dull, dead level of brutality aud animal indul
gence. The first chapter commences with a gross outrage upon the
delicacy of a sensitive woman, and ends by her being divorced and
disgraced, that “ man’s sovereignty ” may be upheld and proclaimed.
This can be quoted as an argument in favour of the oppression of one
half the human race, for does it not tally with that other passage in the
Bible, which says that woman shall be subject to the man ? Chapter
ii. enters into particulars of the utterly immoral way in which the king
chose a wife in succession to Vashti, and the calculating manner in
which Mordecai brought his foster daughter and relative to the market,
and sold her to the highest bidder. Chapter iii. is an account of an
ambitious minister, who, on being irritated and annoyed by a man
belonging to a despised race, who presumed upon his relationship to
�The Book of Esther.
9
the queen, seeks to have his enemy and his enemy’s race destroyed ;
and where a king, who should be the guardian of his people, condemns
to death a large number of his subjects at the mere request of one man.
Chapter iv. depicts the real cause of all this mischief and commotion
in a state of the most abject fear. There is no reason why Mordecai
should have hated and annoyed Haman, unless it was from a feeling of
envy at his elevation and good fortune. Chapter v. shows a man so
engrossed with a feeling of hatred, that he builds a gallows of his own
on which to hang his enemy. Chapter vi. pretends to relate how a
king can honour a subject who has served him ; but the story is so
overdone that it becomes outrageously improbable. Chapter vii. is an
attempt to pourtray an instance of retributive justice, but it is a failure,
for the wicked Haman, who dies on his own gallows, is not hanged for
seeking the lives of the Jews, but because the king in his mad fury
mistook the meaning of his subject’s supplication. Chapter viii. shows
a vacillating and sanguinary tyrant playing with the lives of his subjects
at the merest caprice, sparing neither women nor little innocent chil
dren. Chapter ix. contains an account of deeds worthy only of fiends,
the bear recital of which makes one shudder, but over which God’s
chosen cannibals rejoice and make merry, and call it a good day, which
they will celebrate with feasting and rejoicing through all coming time.
And Esther, the heroine of the book, God’s appointed agent to save
his peculiar people, when told of the glorious slaughter which her
brethren had had the first day, begged the boon of one more day of
the hellish work, that the agony might be prolonged, that more wives
might be made widows, that there should be more children made
orphans, that the desolation might be more widespread, and that the
wail of despair might again resound through the affrighted city. And
chapter x. closes the book with the pompous parade of Mordecai’s
greatness in the eyes of the multitude, and of his ‘ ‘ seeking the wealth
of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed.” Oh, bitter mockery !
the peace he had won was the peace of the grave and the silence of
death.
And this is the inspired word of God ; and these are the people for
whom the Lord had an especial liking. What could have been the
object of the concoctors of the Bible in including this book among the
canonical gospels ? It could not have been intended as a compliment
to the Deity, because his name is never mentioned in it under any one
title by which he is known. It does not point the way to mansions in
the skies ; for though death, in all its ghastliness, is constantly present,
any supposed immortality is never alluded to. Even the most besotted
bigot could scarcely maintain that it was intended to convey a moral
lesson in any one chapter or verse. Nothing could be more ferocious
and imbecile than this king, who grants everything that is asked of him
by every favourite of the hour, and who not even by accident performs
a good action. The queen too, who to graces of person should have
added beauties of heart and mind, on the only occasion on which she
possessed the power of doing anything great or good, manifested a dis
position which would disgrace a North American savage when on the
war trail. Then what is the object of this book? It can only be in
tended to show the “providential” preservation of the Jews from a
great peril, and, being the children of God, it was necessary that they
should be spared to carry out God’s plans upon earth. Was anything
ever more monstrous than this ? If what is recorded of the Jews in the
Bible be true, they are as vile a race as ever trod the earth.
�10
The Book of Esther.
And this book is read in Sunday-schools, and these are the lessons
implanted in the young and tender minds of children. From the
earliest moment they are taught to reverence this volume as the sacred
word of God, and not to doubt or call in question, on pain of eternal,
never-ending torments, a single line or word therein ? What does
Theodore Parker say on this point ?—
“To the Bible the minister prostitutes his mind and conscience,
heart and soul ; on the authority of an anonymous Hebrew book, he
will justify the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, by the
thousand ; and, on that of an anonymous Greek book, he will believe,
or at least command others to believe, that man is born totally de
praved, and God will perpetually slaughter men in hell by the million,
though they had committed no fault, except that" of not believing an
absurd doctrine they had never heard of. Ministers take the Bible in
the lump as divine; all between the lids of the book is equally the
‘ Word of God,’ infallible and miraculous : he that believeth it shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned ; no amount of
piety and morality can make up for not believing this. No doctor is
ever so subordinate to his drug, no lawyer lies so prone before statute
and custom, as the mass of ministers before the Bible, the great fetish
of Protestant Christendom. The Ephesians did not so worship their
great goddess Diana and the meteoric stone which fell down from
Jupiter. ‘We can believe anything,’ say they, ‘which has a “ Thus
saith the Lord ” before or after it.’ The Bible is not only master of
the soul, it is also a talisman to keep men from harm ; bodily contact
with it, through hand or eye, is a part of religion ; so it lies in railroad
stations, in the parlours and sleeping chambers of taverns, and the
cabins of ships, only to be seen and touched, not read. The pious
mother puts it in the trunk of her prodigal son about to travel, and
while she knows he is Wasting her substance in riotous living, she con
tents herself with the thought that ‘ he has got his Bible with him, and
promised to read a chapter every day !’ So the Catholic mother uses
an image of the ‘Virgin Mother of God,’ and the Rocky Mountain
savage a bundle of grass : it is a fetish."
Now, a God of mercy, and justice, and lovingkindness can never
approve of this. This delusion is perpetuated, and this evil is kept up
by some from interested motives ; by others from ignorance of the real
nature of the book they were taught in their infancy to prostrate their
reason before, and by most from a feeling of fanaticism and supersti
tion. Thomas Paine, who speaks as a Deist, says :—
“ It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible,
and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the
world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God ; they have disputed
and wrangled, and have anathematised each other about the supposable
meaning of particular parts and passages therein—one has said and
insisted that such a passage meant such a thing ; another that it meant K
directly the contrary ; and a third, that it neither meant one nor the
other, but something different from both—and this they call understand
ing the Bible. There are matters in that book, said to be done by the
express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every
idea we have of moral justice, as anything done by Robespierre, by
Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France ; by the English Government in
the East Indies ; or by any other assassin in modem times. When we
read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, &c., that the Israelites
came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as the history it
�The Book of Esther.
11
self shows, had given them no offence—that they put all those nations
to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly
destroyed men, women, and children; that they left- not a soul to
breathe ; expressions that are repeated over and over again in those
books, and that too with exulting ferocity ; are we sure these things are
facts ? Are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned these things
to be done ? Are we sure that the books which tell us so were written
by his authority ? To charge the commission of acts upon the Almighty,
which in their nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes—
as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants—
is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us that these assassinations
were done by the express commartd of God. To believe therefore the
Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of
God : for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend ? And to read
the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender,
sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for my
self, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous, than the
sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be suf
ficient to determine my choice.”
What can be done to sweep this delusion from the minds of men,
which for nearly eighteen hundred years has been preached to them by
the aid of church and cannon, sword and surplice? For ages the
pioneer of truth was always its martyr, till despair almost entered the
heart of those who sought the service of humanity. But there still re
mained a heroic few who nobly passed the banner of truth from gene
ration to generation, till it has reached our time, and now waves more
freely in the breezes of awakened intelligence, which ere long will swell
i.nto a whirlwind of enlightenment, which shall sweep before it every
vestige of the dark clouds of ignorance and superstition which have
overshadowed the fair face of nature, and been the prolific parents of
all those calamities which have befallen poor humanity groping its way
through the darkness of ignorance, and stumbling at every step over
those things which might be turned into stepping-stones to assist their
onward march, if they had but more mental light with which to illumine
their path through life.
If I were a believer in a Special Providence answering the supplica
tions of men, I would kneel at the “throne of grace,” and importune
the Deity to end this war, and strife, and hatred among his children.
Not with a scoffing tongue do I now say it, but in all seriousness, as
becomes the solemnity of such a task, and I would offer up this
PRAYER.
O God, who art omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; allpowerful, all-wise, and all-just; who existed before time was, and who
made all-things ; who searchest the hearts of all, and knowest our most
secret thoughts—vouchsafe but one word that shall stop at once and
for ever all the horrors that are committed in thy name; utter it in the
thunder that all may hear to the remotest comers of the earth, or write
it across the heavens in characters that all, of every nation and every
tongue, may read and understand. Thou knowest, in thy infinite
wisdom, that men, groping their way by the dim light of ages past,
fail to see the truth they fain would reach. Some by accident find the
precious treasure; others clutch error, and, clinging to it with the
tenacity of despair, make war upon all around them. O thou bene
ficent Deity, one word from thee would open the eyes of all, making
�12
The Book of Esther.
the blind to see and the dull to understand. This Bible, for which men
lie, and cheat, and persecute—which inculcates doctrines the most con
tradictory, immoral, and revolting—which records deeds done in thy
name at which humanity shudders aghast—can it be thy message of
mercy to mankind? Didst thou, in thy boundless benevolence, in
spire its pages, and in thy immutable justice send it as a guide for the
human race ? Is it serving thee for the professors of Bible religion to
rend one another? In one country, Catholic Christians imprison and
torture their Protestant brethren ; in another, the Protestants tax,
persecute, and oppress their Catholio fellow-subjects, and all in thy
name. Eighteen hundred years ago a Jew who preached a new doc
trine was cruelly put to death. An effigy of his mangled and bleeding
body, nailed to a cross, is the emblem of Christians, under which they
have made war, and slaughtered tens and hundreds of thousands of
their fellow creatures. This murdered man is called thy Son, and all
are commanded to worship him, on pain of death in some countries,
and of social persecution and hatred in others. Are we justified, O
God, in thy sight in regarding this symbol of blood and suffering as a
sign of thy love for the family of man ? In England (this small speck
in thy immense universe), there are thousands of thy creatures steeped
in the deepest poverty and crime; thousands lolling in the lap of luxury,
extravagance, and wealth ; thousands of priests paid millions a year,
wrung from the hard earnings of industry, to preach what is called thy
“holy word,” which in one part declares “the poor will not cease
from out the land.” Is this, O Lord, the most perfect state of society to
which men can attain ? Every despot in Europe, who oppresses his
subjects, and slaughters them if they complain, is styled “ Most Chris
tian Majesty,” and he declares that he rules by right divine derived
direct from thee. The Pope of Rome, the head of an ecclesiastical
despotism, which keeps men ignorant and rules them as slaves, is called
thy Vicegerent upon earth. All claim Bible sanction for what they do.
My sense of right revolts at all this, and I beseech thee, O thou God
of justice and righteousness, to direct me in the right path, if I am
erring in my judgment of thy goodness and truth. Rather would I
say, the vast majority of the populations of the world are tortured and
enslaved by the dominant few who rule in thy name, because the
masses are ignorant and therefore helpless. In anguish I cry unto
thee—
“ When wilt thou save the people,
O God of mercy, when ?
Not crowns and thrones, but nations;
Not kings and lords, but men ?”
One word from thy everlasting lips would bind all hearts in one; would
reconcile man to man the world over; would inaugurate the reign of
love and peace, and banish hate and all uncharitableness. Speak this
word, O Lord, I implore thee, that man may go on his way rejoicing,
giving and receiving pleasure ; shed thy radiance on mankind, that they
may feel thy kingdom has come ; establish thy Paradise upon earth ;
and thine be the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
London : Printed and Published by Austin & Co., I7> Johnson’s
Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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 book of Esther: a specimen of what passes as the inspired word of God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin [1826-1874]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT16
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
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 book of Esther: a specimen of what passes as the inspired word of God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Bible-O.T.-Esther
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4e88ff4d4e364f07f976dbccb68c73ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sE2oUZgJ8JrSf1Od7zlSq-deZy6f4XEfBgPjvyxf4GjL586yVR-VL16ZaN%7EdrSmdmjKBjv9aEx9ImH3jfKTUzeFlD30CrCiYOWYd3h0O9MUPHSEx1tW80NjXtIW8PZ0Vz8CuRcT7q3Gm5p-EYvev7yxBu7oJSibMSf0XycfJ4BXFAAHJbEJHMbuqWHmsmya9Kr1myGoOx9o9MkGO4YJstv774vlBcfcNAHIEUwqDl0VGRW2NQL6VojUIPy3STzdaJaKzLRzExtKdAAOHIHFr6DZTvFuAFdrSGzifFUI0vdbtONdcw5Sqp9pPK1BFsPMJN0wToS453YbbjulVU1muQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9db2f61f8ff05d532a98a682eb7001e5
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ATHEIST SHOEMAKER
AND THE
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES
OP.
A STUDY IN
LYING
WITH
*
!
A FULL AND COMPLETE EXPOSURE
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
AND
I
Editor of the “ Freethinker
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
Q
f
�his pamphlet is written gratuitously by Mr. Foote, and the expense
of printing one hundred thousand copies, for free distribution, has been
met by a public subscription raised in the Freethinker. This journal is
published every Thursday at the price of twopence. It is sold by many
newsagents in all parts of the country, and can also be obtained, post
free for twopence halfpenny, from the publishing office, 28 Stonecutter
street, London, E.C.]
�THE ATHEIST
SHOEMAKER
Introduction.
ONE of the leading religious agencies in the metropolis
is the West London Mission, and the leading spirit of
this mission is the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes. The
reverend gentleman is specially told off for this work
by the Wesleyan Methodist body ; he discourses on
Sundays in the great St. James’s Hall, Piccadilly ; and
the record of his labors is published in a journal which
he edits, and which belongs to him, called the Methodist
Times.
Five years ago the West London Mission was in
financial difficulties, and fervent appeals were made on
its behalf. Apparently by way of stimulating the
generosity of the Wesleyan Methodist public, Mr.
Hughes printed in his journal, in the months of July
and August, 1889, a long, circumstantial, and vivid
story, entitled “ The Atheist Shoemaker.” It was
afterwards published in book-form at the price of
eighteen-pence, with a Preface, setting forth that the
narrative was “ a true story, and not fiction,” being
indeed “ a literal illustration of the spirit and work of
the West London Mission.”
This “ true story ” was that of a young shoemaker,
who was “ brought to Christ ” by the said Mission. He
had been a famous advocate of Atheism, lecturing to
“ atheistic assemblies ” on Clerkenwell-green, in Vic
toria Park, and apparently at the Hall of Science.
During his last illness, which carried him off at the
age of twenty-eight, he was befriended by the Mission,
and, under the persuasive influence of Sister Beatrice,
he renounced his Atheism, and took the communion.
�( 4 )
which was administered to him by Mr. Hughes.
Finally, he died in Devonshire, making a most edify
ing end, so that “ the last year of his life was full of
instruction for every class of readers.”
Mr. Hughes stated that he had been “urged” to
publish this story. The convert himself had “ willingly
consented” to this being done, and there was “no
reason for concealment.” On the contrary, there were
“ many reasons for publicity.” But the story as pre
sented to the reader was tantalising. The “ publicity ”
was remarkably like “ concealment.” Mr. Hughes gave
his own name, but that could not be avoided. All the
other characters were given fictitious names, and no
clue was afforded to their addresses. Everything, in
short, seemed designed to baffle investigation.
This was strange enough to require as apology, or
at least an explanation. Accordingly it was stated
that “ some of those who must appear on the scene
shrink from publicity.” Now the only prominent
characters were Mr. Hughes himself, whose name i&
given ; the convert, who was dead, and had no feeling*
in the matter ; his widow, who must have furnished
many of the details ; and the “Sister” of the West
London Mission, who was instrumental in his “ con
version.” It was these two ladies, then, who shrank
from publicity; and that they had strong, if not good
reasons for “ shrinking ” wi.l be seen hereafter. Suffice
it to say, for the present, that the convert was called
“ John Herbert ” in the story, while the lady of the
paission was called “ Sister Beatrice.”
The Story Challenged.
Immediately on the first publication of “ The Atheist
Shoemaker ” in the Methodist Times it was criticised
in the columns of the Freethinker. The present
writer (who will henceforth speak in the first person)
saw at a glance that the story was very largely
fictitious. When a narrative begins with “ One dark
night last winter,” one feels it is not history, but the
work of a novelist. But the worst of it was, that no
person answering to the description of John Herbert
was known to the Freethinkers of London. In one
�( 5 )
respect the description was precise enough. John
Herbert died in the spring of 1889, at the age of
twenty-eight; he was by trade a shoemaker ; he had
“ delicate, intellectual features and deep, inquisitive,
penetrating eyes ” ; he was a person of great natural
eloquence ; he was “ a well-known London Atheist ” ;
he used to lecture on Clerkenwell-green and in
Victoria Park, where his voice was drowned by “ con
tinuous cheering”; one of Mr. Hughes’s informants
thought Herbert would get the best of it in a debate
with “ Bradlaugh,” and exclaimed, “Why, everybody
knows Herbert ” ; he was very happy at repartee, in
which “ his public discussions as an Atheist had made
him so expert ” ; and we are told of “ what he used to
say in the Hall of Science,” where Mr. Hughes hoped
to hear him tell the story of his conversion. All this
made a very recognisable portrait—if the original ever
existed, which it never did. I was myself in a position
to deny its existence. As President of the London
Secular Federation, and editor of the Freethinker, and
being intimately acquainted with the propaganda of
Freethought in London, I was prepared to challenge
the substantial truth of Mr. Hughes’s story, Still, I
did not act in a spirit of infallibility. I made inquiries
of others, including those who had carried on the
work of Secularism in the places mentioned by Mr.
Hughes ; and one and all were positive that no such
lecturer as John Herbert had ever been known there.
It must be recollected that they had only to tax their
memories for a year or two, and that no mistake could
arise from the mere lapse of time in this instance.
My own view was thus confirmed, and I felt justified
in severely criticising the story of John Herbert’s
conversion. I declared that it bore every appearance
of a lie ; yet I added that, if Mr. Hughes would give
the real name of his convert, and prove the substantial
truth of his story, I would not only confess my mis
take, but “ apologise for throwing a doubt upon his
honor.” Mr. Hughes took no notice of this appeal,
and when he published his narrative in a volume I
felt bound to publish my criticism as well in a separate
form. It was therefore issued as a penny pamphlet,
under the title of “ A Lie in Five Chapters.”
�( 6 )
Mr- H ughes Keeps Silence.
Several other persons tried to draw Mr. Hughes.
Amongst them was a friendly critic, the Rev. C. A.
(Spurgeon, who noticed Mr. Hughes’s volume in the
Sword and Trowel, and advised him to give the names
and addresses of his characters. The great Baptist
preacher, who was a straightforward man in his way,
could not understand all the mystery of “ The Atheist
Shoemaker.” He thought the “ feelings ” of the
persons concerned were as nothing to the gain to the
cause of Christ, if the conversion were established to
the satisfaction of believers and the confusion of
infidels.
Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, the leader of the English
Secularists, plainly told Mr. Hughes that his story was
clearly untrue in many respects, and invited him to
have an inquiry made into its evidences. The follow
ing paragraph appeared in the National Reformer for
February 2, 1890, soon after Mr. Bradlaugh’s return
from India :—
“ The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes publishes, as if true, a story
of a converted Atheist shoemaker. As Mr. Hughes repeatedly
mentions me by name, and as many of the incidents in his
volume are clearly untrue, I invite him in common decency
to give me the means of judging for myself how far he has
been misled. I hesitate to suppose that he can be the wilful
misleader.”
This was plain enough, and it was written by one
who had a right to intervene. Mr. Bradlaugh was
not only the natural but the official leader of Freethought. He was President of the National Secular
Society, whose headquarters are in London ; and he
was therefore in a position to know whether the
eloquent hero of Mr. Hughes’s story had any real
existence.
Mr. Hughes took no notice of Mr. Bradlaugh’s state
ment and invitation. The burning love of truth,
which he professes, did not lead him to see whether he
had been misled himself, and had consequently misled
others.
The reverend gentleman’s obstinate silence provoked
the publication of a correspondence between him and
�( 7 )
Mr. Robert Forder, secretary of the National Secular
Society, who has an exceptionally intimate acquaint
ance with the iiersonnel of the Freethought movement.
Mr. Forder wrote to Mr. Hughes on September 5,1889,
soon after the completion of “ The Atheist Shoemaker ”
in the Methodist Times, and the following is an
extract from his letter “ As I have been personally acquainted with all the Atheist
lecturers at the Hall of Science, Clerkenwell Green, and
Victoria Park during the last twenty-five years, and have
been secretary of the National Secular Society for the last
fifteen years, you will understand my curiosity to know
which one of my old friends and companions abandoned his
opinions prior to his death. I therefore take the liberty of
asking you the name of the Atheist lecturer, feeling sure you
will be glad to oblige one who must have known him for many
years.”
Mr. Hughes, being away on the continent, did not
reply until October 4. He referred Mr. Forder to the
Preface of “ The Atheist Shoemaker,” where it was
stated that some of the characters shrank from “ pub
licity,” and said in conclusion—
“ I am sorry that passage escaped your notice, for it would
have saved you the trouble of writing to me. Any informa
tion about our work that can be made public with due regard
to the wishes and feelings of others I shall always be happy
to give you.”
Mr. Hughes must have penned the last sentence with
his tongue in his cheek. He knew very well that all
Mr. Forder wanted to know about “ our work ” was the
name of the converted Atheist Shoemaker.
This correspondence appeared in the National
Reformer for February 16, with a note on the opposite
page by Mr. Bradlaugh :
“ In another column I insert a communication from Mr.
Forder as to the falsehood of the story of ‘ the converted
Atheist shoemaker.’ As the Rev. Mr. Hughes has not hesi
tated to increase the commercial value of his romance by
repeatedly using my name, I should have supposed thatcommon decency would have required him to give me the
means of testing his accuracy, especially as he knows I
challenge the main allegations in his story.”
Mr. Bradlaugh wrote another paragraph on February
23, remarking that the Daily Chronicle, the Pall Mall
�( 8 )
Gazette, and other papers, were giving publicity to the
fact that Mr. Hughes would not have his story investi
gated. “ The excuse,” said Mr. Bradlaugh, “ that
publicity might hurt the feelings of the dead shoe
maker’s surviving friends should have been considered
before Mr. Hughes published my name in his story.
Are my feelings and those of my friends of no account
to Mr. Hughes ?”
A final note from Mr. Bradlaugh’s pen was printed
in the National Reformer for March 2 :—
“ The story contains some statements which I know to be
untrue, and contains other statements which I believe to be
untrue. I leave to Mr. Hughes the responsibility of having
published these as parts of what he describes as ‘ a true story.’
Mr. Hughes, although he made his story more saleable by its
references to me, denies my right to inquire into the matter.
Mr. Hughes holds very curious notions of what a religious
man may do against an infidel.”
Now I ask the reader to consider this situation
Would any man of honor have kept silent in the face
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s appeals ? Mr. Bradlaugh was an
eminent man, enjoying at that time almost universal
respect, and he regarded himself in “ common decency ”
as entitled to satisfaction. He had also stated his
knowledge that much of Mr. Hughes’s story was untrue.
In these circumstances, Mr. Hughes ought surely to
have made inquiries, if only to satisfy himself. But
the sequel shows that he did nothing of the kind. He
wilfully closed his eyes to the evidence that would
have proved his inaccuracy.
A Little Speech.
Throughout this dispute Mr. Hughes has displayed
a certain consistency. His policy has been to ignore
all the leaders of Secularism, doubtless on the ground
that their appeals and challenges would not be seen or
heard by his own party. Whenever he has broken
silence, it has been in consequence of something that
his own party could see, in the columns of some
political organ of great influence and circulation.
Accordingly he was stung into saying something by
a leaderette in the Daily Chronicle, the “ motive and
animus ” of the writer of which he complained of.
�( 9 )
just as he has since complained of everyone who has
desired him to put his cards upon the table.
After scolding this writer, Mr. Hughes wrote as
follows in the Methodist Times for February 27, 1890 :
“We are at a loss to understand what right either Mr.
Bradlaugh or the Secretary of the National Secular Society
has to demand the name of ‘ The Atheist Shoemaker,’ which
is suppressed for the reason given in the preface of the
book. The narrative makes no attack whatever, either on
Mr, Bradlaugh or on the National Secular' Society. The
Secretary of that Society says no professional Atheist
lecturer in London has died during the last ten years in the
way de scribedin ‘The Atheist Shoemaker.’ Mr. Price Hughes
never said that ‘ The Atheist Shoemaker ’ was a professional
lecturer of the National Secular Society. He simply said
that he had spoken in advocacy of Atheism in public halls
and in the open air, and that he had spoken with great
eloquence and effect.”
This is no answer at all to Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Forder,
or myself. Mr. Hughes did not state that his “ John
Herbert ” was a lecturer for the National Secular
Society ; but, as a matter of fact, it has a monopoly of
the “ Atheist ” platforms in London, and the Atheist
Shoemaker could not have spoken from them “ with
great eloquence and effect,” yet be absolutely unknown
to the Society’s officials, and even to the rank and file
of its members. Mr. Hughes had been informed that
his convert was unknown ; his story, therefore, could
not be true as it stood ; yet he refused to lift a finger
in the way of correction. He continued to advertise
and sell the volume as though nothing had happened.
Goaded into Action.
My criticism of Mr. Hughes’s story, which I entitled
“ A Lie in Five Chapters,” was extensively circulated.
Freethinkers sent copies of it to Mr. Hughes anl his
friends and colleagues, to the chairmen of his meetings
in the provinces, and to various influential Wesleyan
Methodists. The pamphlet gave him a considerable
amount of trouble. He almits this in the Methodist
Times for January 18,1894 “ Christians of a feeble and
melancholy type ” could not realise the “ absurdity ”
of supposing that the “true story” was “ fiction.”
�( 10 )
“ Moreover, some ministers of religion, local preachers,
and private Christians, deficient in the ever-blessed
sense of humor,” urged Mr. Hughes to publish the
name of the Atheist Shoemaker. One letter “ touched ”
him. It was an appeal from “ the great Anglican
missioner,” the Rev. W. H. Aitken, who said that
“ young fellows who consulted him in the inquiry
room were troubled by fellow-workmen who showed
them Mr. Foote’s pamphlet.” Mr. Hughes was ready
to do anything in reason to “ satisfy the scruples of
the inexperienced, the prejudiced, and the melan
choly ”—of all, in short, who could not take his bare
word in the face of circumstantial contradictions. He
.was “ especially willing ” to give “ every information
in his power to Atheists and Agnostics who treated
their opponents with justice and courtesy”—although
he had refused this information to Mr. Bradlaugh, the
“ courtesy ” of whose appeal he has admitted to a
Morning interviewer (Feb. 10, 1894). Evidently the
time had come to do something. But what? The
proper method was to submit to a Court of Honor.
Mr. Hughes, however, preferred to appeal to one man,
and he cleverly chose a Secularist—Mr. George Jacob
Holyoake, on the pretended ground that he could
investigate “without prejudice and without passion.”
Mr. Holyoake says he applied to Mr. Hughes. Mr.
Hughes says he applied to Mr. Holyoake. It is un
certain, therefore, how the little scheme originated. At
any rate it was carried out with profound secrecy. Mr.
Holyoake was a personal friend of mine as well as a
personal friend of Mr. Hughes. He was also a VicePresident of the National Secular Society, of which I
am President. But he never gave me a hint of what
he was doing. The first intimation I had Of it was a
public announcement in the Daily Chronicle for
January 11,1894, that Mr. Holyoake’s report on the
Atheist Shoemaker case would appear simultaneously
in the next issues of the Methodist Times and the
Freethinker. Subsequently I saw a flaming advertise
ment of this fact in the Methodist Times. I had to
learn from foreign sources what was to appear in my
own paper.
Now I ask any candid reader what is the value of
�(11)
an “investigation” conducted in this manner ?
I
wrote a letter of complaint to Mr. Holyoake, but he
gave me no reply. The whole matter, indeed, compels
me to give my opinion of why Mr. Hughes sought the
aid of Mr. Holyoake.
Mr. Bradlaugh had too much iron in him, and could
not be imposed upon ; he had also a legal mind, and
knew how to take evidence ; besides, he was the leader
of organised Freethought in England, and conversant
with the practical details of its propaganda in London.
It would not do, therefore, to take him into confidence.
Mr. Holyoake, however, was more obliging and suscep
tible to Christian compliments ; he was almost eighty
years of age, and his eyesight was nearly gone, at any
rate for the purposes of investigation, in which so much
depends on the expression on the faces of witnesses ;
besides, he had lived for a long time at Brighton, and
was out of touch with the details of Freethought pro
paganda in London. Mr. Bradlaugh was in a position
to test the truth of Mr. Hughes’s story, Mr. Holyoake
was not, and there is the explanation.
Mr. Holyoake’s Report.
Mr. Holyoake’s report was printed in full in the
Freethinker. Most of it was beside the purpose.
Profuse compliments were paid to Mr. Hughes, who
was described as a gentleman “ entitled to be implicitly
believed on his word ”—a sentence which damns the
whole investigation. Nothing but a sham inquiry was
possible when the investigator started with that
assumption.
The substantial part of Mr. Holyoake’s report is as
follows :—
“ As soon as he knew that I was wishful to investigate the
facts, he placed at my disposal the means of doing so, and
volunteered the real name of Herbert. I have seen an d con
versed separately with ‘ Sister Beatrice ’ and ‘Sister iJthel,’
from whom Mr. Hughes derived many of his statements. I
was shown the private Diary of ‘ Sister Beatrice,’ giving con
temporary documentary evidence of the minute accuracy of
her statement. Their entire veracity seems to me unques
tionable. They had not only sincerity, but that cultivated
sincerity which is without exaggeration. They said Mr.
�( 12 )
Herbert had a vivid faculty of speech and a brightness of
conversation which compelled interest and attention. Of that
they must be good judges, for their own grace and precision
of speech showed that they understood those qualities.
Opportunity was given me of seeing Herbert’s widow, who
has since married again. She appeared an interesting person,
clear, frank, and decisive in her statements. She said she
had been with Mr. Herbert, her former husband, to the Haji
of Science, but had never heard him speak there ; in Victoria
Park she had often heard him. She had been with him there
six hours at a time, he speaking at intervals to groups o
persons all the while. He had sometimes been met on enter
ing the park by persons who would say, if he seemed to wish
to pass them, ‘ Come, give us a few words.’ She had seen
him kicked on the shins by policemen, whose object was to
cause resistance, that they might arrest him; and on one
occasion two gentlemen gave him their names and addresses,
saying if he brought an action against the police they would
give evidence on his behalf. He was very earnest in his
opinions, and had little meetings of persons in his house, to
whom he would produce books and facts in defence of the
opinions he then held. He was very ardent for what he then
thought to be the truth. His wife said he disbelieved in
Christianity because of the cant and, as he said, ‘ the humbug
of those who preached one thing and did another.’ It is
clear to me that Mr. Herbert was for truth and proof, and
was not only ready to offer it when asked, but made occasions
to present it. He was an enthusiast, entitled to the respect
of his former colleagues, since he shortened his life by ?eal
which exceeded his strength.”
Some of these statements arc ridiculous, especially the
one about the Atheist shoemaker’s “ former colleagues,”
who never knew him. But it is needless to expatiate
on this aspect of this report. What I wish to empha
sise is the fact that Mr. Holyoake simply interviewed
the concocters of the Atheist Shoemaker story and
asked them “Is it true?” They said “Yes,” and he
gave it his certificate. He made no attempt to see if
there was another side to the case
Mr. Hughes returned Mr. Holyoake’s compliments,
printed his portrait in the Methodist Times, and called
his report a “ vindication.” Mr. Holyoake had been
put in possession of the real name of the convert, he
had made a “careful” inquiry, and had declared his
belief in the “ substantial truth ” of the Atheist Shoe
maker story. Mr. Hugbes was in raptures. He hoped
�( 13 )
it would be “a lesson” to me. “ We trust,” he said,
“ that Mr. Foote will now, for his own sake, withdraw
his accusation.” Meanwhile the “ vindication ” was
scattered broadcast over the kingdom.
A Rea! Investigation.
Happily I was soon able to make a real investiga
tion. The relatives of “ John Herbert,” who live at
Northampton, put themselves in communication with
me. It may be asked why they never communicated
with Mr. Hughes. The answer is that they tried to.
“ Herbert’s ” father went to one of Mr. Hughes’s
meetings at Northampton a d said he wished to speak
with him on the subject. Mr. Hughes replied that he
was in a hurry. He gave the father his card, and said
“ Call on me.” I have seen that card, and the address
on it is in London. How could a shoemaker pay
“ calls ” like that ? And how much desire had Mr.
Hughes to be well-informed ?
I went down to Northampton and interviewed the
family—the father and two brothers of the Atheist
Shoemaker. They had important documents in their
possession, which they have since left in my custody.
They also gave me a mass of verbal information. The
father is a devout Christian, and has conducted a
Methodist mission at Northampton. He is a man of
simple, honest manners, and strong feelings. Having
just read Mr. Holyoake’s report and my pamphlet, he
deemed it wrong to let the world be longer abused.
“ Herbert’s ” brothers are also Christians, and have
never been otherwise. There was never a Freethinker,
in the family. They are satisfied that the dead son
and brother was never an advocate of Atheism. His
real name was CHARLES ALFRED GIBSON.
The Gibsons in London.
The Gibsons were so indignant at Mr. Hughes’s
conduct that they declared they would do anything I
thought advisable. On my invitation they came up to
tLondon on Sunday, February 4, and appeared on the
^platform at the Hall of Science before a very crowded
assembly. Several reporters were present, and reports
�of the meeting appeared in London papers the next
morning. Half way through my own speech I paused
to let Mr. Gibson senior give his own testimony.
He
said that he was there as a Christian man in the
interest of truth, and he branded the Atheist Shoe
maker story as “ a damnable lie.” Mr. Stephen Henry
Gibson, the “ Atheist brother ” of the story, said
to have been converted by the “ seraphic death ”
of Charles Alfred Gibson, also stood up at my request.
“ Were you ever an Atheist ? ” I asked him, and he
answered “Never.” “Have you ever been anything
but a professed Christian ? ” Again he answered
“Never.” “Have you ever had any communication
with che Rev. Hugh Price PIugh.es or the Sisters of the
West London Mission ? ” And once more he answered
“Never.”
“ Herbert’s ” Identity.
There is no necessity to reproduce the elaborate
proofs I gave in the Freethinker that “ John Herbert”
was really Charles Alfred Gibson. Mr. Holyoake has
admitted that “ Gibson ” was the name disclosed to
him. Mr. Hughes himself also, in reply to the
Morning interviewer (Feb. 10), said, “ Oh, yes, it was
Mr. Gibson’s son undoubtedly who was the subject of
my book.”
“Herbert’s” Career.
Charles Alfred Gibson was born on May 14, 1861.
The date is in the family Bible. He died on March 27,
1889, nearly twenty-eight years of age. His death
took place at Sidmouth—Mr. Hughes’s “ pleasant
home on the Devonshire coast”—and he was buried
there on March 31.
“ Bit by bit,” Mr. Hughes says, “we came to know
his history.” Well, the bits were mostly wrong.
“ Herbert ” is stated to have “ taught himself to read
by a strange device.” The names at the corners of the
streets were “ his reading book.” Then follows a
sample of the Bunyan vein which Mr. Holyoake so
admires in Mr. Hughes.
“ When quite a little lad he would run alongside a gentle
man and say in a casual tone, ‘ Excuse me, sir, but what’s the
�( 15 )
name of that street ?’ Then he would read it and spell it
over and over again for about ten minutes. On the next day
he would return to that street and see if he had learned the
name correctly. Board schools, happily, leave the children
of the poor no room for such pathetic ingenuity now.”
It is a pity to spoil this pretty little story, but there
is not a word of truth in it. It is unadulterated
romance. Charles Alfred Gibson was not a child of
destitution. His father was always able to support his
family as a sober, industrious working-man. His
“ privations,” therefore, are all imaginary. And the
same must be said of his street-corner schooling. He
was at school for five years altogether—when the
Gibsons were in America —at Philadelphia, at Toronto,
and in New Jersey He was also a Sunday-school
scholar at Grace Church, situated at the corner of
Twelfth-street and Race-street, Philadelphia. A faded
portrait of his Sunday-school teacher is still preserved
in Mr. Gibson’s album, and on one of his walls are
hung the three American prints that were presented to
his three boys over there as school prizes.
“As soon as he could read,” says Mr. Hughes,
“ he began to accumulate books.” This also is news to
Mr. Gibson, who describes his dead son as intelligent,
and fond of an argument, but not exactly bookish,
Mr. Gibson stoutly denies that his son could possibly
have uttered many of the things that Mr. Hughes puts
into his mouth. He says they were quite beyond him,
and that “ Tom Paine couldn’t ha^e written them
better.”
Mr. Hughes apparently does not know that Charles
Alfred Gibson served in the Fifth Lancers, in Ireland,
under the assumed name of Cartwright. It was there
that he made the acquaintance of the girl he after
wards married in England.
Another fact that Mr. Hughes seems to be ignorant
of is, that his “ convert ” was in the Salvation Army at
St. Albans. He and Julia both wore the “Army”
uniform. After that he was in the Salvation Army at
Camberwell. Mr. Gibson heard him speak once in the
Camberwell barracks, and was greatly surprised at
some of the things he said.
Julia, the good Christian, who helped to bring her
�( 16 )
husband to Christ—from whom his relatives were not
awa e that he had ever departed—caused an estrange
ment between Mr. Gibson and his son. I had better
be silent about the cause of this division. Suffice it
to say that Mr. Gibson never heard from his son for
two years and a half prior to his death. Even after the
alleged “ conversion ” by Mr. Hughes the son does not
appear to have written a line to his father. Julia did,
but not until her husband was dying in Devonshire.
Mr. Gibson reckons that his son was in London
about eighteen months altogether. During a part of
the time, at any rate, he worked at Ford’s, in the Gray’s
Inn-road. Mr. Gibson never heard of his lecturing,
even from Julia', until he read Mr. Hughes’s book. He
does not believe that his son could ever have *been an
orator, and certainly the space of eighteen months is
too short for his acquiring such distinction in that line
as Mr. Hughes alleges.
Mr. Hughes is good at pathetic stories—true or false.
He tells us that when “ Herbert ” went down to Devon
shire he was “ so ill that it was necessary for his wife
to accompany him.” Yet in a letter from Julia to Mr.
and Mrs. Gibson, written at Sidmouth, she says, “ he
was down here a month before I was sent for.” She
also says that she “ had to leave a good place ” to go,
and adds, “ I was then a cook.” This is very circum
stantial, and it is in absolute contradiction to Mr.
Hughes’s no less circumstantial story. Somebody must
be lying. If the liar is Julia, it shows what her word
is worth. It also shows her power of neat invention.
But if the liar is not Julia, the story shows another
person’s powers of neat invention, and what that
person’s word is worth.
Death of “ Herbert.”
Charles Alfred Gibson died at Sidmouth on March 27,
1889, and was buried in the Sidmouth cemetery on
March 31. Mr. Gibson senior has a letter from the
doctor who attended his son. There was bad disease
of the heart and lungs, and no hope of recovery.
Mr. Hughes devotes several pages to a regular
novelist’s account of “ Herbert’s ” death. The reverend
gentleman was not present at the scene. All the little
�fieath-chamber touches are therefore,imaginary. Julia
must have told him, if anyone did, that the dying
man’s last words were a “ touching tribute ” to Sister
Beatrice, who “ led him to Christ.” Julia stated at
Northampton, however, that his last words were “ Go
to Steve he will look after you”—“ Steve ” being his
brother Stephen Henry, who had also been a soldier.
This is how Mr. Hughes, in his fine, calm, restrained
style, describes the fall of the curtain.
“ He lay for a long time so still that the watchers began to
think they would never hear his voice again. But he was
yet to speak, and to speak a sentence which was destined to
be read in every land in which the English language is
spoken.
“ He was evidently gathering his ebbing strength together
for a great final effort.
“ His hand tightened. He opened his lips; and in startling
contrast with his previous whisper, in clear, ringing, exult
ing tones, he exclaimed :
“ ‘ Tell Sister Beatrice and the Sisters that now when I
have come to the end I fear no evil, for God is with me.’ ”
This is what Mr. Holyoake politely calls “ brilliant
coloring.” But it is not history. I put it to any doctor
whether a man dying of consumption and heart dis
ease, after many months of suffering and slow decay,
could possibly cry out in “ clear, ringing, exulting
tones ” with his very last breath. I have myself seen
cases of death from consumption, and all power of
motion and speech have gone for hours before the final
release. If medical men tell me I am wrong, I will
give in ; but until then I must take leave to regard
“ John Herbert’s ” dying oration as apocryphal.
Was He a Lecturer?
Mr. Hughes represents his convert as a young man
of extraordinary eloquence, and almost a match for
Mr. Bradlaugh. “ I’ve been a ringleader,” he is made
to exclaim to Sister Beatrice. “ I have even cheered
men when they were dying,” he continues, “ and en
couraged them not to give in.” He lectured as an
Atheist on Clerkenwell-green and in Victoria Park.
He was “a well-known London Atheist.” “Why,
everybody knows Herbert ! ” exclaims “a journeyman
�shoemaker in Soho”—where, by the way, this marvel
of eloquence could not have been specially famous.
The journeyman shoemaker is himself but one of Mr.
Hughes’s inventions. His tribute to “ Herbert’s ”
oratory is tremendous. “ When he used to speak in
Victoria Park,” says his Soho eulogist, “ there was such
continuous cheering that you could scarcely hear what
he was saying.”
In a long wrestle between the Devil and “ Herbert ”
after his conversion, the former reminds him of
“ What you used to say in the Hall of Science.” Not
at the Hall of Science, but in the Hall of Science. Of
course it was Mr. Hughes who invented all th®
dialetical points of that “wrestle,” for he never saw
“ Herbert ” after it. Still, words have a definite
meaning, and if Mr. Hughes did not wish to signify
that “ Herbert ” had spoken in the ‘Hall of Science,
what on earth was he driving at ? Nor is this all.
“ It seemed to us of such immense importance,”
Mr. Hughes writes, “ that he should himself go to his
old workshop, and to the Hall of Science, and to
Clerkenwell-green, and to all his former haunts, and
with his own lips tell the story of his conversion.”
Now if this does not mean that he was a speaker on
Atheism in the Hall of Science, the language of Mr.
Hughes is no better than thimble-rigging.
But this does not end the matter. Mr. Hughes
must be attacked in his last entrenchment. I there
fore ask the question, Was his convert ever a lecturer
at all ?
Personally, I never heard the name of Gibson in
connection with Freethought lecturing in London.
Mr. Holyoake said he never heard it, and the same
answer is given by every Freethinker I interrogate.
He could not, therefore, have been “ a well-known
Atheist.” The description is an absurdity. Certainly
he could not have lectured in Victoria Park amidst
thunderous applause. That Soho shoemaker who said
so was a thunderous liar, unless he is, as I conceive, a
mere invention of Mr. Hughes’s.
Charles Alfred Gibson was in London about eighteen
months altogether. He was not a lecturer when he
went there.
His father and brothers never heard of,
�his lecturing after wards—until they read Mr. Hughes’s
book. Not an Atheist in London that I can hear of
has the faintest recollection of this oratorical prodigy.
Mr. Hughes never heard him lecture. The Methodist
Sisters never heard him lecture. Who did then?
Why Julia. The whole fabric of ‘‘Herbert’s” fame
is based upon that one woman’s word.
Mr. Holyoake says he has seen “ Herbert’s ” widow,
who has since “ married again.” That is, Mr. Holyoake
was told so. She has not been seen or heard of by the
Gibsons for two years and a half. Would it not be
well to produce her again for a little cross-examina
tion ?
“ Herbert’s ” widow told Mr. Holyoake that she had
been with her husband in Victoria Park “six hours at
a time, he speaking at intervals to groups of persons
all the while.” Mr. Holyoake may believe it. I do
not. Nor do I believe that “Herbert” or any other
Preethought speaker in Victoria Park was “ kicked on .
the shins by policemen.” As far as I am aware, our
speakers have for a long time been on very good terms
with the police. But be that as it may, I wish to point
out that Mr. Holyoake, as well as Mr. Hughes and the
Sisters, obtained his information from the inevitable
Julia. However many links are put on the chain, they
all hang upon her ; and I venture to say she is not
Strong enough to bear them. We shall see more of her
presently. Meanwhile I have to say that the Gibsons
do not believe her statements on this head. They feel
sure that Charles Alfred Gibson was never a lecturer.
Their opinion is—and, after what they told and showed
me, it is my opinion too—that Julia deceived Mr.
Hughes and the Sisters, and kept up the deception
when introduced to Mr. Holyoake.
There is not the smallest scrap of real evidence that
Charles Alfred Gibson ever lectured at all as an Atheist,
and the negative evidence that he did not is simply
overwhelming. Yet this is the very pivot of Mr.
Hughes’s story. It was nothing to convert an obscure
young man from his atheistical opinions. Such a trivial ‘
incident would not afford substance enough for an
tighteenpenny book. It was necessary to magnify the
convert’s importance, and the thing was done. He was
�( 20 )
represented as noble, intellectual, eloquent and famous.
In other words, his status is the very essence of the
story. It is now demonstrated that he was not, and
could not have been, a notorious Freethinker, and Mr.
Hughes’s story is therefore a lie in its deliberate exag
gerations. To declare that “ Herbert ” was a real per
sonage is no answer to the charge of fraud. It is the
description of him that has to be vindicated, and Mr.
Hughes knows the task is impossible.
Was He an Atheist ?
Three weeks before leaving his father’s house at
Northampton, Charles Alfred Gibson knelt down
and prayed in the passage. He was not an Atheist
then. But did he become an Atheist during the
eighteen months he lived in London ?
In considering this question, it is requisite to bear
in mind the silence of Mr. Hughes as to “ Herbert’s ”
having been in the Salvation Army. If the fact was
known to Mr. Hughes, he acted dishonorably in keeping
it back, and making it appear that “ Herbert ” had never
“ known Christ.” If the fact was not known to Mr.
Hughes, nor even to Sister Beatrice, it must have been
kept back by “ Herbert ” himself, or by his wife ; and,
in that case, the witness of both of them lies under a
very grave suspicion. It would seem that they wished
to let it be thought that “ Herbert ” became a Christian
for the first time through the agency of the West
London Mission. I may be asked, What could be their
motive in this deception ? Well, a very simple one.
They were dependent upon the Mission for the com
forts, if not the necessaries of life.
There is another thing that should be borne in
mind ; namely, the statement of Mr. Hughes as to
“ the privations of his youth ” and his street-corner
schooling. Both are falsehoods, and the first is a cruel
reflection on Mr. Gibson senior, whose indignation at
it is shared by his sons. Now if Mr. Hughes did not
invent these falsehoods, they must have been invented
by “ Herbert ” or his wife; and in either case the
story of his being an Atheist at all is damned—unless
we have independent evidence of its truth. For, if
Mr. Hughes is the liar, how can we believe anything
�( 21 )
he says they told him ; and if they were the liars,
how can we believe what they did tell him ?
Bearing these points in mind, let us proceed with
our inquiry. We are told by Mr. Hughes that
“Herbert” had “old Atheistic comrades,” with whom
he and his wife sometimes took a day’s excursion.
How was it then that he never applied to the National
Secular Society for any assistance in his distress, before
his conversion ? Could none of them tell him of the
Society’s Benevolent Fund, if he was ignorant of its
existence himself ? I have had the books searched,
and his name does not appear in the list of persons
relieved, nor is it in the list of members.
As for the long conversations between “ Herbert ”
and Sister Beatrice, there can be little doubt that they
are literary performances. Sister Beatrice told Mr.
Hughes something, and Mr. Hughes worked it up into
telling dialogues. Still, it may be said, Sister Beatrice
could scarcely be mistaken as to the bare fact of his
Atheism. Well, I am not so sure of that. Her word,
apart from Julia’s, is all we have to go upon ; and we
shall now see how an emotional lady like Sister
Beatrice (or Miss Lily Dewhirst) can be guilty of the
wildest inaccuracy.
“Herbert’s” Converted Atheist Brother.
On the last page of his pious concoction, Mr. Hughes
regrets the loss of “ that eloquent tongue ” of “ Her
bert’s” to the cause of Christ, but believes that his
death (as dressed up by Mr. Hughes) may be “ more
potent even than his life would have been.” Then he
winds up the story with a final falsehood. It is told
in the form of a question—“ Has not his Atheist
brother at Northampton already turned to God under
the influence of his seraphic death ?” Northampton,
of course, was Bradlaugh’s borough ; and the question,
put in this way, would deepen the impression that
“ Herbert ” belonged to an Atheist family.
There is not a word of truth in the “ conversion ” of
that brother. Stephen Henry Gibson, who is the
person referred to, has always been a professed Chris
tian. He has said so himself, and the statement is
�( 22 )
corroborated by his brother Frank, as well as by Mr.
Gibson senior. Consequently there was no “ atheist
brother ” at Northampton to “ turn to God.”
Mr. Hughes, I believe, did not invent this yarn,
although I believe he did invent that Soho shoemaker.
What he did was to publish it as though he knew it for
a fact. He committed the same crime throughout the
story, giving his own authority to mere hearsay, with
out the slightest investigation. He did this as a public
man, in the interest of the West London Mission. It
is impossible, therefore, to exonerate him from respon
sibility. He did not care whether the story was true
or false so long as he could make it useful, and that
is the twin brother of lying. There are very few
persons who lie merely for the exercise of intellectual
ingenuity.
I believe this yarn of the converted Atheist brother
was retailed to Mr. Hughes by Sister Beatrice, and I
will give my reasons.
Stephen Henry Gibson has a letter from Sister
Beatrice, dated May 28, 1889. It is a very sentimental
composition, with ecstatic references to the dead
brother, and a fervid appeal to Stephen to come over
and help the cause of Christ. I asked him how he got
this letter. Was it sent to him through the post ? Did
he answer it ? And had he written to Sister Beatrice
previously ?
He replied that he had never written to Sister
Beatrice at all, and had never had any sort of commu
nication with her. The letter was handed to him by
Julia, who was then living in Northampton.
At the bottom of nearly everything we find Julia.
She was in communication with Sister Beatrice, from
whom, I am told, she sometimes obtained money. It
seems to me highly probable, as it seems to the Gibsons,
that she fooled the Sister with a yarn about Stephen’s
being an Atheist; that the sentimental Sister jumped
at the bait, and wrote that letter to the young man,
sending it through Julia as she did not know his
address ; that Julia informed the Sister that her letter
had brought about Stephen’s conversion; that the
Sister conveyed the glorious intelligence to Mr. Hughes;
and that the reverend gentleman took it without the
�(23)
least inquiry, and worked in this “ crowning mercy ”
as the climax of his narrative.
This is how I believe the story of the converted
“Atheist brother” was developed; and, supposing
Sister Beatrice to be honest, it shows how easily she
may be taken in. She utterly misled Mr. Hughes as
to Stephen Gibson, and she may have utterly misled
him as to Charles Alfred Gibson. At any rate, it is
impossible to take such a lady’s evidence without
cross-examination, and therefore the Atheism of
“ Herbert ” has yet to be established.
Mr. Hughes’s Little Trick.
I say that Sister Beatrice’s evidence on the point of
Charles Alfred Gibson’s Atheism is of no value without
a cross-examination. Now let the reader see what
pains were taken to save her from this ordeal. Her
name is just as imaginary as that of the converted
Atheist. It is now admitted that her real name is
Sister Lily. Had the name she is known by in the
West London Mission been given in the story, she
might have been troubled by inquisitive Methodists.
Mr. Hughes very kindly veiled her identity to guard
her even against her friends. Indeed, his whole
method was one of politic confusion. Feigned names
were substituted for real o^nes at every point where the
story was liable to investigation, and mystery was only
abandoned where there was no danger in openness
and precisiop.
Julia.
The Christian wife of the Atheist shoemaker in Mr.
Hughes’s story is “ a daughter of Erin.” So is Julia,
whom Charles Alfred Gibson married in England,
after forming her acquaintance in Ireland, while he’
was serving in the Fifth Lancers. Judging from the
story (it is an excellent word !) of her husband’s con
version, and the report of her made to me by the
Gibsons, I should say she had extracted the very
quintessential virtue of the Blarney Stone. And
whenever we probe to the bottom of this matter we
come to Julia. It is another case of Cherchez
la femme!
�( 24 )
It is evident that a great deal of Mr. Hughes’s story
must have been furnished by Julia, either directly or
through Sister Beatrice, particularly the account of his
exploits as a propagator of Atheism. We have seen
how she managed that little affair of the “ conversion ”
of Stephen Gibson, and it enables us to estimate the
value of her statements about his dead brother. She
knows the weakness of religionists on the look-out for
converts; and, whatever she may be now, she was
formerly by no means averse from using them to her
own advantage.
When the Gibsons asked how Mr. Hughes came to
tell such falsehoods about her husband, she gave them
the airy reply—“ Oh, they make it up as they like.”
Some of the information I possess was given to me
in confidence. Nevertheless I am free to say that if
Mr. Hughes will divest himself of his “ dignity,” and
condescend to make an investigation, he will learn
whether Julia Gibson was all that his fancy painted
her.
At the same time, I cannot find it in my heart to
blame Julia Gibson overmuch for romancing in order
to obtain assistance for her dying husband. I blame
the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes for working it up into a
“ true story ” without the least investigation.
“ Herbert’s” Old Shopmates.
Mr. Frank Trasler, a member of the National Secular
Society, introduced himself to me and the Gibsons
on Sunday evening, February 4. He had worked in
the same shop with Charles Alfred Gibson, and was
still working there. He remembered the young man
well, and advised us to call on his old shopmates.
On Monday morning, February 5, the Gibsons and
I entered Ford’s establishment. We went down
into the very room where Charles Alfred Gibson made
shoes in 1888. The men laughed when I read to
them what Mr. Hughes says about it in “ The Atheist
Shoemaker.” According to the reverend gentleman’s
account, his convert's health was ruined by working in
“ a sweating den,” and when the Factory Inspector
called, his “ Christian employer ” took the official up
stairs, and treated him to sherry, to keep him from
�( 25 )
“ putting Ills no3e ” in ths basement. “ Rubbish !” the
men said. The Factory Inspector would come when
ever they liked to call him, and as a matter of fact he
made his inspections without the employer. Charles
Alfred Gibson could not have said what Mr. Hughes
had put into his mouth. One of the men had worked
there fifteen years, and still looked sound. “ Herbert ”
was not “ killed by a Christian employer.” The truth
is, the young man inherited heart disease from his
mother, and it killed him as it killed her.
Charles Alfred Gibson’s old shopmates remembered
him well. He had worked with them about twelve
months. Before that he had worked at Lilley and
Skinner’s, Paddington-green, and while there he had
belonged to the Church Army. Within twelve
months, that is, of his conversion by Mr. Hughes 1
“Did you ever know my son to be a lecturer?”
asked Mr. Gibson. One and all answered “ No,” and
declared it an utter absurdity. “ Did you ever know
him to be an Atheist ?” One and all again answered
“No” A shopmate said that he was rather fond of
arguing, in which he shifted about, taking all sorts of
sides, in opposition to the person he argued with. But
he was never to their knowledge an unbeliever ; in
fact, he was always hostile to Atheism in his conversa
tion.
So much for the Atheism of “John Herbert” in the
minds of his old shopmates. I have seen them, and
Mr. Hughes has not. He preferred to spin his history,
spider-like, out of the bowels of his own imagination.
“John Herbert’s” Landlady.
While talking to these shoemakers, I learnt that
Charles Alfred Gibson had lived not far off, in the
Caledonian-road. One of them thought he could
remember the house, and after some tickling of his
recollection he brought out the number, though he was
not quite sure of it. I don’t wish to trouble the land
lady of the house, so I refrain, from disclosing the
number.
Mr. Hughes seems to have do e all he could to baffle
investigation. He represents his convert’s lodgings as
being in Islington. The real place is at the south end
�( 26 )
of the Caledonian-road, between King’s-cross and the
canal. The description of the landlady is equally
faulty. I do not wonder that the reverend gentleman
or the Sisters never sent her a copy of the story of
Charles Alfred Gibson’s conversion, as they promised
to do. The book would have opened her eyes very
considerably.
The landlady confirmed Julia Gibson’s statement
that she did not accompany her husband to Sidmouth,
where he died, but joined him there a month later,
when he was pining for her society. Mr. Hughes is
therefore wrong on a matter where it was so easy to be
right.
Charles Alfred Gibson had no large collection of
books, as Mr. Hughes again and again declares. He
was fond of reading, but his books were generally
borrowed. She spoke, however, in the highest terms
of his transparpnt character, which is a point of agree
ment between her and the Sisters. She also said that
the Sisters were extremely kind, which I can well
believe.
Charles Alfred and Julia Gibson lodged with her for
six months, from July 1888 to January 1889, as she
showed by the rent-book. They had a furnished
front room at the top of the house, which is the second
floor. Here again Mr. Hughes’s account is incorrect.
The room was carpeted, and the narrow stairs the
reverend gentleman “climbed” were like Jacob’s
ladder—imaginary.
The landlady remembered her lodger’s taking the
communion. It was administered by Mr. Hughes,
and this is one of his few accuracies. She joined in
it, though belonging to a different Church ; so it is
nonsense to talk about her narrow school of theology.
She stated that Charles Alfred Gibson was at first
greatly vexed with professed Christianity, because no
one had called on his wife when she was ill. “ But
was my son an Atheist ?” asked Mr. Gibson. “ Oh no,”
she replied, “ not an Atheist.” “ Did he disbelieve in
God ?” “ Oh no, he always believed in God,” she
answered, and added, “ It was the Christianity of the
day he was set against.” In fact she heard him say,
“ I’m not against Jesus Christ.”
�( 27 )
“ Did you ever hear of his lecturing ?” asked Mr.
Gibson. “ No,” she replied, “ he didn’t lecture.” And
she said it with a smile, which showed her sense of
the idea’s absurdity.
A good deal more came out in conversation, but it
will keep. It is enough to say that Charles Alfred
Gibson’s landlady denies his Atheism,^ and never
heard of his being a lecturer.
Mr. Hughes’s Shuffling.
The case against Mr. Hughes is complete and over
whelming. I have followed the track of Charles
Alfred Gibson, and the testimony of all the persons
who knew him—his father, his brothers, his shopmates,
and his landlady—is that he was not a lecturer, and
none of them believe that he was even an Atheist.
Mr. Hughes therefore looks around for some line of
retreat. First of all, he stops the circulation of his
book, which is no longer obtainable for love or money.
Secondly, he seeks to minimise his convert’s import
ance. Having formerly declared that “ Herbert ” was
not a lecturer for the National Secular Society, he now
declares that he did not describe him as a “ lecturer ”
at all. He said this to the Morning interviewer, and
added that I had destroyed a man of straw.
What wretched cavil is this! It is true that Mr.
Hughes did not use the particular word “ lecturer.”
But his Atheist Shoemaker spoke “ amidst continuous
cheering ” in Victoria Park; he had advocated
Atheism “ in public halls and in the open air, with
great eloquence and effect ” ; he was used to addressing
“Atheistic assemblies”; he had experienced “the
exulting glow of the orator who has conquered his
audience.”
The reverend gentleman's convert was not a
“ lecturer.” He was only an “ orator.” Such is the
sum and substance of the denial; and it shows the
shifts this man is reduced to in the effort to save his
blasted reputation.
A Court of Honor.
Partly to set myself right before the public, and
partly to drive Mr. Hughes into the last corner, I
�( 28 )
wrote the following letter, which appeared in the Daily
Chronicle for Friday, February 9 :
MR. G. W. FOOTE AND THE REV. HUGH PRICE
HUGHES.
TO THE EDITOR OE “ THE DAILY CHRONICLE.”
Sir,—As the reputation of public men is of some importance,
if only to the world’s common sense of self-respect, I venture
to make an offer through your columns for the termination
of this dispute between the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes and
myself—a dispute, unfortunately, in which a third public
man, Mr. G. J. Holyoake, has become to a certain extent
involved.
I am willing to let the whole dispute be adjudicated upon
by a Committee of Honor. Two persons might be nominated
by Mr. Hughes and two by myself, with a fifth person agreed
upon by both sides to act as chairman and umpire.
Should the Committee of Honor be constituted, I under
take to prove (1) that the “ John Herbert ” of Mr. Hughes’s
story was Charles Alfred Gibson; (2) that everything is
false which Mr. Hughes states about the young man’s early
training and privations; (3) that there are many similar
inaccuracies and exaggerations in the narrative; (4) that
Charles Alfred Gibson was never a lecturer on Atheism, or
even against Christianity; (5) that he was.never a lecturer
at all; (6) that he was never an Atheist or any kind of
Freethinker; (7) that he had been in the Salvation Army
and the Church Army; (8) that he had no “ Atheist brother ”
at Northampton to be converted to Christianity; and (9)
that the brother referred to, who has ai ways been a professed
Christian, never had any communication whatever with Mr
Hughes or any sister of the West London Mission.
When I say that I will prove these things, I mean that I
will produce documentary evidence and the testimony of
living witnesses, including the members of Charles Alfred
Gibson’s family and all sorts of persons who knew him
intimately while he was working and living in London—the
place which Mr. Hughes represents as the scene of his
exploits as a propagator of Atheism.
Mr. Hughes must be infatuated if he fancies he can find
refuge in the “ dignity of silence,” and if he declines my
present offer I may safely leave him to the judgment of
honest and sensible men and women.
G. W. Foote.
Mr. Hughes did not accept my offer. He preferre
to stand upon his “ dignity.” His reply appeared th
next morning
�( 29 )
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES AND MR. FOOTE.
TO THE EDITOR OP “ THE DAILY CHRONICLE.”
Sil,—For some years past Mr. Foote has been trying to
force me into a personal controversy with him. If he had
simply assumed that I was mistaken, or had been misled, he
might have had what he wished. But his carefully-guarded
letter to you is not a specimen of his usual style. He has
again and again insinuated or asserted that I am a deliberate
and systematic liar. With a disputant who assumes that
attitude neither I nor any other civilised man can discuss.
Even in the brutal prize-ring men are obliged to fight
according to the rules.
The time has come to insist that public men can have no
dealings with, those who violate the elementary laws of
courtesy. Quite recently Mr. Foote has grossly exaggerated
his offence by offering similar insults to a Christian lady,
whose integrity is attacked like my own.
Although it was impossible for me to have any discussion
with Mr. Foote, who, I may add, has never suffered the
slightest discourtesy at my hands during all these years of
insult, I was perfectly willing to invite the utmost criticism
of any public act or utterance of mine. It occurred to mo
that there was a well-known public man of Mr. Foote’s way
of thinking, a man of unblemished reputation and a gentle
man—Mr, G. J. Holyoake. Having a slight acquaintance
With Mr. Holyoake, I asked him to read the story of the
“Atheist Shoemaker,” and Mr. Foote’s attack upon it. I
gave him all the names, and offered no suggestion as to "the
method of inquiry. The matter was left absolutely and un
reservedly in his hands. From that day to this I have not
seen him. He has made what inquiries he liked, in his own
way.. The result has been published to l .ie world. Since his
verdict was given, nothing has seen the light which impugn a
the substantial accuracy of any statements for which the two
sisters and I are personally responsible.
But whatever may be said, no civilised man will expect me
to have any communication with Mr. Foote, or with anyone
who represents him, or with anyone else who approves of his
method of controversy. No one regrets more than I do that
Mr. Foote’s own gratuitous conduct has made it impossible
for me to take notice of him.—I am, etc.,
Hugh Price Hughes.
“ If. I am a liar,” Mr. Hughes seems to say, “ it is
very rude to call me one.” He complains of the
incivility of the constable who arrests him. Anything
is preferable to damnation by a Court of Honor.
The whimpering of this man is positively despicable.
�( 30 )
One moment he hides behind Mr. Holyoake, the next
he skulks behind a woman’s petticoats. What have I
to do with the “ Christian lady ” ? I have to deal
with Mr. Hughes. He is the person to be “attacked.”
He alone came before the public without a mask. He
is the author of “ The Atheist Shoemaker.” I there
fore attack him, and I shall continue to do so. Having
proved his story to be a mass of falsehoods, I leave
him to share the responsibility as he pleases with
whatever persons shared with him in the deception.
His “Dignity.”
The only course open to Mr. Hughes is to stand upon
his “ dignity.” Any other course would be fatal. It
was a clever move on his part to obtain Mr. Holyoake’s
“ vindication.” But it was a false move, and he
has paid the penalty. He simply brought upon him
self an avalanche of evidence. He is wiser now, and
knows that if he moves again he is lost.
But movement is possible on my part, and I proceed
to show what this man’s “ dignity ” is worth. I have
to remark that he has been found out before.
In October, 1889, he was taken to task by Captain
Molesworth, the Chairman of the Royal Aquarium
Company, for publicly stating at St. James’s Hall that
“ a young girl who had recently visited the Aquarium
with her father had placed in her hands a card
asking her to accept the escort of a gentleman on
leaving the place.” Being challenged to produce the
girl, her father, and the card, Mr. Hughes was
compelled to admit that the “incident” which had
occurred “recently” had really occurred “two years
ago,” while the “ young girl ” blossomed into a woman.
Captain Molesworth threatened legal proceedings,
whereupon Mr. Hughes replied, “ I .did not intend to
make any attack upon the Royal Aquarium or any
place in particular ”—and by this disclaimer he
avoided a law suit.
, But a far worse case happened in the very same
year, when Mr. Hughes got into trouble with his own
body, by publishing certain articles in the Methodist
Times against the Wesleyan missionaries in India. A
sub-committee was appointed to examine into the
�( 31 )
charges, and the results of the investigation were
published in a volume in 1890 under the title of the
“Missionary Controversy.”
The Rev. George Patterson, who opened the case on
behalf of the missionaries, said that “the mode of
elucidating the truth adopted by the Methodist Times
consisted chiefly in the deliberate suppression of every
thing on the other side.” The sub-committee, while
giving Mr. Hughes credit for “ sincerity in his
professions of confidence and love,” remarked that
he had to “ deal with a public more logical
than himself.” Their report was dead against
hip, and it was accepted by the General Com
mittee, which passed a resolution, for which every
member voted except one, expressing “ profound
regret that charges so grave and so unsustained ”
had been brought against the missionaries by a
Wesleyan minister.
“ In many of the statements
made,” said the Rev. Mr. Allen, “ he has exaggerated
to an enormous extent, and, if he will allow me to say
so, this is characteristic of the man.”
Here, then, we have the official declaration of the
Wesleyan Methodist body, preserved in a special
volume, that Mr. Hughes published in his journal
what he could not sustain under investigation ; and
this is precisely what he did when he published in
that same journal the story of the Atheist Shoemaker.
Here also we have the openly expressed opinion of a
brother minister that enormous exaggeration is “ cha
racteristic of the man.” Yet when he is charged with
having been guilty of “enormous exaggeration” in the
present case, he stands upon his “ dignity,” even in face
of the most overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Captain Molesworth was able to make the reverend
gentleman climb down, for behind the Chairman of the
Aquarium Company there was the law with all its
terrors. The Wesleyan ; Methodist body was also able
to bring him to trial, because it had the power to
deprive him of his position for contumacy. But no
one can compel him to submit to the adjudication of a
Court of Honor in respect to his story of the Atheist
Shoemaker. All that can be done is to bring him, in
his own despite, before the bar of public opinion.
�FREETHOUGHT
PUBLICATIONS.
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT. By G. W. Foote. Fiftyone selected Essays and Articles. 221pp., cloth. 2s. 6d.
THE GRAND OLD BOOK. A Reply to the Grand Old Man.
By G. W. Foote. An Exhaustive answer to the Right
Hon. W. E, Gladstone s “ Impregnable Rock of Holy
Scripture.” Is. ; bound in doth, Is. 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. 6d.; cloth, Is.
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. 2nd edition,
enlarged, 8d.
Superior edition, cloth. Is. 3d.
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp., Is
COMIC SERMONS & OTHER FANTASIAS. By G. W.
Foote. Price, 8d.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. Cloth,'2s. 6d.
BIBLE HANDBOOK fos FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING.
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Com
plete, paper covers, Is. 4d. Superior paper, cloth, 2s.
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and
J. M. Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous
Notes, 6d. Superior edition, cloth, Is.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.. 2s. 6d.
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of
all Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Bound, 7s. 6d.
BIBLE STUDIES. By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, 2s. 6d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Ingersoll. Is.; cloth, Is. 6d.
FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins.
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations
by G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by
J. M. Wheeler. Is. Superior edition, cloth, 2s.
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach. Is.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED.
By Jeremy Bentham. A trenchant analysis, in Bentham’s
best manner, showing how the Catechism is calculated
to make children hypocrites or fools, if not worse.
With a Biographical Preface by J. M. Wheeler. Is.
SATIRES & PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
Cloth Is.
B. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
Printed by G W. Foots, 14 Clerkenwell-green, 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
The atheist shoemaker and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes : or, a study in lying, with a full and complete exposure
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: "The atheist shoemaker" is the title of a story by H.P. Hughes, published in the Methodist Times, August 1889. "This pamphlet it written gratuitously by Mr. Foote, and the expense of printing one hundred thousand copies, for free distribution...". [Inside front cover]. Publisher's advertisements on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1894]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N224
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 atheist shoemaker and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes : or, a study in lying, with a full and complete exposure), 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
Conversion
Hugh Price Hughes
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6159c0289d5cfec1aaa42ee72e04f892.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ue1kI-dxE3uuwsqvwMtipusoF2hxKyWDbfAf1QHdpk7rMPn0Z0dwQfSG6-hJP6V2%7EXVuSdc5ZLRxaV70cxPaD41SZVamljXcX4nlUcN-RLZ0a09XFhFSz6YmTpuAN0QHZRZiRGKBPX6eRMLdYJytHywv3WZFjn1zBCOrK8FR1sXKkjE3L1QoqHxVMjgbQv-iUWzDgwMknugvZYGu%7Ef2L7eTHIk2anheyuyKUneNvTdPQf7HxMSEJfZia2YHCwEsJ6jiml7IpdYifj8r%7El3y9itd5SUlmQ9apw713TNvCtfpNiXZt4-L3zJn-fx1e%7EOEUQ4QTwK-VasvGdDVwLN%7EvSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9bf4d3a448962ee8e698fe8de44078f3
PDF Text
Text
THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST:
A FARCE IN SEVERAL ACTS.
“Did it ever occur to you to read the Acts of the Apostles?”—Bishop
of Peterborough.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
The Bishop of Peterborough, preaching on March 3Qth, 1871, in the
Cathedral of Norwich to a very large congregation on “ Christianity and
Faith,” incidentally and with delightful simplicity asked his audience,
“ Did it ever occur to you to read the Acts of the Apostles ?” as one might
ask, “ Did you ever happen to look into the Koran ?” The Bishop evi
dently thinks that it is only by a rare chance that any lay Christians ever
open the Bible, in every word and letter of which they nevertheless most
fervently believe. I am not a Christian, either lay or clerical, and this
may account for the fact that it has occurred to me to read the Acts of the
Apostles; and I now lay before the Right Rev. Bishop, and the public
generally, the result of my reading. If the impression produced on my
mind by these remarkable stories is not what an orthodox Christian would
expect, this may be because I opened the book unprejudiced by religious
notions, and with the same desire for information as I should have in com
mencing to peruse any ordinary biographical or other narrative.
Who wrote the book called the Acts of the Apostles? It is unlikely
that it was the production of any of the four Evangelists, as in style it is
different from them all. It is in the shape of a letter addressed to one Theo
philus, but it seems doubtful whether this was the proper name of a real
personage, or was used only in the general sense of a “ lover or friend of
God,” according to the original meaning of the word. The first verse says
—-■“ The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus
began both to do and teach.” The present treatise is but a clumsy and
ungrammatical one, and is a feeble copy, in many places, of the records of
the doings of Jesus. There is no originality about it. Its author, who
ever he was, had evidently read some of the manuscripts, or more likely
was acquainted with the traditions, which afterwards became incorporated
in the collection called the New Testament. He appears to have been
tolerably familiar with one or other of the synoptical Gospels; or, at any
rate, with the materials used in them. He makes Peter and Paul accom
plish some feats very like those of Jesus; hence one is lead to believe that
there were two or three favourite tricks common to all the thaumaturgi, or
miracle-workers of those days; just as we see certain tricks performed alike
by all the conjurors who appear before the public in these times—such as
Frikell, Robin, Houdin, and Anderson.
These Acts of the Apostles are represented as commencing in the year
A.D. 33, that in which Christ was crucified; but when the book was really
written cannot be determined by the most erudite scholars—it may have
been one or two centuries after the occurrences narrated are said to have
happened. If we were judging of an ordinary book produced under such
�'2
The Apostles of Chriit.
circumstances, an allowance would naturally be made for any discrepancies
in the record; but when we have to deal with “ inspired penmen ” and
“ God’s holy word,” the case is very different. We are at once removed
from the sphere of human things, and called upon to receive all that is set
down without questioning, as infallible truth, the penalty of doubting
which is the destruction of our immortal souls. If the writer of the Acts
was inspired from heaven, it is to be regretted that he was not inspired to
write the truth. He commences with a blunder, if judged by the Four
Gospels which his book immediately succeeds. He says:—“The former
treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and
teach, until the day in which he was taken up.” And after mentioning
things which Christ said, he continues— “ And while the apostles looked
■tedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in
white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing
up into heaven? this same Jesus, Which is taken up from yoH into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Now,
nothing of the kind ever happened, and nothing of the kind was ever said;
it is a pure fabrication. And if a book, which purports to be a true his
tory, divinely inspired, of the doings of certain men who were the inheri
tors of the supernatural powers of the Saviour of the world, actually com
mences with a palpable untruth, how shall we be able to trust those state
ments which do not admit of corroboration by, or comparison with, other
parts of the Bible? Not that this kind of verification is of much value,
as the Bible itself can never be taken as the proof of its Own statements;
we must look elsewhere for independent testimony, and where is it to be
found? How can we obtain proof of the supernatural?
There were eleven apostles at the beginning of this book, who all “abode
in an upper room,” which, though a sign of high life, bespeaks great
poverty of means. Their names were: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip,
Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes,
and Judas, the brother of James; to whom was afterwards added (by lot
or by ballot, the text as usual being exceedingly vague) one Matthias, to
fill the place of Judas the betrayer, the man to whom the world owes its
salvation, as without his so-called treachery, there would have been no
crucifixion and no atonement. The first actor who enters upon the stage is
Peter, who is by no means “well-graced,” as he is not remarkable for his
veracity. It will be remembered that he once declared to Jesus that though
he should die with him, he would not deny him; yet immediately after,
when asked if he had not been with Jesus, who had just been arrested, he
cursed and swore that he knew not the man. In his first statement here,
speaking of Judas, he says: “Now this man purchased a field with the
reward of iniquity; and, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the
dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is calledintheir proper
tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.” This is not
true. Judas was not so loose a man as to crack his sides, for he went
and tied himself up with a rope, and hanged himself. One of the two
accounts must be incorrect, and from what we read of Peter, we feel pretty
sure that his should not be preferred. Judas could not well have died
both ways; if he did, it is difficult to decide which he could take first.
Neither did Judas purchase the field “ with the reward of iniquity,” but a
field was purchased with it by the high priests, for a cemetery in which to
bury strangers.
Chapter ii. opens with a strange story in language as strange. The
�The Apostles of Christ.
3
eleven apostles were all together in one place, but whether in Jerusalem is
uncertain. It is supposed to have been somewhere in the East; so that
if there happens to be any sceptic who wants definite information, it is to
be hoped be will be quite satisfied. “ And suddenly there came a sound
trom heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where
they were sitting.” Seeing that the winds generally come from heaven,
and sometimes make a rushing sound, there is nothing novel so far. But
as it is an ill wind that blows no one any good, the apostles soon found
that this breeze bore some good to them. “ And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance.’* What was it that sat upon the
apostles ? The cloven tongues or the fire ? It is impossible to determine
by the construction of the sentence. However, the apostles began to talk
in all sorts of strange languages, which very much puzzled the devout
Jews from every nation under heaven. But their discourses failed to have
any very striking effect, and certainly the gift of the Holy Ghost did not
count much in their favour, for after listening to them, some of their
auditors said, “ These men are full of new wine!” Peter rebutted this
accusation in a singular manner. He said, “ For these are not drunken,
as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” He did not
venture to say that these holy men of God, who were specially commis
sioned to preach the glad tidings of great joy to all the world, never got
intoxicated, but that it was absurd to suppose they were drunk so early
in the day! After this Peter makes a speech, very obscure and very
incoherent, about “ wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth
beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of strike.” And in the midst of
this vapouring, he said to his listeners, “ Repent, and be baptised every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But what benefit is there in
receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, if its manifestation is to make us
appear to be “ full of new wine ?” Surely this is no recommendation, or
advantage. But who or what is the Holy Ghost ? and how do persons
feel when possessed of or by that mysterious power, or person, or influence ?
Are they better in health, happier, or more moral ? Are they able to
themselves discover their new state, or do they require to be assured of it
by others? It is necessary to know what advantage this gift is to any
one before we can be attracted by Peter’s promise.
In this same address to the men of Israel,Peter speaks of his former friend,
Jesus of Nazareth, as a man “ being delivered by the determinate counsel
and fore-knowledge of God,” and in the same breath charges his hearers
with having “by wicked hands crucified and slain him.” But where is
the wickedness if it was (all done by the determinate counsel and fore
knowledge of God ? The wickedness, if possible, would have consisted in
refusing to carry out the determinate counsel and foreknowledge, thus
rebelling against the good God and baulking his whole scheme of redemption.
After Peter’s speech, about three thousand souls were added to his fol
lowers that same day. "With the slight drawback that “ fear came upon
every soul,” or, in other words, that every soul became superstitious, one
grand result was achieved for the time, which, if it was designed by
God, and ordained to be preached by his chosen messenger to the people,
should have endured and become the established order of society throughout
the Christian world. It is said, “ And all that believed were together,
and bad all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and
�4
The Apostles of Christ,
parted them to all men, as every man bad need.
And they, continuing
daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to
house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” If no
other result than this had followed the preaching of the apostles, mankind
would have had reason to bless their names. But who are farther away
from this perfect mode of life than Christians themselves ? Who have
been more virulent opponents of everything in the shape of Communism,
than the successors of the apostles ? Who was it that preached a doc
trine akin to this, and who laboured through a long and useful and
honourable life to realise it in practice, but the late Robert Owen ? And
who were more abused, traduced, and persecuted than he and his fol
lowers, by the very men who profess to regard this book of Acts as a Divine
revelation, sent as a guide to the world! What are the atoning blood of
the Lamb for the sins of Adam; the hope of a resurrection from the calm
sleep of death, to a life beyond the grave amid the blood, and thunder, and
“ all the menagerie of the book of Revelationcompared with the life of
bliss here., free from poverty and the crimes that inevitably follow in its
track, the life of true fraternity and equality, which we are told these
earliest Christians enjoyed; where competition and avarice, luxury and
beggary, arrogance and envy, were unknown ;
“ Where the many ceased their slavery to the few?”
But where do we now find more cheating, lying, knavery, greed, misery,
and starvation, than in this Christian land, where the hired priesthood, the
paid exponents of this Bible, which is thrust upon us by the State, set the
example of selfish clutching and hoarding of wealth 1 ('ur bishops receive
princely incomes, whilst the peasants around their palaces drag out a
wretched existence, which is not so much a life as a death-in-life.
Peter of course could work miracles like his late master, but they lack
originality, and are indeed so like others previously performed that we
cannot help suspecting that they are the same old wonders in a new dress.
One day as Peter and-John were going to the temple, they saw a man who
had been lame from his birth. Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, took
him by the hand and lifted him up, and the man was enabled to walk. The
people were astonished, but Peter told them not to wonder, as it was the
name of the Prince of life through faith in his name which had made this
man strong ; an explanation which must satisfy the most critical reader.
But this “ name through faith in his name” did not prevent both Peter
and John being seized for performing the miracle, and they were locked up
till next day.
Peter was a desperate man, as well as a miracle-worker. His anger
was sufficient to frighten some persons to death, as poor Ananias and
Sapphira proved. When the Christian converts were wont to sell all their
lands and possessions, and give the proceeds for distribution among the
brethren, one Ananias, like many modern believers, wished to be thought
generous at a small outlay; so instead of giving up all his wealth, he gave
only a portion, probably thinking that if the promised millennium should
not speedily arrive, it would be as well to have something to fall back
upon. At least we are told that he did keep back part, but how it became
known is not stated. Nobody appears to have informed Peter, yet he
knew all about it, for he at once said to Ananias, “ Why hast thou con
ceived this thing in thine heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto
God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the
ghost.” “ And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him
�The Apostles of Christ.
6
out and bnried him.'* Now this was a terrible rebuke, but we may attri
bute the mortal terror of Ananias to the weakness of his nerves. The
case however was very different with his wife Sapphira, who, ignorant of
the fate of her husband, on entering the place about three hours later,
was suddenly and fiercely assailed by the Apostle. He said— “ Tell me
whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt
the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy
husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down
straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men
came in, and found her dead, and carrying her forth, buried her by her
husband.”
While not for a moment wishing to palliate deception in any shape, one
cannot help remarking the severity of the punishment for the reticence of
Ananias and the falsehood of Sapphira. All deceivers are not equally
punished in the Bible. Take the lives of some of its favourite characters
to witness—Abraham deceived Pharaoh, saying that Sarah his wife was
only his sister, and God plagued not the deceiver, but the dupe. Abraham
deceived Abimelech, saying that Sarah his wife was only his sister, and
God threatened not the deceiver, but the deceived. Jacob cheated his
father and lied unto him, and thus obtained the blessing which waB meant
for his elder brother, and God ratified the blessing, and was always pleased
to call himself and to be called the God of Jacob. Even Sarah who lied
to the face of God was not punished; and Peter, who thus condemned
Ananias and Sapphira, had lied three times, denying that he knew his own
dear Lord and master ; yet that same Lord and master afterwards trusted
him to feed his lambs and his sheep. It is true that the crime involved in
the deception of Ananias and Sapphira was of the most deadly nature—
they did not give enough money to the church; and this crime is punished
with pains and penalties even now I A few years ago a widow’s two sons
were shot down at Kathcormack in Ireland for refusing to pay tithes. Can
it be wondered at, that such deeds should make some doubt of the
humanising tendency of the glad tidings of the blessed Gospel ?
These things becoming noised abroad, the authorities put Peter and
John in the common prison. “ But the angel of the Lord by night opened
the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak
in the temple to the people all the words of this lifeand they did so.
This was an act of rebellion on the part of these escaped prisoners, which
ought to have met with the severest condemnation, but it did not; on the
contrary, it was approved of. Are we not told that the powers that be are
ordained of God ? yet here is the Lord himself breaking the peace, opening
prison doors, defying the authority of the very rulers he had ordained. But
one soon learns not to be astonished at anything in the Bible. The
priests were much incensed, and took counsel together to slay the apostles.
But one Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, exhorted them to let the delinquents
go vnvtouGlted. This they agreed to, but in the drollest way imaginable.
Listen to the passage. “ And to him they agreed: and when they had
called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should
not speak in the name of J esus, and let them go.” This striking proof of
their acquiescence was feelingly acknowledged by Peter and his friend,
and they went away rejoicing. This mode of treating Peter and John
may be likened unto a judge who should say, “ Prisoners at the bar, you
are acquitted, therefore I sentence you to twelvemonths’ hard labour?”
One Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost, was appointed by
�6
The Apostles of Christ.
the twelve apostles a deacon, but his career was short and painful. He
was able to do ‘‘great wonders and miracles among the people,” and
being clever at disputation, he naturally raised up enemies to his preach
ing. The same thing happens in these days. There is no Freethought
advocate now who defeats his opponents in fair argument, but is denied by
large numbers of Christians the possession of honour and honesty, and not
a few clamour to have him silenced by means more material than reason
and rhetoric. Stephen is accused of blasphemy, for he spoke against the
fashionable religion of his time, and the admirers of Stephen in these days
raise the same cry against all who disbelieve what he taught.
Stephen
delivered a long defence, and ended by calling his accusers uncircumcised
murderers. “ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart,
and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But be, being full of the Holy
Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and
Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” If Stephen did see so far, he
must have been blessed with wonderful powers of vision. When he an
nounced what he saw, his hearers could restrain themselves no longer, but
at once fell upon him, and stoned him to death. His assailants, probably
to be more free in their actions, “ laid down their clothes at a young man’s
feet, whose name was Saul,” and he was a consenting party to the brutal
and fanatical murder. This man was afterwards known as the apostle
Paul, who to some extent realised the saying, “ The greater the rascal,
the greater the saint,” and his first appearance on the Christian stage, it
must be admitted, was in a most unpromising character.
Peter went to Joppa, and there raised up from the dead Tabitha, who
was called Dorcas for her good deeds.
She appears to have been really
dead, but on Peter taking her by the hand and calling her, she rose
up. Jesus, when he raised Jairus’ daughter, declared that she was not
dead, but only slept; so that Peter’s feat far excelled that of his master.
This proves that a man need not have a miraculous birth to be able to
raise people from the dead, and throws a doubt upon the value of divinity.
Peter, a saint with as few virtues and as many vices as any mortal was
ever blessed with, was altogether an extraordinary man; very valiant and
yet a coward; an ardent disciple yet a renegade. He cut off a soldier’s
ear when they arrested Jesus, yet was afraid of being himself arrested;
by his frown and rebuke he frightened poor Ananias and Sapphira to death;
and his shadow only, as it alighted on the sick, straightway healed them.
Cornelius the centurion, who had been fasting four days, had a vision,
as most hungry men will have, for an empty stomach maketh a light head;
and in this vision an angel of God appeared to him, and told him to send
for Peter to Caesarea. This he did, and his three messengers reached
Peter’s house about the sixth hour on the following day, just as Peter had
gone on to the house top to pray. Zfe there became so hungry that he
fell into a trance (or fainted), and like St. John he saw heaven opened,
when a most curious sight presented itself. He saw “ a certain vessel
descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and letdown to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts
of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him saying, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Now
Peter was a dainty man, and this dish was not dainty enough to tempt
him, hungry as he was. He said, “Not so, lord; for I have never eaten
anything that is common or unclean.” So the vessel was drawn up into
heaven again, with all its strange inhabitants. It was a cruel thing to do,
*9 mock a poor, weak, hungry man so. He had just fainted fromexhaua-
�The Apostles of Christ.
7
tion, and he was invited to kill and eat a tiger, it might be, or a grisly
bear; bat he could not bear the idea, so he refused. On being aroused
from his trance, and told by the Spirit to go down and receive the three
messengers from Cornelius, he did so, and went with them to the house of
the centurion, though Cornelius was not a Jew. Peter interpreted the
vision to be an intimation that he was to preach the Gospel to the Gen
tiles, who were typified by the unclean beasts in the vessel—a doubtful
compliment, truly, to all not of the Jewish race; that is to say, to all
mankind except a most insignificant minority.
About this time Herod began to persecute the faithful, and he killed
James with the sword, and had Peter arrested. But whilst Peter was
lying in prison between two soldiers, bound with two chains, the angel of
the Lord came and released him as easily as the spirits release the Daven
port brothers. Peter thought he must still be in a dream, although he
had already been delivered from gaol in much the same manner ; but on
finding himself in the street alone, he no longer doubted the reality of his
release. He made good his escape to another place, much to the annoy
ance of Herod, who was shortly afterwards eaten of worms, and gave up
the ghost. Thenceforward we hear but once more of Peter in the Acts of
the Apostles. He perhaps was soon promoted to that situation, which he
has held so long, of gate-keeper in heaven.
Philip goes down to Samaria to preach, and he too works miracles,
which attract the attention of the people. “ For unclean spirits, crying
with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and
many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.” Philip is
not original, for Christ did the same thing, and sent his evil spirits into
the swine, much to the dismay of the poor pigs. One Simon a sorcerer
fell before th6 prowess of Philip, and was afterwards baptised and believed
in Jesus Christ, and beheld with astonishment the miracles and signs
which were done, they far outstripping any witchery he had been capable
of in his humble way.
An angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, and told him to go to Gaza,
and he went. He there met with an Ethiopian, a man in high authority
under Queen Candace. The Ethiopian was sitting in bis chariot, and
reading Esaias the prophet. Philip’s companion, the spirit, told him to go
near and join himself to the chariot. He then ran after it, and asked the
Ethiopian whether he understood what he was reading. He answered, how
can I, unless some man should guide me ? And he desired Philip to come
up and sit with him. The passage he was reading was this—“He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
so opened be not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken
away; and who shall declare bis generation ? for his life is taken from the
earth.” Something like this is to be found in Isaiah liii., 7 and 8, and
is said to have been written 1746 years before; and though more than
1800 years bare elapsed since, we are still in Ethiopian darkness as to its
meaning. Philip evidently did not know, for he began topreach Jesus to him.
Neither did the spirit seem to know, for he said nothing. But the preach
ing had wonderful effect. As they went on their way, they came to some
water, when the Ethiopian said, “ See, here is. water ; what doth hinder
me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God.” Here is an instance of conversion almost with tebw
graphic speed. This man, who had never before heard of Jesus, and the
mysteries of the incarnation, the crucifixion, and resurrection, at once de
�8
The Apostles of Christ.
dares his belief, and is baptised. No other question is asked than “ Do
you believe ?” and straightway he is received among the elect. He is not
told to take time to ponder over these things, and to show by his conduct
that he is sincere in his new belief; he is received at once, without any
more hesitation than is shown in regard to any criminal who is about to be
sent on the unknown journey from Newgate, and who, no matter what
his life has been, and the crime that has caused its forfeiture, if he only
call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, is assured of a blissful resurrection
to eternal life. This is indeed cheap salvation—so cheap that it is not
•worth having. After they came out of the water, Philip’s companion,
the spirit, flew away with him, and the Ethiopian saw him no more, but
went on his way rejoicing; whether at Philip's disappearance, or at the
pleasurable sensations of the bath he had just taken, is not specified.
Though the spirit flew away with Philip, it did not take him up to heaven.
He “ was found at Azotus, and passing through he preached in all the
cities till he came to Caesarea.” Here we lose sight of him altogether, so
far as this book of the Acts of the Apostles is concerned.
We now come to Saul, alias Paul, the tentmaker ofTarsus, who, though
brought up to a trade, is supposed by some writers to have been a man of
education and social position. He commenced by being an unrelenting
persecutor of the new sect, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against
the disciples of the Lord, and ended by being a devout believer. His
conversion, like most of the events related in this book, was miraculous.
While on his way to Damascus, seeking victims to persecute, he was sud
denly surrounded by a light from heaven, which was not very extraordi
nary, as it happened to be in the daytime. ** He fell to the earth, and
heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And
he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest.” Let us analyse the incidents of this event. Saul was a
wicked man, and yet he no sooner heard a voice, than he knew it to be
the voice of the Lord; from which we may infer that he was on very
familiar terms with him. And then, he not only knew the Lord, but
asked the Lord who he was; and the Lord answered that he was somebody
else. It can only be likened to a conversation between two friends on
their suddenly meeting, to this effect—“ John, who are you?” And John
answers, “ I am Joseph.” Saul trembled very much and was astonished.
He asked what he was to do; and he was requested to go into the city and
there he would be told. This conversation bad been carried on while Saul
was on the ground with his face downwards, which was a most undignified
way of talking to any one; but it was a habit indulged in by one Daniel nearly
600 years before. He was then led into Damascus totally blind, where he
remained three days without food or sight. It is difficult to understand
why a man should be made blind to enable him to see the truth of the
divinity of Christ, and why he should be starved tor three days to enable
him to digest the mysteries of the incamatioo. After Paul had taken
something really substantial, he was strengthened, and became a great
preacher. The Jews were not pleased with this apostacy, so they lay in
wait to kill him as he passed out of the gates. The disciples hearing of
this, took Paul by night and let him down by the wall in a basket, and so
he made bis escape to Jerusalem. Why there was not a miraculous deliver
ance here is inexplicable. The spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,
wbo was a much less important man than Paul; and Peter, who was any
thing but an amiable creature, was twice delivered from prison by an angel.
Sehamyl, the late hero of Circassia, who was called a prophet by his people,
�The Apostles of Christ.
9
on one occasion made his escape from a fortress in precisely the same
way as Paul from Damascus, and showed his sense in trusting to the good
offices of the basket, instead of praying for deliverance, for mere prayer
would have been sure to leave him in the hands of the Russians.
Paul in the company of Barnabas, works miracles, and the first recorded
of him is exactly the same as one wrought by Peter. He saw a man who
had been lame from his birth; gazed stedfastly at him, and the man rose
and leaped and walked. After this Paul was stoned and dragged out of
the city, and left for dead; but he naturally rose up, and went again into
the city, and left the next day as sound as ever. Soon a quarrel broke out
between Paul and Barnabas, which was so sharp that they had to separate.
Then Paul and Silas went together, and one day they were met by a young
damsel, who was a sorceress, and who earned much money for her
employers. She seems to have jeered at Paul, and vexed his Christian
temper; so he turned and said to the spirit—“ I command thee in the name
of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” Of
course the damsel lost her bewitching power, and her employers lost the
income derived through her, which made them so angry that they procured
the arrest of Paul and Silas, who, after being stripped and scourged, were
cast into prison and their feet put into the stocks. “ And at midnight Paul
and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the
prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every
one’s bands were loosed.” Now all this noise and manifestation of heavenly
power was for nothing, for not a prisoner escaped. It is true that the
keeper was alarmed when he saw that the doors were opened, though it
was dark. He called for a light, and sprang into the inner prison, and came
trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas. He then brought them
out, and said—‘ ‘ Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?” The two prisoners
were not at all surprised at the abruptness of the question, but told him
“ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house.” Then followed another conversion swift as lightning. “And
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes: and
was baptised, he and all his, straightway.” What can be the good of
baptism under such circumstances ? or of what value is a profession of
faith wrung from a man in fear and trembling ? Nearly all the instances
of conversion given in the Bible, are brought about after the persons have
had their judgments humiliated, and their nerves shocked. A faith that
wins its way by such means is not a manly or reasonable faith; is unworthy
the acceptance of the vigorous intellect and the self-reliant judgment.
Paul preached on Mar’s Hill at Athens, and said to the Athenians—
“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too supersti
tious. For as 1 passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar
with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” Now, in what respect does
Paul’s Deity differ from that of the Athenians ? Is God known more now
than he was in days of old ? Is he not still the unknown God ? Has
any man penetrated the secret? Can any man give an intelligent,
a coherent description of the being he pretends to worship ? The Chris
tian superstition differs from the heathen, but it is a superstition. As
mankind advance in knowledge, and still farther penetrate the mysteries
of nature, and learn the laws around them, their ideas become expanded,
and occurrences which, in their ignorance, they attributed to supernatural
agency, and to the workings of good and evil spirits, they now find pro
�10
The Apostles of Christ.
ceed from purely natural causes. In the dark ages of ignorance and
superstition, God or the Devil was ever present at a man’s side; but now,
with increased mental light, both God and Devil are fading farther and
farther away, and they will ultimately vanish from the human mind, and
man will be left face to face with the nature which he knows, which
ministers to his every want, and at last like a loving mother folds him to,
her gentle bosom as he falls into his everlasting sleep.
Paul went to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, “he said unto them,
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto
him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”
This surprised him much, so he rebaptised them all, and laid his hands
upon them, and' the Holy Ghost descended at once, and they spake
with tongues, and prophesied. We are to suppose that these disciples
understood what the Holy Ghost meant after that; and if so, it is a pity
they did not leave some information behind them, which would have en
lightened all succeeding generations. The mystery of the Holy Ghost
is still as profound as ever. W hat it is no mortal can tell, whether a
spirit or an influence, or both. After this act of animal magnetism per
formed on twelve disciples, Paul “ went into the synagogue, and spake
boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things
concerning the kingdom of God.” This may with confidence be pronounced
the longest speech on record. What a valuable party man Paul would
have made in our House of Commons. He would have been without a
rival as a “ talker against time ” when some obnoxious measure had to be
got rid of. If later on a discourse of Paul’s, of only a few hours’ duration,
brought one person to an untimely end, what must have been the fate of
the listeners in this synagogue ? Probably not a man was left alive at
the conclusion of the sermon 1
Any one attempting to infringe Paul’s patent for working miracles
speedily came to grief. “ Certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took
upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord
Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there
were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know;
but who are ye ? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on
them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled
out of that house naked and wounded.” What the evil spirit said must
be taken as a great compliment to the exorcists, for while be declared his
perfect knowledge of Jesus and Paul, he was totally ignorant of the vaga
bond Jews. If we are to judge of a man by the company he keeps, what
are we to think after this declaration ? And the intimacy between the
Devil and the Christians has been maintained from that day to this.
They first introduced him into the world, he still remains the special pet
and property of the followers of the carpenter of Nazareth, and they alone
are entitled to any credit accruing from the acquaintanceship.
When Paul reached Troas he preached to his disciples an uncomfortably
long sermon, lasting to midnight,
One young man, named Eutychus,
could not for the life of him keep his eyes open any longer ; so like many
a modern churchgoer, he fell asleep. But the unlucky wight forgot that
he was sitting in a window, so “as Paul was long preaching, he sunk
down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up
dead.” But as the preacher had caused the mischief, so he repaired it. “ He
fell upon the young man, and restored him to life again,” which was a
very clever feat indeed, seeing that he was not dead at all.
�The Apostles of Christ.
11
Paul went to Jerusalem, and preached there more boldly than ever, and
all the city was moved, and the people ran together and sought to kill
him ; but the chief captain with soldiers and centurions saved him from
the tumult, and took him in chains to the castle. Panl, when before the
Council, got struck in the mouth for saying what was unpleasant to the
high priest, but when he learnt that the Council itself was composed
of men of different religious beliefs, he threw a burning brand into their
midst, which set them almost tearing one another, like our good church
men at their meetings. The Pharisees strove with the Sadducees, and
there arose snch a fierce dissension that the chief captain feared that Paul
would be pulled to pieces among them, and sent soldiers to take him away
by force and lodge him in the castle again. And the night following
the Lord stood by him, and said, “ Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou
hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Borne.”
In all previous instances of heavenly interference, it has been accom
plished by the agency of the spirit of the Lord, or an angel of the Lord ;
but here Paul is comforted by the Lord himself. If the Lord, the very
God of very God, were only to come down in these days, and prompt and
empower some specially chosen servants to do certain much-needed work,
what mighty things might be accomplished!
Enthusiasts do assert
occasionally that they are chosen vessels, but they can never convince
the Commissioners in Lunacy of the truth of their assertions.. Is there
not as much need now as there ever was for miraculous interferences, if
such can take place ? We are daily performing miracles of science^ but
they have their limits as well as their difficulties. The world would
receive with gratitude the power of raising from the dead some of the
great and good men who are prematurely stricken down.
We are
constantly losing men and women of great intellect and virtue, the
prolongation of whose lives would be of service to humanity; but there
is no one gifted with the power to restore them, to animation, and the
scene of their uncompleted labours.
Paul was a brave and candid man, very earnest in all things he took
in hand, from the slaughter of the Christians up to the defence of the n.
When brought before Felix, the only charge against him was that of
preaching the resurrection of the dead; and he said, “But this I confess
unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God
of my fathers.” Paul commenced as a persecutor, and ended in being
persecuted.
He attacked the heretics, and afterwards gloried in being
one. It was in the days of Paul, as it is in these days, an offence to
differ from the established religion. But though heresy may be shunned,
and the heretic be persecuted, and lose his social position, and suffer all
the annoyance of having to live on the shady side of society ; still all this
does not prove that the Established Religion is right, that it is the only
true guide to salvation. The only way to salvation and the highest hap
piness is the path of progress, which leads to truth and right, and these are
not bound up with any particular creed or dogma, but are attainable by
every member of the human family, if he but diligently prosecute the
inquiry.
Paul was handed over by Felix to Festus, his successor, who was sur
prised to find that his accusers had nothing against him of the nature of
sedition: “ But had certain questions against him of their own supersti
tion., and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.”
And here we find ourselves disputing about the same thing eighteen hun
dred years after. It is true that there are now more persons who believe,
�12
The Apostles of Christ.
ot fancy they believe, in the dogma, but this is no proof of its truth; it
is at most belief, and nothing more. But why is there more dispute
about the existence of Jesus, than about that of Socrates, or Plato, or
Julius Cffisar, all of whom lived before him? Simply from the fact that
Jesus, the man, is taken out of the sphere of humanity, and placed where
no man can comprehend him; and where his sayings and doings, instead
of confirming the idea of his Godhead, only serve to make him look ridi
culous. It really does not concern humanity who said this, or who did
that; all that we care to know is, was the saying true, was the deed useful ?
Paul was brought by Festus before King Agrippa, and their meeting
was altogether a very pleasant one, notwithstanding that Paul was bound.
He gave a third version of how he came to be converted by the vision of
Jesus on his way to Damascus. Judas died two different deaths, and Paul
was converted in three different ways. And while he was describing how
Christ should suffer, and be the first that should be raised from the dead,
Festus, regarding this as the veriest raving, “ said with a lond voice,
Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.”
Paul answered boldly and without hesitation, “I am not mad, most
noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For
the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely:
for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for
this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the
prophets? I know that thou believest.” Agrippa answered, with a smile
on his face, we can imagine, at Paul’s earnest effrontery, and said:
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Paul, in the same vein,
answered, “ I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me
this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am—except these
bonds I" The king was so pleased with this answer, that he agreed with
Festus, “ This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds,” and said,
“ This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto
Casar.” Paul, with other prisoners, was then shipped off to Italy, to
take his trial at Borne; and while the ship was on its way, he endeavoured
to persuade the captain not to put out to sea from a port they had called
at, owing to the lateness of the season, and the state of the weather, for if
he did they would get wrecked. This showed Paul’s knowledge, but not
his miraculous power; for the late Admiral Fitzroy was as highly favoured
as the Apostle, and daily kept the sailors on our coasts fully informed as
to whether it was safe for them to venture out in their little barks in pur
suit of miraculous draughts of fish. Well, as Paul had foretold, the
wreck came ; and while it was imminent, the sailors despaired, and fasted,
and took nothing for fourteen days, and got very low spirited; but Paul,
like a brave-hearted and sensible man, seeing the ship driving on to the
shore, told the men to be of good cheer, that they would all be saved, and
he persuaded them to eat that they might have strength to save themselves
by swimming. In the night, when they cast anchor, to keep the ship off
the rocks, Paul saw the sailors in the boat, about to make their escape,
and leave the others to save themselves as best they could. Paul said to
the centurion and the soldiers, “ Unless these men remain, yon cannot be
saved.” Of course, he saw that it was necessary to have sailors in order
to work the ship. To see this needed no miraculous gift of sight, and it
only showed his good sense in taking every secular precaution to avoid a
watery grave. However, as many a ship has done since, in spite of every
effort, their vessel went to pieces on the rocks, but all were saved by the
most natural means possible. “ The centurion commanded that they which
�The Apostles of Christ.
13
cenld swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land: and
the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so
it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land.” Now if it was part
of the divine plan that Paul should be saved at all costs, that he might
preach the Gospel in Rome, how simple it would have been for the angel
of the Lord to have whisked him off, as the spirit did Philip, and have
set him down in the capital of the seven hills, without all this long and
tedious process of a sea-voyage and a shipwreck. It makes Paul’s life a
little more picturesque, but it does not in the slightest degree enhance our
estimation of his spiritual powers, or prove the truth of one tittle of his
new creed. W hen they got to land they found themselves on the island
of Melita, and were received with great kindness by the inhabitants, whom
the narrator terms barbarians. A fire was kindled, and Paul gathered a
bundle of sticks and laid them on it, when out of the heat a viper crawled
and fastened on his hand. The people when they saw this, said among
themseWes, “ No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath
escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.” This was no great
compliment to the heaven-sent messenger of the Gospel. But it only shows
how people may be deceived by appearances; for have we not had amongst
us men who have appeared as angels of light till they were found out;
whose conduct proved that they were more fitted for the hulks than the
pulpit ? However, the viper did not sting Paul sufficiently to cause him
to swell, or suddenly fall down dead; whereat the people changed their
minds, and said that he was a God. Which showed that they were again
mistaken. After this Paul, to show his power, healed the father of
Publius, the chief man of the island, of precisely the same disease that
Christ healed in a woman. The people of Melita appear to have been
peculiar in their bodily conformation, for the text goes on to say, “ So
when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island,
came, and were healed.” This is a part of the human frame that must be
unknown to modern physiologists, as it is never mentioned in books on
anatomy. Perhaps, like the modes of cure adopted by Jesus and his
apostles, it has become obsolete. Paul then went to Rome, but was never
brought to trial. “ He dwelt two whole years in his own hired house,
preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern
the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” But
Paul was not quite free from the usual overbearing and uncharitable
nature of the Christian.
When he called the Jews, his brethren,
together in Rome, he preached as usual to them from morning until
evening, when some believed, and some, did not, which is a very com
mon case in the propagation of new views. But “when they agreed
not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word,
Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this
people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes
have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I
should heal them.” He was evidently disappointed, like all enthusiasts,
that he could not make all people see as he saw, at the first time of asking.
Here closes the book of Acts, but what became of Peter, and Philip, and
Paul, is not recorded. How long they lived, and where they died, or if
they died at all, we know not. They were not ordinary men, and there
fore we must not expect an ordinary biography of them. Hew few of the
�14
The Apostles of Christ.
doings of the twelve Apostles have been deemed worthy of record! Only
three out of twelve did anything of note according to this book, and* the
greatest of the three was not added to their number till years after the
death of the master. All they did was of a miraculous nature, intended to
astonish and overawe the judgment of their listeners; at least so it is
represented. But of what value is all this in these days? Who that
makes reason his guide and nature his standard, is influenced by such
exhibitions? A moral truth that cannot be enforced without the aid of
startling effects, is not likely to be universally or even generally received^
Truth wins its way silently and surely, and makes the greatest progress
when taught in the most simple manner. If men want the marvellous
now, they can have it in abundance without the aid of supernatural power.
Nature furnishes marvels enough, far transcending any of the reputed
miracles of the Bible.
The foregoing remarks by no means exhaust all the points worthy of
comment in this most extraordinary narrative—or rather series <4 narra
tives, for it is improbable that one relator could have been an eye-witness
of all the acts said to have been performed by the apostles on so many
different stages, I contend that the said remarks are not unnecessarily
severe, or characterised by a levity calculated to wantonly outrage the
feelings of believers. Whatever partakes of the ludicrous in these pages
is provoked solely by the wording of the text. And why should an ab
surdity, in whatever form it may present itself, escape the shafts of the
satirist ? Folly is folly the world over; and quite as many abuses have
been “ put down ” by the wholesome application of ridicule as were ever
preached out of existence by the sententious utterances of the pulpit. The
word “ farce,” employed in the beading to this paper, may seem to some
readers harsh, and therefore need a justification. I would not knowingly
use any word that I could not reconcile to my own mind; I therefore pro
ceed, by giving a summary of the argument, to endeavour to justify the
use of a phrase which may never have struck the ordinary reader as
applicable to any Book of the New Testament. The Bible is so continu
ously read through the green spectacles of faith, that the orthodox
believer is astounded and alarmed when assured that the book is simply
black and white, and not of the tint his coloured medium imparts to it.
It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a volume that
claims to have supernatural advantages over every other book in the
world; that its writers were specially inspired; that every word, letter,
and point is in its right place; and that implicit belief in its contents is
absolutely necessary to salvation. A book endowed with all these advan
tages should not only be easily understood, but it should be so worded
that it can by no possibility be misunderstood. Its contents should
appeal to every judgment alike. But does it? If so, how is it that
there are hundreds and hundreds of differing sects in the Christian world ?
I read the Bible as I would any other book, and I cannot, spite of the
most strenuous efforts on my part., see in it, as a whole, the sublimity the
orthodox sects pretend they see there. In the reputed sayings and doings
of Jesus I perceive the most ludicrous elements; and these Acts of the
Apostles, which are so largely made up of the miraculous, and which are
intended to overawe the judgment of mankind, if viewed in the light of
modem intelligence, are farcical from beginning to end.
The book commences with the statement of an alleged fact totally
different from any of the previous accounts, though the reader is led to
suppose that it is penned by the writer of one of the Gospels. This at
�'Hie Apostles of Christ.
15
once destroys its claim to infallibility, and reduces it to the level of an
ordinary human production, and justifies any criticism which may be
brought to bear upon it. Peter, “ an unlearned and ignorant man,”
makes a blundering statement about the death of Judas, as might be ex
pected of him; and he relates several other matters during his career
which may be equally erroneous. We have it upon this man’s authority
that “ God had sworn with an oath ” to David, “ that of the fruit of his
loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”
Christ never sat upon the throne of David, and Peter’s word is utterly
untrustworthy.
The very first display made by the apostles, after the cloven tongues, or
fire, or something, had “sat upon them,” was so impressive, that their
listeners mistook the outpourings of the Holy Ghost for a manifestation of
drunkenness! An anti-climax, truly, not worthy of the highest order of
poetry.
The one bright spot in all this book is the description of the comma*
nistic life led by the apostles at a certain period, but this is marred by the
brutal incident relating to the treatment of Ananias and Sapphira, though
one cannot help smiling at the matter-of-fact way in which the young
men wind up the bodies, and bury them side by side. Peter and John, as
ringleaders in the murder, were put in prison; but locks, bolts, and bars,
though they did not fly asunder, were unable to hold them in durance vile,
for the angel of the Lord at night set them free. Notwithstanding this
display of heavenly power on their behalf, both Peter and John are again
taken, and get well beaten before they are allowed to go. If it was neces
sary to release them from prison to show that God approved of the murder
of Ananias and Sapphira, why were the apostles beaten? This is as
amusing as the way in which the authorities acquiesced in the suggestion
of Gamaliel.
Peter’s raising of Tabitha from the dead raises one or two pertinent
questions. Do persons raised from the dead ever die again ? One wonders
how they can have the conscience to depart this life a second time. Peter,
an ignorant, unlettered fisherman, is represented as possessing the power
of recalling the spirit from its flight to the judgment seat, of keeping the
court of Heaven waiting, and of causing a person to go through the agony of
two deaths and two resurrections. Does any Christian ever reflect upon the
disarrangement of the Divine economy which must ensue from the per
formance of such a miracle as this ?
The kind of vision that appeared to Peter in his hungry trance, if told
of Mahomet, or of Joseph Smith the Mormon, would be made the laughing
stock of the Christi',n world. Here we have a foreshadowing of the
heaven of St. John, as depicted in the Book of Revelation, where all sorts
of beasts and strange animals are kept, and which are put into a vessel
made of a sheet, and let down from above as a meal for a man of delicate
appetite. The ropes that held the vessel at the four corners, must have
been of enormous length and very tough, like the “yarn ” itself. Peter
is the most extraordinary man of all the apostles, for though the voice of
God entreated him three times to partake of the not dainty dish set before
him, he flatly refused, and yet was allowed to live. After this who can
say that disobedience to the will of God is a deadly sin?
Herod is represented as being smitten by the Lord and brought to a
speedy end, not for any fault of his own, but because “ the people gave a
shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.” We fail to see
the retributive justice here. But we have net much sympathy for a king
�16
The Apostles of Christ.
who could keep a chamberlain with the ominous name of Blastns! He
could not expect to flourish long with such an individual as chief of his
household.
Philip’s proceedings are very similar to those of his fellow apostles; they
are all miraculous. He is on the most intimate terms with the angel of
the Lord, who prompts him what to do, and who is so obliging as to carry
him from one place to another free of charge, and in a carriage not made
with hands. This is the cheapest mode of locomotion yet invented. Do
Christians wish us to believe that angels and devils wandered about the
land of Judea as freely as sheep and goats do now? And if the Lord and
his Angels and Spirits were then on the earth interfering with and in
fluencing the actions of true believers, why are they not doing so now,
and in countries where the faithful most do congregate ? God’s chosen
ones need guidance quite as much in the nineteenth century as in the
first. And the most friendly earthquakes are always at hand to shake the
masonry of houses and prisons and frighten the inmates, that speedy con
versions may ensue. The assertion that such events happened in order
that one particular dogmatic religion might be promoted over all others, is
sufficient to shake the faith of any rational man in the truth of the whole
narrative. If Christianity were to be now propagated by means of
earthquakes, it would speedily be put down as a shocking nuisance. But
why is it not so propagated ? We are told, because “ the age of miracles
is past ”—yes, past all comprehension 1
St. Paul has done more for the spread of Christianity than Christ
himself, yet he is first introduced with very doubtfal credentials. Several
persons are mentioned in this book of Acts who meet with shameful treat
ment, who did not a tithe of the harm wrought by Paul. But that is
strictly in accordance with divine justice! Paul himself was deceived by
a false promise in a very glaring instance. In chapter xviii. 10, the Lord,
after urging him to keep on with his preaching, distinctly says, “For I am
with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much
people in this city.” But Paul must have been very much astonished at
the way in which this promise was fulfilled, for after this he is beaten by
a rabble, he runs great risk of being torn to pieces, he is struck in the
mouth, he is put in prison, he is sent in chains on a dangerous sea voyage,
he is shipwrecked, haying been consigned to the tender mercies of sailors
who took nothing to eat for jov/rteen days, he is bitten by a viper, and
he ends his career in this book of Acts in anything but an amiable temper,
his mission to the Jews having completely broken down. This protection
may have been intended to apply only to the city of Corinth in which
Paul was at the time it was promised, and that the Lord did not intend to
depend upon his own power, but on that of his friends who were numerous
there; but if so, it is a mystery why the Lord should not have wished to
protect so valuable a servant as Paul was against all trouble and suffering
everywhere. But the ways of the Lord are past finding out.
If the Acts of the Apostles is not a farce, it certainly lacks the gran
deur of a tragedy; perhaps it may be designated a Comedy of Errors.
PBICE TWOPENCE.
Printed and Published by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet
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
The apostles of Christ: a farce in several acts
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4953
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Jesus Christ
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 apostles of Christ: a farce in several acts), 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
Bible (N.T.)-Acts of the Apostles
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/60252ccc4367698fd67bd59400af8b22.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=B2vDP%7E9JEwppSjyVo8m4fUepnWETyiHKGrjYP1WWuNM4tgvV6xW0jbiRJBIutgn2%7EYpQzNPJ8XNGiNenz0-SkudOS9p0Uk%7E5pMJ%7EsGmbFLiKmJjXiBX9czMg%7Ecpy1gkJJfxFQ-cwqCB8aKF-berG45JiSw2GU5904QW1uvh2Ow3QbsFKctRMa3eNu1K6NS0-m7L7c%7EOCi0kVNf30EoMz49TbqjStlEjrxIXJaaFpi1oGxq%7Erhysi18Kjy1aJMeAlzSxVJ1PlnCN6UNzcGSkvxW6kTPeVE1ZmS3DMFj-btPIGDJl8FwV6KxabdY0J699os4YxheVN124lusXXn4vX-g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18a04c70bf15cda9b34c5fe248bcca51
PDF Text
Text
I
Vv <W^<4
J
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ROME OR ATHEISM
THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
->
LONDON:
,»
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1892
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. POOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�ROME OR ATHEISM.
Since the days of famous Tractarian movement at
Oxford, which culminated in the secession of Newman,
Manning and others from the Church of England,
the Roman Catholic Church has made great and
steady advance in the chief land of “ No Popery.”
It may be true, as Mr. Gladstone remarked, that
Rome has grown richer in acres than in men; but
this simply means that her converts are made among
the rich and well-to-do rather than among the poorer
classes of the community. After all allowances and
explanations, the fact is palpable that she has vastly
increased her strength and improved her position.
Her churches, colleges, and schools have multiplied;
her priests have become numerous, and they walk
the streets with no particular air of humility; her
dignitaries are enterprising, astute, and successful;
and wealth—the great secret of organisation and
influence—appears to flow with ever increasing volume
into her coffers.
Meanwhile the “No Popery” cry has died away
in England.
Occasionally a faint broken - winded
protest against the Scarlet Whore sounds from a
�4
Rome or Atheism.
Low Church pulpit or a Nonconformist platform;
but the Roman Catholic Church is generally recognised
as a sound portion of the religious life of the country.
It would be false to say that the late Cardinal
Manning was respected because of his Catholicism;
he made himself popular by being, or professing to
be, a friend of the democratic movement towards
better conditions of life for the masses of the people.
Yet the way in which the public tolerated his haughty
claims to precedence, shows that the old hatred of
Rome is practically dead amongst the English people.
Much of this altered state of things is undoubtedly
due to Catholic Emancipation. While the Papists
were under a legal stigma, their martyr spirit was
necessarily cherished; but something more than this is
needed for the success of a Church in an old, complex
society. “ Respectability ” stood aloof, with timidity
and vacillation, and all the elements that “ let I dare
not wait upon I would.” But when the legal stigma
was removed, those of the upper and “ respectable ”
classes who desired a Faith unadulterated with Reason,
a Faith of antiquity and gorgeous ritual and superb
dogmatism, were free to gravitate towards the Holy
Mother Church from whom their forefathers had
parted in anger and contempt.
Cardinal Manning’s successor is perhaps indiscreet,
but certainly not otherwise wanting in sagacity, in
saying that he looks upon the High Church party as
an ally of Rome. No treaty has been signed; there
is, indeed, a certain attitude of hostility to Rome on
�Rome or Atheism.
5
the part of High Churchmen; but to the eyes of less
subtle laymen there is a very slender difference between
these ostensible rivals.
Mr. Vaughan, the new Catholic Archbishop of
Westminster, has told a representative of Black and
White that the High Church party is “ doing a
great service ” to Rome. “ It is true,” he said,
“they arrest some who would otherwise come over,
yet on the whole they are doing our work.” Nearly
all the old controversies have died out, and Catholic
doctrines “ are now taught where they were formerly
denounced.” “ England herself,” said Dr. Vaughan,
“ will never, I think, be Catholic throughout, but
her main religion will be so without a doubt.”
Such a triumphant note is calculated to arouse
reflection. “Twenty years ago,” said Newman in
a sermon on “ The Pope and the Revolution,” preached
in 1866, “twenty years ago, we were a mere collection
of individuals ; but Pope Pius has brought us together,
has given us bishops, and created out of us a body
politic, which (please Grod), as time goes on, will play
an important part in Christendom.” Twenty-six years
more have elapsed, and the Catholic Church is playing
that “ important part ” in England. Sermons against
her are no longer preached at Court by Protestant
divines. Dr. Cumming’s name is now antediluvian.
Royalty sends a gracious message of condolence on the
death of a Manning, Catholic organisations are
reckoned with by statesmen, and although we have no
ambassador at the Vatican, it is an open secret that
�6
Rome or Atheism.
political negotiations have been surreptitiously carried
on between the British Government and the Pope.
Looking beyond our own country, we see the
Romish Church everywhere holding its own and in
some places positively advancing. She is bound but
not crippled in France ; she has come unimpaired out
of her tremendous struggle with Bismarck in Germany;
in the United States of America she is already
threatening the Constitution.
Was it not Macaulay who remarked that the Roman
Catholic Church had survived every shock, including
that of the Reformation, and emerged from every trial
with her vital powers uninjured. “ And she may still
exist,” the historian exclaimed, “ in undiminished vigor
when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the
midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on the broken
arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of
St. Paul’s.”
The Roman Catholic Church has an immense
advantage over Protestant bodies. She has been
troubled with heresies and dissensions, but she has
always purged herself and maintained her ecclesiastical,
and dogmatic continuity. Protestantism, on the other
hand, appealing as it does to private judgment, at least
in the interpretation of Scripture ; and to that extent
applying the solvent of reason to the mysteries of
faith; is ever breaking up into a wider diversity of
sects, and sliding down into the gulf of Rationalism.
Nor is this all. Protestantism has its Churches, but
Roman Catholicism is the Church. Her organisation
�Rome or Atheism.
7
is a perfect model of strength and efficiency. The
celibacy of her priests secures their absolute devotion
to her interests. She is republican in the selection of
her agents, and imperial in her use of them. She
combines the aspiration and enthusiasm of democracy
with the power and foresight of a dictatorship. Thus
she moves to her ends with incomparable force and
decision.
Protestantism has merely abandoned some of the
teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ; it has added
nothing, and its partial appeal to reason only opens the
flood-gates of Scepticism. They are grievously mistaken who imagine that either Revelation or Natural
Religion can stand upon a purely intellectual basis.
Not in any court of reason can miracles, immortality,
future rewards and punishments, or even Theism, be
successfully established. This is practically admitted
by Protestants, or why is Revelation necessary ? But
how is Revelation anything but a perplexity and an
absurdity, if a book like the Bible is put into the hands
of the people for individual interpretation ? Let the
discord of Protestantism answer this question. Such a
Revelation as the Christian Scriptures is useless, nay
misleading, without a divinely appointed interpreter;
and thus the Roman Catholic looks upon his Church
as “ the living voice of God.”
Atheism makes a clean sweep of supernaturalism, of
which the Roman Catholic Church is (at least in Chris
tendom) the historic and logical champion. Between
these two mortal enemies the war has been covertly
�Rome or Atheism.
going on for centuries. Where it is most critical, as
in France, the struggle is open and undisguised. So it
will be everywhere. Protestant sects will fall “ between
the fell incensed points of mighty opposites.” Some of
their members will go over to Rome; others will go
over to Atheism. The process in fact is already obvious
to men of discernment. Yes, the illogical sectaries
will disappear, and leave the field to the two great
logical protagonists of Faith and Reason, who march
steadily forward to their Armageddon.
The victory of the one or the other will decide the
fate of modern civilisation. The combatants will not
fight for a platonic triumph, but for practical sove
reignty. It is ideas that govern the world. Faith
moulds society in one fashion, and Reason in another.
They cannot sign a treaty or make a truce; they must
fight to the bitter end; for the issue involves not only
the beliefs, but the lives, the hopes and fears, the
rights and duties, the character and happiness, of a
countless posterity.
�Rome or Atheism.
9
THE TWO NEWMANS
*
The death of Cardinal Newman cannot have come as
a surprise. A man of ninety holds a precarious tenure
of existence. No “blind Fury ” is needed to “slit the
thin-spur life ” with “ abhorred shears.” Death at
such an age is rather the visitor sung by Whitman—
Come lovely and soothing death,
Undulate round the world, serenely arriving, arriving,
In the day, in the night, to all, to each,
Sooner or later delicate death.
For all practical purposes Cardinal Newman had
been dead for years. Though the sweet old man’s
presence was still dear to his friends, to the outer
world he was an historic name. His work was long
since finished, his books had become classics, and the
public thought of him as the protagonist in an ancient
battle. No one looked for anything more from his
pen, his obituary was docketed in the offices of the
daily papers, and except for his writings he was no
longer reckoned as a living force.
Some things the newspapers could not help saying
about such a man. They were not called upon to
* From, the Freethinker, August 17, 1890.
�10
Rome or Atheism.
form a judgment of their own. There were accessible
verdicts on Newman by very eminent writers. We
hear, therefore, what is perfectly true, that he was a
singularly attractive personality, a great scholar, and a
magical master of English. For our own part, we are
prepared to go still farther. We will assert that
Newman is the purest stylist and the greatest theo
logian in our language. His perfect eloquence charmed
his worst opponents ; his subtlety of mind was in itself
a fascination; and such was his persuasive power—so
keen his dialectic, so consummate his marshalling of
resources, so exquisitely urbane his manner—that a
confirmed Atheist might almost regret the necessity of
differing from him. We have often felt, even when
dissenting from him most strongly, that we could kiss
the hand that wielded the pen. “ Here,” we said to
ourselves, “ is one who is more than a Catholic, more
than a theologian ; one who has lived an intense inner
life, who understands the human heart as few have
understood it, who follows the subtlest workings of the
human mind, who helps the reader to understand him
self, who throws over every page the glamor of a lofty
character as well as a capacious intellect.”
Knowing Newman through and through, as far as
it was possible without personal intercourse; studying
his writings carefully as those of the greatest soldier
in the Army of Faith; we could never share the dis
trust of his sincerity. He was a Catholic by tempera
ment. Like Pascal, another profound intelligence,
he saw there was no logical halting-place between
�Rome or Atheism
11
Rome and Atheism. Follow reason absolutely, and
faith dies ; follow faith absolutely, and reason becomes
its slave. Newman saw that no religious dogma has
ever been able to resist the solvent power of the human
mind. To conserve his faith, therefore, he was obliged
to set limits to his intellect. Certain first principles
were to be assumed. Reason did not, and could not,
prove them • but once admitted, reason could be
exercised in illustrating and defending them. When
Newman flung himself at the feet of Father Dominic,
the Passionist, and was received into the communion
of Rome, he showed his conversion was a matter of
temperament. The Father was greatly his inferior,
but he represented the Catholic Church, and only
within that Church could Newman find rest for his
soul. Protestantism acknowledged in theory, though
never in practice, the sovereignty of reason. Newman’s
nature constrained him to square practice with theory.
He would hold his faith, but hold it consistently. He
told the Protestants, after his conversion, that “ reason
was the substance of their faith,” and that “ private
judgment does but create opinions, and nothing more.”
What he required was certitude, and he found it (such
as it was) in the Church of Rome. The proof of this
is patent to any judicious reader, who perceives the
exuberance, the spring, the glow of Newman’s writings
after he became a Catholic. His genius was de
pressed by Protestantism. He left it with long
pain and travail, but, having left it, he felt a mighty
relief.
�12
Rome or Atheism.
Properly to understand the elder Newman we must
couple his case with that of his brother Francis
William. A generous view of both was given by
Thackeray in Pendennis. The words are Thackeray’s,
though put into the mouth of Arthur Pendennis. He
is answering the old question about truth.
“ I see it in this man who worships by act of Parliament,
and is rewarded with a silk apron and five thousand a year;
in that man, who, driven fatally by the remorseless logic of
his creed, gives up everything, friends, fame, dearest ties,
closest vanities, the respect of an army of churchmen, the
recognised position of a leader, and passes over, truth-impelled,
to the enemy, in whose ranks he is ready to serve henceforth
as a nameless private soldier. I see the truth in that man, as
I do in his brother, whose logic drives him to quite a different
conclusion, and who, after having passed a life in vain
endeavors to reconcile an irreconcileable book, flings it at last
down in despair, and declares, with tearful eyes, and hands up
to heaven, his revolt and recantation.”
Thackeray was not exaggerating. John Henry
Newman had nothing to gain, but everything to lose,
from a worldly point of view, in going over to Rome.
For some time he did actually serve as a private soldier
in the Catholic army, performing all the duties of a
humble curate, and wasting his exquisite eloquence on
illiterate and stupid congregations. Francis William
Newman, on the other hand, was going through the
bitter experiences recorded in his Phases of Faith.
While his brother was moving from Protestantism to
Catholicism, he was moving from Protestantism to
Rationalism. Bit by bit his creed crumbled away.
Doctrine after doctrine went, the divine claims of the
�Rome or A.theism,
13
Bible at length disappeared, and with them the
“ perfection ” of Jesus. All that remained was a
belief in God, and a somewhat faint belief in a future
life. During this process he lost the “private friend
ship and acquaintance ” of his brother, he was “ cut
off ” from other members of his family, and dear friends
fell away on every side. “ My heart was ready to
break,” he writes; “ I wished for a woman’s soul, that
I might weep in floods.”
Both brothers were honest. They went their several
ways, according to the logic of their first principles.
The one gravitated naturally to Rome, the other as
naturally to Rationalism, or, as it was then called,
Liberalism. And what is Liberalism ? “ Liberalism,”
said Cardinal Newman, “is the mistake of subjecting
to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are
in their nature beyond and independent of it, and of
claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth
and value of propositions which rest for their reception
simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.”
This is from the Apologia. In the Grammar of Assent
there is a remarkable passage, tracing the development
of three Protestants; one becomes a Catholic, the
second a Unitarian, the third an Atheist. The Catholic
was entirely logical, and so was the Atheist; but the
Unitarian was half-logical. He let his reason play
upon the Scripture, but not upon the contents of
Natural Religion. He retained his belief in God and
a future life simply on grounds of faith.
*
* “ Thus of three Protestants, one becomes a Catholic, a second a Uni
�14
Rome or Atheism.
Francis Newman has verified this truth. Though
still a Theist, he is constrained to admit that the
proofs of God’s existence are not what he once thought
them. He can hardly be said to retain any positive
belief in a future life. We gather from his later
writings that he considers some form of Theism
essential to human morality and elevation. But this
is not judging according to evidence. It is in every
respect an act of faith, as John Henry Newman would
have shown him.
tarian, and a third an unbeliever: how is this ? The first becomes a
Catholic, because he assented, as a Protestant, to the doctrine of our
Lord’s divinity, with a real assent and a genuine conviction, and because
this certitude, taking possession of his mind, led him on to welcome the
Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and of the Theotocos, till his
Protestantism fell off from him, and he submitted himself to the Church.
The second became a Unitarian, because, proceeding on the principle that
Scripture was the rule of faith, and that a man’s private judgment was
its rule of interpretation, and finding that the doctrine of the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds did not follow by logical necessity from the text
of Scripture, he said to himself, “ The word of God has been made of
none effect by the traditions of men,” and therefore nothing was left for
him but to profess what he considered primitive Christianity and -to
become a Humanitarian. The third gradually subsided into Infidelity,
because he started with the Protestant dogma, cherished in the depths of
his nature, that a priesthood was a corruption of the simplicity of the
Gospel. First, then, he would protest against the sacrifice of the Mass ;
next he gave up baptismal regeneration and the sacramental principle;
then he asked himself whether dogmas were not a restraint on Christian
liberty as well as Sacraments; then came the question, What after all
was the use of teachers of religion ? Why should any one stand between
him and his Maker ? After a time it struck him that this obvious ques
tion had- to be answered by the Apostles, as well as by the Anglican
clergy ; so he came to the conclusion that the true and only revelation of
God to man is that which is written on the heart. This did for a time,
and he remained a Deist. But then it occurred to him that this inward
moral law was there within the breast, whether there was a God or not,
and that it was a roundabout way of enforcing that law to say that it
came from God, and simply unnecessary, considering it carried with it
its own sacred and sovereign authority, as our feelings instinctively
testified; and when he turned to look at the physical world around him,
he really did not see what scientific proof there was of the Being of God
at all, and it seemed to him as if all things would go quite as well as at
present without that hypothesis as with it; so he dropped it, and became
a purtw putus Atheist.”
�Rome or Atheism.
15
Cardinal Newman dreaded Atheism, but he never
argued against it. He knew that was hopeless. His
controversial writings were addressed to Protestants.
He was always pointing out the intellectual unsound
ness of their basis. Reason was their boast, and
Newman told them plainly that reason was unable to
find half their doctrines in the Bible, that reason
affords no proper evidence of a future state, and that
the very existence of God could not be rationally
proved so as to produce a conviction. He admitted
that the “ unaided reason,” if “ correctly exercised,”
led to these beliefs ; but unaided reason had a general
tendency to exercise itself incorrectly; and considering
the faculty of reason “actually and historically,” it
had nearly always led to “ simple unbelief in matters
of religion.” Thus, when Christ came, religious know
ledge was “ all but disappearing from those portions of
the world in which the intellect had been active and
had had a career.” And at present, outside the
Catholic Church, things are tending rapidly to
“ atheism in one shape or other.”
Here, then, is the reason why many Atheists com
plained that Cardinal Newman was not in contact
with modern thought. He had nothing to say about
Darwin and evolution, and so forth; his polemic was
antediluvian. The complaint was excusable, but it
overlooked two important facts. First, modern science
has invented no new argument against Theism, and
Newman was perfectly familiar with the old ones.
Secondly, if Darwinism has triumphed in science,
�16
Rome or Atheism.
Catholicism is still living, and seems likely to live. It
is as the logical, uncompromising, and infinitely dex
terous defender of this citadel of superstition that
Newman is worthy of study by those who are engaged
in its attack ; his other qualities being chiefly interesting
to the lovers of literature and psychology. And if the
Atheists who study Newman are struck by his saintli
ness, if they find that the champion of superstition is
terribly strong and adroit, it will be a double lesson to
them—first, in human sympathy, and secondly, in
the perfecting of their own weapons and methods of
warfare.
REPLY TO PROFESSOR NEWMAN.
*
Professor F. W. Newman has just issued a little
volume, entitled Contributions chiefly to the Early
History of the late Cardinal Newman. What the
venerable Professor has to say about his great brother’s
career before he left the Church of England may be
dealt with hereafter. For the present, I confine myself
to his criticism on the article I wrote in this journal
* From the Freethinker, February 2 and 9,1891.
�Rome or Atheism,
17
for August 17, 1890. Professor Newman devotes
several pages to this criticism. He calls my Atheism
“ foolish,” but he applies the epithet generically to all
Atheism. On the other hand, he refers to me as “ Mr.
G. W. Foote, a fine writer, editor of the Freethinker,
and an avowed Atheist.” Personally 1 am rather
careless of compliments, knowing as I do, better than
any critic, both my powers and my limitations. But
a compliment from such a quarter may bespeak con
sideration for me, and for this journal, in cultivated
circles, and may a little abash those who would per
suade persons who never read a line of my writings
that I am only an illiterate brawler.
I will not argue whether Thackeray was right or
wrong in the passage I quoted from Pendennis. Pro
fessor Newman says his brother had irrecoverably lost
respect and position in the Church of England when it
was seen that “ his doctrine was fullblown Romanism.”
Perhaps so, but had he been insincere he might
have stopped short of that point. His pressing
beyond it is perhaps consistent with Professor New
man’s statement of fact, and with Thackeray’s
statement of opinion. I at least see no essential con
tradiction.
Professor Newman doubts my accuracy in saying
that Cardinal Newman dreaded Atheism, and never
argued against it, knowing that to be hopeless. “ Is
that a fact ?” he asks : I am not up in the Grammar
oj Assent, some readers may perhaps correct Mr. Foote’s
fact.” Certainly Professor Newman is not up in any
�18
Rome or Atheism.
of his brother’s writings. He seems to have treated
them with singular neglect, though I think he might
have studied them to advantage. But I am “ up ” in
the Cardinal’s writings; and, as a matter of fact, I
know that he did not argue against Atheism, and that
there are scores of passages in his treatises and sermons
which show that he saw the uselessness of doing so.
The famous passage in the Apologia, which is not too
highly praised by Lord Coleridge, at least shows that
the Cardinal put faint trust in any argument derived
from “ the law of gravitation,” such as Professor New
man finds so cogent in his Life After Death ? (p. 11).
It was the voice of conscience that sustained his faith
in God. “ Were it not for this voice,” he said,
“ speaking so clearly in my conscience and heart, I
should be an atheist, or a pantheist, or a polytheist
when I looked into the world.” Nor did the arguments
“ drawn from the general facts of human society and
the course of history ” satisfy him. “ These do not
warm or enlighten me,” he said. He trusted to the
voice within. But he knew very well that the Atheist
had a natural explanation of that voice, and he was far
too sagacious to risk a battle on ground where, even if
he won the victory in the opinion of his disciples, he
would certainly display the ’weakness of his position.
Every theologian has some assumption which he will
not debate; it is the point from which he starts, the
germ of error from which all else is evolved, the “ idol ”
as Bacon called it, which must not be exposed to vulgar' f
criticism.
�Home or Atheism.
19
Cardinal Newman’s dread of Atheism is affirmed by
his personal friend, Mr. Lilly. But it needs no such
affirmation. It is a logical deduction from his theories.
Given a belief in God, he held that Catholicism was
its inevitable development. The thing to be feared,
therefore, was Atheism, which struck at the very root
of faith. Protestantism he feared as leading to
Atheism.
“ If the Cardinal avowed [I did not say avowed]
that it was hopeless to argue against Atheists,” writes
Professor Newman, “ that may merely mean that they
are lower than ordinary normal mankind, and he treats
them with contempt.” For my part, I am not aware
of any such contempt in his writings. He felt no
contempt, but dread, of “ the wild living intellect of
man,” whose “ tendency is towards a simple unbelief
in matters of religion,” so that “ no truth, however
sacred, can stand against it, in the long run.”
Nor do I think Professor Newman displays his usual
urbanity in suggesting that Atheists may be “ lower
than ordinary normal mankind.”
Coleridge knew
human nature and the history of human thought, at
least as well as Professor Newman, and he declared
that “ not one man in ten thousand has goodness of
heart or strength of mind to be an Atheist.” Cardinal
Newman himself, in his tremendous sermon on “ Neg
lect of Divine Calls and Warnings,” places a man in
Hell, agonising and shrieking, whose friends on earth
are praising him as “So comprehensive a mind!” or
“ so just in his remarks, so versatile, so unobtrusive,”
�20
Rome or Atheism.
or “ so great a benefactor to his country and his
kind.”
In the next place, I am taken to task for saying that
the Cardinal could not rest without certitude, and
could only find that in Rome. (By the way, I added
“ such as it was.”) This is Professor Newman’s com
ment :—
“ If he mean that the Cardinal ever thought the existence of
God our Creator was uncertain, or that greater certitude was
afforded by entering the Roman Church, I think Mr. Foote
must be wrong in fact. But if by certitude he mean a better
knowledge of how many Persons co-existed in one God, in
short, certitude concerning the inner essence and constitution
of Godhead, it is marvellous to me how this can seem com
mendable to an Atheist.”
But when have I said that such speculations are
“ commendable ” ? I certainly believe they are very
natural. If you have a God behind the curtain you
cannot help thinking all sorts of things about him.
Nor have I said that Cardinal Newman was ever un
certain as to God’s existence. But he wanted, like
Othello, to make assurance doubly sure. Besides, the
mere proposition of God’s existence—some sort of God
—was not sufficient. He required a different God
from Professor Newman’s; and although Catholicism
did not prove this being’s existence—which, indeed,
could not be proved by logic at all—it furnished, as he
thought, many and splendid corroborations. And this
it was that gave him “ perfect peace and contentment,’
like “ coming into port after a rough sea,” when he
�Rome or Atheism.
21
passed his Rubicon and finally threw in his lot with the
Roman Church.
The next point on which the Professor takes me to
task is my statement that Cardinal Newman saw
there was no logical halting-place between Rome and
Atheism. “ Delightful news !” exclaims my venerable
critic : “ Since the days of Isaiah and Micah, have the
whole Jewish nation been so gliding ” down to Atheism?
Now the exclamation is irrelevant, and the question
shows a misconception of the Cardinal’s argument.
The Jews, before the time of Christ, had no choice
between Catholic Christianity and Atheism. They
lived under a special dispensation, the Cardinal would
have said; but when the opportunity arose they
rejected the Church that Christ came to establish. No
doubt the Cardinal would have included the modern
Jews in the category of persons who have no logical
alternative but Atheism or Rome. Whether the Cardinal
did maintain what I allege, and whether I am right or
wrong in agreeing with him, I proceed to show in
detail.
It is not in the Grammar of Assent that we must
look for Cardinal Newman’s view of Atheism and
Catholicity. That volume was written as much for
Protestants as for Catholics, and he said nothing in it
to alarm any section of his readers. We must turn
to his addresses to Catholics, especially to the Dis
courses to Mixed Congregations. In the sermon on
f “Faith and Doubt” he sketches the case of Catholics
I who have listened to doubts, and as a punishment lost
�22
Rome or Atheism.
their supernatural faith. The weak-minded, irresolute
ones hover about the Church, though no longer of it.
But “ if they are men of more vigorous minds, they
launch forward in a course of infidelity ... till some
times, if a free field is given them, they even develop
into Atheism.”
This seems to imply that in “ a free field ” whoever
breaks away from Catholicism is likely to reach
Atheism. An explicit declaration to that effect is
made in the sermon on “Mysteries of Nature and
Grace.” The whole passage is worth quoting.
“ 0 my brethren, turn away from the Catholic Church, and
to whom will you go? it is your only chance of peace and
assurance in this turbulent, changing world. There is nothing
between it and scepticism, when men exert their reason freely.
Private creeds, fancy religions, may be showy and imposing
to the many in their day; natural religions may lie huge and
lifeless, and cumber the ground for centuries, and distract the
attention or confuse the judgment of the learned; but on the
long run it will be found that either the Catholic Religion is
verily and indeed the coming in of the unseen world into this,
or that there is nothing positive, nothing dogmatic, nothing
real in any of our notions as to whence we come and whither
we are going. Unlearn Catholicism, and you open the way to
your becoming Protestant, Unitarian, Deist, Pantheist, Sceptic,
in a dreadful, but inevitable succession; only not inevitable
by some accident of your position, of your education, and of
your cast of mind; only not inevitable if you dismiss the sub
ject of religion from your view, deny yourself your reason,
devote your thoughts to moral duties, or dissipate them in
engagements of the world.”
Surely this passage, and particularly the sentence I
have italicised, is a plain declaration that there is no
logical halting-place between Rome and Atheism. The
�Rome or Atheism.
23
whole sermon, indeed, is a wonderfnl presentation of
the difficulties of a belief in God as a wise moral
governor of the universe. Reason, the Cardinal urges,
is impotent to reconcile the terrible facts of life with
the existence of such a deity. If you will be a Theist,
you must trust to faith; and if you trust to faith, you
will find it leads you to the bosom of the Catholic
Church.
So far I have established my point. Cardinal
Newman did assert that the alternative, to every man
who uses his reason freely, is Rome or Atheism. But
Professor Newman says I have no right to agree with
the Cardinal unless I “ uphold the Roman creed as
itself logical.” “ Can we believe,” he asks, “ that Mr.
Foote looks on the Nicene Creed, and the creed
falsely called Athanasian, with its Three Divine
Persons who are not Three Gods, as eminently logical ?
Unless he does, he is writing not sincerely, Qiot truth
fully, but to support his own foolish Atheism.”
Now I have a great respect for Professor Newman.
I learnt something from him in my younger days. I
admired his learning, his fine spirit, and his beautiful
style. I will therefore refrain from saying that he is
writing not sincerely, not truthfully, but to support
his foolish Theism. I will say instead that, in my
opinion, he has fallen into confusion. His very
illustration is singularly unhappy. The Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds are recited by Protestants as well
as Catholics. Both are appointed to be read in the
Church of England service. The three Gods in one
�24
Home or Atheism.
Person are no special part of Catholic irrationality.
Even if they were, I do not see that they are specially
illogical. Error can be logical as well as truth. Its
deductions and developments may be a beautiful series
of flawless syllogisms. The fallacy will then lie in its
original major premiss; that is, in the set of first prin
ciples from which it starts. Now it does seem to me
that the Roman creed, ay, and the Roman ritual, is a
logical development of the primary assumptions of
Christianity, and that Protestant sects come short of
it in proportion as they sacrifice Faith to Reason. A
supernatural book, for instance, is useless without
supernatural interpreters; the living voice of God in
the Church is therefore a corollary of an inspired
Bible, and the Protestant theory of private judgment
is an illogical departure from the theory of inspira
tion.
On his own part, Professor Newman says I am
wrong in asserting that he finds the proofs of God’s
existence are not what he once thought them. He
asks when and where he has made this admission. He
declares that, “ on the contrary,” he has “ never ceased
to regard Atheism as monstrous folly, and more than
ever since in the last thirty years ‘ a self-acting
Universe ’ is talked of.”
I admit that Professor Newman has never ceased to
inveigh against Atheism, sometimes in very unphilosophical language. I also admit the difficulty of
putting my finger op particular sentences that prove
his changed attitude as a Theist. But I certainly felt
�Rome or Atheism.
25
that his attitude had changed, that there was a difference between some of his later Theistic utterances
and the early part of his book on The Soul. Still I am
liable to err, if Professor Newman is not, and I accept
his correction.
I must tell him, however, that I fail to see how the
faith, by which he once (see The Soul, chap, ii.)
justified the ways of God to man, is quite consistent
with the reason to which he has since appealed. Let
him apply to the existence of God (subject to definitions) the same ruthless criticism he has applied to the
doctrine of a Future Life, and see what is left at the
end of the process.
I must also tell him that, in my opinion, he strikes
at the root of Theism in striking at the belief in a
Future Life. Supernatural expectations are at the
bottom of supernatural beliefs. God is very much the
dot to complete man’s “ I.” All Professor Newman
leaves us is a “ pious opinion ”—to use his words—
•of a hereafter; and he laboriously shows that this
opinion has as little to say for itself as the most
foolish of convicted superstitions.
Professor Newman denies that his faith is “ crumb
ling away.” “ I tell Mr. Foote,” he exclaims, “ that
my faith, my hopes, my joy keep rising, as I see
Christian sects vying in good works.” So do minp.
But this is not the faith I referred to. Professor
Newman’s religious, or theological, faith was what I
meant; and as he now expounds it, in the page
before me, I am bound to say it does not exceed
�26
Rome or Atheism.
what John Stuart Mill regarded as “ permissible ” in
his Essay on Theism.
Christian sects are now—after centuries of mutual
hatred, persecution and bloodshed—doing “ a work
which will change the aspect of the world.” Pro
fessor Newman says—“ We are in the beginning only.
The awakening of Womanhood is the dawn of a new
era, equivalent to the making Christian purity the
goal of our civilisation.” I also rejoice at the
awakening of Womanhood. But what has it to do
with Christianity ? Is the charter of Womanhood to
be found in the strange teaching of Jesus, or in the
insolent teaching of Saint Paul ? “ Christian purity ”
has expressed itself in foolish asceticism, in the crying
up of virginity, in the essential degradation of
marriage. Surely Professor Newman forgets some of
his own words in the Phases of Faith. And surely
his use of the word “ Christian ” has a flavor of
subterfuge when we recollect its ordinary meaning.
The essential point of Christianity is the divinity of
Christ; take that away, and the best Christian,
teaching becomes merely a part of Humanism.
�Rome or Atheism.
27
THE ATHEIST NEWMAN.
The passage already referred to in Cardinal Newman’s
Grammar of Assent, respecting the three Protestants
who became, the first a Catholic, the second a Deist,
and the third an Atheist, is curiously like a piece of
family history. John Henry Newman was the Catholic,
Francis William Newman the Deist; and there was a
third brother, Charles Robert Newman, who was the
Atheist.
Professor Newman devotes a page and a half of his
volume to this brother. What he says of him seems
uncharitable, and is certainly unsatisfactory. Not only
was he a “ very eccentric character,” with “ meanness
like that of an old cynic,” but his “ wasted life were
better buried in silence.” The last sentence is, to
some extent, undoubtedly true. Better bury a brother’s
life in silence than say only what is to his discredit,
and to say even that with a baldness that approaches
disingenuous ness.
Professor Newman writes, for instance, as’ follows :
“ He said he ought to take a literary degree at Bonn :
his two brothers managed it for him, but he came away
without seeking the degree.” Now the truth seems to
�28
Rome or Atheism.
be that he did not offer himself for examination
because he knew he would be refused a degree in
consequence of his avowed heresy; which puts a very
different complexion on the matter.
Robert Owen is supposed by Professor Newman
to have been his brother’s tutor in Atheism. This is
a mistake. Owen was never an Atheist.
Professor Newman’s veracity is unimpeachable, but
it is not safe to accept his judgment on either of his
brothers. Religious differences caused an “ unhealable
breach ” between him and John Henry, so that they
“ seemed never to have an interest nor a wish in
common.” The same religious differences caused a
breach between both of them and Charles Robert.
And as the Atheist was wretchedly poor, far from
robust in health, shy and retiring, and apparently
afflicted with occasional lapses of mind, it is hardly
surprising that a good report of him does not reach
us from his brothers, who may have been apt to
regard his Atheism as a kind of ingratitude, seeing
they helped to find the small necessities of his very
humble life.
A better report of Charles Robert Newman comes
from other quarters. All that is likely to be known
about him has been collected by the industry of my
friend Mr. Wheeler, who wrote a Biographical Sketch
for a little volume, which contains all that the world
will ever read of Charles Robert Newman’s writings.
*
*Essays in Rationalism. By Charles Robert Newman. With Preface
by George Jacob Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch by J. M. Wheeler.
.London : Progressive Publishing Company; 1891.
�Rome or Atheism,
29
He left a box full of manuscripts which were destroyed
as useless. But the essays preserved in this little
volume prove him to have possessed an original turn of
mind; and had his fate been happier, he might have
achieved distinction as well as his brothers. This
much, at least, must be said of him: he was true to
his intellect, and followed it though it led to a recluse
life and a lonely death.
Cardinal Newman dreaded Atheism, and Professor
Newman appears to hate it. How would he have been
annoyed, had he known that “ Recluse,” who criticised
his Theism in the Reasoner, was his own brother. One
point of that criticism was extremely shrewd, and
deserves a reply from the advocates of the Design
Argument. What man produces is designed; he
therefore argues that what Nature produces is designed.
But this is merely an assumption. Art and nature
may, and in fact do, produce orderly arrangements in
different ways and by different causes. A photograph
or a painted portrait is a work of art; a man’s portrait
in the mirror is a work of nature. There is design in
the one case, and none in the other. Yet the result is
practically the same in both cases. Similarly, order
and adaptation may be produced without a purpose in
nature, as they are produced
a purpose in art.
No wonder such a keen critic as Charles Robert
Newman became an Atheist. No wonder his life was
wasted, since he had not the practical qualities that
command success, despite the hostility of a bigoted
world. Nor is it any wonder that John Henry Newman
�30
Rome or Atheism.
became a Roman Catholic. One brother followed
Reason to the uttermost; the other followed Faith to
the uttermost. Between them stood the third brother,
passionately following both, giving each a divided
allegiance, and thus typifying the great mass of
thoughtful, but not too logical, men in this age of
religious transition.
�J
cm
�1
i
�
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
Rome or atheism : the great alternative
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Signature on front cover: B.G. Ralph-Brown, (MP or JP?), Woking, Surrey. 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
N261
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
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 (Rome or atheism : the great alternative), 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
Catholic Church
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b922f0307111d288268b92e20499552c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=crVMkHUuDcSJpvzZgll4Cr%7E03bTgLAFa-EAS2G6O4BR-OuOcbGpCS%7ECzjxb8ECnCSrNxNsiHOLEjDq00it9mBj1TRmFcW-9oFYkwgKV2qgVXPERyGMoHQ%7EPs-LD9ytVtdw0IMufu%7EmPetVHEy9KVbv2CO9W0pX9k%7EfVtgOvtIe3NWr2YrwGe5s3r1pd33zpbxhSqSxjtrx3aCAR-RdxrWhL0AcNEu%7E7A4Q6RW-sbCy5Y70O3CmNGMZmGT8uttpX1Z3Wq4Dk6GVRftjO1dxvo1KSdTMqbF0-BLl2lQ95SbE7dweCgmYVdYwcAcoHFAzXFxzMuGWlJJdrhLzZSHLJpvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6179d0ed2e7de464fa4210ebb42987a9
PDF Text
Text
5
IM e$( v ° NATIONAL secular society
B'7-(X5
NJ633 PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
■---- *—God
or no
God ?
I.
It has, been long my conviction—arrived at, I may. say,
against my deepest prejudices and the oldest tendencies of
my mind—that Atheism is not merely a logical position or
mental state, but as logical as any.
It appears , to me
that, approach the subject from which side we will—-the
purely intellectual or the moral—philosophy leads inevitably
up to Atheism. I can fully sympathise with the millions
who look upon Atheism as a monster, of absurdity and
immorality, for I once had the same ideas and feelings
myself, and no more dreamt of journeying to Atheism than
to the moon. I have discovered several things in recent
years which I formerly deemed impossible; among others,
that Atheism is not in the least like what popular prejudice
represents, and that Theism is as unfounded as Transubstantiation. Every argument yet produced in evidence of
divine existence fails even to satisfy a previous believer.
Judging from my own experience, I should say that the
most unshaken faith in a God is found in him who never
argued; the reasoner, even on the very smallest scale, starts
I doubts on the subject that can never be solved or destroyed. Once pass beyond the bounds of that innocent
state of spontaneous faith, possible only to early life or to
imbecility, and wrestle with a doubt respecting a God’s
■existence, and I question if the struggle will ever terminate
.entirely, except in Atheism or death. It is true, Orthodoxy
■promises you peace and rest, a solution of your difficulties,
■to be found in certain arguments, which, if rightly con■ ducted, will infallibly lead up to satisfaction. Alas ! how
fallacious the promise and the hope I I spent many years
R in following this will-o’-the-wisp ; but neither logic, prayer,
nor faith, nor all together could give settled satisfaction,
r This is not surprising, when the matter is fully examined.
Let us see.
The teleological argument is no doubt the oldest of the
so-called proofs of divine existence; it is, at least, as old as
Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and seems to have been used by
�4
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
Socrates. The argument, which is based upon a fallacy,
runs thus:—“We see in works of handicraft and Art
evidences of Design and adaptation of means to ends; we
see similar marks of design, &c., in Nature; and as
evidences of design in Art imply a designer, so do they in
Nature.” This, if logical, would be an exceedingly “ short
and easy method” of settling the dispute; but there is
really not one point of analogy between Art and Nature,
regarded either as a whole or in detail.
1. But for our education or experience in handicraft, &c.,
we could not possibly suspect anything like it in Nature.
We could never have gathered the conception of design
even from a work of art, were we not able, in some cases, at
least, to see both the means and the end, and to watch the
one resulting in the other. Now who can say what is the
end of Nature in any one department, to say nothing of
the final cause or ultimate aim of the whole ? This I shall
return to by-and-bye; at present I merely point to the want
of analogy between an art production (whose whole theory
•and action, inception and results, we can grasp) and any
particular part of Nature of which we know little or nothing
beyond the barest phenomena.
2. The analogy fails in another and more serious point.
We have seen and can see the maker of any human produc
tion. The identical man may be out of our reach, but we
have thousands like him all around us continually; ancL
though we may never have seen a given work in course onI
manufacture, yet we have seen artificers at work upon other!
artificial productions; and as all artificial things have!
certain points of resemblance, by the observation of which ,
we can readily pass from the known to the unknown, we
have little or no difficulty in recognising as a work of art
even an article we never saw before. Now where is the
analogy between this and any natural thing ? In Nature
the artificer has never once been seen, nor any one of his
fellows; we never saw any one making a single natural
product. Where, then, is the analogy? To establish it
you must show us some natural thing in course of produc
tion, and the maker himself, or some part of him, must be
seen at his work. Let this be done and our disputes end ;
but until we see some one making things in Nature—I don’t
say all things, but some—we have no right to institute an
analogy between a thing we know to be made and one that
may not be made at all.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
5
3. It is idle to say that the 11 Great Artificer ” is invisible;
that begs the question.
First prove your Artificer, and
then we must perforce admit his invisibility until we see
him. We see all around us the processes of Nature going
on—the revolution of the planets, and alternations of day
and night, storm and calm, summer and winter. We see all
this, but we never see the maker.
4. Not only have we never seen the Artificer of Nature,
we may further say that we have never seen Nature’s Art.
Is there not necessarily a distinction between the two
departments of Nature and Art ? And is not that distinction
essential? It is the height of linguistic- impropriety to
apply the terms of Art to the subjects and phenomena of
Nature. We have the best of proofs that artificial things
are made. Nature was never made ; it is not in any sense
a manufacture, it is an eternal existence as a whole, and its
various phenomena are growths, not Art productions. To
say the contrary is to abuse language and bewilder the
reader. I ask any intelligent man to take a coat and a
sheep, and say if there be any analogy between them. The
animal was not made, it grew; the coat did not grow, it
was made. The materials of the coat also grew; the act
of putting them together was the making of something that
did not and could not grow, any more than the sheep
could have been made. To talk, therefore, of animals
being made is not less incorrect than to speak of coats,
boots, chairs, &c., growing. A wise man will try to avoid
such confusion of • language, while the wisest will see in
natural phenomena nought but pure growths, and will thus
. escape the need of looking for a maker where none is
possible. Theology and false philosophy have done much
to confuse people on these matters, but there can be nothing
more incorrect, in the present state of human knowledge,
than to speak of the making or creation of the earth or of
any natural thing in it. Therefore it is not reason that
desiderates a maker or creator, it is faith that both demands
and supplies one or more, according to its whims or circum
stances.
5. But more serious objections remain. If nature does
manifest design we can discover the fact only by discovering
both the means and the end. This must be apparent at
once. In Art, did we not know why things are made, the
notion of design would be impossible; I don’t say in every
case. We cannot tell why some things have been made,
�6
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
they puzzle us; but these exceptions prove the rule, for if
we were not accustomed to recognise the end or object in
the majority of cases, we could never feel either curiosity or
doubt respecting the end to be answered by the few excep
tions. Now where is the man who will pretend to tell why
Nature was created? Consider its vastness, its intricacy,
how small a speck of the whole is known to us, and the
immense periods occupied in some of its processes. Who
can guess the meaning and the end of such immense and
intricate changes ? Only the most consummate rashness
would venture to attempt an explanation here. And if we
cannot tell the final cause of the whole, by what right do we
pretend to explain the design of a part ? Every part must
contribute to the total results, and must therefore be sub
ordinate to the whole, and without knowing the final upshot,
the end and aim cannot be guessed. Let the bold theologian
show us Nature’s means and her ultimate aim, or confess
that, like the rest of us, he is in total darkness respecting them.
If we cannot discover the end and means of Nature in
her immensity, let us try on a smaller scale. Take the
solar system. Was it designed, or is it the result of
accident ?—that is, the interaction of the materials and
forces of the system ? If designed, why are some planets
iso much farther from the sun than others? All might have
“been accommodated at distances much more nearly equal.
¡As it is there is a great waste of light and heat. If two
thousand millions of globes, each equal to the earth, were
/placed round the sun, side by side, and all at the same
/distance (from 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 miles), they
i would form a complete (omitting interstices) shell, with the
I sun in its centre. Now with the present expenditure of
[ light and heat, the sun would light up and warm the whole
interior of that enormous shell as brilliantly and intensely
as he does the earth at present. Think of what this means.
The sun which could, with the present emission of
1 energy, amply supply with light and heat an area of
1100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles and more, actually
«supplies about 50,000,000 square miles ! In this estimate
U omit all the planets except the earth, for their aggregate
receipts of light and heat are a trifle compared with the
lolar waste.
If, then, the solar system does manifest
Resign, it is not design executed by either wisdom or
aconomy.
Then consider how unequally the distances of the planets
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
7
are arranged. How hot must Mercury or Vulcan (?) b<!
how cold Uranus and Neptune ! Besides, some of the
planets have satellites, others none, as far as yet known.
Where is the design here ? Our earth has but one satellite^
though it is well known we could do with more. What!
do we not need moonlight as much when it is absent as
when it is shining ? If one moon is good, it is my firm
belief that two would be twice as good.
Leaving the earth as a mere planet, let us descend fb
particulars, regarding it as a home for man and oth|r
animals. Look at the distribution of light and heat. Ip.
the tropics the people have far too much of both; in the
temperate regions, the alternations are dreadfully sever®
but in polar regions they are simply monstrous. A loi|g
day of six months’ duration is by-and-bye replaced by^,
night of equal length ! Does that show design and wisdor^?
Then consider the cold—land and sea frozen to an extent
to us almost incredible. What is the object? Is it to test
the enduring powers of seals and polar bears ? or to grfe
the Esquimaux an opportunity of displaying his voracity
upon blubber and his dexterity in travelling over the snow4?
Is there one good thing accomplished by such exaggerate^
cold ? Will the natural theologian explain ? He sees the
<£ hand of God ” and the “ footsteps of deity ” everywhere^
his eyes are so completely opened that he sees “ good in
everything.” He might, therefore, enlighten us a little on
these mysteries of nature. I have never yet heard of an
Esquimaux praising God for his wisdom and goodness as
displayed in Arctic nights and snows. They are people of
a milder clime, and whose civilisation enables them to defy
the malice of Nature, that praise the blessings of so;
extreme a cold.
Winds and rains show equal want of design.
One
country is devastated by storms, another is panting for a
breeze; one land is flooded by excessive rains, another is
parched and famine-stricken for want of water. During
the recent famines in Bengal, Bombay, and China, England
was flooded. Is this design ?—this wisdom ? Let a water
company follow the example of Nature, and flood one part
of a town week after week, while the rest is parched and
dusty as a desert, and your very Tories will demand reform.
Where and what is that supernal wisdom, which cannot be
imitated, except at the expense of common sense ? What
good thing is ever accomplished by a flood?—by a famine?
�8
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
by a hurricane? If the arrangements and processes of
Nature manifest wisdom, the best and most regular actions
of men are foolish in the extreme.
Now since we cannot discover the end or aim in the
above cases, and multitudes more that time forbids me to
mention, how can any one pretend to be able to discover
design in them ? And—
6. If we cannot discover the object or final cause of
Nature’s details, how can we discover it in any large depart
ment—say in the whole earth? Why was this planet made?
—for the sake of man ? Let us adopt that supposition, and
then proceed to test it by human experience. If the earth
was really made for man’s sake, if man is the final cause of
its creation and arrangement, I think he has abundant
reason to grumble, being at once so honoured and so grossly
outraged and insulted. He has no choice—it is not left to
him to take this world or some other. He enters it as he
enters into being; Nature throws him up like a waif tossed
to shore by the waves. If he can endure her treatment
and dodge her malicious blows, he survives; if not, he dies
before he fairly lives. Let him survive, for what does he
live? Ignorance, superstition, want, cold, hunger, fever,
accidents, tempests, volcanoes, wars, and death 1 This the
final cause of the world ! What!—the lord of the estate
knocked about in this fashion ! He for whom all was made
treated with contempt, get his bones broken, his blood cor
rupted, his person maltreated by the ill-arrangement of his
natural and only home 1 How grotesque ! How silly is
theology ! Was it worth while to expend all this care, pains,
and thought in the production of man, if he was to be
treated after all like the most worthless of beings ?
It is here that theology most completely collapses; after
going to the expense of producing what theology regards as
the final cause of the world, the final cause is treated as of
no conceivable value ! Either, therefore, man is not the
final cause of the world’s creation, or the wisdom displayed
in creation ends in a wretched farce. And if we cannot
find the ultimate end aimed at, by what right can we assume
that Nature shows any marks of design ? And, further, is
it not preposterous to speak of a final cause, or ultimate
aim, in an endless series of natural and inevitable events ?
The natural theologian is neither scientist nor philosopher ;
he is a man of faith; and faith can find its basis anywhere
—except in the region of fact and experience.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
9
7. If Nature in one or most parts manifests design, we
must be prepared to find it in all; for every event of Nature
must be as much designed as any that may be named. This
consideration the divine quietly and conveniently ignores.
He recognises design and divine goodness and wisdom in
all agreeable things; the rest are explained or overlooked.
It is our duty, however, to correct his mistakes and bring
up his omissions.
Let us grant then that Nature does undoubtedly manifest« ’
design.
(1) A hurricane that spreads devastation over
large tracts of the globe must be designed for that purpose. |
Smashing houses, rooting up trees, sinking ships, and i
drowning or killing men and animals are the chief works |
performed by those storms. Let the divine show the i
wisdom and goodness of his deity in them. (2) The I
eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum 1
must have been intended for that work; and the earthquake |
that swallowed up Lisbon was equally designed for that |
purpose. (3) The malaria that rises from the swamp and |
breeds a yellow fever epidemic, is designed for that; else
why does it exist ? What else does it accomplish ? The
evaporation that by-and-bye distils in the fruitful shower is
not more natural than the rise of the poisonous effluvia that
cause the death of thousands. (4) The coals stored up in
the earth’s strata were originally intended for—what?—to
torture poor men, women, and children in extracting them,
to exhale gases that should explode and kill the daring
intruders into Nature’s preserves, to burst steam boilers, I
and to drive machinery by which workers are maimed or ■
crushed to death, to manufacture cannon, torpedoes, and
other deadly instruments. And those coals perform evil
deeds with as much earnestness and effect as good ones ; a j
fire made of them will boil the kettle for tea or burn a child j
to death with equal indifference. What were they designed |
for ? Only stupidity can assert that they were designed for |
good, and not evil.
If design shows itself in one part of Nature, we must ex
pect it in all parts. (5) Theologians recognise design when
Nature turns out a Newton, they are silent when she pro
duces an idiot. And yet, there may be as great an expendi
ture of force and pains in producing the one as the other.
Is the idiot designed or not ? It is idle to lay the blame
upon parents or adventitious circumstances—the forces and
conditions that resulted in that idiot are as truly natural—
B
�IO
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
as much a portion of the original plan as those were which
culminated in the philosopher. How will the divine secure
his dogmas in face of this ? And what is the final cause of
an idiot ?
(6) I once read of the birth of an animal—a dog, I
think—perfect and beautiful in all things, except in one
respect—it lacked its head. Let us pause ! In this case
Nature worked as carefully as she ever does—bones, muscles,
blood-vessels, skin, hair, and everything were carefully made,
and all for what ? A being that could not live. Did Nature,
or Nature’s author and ruler, know that the head was want
ing ? If so, why was the work not stopped, or the defect
supplied? Now, either this dog was designed, or Nature
worked independently of her maker; if it was designed, it
reflects the highest discredit upon the designer, and the
keenest ridicule. We have all heard of the wright who built
a waggon in an upper room, never once considering how it
was to be got out after it was finished. Is this case any more
ridiculous than that of Nature turning out a dog that had no
head? Verily, those who use the design argument employ
a sword with two edges, a weapon that cuts its owners far
more than their enemies. I beg the reader to consider
that in speaking of Nature “ making ” and “ working,” I
merely use the language of theology.
(7) A year or two since I visited a curious little museum
kept by an old sailor in Stockton-on-Tees, and among
other “ queer ” things I saw two that impressed me. One
was a little piggy Siamese twins. They were perfect, as far
as I could see, but fastened together, breast to breast, by a
short tube, so that walking would have been an utter im
possibility. The other was more curious still. It was a
lamb, single as to the head and neck, but double from the
shoulders backwards. There were eight legs and eight feet,
and the two bodies slightly receded from each other the
whole length behind the shoulders. One might have thought
Nature would have been content without sporting or blunder
ing further; but no. From the double shoulders of this
compound animal there grew an extra pair of legs, which
stretched backwards and slightly hung down between the
two bodies. They were fully grown, and had their front
parts turned upwards. I am writing from memory, but can
vouch for the general correctness of what I say. Now, what
could Nature mean—if she really meant anything—by pro
ducing such monsters ? Twin pigs that could never have
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
II
lived, and a compound lamb dreadfully overdone with
bodies and limbs ! Was it divine wisdom that produced
these, or did blind Nature, operating by necessity, give rise
to them ? Let theologians say.
8. Many things in Nature are designed and adapted to
produce pain, if designed at all, and they never do or can
produce anything else. I may mention, as examples, ex
cessive heat and cold, stings of insects, poisons of serpents,
scorpions, &c., bites of beasts—many diseases, such as in
flammation, cancer, and others. Perhaps one of the most
dreadful is childbirth. What pangs, and how perfectly
objectless! There is not one good thing, as far as I can
learn, ever accomplished by any of the above. Indeed, if
I am not much mistaken, ninety-nine per cent, of all the
pain in the world is worse than useless. Theologians say
that, under given circumstances, “ labour is rest and pain is
sweet ” ; but you should not understand them literally. As
a French proverb says, “ One can regard evils with equani
mity—when they are another’s.” Theologians are no
more fond of pain than the rest of us, and they despise it
most thoroughly when they don’t feel it. They may preach
up the benefits of pain as long as they please; pain is pain,
call it by what names you may, and the world has a deal too
much of it to endure. If it was ever intended to do good,
the world’s designer miscalculated, and should long since
have tried to work on some other plan.
It has been asserted by some who are anxious to defend
their fancied deity, that animals which are devoured by
beasts and birds of prey feel no pain. Their own Bible
might have confuted them. Did Jonah feel no sort of pain
in the whale’s belly ? And does not Paul say, “ The whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
now ” ? Perhaps a bite from a tiger, or even from a dog,
might bring those divines to their senses. One thing is
certain, the animals that are eaten up by others show all the
signs of pain that man shows except those of speech, and
none but the perverse can doubt that they really feel pain.
The question to be answered is, Was pain designed ? If so,
what can be said of its designer? Did he ever feel pain, or
would he like to ?
9. Turn we next to another class of topics. What is to
be. said by a believer in design respecting parasites? I
believe the true parasites cannot live except in or on the
other living beings they inhabit. Which way shall we read
�12
PHILOSOPHIC A'IHEISM.
Nature’s declaration of design in these cases ? Must we
read it, “Parasites were designed for other animals,” or
“ Other, animals were designed for their parasites ” ? This is
a puzzle, and no divine can explain it. Leaving the less
important parasites, let us ponder for a moment the case of
trichina spiralis. This minute worm cannot live except in
an animal body. In the muscles of a pig or of a man he
can make himself very comfortable, though he gives great
pain to his guest and living habitation.. The tapeworm is
worse still—the very thought of it is sufficient to give one
the horrors ! But to the point—Is man designed as the
habitation of the trichina and tapeworm ? If so, which is
the greater, and which, after all, is the final cause of this
world—the man who protects and feeds the tapeworm, or
the tapeworm that dwells in and lives at the expense of the
man ? I think it cannot be doubted that the worm has the
best of it. The man he inhabits is tortured with a horrible
disease ; the worm has every want supplied, and is as happy
as his nature and conditions permit. It seems then, that not
man, but the tapeworm, or some other human parasite,
must be the great end of this world’s creation ! What an
issue and a fate for the celebrated “argument from
design ” !
Having shown that the design argument, when fairly
conducted to its logical conclusion, leads to the interesting
discovery that human parasites are the final cause of the
existence of the earth, I must next proceed to attack Theism
in other directions. I do not think the above conclusion in
the least flattering to human vanity ; but that reflection by
no means militates against its correctness. I suppose no
one will deny that the less, where adaptation prevails, is
subservient to the greater. It cannot be denied, the theo
logian affirms, that Nature manifests design, and it will not
be pretended that man is benefited by the trichina, or tape
worm; it is equally impossible to deny that these most
interesting beings, like princes and priests, are furnished
gratuitously with everything they desire by and at the ex
pense of man. If those parasites are of a superstitious
turn, no doubt they spend much of their time in chanting
“ Te Deums ” to the Bountiful Parent of All Good, who has
created such a delightful world as a human body for them
to dwell in.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
13
II.
But leaving this subject, let us next survey the doctrine
of cause and effect. This doctrine I accept, though I deny
emphatically that it logically conducts us to a first cause or
to a final cause. I suppose the materials and forces of the
universe—that is, the complete round of existence—to be
eternal. I shall not just now attempt to prove the doctrine,
or even to give any reason for my faith in it; the reader will
please observe that I merely assume it here for the sake of
argument. Whether it be true or not, no one can deny that
we find ourselves in the very midst of an exceedingly long
series of causes and effects. We also find ourselves in the
very midst of infinite space, partially occupied, though pos
sibly not entirely so; we are, further, in the very midst of
infinite time or duration. I shall not stop to discuss the
nature of these two infinities, but assume that most people
are agreed respecting their existence, at least.
Now let me ask the theologian if he can put his finger
upon the central point in space, or tell us how far off is the
circumference or limit of space in any direction he may
prefer. To say that this demand is absurd is no objection
to it, for I make it for the purpose of exposing another
absurdity, exactly parallel, though not quite so obvious.
I may assume, I think, that none but an enthusiast, a circlesquarer, or a maniac will try to find either the centre of
space or one of its limits.
Next, I ask, will the theologian find for me the middle,
the last, or the first moment (or any other unit of time) in
eternal duration? I need not press this either, since all
must see its absurdity as soon as it is fairly propounded.
But why cannot my demands be met ? The reason is,
Space has no centre, no limit; Time or duration no begin
ning, no end. We cannot conceive that, though we travelled
in one direction for ever, we should ever come to a spot
beyond which there was no space, or that we should be any
nearer its limit than we now are. It is the same with time
or duration; there never was a first moment, there never
can be a last.
Well, is it not equally absurd to speak of a First Cause
and a First Moment? There were former moments and
former causes; but a first is inconceivable in either case.
Had theologians set up a First Moment in capital letters,
thrown round it an air of mystery, and spoken of it with
�14
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
bated breath, it would have been worshipped ; temples and
churches would have started up by thousands, and the priest
hood would have grown rich upon devotion’s offerings ;
gushing songs would have been composed to the Great First
Moment, the Fount of Eternity, the Source of Being, and
the Ever-adorable Mystery ! I am afraid it is too late now ;
but had theologians begun in time, the Great First Moment
would have brought them a world of wealth and influence.
They have accomplished their purpose, however, by invent
ing and parading their Great First Cause, a fiction equally
absurd with the Great First Moment.
The bewilderment of the theologian is really one of the
most amusing features in the history of our race. He can
not account for the succession of events, or of causes and
effects, as he sees them occurring around him ; so he
deliberately concludes that there must have been a Great
First Cause, and this hypothesis seems to content him. But
sober reason can never rest in such an assumption; for (i)
Why suppose a First Cause ? The sole reason is to account
for phenomena you cannot otherwise explain, and which
you think are explained by your assumption. Really, then,
the First Cause is but a phrase invented to hide human
ignorance, a mere fiction to save appearances, and to keep
men from confessing frankly that they do not know what lies
beyond the circle of their knowledge. (2) But it won’t
serve them. To say there is a First Cause is equivalent to
the confession, “ I don’t know anything at all about the
matter, and am too idle to inquire further.” To assume the
existence of a First Cause certainly does shift the difficulty
one degree farther back, and affords a fictitious explanation
of Nature’s phenomena ; but it is not logical. A is a
mystery you wish to explain ; B explains it ; but what ex
plains B? C will do it. True; but can we stop at C?
“ Yes, if we call it the First Cause,” say you. But how
can you know that D does not precede it ?
Besides, as all must admit, if there really is a First Cause,
the mystery of its existence must be far deeper than that of
all other existences combined. It is not philosophical to
explain a phenomenon by something still more inexplicable ;
to attempt it only deepens the mystery. What then must
be said of thè attempt to explain an inexplicable chain of
causes and effects by the assumption of a great First Cause,
which is infinitely more inexplicable still ? The attempt
may be the result of credulity and ignorance ; most certainly
�logic never led people to it. The mind can no more rest
upon a so-called First Cause than it could on a pre
tended First Moment; in each case it demands what pre
ceded the one, and what caused the other. This difficulty
is not obviated by calling the fiction God, or printing it in
capitals ; investigation may be. forbidden for a time, but at
length the human mind demands a sight of your First
Cause, walks round, and finds an unexplored region at the
back of it. Once tell us how your First Cause rose without
a prior cause, and you will teach us to dispense with all
causes-, for if the infinite First Cause holds his being without
cause, surely the finite phenomena of nature may be allowed
a similar privilege.
Besides, if the infinite is without cause, why look for
cause and effect anywhere ? The doctrine is exploded if
theologians are correct; and thus, in the discovery of
the First Cause they demonstrate that no cause was needed,
and they and their system fall together in the very success of
their undertaking. If the doctrine of cause and effect be
true, every cause must be the effect of some prior cause ; if
they find a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause,
the doctrine they start with cannot be true; and thus success
in either direction is destructive of their position. If the
doctrine of cause and. effect be true, no First Cause is
possible ; if it is not true no such cause is required. Let them
take which horn they please.
III.
If Theists find no support from the Design Argument,
and if their First Cause is shown to be a very late effect
—of ignorance, what have they else to rest their faith
upon ? There is one more refuge to which they may run,
but it it can prove nothing but a temporary shelter, for the
pitiless “hail” of modern thought “shall sweep away the
refuge of lies, and the water ” of common sense “ shall
overflow the hiding-place.” The case of orthodoxy, whether
we begin at one end or the other, needs but to be stated in
plain words to be refuted. Not willing to ascribe any
inherent power to what is known and familiar to everybody,
they credulously credit some totally unknown substance
with all possible power, and assign to it the task of impart
ing to matter all its attributes and qualities. It is
impossible, say they, that “blind,” “dead ” matter should
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
move itself, and assume all the beautiful and wonderful
forms we see. The world could not have made itself; there
are to be seen in it beauty, splendour, intelligence; these
could not have originated in mere matter; they must have
been bestowed by a being who himself possesses
them.” All this is specious but hollow, prime faith but
not logic.
Is matter so “dead” and “blind” a thing as they
represent ? Do not divines discredit matter to enhance the
greatness of their fictitious deity ? Those who divest their
minds of prejudice find in matter food for ceaseless wonder ;
and it is quite gratuitous to tell us matter cannot think, feel,
&c. How do you know? Matter has shown such mar
vellous properties, single and combined, that he must be
reckless who will venture to say that he knows all its attri
butes. The facts of nature—the glowing of suns, the
ceaseless revolutions of planets, the endless currents in the
air and sea, the ever changing face of the sky, the resur
rection in spring, the marvels of vegetation and animal
life—all proclaim the power of matter, and rebuke the
ignorance of those who call it “blind” and “dead.”
What! a thing that is in eternal flux, ever changing into
shapes and motions more enchanting than all romances
—this thing “ dead ” and “ blind ” ! Because its mode of
life is different from yours, dare you say it does not live at
all ? Because it sees not as you do through lenses, does it
therefore not see at all? In sooth, you are fine judges of
such profound mysteries !
We see the magnet attract steel; we see chemical action
day by day; we observe the mutual attraction of the earth
and bodies near its surface; this experience is our sole
reason for supposing that the magnet and the earth do at
tract, that elements possess chemical cohesion. In orga
nised bodies, on the other hand, we see all the phenomena
of what we are pleased to call “ life,” and in the higher
ones of intelligence. Why ascribe magnetism to that piece
of soft iron, if you won’t ascribe life to the tree or the man ?
The magnetism is an essential attribute of the magnet, the
life is such of the man. Why suppose there is a living
being who bestows the life, unless you also assume a mag
netic being to bestow the magnetism? Really orthodox
talk on this subject is mere trifling. They say that a being
cannot bestow an attribute itself does not possess. Very
well; if that be so, their God must be a curiosity.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
17
Let us suppose that they are correct; then their God
must have had, in his own person, all the qualities now pos
sessed by all matter—weight, size, colour, shape, taste,
odour, extension—he must be solid, liquid, and gaseous;
freezing, boiling, burning ; must be magnetic and non-inagnetic, gravitating, attracting, repelling; must be both resting
and moving, living and dead, blind and seeing, intelligent
and foolish, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rough and
smooth, etc. These are but a few of the qualities we
observe around us, they must be native or imported, belong
ing essentially to matter, or else imparted by some other
substance which possessed them all before. The Deist
may .charge me with trifling and flippancy; but I am merely
delivering his own doctrines, and trying as bestaI can to
show their real absurdity.
IV.
I do not think logic or common sense requires more than
is given above, but orthodoxy is so slippery, so protean in
its shapes; so unscrupulous, so plausible, and gifted with
such astonishing powers of turning and twisting, that I feel
impelled to track it into another region still. The best way
to deal with divines is to admit (for argument’s sake) their
fundamental principles or assumptions, and then proceed to
show their logical consequences. Now, the orthodox
assure us that there exists a being whose nature is infinite,
whose presence is everywhere; and these terms they use in
their absolute or unlimited sense—at least they did in my
orthodox days. Be it so, then ; there is one infinite being;
he must have or must be an infinite substance, no matter
what that substance may be. Now every substance or
being must necessarily occupy some space, since no real
being can exist which is not more or less extended; and
every being must fill space exactly commensurate with itself;
indeed, we have no means of ascertaining or conceiving
the size of anything except by ascertaining or conceiving the
quantity of space it fills, that is, its extension in one, two,
or three directions.
If the above be correct, an infinite being cannot occupy
less than infinite space; all possible space must be so full of
it that nothing more could be introduced anywhere; for if
there be but space enough left for the insertion of one
atom, molecule, or the smallest possible division of sub
�Io
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
stance, the being we are supposing must be less than
infinite, which is contrary to the hypothesis. Now since
an infinite being fills by itself or by its own substance all
possible space, there can be no space left to be occupied by
any other being or substance whatsoever, and thus we are
inevitably led to the interesting discovery that there is no
existence, no being, except the infinite one; that the ortho
dox God is alone, is everything, that nothing but itself
exists or can exist, for there is no unoccupied space for it to
fill. The divine, therefore, is reduced to this dilemma;
either he must give up his infinite substance or all other
substances ; he must renounce his God, or deny existence
to Nature, including himself. If we say that it is past
denying that we and other beings do really exist, and that we
occupy space commensurate with our substance—that being
so, we occupy some, of that space which an infinite being
must have occupied if he had existed; therefore no infinite
being exists. There is but one refuge for the divine from
this conclusion, namely^ to say that all Nature is but a part
of God; though I do not suppose that any one will per
manently abide in such a mental condition.
But let us allow the theologian his infinite God, and
doing so, let us analyse the conception. An infinite God 1
Such a being must be an absolute WzT, for all space must be
filled to its utmost capacity by its substance. It must also
be immovable. It would take infinite time for an infinite
being to move, no matter at what rate he did it. In an
absolute solid there can be no internal motion ; in an infinite
being ho external motion is possible, for there is no space
except what it already fills absolutely. Such a being could
not feel, think, will, or act in any way; for it would take a
whole eternity for a throb to pass through it The think
ing faculty or apparatus must be either located in a par
ticular part, or else diffused through the whole; in either
case thought would be impossible, except only a mere part
of the being thought. There is no act, mental or physical,
possible to any being butwhat takes time in its performance,
and the said time must bear a certain ratio to the size,
structure, organisation, or nature of that being. An infinite
one, therefore, could not perform the most simple or ele
mentary action without spending eternity in doing it, even
on the supposition that it could do it at all.
An infinite God, then, must be helpless, thought-less,
motionless; as void of sense as a block of marble. The
�few
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
19
conception is a conglomeration of the wildest absurdities;
nay, it is not a conception, since none ever conceived it—
it would take eternity to do so. The word God, as used
by Pagans, generally meant something; in orthodoxy it
stands for nought, a label covering the very darkest corner
of the human mind, a word without meaning, a symbol
symbolising nothing.
.
.
It is idle for the divines to appeal to spirit; for an infinite
spirit must be a substance of some kind, and must fill
infinite space, and must be infinitely powerless. Besides,
What is spirit? “Breath, wind,” say I. “Nay,” replies
the theologian, “ it is something more refined; it has no
weight, shape, colour, taste, smell, or sound.”. Exactly so;
it is abstract. To find spirit I give the following receipt:
Take a man, remove his physical being—all that you can
weigh, touch, taste, smell, see, or burn—in a word, all that
is material. Next remove from him all that you can possibly
conceive; persevere and exhaust the subject completely.
Well, all that is left is spirit. Yes; that imponderable, im
measurable, intangible, inodorous, invisible, tasteless, sound
less, and inconceivable nothing—this purest of abstractions—
is the spirit or soul. The believer is heartily welcome to his
■ “find.” If his God is a spirit, we can only say, as Paul
said of other Gods : “ Now we know that an idol is nothing
in the world,” or, in the language of Jesus, we may say to
the most devout: “ Ye worship ye know not what ”—in fact,
Nothing.
If I am not vastly-deceived, on all lines of intellectual
inquiry, the orthodox belief leads inevitably to absurdity. I
shall be glad to be corrected if I am in error, .and if some
one who is able will take the trouble to grind my notions to
powder, I shall take it as a favour. I hate wrong ideas;
they are amongst the foremost of human evils. Will some
one, therefore, do his best to enlighten me, as I am sincerely
trying to enlighten others ?
&
jL-
§
V.
I am not sufficiently vain to suppose that what I have
written previously on this subject has been exhaustive; I
have merely touched some of the more important intel
lectual difficulties that surround and interpenetrate the
Theistic position, and have endeavoured to show howabsurd is the orthodox belief. Just now I shall turn from
3
�20
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
the purely intellectual aspects of the subject and point out
a few of the Moral difficulties which meet the Theist__ diffi
culties he either ignores or explains in a very unsatisfactory
way.
J
The Theist proclaims a God who is infinitely good—
goodness itself, in fact ; whose “ tender mercies are over all
nis works, who is Humanity’s Great Father, and whose
nature is Love. Now all this might have continued undis
turbed in the world’s creed, if, unfortunately, the facts of
every-day life did not ceaselessly protest against such false
doctrines.
If infinite goodness really existed, such a thing as evil
would be impossible. I suppose no one will deny the
existence of evil; even the most thorough optimist must
sometimes be in doubt as to the correctness of his creed,
except he be too stupid to reflect. A fit of the gout,
sciatica, or a cancer would, I should suppose, convert the
most devout optimist into something more or less rational.
In the esteem of most men both physical and moral evils
exist in far too great plenty. Let us therefore reflect, i. If
I had the power I would remove every evil out of nature
and leave only what is useful and good. This I cannot
do for lack of ability. Give me the power and I will under
take the task. But if I have the power to remove one evil
and don t do it, you have the best of reasons for saying that
I am not so good as I should be. Now the orthodox
preach a God who, they solemnly assure us, is infinite in
being and in all his attributes j his power and knowledge
are absolutely infinite, and his goodness equal to either.
But this muet.be false, for such-a being could never have
suffered to exist any evil whatever, even for one moment.
A being infinitely good must will the existence of nothing
but good ; if he has all power and knowledge these must be
subservient to his will—if he be sane. But evils do exist:
these are the result (i) of his design or arrangement, for
nothing could slip in unawares to him; or (2) he had not
power to prevent nor is able now to destroy them ; or (3) he
is careless about their existence, and so does not wish them
to be destroyed; or (4) he desires their existence, and
actively favours their continuance. Which of these hypo
theses is correct ? No matter which , any one of the four
is. fatal to orthodoxy. If he arranged for evils in the
original creation, or introduced them subsequently, he must
himself be evil in the direct ratio of his knowledge and
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
21
power; that is, on orthodox showing, he must be infinitely
evil, for he is infinitely knowing and able. Did a being of
boundless power and knowledge create evils, or create
materials and forces that in their “ workings ” must evolve
evils? The orthodox creed fairly implies this, though
believers shrink from its open and blank avowal. So be it—
the conclusion is inevitable, that he who made Nature, sup
posing it ever was made, and had full knowledge of what
he did, must be solely responsible for all that Nature
evolves.
Evils and goods are equally his offspring, not
begotten by momentary impulse, but after an eternity’s
(aparte ante) deliberation. But herein lies a contradiction;
goods and evils, or in the abstract, good and evil, are
diametrically opposed and incompatible. Therefore, an
infinite being could not will both goods and evils, except
alternately; and in that case they could not exist simulta
neously, for infinite power would instantly execute any wish
such a being might have ; the moment he willed evils goods
would cease, and vice versa. If the orthodox prefer to
suppose a God who wills both goods and evils simulta
neously, I will not at present contend with such an
absurdity.
Again, no Theist would aver that evils crept into Nature
or sprang up in its midst without his God’s knowledge or
power to prevent, as that would involve the conception of
ignorance or weakness. Nor could the orthodox suppose
that he without whom “ a sparrow falleth not,” and who
“ numbereth the very hairs of your head,” could be careless
of the existence of evils—that would un-God the deity at
once. Lastly, to suppose the creator and ruler of Nature
to desire the existence of evils, argues such a wicked or
malicious state of mind as really to shock the most callous
dogmatist in the world. What, therefore, can the Theist
say? Evils exist. How can he hold the doctrine of an
infinitely good, powerful, and wise God, with these un
deniable facts so constantly around him ?
Of course, most believers resort to the fiction of a future
life, and thus create a Utopian world to redress the wrongs
of this ; but that does not explain, it merely evades the
difficulty. For the question is, not the continuance or
redress of evils, but their existence. If the Theist could
prove that evils existed but for one moment, he would still
have to reconcile their existence with his God-theory—the
length of time is quite another affair. If, again, the believer
�22
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
could demonstrate that all evils would be redressed and
fully compensated, either here or hereafter, still that leaves
the real point untouched; for the question is, How does he
reconcile the existence of infinite goodness with the exist
ence of evils? Compensation may make amends, it never
can undo. Evils exist and the children of men groan
under them. Bitter are the tears that daily run down
sorrow s cheeks ; deep are the pangs and woes of humanity.
What ! can they be compensated ? Never. An eternity of
unmitigated bliss would not obliterate the furrows ploughed
by some woes that last but for an hour ■ if it could, what
of the existence of the evil, no matter how short its life ?
/ It seems to me beyond dispute that logic and common
/sense require the Theist to prove that no evil exists or ever
( did, or else give up his belief in an infinitely good God.
To talk of his “ permission ” of evil for wise but mysterious
reasons is mere shuffling. He who “permits” a known
evil he has power to destroy or prevent is so far guilty of
wrong ■ but with an Almighty God, to “ permit ” is to do,
since there is no power but his existing, and hence the evil
that results from his so-called “ permission ” is as actively
produced by him as any other thing he ever effects. When
man “permits ” he merely declines to check the operation
of certain forces not his own; when Almightiness “permits ”
he as actively works as he ever does.
Besides, it is sheer assumption to affirm that the unknown
purposes of the deity are wise. We can never know that a
man is wise except from his words and deeds : he whose
words and deeds are best we regard as the wisest. Now we
can read the character of God only in his deeds, for his
voice we never hear. It is only those works that strike us
as wise that can argue the wisdom of the designer of
nature and its ruler. If some of his deeds are wise, others
very doubtful, and others exceedingly unwise, tested by our
own and our only standard, we can but conclude that his
character is similarly mixed, uncertain, or heterogenous,
rv Theist will, prove the existence and perfect wisdom
of his deity by independent means, then we will readily
ajdmit that we have the best of reasons for supposing even
the most perplexing and staggering processes of nature are all
wise and good, only at present we are too ignorant to com
prehend how they are so. But the Theist first proves the
existence of his God from these very processes of nature, and
then argues the absolute perfection of his character from
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
23
the same data; whereas nature merely presents evidence of
an imperfect, unwise, weak, and very evil-disposed or else
unfortunate deity. To argue perfection of character fromimperfect works; absolute goodness from a mixture of
goods and evils, in which the latter predominate; and;
infinite wisdom from a course of action in which wisdom;
and folly are freely mingled, is to ignore logic and to per-|
petrate an outrage upon common sense. And that the1
“constitution and course of Nature” do exhibit evils andt
goods, and at least as much folly as wisdom, none can!
intelligently deny.
■
’
On the whole I cannot avoid the conclusion that the
Theistic belief in a being of infinite goodness is entirely at
variance with the evidence. There is not, so far as I am
aware, a single fact or logical argument to support it; while
on the other hand, we know for certainty that infinite good
ness does not exist, for if it did, evils would be impossible.
What should we say in reply to one who asserted the theory
of an infinite light ? The only reply necessary would be to
point to one dark corner ! this would at once destroy the
hypothesis. Just so the existence of one evil is sufficient to
destroy all rational belief in infinite goodness. It is surely
time for the orthodox, if they wish to escape universal scorn,
to bethink themselves, and furnish some reasonable basis
for their faith; So far they have done nothing of the kind;
their whole creed is subjective, a genuine picture of their
own imagination, but as destitute of objective reality as
witchcraft or astrology.
But I shall be told, perhaps, that to destroy the belief in
a God is to annihilate the very basis and sanctions of
morality ! There are people, by no means insane, who' still
use this bugbear to frighten people into the orthodox fold.
It is curious to note how in every proposed change, the
timid and the designing raise the silly cry that reformers
are opening the floodgates, bursting the bonds of society,
and otherwise ruining the world! Alas ! how often this
world has been ruined by reformers, inventors, discoverers,
and others. I suggest that the theologian should go a step
further, and declare roundly that, without belief in a God
men would not know how to make boots, to till the ground,
to eat or drink, to build houses, and so forth. This would
be no more absurd than their cry about morality. I once
heard a man in serious debate affirm that we should have no
era to reckon the flight of time from, but for Christ! This
�24
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
I heard myself, and I was the unfortunate being who had to
reply to it. I further heard once of a monarchist who
solemnly assured a republican, that if we abolished the
present form of government we could have no current
money ! “ for,” he queried, with invincible logic, “ whose
head could we put upon the coins but the queen’s ? ”
Many believers are astonished when you tell them that
morality, like science, art, money, manners, language, etc.,
is a purely social growth or production, in fact, no more
divine than the art and weapons of war, or the skill and
weapons of the poisoner. And yet it would be quite as
easy to prove that money came from heaven as to prove
that morality did. It is not my intention at present to go
into the abstract question of morality, nor shall I attempt a
philosophy of ethics; I shall merely show that the Theist
has no monopoly of morality, that his theory respecting it is
.incorrect, and that, whencesoever its sanctions may be drawn,
they do not arise from theology. Let us see:
I. The Bible is held by a very large number of European
Theists to be a book inspired by God, and a sufficient moral
and a religious guide for man. I say they hold these doc
trines, that is, have them in their creeds and formulas, but
the best of them in real life, ignore the Bible, and walk by
higher rules than it contains. As to the divine origin of
the Bible, that has never been proved; the so-called evi
dence is unsatisfactory in the highest degree; and it would
be nothing less than a calamity if such a book could be
proved to have had any higher origin than other ancient
works. It contains the silliest of stories—told, too, with all
solemnity—the worst morality in the world; and we are
assured it is all divine. Its precepts the churches them
selves never think of obeying; its examples they dare not
follow, while large portions of it shock and horrify all
civilised persons. The best morality of the Bible is common
place enough, though paraded with such solemnity as to
impose upon many tolerably enlightened people. The
Bible is certainly not the source, nor can it ever be the
standard of the world’s Morality.
Let us next see if the Theist can draw lessons or
elements of morality from Nature. I speak now of Nature
apart from society, and I roundly affirm that Nature knows
nought of morality, nor do ethics enter at all into her
processes.
i. All through Nature the strong oppresses and eats up
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
25
the weak, and the life of one being involves the destruction
of another, often of thousands daily. This is not morality,
and if done by the arrangement, or even connivance, of a
being able to have prevented it, it must be characterised as
monstrous iniquity.
2. Nature nowhere, in no way, manifests government.
An overruling Providence finds a place in creeds—that is,
in the fictions of the churches; but it exists nowhere else.
Consider these few undeniable facts: (i) Nature has never
yet been able to distinguish, in the very simplest cases,
between right and wrong, crime and accident, sin and mis
fortune. For example—if a man jump down a precipice he
is dashed to pieces—perhaps he deserves it; but if he should
accidentally fall down he suffers to precisely the same
extent; yes,-if he is wilfully flung down by murderers, it is
all the same in the end. Is that justice? Let us compare.
A jumps wilfully off a house and is killed; B accidentally
falls off, and meets the same fate; C is flung off by his
enemies, and is also killed. The three bodies are taken
before a coroner, and the jury, after being made acquainted
with all the facts of each case, return the same verdict for
all three. What should we say if they pleaded that, whereas
A, B, and C did all come by their deaths by too precipitate
a descent from the top of the house, therefore A, B, and C
all alike deserved the fate they met ? Such a verdict and
defence of it would involve about equal quantities of truth,
absurdity, and injustice. But Nature would justify that
stupid jury, and they might plead in self-defence that,
whereas the three died in consequence of their respective
falls, it was evident that Nature regarded them as equally
guilty, and they did not in the least desire to improve upon
the ways of Nature. Now, if Nature must be taken as the
exponent of deity, we can only conclude that deity cannot
distinguish between right and wrong, for in the course of
Nature, by which he governs (?) the sentient beings of this
world, he treats accidents, mistakes, and the greatest mis
fortunes as if they were the greatest crimes, and oftener
inflicts pain upon the innocent than upon the guilty.
(2) Further, if Nature teaches anything in the cases just
supposed, it teaches that murder is an innocent deed, if not
a commendable one; for, while the three who are the sub
jects of accident, suicide, and crime are killed summarily
by the forces of Nature, those who murdered the one not
only survive him, but possibly, as often happens, actually
�26
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
enjoy property and pleasures that honestly • belonged to
their victim. And it must not be forgotten that all natural
forces are, ifTheists speak truth, forces of God; in fact,
mere results of his own will.
This is a point so often ignored that I must spend another
sentence or two upon it to impress it on the reader’s mind.
All that is was created, so Theists say, by an Almighty and
otherwise Infinite God. That being so, the forces of Nature
are such only by derivation, nay, not derivation even—they
are merely the power or powers of God himself, exhibited
under certain circumstances or conditions. Now all natural
processes must be nothing more than actions of deity—he
does all that is done—if the premises of Theism are correct.
This being so, the destructive processes of Nature, and
those that give pain, are actions of God equally with those
which evolve new life or mantle the face of man with,
pleasure. If all this is true, we have in Nature a clear,
constant, and truthful exponent of God’s moral character;
and what a character ! Justice and wisdom are entirely
absent. Indeed, you look in vain to Nature, that is (in
directly) to God, for any one of those qualities esteemed
among men, while many of those society everywhere punishes
are very painfully and palpably present.
(3) To pursue this somewhat further, we may look for a
few moments at some of the frightful evils that have and
still do curse the world :
In an earthquake, a flood, or a storm, we see the deity
roused to fury and venting his rage indiscriminately upon
all who happen to be within reach. Not one of the victims
deserves such treatment, as far as we know; certainly the
infants don’t; yet they are ground to powder, drowned or
otherwise killed, as if they were the greatest offenders. . Is
that government ? and moral government ? The Turkish
manner of ruling Bulgaria was a trifle to this !
Again, how deaf the deity is to cries and prayers ! In
railway collisions, falls of bridges, shipwrecks, and other
catastrophes, you may call, no matter how passionately, to
the ruler of Nature.
He no more attends you than does
the wind, the wave, the iron, the rocks that surround you.
He might help without the smallest trouble or inconveni
ence, for he knows all, he hears all, is ever present, and has
almighty power— so Theists say. A man who will not help
when he sees calamity fall upon his fellows, is next to a
murderer, and is justly execrated. Yet he may plead some
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
27
seeming or partial excuses. What could we say, if we were
certain there really existed a God who could look coolly on
in the direst calamity that ever befals men ? The thought
is so sickening I dare not dwell upon it. .Yet that is only
one part of the subject. Human calamity! It is all planned
and executed by the deity; no wonder he does not move to
the rescue. And what does he, can he gain ? It is all for
nought! The devil is said to torment for his pleasure;
not so the Almighty—he can never want a pleasure.
There have been millions of occasions in the world’s
history when the worst government worthy of the name must
have interposed to prevent or remedy mischiefs among its
subjects. What priesthood ever existed that did not speak
and act in the name, and professedly by the authority
of God, the Great Ruler ? Where was that ruler when
Moses and Joshua perpetrated such horrible villanies in his
name? Where was he.when the Pope and the Inquisition
were perpetrating horrid lies in his name, and burning Jews
and heretics for his pleasure ? Did he ever interpose to
prevent or close a war, or famine, or pestilence ? When ?
One case stands out in glaring colours as I sweep the
horizon of the world’s history. A company of fanatics or
knaves concocted a scheme for conveying letters to the
Virgin. Mary in heaven. It was the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception, and the church of La Compania, in Santiago,
Chili, was crammed with 2,000 women, deceived in the name
of Deity, and panting to communicate with the Mother of
God. Thousands of lamps lit up the temple, and thousands
of yards of muslin festooned the place. Suddenly rose the
flames, and played in horrid sport along the drapery. There
is a panic, wild and horrible ! a stampede for the doors,
which are soon choked with quivering, dying humanity, and
all exit is stopped. The ceiling catches fire, and streams
of molten lead pour down upon their living flesh ! The
paraffin lamps burst in the heat, and shower down their
contents in sheets and jets and wreaths of fire !
What an opportunity for a God ! Where was he that he
missed it! The people across the street could look through
the church windows and see the agonised victims running
to and fro in that hell, wringing their hands, and calling
upon men, and angels, and God, to save them. Not a
person who saw that sight—except Ugarte, the fiend-priest,
who saved the Virgin’s image and his own carcase, while he
left the women to seethe and burn—except him, no other
�28
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
being in the universe would have hesitated to risk his own
life to snatch one of those women from perdition ! But
Theist, where was your God? Your great ruler of the
world ? Your Father which is in heaven and everywhere ?
Whose tender mercies are over all his works? Did he
know ? Was he by ? O, Sir ! you are the blasphemers,
not we
You invent a God and give him all power, make
him all-knowing, and invest him with absolute and bound
less rule—then you write history, every page of which
proclaims your deity an infinite fiend! Sir, burn your
creed, or destroy history! Confess your errors, or else
reconcile the course of the world with the character of your
God ! At present you outrage our best sentiments. Be
ashamed and blush ! Your Bible tells us your God at one
time could so far demean himself as to order Aaron a bran
new suit of holiday clothes, giving minute directions for
every article, even to the pantaloons ! At another time he
stood or sat in stolid indifference, watching the agony of
2000 burning women deceived in his name, whose bodies
were roasting in 7zA own fire—for that fire would not have
burned had he not supplied the power.
I might pursue this subject, but there is no need. I do
not pretend to understand Nature; glimpses and broken
gleams of truth are all that fall to my share. But what little
I do know is all in favour of Atheism. The best light I
have leads up that path; the purest and noblest feelings of
my nature make me shudder at the God-conception—
yea ! even for its own sake. I cannot endure the thought that
any being exists so great and so wicked as the ordinary
orthodox God. The conception is altogether monstrous,
unnecessary, and full of mischief; for the history of Godism
is also the record of the densest ignorance, the worst folly,
the deepest degradation, and the foulest crimes of our most
unfortunate and bewildered race.
�THE
METHODIST
CONFERENCE
AND
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT:
Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine ?
By J. SYMES, formerly Wesleyan Minister.
HOSPITALS
and
3d.
DISPENSARIES,
Are they of Christian Growth ?
By J. SYMES,
id.
MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE,
Or Man an Animal amongst Animals.
By J. SYMES.
4<1-
�VERY CHEAP REMAINDERS.
THE
GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.
All New, Handsomely Bound, and Uncut.
REDUCED to Is. 3d. each.
If sent by Post 3d. extra.
Bayard Taylor’s Diversions Leigh Hunt’s Essays: A
of the Echo Club.
Tale for a Chimney Corner, and
other Pieces. With Portrait,
The Book of Clerical Anec
and Introduction by Edmund
dotes.
Ollier.
Mallory’s (Sir Thos.) Mort
Byron’s Don Juan.
d’Arthur : The Stories of King
Arthur and of the Knights of the
Emerson’s
Letters
and
Round Table.
Edited by B.
Social Aims.
Montgomerie Ranking.
Godwin’s (William) Lives Pascal’s Provincial Letters.
of the Necromancers.
A New Translation, with
Historical Introduction and
Notes, by T. M‘Crie, D.D.,
Holmes’s Professor at the
LL.D.
Breakfast Table.
Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works.
Hood’s Whims and Oddities.
Complete. With all the Origi Rochefoucauld ’s
Maxims
nal Illustrations.
and Moral Reflections. With
Notes, and an Introductory
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Essay by Sainte-Beuve .
of a Traveller.
St. Pierre^ Paul and Vir
ginia, and the Indian Cottage.
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Edited, with Life, by the Rev.
of the Alhambra.
E. Clarke.
Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes and Lamb’s Essays of Elia. Both
Occupations of Country Life.
Series Complete in One Volume.
“A series of excellently printed and carefully annotated volumes, handy
in size, and altogether attractive.”—Bookseller.
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on two unnumbered pages at the end. Marginal markings in red pencil. Date of publication from KVK.
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
[1879]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1778
N633
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 (Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments), 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
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ebe893fb8503ebae451044a21622a0c8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=umh9lgmDV21t4pnx8Wyh6bmq0xpH6jtKZQK91uNEYycMA6H4oG5ztUzIggDMC%7Eif1QpaTYYcJXGnNk6SOW6N49xbMlduAwdCUylv4lJXof7gAmsvDeIHgkYJtd2ozgNNnt8nt7uGX9S3Edx9xYBDoQSpvf4GFdP-aYSyzptXnAkJLBWxaSXKEfs7x8CpBNLn%7E60ATIq-wMg-gvUB46u8C1IucsfdDBe07PXFp6VfcLW8BiiAFN-1EtsGuZ10dFHWDZWFh9ByiP9HdYe03wpPmKTHgE%7EtD08L%7Eghyo2ycI0n6j8YxOTCAktpl4MP2IasPlCxy3mXS2y-6RDC9drMSxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
00866b7d9d82d7a4be606497a48ab661
PDF Text
Text
Cl 2^
Ph ases of Atheism,
DESCRIBED, EXAMINED, AND ANSWERED.
BY
SOPHIA
DOBSON
COLLET.
“ An Atheist by choice is a phenomenon yet to be discovered, among thousands
who are Atheists by conviction.”—The Reasoner, July 31, 1859.
“Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it resteth in
Thee.”—St. Augustine’s Confessions, Book I., s. 1.
I860.
�LONDON :
JOHN WATTS, PRINTER, 147, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�PREFACE.
The following Essay is reprinted, with revisions and additions,
from the American Christian Examiner for November, 1859.
Its original form as a magazine article will explain its limitation
to the writings of a few authors only. My object has been to
show—first, that the purely Secular view which, regarding
religion as a mere intellectual uncertainty, endeavours to avoid
that uncertainty by virtually eliminating the spiritual element
from daily life, misses the richest and highest influences that life
can receive, and cramps the full and natural development of the
human soul. Secondly, that the more ideal Atheism which
escapes this error, does so only to fall into another equally
serious. Preserving the religious sentiment, and alive to all the
intuitions of ideality and devotion, yet unable to link them with
any source of personal trust beyond the reach of human frailty,
“ Religious Atheism” struggles at every step under the impos
sible attempt to make the finite human conscience and the frail
earth-bound affections meet the infinite claims made upon both
by the tasking realities of life; and under the perpetual, haunting
sense of grief and failure thence resulting, is driven to question
—and most justly so—whether the absence of a Divine Helper
from the world of moral conflict, does not virtually amount to
the Supremacy of Evil.
Those who have the happiness to believe in the God of Con
science as the Life of their life, ever leading them on through
tempest and calm, humiliation and conquest, to a deeper sym
pathy and a completer self-surrender to His infinite goodness,
are surely bound to do all that in them lies to lift aside the
obstacles which cast these shadows of Atheism on the minds and
lives of their fellow-creatures. No one can be more sensible
than myself to how small a share in such a work this brief
Essay can pretend. But if only a few of the suggestions here
made should lead any of my Atheist readers but a single step
nearer to the God whom, under the names of “ Truth ” and
“Duty,” they may already have unconsciously sought and
served, these pages will not have been written in vain.
London, January, 1860.
S. D. C.
�■
_______
■-
H
�PHASES
OF
ATHEISM.
1. The Life and Character of Richard Carlile. By George Jacob
Holyoake. 1849.
2. The Last Trial by Jury for Atheism in England; a Fragment of
Autobiography. By George Jacob Holyoake. 1851.
3. The Case of Thomas Pooley. By G. J. Holyoake. 1857.
4. The Trial of Theism. By G. J. Holyoake. 1858.
5. Shadows of the Past. By Lionel H. Holdreth. 1856.
6. The Affirmations of Secularism ; in Seven Letters to G. J. Holyoahe.
By L. H. Holdreth. Published in the Reasoner for 1857.
7. Conscience and Consequence. A Tale for the Times. By Lionel
H. Holdreth. Published in the Reasoner for 1858. London :
Holyoake and Co.
Among the many signs of the times which demand the study of
religious thinkers, few are so little known in proportion to their
importance as the recent developments which Atheism has assumed
among the working-classes of England. These developments are in
many respects widely different from those which were current about
thirty or forty years ago. There is no less a chasm between the
Deism of Thomas Paine and the “ Natural Religion ” of Theodore
Parker, than between the crude “ infidelity ” of Richard Carlile and
the devout Stoicism of Lionel Holdreth. We do not thoroughly
appreciate any form of religion till we know what are the classes of
minds that reject it, and what sort of principles they accept in pre
ference. And when the rejection of religion is itself tinged with a
religious spirit, we may safely predict, not only that the current creed
is too narrow for the age, but that a wider and deeper faith is already
striking its roots in the hearts of men.
The popularization of Atheism in the working-class mind of Eng
land owes its first impulse to the labours of Richard Carlile, the
editor of “ The Republican.” Untutored, antagonistic, and coarse,
but brave, devoted, and sincere, he initiated and sustained a twenty years’
struggle for the free publication of the extremest heresies in politics
and religion, at the expense of nine years’ imprisonment (at different
times, ranging from 1817 to 1835) to himself, and frequent incar
cerations of his wife, sister, and shopmen. This movement, though
vigorous to the point of fanaticism, was not widely supported, and it
virtually died out, as a sort of drawn game between the government
and the heretics. A somewhat milder revival of it took place in
1840-1843, when “ The Oracle of Reason” was set on foot by a few
energetic young Atheists, and several prosecutions took place. It
B
�2
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
was this movement which first introduced to the public the name of
George Jacob Holyoake, who, having served his apprenticeship to
propagandism by a six months’ imprisonment, rose in a few years
to be the acknowledged leader of the sect. Under his influence, it
has not only increased immensely in numbers, but has passed into a
far higher stage of character, both moral and intellectual. This is
strikingly illustrated in the case of Thomas Pooley, a poor, half
crazed Cornish labourer, who was in 1857 sentenced to a long im
prisonment for “ blasphemy.” Fifteen years previously, Mr. Holyoake’s own imprisonment excited but little notice beyond a small
circle, and not one petition was presented to Parliament for his
release. But by the time that Pooley’s case occurred, the Freethinking movement was strong enough to reach the sympathies of
liberal men in all sects, and thus to effect the reversal of an iniquitous
*
sentence.
This event also illustrates the progress of Freethought
in another direction. The coarse language for which the poor
labourer was indicted—language only too frequent in the pre-IIolyoake
era—found no defenders among the Secularists who petitioned for
his release, but was unanimously objected to, as degrading to Freethought. And this double change, bringing both parties one step
nearer to each other, is, there can be no doubt, mainly owing to the
good sense, rectitude, and devotedness of George Jacob Holyoake.
But Mr. Holyoake’s influence is not the only one observable in the
Atheist party. Like many others, that party now possesses its right,
left, and centre. For the improvement which took its rise from the
establishment of the Reasoner, in 1846, has gradually come to tell
upon the mixed elements of the Freethinking party ; and in 1855 a
sort of reactionary “split” took place, and the ultra-Atheistic Secu
larists set up a rival journal, the Znveó'tig,ator,f for the avowed pur
pose of returning to the old traditions of hatred and ridicule, in opposi
tion to Mr. Holyoake’s more catholic and fraternal policy. The
utterly shameless spirit in which the Investigator habitually treats of
the human side of religion is quite sufficient to stamp its incapacity
for touching what pertains to the Divine; and its malignant and
calumnious enmity towards Mr. Holyoake is a sufficient indication of
the divergence between his advocacy and that of “ Old Infidelity,” as
it is expressively termed. Counting this reactionary party as the
lowest development of English Atheism, we next come to the party
of the centre, namely, that party which is represented by Mr. Holy
oake. This is much the largest of the three. Its idea may be
stated in Mr. Holyoake’s words,—“ that the light of duty may be
* Pooley was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. He was par
doned at the end of five months, most of which was spent in the county lunatic
asylum, to which it soon became necessary to remove him. He was so judi
ciously treated there, however, that on the receipt of his pardon he was restored
to his family.
t Delunct in August, 1859.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
3
seen, that a life of usefulness may be led, and the highest desert may
be won, though the origin of all things be hidden from us, and the
revelations of every religious sect be rejected ;”* in short, that Life,
Nature, and Morals are self-sufficient, and independent of religion.
Beyond this aspect of Atheism is yet another, numbering at present
no definitely attached adherents besides its enthusiastic propounder,
but evidently received with pleasure by many listeners during the
last three years. This new Gospel owns to the paradoxical title of
Religious Atheism, and is put forth by Mr. Lionel Holdreth, the most
cultivated and coherent thinker of whom the Atheist party can boast. He
does not, in fact, belong to the working-classes either by birth or educa
tion, although his sympathies with them are of the warmest. A little
volume of poems, entitled “ Shadows of the Past,” is the only separate
volume he has published; and all his other communications to the
Freethinking public have been made through the columns of the
Reasoner. The reactionary “ infidels ” hate religion: Mr. Holyoake
wishes to be neutral to it: Mr. Holdreth desires to re-incarnate it in
another form. Such are the three phases of the Atheistic party in
England,—the central body shading off into the two others at either
extremity. Passing by the first section, as presenting mere hollow
word-controversy, untinged by any real passion for Truth, we pro
pose to examine the second and third sections at some length.
The disintegrated state of Theology in the present, day has given
rise to the necessity for preaching the Gospel of Free Utterance,
wholly distinct from any decision as to what is to be uttered. To
preach this Gospel has been, in the main, Mr. Holyoake’s vocation.
But now that the right to speak has been so largely won, the question
arises, “ What have you to say ?” and the metaphysical and spiritual
bearings of the subject come into prominence. To this question Mr.
Holyoake has endeavoured to give some coherent reply in his recent
work, “ The Trial of Theism,” in which he has reprinted and revised
the chief papers on theological subjects which he had written during
the previous ten years, with other matter here first published. It is
a singular book; utterly destitute of anything like systematic thought,
and scarcely less deficient in any arrangement of its materials ; pain
fully unequal, both in substance and tone. Frequently we come
upon noble, earnest, manly writing, which indicates real intellectual
power, aud fine perception; then comes some passage so puerile, so
weak, so indiscriminating, as to cause quite a revulsion of feeling in
the reader’s mind. What makes this frequently-recurring contrast
more singular is, that those chapters which are reprints of former
papers are mostly revised with minute care, the alterations often indi
cating delicate discrimination and real expansion of mind. (Chapter
27, which is a reprint of “ The Logic of Death,” is an instance of this.)
Yet the entirely new matter is often of quite inferior quality, both in
Cowper Street Discussion, p. 221.
�4
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
thought and expression. It would seem inexplicable how a writer
who could give us the better portions of this book could endure to
put forth some other parts of it, were not this inequality a pheno
menon of such frequent recurrence in literature as to be one of its
standing anomalies. Intellectual harmony is almost as rare as moral
consistency, and men of even the finest genius too often cultivate one
side of their nature to the positive neglect of others. The prominent
side of Mr. Holyoake’s nature is the moral and practical. He belongs
to the concrete world of men, rather than to the abstract World of
ideas. The best parts of his book are the delineations of character,
some of which are very felicitous. Chapter 14, on Mr. Francis New
man, and Chapter 29, on “Unitarian Theism,” give the high-water
mark of his religious character-sketches. A man who could thus
appreciate the leading ideas of his opponents might (one would think)
do great things in theological reform. But note the limiting condi
tion of his power ;—he can appreciate these ideas when incarnated in
another human mind, but it is mainly through his human sympathies
that he does so. Neither the religious instincts nor the speculative
intuitions are sufficiently magnetic and passionate in his own nature
to force their way to an independent creative existence. Whenever
he turns to the region of abstract thought, his power seems to depart
from him. And this book, which deals almost exclusively with
speculative themes, is a marked illustration of it. It manifests all the
weaknesses, and but very little of the best strength, of his mind. Thus
it affords no clue to the real benefits which, in spite of grave errors,
his movement has produced for many among the working classes;
while it shows plainly the barriers which must ever limit any move
ment, however sincere, which excludes religion from the field of
human life.
We ought not, however, to quit this point without quoting the
author’s apology for some of the imperfections of his work:—
“ If anything written on the following pages give any Theist the
impression that his views, devoutly held, are treated with dogmatism
or contempt, the writer retracts the offending phrases. Theological
opinion is now so diversified, that he has long insisted on the propriety
of classifying, in controversy, the schools of thought, and identifying
the particular type of each person, so that any remarks applied to
him alone shall not be found ‘ at large ’ reflecting upon those to
whom they were never intended to apply. If just cause of offence
is found in this book, it will be through some inadvertent neglect of
this rule.
“ The doctrine is quite just, that crude or incomplete works ought
to be withheld from publication ; and the author reluctantly prints
so much as is here presented. If this book be regarded, as it might
with some truth, as a species of despatch from the field of battle, the
reader will tolerate the absence of art and arrangement in it. The
plan contemplated—that of taking the authors on the side of Theism
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
5
who represented chronological phases of thought—required more time
than the writer could command. From these pages, as they stand,
some unfamiliar with the present state of Theistical discussion uiay
obtain partial direction in untrodden paths. Hope ot leisure in which
to complete anything systematic has long delayed the appearance of
this book, after the writer had seen that many might be served even
by so slender a performance. At length he confesses, in a literary
sense (if he may so use words which bear a spiritual meaning), —
‘ Time was he shrank from what was right,
From fear of what was wrong:
He would not brave the sacred fight,
Because the foe was strong.
‘ But now he casts that finer sense
And sorer shame aside ;
Such dread of sin was indolence,
Such aim at Heaven was pride.’—Lyra Apostólica." *
In seeking for the central pivot of the movement which Mr. Holyoake represents, we find it in the Independence and Self-sufficiency of
Ethics,—their independence of Theology, their sufficiency in them
selves to the needs of man. This doctrine is a compound of several
elements, some of which are doubtless valuable truths, while others
are serious errors. To disentangle these from each other is now our
task. The following passages sufficiently sketch Mr. Holyoakes
position. The first is from an early number of the Reasoner, the
second will be found in the “ Trial of Theism —
“Anti-religious controversy, which was originally, and ever should
be, but a means of rescuing morality from the dominion of future world
*
speculation, became an end,—noisy, wordy, vexed, capricious, angry,
imputative, recriminative, and interminable.
“ To reduce this chaos of aims to some plan, to discriminate objects,
to proportion attention to them, to make controversy just as well as
earnest, and, above all, to rescue morality from the ruins of theological
arguments, were the intentions of the Reasoner. It began by announ
cing itself ‘ Utilitarian in Morals,’ and resting upon utility as a basis.
In all reforms it took unequivocal interest, and only assailed Theology
when Theology assailed Utility. The Reasoner aimed, not so much to
create a party, as to establish a purpose. It threw aside the name of
‘ Infidel,’ because it was chiefly borne by men who were disbelievers in
secret, but who had seldom the honour to avow it openly. It threw
aside the term ‘ Sceptic’ as a noun, as the name of a party, because it
wished to put an end to a vain and cavilling race, who had made the
negation of Theology a profession, and took advantage of their dis
belief in the Church to disbelieve in honour and truth.’’f
“ Let any one look below the mere surface of pulpit declamation,
* Preface to “ The Trial of Theism.”
t “ Reasoner,” No. 57.
�6
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
and ask himself two questions : What has even Atheism, on the whole,
meant ? What has it, on the whole, sought, even in its negative and
least favourable aspect ? It has, in modern times, disbelieved all ac
counts of the origin of nature by an act of creation, and of the govern
ment of nature by a Supreme Being distinct from nature. It has felt
these accounts to be unintelligible and misleading, and has suggested
that human dependence and morals, in their w’idest sense, should be
founded on a basis independent of Scriptural authority; and it has done
this under the conviction, expressed or unexpressed, that greater sim
plicity, unanimity, and earnestness of moral effort would be the result.
This is what it has meant, and this is what it has sought. The main
popular force of speculative argument has been to show that morals
ought to stand on ground independent of the uncertain and ever-con
tested dogmas of the churches.”f
Now this desire to sever life and ethics from “ the dominion of
future-world speculation,” is not without its true side. When the •
great synthetic conceptions of life which arose out of deep religious
impulses are breaking up through the imperfections of the doctrinal
forms in which they are incarnated, it is necessary to deal with each
element separately, before the general mind can reach the point at
which it becomes possible to recast the whole. And in these periods
of transition, we often see special teachers whose vocation seems to be
the preaching of those supplementary truths which are needed to
bridge the chasms—to detach moral realities from the crude doctrinal
form in which they were no longer credible, and so to prepare us for
a completer view, in which they shall hold a truer position. The
connection of Morals with Theology has hitherto been frequently
taught on an incomplete basis—namely, that the ground of duty was
only to be found in God’s command. Thus whatever was held to be
God’s command was exacted from men as duty; and any criticism of
the supposed command, as violating conscience or reason, was at once
condemned as rebellion—God’s will being represented as the only
criterion of right. In early and unreflective stages of development,
the errors of this doctrine were mostly latent; but when the moral
and intellectual elements in spiritual life arrive at a distinct and
separate existence, a fuller and more discriminating estimate of the
truth becomes imperative. That Moral Obligation is inherently sacred,
and that the sense of this obligation does not necessarily imply belief
in a Person who claims our obedience, is true; and it is a truth which
needs to be clearly recognised, and which is recognised by many of
the most religious thinkers of the day. It is also true that a common
possession of moral truth forms a positive ground of union for its
votaries ; and this, too, is important in an age when so much differ
ence exists between good men on religious subjects. So far as Mr.
Holyoake has preached the independent foundation and positive nature
f “ Trial of Theism,” p. 135.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
7
of Ethics, he has been working on solid ground, and his work has
been productive of useful results, which may long outlive their
polemic environment. But when he proceeds to erect these doctrines
into a basis of neutrality to religion, he enters new ground. He does
not actually say that Ethical Truth is the only supersensible reality
attainable by man; but he implies that it is so to himself, and he
evidently believes it to be so for an increasing majority of mankind.
That his Atheism is suspensive rather than dogmatic, is indubitable
from many touching passages scattered throughout his writings ; but
*
the fact remains, that he deems this suspensive position capable of
being incorporated as a permanent element in the philosophy of life,
not only for himself, but for human creatures in general—that he
studiously cultivates neutrality to religion as a principle of action.
Baffled by the difficulties which obstruct his intellectual comprehension
of the universe, he has no spiritual apprehension of its fundamental
realities sufficiently vivid to fall back upon ; and although “ in hours
of meditation he confronts with awe the great Mystery,” his “ baffled
speculation returns again to the Secular sphere,”f and he deems it
possible and desirable to divide the secular from the spiritual with a
sharpness that can entitle the former to support a whole philosophy
of life. Now such a philosophy is quite conceivable on the supposi
tion that the spiritual does not and cannot exist; and for thoroughly
materialised Atheists such a philosophy is consistent and right. This
is the ground taken by the reactionary “ Infidels.” But Mr Holyoake
evidently means something different from this : he means that a man
may pass through life as satisfactorily as man can, without being
thoroughly convinced of the truth of either Theism or Atheism; that
the chief part of human life is independent of religion; that to the
Secularist’s aspirations “ the idea of God is not essential, nor the
* “ I see the influence men can exert on society, and that life is a calculable
process. But why is it so ? There my curiosity is baffled, and my knowledge
ends. In vain I look back, hoping to unravel that mysterious destiny with
which we are all so darkly bound. That is the channel through which all my con
sciousness seems to pass out into a sea of wonder; and if ever the orient light of
Deity breaks in on me, it will, I think, come in that direction. The presence of
law in mind is to me the greatest fact in nature.”—“ Trial of Theism,” p. 69.
“ When pure Theists, as Mazzini and Piofessor Newman, explain their fine
conception of God as the Deity of duty, or of moral aspiration, the imagination,
borne on the golden wings of a reverence untinged by tenor, soars into the
radiant light of a possible God. But the Possible is not the Actual. Hope is not
proof. . . .
“ Had I been taught to conceive of Deity as either of tbe writers just named
conceive of Him, I think it likely that I should never have ceased to hold Theism
as true: and if it were not misleading to one’s self to covet opinion, I could even
wish to be able to share their convictions. But having once well parted from my
early belief, I am free to inquire and resolute to know,And I seek for evidence
which will not only satisfy my present judgment, but evidence with which I can
defy the judgment of others. He who can supply me with this can command me.”
—Ibid., pp. 115, 113.
f Ibid., p. 115.
�8
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
denial of the idea necessary.”* “ What help has the Theist which
the Atheist has not also
he asks, evidently unaware how the per
ception of religious reality modifies the whole of life, altering its pro
portions, and often even reversing its purposes. Take, for instance,
the subject of death. How widely different are the feelings with
which we must regard the vicissitudes and problems of life, on the
supposition that our career is not ended by death, from those feelings
which are forced upon us by the supposition that it is so terminated!
This is a case in which the reality must lie either with the one
alternative or the other : either we shall, or we shall not, survive our
present existence; and except in those cases where excessive misery
or mental torpor has produced a state of abnormal indifference to life
altogether, a neutral feeling on the subject is scarcely possible. Our
affections, hopes, pursuits—the whole conduct and tone of our lives
—must inevitably be influenced to an incalculable extent by the con
clusion which we adopt. It is quite true that Duty is equally binding
on us, whether our term of life be mortal or immortal. But the
absence of a futurity must alter the line of our duty in an infinity of
directions, and it is unavoidable that we act from one hypothesis or
the other. Even suspensive Atheism, though not shutting out the
chance of a futurity, is obliged to act on the other theory. Mr.
Holyoake, though far more open to spiritual influences than his party
generally, is obliged to base his world on the Secular alone. His
superiority on these points is purely individual, and is constantly
overborne in party and polemic life by the inevitable tendency of his
principles.
There is an instinctive feeling in men’s minds that
religion is either a great reality or a great mistake, but that it cannot
be a matter of indifference. And this perception is beginning to show
itself in the Secularist party. They are dividing more and more
visibly into positive and negative sections,—the one repudiating
religion, the other reapproaching it more or less distinctly.^ For
human nature is so constituted that men cannot for ever rest at the
parting of the ways. Individuals there have always been, to whom a
peculiar combination of temperament and culture renders a decision
on the great problems of life less easy to the intellect, and perhaps
less imperative to the character, than to the generality of mankind ;
but, whatever other services to human welfare such minds may render,
they cannot aid in the development of those primary spiritual intui
tions which have formed the deepest basis of human life in all ages.
But Mr. Holyoake may plead that it is quite legitimate to prefer
one of two influences without absolutely pronouncing against the
other, if the one be certain and the other uncertain,—the one close at
hand and the other .afar off. And this is his view of the Secular as
contrasted with the Spiritual. He does not presume to say that God
* “ Trial of Theism,” p. 175.
f Ibid., p. 121.
J See Appendix A.
�PHASES OP ATHEISM.
9
does not exist ; but he holds that, whether God is or is not, the
*
course of human affairs is left to humanity alone,—that human effort
is the only practical agency which it is of any use to invoke. Take
the following passages, for instance, from “The Two Providences.”
“ It is said we are without God in the world ; but remember, if it
be so, that it is not our fault. We would rather that the old theories
were true, and that light could be had in darkness, and help in the
hour of danger. It better comports with human feebleness and harsh
destiny that it should be so. But if the doctrine be not true, surely
it is better that we know it. Could the doctrine of Divine aid be
reduced to intelligible conditions, religion would be reinstated in its
ancient influence. For a reasonable certainty and an unfailing trust,
men would fulfil any conditions possible to humanity. Faith no
longer supplies implicit confidence, and the practical tone of our day
is impatient of that teaching which keeps the word of promise to the
ear, and breaks it to the hope.
“ Could we keep before us the first sad view of life which breaks in
upon the working man, whether he be a white slave or a black one,
we should be able to see self-trust from a more advantageous point.
We should learn at once sternness and moderation. Do we not find
ourselves at once in an armed world where Might is God and
Poverty is fettered? Every stick and stone, every blade of grass,
every bird and flower, every penniless man, woman, and child, has an
owner in this England of ours no less than in New Orleans. The
bayonet or baton bristles round every altar, at the corner of every
lane and every street. Effort, in its moral and energetic sense, is
the only study worth a moment’s attention by the workman or the
slave.....................
“Now it is not needful to contend that prayer never had any
efficacy,—it may have been the source of material advantage once ;
but the question is, Will it bring material aid now ? It is in vain
that the miner descends into the earth with a prayer on his lips, unless
he carries a Davy lamp in his hand. A ship-load of clergymen
would be in danger of perishing, if you suffer the Amazon once to
take fire. During the prevalence of a pestilence an hospital is of more
value than a college of theologians. When the cholera visitation is
near, the physician, and not the priest, is our best dependence, and
those whom medical aid cannot save must inevitably die. Is it not,
therefore, merciful to say that science is the Providence of life ? . . .
Science represents the available source of help to man, ever augment
ing in proportion to his perspicacity, study, courage, and industry.
We do not confound science with nature. Nature is the storehouse
of riches, but when its spontaneous treasures are exhausted, science
enables us to renew them and to augment them. It is the well* “ Does the most absolute Atheism do more than declare the secret of nature
to be unrevealed ? ”—“ Trial of Theism,” p. 143.
�10
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
devised method of using nature. It is in this sense that Science is the
Providence of Man. It is not pretended that Science is a perfect
dependence; on the contrary, it is admitted to be narrow, and but
partially developed; but though it should be represented as a limited
dependence, we must not overlook the fact that it is the only special
dependence that man has; and however infantine now, it is an evergrowing power.” *
But in what respect is it needful that the study of Nature, and the
methodising of its agencies for the material benefit of man, should be
regarded as invalidating the existence of a Divine purpose in Nature ?
Surely nothing can be more congruous with Theism than that Nature
and Man should be found in harmony with each other. In exploring
our relation to the home in which we are placed, and in utilizing every
material within our reach, we are in no sense turning away from the
Author and Animator of Nature, but rather acquainting ourselves
with His infinite resources of power and beauty. The real question
between the Theist and the Atheist lies far deeper down ; it is,
whether we have any means of reaching the Power displayed in the
Universe beyond that which we gain from the study of Nature,—
whether that power is a Conscious Soul, with which we can com
mune, and whence we can derive help and guidance when the visible
world ceases to afford us aid,—whether, when “Nature”is dumb, He
will speak,—whether, when all “materialadvantage” shall have been
reaped by material science, the affections and the conscience must yet
be left entirely to themselves, possessing no power of contact with
any Personal Reality beyond that of erring fellow-mortals. Yet, if
such contact be possible, it must affect our moral lite to an incalcu
lable extent; and the moral life of those who do not cherish any
relation to that Personal Reality must miss one of its most important
elements. In contrast, therefore, to the Secularist theory, on the one
hand, which holds that Ethics as a whole, both in theory and prac
tice, is attainable without Religion,—and to the orthodox theory, on
the other hand, which maintains that the unassisted human mind can
neither know nor do anything in Morals without the conscious recog
nition of Religion,—we hold that Conscience and Faith are, each of
them, primary sentiments in man; that each may arise independ
ently of the other, and may grow up separately, to a certain point of
development,—a point varying relatively to the temperament and
culture of each individual,—but that beyond that point each tends to
call forth a need of the other, and deteriorates if that need be not
supplied. He in whose glowing heart spiritual love precedes the
strong sense of duty becomes a bigot or a dreamer, if his idea of God
long fails to suggest a free and reasonable standard of conscience.
And he who finds his purely human conscience really all-sufficient to
his needs, can scarcely have much fulness of moral life requiring to
* “Trial of Theism,” Chap. XXII.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
11
be guided. And here it is to the point to remark, that the absence of
any reliance on such higher Personality has a visibly cramping effect
on the minds of Ethical Atheists. There are innumerable cases in
life where human sympathy and reciprocation must fail ; nay, where
the very fact of virtue implies the renunciation of sympathy. In
such cases it may too often be seen that the Atheist is thrown back
upon himself, in a way which tempts him either to yield the point
for the sake of sympathy, or to hold by the point in a way which
is apt to overstrain his sense of duty done. In Atheistic defences
we frequently see a recapitulation of facts brought forward to de
monstrate the rectitude of the party, or of its champions, which even
generous minds cannot save from a tone of “ self-righteousness,”
while to commonplace speakers the danger is not even perceptible.
Now it is fatal to the healthiness of virtue to look back in this way
at its own achievements. The love of Goodness is kept safe and
sound by being constantly directed to that which is before, and not
behind it. Otherwise, it is apt to sink into ?elf-complacency with
having been virtuous, and rather to test its aspirations by its perform
ances, than to feel that the only good of its performances is derived
from the aspirations which they but imperfectly realise. Broadly
speaking, there is a certain climate of tendency observable in dif
ferent communions—a gravitation of influences towards certain levels,
—which determines the tone of average minds, and which the higher
thinkers only escape by lying open to other inlets of thought and
feeling. The Secularistic idealisation of human duty as the only
source of moral life, must ever give rise to the tendency to glory in
“merits.” It is inevitable that this temptation should come to minds
vividly conscious of honest and faithful purpose, and anxious to
defend that purpose against coarse and base aspersions, but not con
scious of receiving, from an Infinite Source above them, far more
than the most devoted of human lives can ever re-express, and whose
human fatigues and disappointments are thus unrefreshed by that
repose and re-invigoration which are essential to the elasticity of the
highest human endeavour.
Now this strain on the nobler faculties which results from the
absence of Divine sympathy, must necessarily vary greatly according
to the need of sympathy in different minds. Many upright, unimpulsive men, in whom conscience scarcely rises into affection, do not
feel it at all. Others, of generous and affectionate natures, are yet
so far free from the disturbing influences of passion as to be able to
live habitually from a sense of duty alone. To observers at a little
distance, the benumbing effect of a merely Secular faith may be visible
in such natures, confirming their constitutional defects, and cutting
them off from rousing influences; yet the Secularist’s own mind
may not be distinctly conscious of the want. But now and then
comes a passionate soul, that feels the need of the Divine with a
keenness that cannot be suppressed. The mind may be entirely per
�12
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
suaded of the untenability of Theism; but the intellectual convic
tion in such cases is at war with the whole bent of the soul. To
such a nature, the needs of the affections must be recognised dis
tinctly, whether for satisfaction or abnegation : they are primary reali
ties which cannot be passed by in any accepted theory of human life.
And here does Ethical Atheism culminate in the religious sentiment,
not only virtually, but avowedly, as we shall find by passing on to the
latest development of Atheism, as propounded by Mr. Lionel Holdreth.
With Mr. Holdreth the relation of Ethics to Theology takes an
altogether different aspect from that which it assumes in Mr. Holyoake’s system. Mr. Iloldreth utterly eschews all neutrality; his
Atheism is far more decisive than that of his friend. Ilis Secularism
is confessedly based on the rejection of Spiritualism, and he is fully
aware of their essential incompatibility. But, on the other hand, his
natural feelings toward religion are of a very different nature from
those manifested by Mr. Holyoake. The latter can respect the reli
*
gious sentiment, but he does not appear to have ever been deeply
conscious of it in himself, since the unreflecting period of his boy
hood ; all the realities of life which take hold of him most strongly,
bring no irrepressible longing for anything beyond humanity. But
with Mr. Iloldreth the religious sentiment is woven into his very
nature, and the intensity of his Atheism makes this only the more
apparent. The first specimens we shall present of his writings are
two passages which, taken together, strike the key-note of his whole
conception of life and faith.
“ In advocating the claim of Secularism to rank among religions,
and in asserting its inherent superiority to all other forms of reli
gion in point of truth, purity, and directness, I had in view, not
merely the assertion of a fact, but the attainment for Secularism of a
position, without which I do not conceive it possible that it can
maintain its ground. I wish to render it stable by defining and con
solidating its principles ; I wish to weaken the enemy by depriving
them of the monopoly of that principle—the religious—which always
must exercise a paramount influence over the minds of men. Human
nature is not a mere bundle of faculties, under the direction of a
supreme and infallible intellect; if it were, then we might rely
solely upon the intellect, not merely to teach men what is right, but
to compel them to follow its teaching. But as things are constituted
it is only the first of these points which the intellect can achieve;
we have to look for some other motive influence which shall induce
men to do what they know to be right. This can only be found in
their emotions or affections. It is on these that the religious senti
ment has its hold, and therefore, apart from the religious sentiment,
_• He calls Mr. Newman’s work on “The Soul” “a book conceived in the
highest genius of proselytism, which must command respect for the religious
sentiment wherever it is read.”—“ Trial of Theism,” p. 60.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
13
you can rarely hope to find steady and thoroughgoing virtue in any
life; never, except in minds peculiarly well balanced by nature, and
well disciplined by the education of life and action, of teachers and of
circumstances. Here and there, it is true, you may find a man or
woman who docs right by habit or by impulse ; but these are motives
which can hardly be relied upon to resist the pressure of strong
temptation. For the strength here needed we must look to a prin
ciple which can exercise complete control over the affections, and
wield their whole power in such a struggle ; a commander-in-chief of
the faculties of our moral nature. Such a principle is that of Reli
gion, and such is no other. This principle is embodied in the faith of
the Christian and the Deist, of Socrates and of Paul, of Isaiah and
of Mazzini, of Plato, ay, and of Paine. None of these were or are
Atheists; they write and speak of a God in tones of reverence and
adoration ; and it is in this religious sentiment which is embodied in
their creed that they find consolation in sorrow, and strength in the
hour of conflict. Such a strength and such a consolation must be
found in any faith which is ever to attain an empire over the hearts
of men; such a principle of power must there be in a creed, call it
philosophical or religious, on which our morality is to be based, and
by which our life is to be directed, or we shall be sure to find it fail
us in our hour of need. And I maintain that, as a fact, Secularism, as
taught by Mr. Holyoake, and as accepted by myself, does contain such
a principle, in its religious sense of duty; a duty derived from natural
principles, and referable to natural laws; a duty binding on men as
fractions of mankind, and on mankind as a portion of the cosmic whole.”*
“ I believe in no true, honourable, virtuous life but in this reli
gion ; and in proportion as the supernatural creeds have contained
this essential religious element, have they been useful and saving
faiths. Christianity had far more of it than Paganism, Theism than
Christianity; but pure Secularism is the pure religion—faith in a
grand principle its sole guide of life, its sole source of strength,
unalloyed by timid dependence on a Father’s arm, unpolluted by
selfish thoughts of a reward hereafter. To this Religion of Duty—
the One True Faith, the one true principle giving life and spirit
to the bodies of false doctrine wherein it hath been incorporated—do
I look for all strength for each of us, all guidance for all men, all
progress for mankind.’’^
In this remarkable declaration there are three main propositions :—
First. That “ any faith which is to attain an empire over the hearts
of men” must contain “a principle which can exercise complete con
trol over the affections, and wield their whole power in the struggle."
No truer ideal of faith could be laid down than this.
Second. “That Secularism does contain such a principle, in its
religious sense of duty.”
* “ Reasoner,” No. 600.
t “ Reasoner,” No. 579.
�14
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
Third. That Secularism is “superior to all other forms of religion
in truth, purity, and directness,” because it holds this sense of duty
unalloyed by any dependence on a Father, or any hope of a hereafter.
Now that “ Secularism, as taught by Mr. Holyoake, and accepted
by Mr. Holdreth, does contain a religious sense of duty,” may be
readily granted. Mr. Holdreth elsewhere says, that “ Sacrifice for
the sake of others, not in the hope of future reward, is a principle
which, though glimpses of it were occasionally visible through the
mists of the future to Prophets and Apostles, waited for its full
recognition until a faith arose which knew nothing of an eternal
retribution.”* And there is a truth in this which should not be
forgotten. The absence of any settled hope of futurity does throw
into keener relief the absolute disinterestedness of virtue; and
although there have been Theists, as well as Atheists, who leave the
question of immortality as an insoluble problem, yet it is the noblest
characteristic of Ethical Atheism to have preached, deliberately and
fearlessly, that virtue is a present rectitude, utterly irrespective of
pleasant “ consequences,” whether in this world or in any other.
The popularization of this truth is one of the most valuable contri
butions that Secularism has made to the moral education of Free
Thought. But it is one thing to assert that Moral Obligation is a
primary element of our nature, “ derived from natural principles,
and referable to natural laws
and it is quite another thing to main
tain that no extra-human Personality exists, of whose parental rela
tion to us, those natural laws are but an outward visible expression.!
It is one thing to assert that the idea of virtue excludes, per se, the
very notion of reward; and it is quite another thing to maintain
that our sentient existence cannot extend beyond our life in this
visible plar.et. The connection between ethical truth and cosmical
fact is one that cannot be thus assumed a priori. Moreover, although
the ethical truth on which Mr. Holdreth bases his whole system is
one which can scarcely be over estimated in its own place, it is’clearly
incapable of fulfilling all the requirements of the ideal which he
previously sketched as essential to a complete Faith. Is Duty, as a
matter of fact, “ a principle that can exercise complete control over
the affections, and wield their whole power in the struggle?” We
apprehend that no mortal soul, however saintly, could ansiver “Yes.”
It is true that almost any amount of self-sacrificing heroism may be
gradually attained by a dutiful nature, even to a degree that would
at first appear incalculably beyond the power of human nature to
support. Let the capacity for “service and endurance ” be granted
to the full, untainted by any notion of “ reward,” either in earth or
heaven. But the province of effort, which is active and voluntary, is
distinct from the province of affection, which is receptive and involun
tary. Duty may, indeed, be taught to exercise control over the
* “ Reasoner,” No. 596.
t See Appendix B.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
15
affections, in the sense of coercing them; but that is clearly not the
sort of control of which Mr. Holdreth is here speaking. The con
trolling principle that he desiderates is one that shall “ wield the
whole power of the affections in the struggle." It must therefore
respond to their fullest longings, and dominate them by an Objective
Reality that can rightly command them. But how is this possible
if the object loved be an unconscious one ? Only a person (in the
sense of a conscious mind) can wield the whole power of the affec
tions, for only a person can reciprocate them—and what affection
ever comes to its full maturity until it is reciprocated ? And what
person can wield that complete control over our highest and purest
affections which is here sought, but One who shall be above us all—
the realisation of Infinite Perfection ? The admission of the affec
tions into the “ religious sense of duty ” naturally implies the idea of
an Object on which to repose them; and the absence of any such
object in Mr. Holdreth’s theory is an incongruity somewhat like that
exhibited by Tycho Brahe, who admitted that the planets revolved
round the sun, but maintained that the sun and the planets together
revolved round the earth- In the same way, Mr. Holdreth holds
that all our faculties should be under the complete control of reli
gion, but that religion itself is only dependent upon man—that is, upon
the very being who needs the control. Perhaps he would reply with
the heroic but most melancholy saying of Spinoza, “ He who loves
God aright must not expect that God should love him in return;” an
idea which implies that the power of loving has been, in some mys
terious way, monopolised by mortals, and is the only quality for
which the Great Cosmos has no capacity. Now if the affection we
receive from our fellow-creatures were in itself perfectly satisfying,
and always at our command when deserved, there would be much
plausibility in the theory that we have no concern with any other
affection. But that such is not the case in human life, it would be
superfluous to prove. Moreover, if there be one feature of Mr.
Holdreth’s writings more characteristic than the rest, it is the keen
ness and distinctness of his desire after an Infinite Object of affec
*
tion.
It is therefore to the point to discover the estimate he himself
takes of this desire. The fullest notice he has taken of it, as an
argument for Theism, is as follows:—
“ Some have urged that, since in Nature is found no want without
a satisfaction, no appetite but for a purpose, it were contrary to
nature to suppose man’s natural instinct of worship, and—so to
speak—desire of Deity implanted only to be balked. But to this it
* Many critics of his poems were misled by this characteristic to under-esti
mate the reality of his Atheism—a very easy mistake to arise in the minds of
those who see the religious instinct, and who do not see the complicated intellec
tual difficulties which may coexist with it. We have frequently heard the
remark, “Mr. Holdreth will not long remain an Atheist.” But the question
remains, Why is he an Atheist now ?
�16
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
may be replied, that for artificial desires Nature provides not always
gratifications; nor for all natural needs, except to those who have
the capacity to seek their satisfaction aright. Accordingly, it is
nowise to be accounted an anomaly in Nature, if she provide not a
personal object of worship, such as shall satisfy the artificially
excited imaginations and feelings of men and women, educated from
youth to worship; or if she yield no gratification to those whose
neglected intellect and uncultivated conscience can reverence naught
that is not personal, and love only where they expect reward for
loving. But for so much of this devotion as is natural in minds
sound and healthily trained, there is a sufficient object in the Order,
the Truth, the Beauty of Nature herself—in the Duty which springs
from Law, and in the authority which belongs to Conscience.”*
Such is Mr. Holdreth’s theoretical conviction. But what are the
utterances of his natural feeling ? Scrupulously passing by all such
passages as he might possibly reject or modify now, we will illustrate
this point by a few quotations. The first is from the opening of a
lecture delivered in 1856, entitled “Theism the Religion of Senti
ment.”
“ Stern indeed and strong must that heart be—if indeed it be not
utterly callous and insensible—-that has not at times, at many times,
sighed after such a comfort. The strongest spirit has its hours of
weakness, the most hopeful and elastic nature its moments of deep
and hopeless depression. What comfort is theirs who in these
moments can cast themselves on the ever-present arm of an Eternal
Father, in calm reliance on his unfailing power and inexhaustible
kindness! In the hours of loneliness and melancholy, when the
heart feels itself as it were alone amid a deserted universe, how
enviable is their state who feel that they are not alone—that with
them and around them is a Friend who sticketh closer than a brother
—a very present help in time of trouble. To the labourer whose
twelve hours’ toil can barely suffice to earn bread for his suffering
wife and his sickly children ; to the slave who sees before him no rest,
no mercy, no escape but in the grave ; to the lonely student on his
solitary couch of sickness ; to the starving and sorely tempted seam
stress in her fireless and foodless garret; to the martyr of conscience
in his dismal prison, or yet more dismal liberty ; to the patriot exile,
inclined almost to despair of the cause for which he has given all that
was dear in life—what happiness to turn from the harshness and the
misery of earth to the Father which is in heaven !
“ And, on the other hand, how hard seems their fate who have no
such hope and no such comfort—who must endure through life the
hardships of poverty, the sorrows of obscurity, the misery of unbe
friended loneliness, and must at last pass to their graves with the
bitter thought, that they have lived in vain for others, and worsc* “Reasoner,” No. 629.
�PHASES or ATHEISM.
17
than in vain for themselves. Truly, it is no light, no easy matter to
be, much more to become, an Atheist.”*
(How much, by the way, is implied in that parenthesis,—“much
more to become an Atheist.”) The next passage we quote appeared
considerably later, and occurred in a review of the “ Eclipse of Faith.”
After quoting the only passage in that book which can be said to
contain “ any indication of an insight into the real feelings and posi
tion of a true Sceptic,” Mr. Holdreth remarks on it thus :—
“ I presume that there is no thoughtful mind, which has ever been
truthful and honest enough to enter earnestly upon the quest of truth,
that has not very early in its career passed through the Slough of
Despond that is here described. But this is assuredly not the
language of a matured and deliberate scepticism; it is that of a mind
which has floundered about in the quicksands into which it first
plunged on quitting the barren rocks of Christianity, and which has
never succeeded in reaching the shore beyond. Those who have gone
through this state do not speak in this tone. They are satisfied either
that there is no God, or that there is, or that we cannot tell whether
there be or no. At any rate, they remain satisfied: if there be no
God, the crying after him is childish and unmanly; if we cannot
know him, it is futile and absurd; in either case experience soon
teaches us that what we cannot in course of nature expect to have can
be naturally dispensed with. It is only during the first stage of
mental progress, while still enfeebled by the habit of dependence,
still unaccustomed to love Truth as Truth, to pursue Duty as Duty,
to repose confidence in Law as Law, independently of a God and a
Lawgiver, that we hear these echoes of the bitter cry, 1 My God, my
God ! why hast thou forsaken me ?’ ”f
'
Thus it is evidently felt by the writer, that the crying after God
would not necessarily be childish and unmanly if He did exist; and
that it is only because we cannot have Divine sympathy, that we must
learn to do without it. Still further, our Atheist acknowledges that
it is only after a painful process that the heart weans itself from this
affection, and learns to cease “ sighing after such a comfort.” This
is resignation, but not satisfaction; it is the manly endurance of a
harsh necessity, but it is not a faith “ which can exercise complete
control over the affections, and wield their whole power in the
struggle."
How such a theory as Mr. Holdreth’s would work in actual life, is
a question which naturally suggests itself; and towards this we have
a partial approximation in his novelette of “ Conscience and Conse
quence,” designedly written to show what life would be to a genuine
Atheist. Our author has here endeavoured to realize his faith in
duty and his disbelief in God, side by side, in all their bearings, and
the result is so unique as to demand special analysis.
* “ Reasoner,” No. 535.
c
f Ibid., No. 603.
�18
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
The plot of the story is a bold interpolation into the history of
religious opinion in England. The hero, Ernest Clifford, is expelled
from Cambridge for Atheism; his father disinherits him in con
sequence, and he joins an Atheist propaganda in London, the leader
of which, Francis Sterne, is the model Atheist of the tale, and the
life and soul of a movement which would certainly not have been
forgotten if it had ever existed. The date of the story is about the
period of the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill (1829). At
that time the Carlile agitation was going on, and it certainly contained
many such adherents as the Hatherley and Carter whose coarse but
genuine earnestness Mr. Holdreth has here depicted; but the Freethinking newspapers of that day could boast of no such editor as
“ Arthur Clayton, the Melancthon of Atheism,” nor did they possess
among their contributors any such men as Francis Sterne or Ernest
Clifford. The whole tale is an arabesque, in which all the combina
tions of circumstance are nearly impossible. As the author must be
perfectly aware of this, we attribute to him the intention of aiming
at coherence merely in ideal respects. Conceding to him this liberty,
however, we see, by the elements of which he builds his world, which
are the points in the relation of theology to life that have most importance for him, either in feeling or observation.
In the first place, it should be remarked that, although the romance
has great faults as a work of art, it displays one characteristic which
many works of greater finish do not possess. It is a genuine attempt
to paint from life, rather than to construct from mere fancy or theory.
Although the dialogue is very defective in easy, natural flow, the
conception and description of character indicate close observation and
delicate perception. Especially does the writer’s attention seem to
have been given to the varying styles of character among Free
thinkers. Nearly all the dramatis personae are Atheists, yet all differ
from each other as people do in real life; they are not sketched from
their creed, inwards, but from their character, outwards. Perhaps
Sterne is an exception to this rule; but Ernest, Clayton, Seaton,
Louis, Arnott, and the rest, are clearly drawn from observation, and
not from theory,—and this is no small merit in a tale written to
exemplify a theory. It is a merit, too, in a deeper sense than at first
appears. For this endeavour to paint men as they are, under the
creed of Atheism, has thrown a light upon the effects of that creed
which no Atheist ever gave us before. The author has laid bare the
weak points of his own faith with the candour of one who has no
purpose to serve but the perfect truth. We have not space to
illustrate this as fully as we could wish, and must confine ourselves to
the more salient points alone.
The first “ consequence ” which the “ conscience ” of the Atheist
entails upon him is, of course, the external loss of friends and
position; but this is plainly subordinate in the author’s view to the
internal consequences resulting from the change. It is not only the
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
19
human affections that Ernest is called upon to renounce,—he has to
part with hopes that had outsoared death, and to forsake the peace
with which
“ the heavenly house he trod,
And lay upon the breast of God.”
“ He regretted keenly the old hymns of the Church, in which he
could never join again, as formerly, with simple, heart-felt faith. He
regretted the Incarnate God, dear for Ilis human love, and still
dearer for His human sorrow, who had gradually dwindled before his
eyes into a man, of the common stature of men, or at least less than
the greatest. He regretted the Bible he had trusted so implicitly, but
could never take up now without lighting on some page defiled by
blood or blotted with error and ignorance. He regretted the atoning
martyr, whose dying pardon to his enemies, and dying promise to the
penitent thief, had been the delight of his early meditations. He re
gretted the Heaven which his friend had resolved into its cloud
elements ; that beautiful Fata Morgana of Christianity,—or more
truly of Spiritualism,—where it is promised us that we shall meet
hereafter the loved and lost on earth. Above all, he regretted the
God who was vanishing into thin air before the opened eyes of his reason;
God, the avenger of human suffering, the Redressor of human wrong,
the Consoler of human sorrow; God, whose wisdom can never err,
and whose love shall never fail.................................... We must not
blame Ernest Clifford too severely, therefore, if, in the first bitterness
of this disappointment, when finding the most cherished visions of
his heart fade from the clear light of reason, he was hardly conscious
that there was aught left behind to make life worth living.’'*
Nor does the author give us to understand that this grief was
merely the dark transition-period leading to a happier, fuller, and
richer faith. The only growth of character which he depicts as
resulting from Atheism is a development of the power of endurance.
In his view, the allegiance to Truth not only entails many painful
consequences in its progress to a nobler life, but it is the inlet to a
whole world of suffering, unrelieved by any gleams of sunlight; it
excites the active impulses, but tortures the receptive side of our
nature with cruel starvation.^ We must give some illustration
of this from Ernest’s history. Expelled from his home, he is forced
to part from his sister, without any hope of a future meeting.
* “ Reasoner,” No. 632. The italics here and elsewhere are our own.
+ Those who know Keats’s Life and Letters may be here reminded of his
beautiful parable of human life (Vol. 1. p. 140), where the keen vision of the
world’s misery first assails the young soul,—“ whereby this Chamber of MaidenThought becomes gradually darkened, and at the same time on all sides of it
many doors are set open,—but all dark,—all leading to dark passages. We see
not the balance of good and evil; we are in a mist, we are in that state, we feel
the ‘ Burden of the Mystery.’ . . . Now if we live, and go on thinking, we
too shall explore these dark passages,”
�20
PHASES OP ATHEISM.
“A heavy weight lay on Ernest’s heart, which all the courage
given by a clear conscience, all the resolution of martyrdom, all the
strength of despair, barely sufficed to endure. He could say but
little to his darling sister; but the child knew the mood, and was
content to lie on his arms, dreaming not of the most terrible trouble
she had known, which was to come from those lips that had never
breathed anything but tenderness and peace to her.................... ‘ And
now, dear Alice, farewell. May you be happy, my darling, my
treasure, my first and last hope in life!’
“ How one misses, on such an occasion, the old Saxon ‘ God Hess you P
which consigns the loved one to a higher and stronger care, yet one as
tender as our own! He strained the child to his breast for one long
embrace. Then he unclasped her little arms from his neck, kissed
her once more, and was gone........................... ‘ Farewell!’ he re
peated, bitterly. ‘ And all this misery comes of doing my duty.
Certainly, then, there ¿s no God !’ ”*
“ But if Duty lead to destruction, what matters it ? Soldiers
sworn into allegiance to that sacred name, whither she commands,
thither are we bound to march ; ay, to Hell, if need should be.
‘ Ours not to make reply ;
Ours not to reason why ;
Ours but to do or die.’
There is more of martyrdom still in this world than the world dreams
of. Every step in advance that mankind makes, is made not only
over the bodies of fallen defenders of the ancient Evil. The road is
paved with the noblest, the truest, the bravest hearts that have
struggled or suffered in the good cause: and it is by trampling on our
wounded brethren that we advance to victory. It is the law; who
shall gainsay it ? Ask of the Almighty God, if there be one, why he
constructed the world so clumsily. Remember that Nature, working
ever by fixed rules, and with imperfect instruments, can only attain
the final happiness of the Many by constant sacrifices of the Few.
And will the Few complain of this sacrifice? If they do, it will be
neither wisely nor justly. Pre-eminent sorrow is the price of pre
eminence ; ■ ■ . the finest, noblest, loftiest minds of every age have it
as their assigned destiny—as the finest bull or ram was slain before
the gods of olden time—to be sacrificed at the altar of Progress.
The hemlock of Socrates, the cross of Jesus, the scaffold of More, are
not strange and unnatural accidents in the career of benefactors of
mankind, but only extreme and marked examples of the natural fate
of those whose moral and intellectual pre-eminence renders them
prominent marks for the hostility of the ‘powers of darkness.’
‘ Serve and enjoy,’ is Nature’s commandment to mankind; those whom
she deigns to honour with a special mandate are charged to serve and
endure.”f
* “ Reasoner,” No. 639.
f “ Reasoner,” No. 635.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
21
This is the first mention in Mr. Holdreth’s writings of “ the powers
of darkness,”—but it is not the last. In the following chapter of
“Conscience and Consequence,” we hear that Superstition is “the
worst and most terrible of all the emanations of the Evil Principle ;
the spirit on whom alone no holy name seems to have power, whom
no exorcism can cast out, and with whom no spiritual strength can
grapple.”* And at length we come to the following plain state
ment of the terrible alternative. Ernest is speaking to a Sicilian
patriot, who has been expressing his fervent faith in God.
“ But may we not ask, Signor, if there be a God, why are you
here, and Francis the poltroon on the throne of the Two Sicilies ? Is
this God’s world, or the Devil’s? Must we not rather say—when-we
look to the men who fill the thrones of Europe on the one side, and
to those who crowd her dungeons on the other—when we think of
the darkness that broods over the souls and minds of her millions of
inhabitants, and remember that here we have the best and highest
forms of human life—whether or no there be a Devil, assuredly there is
no God /”f
Thus our author’s keen sense of Moral Evil leads him to regard its
wide-spread existence as invalidating the reality of a Divine Purpose
in the world. That this bitter “ fountain of tears ” is the central
source of his Atheism, is evident from the whole tenor of his writings.
It will, however, be useful here to quote the exact form in which he has
summed up his view of the subject as a whole. We quote from a
letter of Sterne’s to Ernest.
“ Let me point out to you our arguments as against God’s existence.
“ First: evil exists. God, being omnipotent, could crush evil with
out diminishing good—that is, without causing any moral deteriora
tion on our part for want of something to contend against, or the like.
God, being utterly good, would do so. But it is not done ; evil is al
lowed to exist; therefore God either does not exist, or is deficient either
in power or goodness. If in the former, we cannot trust Him, since
we know not the limits of His power; and if in the latter, we decline
to worship an imperfect Being.
“ Second: God’s foreknowledge, being absolute, is incompatible
with Man’s free will.
“ But the Atheist’s grand argument is that the Theist has none.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever that God exists, and the
burden of proof rests with those who affirm that He does.”|
Every phase of disbelief must be viewed in relation to that belief
which it negatives. We see here what is the sort of Theism to
which Mr. Holdreth enters so decided an opposition. It is the faith
* “ Reasoner,” No. 637. This is said, not by any person in the story, but by the
narrator himself. We have carefully avoided quoting any passages as illustrative
of the author’s views, which are not clearly meant to be so understood.
f Ibid., No. 648.
X Ibid., No. 626.
�22
PHASES OP ATHEISM.
in an Autocratic Power, who is capable of creating good and evil by an
arbitrary fiat of volition,—a Power whose absolute and all-pervading
personality excludes all free and self-modifying existence in all His
creatures. No wonder that such a faith should strain and break down
under the pressure of life’s realities. This sort of Theism is a com
pound of two elements,—the Despot-God of Calvinistic Orthodoxy,
and the Law-God of physical science. The essentially immoral and
unphilosophical nature of the former conception renders superfluous
any argument against it on our part; but the latter idea contains a
partial truth. Inorganic nature indubitably bears the impress of
Cosmic Law. The stars in their orbits, the plants in their growth, ex
press rather than obey the changeless rules of Nature. Unconscious
of pain, undisturbed by temptation, their beautiful life is the incarna
tion of an Orderly Force, whose movements we can (within small, but
yet widening limits) calculate beforehand. Fascinated by this great and
apparently benevolent Power, philosophers have worshipped the God of
Nature as the Supreme. But when this conception of Deity is
carried into the regions of the human will, it is utterly inadequate to
interpret the most important of phenomena; it is dumb concerning all
those moral problems which are specially characteristic of human
life, and distinguish it from the inorganic or irrational departments of
nature. Some thinkers, like Mr. Buckle, fall back on the notion that
the fluctuations of good and evil in the history of individual man are
of small importance, and that the only permanent interests of
humanity consist in what can be generalised and classified. Not so
Mr. Holdreth: he stands fast by the moral realities of individual
life, as being far more important to us than mere general laws, and he
has the courage to maintain that, although, to him, all sight of a Divine
Purpose has vanished from the world,—though the Ordinances of
Nature ruthlessly crush the weak, and wrong the innocent,—yet
still, virtue and sin in man are now, as ever, infinitely opposed; and
that, even under the half-diabolic Shadow which saddens an im
perfect Universe, we should fight to the death for the sacredness of
*
Good.
But now, starting from the point of Man’s Free Will, in which Mr.
Holdreth vehemently believes,f why should this exclude the possible
existence of a God ? Is no other conception of Him possible than the
mere Law-God of Science, or the Arbitrary Despot of Orthodoxy?
* Nor is it only an external warfare that he urges ; he speaks of moral conflict
as one who knows the meaning of temptation, and who has recognised the need
felt by every sensitive conscience of coercing internal as well as external foes. And
it is from this point that his ideal of a faith is conceived, as may he seen in the
first extract we have given from his writings.
+ “The doctrine of Necessity is contradictory to instinct, to reason, to ex
perience. It is a renunciation of morality, a blasphemy against duty, an Atheism
to Nature. . . . My instinct revolts against such degradation. I feel that I
am free, as I feel that I think, that I move, that I exist,” etc.—“ Theism the
Religion of Sentiment,” “ Reasoner,” No. 537.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
23
To merely speculative intellects, who care only to hold “views” of
theology, no satisfying insight into the truth is attainable. But to
those in whose minds, as in Mr. Iloldreth’s, moral action forms an essen
tial part of that life of which speculative thought is but the exponent,
there is a vision possible, which we will attempt (however imperfectly)
to indicate.
1. We believe that God, by giving us Free Will to use or misuse
our faculties, has put into our hands a large amount of independent
power, which precludes His possession of that absolute foreknowledge
of our individual course which many popular theories attribute to
Him. But by confining our capacities to a certain range in relation
to the other forces of the universe, lie has insured that our individual
aberrations shall never pass beyond a preordained limit, after which
the compensations of nature restore the general equilibrium. With
respect to our capacity, therefore, we are governed by the necessity
of God’s ordinances; with respect to the use we make of our capacity,
He leaves our individuality in our own hands. What He seeks from
us, there, is not the mechanical acquiescence of a plant or a bird, that
must obey the laws of its nature; but the free service of the Eternal
Right, the unconstrained love of the Infinite Goodness. Now such
freedom cannot be given without the power to choose wrongly. What
is virtue ? Not the mere absence of Evil, but the preference of Good,
—the devotion to Good as Good. Were there no distinctive
differences between right actions and wrong ones, no perception of
excellence could exist. Were there not in man a capacity for choosing
and following evil, no struggle of the will could arise at all: the
very existence of the idea of Duty—the Ought—implies that there is
a course which we ought not to follow. Some thinkers maintain that
this doctrine implies the subjection of God to an extraneous Fate; but
surely such thipkers overlook the true state of the case. Can we
conceive of God as creating a square circle, or as causing rain to fall
and not to fall at the same time and place ? These are self-contra
dictory requirements in physics, and the inability to combine them
does not imply any want of power. And is it not our greater inex
perience in Morals which alone renders it possible to us to conceive of
them as not amenable to fixed consistencies, and capable of being
moulded at pleasure by the caprice of an arbitrary Will? “If
Wisdom and Holiness are historical births from His volition, they are
not inherent attributes of His being.”* To resolve the conception of
God into the single attribute of volition, is to lose the substance of
Deity for an impossible phase of Omnipotence. For if we imagine
Him to be without a consistent manner of existence, we lose all that
makes Him the Object of our reverence and trust. “ Let Him
precede good and ill, and His Eternal Spirit is exempt alike from the
one and from the other, and recedes from our aspirations into perfect
moral indifierence.”j’
2. God has established a limit to the “ powers of darkness.” Beyond
* “ Prospective Review,” November, 1815. Review of Whewell’s “ Elements
of Morality.”
f “ Prospective Review,” ut supra.
�24
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
a certain point, crime leads to the destruction of its agents; the con
tact with nature and reality is fatal to evil in the long run. Death
and Birth perpetually tend to restore the balance of things, by re
moving the incurably corrupt, and filling the world with new life,
capable of healthier development. Thus much God grants to us as
“general law
more complete salvation we cannot have without our
own individual exertions. Now, that mankind have in many direc
tions gone very near the limit of human capacity to do evil, there can
be no doubt. The state of the Roman Empire for several centuries,
the horrors of religious persecution in all ages, the present state of
American slavery, are all testimonies to the awful capacity in man for
deliberate and consummate wickedness. But however wide may be the
shadow which human guilt can cast, it can never exceed the measure
of those faculties which occasion it, and consequently it must always
be possible for the right exercise of those faculties to attain an
equally wide development. It may be replied, that to do wroDg is
easier than to do right; or, in other terms, that our powers of action
and enjoyment tend to an over-selfish degree of gratification. That
they have such a tendency is most true ; but we have another tendency,
of an opposite nature. “ It is not more true that the flesh lusteth
against the spirit, than that the spirit lusteth against the flesh.”*
And it is this power of choice between the lower and the higher ten
dency, that makes us moral beings. The perennial alternative is,
whether we will cultivate our faculties for the sake of self alone, or
whether we will train them to be ministers in the service of that Pure
Goodness which can alone set our hearts free. And that there is an impulse
in man which seeks the pure, unselfish service of Goodness and Right,
and that this impulse ought to be the ruling authority of man’s heart,
is no secret to the best Atheists; indeed, it forms the acknowledged
groundwork of Mr. Holdreth’s faith. What is required for the salva
tion of mankind is this,—that the souls of men should love the Right
above all else, and promote it personally and publicly, with all their
strength and mind and heart. Of individual heroism and holiness the
experience of the race already affords many bright examples; but
these qualities have yet to be developed in social forms. Something
of this has been approached when a great moral enthusiasm has com
municated itself to a large body of men, animating them with one
common sentiment, burning up their littlenesses, and developing them
into a new life. Partial and incomplete as such results have been, they
have sufficiently manifested the fact that mankind are capable of a
social conscience, in the development of which individual excellence
may attain its ripest fulness. And “ if” (as Mr. Iloldreth says) “ we
were all now to begin to do our duty,”—if every single individual who
is troubled by the shadow of moral evil were to exert himself to the
utmost to assail it,—the combined efforts of so many workers would
assuredly, before the lapse of many generations, visibly diminish the
* Francis W. Newman, “ The Soul,” Chap. II I. “ The Sense of Sin.’
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
25
extent of that shadow. It is Action that we want,—moral devoted
ness to realise what moral and intellectual study have shown to be
the true needs of man.
3. Now comes the question, what light would such combined social
action throw upon the problem of the Universe? We believe it
would reveal much. For, although discouragements abound, from
the stubbornness of sin and the waywardness of passion, yet there is
an under-current of hope which persistent and faithful souls can
scarcely miss. There is, underneath the accumulated refuse of past
errors, a real thirst in human nature for right, and truth, and good
ness, which gradually becomes visible to genuine explorers, and which
is capable of infinite expansion. For we are so constituted that, how
ever long we may wander in darkness and falsehood, we can only
thrive in light and reality. The world is based on truth. Good and
Evil are not coequal powers, but Goodness, because it is Goodness, is
the mightier of the two when once fairly fledged. Evil may indefinitely
delay the advent of Good in the rebellious human heart; but directly
we turn to clasp and serve the Good in real earnest, we gain some of
its own power in addition to our own—a power which, if we are
faithful, will increase in us ever more and more, freeing us from the
bondage of selfish desires, and inspiring us with strength, peace, and
blessedness.
4. But, asks Mr. Holdreth, why should the consequences of guilt
be allowed to fall upon the guiltless ?
“ We that have sinned may justly rue,
Sin grows to pain in order due—
Why do the sinless suffer too ?”*
Without assuming to fathom the whole depth of the difficulty, we
would reply, that there is one obvious reason for this ordinance. The
tie of a common sensibility is the necessary postulate of social life,
which could not even exist, if the pains and pleasures of separate
individuals did not extend beyond themselves. If our actions affected
ourselves alone, what would become of all the relations of family,
friendship, country, and race ? We might as well be dwelling in
solitary and separate worlds. And it is not, in the nature of things,
possible that we should receive joy from our human sympathies,
without being also capable of receiving sorrow from them. The same
constitution which makes us open to improvement from the influences
of virtue, renders us liable to contagion from the contact of vice. Is
this an immoral doctrine ? Far from it. By testifying to the great
ness of social influences, it indirectly suggests how widely they may
minister to human improvement. Like all other extensions of our
sensibility and capacity, its consequences for good only demand our co
operation to outweigh infinitely its consequences for evil. One of the
first incitements that can move a sympathetic nature to self-discipline,
is the perception that his failures in virtue cazmoOnjure himself alone,
but must inevitably bring mischief and misery upon others also. To
* “ Shadows of the Past,” p. 36.
�26
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
see the untamed evil in their own hearts reflected back upon them in
the marred lives of the innocents whom they love, is a punishment
■which may recall many self-willed natures, who, in the recklessness
of passion, care but little for such consequences as only affect them
selves. Even the best of us continually need to see the right and
wrong of our actions illuminated by the well-being or injury of the
human creatures around us, in order to realise the full responsibility
imposed by that just and awful law, “Whatsoever thou sowest, that
also shalt thou reap.”
And when guilt seems to have passed beyond the human chances
of redemption, when long courses of evil-doing have hardened vice
and crime into “ established institutions,” then is it not our pity for
the victims that moves us to seek redress ? Probably the tyrants of
power, in all cases, are more fearfully injured by sin, than their
victims by suffering. Yet, clearly as we may perceive the degrada
tion caused by slavery and tyranny to the oppressing races or rulers,
human nature is not so constituted that this perception can act as a
sufficient motive-power on the general heart of man to induce the
reformation of the offenders. It is our pity for the innocent that
moves us to overthrow the oppressor. True, the arresting his career
is the best service we can do lor him ; but it is not for his sake that
we do it. He has, by wilful persistence in evil, put himself beyond
the pale of direct human service; it is only indirectly that we can
benefit him, by destroying his power to do evil. That indirect
service, however, shows that the tie of human brotherhood still
remains, and the blow which breaks the chain of the sufferer restores
the balance of the world, and gives another chance even to the oppressor.
The “ Innocents ” were said to be the earliest of Christian martyrs,
and their place is yet sacred in the roll of the world’s benefactors.
When, therefore, we see that the power to distinguish and choose
between Good and Evil is essential to the perception and service of
Good, both in the life of individuals and in the wider sensibilities of
social existence; when we see that, however terribly our choice of
Evil may injure ourselves and others, we have, all of us, chance upon
chance of redemption offered, and natural limits placed to our
capacity for evil-doing; when we see that the service of Good is
capable of being made as wide as the service of Evil has too often been,
and moreover that the inherent vitality of Good excels that of Evil,
in being capable of an infinite expansion and development in harmony
with nature, instead of in discord with it—surely, however much is still
hidden from us on this subject, we see enough to reassure us that the
Great Mystery is not a maleficent one.
*
* Probably it requires Infinite Perfection to formulate the whole truth concern
ing Good and Evil. The humblest efforts of conscience enable us to see clearer
in morals than the most acute intellect can ever penetrate without them; and it
may well be, that, as moral insight increases with moral worth, it can only be
complete where Goodness and Intellect are both entire and coequal, in the mind
of the Only Perfect One.—See Appendix C.
�PHASES OP ATHEISM.
27
Here it is necessary to take up Mr. Holdreth’s conception of
“Nature” from another point, and to examine his reason for main
taining that cosmical harmony does not imply a Personal Unity. Mr.
Holdreth adopts Mr. Holyoake’s doctrine on this point, which he thus
briefly re-states:—
“ The Atheist looks to the universe, under the guidance of the
divine; and the divine points to the traces of law, and cries, ‘ There
you behold the finger of God.’ The pupil asks why this is known to
be a finger-mark of Deity; and the reply is, when reduced to a logical
form, ‘ Fitness proves design, design an intelligent author—and this
author we name God.’ Objects his auditor, ‘ Then the fitness of God
proves an author of God ?’ ‘ Not so.’ ‘ Then how came you to say
that the universe must have an author ?’ ‘ How else comes it to
exist ?’ says the theologian. ‘ How comes God to exist ?’ is the natural
retort. ‘ An eternal universe is as easy of conception as an eternal
God.’ ”*
In this argument there is a mixture of truth and error which
requires to be carefully disentangled. The Theist does not, or at any
rate should not, affirm that the mere fitness or perfection of any
object indicates its design from another hand. What he maintains is
this : that when we see the exercise of Force in the direction of a
urpose, we, by an inevitable inference, attribute the phenomenon to
some conscious agent. You may call this an assumption, if you will,
but it is the necessary postulate of all our conceptions of consciousness.
What other test of consciousness can we imagine but this ? And how
can we dissever the perception from the inference? Now when the
purpose attained by any existence is clearly not resultant from forces
consciously exerted by it—as in the motions of the stars, the growth
of plants from their seeds, the propagation and support of animal
life from the exercise of blind instincts, etc.—we say that such results
must have been intended by some Intelligence extraneous to the
objects themselves. And when we see such exercise of purposeful
force pervading the Universe with a coherent harmony which implies
an unmistakable Cosmical Unity, we cannot but attribute to that
force a consciousness of the results which it produces. In spite of
their rejection of this inference, Atheists perpetually speak of
“ Nature ” as a causal source, both of force and order. Mr. Holdreth
does this most markedly, as may be seen in the following passages
from his “ Affirmations of Secularism : ”—
“ To be saved from perdition, moral and material, we must have
faith in the laws by which Nature has provided for our deliverance,
and upon that faith we must act. . . . Nature demands from us
that we should believe in her, obey her; and she will not fail to
enforce belief by moral penalties, and to punish disobedience by
material sufferings. . . . Nature’s government is a despotism,
* “ Reasoner,” No. 627.
�28
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
with the eternal accident heureux of a beneficent ruler. And I, for
one, am glad that it is so. I, for one, have more faith in the order
and harmony of Nature than in the justice or wisdom of men, and am
rejoiced that it is not left to the latter to arrange the politics of the
ethical world at their will.”*
Mr. Holdreth is, however, far from being consistent on this point.
The foregoing passage implies the attribution of a higher and firmer
morality to Nature than is to be found in man ; but elsewhere our
author maintains that “ the one appalling fact stands every day more
and more clearly visible before the eyes of every thoughtful inquirer,
that Nature is not governed on principles of moral equity; that good
is only attained through evil, and that the justice which is exacted
from just men is not dealt to them ; in a word, that the Author of
Nature, if there be one, is not a Moral Governor, but a stern and
ruthless Machinist.”f
Being pressed with this discrepancy by a Theistic correspondent of
the Reasoner, Mr. Holdreth gave the following explanation:—
“ The Cosmist sees in Nature a machine, which works according to
definite laws which it did not create, and which were not created, but
which it cannot violate. . . If the machine crushes his child or maims
himself, he blames but his own folly, or pities his own misfortune, but
still recognises the value and beneficence of the mechanism. The
Theist, believing Nature an instrument in the hands of a conscious
Being, must see in her workings the designed operations of that Being,
and the evidence of His character. And since those workings often
operate injustice and cruelty in individual cases, he ought to suppose
that Being careless of justice and benevolence, or unable to execute
His own will. Seeing a disregard of morality (which the Cosmist
considers the consequence, not the cause of natural law) in Nature’s
operations, he is bound to believe the operator devoid of moral
character.”!
Thus, then, we come to this point. The general laws of Nature
are “ ever active and ever beneficentbut, as we see the welfare of
individuals perpetually sacrificed to that of the whole, we must
“ believe the operator devoid of moral character,” unless we resort to
the darker theory that the individual injustice was itself planned by
a Designing Devil—an idea which certainly seems to present itself
occasionally to Mr. Holdreth’s mind, though it would scarcely appear
that he actually believes it. In contrast to these theories, we have
endeavoured to show that the capacity for individual sin and suffering
is the indispensable postulate of all our virtue and happiness—the
material out of which all sensitive and active life is moulded, and
through which alone we can attain the truest good of which our
nature is capable. Moreover, we believe that those apparently
exceptional phenomena of our lives, which to the human judgment
* “ Reasoner,” No. 583.
t Ibid., No. 594.
Î Ibid., No. 607.
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
29
appear most inexplicable and distressing, are often the very means of
leading us into nobler and richer fields of life, not otherwise attainable.
If we faithfully meet the new trouble in a spirit of obedience and
trust, it gradually unfolds its hidden meaning, and reveals to us beyond
our bounded imaginations and imperfect efforts, the presence of
One whose Reality transcends our highest ideals, and who, in His
exhaustless love, is ever seeking our perfection, and pleading with us
for the free devotion of our hearts to Ilis service. Among the earliest
tokens of this filial relationship are our longings after an inexhaust
ible Source of love and truth, who shall guide and respond to us
where man’s help must stop short. There are some striking illustra
tions of this tendency in Mr. Holdreth’s novelette. One of the most
prominent is the depiction of the way in which the hero partially
fills up the void in his heart caused by the loss of his religion, with
an intense devotion to his “ Master,” Sterne, who does, in fact, take
the place of a God to him. He accepts the whole responsibility of
Ernest’s life, for which Ernest gives, in return, an almost childlike
obedience. Thus, such comfort as he does find is gained by reposing
on a higher and stronger will than his own. Any such need in
Sterne’s own character is obviated by the coldly-calm temperament
ascribed to him. “ Having no passionate love for any other object
than his sister, having no cause to serve in whose success his soul was
absorbed, and serving the cause of Atheism simply from a quiet, un
impassioned conviction of its truth and necessity, he felt no need of
any assistance or protection from without. He was sufficient to him
self, and his conscience was sufficient to him.”
Yet, with a perceptiveness which singularly contrasts with the
author’s admiration for his ideal Atheist, he has painted Sterne’s
inability to train his wayward sister Annie, with a verisimilitude that
is only too painfully real. The need of influences beyond humanity
to solve such problems of character as hers is so clearly manifested in
this little episode of Atheist life, that we must extract enough to show
its main features. Sterne is the guardian of his two orphan sisters.
A scene of contention with the elder child has just taken place, in
which Sterne has tried in vain to bring her to reason.
“ The child understood ; that much, -at least, was clear. But she
would not seem to feel. And Sterne bit his lip, and turned away
sadly to take the hand of his favourite, as she danced into the room.
.... Annie sat by the window, where she could see them depart,
and notice her brother’s tenderness towards the tiny creature, who
in the midst of her laughter, was even then murmuring a word of pity
for ‘ poor Annie,’—more needed than Emily could know. The sullen
girl bowed her head on her hands, and gave way to a passionate burst
of grief and vexation. ‘ How be loves her! and I—no one loves me!
Well, I won’t care ; I hate them;’—but the word was sobbed forth
with an intensity of rage which belied it; and it was long ere Annie
could resume her usual quiet and sullen behaviour. Pity that her
�30
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
brother had’not'seen those tears, and heard that bitter cry of desola
tion, ‘ No one loves me.’ He who knows no Father in heaven is doubly
bound to be tender toward the fatherless on earth. Sterne knew and
felt this. He had done his duty by his sisters nobly and kindly;
and Annie would have had no reason to complain, were it possible for
Duty to command love, despite all the faults and unloveliness of its
object. Sterne did his duty; and here his task ended. He could
not love one so thoroughly unamiable.”—Chap. VI.
“ She returned to her seat (after doing a kindness to Emily), not
unnoticed by her brother, whose conscientious vigilance seldom
missed a single trait of character in either of his wards. ‘ Thank you,
Annie,’ he said, in a tone of more gentleness, and even tenderness,
than it was his wont to use towards the wayward and vexatious
child. What a pity that the shadow of the fireplace screened the
light of the candle from Annie’s face, and forbade her brother to
notice the glow of momentary pleasure which illumined it. It was
but for a moment; then came the thought, ‘ If it had been his
favourite, he would have said, Thank you, darling,' and all the
sullenness returned to her face and her demeanour, as she resumed
her old attitude and her solitary musings. It is a fearful power that
the words and tones of one human being exercise over the mind of
another; a power so inevitable and yet so incalculable that it is
hard for him or her who wields it to have the slightest clue to its
right use. Indeed, it is perhaps as well that we have in general so
little ability to direct our use of this influence; for one who could
calculate beforehand the effect his every word and gesture would pro
duce might be a despot of no common kind. Yet it is grievous to
think that an accidental variation of phrase or tone, which we could
not possibly remember or foresee, should affect so fatally the peace or
the character of another. A single word of affection then spoken
might have saved years of discomfort, sorrow, and self-reproach; yet
could Sterne have known that it was wanted, or would be felt, it bad
certainly not been withheld.”—Chap. VIII.
It would be impossible to depict more clearly the inadequacy of the
bare sense of Duty to compass all the work which is given us to do.
What Sterne needed was to break up the ice round his sister’s heart,
by penetrating to the human feeling underneath her pride and
waywardness. And what could have enabled him to do this so well
as a faith in an Infinite Causal Love beyond, within, and around them
both ? Failing this, all the most delicate and tender growths of
affection are (as our author sees) at the mercy of the slightest physical
accident, and continually liable to waste away in aimless wanderings,
or to fester in morbid pride. Yet in one of the few cases where the
novelist has allowed an Atheist to love happily, we see that even
when affection is mutual and satisfying, it can never be relied upon
by an Atheist as a permanent and integral part of his being. In the
touching chapter entitled “ The Valley of the Shadow,” narrating the
�PHASES OF ATHEISM.
31
death of Emily Sterne, we see the point from which the author
endeavours to deal with this poignant grief of eternal separation, from
the principle supplied by “ the Religion of Duty.”
“ Ernest could not leave his friend in this great sorrow, and his
presence was evidently a diversion to Sterne’s melancholy, and a
pleasure to the dying child. For dying she certainly was,—fading
away from life like a gathered rose-bud, but slowly and quietly, her
self half conscious but fearless, sorrowful only for the misery which
all her adored brother’s self-command could not conceal from her
loving eyes. And she would make him sit close beside her, and clasp
her little hand in his, while his thoughts were darkened by the
shadow of the coming day, when he should never clasp that loving
little band again. Few of us know what is the anguish of the
meaning he had uttered in those bitter words, ‘ my all in life.’ She
—this beautiful and innocent little one—was the object of dll his care,
dll his labour, dll his hope. When she should be gone from him,
what would he have left but a dreary, dark, cheerless path to a goal
of utter nothingness? In those hours of torture, few could have seen
further than this, even of men less capable of passionate love, filling
the inmost recesses of existence; but Sterne was of a few. Men of
his mould are not to be found in the every-day walks of life, though
one or two such there are on earth, perhaps, if we but knew where to
seek them when we want heroes to lead us and martyrs to die for us.
Dark and waste and dreary indeed his after-life must be, but it might
be trodden boldly and faithfully; for the darkness was not all.
Even amid that long and cruel agony he remembered the work that
lay before him ; and knew that he would not do it the less bravely
and constantly, because he had no other love on earth, no other hope
on earth or in heaven. For him Duty was God and Nature was His
prophet; and though the God’s mandates were hard, and the prophet
prophesied no smooth things, Sterne was not one to lose hold of his
faith because of tribulation, nor to fling it aside in madly clasping at
a staff which, in the utmost need of those who lean thereon, cannot
but prove a broken reed................
“ ‘ What advantageth it us, if the dead rise not ? Let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die.’
“ Sterne sat by the side of his sleeping sister, who, lulled to rest for
a short time by heavy opiates, was not to be roused by their lowtoned conversation. He was bending over her, and his face was
hidden. But as his proselyte spoke these bitter words, he looked up;
and the first harsh sentence Ernest had ever heard him speak was his
reply.
“ ‘ Ernest Clifford, look at your own life, and at mine ; look here,
where all I have to love or hope in the universe is passing away from
me; and remember that I, in this utter desolation, have never
forgotten that I have no right to die with my work undone. It may
be, when you have known what such wretchedness as this is, that you
�32
PHASES OF ATHEISM.
will learn a better faith than that borrowed Epicureanism of Paul,
and bethink you that those who have so much to do before they die
to-morrow have need to make the utmost use of to-day.’
“Ernest was somewhat abashed, yet could not but recognise the
justice of the rebuke. If this man did not sink into utter despair,
what right had he to murmur ?”
Thus, one by one, fade the stars of love and hope from the Atheist’s
sight, and he is left alone, with nothing but the work which Duty
prescribes. “ He would not do it the less bravely and constantly,
because he had no other love on earth, no other hope on earth or in
heaven.” But if it be possible for all love and hope on earth or in
heaven to be thus destroyed, what work remains possible, and what
objects remain to be worked for? What is then the value of life—
not merely its relative value to this or that sufferer, but its absolute
value to man as man ? How can such a mutilated and benumbing
conception of duty “ exercise complete control over the affections, and
wield their whole power in the struggle ?" “ Nature” must be not only
“devoid of moral character,”—she must be absolutely Diabolical, if
she condemns her truest children to this terrible crushing of their
noblest yearnings. The universal heart of man refuses to believe in
such an anomalous dissonance, and, springing to the embrace of the
Infinite Goodness, echoes the cry of St. Augustine,—“ Thou hast
made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it resteth in Thee1”
Here we must close our remarks, although we have but touched
the mere outline of the subject. Our aim has not been to furnish a
short and easy guide to the mysteries of this infinite Universe, but
simply to indicate a few of the clues to the great underlying Reality,
which no worshipper can ever wholly comprehend, but which unfolds
itself ever more and more to wise and patient hearts. That Reality
must be sought by each soul singly and alone. That such a mind as
Mr. Iloldreth’s cannot seek it in vain, we feel assured. It may be
nearly impossible for any one to help such seekers in solving a
problem w’hich so largely depends on the individual experience of
life. But our task will not have been valueless if we have succeeded
in showing that there is, in these recent forms of Atheism, a faith in
truth and in virtue which commands the sympathy of religious
thinkers, and which is in itself a hopeful sign of the times. “ When
people assume that an Atheist must live without God in the world,”
■f says an able and generous writer, “ they assume what is fatal to their
own Theism.” And those who recognise in all human goodness the
sustaining hand of the Creator, will hold fast to the faith that no
genuine truth-seeker can ever be forsaken by the tender care of Him
of whom it is said that the pure in heart shall see God.
�APPENDIX.
THE RELATION OF SECULARISM TO THEISM.
Note A,page 8.
I. In illustration of this, it may be mentioned that in July, 1857, a
Society of Materialists was formed, “ for a union of Freethinkers for a more
definite object than appeared possible under the diffusive principles which
were represented under the name of Secularism.”* In the first meeting
called to consider the proposal, all the speakers in favour of the new
Society lamented the admission of “ persons of spiritualistic tendencies ”
into the Secular body, as a drag upon the efforts of Freethinkers. Soon
afterwards, Mr. Holyoake and “ Iconoclast ” held some discussions on the
position of Secularism, in which “ Iconoclast ” “ denied that there was any
middle standing between Atheism and Theism,” and maintained “ that
Secularism was impracticable when separated from Atheism, urging that
the plan of Secularism was essentially Atheistic.”! To the same class of
views belong the well-known “ Religious Confessions ” of Mr. Joseph
Barker, who, from having been successively a Methodist, an Unitarian, and
a Theistic Secularist, became an Atheistic Secularist, holding Secularism
“ as the sole concern and business of mankind,” and blending it inex
tricably with Atheism, which, according to him, “ occupies the position of
positive science, and is a mighty reformatory principle.’’J On the other
hand may be quoted the numerous articles of Mr. Holdreth, who has
always maintained that “ it is both better and easier to win for Secularism
a front place among religions, than to obtain respect or tolerance for
irreligión :”§ and who has lately (since the first edition of this Essay was
sent to the press) withdrawn himself from the public advocacy of Secu
larism, because “ his views of it differ so widely from those which have
determined the aspect it has recently assumed.”||
II. Mr. Holyoake, however, still believing in the possibility of a neutral
faith, has lately published a little pamphlet, entitled “ Principles of
Secularism,” in which he endeavours to define and consolidate his owr
position. He there maintains the following points.
1. That Secularism is a “ synonym of Freethought,” in harmony with
“ the hereditary characteristics of Freethinking” (p. 4); that “Secularism
is the name given to a series of principles of Positivism, intended for the
guidance of those who find Theology indefinite, or inadequate, or deem it
unreliable” (p. 7).
2. That a Secularist “ concerns himself with present time and materiality,
neither ignoring nor denying the future and spiritual, which are indepen
dent questions ” (p. 6).
3. That, “ occupying, as Secularism intends to do, the ground of Nature,
it may refuse to engage itself with Atheism, Theism, or Biblicism. So long
as he [the Secularist] chooses to remain within the sphere of his own
principles, he simply ignores all outlying sectarian systems, and is no
more to be put down as opposed to any such views than the geologist is to
be cried down as the enemy of music, or the chemist as the opponent of
geometry, because he ignores those subjects, and confines his attention to
his own. Honour those who advisedlv, and for the public good, com
promise themselves ; only take care that associates are not affected by
this conduct of others. And this will never take place so long as the
simple and pure profession of common principles is kept intrinsically in
dependent and unassailably neutral ” (p. 18).
But this is precisely what the Secularists have never done. It is as
a “ synonym of Freethought,” i.e., of unfettered speculative inquiry, that the
very name of Secularism is put forth: and not only are five-sixths of the
* “ Reasoner,” No. 582.
§ Ibid , No. 584.
f Ibid, Nos. 584, 591.
t Ibid, Nos. 646, 649
|| Ibid, No. 690, August 14,1859.
�34
APPENDIX.
Secularists thorough-going Atheists, but by far the greatest amount of
their activity as a party is given to the discrediting of religion. It is even
one of Mr. Holyoake’s own definitions of Secularism, that its principles
“ are intended for the guidance of those who find Theology indefinite, or in
adequate, or deem it unreliable.” How, then, can Secularist principles be
ever regarded as intrinsically independent, and unassailably neutral?
How can a Secularist claim that he is no more to be put down as opposed
to religion, than the geologist is to be cried down as the enemy of music, or
the chemist as the opponent of geometry? The researches of the geologist
in no way assail the theories of the musician, nor does the chemist discredit
the principles of the geometer. But Secularism, if it does really “ neither
ignore nor deny the future and the spiritual,” and claims Theistic adherents
on that ground—must be in direct opposition to Atheism, by which the
affirmations of religion are necessarily either ignored or denied.
III. Is it, then, impossible for Theists and Atheists to combine together for
purposes of practical usefulness which both may have equally at heart?
God forbid. It is only impossible when a speculative theory is made the
condition of union. The Association for the Promotion of Social Science
may be regarded as a happy instance of a true Secular Society, in the only
sense in which that term can be accepted by both parties, t.e., its stand
point is the importance of earthly work, not the doing it from merely earthly
motives. Consequently, the Association exacts from its members no defi
nition of the relation of work to faith, nor of this world to the next, but
leaves the human and the Divine to find their natural and ever-varying
proportions in the mind and life of each individual. Mr. Holyoake’s
Secularism, on the other hand, “ draws the line of separation between the
things of time and the things of eternity;” “selects for its guidance the
principle that ‘ human affairs should be regulated by considerations purely
human,’” and regards the beliefs of religion as “ supplementary specula
tions.”* Now there are stages of suspensive Atheism and of imperfect
Theismf with which these declarations may consist; and it is important
that such intermediate stages of belief should be clearly distinguished from
dogmatic Atheism. But, nevertheless, the views held by these inter
mediate thinkers are not those of a mature and consistent Theism. To a
true Theist, the Being of God is no “ supplementary speculation,” but the
underlying Reality of the Universe; and so far from seeking to regulate
human affairs by considerations purely human, he regards the life of
humanity as perpetually needing to be interpreted by the light of the
Divine. And while the Secularist “inculcates the practical sufficiency of
natural morality, apart from ” any spiritual basis, the Theist holds that that
“ natural morality ” only exists by virtue of His existence who is the
fountain alike of nature and of grace. But, on the other hand, a consistent
Theist will never deny that a man may himself be morally estimable and
reliable who does not hold this belief. For Character and Speculation
are by no means co-ordinate in their development, and a man’s character
is the man himself, while his speculations only give us the conscious pro
gramme adopted by him. Frankly should we say to those Atheists who
command our respect, “ We will work with you wherever we can
agree, because, believing in God as the source of all human goodness
and truth, we recognise every good impulse and true thought in you as
coming from Him, and therefore as equally sacred with our own.” But
* “ Principles of Secularism,” pp. 6, 7.
t See an interesting letter, signed “ Truth-Seeker,” in “ Reasoner,” No. 588,
from a correspondent who professes himself to be “ a believer (at least pro
visionally) in the being of a God and the immortality of the soul,” and who
earnestly contends that Mr. Holyoake’s Atheism does not assume any certainty
of negation. See also, the criticisms of some Theistic Secularists (“ Reasoner,”
Nos. 650, 651, 659, 668) on Mr. Barker’s Confessions.
�APPENDIX.
35
this is essentially different from giving our adherence to a system which
regards the main foundations of our faith as “ supplementary speculations,”
“ indefinite, inadequate, or unreliable.”
I am especially anxious to clear up this point, because it is one Hpon
which there has been considerable misapprehension on both sides. Many
Theists have hesitated to give full scope to their natural liberality of feel
ing, from the fear lest they should, in some sense, be obscuring their
fidelity to religion by co-operating with Atheists, even in matters involving
no profession of disbelief. Surely, where such a fear exists, the true
difference between Theism and Atheism cannot have been clearly dis
criminated, still less can the true relation between Theists and Atheists
have been explored in all its fulness of light and shadow. The true difference
between the Theist and the Atheist (to borrow the words of one of the most
spiritual of living preachers “ is not that the one has God and the other
)
*
has Him not, but that the one sees him and the other sees him not.” Our
charge against speculative Atheism is not that it necessarily cuts men off
from the teaching, still less from the tenderness, of God; but that it pre
vents them from consciously seeking and cherishing that teaching and tender
ness, and thus confines the voluntary range of character to that growth
alone which can be self-evolved.f But we can never bring the question up
to this point, which is the real heart of the matter, until we have, by word
and deed, made unmistakably plain that the goodness which we seek for our
selves is essentially one with that to which right-minded “ Freethinkers ”
also aspire, and that when we decline to subscribe the creed of the Secu
larist, it is in allegiance to a faith which can never prohibit our human
fellowship with the Atheist.
Note B., page 14.
Upon this point, I cannot forbear from quoting the following suggestive
passage from a review of Theodore Parker’s “ Theism, Atheism,” etc.,
which appeared in the Inquirer for Nov. 12th, 1853.
“ It is a favourite maxim with physiologists and secularists, that no
physical conditions of health and strength can be disregarded without
causing the pain which always indicates that something is wrong. It is
clear that such pain, not being self-caused, but being forced upon us by
those rules of our bodily constitution which we have no power to alter, is
a sign that physical tendencies within us are checked or thwarted, that
constant forces are not allowed their normal play. Keep the body bound
in one position, and violent pain soon ensues. Of what is that pain the
sign? It indicates that physical impulses tending to motion and change of
posture are disregarded and restrained—that a vital force, not under our
own control, is asking for its natural liberty, and is denied it. So far the
Atheist concurs. He says that so it is, but that the vital force, not under
* “ I never can believe that God retires from a man who is perplexed and unable
to discover Him. Is a man deserted by his God because he cannot find Him ?
For my own part, I believe there is a secret grace of God in the heart of every man,
and that God is there, whether he sees Him, or whether he sees Him not. The
difference between a Christian and an unbeliever is not that the one has God and
the other has Him not, but that the one sees Him and the other sees Him not.”
Speech of the Rev. James Martineau at Stourbridge, reported in the “Inquirer”
for Nov. 6, 1858.
f See an earnest and able paper on Self-knowledge (entitled “ A True Prophet”)
in “Reasoner,” No. 683,in which the writer maintains that “ Self-knowledge is to
the Secularist what grace is to the Christian.” He does not take into account
that self-knowledge is only an intellectual pre-condition of moral progress,
and that its value in any case wholly depends upon the moral use to which it is
put, and especially on the power of self-coercion or self-surrender to the desired
ideal. Now “ grace ” not only shows us our errors and dangers, but leads us out
of them by pouring into us a new life, and uniting us to an All-conquering Love.
’
�36
APPENDIX,
our control, is a development of the eternal, blind, dead forces of the
universe. But apply the same reasoning to our moral constitution. Let a
man try to descend from his own conceptions of right to a lower moral
level. What is the result?—that a moral misery, the sense of a moral
resistance, not under our own control, not of ourselves, immediately results
checking us in our own efforts to do wrong. Now, what is the meaning of
saying that such a resisting force is part of ourselves? We have no means
of getting rid of it, we cannot ignore it, we cannot cause it. It is in us,
but not of us; it is a force eatmg into our nature, and yet it is a moral
force, it cannot be identified with mere physical tendencies, it must be from
a mind, for matter could not plead with us, and rivet our gaze to the sin
we are committing. We are in actual conflict with a power, which it is
mere self-contradiction to call a material power, and which yet we know to
be other than our own will If it be replied that it is one part of our
nature contending against the other, still here are two powers, both of
them moral and spiritual, one subject to our control, and ope not so subject,
of which we call the former, ourself; what, then, are we to call the other
which we recognise as intruding its suggestions upon us from sources we
cannot fathom? This is but the very essence of the meaning which a Theist
expresses by the word ‘ God.’ ”
Of course, all our ideas of duty are necessarily relative rather than abso
lute, and it is only a comparative goodness that can be suggested, even by
God Himself, to creatures of limited and progressive capacity. But were
all our ideas of right merely self-evolved, without contact (more or less
conscious) with a Higher Personality, we could not experience this sensa
tion that, in wilful wrong-doing, we are resisting the pleadings of an
Infinite Moral Being. (See this theme treated at length in Mr. F. W.
Newman s “ Theism,” Book I., Sect. 5. “ God in Conscience.”)
Note C., page 27.
Since this Essay was sent to the press, Mr. Holdreth has published a
short paper on “ The Existence of Evil,”* stating that “ after mature con
sideration, he feels called upon to qualify ” his argument on that subject.
“ It is (he says), logically conceivable that matter may have an independent
existence and laws of its own, of which it was as impossible for the
Creator to make a perfect world, as it would have been for Him to make
two and two equal to five. Therefore, all that is really proved by the
argument from the suffering and sin around us, is, that the world was not
formed by a Creator at once perfect in power, and -perfect in beneficence
it is not shown that it might not have been framed by a God of perfect
goodness but limited power. ... Of course, this in no way affects the
grand argument of Atheism—the total absence of evidence of Creation.”
What is here.meant by ‘‘creation” is not clear, and in none of Mr.
Holdreth s writings has he done more than touch the subject incidentally.
I therefore confine myself to remarking that the theory which he does accept,
under the name of Cosmism, appears to stop short of Theism for a moral
reason only. It is because the Cosmist sees “ a disregard of morality in
Nature s operations,” that “ he is bound to believe the operator devoid of
moral character.” But if it be granted that, in the very nature of things,
it may have been “as impossible for the Creator to make a perfect world,
as it would have been for Him to make two and two equal to five,” that
moral objection becomes sensibly diminished. It cannot, however, disappear
entirely, until it be also granted that the moral perfection which God could
not make in the human world, He can, and does enable us to approximate
to more and more for ever, by the joint action of our free will in accord
with His grace.
THE END.
* “ Reasoner,” No. 686.
�
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
Phases of atheism, described, examined, and answered
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Collet, Sophia Dobson
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 36 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Inscription in ink on page 32 "R. H. Hulton. National Review, No. 3. "Atheism". Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. 'The relation of secularism to theism.' Printed by John Watts, Fleet Street, London. "The following Essay is reprinted, with revisions and additions, from the American Christian Examiner for November, 1859". [From Preface]. Discusses four works by Holyoake and three by Lionel H. Holdreth. Sophia Dobson Collet was a 19th-century English feminist freethinker. She wrote under the pen name Panthea in George Holyoake's Reasoner, wrote for The Spectator and was a friend of the leading feminist Frances Power Cobbe.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Holyoake & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1860
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT20
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Phases of atheism, described, examined, and answered), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Conway Tracts
Secularism
Theism
Theism;Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1c39e106513215b6c51c614732e046b8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ng-Y8Yg8RN8hcfJXBCl8EoUTdtl7478%7Ek%7EZoYPRj8XXSolj%7ELDuDGVhM8Aj-EeYzmFUBpOGFkaaNCMrVBqb1DhAq69FPnYYJahY5sr%7EDZqhCECbKzlcQRxbMqmsqpo5%7EvyIAcAwQov7o1RjWTGqePSdRcDfLFjVm0aUoAERvFUvdMV3TjhDHA2iiiUKv8WRglKJoVzOLOe8M9rWDiCCQn2nFmPBHkCwsyiGy4LCshdkmDc5nu3VSPDCpJW0vQK9AqOhq9tSZvLKmilIJBGdt%7Ej4XqP1UiAWrdsL6zPfjTrFdSiqZqvUXi%7EdebRsjsVNW7OPZBOd9zODedtpzhvvy9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3b17dc00db7c9754b570b06367f6ff7c
PDF Text
Text
ON THE
CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
A LECTURE
Delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�2 7’7$ «X’7M« K«’ri 7’7$ exan' (Soar,
Sorts •kot> el cri>, Svardiraaros elSevat,
ZeB, err’ avdyicr) (pvcreais elre vovs fiporuv,
irpoffi)v^dn7)v <re. iravra yap, 8t’ a\p6<f>ou
Palvwv Ke\ei0ov, Kara S'iKf)v Tct Ojojt* &yeis.
Euripides (Troades, 884.)
�CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
VERY great phenomenon has a history. Theism
has a history, as well as Atheism, and each is
instructive. But Atheism, being a more limited fact,
may be treated in a narrower space ; and I venture
to Lope, its stimulating causes may be so expounded
as to aid towards some result. This hope induced me
to invite your attention this evening.
I called Atheism a limited fact; yet in an impor
tant sense of the word, and, some may think, the
truest sense, it is painfully common even among pro
fessing Christians. Such is the use of the word by
Paul to the Ephesians, who during their immoral
Pagan state, he says, were “ without God in the
world,” or, (closer to the Greek,) “ Atheists in the
world.” As I understand him, to believe in God is
not merely to assent with the intellect that there is
something in the Universe superior to man, but to
revere that superior existence. He who reveres
nothing, who worships nothing above him, but lives
unconscious of allegiance to God, is in the estimate
of Paul an Atheist. Wherever sensuality or avarice
is widely spread, in whatever form men Eve to self,
there Atheism widely prevails. But if this phraseo
logy be thought too ambiguous, I will modify it, as
follows : He who gives intellectual assent to the being
of a God, yet neither reveres God nor regards man,
is worse than an Atheist. In contrast I will add, He
who finds inteUectual difficulties in the doctrine of a
God, and knows not what to think of it, yet is intel
E
�6
Causes of Atheism,
lectually modest and morally reverential, has the
heart of a Theist, and may eminently deserve esteem.
The short of it is, that Religion is in the heart, not
in the dry mind. Intellectual Belief may be barren,
but Moral Faith is the parent of true virtue, and a
natural companion of those noblest virtues, Reverence
and Love. Yet in this short statement we do not
embrace the whole. A man may be admired for the
power or accuracy of his intellect, but he is not
therefore esteemed or loved: on the other hand, what
ever the deficiencies of his intellect, he deserves
esteem, if he be good. If we love God Himself, it is
for His goodness, not for His power or high intelli
gence ; and the same law of love must be applied to
man. Thus there are two sorts of Theists, and two
sorts of Atheists. One who is intellectually a Theist
may either be reverential or destitute of reverence;
and so may an Atheist. But Reverence is the vital
element of moral and spiritual character. In an
intellectual Theist this element may be dead or stag
nant, and in an intellectual Atheist it may be active.
If we fully possess ourselves with this thought, we
shall come to the discussion of the Theistic argument
with a chastened, calmer, and wiser heart.
It is an old saying, among Pagan Greeks as well
as Hebrews, that “Reverence is Wisdom.” The
wisest of the Greeks, in the midst of their highest
cultivation, were so conscious of the extreme imper
fection of their knowledge, that in their addresses to
God Atheistic doubt seems to blend with Theistic
faith. There is a celebrated passage in Euripides
(Troades, 884,) which I beg to read to you, translated
as I am best able:
“ Oh Thou on whom Earth rideth, who on Earth
Art firmly seated ! Jove! whoe’er Thou art,—
Hard to be guess’d, whether Necessity
In Nature fix’d, or Mind in mortal men;—
Thee I adore: for Thou, by noiseless track
Passing, dost justly all things mortal guide.”
�Causes of Atheism.
7
An anecdote is told among the Greeks, that Hiero,
military ruler of Syracuse, requested the accomplished
poet Simonides, to tell him what was his belief con
cerning God. The poet asked leave to defer his reply
until the next day: but when the next day came, he
asked yet another day to shape his thoughts more
accurately; and after that, a third day. At length
he confessed, that the longer he meditated, the harder
he found it to define a reply. You see the elements
of this doubt in the passage which I have read from
Euripides. The poet begins by identifying God with
the ether in which this earth floats or rides; but adds,
that He hath also firm seat on earth : that is, He is
not merely external to earth, but also resident and
persistent upon it. The poet then, to the current
formula, “ Whosoever Thou art,”—expressive of
wide uncertainty,—annexes : “ Hard to be guessed,
whether Thou art Necessity of Nature, or the Mind
that pervades mortal men.” Thus he embraces,
though doubtfully, in the being of God, first all the
natural forces of the Universe, such as we now call
Gravitation, Cohesion, Electricity, and such like;
next, the Mind by which we think and know and
feel. If he had stopped in saying that God was only
the Necessity of Nature, a blind force, it would have
been Atheism. When he adds the opinion that God
is the Universal Mind, some will say, Is not this
Pantheism ? No : for he regards God as worthy not
only of wonder, but also of adoration; and closes by
emphatically ascribing to Him the Righteous Govern
ment of the human world.
Observe the gradation of doubt and of faith. Con
cerning the physical constitution of God (if the
phrase may be allowed) the Greek poet was reve
rentially doubtful; but concerning His moral govern
ment of the world, concerning the rightfulness of
adoring Him, and virtually concerning His goodness,
he expresses no doubt. And is not this exactly the
�8
Causes of Atheism,
reasonable posture for a finite man, in reverentially
essaying to define some thoughts concerning the
infinite God ? Consider of what kind is our know
ledge of our fellow-men. How little do we know of
their essential being; how late and limping is physical
science in the history of man : yet our moral know
ledge is old and certain. Love, goodness, virtue,
esteem, trust, gratitude,—are very ancient experiences
and confident beliefs : but, what is a Soul physically;
when it begins to exist, and whether it ceases to
exist; are comparatively very obscure speculations.
In all human knowledge, properties are learned first;
the essence of things is learned later, if ever. In
other words, and perhaps more accurately, we appre
hend things on the side in which we are in contact
with them, but we comprehend very few things at all.
Consider again the instructive analogy furnished
by the knowledge which the brutes may have of man.
No one will imagine that an affectionate dog has any
other knowledge of his master than a limited appre
hension. What guess could Sir Isaac Newton’s
favourite spaniel have of the quality, powers, and
range of his master’s mind ? yet he had no doubt
whatever that his master loved him, and deserved to
be loved, though to comprehend his master’s nature
was utterly beyond his capacity. Just so, the cardinal
point of practical Theism lies in an energetic develop
ment of the moral relation of God to Man and Man
to God; and its wisdom lies in great diffidence con
cerning the essential nature and powers of God, whom
with one voice we avow to be incomprehensible.
Since we know not His limits, nor have reason to
assign any, we call Him unlimited, boundless, infinite,
as to Space and as to Time: and again, since we
have no reason to imagine that he changes with Time,
we call him Unchangeable as well as Eternal. There
is nothing of obscure or doubtful metaphysics here.
But as of all things outward and visible our know-
�Causes of Atheism.
9
ledge is very limited and our ignorance is infinite,
how much more must this be true of our acquaintance
with an invisible eternal Spirit ?
After these preliminary remarks, let me proceed to
the historical origin of Atheism. In all the most
intelligent races of men, and those with whose early
mind we have best acquaintance, Atheism does not
grow up with men’s first speculations concerning the
Universe, but develops itself at a later stage; and, as
I believe, prevalently as a reaction from errors into
which Theists fall.
When it is our duty to sit in judgment on the sin
of others, our mental vision is purified, and we be
come fairer, wiser judges, if we begin by inward
confession of our own sin. Just so, if Theists are to
judge truly of Atheists, or aid to convert them,
Theists need to examine their own errors which have
led Atheists astray, or have driven them into reaction.
I hope it is not needful to remind you that Christians
are Theists. To the errors of Christian Theists I
must refer presently; but I first speak of the earlier
developments of Atheism, as known to us.
Ancient Greece is the world in historical miniature,
politically and religiously. We have their infant reli
gion laid before us in the poems of Homer. Though
the Greeks were so very intelligent a race, yet their
early conceptions of Deity scarcely admitted moral
elements. Theism was with them a physical specula
tion only, and rested unduly on the violent phenomena
of nature. In Thunder and Lightning, in Earthquakes
and Storms, they saw the agency of their chief gods.
Yet they did not overlook more tranquil processes,
as vegetation, birth, and the recurrence of Day and
Night; also the more eminent powers of the human
mind. Inferior deities were assigned to these. The
gods were supposed to punish occasionally the greater
sins of mortals, but by no means to conform their
own conduct to any law of morality. The national
�IO
' Causes of Atheism.
religion, having its source in private and various
fancies, was combined and popularized by poets, under
whose treatment its wildness was exaggerated into
folly, caprice, or brutality. Necessarily, the growing
intellect of the nation scorned such a religion.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that any conscious
and systematic Atheism broke out, until a serious at
tempt had been made to defend the wretched and
baseless mythology by mystical interpretation and
other subtle devices. Then the indignation of free
thought led, first to universal Doubt, next to positive
Atheism. The Doubters held that no truth is attain
able on such subjects; the Atheists, that though
there may be Superior Spirits, yet they have nothing
to do with the creating or maintaining of the universe,
and stand in no moral relation whatever to men. The
name of Epicurus was best known in Greece as the
advocate of the latter doctrine; to us the Epicurean
views are most accessible in the poem of his de
voted disciple, the Roman Lucretius; and in him
we see most distinctly that disgust at the coarse, wild,
and mischievous conceptions put forth as Religion
was the animating principle of his Atheism.
What happened then, is sure to happen again in
like circumstances. If the ostensible teachers of reli
gion hold up for men’s homage and reverence a God
whose qualities and dealings shock our moral nature,
it must not be expected that all who reject such a
creed will be able to separate its falsehoods from its
truth. Many will reject it in the mass, and become
Atheists; but by far the largest number of them will
keep their unbelief to themselves. It is notorious
that, as among the priests of ancient Rome contem
porary with Cicero, so in the priests of Spain, Italy,
and France, Atheism has been a common result of
corrupt religion. Protestantism does not offend
common sense (at least in my opinion) so violently as
Romanism; nevertheless, all who heard the scalding
�Causes of Atheism.
11
words of Mr Bradlaugh in this room against the creed
called orthodox in England, will permit me to insist,
that an ingenuous scorn of what he regards as a de
grading portraiture of God gives impulse and motive to
his Atheism. English Protestants are not guiltless in
this matter. They have persecuted the frank and
bold men who avow their disbelief, hereby driving
more timid men into silence and suppression. Chris
tians have certainly taken no pains to instruct
Atheists; but if they had, how could they expect
instruction to be well received, while the public law
treated Atheists as criminals, and gave them fines and
imprisonment for arguments ?
But I return to the point. If the men and system
typical of a national religion present for reverential
homage the portraiture of an unjust, unmerciful,
capricious, or impotent God, the unbelief and scorn
which justly follows will, through human infirmity,
carry not a few into a disbelief of God altogether; in
which case the folly of Theists is largely responsible
for the Atheism. 1 do not wish to go into detail, as
Mr Bradlaugh did, and point at the special errors
which arouse indignation; it suffices to say that there
are opinions concerning God or the gods, which
nothing can prove. It avails not to quote books
called sacred, or to alledge miracles, if the doctrine
itself be such as the human conscience loathes or the
human intellect finds to be contemptible. If sacred
books uphold such things, so much the x»orse for the
books. Books cannot have proof of infallibility so
strong, as is the disproof of a doctrine which mars
and pollutes the divine character. Christians habit
ually confute other religions by this very topic, and
stigmatize as Paganism or Heathenism this very error
of holding unjust, or impure, or self-indulgent, pam
pered gods ; and insist that such a religion is neces
sarily evil to the votary’s mind; hence it destroys its
own claim of reverence.
�12
Causes of Atheism.
Let it also be carefully considered that the great basis
of popular knowledge is, moral truth. All social action,
all national cohesion, all reverence for law, all sanctity
in rule, is founded upon man’s moral conscience;
much more is all rational or worthy religion. “ He
who loves not his brother whom he hath seen, how
shall he love God, whom he hath not seen ? ” He to
whom the words Justice, Righteousness, Mercy, Holi
ness, Goodness, have no positive and consistent mean
ing, can have no reason within him for worship and
reverence. Practical Religion must be based on these
great moral ideas. A creed which violates them
demoralizes men, when it does not drive them into
unbelief. If a national religion be totally corrupt,
widespread Atheism is nothing but the natural death
of a creed which has lost moral vitality. If the
Atheism spring from moral indignation, I believe that
it can only be a temporary winter of the national
soul in preparation for a more fruitful summer. If
a very corrupt national creed,—say, like that of Hindooism,—were swept away by Atheism when other
agencies had failed, we perhaps ought to regard the
Atheism as a beneficial visitation, like a hurricane
which destroys pestilence.
I have tried to set forth one cause which I believe
must always tend to produce Atheism, namely—if
morally offensive features be ascribed to the Most
High in a really national creed; but, coupled with
this, there too often is met a presumptuous familiarity
and dogmatic pretension quite inconsistent with a
reasonable estimate of the human intellect. A Roman
writer said, sarcastically, “This man fancies he knows
accurately what Jupiter said in private to Juno.”
Well, we see the outrageousness of such mythology.
But how less is Milton blameable, who supposed him
self competent to expound the discourses held by God
the Father with his only begotten Son ? Theology
has been garrulous and confident, where modesty or
�Causes of Atheism.
J3
silence alone becomes us. Men who call God incom
prehensible seem to forget this fundamental principle
precisely when it is most needed. One truth surely
is quite open to every intellect,—that the knowledge
of man is limited. We see distinctly what is near,
and perhaps seem to know it; but what is extreme in
remoteness we cannot see at all. In the interval
there is generally a region of half light, half shade ;
what is called penumbra ; where we see a few strong
outlines and all the rest dimly; or, it may be, we
think at one moment that we see, and the next
moment doubt whether we saw aright. These pheno
mena of sight have their close correspondences in the
mind, which in consequence is sure of some things
with the greatest certainty permitted to man, is in
blank ignorance of others, and finds between these
extremes a region of half-knowledge, with a few
certainties pervading it, but in general affording
matter for modest or reverential opinion, not for
light-minded and off-hand decision, nor for scho
lastic dogmatism. If Theists transgress modesty
in dealing with this region of thought, how can they
expect modesty oi’ tenderness from Atheists ?
But I proceed to a second deplorable phenomenon,
equally baneful, namely—the tangle of Metaphysics
in which Theistic advocates have involved their doc
trine. Christianity from the beginning had as its
boast, “Unto the poor the gospel is preached.” A
religion which addresses itself to the human race
must be intelligible to simple minds. If men and
women, if the great mass of a nation, are intended
by God to revere and worship Him, the grounds
of believing in God must be on the level of very
ordinary intellects. Theism, equally with Chris
tianity, cuts away the ground from under its own feet,
if it teaches that difficult questions of Metaphysics
must be settled before we can reasonably believe in
God. We know familiarly how much the conversion
�14
Causes of Alheisn*.
of heathens to Christianity is hindered when two
missionaries teach opposite doctrines, refuting one
another. In such case no one can reprove the
heathen,—every one must say he is blameless,—if he
reply to those who desire to convert him, that one of
them must convert the other before it is worth his
while to attend to them. So, too, candonr demands
from ns the admission that Atheists say nothing
unreasonable, if (being in no other respect presump
tuous or irreverent) they avow that the inconsistencies
of Theistic advocates wholly discourage them from
spending study on so doubtful a subject. Such appears
to me to be the position of George Jacob Holyoake.
In fact, when Mr Bradlaugh in this room claimed
him as an Atheist, I did not think it right to con
tradict, though to me his Atheism is, at any rate, of a
widely different complexion from Mr Bradlaugh’s. I
feel that George Jacob Holyoake is a very modest
man, very reverential, and very anxious to learn from
all whom he sees to be sincerely and earnestly striving
for truth. I believe he distrusts his own power of
judging, where he finds the advocates of Theism
defending their doctrine in modes so obscure and
subtle, and mutually inconsistent. I must attempt to
set before you some of the controverted questions,
even at the risk of getting out of my own depth.
When I see able men devoting their lives to Meta
physics, and coming to opposite conclusions, I cannot
but feel great diffidence in my own power to deal
with such subjects, and am always earnestly desirous
to keep clear of them. In fact, if anything could
make me an Atheist, it would be the jangling of
Theistic metaphysicians.
Let me then state to you some of the controversies,
which are supposed to need decision, before we can
attain a reasonable conviction that there is a God,
and that he deserves and accepts from us reverence,
trust, and adoration.
�Causes of. Atheism,
15
“ Can the human intellect form a positive concep
tion of the Infinite and the Unconditioned ? Can we
investigate the nature and origin of the Uncondi
tioned as a psychological phenomenon ? Does our
consciousness of the Finite involve a consciousness
of the Infinite ? Is our knowledge necessarily
limited to phenomena?
Can we know only the
limited and the conditionally limited, or are we also
capable of construing positively the unconditionally
unlimited ?
Can we conceive either an absolute
whole or an absolute part ? Is our notion of the
Infinite realized by a course of addition or progres
sion, which, starting from the finite, seeks to reach
the infinite ? Can we infer the infinitely great from
the indefinitely great ? Is our notion of the Infinite
a fact or ultimate datum of consciousness ? Can
inductive generalization draw from finite data more
than they contain ? ”
Who can expect such questions to be even under
stood by any who have not made scholastic meta
physics and logic a special study ? As I have, more
or less, been acquainted with them myself for full
forty-five years, I naturally have a positive opinion
on some of the questions, indeed on most of them;
but I should despair of Theism, if I believed it
necessary to a sound belief that the believer should
have discussed them at all. Some of the questions
indeed, about the Unconditioned, and the Uncondi
tionally Unlimited, might seem to have been started,
not by a sincere Theist, but by a crafty Atheist, for
the express purpose of throwing dust into our eyes.
The attempt to establish any practical religion by such
processes of thought, seems to me worse than useless,
being in fact subversive of its avowed object. Not
only scornful and presumptuous minds, but equally the
reverential, the modest, and the philanthropic, are
liable to be deterred from religious inquiry, if invited
�16
Causes of Atheism.
into it through such a road. Justly may a philan
thropic person say,—“ Man needs the service of our
energies : God, if there be a God, needs neither our
aid, nor our worship : surely he cannot desire us to
waste time and effort in questions of metaphysics,
about which opposite professors are in endless con
troversy.”
And now, I might seem to have fulfilled my task,
only that the metaphysicians will say to me, that I
cannot justly disown their controversies, without
showing how Theism can be established indepen
dently of them. To reply folly to such a challenge,
would be to undertake a lecture on Theism. I there
fore reply historically. I say, that Theism never was
established by metaphysicians through metaphysical
teaching; nay, that no appreciable effect on practical
religion has ever been exerted by it. Historically,
the belief in God has always rested on the common
perceptions of common men. The fact relieves me
from the imputation of rashness, when I say, that the
business of Mental Science is here critical and nega
tive only, and that philosophers err in thinking that
Philosophy,—I mean scholastic science,—can be
creative in religion. Its sole duty is to prune away
the errors into which the ill-informed and half
cultivated intellect naturally falls; which duty I
admit and maintain to be a very important one. But
in order to fulfil it at all, philosophy must condescend
to speak in a purely popular dialect, and altogether
abstain from the hideous jargon so dear to meta
physicians. If it be true that their thoughts cannot
be expressed in so copious and powerful tongue as
the popular English, then the popular religion, it
seems, must be unsound, until we learn to think and
talk metaphysically. But if the great bulk of the
human race have hitherto been incapacitated for sound
�Causes of Atheism.
17
religion, I for one cannot have confidence that by
means of scholastic culture a small oligarchy of
mankind becomes the select priesthood of God.
The Natural History of Theism displays many
phases, which might make an instructive volume,
but in every case two stages at least seem inevitable.
In the former, men discover in the great universe the
action of Mind superior to man, and generally believe
in many superior spirits, co-ordinate in rank, though
among these one may be Supreme. The relation of
God or the Gods to man is conceived of, as that of a
Patron to a dependent. The Gods are supposed to
care, certainly for men collectively, probably for some
eminent men specially; and also to punish very
flagrant guilt. Concerning the mental qualities of
the Gods, equally as of their habits, the more sober
nations abstain from thought in this first stage; those
of wilder imagination confidently ascribe to them the
enjoyments and pastime, the passions and vices, of
mortals. This is the earlier or puerile stage of
religion, and implies both deficient information con
cerning the great world, and immature faculties in
the observers. In the second or manly stage of
religion, it is recognised that there is no adequate
ground for supposing more than one God. Spirits
there may be, superior to men; if so, let them be
called angels; but they must be, like us, dependent
on God. On the doctrine of One God naturally
follows the belief of his entire freedom from those
disturbances of mind and clouds of passion to which
man is subject; freedom therefore from caprices of
love and hatred; though men may be very slow in
working out the result that God is no respecter of
persons, and uses no arbitrary favouritism. Because
we cannot even guess at any reason which should mar
his serenity, we attribute to him this perfectly un
ruffled and impartial state of mind. Moreover, as it
is inevitable to believe that whatever high and pure
�i8
Causes of Atheism.
qualities and powers we possess, must be higher and
perfect in Him, therefore, from consciousness of
disinterested Love in ourselves, we attribute dis
interested Love to Him. Naturally we can have no
ideas whatever of a Divine Mind, but such as are
suggested by consciousness of our own minds.
In shaping the second stage of Theism which I
have thus sketched, a more cultivated intellect un
doubtedly played a highly useful part in cutting away
the superfluous fancies of barbaric imagination. But
in European Christendom, at least as long back as
the Mediaeval Schoolmen, a pretentious Science has
struggled to define things which ought to be left
indefinite, and to transmute negatives into positives.
The word Infinite, or Boundless, which meant that
we are wholly incapable of assigning bounds to God,
is pretended to be positive, or is exchanged for
Absolute. The sobriety of declaring that we know
no bounds to God’s power, is thus turned into a
scientific dogma that he is All-powerful; while with
antiquity, when the word was used, it was only a
burst of poetry, not a deliberate assertion concerning
things which tide human mind cannot know. From
the same school came the notion that the belief in
God rose out of speculating on Causation, and dis
covered (or, as an Atheist would say, invented) God
as the First Cause ; thus they carried the mind into
the impenetrable cloudiness of Past Eternity and
Cosmogony, that is, the birth of the Universe. The
Hebrew book of Genesis does, indeed, tell of a
Beginning of Creation, but very little is afterwards
based on it; and the main stream of Hebrew litera
ture is very far from excluding the idea of God’s
continuous perpetual creation. It treats all workings
of the elements, organic and inorganic, as actings of
the Spirit of God ; so that each of us was created by
God in birth, as truly as Adam originally. In the
older view there was no such idea as that God in the
�Causes of Atheism,
*9
beginning created Matter : which is another example
of dogmatizing where man is necessarily ignorant; it
is a later invention of metaphysical science. Again,
the antagonism of God and Matter was a notion im
ported from Oriental metaphysics, and could have no
place in the mind of Hebrew sages, who saw God
permanent in nature, hereby agreeing with the
doctrine of the most enlightened of the Greeks; to
which also, I believe, modern Theists more and more
converge. The notion that God created matter, and
set a machine at work; wound up the spring, and
then withdrew from the scene of action; has been
propagated by persons who meant to be philosophic,
and were not. The result has been mischievous.
For in healthful and practical religion the relation
of man to God is a present abiding fact, and the
central point of knowledge. We come close to Him
now and here; in Him we live and move and have
our being; from Him come all our vital and mental
powers. Our present contact with Him is the main,
the cardinal point; we are not thrown back into the
history, if history it can be called, of a Creation in
very dim distance, for our indirect origin from
Him. We apprehend God in the present, and in the
vastness of what we see; we do not try to compre
hend Him in the regions of invisibility, nor to grasp
Eternity and Infinitude in our knowledge. If He is
the life of our life, He is in the interior of our spirits
and a witness to our consciousness. This is practical
and popular religion, whose central origin and action
is now and here; but metaphysical and scholastic
Theism, which begins at Past Eternity or First
Causation, cannot be expected to give more heat than
moonshine gives.
Now, the question between us and the Atheist is
very simple, and goes into a short compass. In my
opinion it needs no metaphysicians to mediate between
us and him. The question is this: Were ancient
�20
Causes of Atheism.
men wrong in seeing
in the Universe ? For if
they were wrong, we are wrong. I seem to myself to
see Mind at work in the Universe as distinctly as I
see it in my fellow-men. Each is a direct perception,
which cannot he made clearer by argumentation. It
was impossible to argue with that curious sect of
ancient doubters who held that nothing beyond the
existence of Self was certain. If any one assert that
the world is a dream, he may rest assured that we
cannot refute him. Of course I cannot prove that
men’s actions, which seem to me to imply purpose
and mind, do not proceed from blind forces of Nature.
I have no inward consciousness of any mind but my
own. If any one tell me that my ascription of
design to other men has no logical demonstration, and
does not deserve belief, I have to confess that it is
not logically demonstrable, and yet I insist that it does
deserve belief—at least until refuted. He may bring
proof that it is false, if he can; but it is useless to tell
me that I cannot prove it. I do not pretend to prove
that other men have minds; but I seem to myself to
see it. The veracity of our bodily senses is not cer
tain ; they sometimes make mistakes : yet when the
senses of many men concur, we accept the conclusions
and are satisfied, even though there are cases in which
appearances are deceptive. So is it with the mind.
An individual may be rash and blundering. If I, one
man, form judgments which most others, who have
powers and advantages equal to mine, reject, it may
be most reasonable to suspect that my judgments are
unsound. But when we believe that we see a superior
Mind in the Universe, and the rest of mankind with
so great unanimity chime-in that some have defined
Man as “ a religious animal; ” the direct perception
of a Superior Mind is similar in kind to our direct
perception of Mind in other men. No doubt, in the
latter case, from the sameness of our wants and in
stincts, we have far greater facility in tracing the
�Causes of Atheism.
21
course of mind, and are less in danger of mistaking
the direction of design; but this does not interfere
with the assertion that the process of thought is
similar in the two cases.
I repeat, the sole question between us and the
Atheist is—whether there are or are not marks in the
Universe of superior Mind. What are the qualities,
the power, the purposes of the Spirit whom we discern,
and whether there are many such Spirits, are questions
for Theists among themselves, with which the Atheist,
while he keeps to his argument, has nothing to do. I
cannot but think that, if the mist of metaphysics were
blown aside by Theists, simple-hearted working-men
would be less liable to the delusion that they are ad
vancing in wisdom by adopting the Atheistic theory;
and, if they saw Theists willing to follow truth wher
ever truth led, they would have less reason to give
special honour to the courage which contradicts man’s
deep and wide-spread conviction that a G-od above us
exists, blessed for ever, and the source of blessing.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, W.
�
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 the causes of atheism: a lecture delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 21, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 19 cm
Notes: Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4856
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (On the causes of atheism: a lecture delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Atheism
Atheism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8870cc212190c2ec92c1535673fbd113.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ce56bRrgoTn94ddEPlpqno48jiJ%7E%7E5rdDv8GweLYt8NPZUjcad5rchH-kvutNjycBM7fd2bA8G09%7E8%7EdUTyGa3sU98--27GoU5hMZIfT4jiYOtx%7EFI8sQRbGMzeNrD87r7I0EN2zUi%7EQm6v0YEczcSOPKxfBC0aN7%7EEMDyqzSr0GeFliy0Gxpv46-L1jWHyjiz3MGw1yjNlpPn0qQnCeV45NS1EWsfcaSJMdpxo%7EkwxF7g7S4Fwqt-8Nif9jy5lm5vFNNCsoMCPsy8kFCzdVIE4XWMbpU1JSowK0lomrqmzF1j0%7E7rT-EUixq-9K0XqMvYesXNXeNEDIOu1HLTxdxg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6358d558b856c1b865e4ea89013084ef
PDF Text
Text
CT 53
ON THE
CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
A LECTURE
Delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
SCOTT,
�2
‘Wtt
.yr/s
eSoav,
Saris itor’ el av, Svardiraaros eiSevat,
Zeii, eir anayKi) (pvaeas etre vovs fipurcbv,
Trpo<rn]v^dp.-r)v ere. irdvra yap. Si a$6<pov
fia'.uwv Ke\eudov, Kara Sik-qv rd &vrir' &yeis.
Euripides (Troades, 884.)
�CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
---------------- 4--------------9
VERY great phenomenon has a history. Theism
has a history, as well as Atheism, and each is
instructive. But Atheism, being a more limited fact,
may be treated in a narrower space ; and I venture
to hope, its stimulating causes may be so expounded
as to aid towards some result. This hope induced me
to invite your attention this evening.
I called Atheism a limited fact; yet in an impor
tant sense of the word, and, some may think, the
truest sense, it is painfully common even among pro
fessing Christians. Such is the use of the word by
Paul to the Ephesians, who during their immoral
Pagan state, he says, were “ without God in the
world,” or, (closer to the Greek,) “Atheists in the
world.” As I understand him, to believe in God is
not merely to assent with the intellect that there is
something in the Universe superior to man, but to
revere that superior existence. He who reveres
nothing, who worships nothing above him, but lives
unconscious of allegiance to God, is in the estimate
of Paul an Atheist. Wherever sensuality or avarice
is widely spread, in whatever form men live to self,
there Atheism widely prevails. But if this phraseo
logy be thought too ambiguous, I will modify it, as
follows : He who gives intellectual assent to the being
of a God, yet neither reveres God nor regards man,
is worse than an Atheist. In contrast I will add, He
who finds intellectual difficulties in the doctrine of a
God, and knows not what to think of it, yet is intel-
E
�6
Causes of Atheism.
lectually modest and morally reverential, has the
heart of a Theist, and may eminently deserve esteem.
The short of it is, that Religion is in the heart, not
in the dry mind. Intellectual Belief may be barren,
bnt Moral Faith is the parent of true virtue, and a
natural companion of those noblest virtues, Reverence
and Love. Yet in this short statement we do not
embrace the whole. A man may be admired for the
power or accuracy of his intellect, but he is not
therefore esteemed or loved: on the other hand, what
ever the deficiencies of his intellect, he deserves
esteem, if he be good. If we love God Himself, it is
for His goodness, not for His power or high intelli
gence ; and the same law of love mnst be applied to
man. Thus there are two sorts of Theists, and two
sorts of Atheists. One who is intellectually a Theist
may either be reverential or destitute of reverence ;
and so may an Atheist. But Reverence is the vital
element of moral and spiritual character. In an
intellectual Theist this element may be dead or stag
nant, and in an intellectual Atheist it may be active.
If we fully possess ourselves with this thought, we
shall come to the discussion of the Theistic argument
with a chastened, calmer, and wiser heart.
It is an old saying, among Pagan Greeks as well
as Hebrews, that “ Reverence is Wisdom.” The
wisest of the Greeks, in the midst of their highest
cultivation, were so conscious of the extreme imper
fection of their knowledge, that in their addresses to
God Atheistic doubt seems to blend with Theistic
faith. There is a celebrated passage in Euripides
(Troades, 884,) which I beg to read to you, translated
as I am best able :
Oh Thou on whom Earth rideth, who on Earth
Art firmly seated ! Jove! whoe’er Thou art,—
Hard to be guess’d, whether Necessity
In Nature fix’d, or Mind in mortal men;—•
Thee I adore: for Thou, by noiseless track
Passing, dost justly all things mortal guide.”
�Causes of Atheism.
7
An anecdote is told among the Greeks, that Hiero,
military ruler of Syracuse, requested the accomplished
poet Simonides, to tell him what was his belief con
cerning God. The poet asked leave to defer his reply
until the next day : but when the next day came, he
asked yet another day to shape his thoughts more
accurately; and after that, a third day. At length
he confessed, that the longer he meditated, the harder
he found it to define a reply. You see the elements
of this doubt in the passage which I have read from
Euripides. The poet begins by identifying God with
the ether in which this earth floats or rides ; but adds,
that He hath also firm seat on earth: that is, He is
not merely external to earth, but also resident and
persistent upon it. The poet then, to the current
formula, “ Whosoever Thou art,”—expressive of
wide uncertainty,—annexes : “ Hard to be guessed,
whether Thou art Necessity of Nature, or the Mind
that pervades mortal men.” Thus he embraces,
though doubtfully, in the being of God, first all the
natural forces of the Universe, such as we now call
Gravitation, Cohesion, Electricity, and such like;
next, the Mind by which we think and know and
feel. If he had stopped in saying that God was only
the Necessity of Nature, a blind force, it would have
been Atheism. When he adds the opinion that God
is the Universal Mind, some will say, Is not this
Pantheism ? No : for he regards God as worthy not
only of wonder, but also of adoration; and closes by
emphatically ascribing to Him the Righteous Govern
ment of the human world.
Observe the gradation of doubt and of faith. Con
cerning the physical constitution of God (if the
phrase may be allowed) the Greek poet was reve
rentially doubtful; but concerning His moral govern
ment of the world, concerning the rightfulness of
adoring Him, and virtually concerning His goodness,
he expresses no doubt. And is not this exactly the
�8
Causes of Atheism.
reasonable posture for a finite man, in reverentially
essaying’ to define some thoughts concerning the
infinite God ? Consider of what kind is our know
ledge of our fellow-men. How little do we know of
their essential being; how late and limping is physical
science in the history of man : yet our moral know
ledge is old and certain. Love, goodness, virtue,
esteem, trust, gratitude,—are very ancient experiences
and confident beliefs : but, what is a Soul physically ;
when it begins to exist, and whether it ceases to
exist; are comparatively very obscure speculations.
In all human knowledge, properties are learned first;
the essence of things is learned later, if ever. In
other words, and perhaps more accurately, we appre
hend things on the side in which we are in contact
with them, but we comprehend very few things at all.
Consider again the instructive analogy furnished
by the knowledge which the brutes may have of man.
N o one will imagine that an affectionate dog has any
other knowledge of his master than a limited appre
hension. What guess could Sir Isaac Newton’s
favourite spaniel have of the quality, powers, and
range of his master’s mind ? yet he had no doubt
whatever that his master loved him, and deserved to
be loved, though to comprehend his master’s nature
was utterly beyond his capacity. Just so, the cardinal
point of practical Theism lies in an energetic develop
ment of the moral relation of God to Man and Man
to God; and its wisdom lies in great diffidence con
cerning the essential nature and powers of God, whom
with one voice we avow to be incomprehensible.
Since we know not His limits, nor have reason to
assign any, we call Him unlimited, boundless, infinite,
as to Space and as to Time: and again, since we
have no reason to imagine that he changes with Time,
we call him Unchangeable as well as Eternal. There
is nothing of obscure or doubtful metaphysics here.
But as of all things outward and visible our know
�Causes of Atheism.
9
ledge is very limited and our ignorance is infinite,
how much more must this be true of our acquaintance
with an invisible eternal Spirit ?
After these preliminary remarks, let me proceed to
the historical origin of Atheism. In all the most
intelligent races of men, and those with whose early
mind we have best acquaintance. Atheism does not
grow up with men’s first speculations concerning the
Universe, but develops itself at a later stage; and, as
I believe, prevalently as a reaction from errors into
which Theists fall.
When it is our duty to sit in judgment on the sin
of others, our mental vision is purified, and we be
come fairer, wiser judges, if we begin by inward
confession of our own sin. Just so, if Theists are to
judge truly of Atheists, or aid to convert them,
Theists need to examine their own errors which have
led Atheists astray, or have driven them into reaction.
I hope it is not needful to remind you that Christians
are Theists. To the errors of Christian Theists I
must refer presently; but I first speak of the earlier
developments of Atheism, as known to us.
Ancient Greece is the world in historical miniature,
politically and religiously. We have their infant reli
gion laid before us in the poems of Homer. Though
the Greeks were so very intelligent a race,, yet their
early conceptions of Deity scarcely admitted moral
elements. Theism was with them a physical specula
tion only, and rested unduly on the violent phenomena
of nature. In Thunder and Lightning, in Earthquakes
and Storms, they saw the agency of their chief gods.
Yet they did not overlook more tranquil processes,
as vegetation, birth, and the recurrence of Day and
Night; also the more eminent powers of the human
mind. Inferior deities were assigned to these. The
gods were supposed to punish occasionally the greater
sins of mortals, but by no means to conform their
own conduct to any law of morality. The national
�io
Causes of Atheism.
religion, having its source in private and various
fancies, was combined and popularized by poets, under
whose treatment its wildness was exaggerated into
folly, caprice, or brutality. Necessarily, the growing
intellect of the nation scorned such a religion.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that any conscious
and systematic Atheism broke out, until a serious at
tempt had been made to defend the wretched and
baseless mythology by mystical interpretation and
other subtle devices. Then the indignation of free
thought led, first to universal Doubt, next to positive
Atheism. The Doubters held that no truth is attain
able on such subjects; the Atheists, that though
there may be Superior Spirits, yet they have nothing
to do with the creating or maintaining of the universe,
and stand in no moral relation whatever to men. The
name of Epicurus was best known in Greece as the
advocate of the latter doctrine; to us the Epicurean
views are most accessible in the poem of his de
voted disciple, the Roman Lucretius; and in him
we see most distinctly that disgust at the coarse, wild,
and mischievous conceptions put forth as Religion
was the animating principle of his Atheism.
What happened then, is sure to happen again in
like circumstances.^If the ostensible teachers of reli
gion hold up for men’s homage and reverence a God
whose qualities and dealings shock our moral nature,
it must not be expected that all who reject such a
creed will be able to separate its falsehoods from its
truth. Many will reject it in the mass, and become
Atheists; but by far the largest number of them will
keep their unbelief to themselves. It is notorious
that, as among the priests of ancient Rome contem
porary with Cicero, so in the priests of Spain, Italy,
and France, Atheism has been a common result of
corrupt religion./ Protestantism does not offend
common sense (at least in my opinion) so violently as
Romanism; nevertheless, all who heard the scalding
�Causes of Atheism.
11
words of Mr Bradlaugh in this room against the creed
called orthodox in England, will permit me to insist,
that an ingenuous scorn of what he regards as a de
grading portraiture of God gives impulse and motive to
his Atheism. ,/English Protestants are not guiltless in
this matter. They have persecuted the frank and
bold men who avow their disbelief, hereby driving
more timid men into silence and suppression. Chris
tians have certainly taken no pains to instruct
Atheists; but if they had, how could they expect
instruction to be well received, while the public law
treated Atheists as criminals, and gave them fines and
imprisonment for arguments ?/
But I return to the point. If the men and system
typical of a national religion present for reverential
homage the portraiture of an unjust, unmerciful,
capricious, or impotent God, the unbelief and scorn
which justly follows will, through human infirmity,
carry not a few into a disbelief of God altogether; in
which case the folly of Theists is largely responsible
for the Atheism. I do not wish to go into detail, as
Mr Bradlaugh did, and point at the special errors
which arouse indignation; it suffices to say that there
are opinions concerning God or the gods, which
nothing can prove. It avails not to quote books
called sacred, or to alledge miracles, if the doctrine
itself be such as the human conscience loathes or the
human intellect finds to be contemptible. If sacred
books uphold such things, so much the worse for the
books. Books cannot have proof of infallibility so
strong, as is the disproof of a doctrine which mars
and pollutes the divine character. Christians habit
ually confute other religions by this very topic, and
stigmatize as Paganism or Heathenism this very error
of holding unjust, or impure, or self-indulgent, pam
pered gods; and insist that such a religion is neces
sarily evil to the votary’s mind ; hence it destroys its
own claim of reverence.
�12
Causes of Atheism.
Let it also be carefully considered that the great basis \
of popular knowledge is, moral truth. All social action,
all national cohesion, all reverence for law, all sanctity
in rule, is founded upon man’s moral conscience';
much more is all rational or worthy religion. “ He
who loves not his brother whom he hath seen, how
shall he love God, whom he hath not seen ? ” He to
whom the words Justice, Righteousness, Mercy, Holi
ness, Goodness, have no positive and consistent mea.ning, can have no reason within him for worship and
reverence. Practical Religion must be based on these
great moral ideas. A creed which violates them
demoralizes men, when it does not drive them into
unbelief. If a national religion be totally corrupt,
widespread Atheism is nothing but the natural death
of a creed which has lost moral vitality. If the
Atheism spring from moral indignation, I believe that
it can only be a temporary winter of the national
soul in preparation for a more fruitful summer. If
a very corrupt national creed,—say, like that of Hindooism,—were swept away by Atheism when other
agencies had failed, we perhaps ought to regard the
Atheism as a beneficial visitation, like a hurricane
which destroys pestilence.
I have tried to set forth one cause which I believe
must always tend to produce Atheism, namely—if
morally offensive features be ascribed to the Most
High in a really national creed; but, coupled with
this, there too often is met a presumptuous familiarity
and dogmatic pretension quite inconsistent with a
reasonable estimate of the human intellect. A Roman
writer said, sarcastically, “ This man fancies he knows
accurately what Jupiter said in private to Juno.”
Well, we see the outrageousness of such mythology.
But how less is Milton blameable, who supposed him
self competent to expound the discourses held by God
the Father with his only begotten Son ? Theology
has been garrulous and confident, where modesty or
�Causes of Atheism.
13
silence alone becomes us. Men who call God incom
prehensible seem to forget this fundamental principle
precisely when it is most needed. One truth surely
is quite open to every intellect,—that the knowledge
of man is limited. We see distinctly what is near,
and perhaps seem to know it; but what is extreme in
remoteness we cannot see at all. In the interva
there is generally a region of half light, halt shade ;
what is called penumbra; where we see a few strong
outlines and all the rest dimly; or, it may be, we
think at one moment that we see, and the next
moment doubt whether we saw aright. These pheno
mena of sight have their close correspondences in the
mind, which in consequence is sure of some things
with the greatest certainty permitted to man, is in
blank ignorance of others, and finds between these
extremes a region of half-knowledge, with a few
certainties pervading it, but in general affording
matter for modest or reverential opinion, not for
light-minded and off-hand decision, nor for scho
lastic dogmatism. If Theists transgress modesty
in dealing with this region of thought, how can they
expect modesty or tenderness from Atheists ?
But I proceed to a second deplorable phenomenon,
equally baneful, namely-—the tangle of Metaphysics
in which Theistic advocates have involved their doc
trine. Christianity from the beginning had as its
boast, “ Unto the poor the gospel is preached.
A
religion which addresses itself to the human lace
must be intelligible to simple minds. If men and
women, if the great mass of a nation, are intended
by God to revere and worship Him, the grounds
of believing in God must be on the level of very
ordinary intellects. Theism, equally with Chris
tianity, cuts away the ground from under its own feet,
if it teaches that difficult questions of Metaphysics
must be settled before we can reasonably believe in
God. We know familiarly how much the conversion
�T4
Causes of AtkeisTU.
of heathens to Christianity is hindered when two
missionaries teach opposite doctrines, refuting one
^no,,ei*'
su°h case no one can reprove the
eathen,—every one must say he is blameless,—if he
reply to those who desire to convert him, that one of
hem must convert the other before it is worth his
w lie to attend to them. So, too, candour demands
trom us the admission that Atheists say nothing
unreasonable, if (being in no other respect presump.
or Reverent) they avow that the inconsistencies
ot lheistic advocates wholly discourage them from
spending study on so doubtful a subject. Such appears
to me to be the position of George Jacob Holyoake
In fact, when Mr Bradlaugh in this room claimed
+
T AJheist’ 1 did not think it right to con
tradict, though to me his Atheism is, at any rate, of a
widely different complexion from Mr Bradlaugh’s. I
reel that George Jacob Holyoake is a very modest
man, very reverential, and very anxious to learn from
all whom he sees to be sincerely and earnestly strivingtor truth. I believe he distrusts his own power of
judging, where he finds the advocates of Theism
ff in§> hheir doctrine in modes so obscure and
subtle and mutually inconsistent. I must attempt to
set before you some of the controverted questions,
even at the risk of getting out of my own depth.
When 1 see able men devoting their lives to Meta
physics and coming to opposite conclusions, I cannot
but teel great, diffidence in my own power to deal
with such subjects, and am always earnestly desirous
to keep clear of them. In fact, if anything could
make me an Atheist, it would be the jangling of
lheistic metaphysicians.
Let me then state to you some of the controversies,
w ich are supposed to need decision, before we can
attain a reasonable conviction that there is a God
an
at he deserves and accepts from us reverence,
trust, and adoration.
�Causes of Atheism.
15
“ Can the human intellect form a positive concep
tion of the Infinite and the Unconditioned ? Can we
investigate the nature and origin of the Uncondi
tioned as a psychological phenomenon. Does our
consciousness of the Finite involve a consciousness
of the Infinite ?
Is our knowledge necessarily
limited to phenomena?
Can we know only the
limited and the conditionally limited, or are we also
capable of construing positively the unconditionally
unlimited?
Can we conceive either an absolute
whole or an absolute part ? Is our notion of the
Infinite realized by a course of addition or progres
sion, which, starting from the finite, seeks to reac
the infinite ? Can we infer the infinitely great from
the indefinitely great ? Is our notion of the Infinite
a fact or ultimate datum of consciousness . Can
inductive generalization draw from finite data more
than they contain ? ”
Who can expect such questions to be even under
stood by any who have not made scholastic meta
physics and logic a special study ? As I have, more
or less, been acquainted with them myself for full
forty-five years, I naturally have a positive opinion
on some of the questions, indeed on. most of them;
but I should despair of Theism, if I _ believed it
necessary to a sound belief that the believer should
have discussed them at all. Some of the questions
indeed, about the Unconditioned, and the Uncondi
tionally Unlimited, might seem to have been started,
not by a sincere Theist, but by a crafty Atheist, for
the express purpose of throwing dust into our eyes.
The attempt to establish any practical religion by such
processes of thought, seems to me worse than useless,
being in fact subversive of its avowed object. Not
only scornful and presumptuous minds, but equally the
reverential, the modest, and the philanthropic, are
liable to be deterred from religious inquiry, if invited
�i6
Causes of Atheism.
into it through such a road. Justly may a philan
thropic person say,-“ Man needs the service of our
eneigies : God, if there be a God, needs neither our
aid, nor our worship : surely he cannot desire us to
waste time and effort in questions of metaphysics,
troversy11”^ °PP°Slte Professors are in endless con-
And now, I might seem to have fulfilled my task,
only that the metaphysicians will say to me, that I
cannot justly disown their controversies, without
s owing ,PW Theism can be established indepen
dently of them To reply fully to such a challenge,
would be to undertake a lecture on Theism. I there
forereply historically. I say, that Theism never was
established by metaphysicians through metaphysical
teaching ; nay, that no appreciable effect on practical
Snr phaS ®ve^been exerted by it. Historically,
the belief in God has always rested on the common
perceptions of common men. The fact relieves me
rom the imputation of rashness, when I say, that the
busmess of Mental Science is here critical and nega
te only and that philosophers err in thinking that
Philosophy,—I. mean scholastic science,—can be
crea we m religion. Its sole duty is to prune away
the errors into which the ill-informed? and half
cultivated intellect naturally falls; which duty I
a mit and maintain to be a very important one. But
m order to fulfil it at all, philosophy must condescend
to speak m a purely popular dialect, and altogether
abstain from the hideous jargon so dear to meta
physicians. If it be true that their thoughts cannot
be expressed m so copious and powerful tongue as
the popular English, then the popular religion, it
seems, must be unsound, until we learn to think and
talk metaphysically. But if the great bulk of the
human race have hitherto been incapacitated for sound
�Causes of Atheism.
*7
religion, I for one cannot have confidence that by
means of scholastic culture a small oligarchy ot
mankind becomes the select priesthood of God.
The Natural History of Theism displays many
phases, which might make an instructive volume,
but in every case two stages at least seem inevitable.
In the former, men discover in the great universe the
action of Mind superior to man, and generally believe
in many superior spirits, co-ordinate in rank, though
among these one may be Supreme. The relation of
God or the Gods to man is conceived ot, as that ot a
Patron to a dependent. The Gods are supposed to
care, certainly for men collectively, probably for some
eminent men specially; and also to punish very
flagrant guilt. Concerning the mental qualities ot
the Gods, equally as of their habits, the more sober
nations abstain from thought in this first stage; those
of wilder imagination confidently ascribe to them the
enjoyments and pastime, the passions and vices, of
mortals
This is the earlier or puerile stage of
religion, and implies both deficient information con
cerning the great world, and immature faculties in
the observers. In the second or manly stage of
religion, it is recognised that there is no adequate
ground for supposing more than one God. Spirits
there may be, superior to men; if so, let them be
called angels; but they must be, like us, dependent
on God. On the doctrine of One God naturally
follows the belief of his entire freedom from those
disturbances of mind and clouds of passion to which
man is subject; freedom therefore from caprices ot
love and hatred; though men may be very slow in
working out the result that God is no respecter ot
persons, and uses no arbitrary favouritism. Because
we cannot even guess at any reason which should mar
his serenity, we attribute to him this perfectly un
ruffled and impartial state of mind. Moreover, as it
is inevitable to believe that whatever high and pure
�18
Causes of Atheism.
qualities and powers we possess, must be higher and
perfect in. Hvm, therefore, from consciousness of
disinterested Love in ourselves, we attribute dis
interested Love to Him. Naturally we can have no
ideas whatever of a Divine Mind, but such as are
suggested by consciousness of our own minds
In shaping the second stage of Theism which I
fetched, a more cultivated intellect un
doubtedly played a highly useful part in cutting awav
the superfluous fancies of barbaric imagination. But
+? T\rr^ean1 Christendom, at least as long back as
the Mediaeval Schoolmen, a pretentious Science has
struggled to define things which ought to be left
indefinite and to transmute negatives into positives,
lhe word Infinite, or Boundless, which meant that
we are wholly incapable of assigning bounds to God
1A-KPriG^endemi t0 be P0Sltive, or is exchanged for
Absolute. The sobriety of declaring that we know
no bounds to God’s power, is thus turned into a
scientific dogma that he is All-powerful; while with
antiquity, when the word was used, it was only a
burst of poetry, not a deliberate assertion concerningthings which the human mind cannot know. From
the same school came the notion that the belief in
(xod rose out of speculating on Causation, and disc°vered (°r, as an Atheist would say, invented) God
as the First Cause; thus they carried the mind into
the impenetrable cloudiness of Past Eternity and
Cosmogony, that is, the birth of the Universe. The
Hebrew book of Genesis does, indeed, tell of a
Beginning of Creation, but very little is afterwards
based on it; and the main stream of Hebrew litera
ture is very far from excluding the idea of God’s
continuous perpetual creation. It treats all workings
of the elements, organic and inorganic, a^s actings of
n
Pin?.o:C
’ so ^kat each of us was created by
God in birth, as truly as Adam originally. In the
older view there was no such idea as that God in the
�Causes of Atheism.
19
■beginning created Matter : which is another example
of dogmatizing where man is necessarily ignorant;. it
is a later invention of metaphysical science. Again,
the antagonism of God and Matter was a notion im
ported from Oriental metaphysics, and conld have no
place in the mind of Hebrew sages, who saw God
permanent in nature, hereby agreeing with the
doctrine of the most enlightened of the Greeks; to
which also, I believe, modern Theists more and more
converge. The notion that God created matter, and
set a machine at work; wound up the spring, and
then withdrew from the scene of action; has been
propagated by persons who meant to be philosophic,
and were not. The result has been mischievous.
For in healthful and practical religion the relation
of man to God is a present abiding fact, and the
central point of knowledge. We come close to Him
now and here; in Him we live and move and have
our being; from Him come all our vital and mental
powers. Our present contact with Him is the main,
the cardinal point; we are not thrown back into the
history, if history it can be called, of a Creation in
very dim distance, for our indirect origin from
Him. We apprehend God in the present, and in the
vastness of what we see; we do not try to compre
hend Him in the regions of invisibility, nor to grasp
Eternity and Infinitude in our knowledge. If He is
the life "of our life, He is in the interior of our spirits
and a witness to our consciousness. This is practical
and popular religion, whose central origin and action
is now and here; but metaphysical and scholastic
Theism, which begins at Past Eternity or First
Causation, cannot be expected to give more heat than
moonshine gives.
Now, the question between us and the Atheist is
very simple, and goes into a short compass. In my
opinion it needs no metaphysicians to mediate between
us and him. The question is this: Were ancient
�20
Causes of Atheism.
men wrong in seeing Mind in the Universe ? For if
they were wrong, we are wrong. I seem to myself to
see Mind at work in the Universe as distinctly as I
Seu-1Vn
Each is a direct perception,
w ich cannot be made clearer by argumentation. It
was impossible to argue with that curious sect of
ancient doubters who held that nothing beyond the
existence of Self was certain. If any one assert that
the world is a dream, he may rest assured that we
cannot refute him. Of course I cannot prove that
mens actions, which seem to me to imply purpose
and mind, do not proceed from blind forces of Nature.
I have no inward consciousness of any mind but my
own. If any one tell me that my ascription of
design to other men has no logical demonstration, and
does not deserve belief, I have to confess that it is
logically demonstrable, and yet I insist that it does
deserve belief—at least until refuted. He may brinoproof that it is false, if he can ; but it is useless to tell
me that I cannot prove it. I do not pretend to prove
that other men have minds; but I seem to myself to
^ee
verapi'ty °f our bodily senses is not cer
tain ; they sometimes make mistakes : yet when the ’
senses of many men concur, we accept the conclusions
and are satisfied, even though there are cases in which
appearances are deceptive. So is it with the mW.
An individual may be rash and blundering. If I, one
man, form judgments which most others, who have
powers and advantages equal to mine, reject, it may
e most reasonable to suspect that my judgments are
unsound. But when we believe that we see a superior
Mind m the Universe, and the rest of mankind with
so great unanimity chime-in that some have defined
Manas “ a religious animal;” the direct perception
ot a Superior Mind is similar in kind to our direct
perception of Mind in other men. No doubt, in the
latter case, from the sameness of our wants and in
stincts, we have far greater facility in tracing the
�Causes of Atheism.
21
course of mind, and are less in danger of mistaking
the direction of design; but this does not ^rfere
with the assertion that the process of thought is
similar in the two cases.
I repeat, the sole question between us and the
Atheist is—whether there are or are not marks in the
Universe of superior Mind. What are the qualities,
the power, the purposes of the Spirit whom we discern
andPwhether there are many such Spirits, are questions
for Theists among themselves, with which the Atheis ,
while he keeps to his argument, has nothing to do. 1
cannot but think that, if the mist
blown aside by Theists, simple-hearted working-men
would be less liable to the delusion that they are ad
vancing in wisdom by adopting ^eAtheistictheory
and if they saw Theists willing to follow truth wher
ever truth led, they would have less reason to.give
special honour to the courage which contradicts man s
deep and wide-spread conviction that a God above us
exists, blessed for ever, and the source of blessing.
�LONDONS
printed by c. w. reynell, LITTLE pulteney street
HAYMARKET, W.
�
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 the causes of atheism: a lecture delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 21 p. : ill. (port.) ; 18 cm.
Notes: The portrait is a photo that has been cut out and pasted to the title page. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The article is also bound in Morris Tracts 4. Printed by C.W. Reynell, 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
[1871?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT99
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 (On the causes of atheism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/44f373be54e22e4c23bbf7c8a862e19e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BjpEoMG6kPItsV4qi4qKMkjA-INHy0Q8xnDaAb7GiiDwJ7xwmMR03Kq974aJmz09CSjFZZUy1fh7Pn00HawdZ31em7TFDqs6Pzmx%7E03wtsUZq-nR0qMFUdilC47DAQ9mp4eVSAI7y9JwuUjz346o5ElIr6Syf2Y%7EBuqt5-4IsQQh3BUiZUOKHvtnUS4wXrF5coT3-GLMd-7orp%7EHbfZlhISfQQ0Rv8rDFJEy4a946T31w%7EAGrEgUsFniauXjw6uAOE7zT-ygYaA7RIG0RfnDugOjx6ECPMTrF08NTv-2RmyVAdBegwZEDTpfyTUJeqJ8iHXAJMk4qrEI5pUE8jl07A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b3f05758ce157bd3ed88956be5a6ecd
PDF Text
Text
iTftg Atheistic ffllaffarm*
VI.
‘
z 4’- ■
NATURE
AND
THE GODS.
ARTHUR B. MOSS.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
-------------
Under this title it is proposed to issue a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which shall consist of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethoug’ht advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue will consist of sixteen pages, and will be
published at one penny. Each writer is responsible only
for his or her own views.
I. “ What is the use of Prayer ?” By Annie Besant.
II. “ Mind considered as a Bodily Function.”
Alice Bradlaugh.
III. “ The Gospel of Evolution.”
ling, D.Sc.
IV. “Englxnd’s Balance-Sheet.”
laugh.
V. “The Story
of the
Soup, n.”
By
By Edward Ave-
By Charles Brad
By Annie Besant.
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
Ladies and Gentdeaien,—No word has played a more
important part in the discussion of scientific and philo
sophical questions than the word Nature. Everyone
thinks he knows the mbaning of it. Yet how few have
used it to express the same idea; indeed it has been
•employed to convey such a variety of impressions that
John Stuart Mill asserts that it has been the “fruitful
source” of the propagation of “false taste, false philo
sophy, false morality, and even bad law.” Now, I propose
in this lecture that we start with some clear ideas concern
ing the meaning of such words, upon the right understand
ing of which the whole force of my arguments depends.
What, then, is meant by the word Nature ? When used
by a materialist it has two important meanings. In its
large and philosophical sense it means, as Mr. Mill says:
‘ ‘ The sum of all ph.8enom.ena, together with the causes
which produce them, including not only all that happens,
but all that is capable of happening—the unused capabili
ties of matter being as much a part of the idea of Nature
as those which take effect.” But the wor^. Nature is often
used, and rightly used, to distinguish the “natural ” from
the “artificial” object—that is, to indicate the difference
between a thing produced spontaneously by Nature, from
a thing wrought by the skill and labor of man.
But it must not be supposed that the artificial object
forms no part of Nature. All art belongs to Nature. Art
simply means the adaptation, the moulding into certain
forms of the things of Nature, and therefore the artistic
productions of man are included in the comprehensive
’sense of the term Nature which I just now used.
�84
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Now in Nature there is a permanent and a changeableelement, but man only takes cognisance of the changeable
or pheenomenal element; of the substratum underlying phe
nomena he knows and can know nothing whatever ; that is,
man does not know what matter and force are in them
selves in the abstract, he only knows them in the concrete,
as they affect him through the medium of his senses.
Now I allege that nearly all the mistakes of theology
have arisen from the ignorance of man in regard to Nature
and her mode of operation. Let us consider for a moment
a few facts in reference to man. Of course I don’t want to
take you back to his origin. But suppose we go back no
further than a few thousand years, we shall find that man
lived in holes in the earth; that he moved about in fear
and trembling; that not only did he fight against bis
fellow creatures, but that he went in constant fear of animals who sought him as their prey. Under these eiroirmstances he looked to Nature for assistance. He felt how
itnspeakab'ly helpless he was, and he cried aloud for help.
(Sometimes he imagined that he received what in his,
agony he had yearned for. Then it was that he thought
that Nature was most kind. Perhaps he wanted food to
eat and had tried in vain to procure it. But presently a
poor beast comes across his path, and he slays it and satis
fies his hunger. Or perhaps he himself is in danger. A
ferocious animal is in pursuit of him and he sees no means
of escape, but presently comes in view a narrow stream of
water which he can swim across, but which his pursuer
cannot. When he is again secure he utters a deep sigh of
relief. In time he makes rapid strides of progress. He
learns to keep himself warm while the animals about him
are perishing with cold; he learns to make weapons where
with to destroy l^s enemies; but his greatest triumph of
all is when he has learned howto communicate his thoughts
to his fellows. Up to now it would be pretty safe to say
that, man was destitute of all ideas concerning the existence of god or gods. But he advances one stage further,
and his thoughts begin to take something like definite
shape. He forms for himself a theoiy as to the cause of
the events happening about him. And now the reign of
the gods begins. Man is still a naked savage; as Voltaire
truly says : ‘ ‘ Man had only his bare skin, which continu
ally exposed to the sun, rain and hail, became chapped,
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
85
tanned, and spotted. The male in our continent was dis
figured by spare hairs on his body, which rendered him
frightful without covering him. His face was hidden by
these hairs. His skin became a rough soil which bore a
.forest of stalks, the roots of which tended upwards and the
branches of which grew downwards. It was in this state
that this animal ventured to paint god, when in course of
time he learnt the art of description ” (“ Philosophical Dic
tionary,” vol. ii., page 182).
Naturally enough man’s first objects of worship were
fetishes—gods of wood, stone, trees, fire, water. By-andbye, however, he came to worship living beings; in fact,
-any animal that he thought was superior in any way to.
himself was converted into an object of worship. But
none of these gods were of any assistance to him in pro
moting his advancement in the world. And neither did
he receive any assistance from the spontaneous action of
Nature. In fact he advanced in the road of civilisation
■only in proportion as he offered ceaseless war against the
hurtful forces of nature, using one force to counteract the
■destructive character of another. Think what the earth
must have been without a solitary house upon it, without
a man who yet knew how to till the soilI Must it not have
been a howling wilderness fit only for savage beasts and
brutal barbarians? In course of time, however, man
made great' strides. He began to live in communities,
which. afterwards grew into nations. He betook himself
also to the art of agriculture, and supplied himself and his
fellows with good, nutritious food. And with this growth
of man the gods underwent a similar transition. Now
instead of bowing down before fetishes, man transferred
his worship to gods and goddesses who were supposed to
dwell somewhere in the sky. And these gods were of a
•very peculiar kind. Each of them had a separate depart
ment to himself and performed only a certain class of
actions. One made the sun to shine and the trees to grow;
one had a kind of dynamite factory to himself, and manu
factured lightning and thunder; another was a god of
love ; another secretary for war; another perpetual presi
dent of the Celestial Peace Society. Some had several
heads; some had only one eye or one arm; some had
wings, while others appeared like giants, and hurled
.thunderbolts at the heads of unoffending people. But
�86
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
these gods were of no more service to man than those that
preceded them. If man advanced it was by his own effort,
by virtue of using his intelligence, by strife, warfare, and
by suffering.
Neither Nature nor the gods taught man to be truth
ful, honest, just, nor even to be clean. No god came to
tell him that he must not lie, nor steal, nor murder. All
virtues are acquired, all are the result of education. And
it was only after coming together and being criticised by
one another; men being criticised by women who no
doubt taught them that when they came a-wooing they
would have a very slight chance if they were not clean and
respectable; living in societies and being governed by
the wisest among their fellows, who were able to judge as
to what kind of actions produced the most beneficial
results, that laws against theft, adultery, and murder, and
other evil actions, were established. From Polytheism, or
belief in many gods, the next great step was to Mono
theism, or belief in one god. This was an important
transition, and meant the clearing from the heavens of
many fictitious deities. But though the monotheist
believed only in one god, that did not prevent others from
believing in an entirely different deity. The ancient Jew
worshipped Jahveh, but that did not prevent the Baalites
from having a god of their own, to whom they could
appeal in the hour of need. And just let me here observe
that the early monotheist always worshipped an anthropo
morphic or man-like deity. And he worshipped such a
god because man was the highest being of whom he had
any conception. His god was always the counterpart of
himself and reflected all the characteristics of his own
nature. Was he brutal and licentious? So was his god.
Was he in’favor of aggressive wars? Sowas his god.
Was he a petty tyrant, in favor of slavery? So was his
god. Was he a polygamist? Sowas his god. Was he
ignorant of the facts of life ? So was his god. Was he
revengeful and relentless ? So was his god.
And in whatever book we find a deity described as a
malevolent or fiendish wretch depend upon it, by what
ever name that book may be known, and by whomsoever
it may be reverenced, it was written by one who possessed
in his own person precisely the same characteristics as»
those he depicted in the character of his deity.
�NATUIIE AND TlTE GODS.
Th e Jewish, god, Jahveh, it must be understood, was not
a spiritual being, although it is sometimes pretended that
he was. No. He was a purely material being. True he
lived somewhere up above, but he made very frequent
visits to the earth. Once he walked in the garden of Eden
“in the cool of day,” or “his voice” did for him (Gen.
iii., 8). Once he stood upon a mountain, whither Moses,
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu had gone to hold a consultation
with him (Ex. xxiv., 10). Once he talked with Moses
“face to face” (Ex. xxxiii., 11).
And not only was Jahveh a material being, but on the
whole he was not a very formidable deity. In point of
truth he was a very little fellow. And by way of diversion
he was sometimes drawn about in a small box, or ark,
two feet long and three feet wide (Sam. vi., 6, 7). As
evidence that even among professional Christians to-day
Jahveh is not looked upon as a very stalwart fellow, Mr.
Edward Gibson, in the House of Commons, a short time
ago said that if Mr. Bradlaugh were admitted into that
assembly the effect of it would be that god would be
“thrown out of the window.”
And if you want to find a man with “small ideas” on
general matters it is only necessary to know the kind of
god he worships to be able to determine the intellectual
width and depth of such a man’s mind.
Why is this ? Because all ideas of god were born in
the fertile imaginations of men, and a man’s idea of god
is invariably the exact measurement of himself, morally
and intellectually. It may be urged by some Theists that
man is indebted to Jahveh for his existence, and that he
owes his moral and intellectual advancement to the fact
that this deity, through the medium of Moses and the
other inspired writers, laid down certain commandments
for his guidance in life. When it is remembered, however,
that if man is indebted in any way to Jahveh for his ex
istence, he owes him only the exact equivalent of the
benefits he has received, I think it will be seen that on the
whole man’s indebtedness to this deity is very small indeed.
Was Adam indebted to Jahveh for the imperfect nature
which compelled him to commit the so-called sin which
imperilled the future destiny of human race ? Were all
the “miserable sinners”—the descendants of the first
pair—indebted to Jahveh for their “corrupt” natures?
�88
THE ATHEISTIC PEATFORM.
If yes, what kind of god was man indebted to ? To a god
who once drowned the whole of mankind except one family ?
To a god who said that he was a jealous being who “ visir ted the sins of the father upon the children unto a third
and fourth generation (Ex. xx., 5) ? To a god who sanc
tioned slavery (Lev. xxv., 44, 45) and injustice of all
kinds ? To a god who said “ thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live” (Ex. xxii., 18), and gave instructions for men to
kill the blasphemers among their fellows (Lev. xxiv., 16) ?
To a god who told Moses to go against the Midianites and
slay every man among them, preserving only the virgins
among the women to satisfy the lustful natures of a brutal
horde of soldiers (Numbers xxxi., 7—18) ? To a god to
whom, as Shelley says, the only acceptable offerings were
the steam of slaughter, the dissonance of groans, and
the flames of a desolate land” (Dialogue between
“ Eusebes and Theosophus,” prose writings, page 300) ? I
deny that man has ever been in any way indebted to such
a god, and I say moreover that such a deity never had any
leal existence, except in the base imaginations of ignorant
and brutal men. But the next stage was from the
material to the spiritual god. Many ages must have
elapsed before this more elevating though equally absurd
belief_ became to be accepted, ^ven by a small minority of
mankind. But the time eventually did come—a time
which happily is now rapidly passing away—when intel
lectual men believed that the proposition of the existence
of god could be demonstrated to all rational minds. Some
said that god’s existence was self-evident to every intelli
gent mind; others that Nature and men could not have
come by “chance”; that they must have had a cause;
some said that the harmony existing’ in the universe proved
god’s existence; others that everybody except fools “felt
in their hearts ” that there was a god. But these imagin
ary proofs did not always convince. At last there came
forth philosophers who said that there was a mode of
reasoning, the adoption of which “leads irresistibly up to
the belief in god,” and that that mode was called the
mode a priori. Another school said that the a priori, or
reasoning from cause to effect, was an altogether fallacious
method, and that the only satisfactory mode of establish
ing god’s existence was the d posteriori, or reasoning from'
effect to cause.
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
89
Another school said that taken singly neither of these
modes of reasoning established the existence of deity, but
that both taken together “formed a perfect chain” of
reasoning that was quite conclusive on the point. Neither
of these schools, however, showed how two bad arguments
could possibly make one good one. But let me iust briefly
examine these arguments put forward so confidently by
leading Theists. The first method—d priori—invariably
takes the form of an attempt to establish what is called a
Great hirst Cause.”.
When it is said, that there must be a “first cause” to
account for the existence of Nature, such language, to say
the least, shows a total misapprehension of the meaning of
e word cause,” as used by scientific men, “ First
cause, as applied to Nature as a whole, remembering the
definition I have given, is an absurdity. Cause and effect
apply only to phenomena. Each effect is a cause of some
subsequent effect, and each cause is an effect of some
antecedent cause. The phaenomena of the universe form a
complete chain of causes and effects, and in an infinite
. regression there can be no first cause. Let me explain
what I mean more fully. For instance, here is a chainsuppose it is to form a perfect circle, every link in which
is perfect; now if you were to go round and round this
cham from now to doomsday you would never come to the
first lmk It is the same m Nature. You can go back,
and back, and back through successive causes and effects
but you will never come to a “first cause ” ; you will not
be able to say “here is the end of Nature, and here the
beginning of something else.” There is no brick wall to
mark the boundary line of Nature. You cannot “look
through Nature up to Nature’s God,”—the poet Pope not
withstanding—for Nature seems endless, and you can
neither penetrate her heights nor fathom her depths. And
1 have one other word to say in reference to this d priori
method, before finally disposing of it. It is this, that it is
an altogether unscientific method. Man knows nothing
whatever of cause except in the sense that in the imme
diate antecedent of an effect. Man’s experience is of effects •
these he takes cognisance of; of these he has some know
ledge but of cause, except as a means to an end, he has none.
But this brings me to the second mode of reasoning in
proof of God s existence, the d posteriori, and this has one
�90
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
advantage in its favor, and that is, that it is a scientific
method. It reasons from known effects up to the supposed
causes of them. Now this generally assumes the form,
no matter under what guise, of the famous 1 ‘ design argu
ment.” Dr. Paley stated it many years ago, and it has not
been much improved since his day. It is generally stated
m this way: “The world exhibits marks of design; that
design must have had a designer; that designer must be
a person ; that person is God.” A number of illustrations
are then brought forward to support this contention. For
instance, it is argued that when a man observes a watch
or a telescope, or any article that has been made to answer
a certain purpose, and the mechanism of which is sc>
adjusted as to effect the desired object, it is said that from
the marks of design or contrivance observed .in the
mechanism, he infers that these articles are the products
of some human designer. And so it is said that when we
look around the world and see how beautifully things are
designed, the eye to see, the ear to hear; how admirably
things are adapted the one to the other, are we not justi
fied by similar reasoning in concluding that these are the
productions of an almighty and infinite designer ? Briefly
stated that is the argument. Now' let me examine it.
And in the first place it will be observed that it is assumed
that- there is a great resemblance between the works of
Nature and the artistic works of man. But is this really a
fact? Man simply moulds natural objects into certain
forms; they are then called artificial objects. We know
that man designs watches and telescopes; it is a fact
within our experience. But there is not the slightest
similarity between the process of manufacture and the
natural process of growth; so that when we see various
objects of Nature, we do not conclude, however har
moniously the parts may work together, that they were
designed. We know a manufactured article from a natural
object, we could not mistake the one for the other. But
let us suppose that we did not know' that men made
watches; it is very probable that we should then think
that a watch was not made at all, but that it was a natural
object. Take an illustration. Suppose that I were to lay
a watch upon the earth somew'here in South Africa:
suppose that in a short time a savage wandering near the
spot where the watch was deposited should observe it,
�.NATURE AND THE GODS.
should take it into his hand and handle it—I am assuming’
that the savage had never seen a watch before, and was .
not aware that men designed and constructed watches— fl
think you that he would for a moment notice that it
exhibited marks of design? No, I think he would be morelikely to come to the opinion that it was alive. The design <■
argument therefore is purely an argument drawn from
experience. But what experience has man of god?
Speaking for myself I can say that I have absolutely no-1. '■'u
experience of him at all, and I am not acquainted with
anybody who has. Man does not know god as a designer
or constructor; he neither knows of his capabilities, nor
his existence; and he therefore cannot reasonably say that
god is the designer of anything.
The human eye is very often adduced by the Theist as
an illustration of design. Now nobody can deny that the
eye is a delicate, complicated, and beautiful structure ; no- '
body could fail to see and acknowledge with feelings of
admiration the wonderful adjustment and harmonious uj
working of its various parts; and all would readily ac
knowledge how admirably it is fitted to perform its func
tions. But yet to acknowledge all this is not to admit
that the eye is designed. To point to the combinations
and conditions which produce this result, without showing
that these conditions were designed, is to beg the whole
question. And it must be distinctly understood that the
onus probandi, as the lawyers say, lies with the affirmer of
the design argument and not with him who does not see
evidence in it sufficient to command belief. To show that
a thing is capable of effecting a certain result does not
prove that it was designed for that purpose.
For example. I hold this glass in my hand; I now re
lease my hold from it and it instantly falls to the ground ;
that does not surely prove either that I was designed to
hold up that glass, or that the glass was designed to fall ; | ]
on withdrawing my grasp from it. At most it only proves
that I am capable of holding it, and that when I release it,
it is impelled by the law of gravitation to fall towards the
earth.
But there is another view of this question I wish to pre
sent to you. From this argument it is not quite clear that
there is only one supreme god of the universe. Admit
tedly this is an argument based upon experience. What
�92
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
does experience teach us in respect to a person ? Simply
this. That a person must have an organisation, and a
person with an organisation must he a limited being. Has
god an organisation ? If he has not, he cannot be intelli
gent, cannot perceive, recollect, judge; and if he has,
then an organisation implies contrivance, and contrivance
implies a contriver, and this again instead of leading up to
one god, leads to an innumerable tribe of deities each
mightier and more complicated than the other.
If the Theist retorts that a person need not have an
■organisation, the Atheist at once replies that neither need
the designer of Nature be a person.
But these are not the only objections to be used against
the design argument. The d priori theologians have some
very potent arguments to advance. Mr. William Gillespie
has discovered twenty-four defects of d posteriori arguments,
and I think he has conclusively shown that all the attri
butes claimed for deity are impeached by this method.
In my humble opinion the design argument has grown
•out of the arrogance and conceit of man, who imagines
that the earth and all the things existing upon it were
•created especially for his benefit.
Suppose that I admit that there is design in Nature, the
Theist has then to account for some awkward and many
horrible designs. How will he get over the fact that
Nature is one vast battle-field on which all fife is engaged
in warfare ? What goodness will he see in the design
that gives the strong and cunning the advantage over the
weak and simple ? What beneficence will he detect in the
fact that all animals ‘‘prey” upon one another? and that
man is not exempt from the struggle ? Famine destroys
thousands ; earthquakes desolate a land; and what tongue
-can tell the anguish and pain endured by the very poor in
all great countries of the earth? Think of the “ills to
which flesh is heir.” Think of the diseases from which
so many thousands suffer. Think how many endure agony
from cancer or tumor, how many have within their bodies
parasites which locate themselves in the fiver, the muscles,
and the intestines, causing great agony and sometimes
death. Think how many are born blind and how many
become sightless on account of disease. Think of the deaf
and the dumb, and of the poor idiots who pass a dreary
mid useless existence in asylums. Then think of the acci-
�NATURE ANU THE GODS.
dents to which all men are liable. Think of the many
who are killed or injured on railways every year. Think of men and boys who injure or destroy their limbs in
machinery during the performance of their daily work.
Think of the thousands who find a premature and watery
grave. In one of our London workhouses I saw recently
a young man who had met with a dreadful accident; who
had had his hand frightfully lacerated by a circular saw,
which will prevent him from ever working again. Think
of his suffering. Think of the misery his wife and chil
dren will have to bear on account of it. It almost makes
one shed bitter tears to think of it; and yet we are to be
told, we who are striving to alleviate suffering and mit,igate the evils which afflict our fellow creatures, we are to
be told that an infinitely wise and good god designs these
things.
Oh the blasphemy of it! Surely an infinite fiend could
not do worse; and if I thought that Nature were intelli
gent, that Nature knew of the suffering she inflicted on all
kinds of living beings and had the power to prevent it, but
would not, I would curse Nature even though the curse in
volved for me a sudden and painful death. But Nature
heareth not man’s protests or appeals—she is blind to his
sufferings and deaf to his prayers.
Oh, but it’s said: “ See what harmony there is in the
Universe : ” per se there is neither harmony nor chaos in
Nature; we call that harmony which pleasantly affects us,
and that chaos which does the reverse. Some Theist may
say: “ Suppose that I grant that I cannot prove that god
exists, what then ? You cannot prove your own existence,
and yet you believe that you exist.” I am well aware that
I cannot prove my own existence; I don’t want to prove
it; it’s a fact, and it stands for itself—to me it is not a
matter of belief, it is a matter of certainty. I know that
I exist. Cannot god make the evidence of his existence as
clear as my own is to me ? If he cannot, what becomes of
his power ? and if he will not, what of his goodness ?
And it must be remembered that there are thousands of
intelligent Atheists in the world to-day. Now, either god
does not wish man to believe in him, or if he does he lacks the power to produce conviction. 0 Theist—you who
profess to be conversant with the ways of the almighty—
explain to me, now, how it is that in proportion as men
�•94
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
•cultivate their minds and reason on theological questions
that the tendency is for them to disbelieve even in the
ethereal deity of modern Theism. And it will not do in
the nineteenth century to put Jesus forward as a god. He
was no god. He possessed many good qualities, no doubt,
as a man—but not one attribute which is claimed for god.
He was neither all-wise, nor all-good, nor all-powerful, and
he was only a finite being. And how can it be pretended
by sensible persons that a finite man living on the earth,
born of a woman, and dying like any other ordinary being,
could possibly be the infinite god of the Universe ? Is it
not absurd ? I cannot believe it, and anybody with brains
that devotes a moment’s thought to the matter, must ac
knowledge either that it is incomprehensible, or that it is
monstrously absurd.
In this country we are not asked to believe in any of the
“foreign gods”—the gods of ancient Greece or Home—
the gods of China, India, or Egypt, etc.—and we need not
now discuss as to how far these deities have influenced
human conduct for good or for ill. England, as a civilised
country, is not very old. And civilisation has always
meant a banishment of the gods. While men considered
how to please the gods, they neglected in a great measure
the work of the world. As Plato said : “ The gods only
help those who help themselves.” Well they are just the
persons who do not want help ; and I shall never worship
any god who leaves the helpless and the unfortunate to
perish.
If god only “helps those who help themselves,” he
might as well leave the helping alone, because even as
we find the world to-day, the whole of life seems to be
based on the principle that, “ unto him that hath shall be
given, and he shall have in abundance, and from him that
hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth
to have.” The man who has a strong constitution may
struggle successfully in the world; the man with great
affluence may win an easy victory over his fellows; the
man who has plenty of “influential friends” has good
prospects ; but the poor, the weakly, the ignorant, what
hope have they—they have to suffer and toil, and toil and
suffer from the cradle to the tomb.
How is it, then, you may ask, if man has received no
assistance from without, either from Nature or the gods,
�NATURE AND THE GODS.
95
that he has achieved such splendid results in the world ?
The answer is simple enough. The great struggle for life
—the desire to get food, clothing, habitation, comfort—
these have been the motives which have urged men on.
The desire to get food caused men to till the soil, and, as
the demand increased, the methods of cultivation improved;
with improved taste came improved raiment and dwellings
for the rich; plain dress and decent habitation for the
poor. Men having given up the worship of Nature, began
to study her; they found that by diligent investigation,
and the application of their augmented knowledge, they
were able to beautify the world, and render their lives
happy. Then we began to have great scientific discoveries.
Navigation, steam-power, telegraphy, electricity; by a
knowledge of the use of these powers man has been able
to conquer the destructive character of many natural
forces, and to transfer a world of misery into a home
of comparative comfort. And I say that the world is
indebted far more to those who built houses, made
clothes, navigated ships, made machinery, wrote books,
than to all the gods and their clerical representatives the
world has ever known. Belief in god never helped a man
to supersede the sailing vessel by the steamship, the old
coach by the railroad, the scythe by the reaping machine,
nor the fastest locomotion by the telegraph wires. Man’s
necessities ahured him on to all these achievements. One
Stephenson is worth a thousand priests—one Edison of
more value to the world than all the gods ever pictured by
the imagination. And we must not forget the men who freed
the human intellect from the fetter's of a degrading supersti
tion. We must n ot forget what the world owes to our Brunos,
our Spinozas, our Voltaires, our Paines, .our Priestleys; for
these, by teaching men to rely on their reason, have opened
out channels of thought that were previously closed, and
mines of intellectual and material wealth that have since
yielded great results. And so it must now be said that
man is master of Nature, and he finds that she is just as
good as a servant as she was bad as a master.
But the earth is not yet a Paradise. Theology is not yet
entirely banished; the debris of the decayed beliefs still
cumber our path and impede our progress. There is
even now much that remains to be done. Plenty of labor
to be performed. Ignorance, poverty, and crime and
�96
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
misery still exist and exert their evil influence in the
world. The philanthropist and the reformer have still
their work to do. The ignorant have yet to he instructed,
the hungry have yet to bo fed, the homeless have yet to be
provided for. And I have come to the opinion after years
of experience, that ignorance is the. real cause of all the
misery and suffering in the world: that that man is truly
wise who sees that it is against his own interest to do a
paltry act, to perform an evil deed. All actions carry with
them their consequences, and you can no more escape the
effects of your evil deeds than you ('an evade the law of
gravitation, or elude the grim monster Death when the
dread hour arrives.
No. If you would be happy you must act virtuously—
act as you would desire all others to do to promote your
happiness. Say to yourselves : if every one were to act
as I am doing, would the world he benefited ? and if you
come to the opinion that th<* world would not be improved
by such conduct, depend upon it your actions are not good.
Remember that once you perform a deed in Nature it is
irrevocable ; and if it is bad repentance is worse than use
less. All actions either have an evil or a good result.
Every deed leaves its indelible impress on the book of
Nature, from which no leaves can be torn and nothing can
be expunged. And remember, too, that the man who
makes his fellow-creatures happy cannot displease a god
who is good; and a god who is not good is neither deserv
ing of admiration nor service.
An infinite and all-powerful god cannot need the assist
ance of man ; but man needs the assistance of his brothers
and sisters to diffuse the glorious light of knowledge
through the world; needs assistance to alleviate suffering,
to remove injustice, and secure the possibility of freedom
and happiness for all. Therefore I urge you td abate not
your enthusiasm, but work bravely on: and when the
evening of your life approaches, with wife by your side
and your children playing joyously about you, with many
friends to cheer and thank you—then will you know that
vour life’s labor has not been in vain.
Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, at 63, Fleet
Street, London, E.C.—1881.
�
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
Nature and the gods
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [83]-96 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 6
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N503
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 (Nature and the gods), 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
Gods
Nature
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ad2e5247ae1649781210545c1cdfd2ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aeLL9XS8Z%7Ey6LVs1HdbmSaChgV2z-1XjqgD8SHJLJO4EEPwNiXvzexbi5PpFLtF%7E0SpKPX73NuN8W5uC3uKASZCFiH6qKX19HAnPXS-rWtei0oslA1fsjfoIdLcCki6ZQYoZkmUJ2TXTq8XCzmTCimgQZjylHV18q3CcheLnf5RgiwsaXsEyjn-6ds%7Eo3Ix%7EChauwEfh6RPjVgBOPYns5wvmvapBQtzYkJGhhWZEGoOiPFExhtktwY426PNMzZjvrIPy0YpGV090CdpnU536SM4lrGspII-UA7dphS6kF3NKv4Y4H6vpnjeJxFcwXQzRIpV4aaa2ECkMVw82e3mgPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8ee05afcc4f58f1591070a4d60fe6be
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
IS THERE A GOD?
By CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
The initial difficulty is in defining the word “ God ”. It is
equally impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any pro
position unless there is at least an understanding, on the
part of the affirmer or denier, of the meaning of every
word used in the proposition. To me the word “God”
standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the
word repeatedly used even by men of education and refine
ment, and who have won reputation in special directions of
research, rather to illustrate their ignorance than to ex
plain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do affix
arbitrary meanings to the word “ God ”, but often these
meanings are in their terms self-contradictory, and usually
the definition maintained by one sect of Theists more or
less contradicts the definition put forward by some other
sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian Christian,
the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the
Calvinist, the word “God” will in each case be intended
to express a proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those
of the other sects. In this brief essay, which can by no
means be taken as a complete answer to the question
which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take
the explanation of the word “God” as given with great
carefulness by Dr. Robert Elint, Professor of Divinity in
the University of Edinburgh, in two works directed by
him against Atheism. He defines God (“ Antitheistic
Theories,” p. 1,) as “a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent,
omniscient, righteous and benevolent being who is dis
tinct from and independent of what he has created ” ; and
(“Theism”, p. 1,) as “a self-existent, eternal being, in
finite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and
goodness, the maker of heaven and earth”; and (p. 18,)
“the creator and preserver of nature, the governor of
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man ” ; (p. 18,)
�2
IS THERE A GOD ?
“ one infinite personal ” ; (p. 42,) “ the one infinite being ”
who “is a person—is a free and loving intelligence”;
(p. 59,) “the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite
beings”; (p. 65,) “not only the ultimate cause, but the
supreme intelligence”; and (p. 74,) “the supreme moral
intelligence is an unchangeable being”. That is, in the
above statements “ God” is defined by Professor Flint to
be : M supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omni
potent, omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, per
sonal being, creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven
and earth ; who is distinct from and independent of what he has
created, who is a free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the
governor of nations, the heavenly father and judge of man.
The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and
Son, from which this definition has been collected, form the
Baird Lectures in favor of Theism for the years 1876 and
1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved reputation as a
clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a Theistic
advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in
criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me
the definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that
a negative answer must be given to the question, Is there
such a God ? The association of the word “ supreme ” with
the word “ infinite ” as descriptive of a “ personal being ”
is utterly confusing. “Supreme” can only be used as
expressing comparison between the being to whom it is
applied, and some other being with whom that “ supreme ”
being is assumed to have possible points of comparison and
is then compared. But “ the one infinite being ” cannot be
compared with any other infinite being, for the wording of
the definition excludes the possibility of any other infinite
being, nor could the infinite being—for the word “one”
may be dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthink
able—be compared with any finite being. “ Supreme” is
an adjective of relation and is totally inapplicable to “the
infinite”. It can only be applied to one of two or more
finites. “Supreme” with “omnipotent” is pleonastic.
If it is said that the word “supreme” is now properly
used to distinguish between the Creator and the created,
the governor and that which is governed, then it is clear
that the word “supreme” would have been an inappli
cable word of description to “theone infinite being ” prior
to creation, and this would involve the declaration that the
�IS THERE A GOD?
3
exact description of the unchangeable has been properly
changed, which is an absurdity. The definition affirms
“creation”, that is, affirms “ God” existing prior to such
creation—i.e., then the sole existence; but the word
“ supreme ” could not then apply. An existence cannot be
described as “highest” when there is none other ; there
fore, none less high. The word “ supreme” as a word of
description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet
Professor Flint himself says (“Anti-Theistic Theories”,
p. 132), “ that reason, when in quest of an ultimate expla
nation of things, imperatively demands unity, and that only
a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the name of
U philosophy ”. Professor Flint has given no explanation
of the meaning he attaches to the word “ self-existent ”.
Nor, indeed, as he given any explanation of any of his
words of description. By self-existent I mean that to which
you cannot conceive antecedent. By “infinite” I mean
immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable ; i.e., that of which I
cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By
‘(eternal ” I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which
I cannot predicate limitation of duration or progression of
duration.
“ Nature ” is with me the same as “ universe ”, the same
as “ existence ”; i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all
phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be neces
sary for the happening of each and every phsenomenon. It
is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal,
infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discon
tinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the
possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think
forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have
no meaning for the word “ create ” except to denote change
of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely
unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“ Lectures and Dis
cussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new ap
pearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has
originated any new existence ; that we are utterly unable to
think that the complement of existence has ever been either
increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
.Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God ” as existing “ dis
tinct from, and independent of, what he has created ”. But
what can such words mean when used of the “ infinite ? ”
�IS THERE A GOD ?
Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the
“ universe ” existing distinct from God mean in addition to ?
and in other place than ? or, have the words no meaning ?
Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would
be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the
same as I should mean if I used the same words in the
highest possible degree of any human being. Here I
maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his
examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteous
ness and benevolence are two of the words of descrip
tion included in the definition of this creator and governor
of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create
men and govern nations, so that the men act crimi
nally and the nations seek to destroy one another in
war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256)
“ that God could have originated a sinless moral system”,
and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made
many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their
own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have
created only such angels as were sure to keep their first
estate ”. But it is inaccurate to describe a “ God ” as right
eous or benevolent who, having the complete power to
originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have origi
nated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were
not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of
God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot
be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human
beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to
be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevo
lent in “ God ” to contrive and create a hell in which he is
to torment the human beings who have sinned because
made by him in sin. “ God ”, if omnipotent and omnis
cient, could just as easily, and much more benevolently,
have contrived that there should never be any sinners, and,
therefore, never any need for hell or torment.
The Bev. B. A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this
question, says:—
“ ‘Either,’ argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, ‘God could
make a world without suffering, or he could not. If he
could and did not, he is not all-good. If he could not, he
is not all-powerful.’ The reply is, What do you mean by
all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile
things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that
�IS THERE A GOD ?
5
God is all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first en
joying immunity from suffering, and yet possessed of no
bility of character, is a self-contradictory conception.”
That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a “sinless moral
system from the first is a self-contradictory conception ”.
It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations
arranging one set of cannibals to eat, and another set of
human beings to be eaten by their fellow-men. It is im
possible to think a loving creator and governor contriving
a human being to be born into the world the pre-natal
victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason
to affirm this “free loving supreme moral intelligence”
planning and contriving the enduring through centuries of
criminal classes, plague-spots on civilisation.
The word “unchangeable ” contradicts the word “ crea
tor”. Any theory of creation must imply some period
when the being was not yet the creator, that is, when yet
the creation was not performed, and the act of creation
must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or
permanent change in the mode of existence of the being
creating. So, too, the words of description “governor of
nations” are irreconcileable with the description “un
changeable ”, applied to a being alleged to have existed
prior to the creation of the “nations”, and therefore,
of course, long before any act of government could be
exercised.
To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure
contradiction of terms. All attempts to think “person”
involve thoughts of the limited, finite, conditioned. To
describe this infinite personal being as distinct from some
thing which is postulated as “what he has created” is
only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still
more marked when the infinite personal being is described
as “intelligent”.
The Rev. R. A. Armstong, in a prefatory note to the
report of his debate with myself on the question “Is it
reasonable to worship God?”, says: “I have ventured
upon alleging an intelligent cause of the pheonomena of
the universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his
writings Mr. Bradlaugh has described intelligence as im
plying limitations. But though intelligence, as known to
us in man, is always hedged within limits, there is no diffi
culty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In
�6
IS THERE A GOD?
that case the essential conception of intelligence remains
the same precisely, although the change of conditions
revolutionises its mode of working.” This, it seems to
me, is not accurate. The word intelligence can only be
accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the
totality of mental ability, its activity and result. If you
eliminate in each case all possibilities of mental ability
there is no “conception of intelligence” left, either essential
or otherwise. If you attempt to remove the limits, that
is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to be thinkable.
It is unjustifiable to talk of “ change of conditions ” when
you remove the word intelligence as a word of application
to man or other thinking animal, and seek to apply the
word to the unconditionable.
As an Atheist I. affirm one existence, and deny the possi
bility of more than one existence; by existence meaning,
as I have already stated, “the totality of all pheenomena,
and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the
happening of any and every pluenomenon ”. This exist
ence I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished
in thought by its qualities. By “mode” I mean each
cognised condition; that is, each pheenomenon or aggre
gation of phenomena. By “quality” I mean each charac
teristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.
The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist
is that either the Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or
makes a blank avowal of general ignorance. The Atheist
does not do either; there is of course to him much that
is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this
within reach of knowing. With “the unknowable” con
ceded, all scientific teaching would be illusive. Every real
scientist teaches without reference to “God” or “the
unknowable ”. If the words come in as part of the
yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts
his experiments as though the words were not. Every
operation of life, of commerce, of war, of statesmanship,
is dealt with as though God were non-existent. The
general who asks God to give him victory, and who thanks
God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by
his Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance
on God’s omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight.
Cannon, gunpowder, shot, shell, dynamite, provision, men,
horses, means of transport, the value of these all estimated,
�IS THERE A GOD?
7
then the help of “ God ” is added to what is enough with
out God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in
performing some delicate operation relied on God instead
of his instruments—the physician who counted on the
unknowable in his prescription—these would have poor
clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar
people the most pious would avoid their surgical or
medical aid. The “God” of the Theist, the “unknowa
ble” of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the Atheistic
affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown,
affirms the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows
not of any proposition whether it be true or false.
Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare
that at any rate some qualities are infinite, e.g., that
existence is infinitely intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can
only think qualities of phsenomena. I know each pheno
menon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the
qualities of some phenomenon.
So long as the word “ God ” is undefined I do not deny
“ God”. To the question, Is there such a God as defined
by Professor ..Plint, I am compelled to give a negative
reply. If the word “ God ” is intended to affirm Dualism,
then as a Monist I negate “ God ”.
_ The attempts to prove the existence of God may be
divided into three classes:—1. Those which attempt to
prove the objective existence of God from the subjective
notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or from
the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as
the attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which
*{ essay to prove the existence of a supreme self-existent
cause, from the mere fact of the existence of the world by
the application of the principle of causality, starting with
the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the world,
or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue back
wards or upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is
held to be regressive inference from the existence of these
effects”. But it is enough to answer to these attempts,
that if a supreme existence were so demonstrable, that
bare entity would not be identifiable with “God”. “A
demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no
formal theological value. It is an absolute zero.”
3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature,
the fitness of means to an end, implying, it is said, an
�8
IS THERE A GOD?
architect or designer. Or, from the order in the universe,
indicating, it is said, an orderer or lawgiver, whose intelli
gence we thus discern.
But this argument is a failure, because from finite
instances differing in character it assumes an infinite cause
absolutely the same for all. Divine unity, divine per
sonality, are here utterly unproved. 11 Why should we rest
in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged
phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so
varied and so complex ? ”
If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must
avail to show that all the phenomena leading to misery
and mischief, must have been designed and intended by a
being finding pleasure in the production and maintenance
of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of
the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent
result, must he not equally be supposed to have designed
all results? And if the inference of benevolence and
goodness be valid for some instances, must not the in
ference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid
from others ? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from
the illustration of organs in animals supposed to be
specially contrived for certain results, what is the inference
to be drawn from the many abortive and incomplete organs,
muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in man
and other animals ? What inference is to be drawn from
each instance of deformity or malformation? But the
argument from design, if it proved anything, would at the
most only prove an arranger of pre-existing material; it
in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of
substance.
There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer
arranging a finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator
originating all existence. Brom an alleged product you
are only at liberty to infer a producer after having seen a
similar product actually produced.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.—1887.
�
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
Is there a god?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N096
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
God
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 (Is there a god?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS