1
10
35
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b61f71bcb4d998616e1c7e6df95b69d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JcwvO1THRhbKHhRpRIq6%7Ehil0tAe6BQm3wYE5sxT1WhxXXZfI0h8im--fTUYsBflEKJRk-zKM0Mw%7E%7EeOGbXnMXBoaecRk%7EJ2zAbMqfQJeirovFkOTTDhUJYe7FuNBOJSR3FaAfnhNkvLynK57TKo-loVygYa2TvwcvuBdatOJ8SbXcLIJ7E95%7E0bWMUWkIf4kPmehxA-JD2lzkmXSQAw5K-emq7K2FD-KSH-lR-oIj1K2FQkD%7EFa4956K3reBXyPcmKbdlHuocmvYIhWz3H-hjkf3S8EUI9aas4kzR1bmX0T2efMEOOVrkDUA2Vs-ISUS26aU0PbuAimptm288a73A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d653c41e87d229c76ba9009d48351a71
PDF Text
Text
N -2-1'3
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCI «TY
Atheism
AND
A Reply
SUICIDE.
to
ALFRED TENNYSON, Poet Laureate.
BY
G-. W. FOOTE.
------- ♦-------
Mr. Tennyson has written some fine poetry in his old age,
and he has also written a good deal of trash. Most of the
latter has appeared in the hospitable columns of the Nine
teenth Century. Mr. James Knowles, the editor of that
magazine, is an excellent man of business and knows what
takes with the British public. He is fully aware that Mr.
Tennyson is the popular poet of the day, and with com
mendable sagacity, he not only accepts the poet-laureate’s
verses whenever he can get them, but always prints them in
the largest type. Mr. Tennyson opened the first number
of his magazine with a weak sonnet, in which men like Pro
fessor Clifford were alluded to as seekers of hope “ in sunless
gulfs of doubt.” That little germ has developed into the
longer poem on “Despair” that appears in the current
number of the Nineteenth Century.
The critics have lauded this poem. Nothing else could be
expected of them. Mr. Tennyson is the popular poet, the
household poet, the Christian poet, and scarcely a critic dares
give him aught but unstinted praise. The ordinary gentle
men of the press write to order; they describe Mr. Tenny
son’s poetry as they describe Mr. Irving’s acting; they are
fettered by great, and especially by fashionable reputations ;
and when the publi? has settled who are its favorites they
never resist its verdict but simply flow with the stream. In
the course of time there grows up a sanctified cant of
criticism. If you are rash enough to doubt the favorite’s
greatness, you are looked upon as a common-place person
incapable of appreciating genius. If you object to the
popular poet’s intellectual ideas, you are rebuked for not
seeing that he is divinely inspired. Yet it is surely indis
putable that ideas are large or small, true or false, whether
they are expressed in verse or in prose. When poets con
descend to argue they must be held amenable to the laws of
reason. The right divine of kings to govern wrong is an
exploded idea, and the right divine of poets to reason wrong
should share the same fate.
�2
Mr. Tennyson’s poem is not too intelligible, and with a
proper appreciation of this he has told the gist of the story
in a kind of “ argument.”
“ A man and his wife having lost faith in a God, and hope of a
life to come, and being utterly miserable in this, resolved to end
themselves by drowning. The woman is drowned, but the man
is rescued by a minister of the sect he had abandoned.”
Now Mr. Tennyson has not worked fairly on these lines.
The question “ Does Atheism, as such, incline men to self
destruction ?” is not touched. The Atheist husband of
“ Despair” loses more than belief in God and hope of a life
to come. His wife suffers from a malady only curable, if at
all, by the surgeon’s knife. His eldest son has forged his
name and ruined him, while it is hinted that another son has
sunk to a still worse depth of vice. And he describes him
self as “ a life without sun, without health, without hope,
without any delight.” All this is very inartistic. An
Atheist under such a burden of trouble might commit suicide
just as a Christian might. Dr. Newman well says that by
a judicious selection of facts you may prove anything, and
Mr. Tennyson has judiciously selected his facts. He could
not kill his hero with Atheism, and so he brings in bad
health, a diseased wife, cruel and criminal children, and a
ruined home. Any one of these might prompt to suicide,
without the introduction of Atheism at all.
Mr. Tennyson’s lack of art in this poem goes still farther.
He makes the husband and wife drown themselves theatri
cally. They walk out into the breakers near a lighthouse.
This is mere melodrama. Why did they not take poison
and die in each other’s arms ? The only answer is that Mr.
Tennyson wanted to use that lighthouse, and as he could not
bring the lighthouse to them he took them to the lighthouse.
He wished to make the husband think to himself as he
looked at its rolling eyes—
“Does it matter how many they saved? We are all of us
wreck’d at last.”
This is an old trick of Mr. Tennyson’s. He is always
making his wonderful and vivid perceptions of external
nature compensate for his lack of spiritual insight and
power.
The melodrama of “ Despair ” is continued to the end.
The wife is successfully drowned as she was not required
any further in the poem, but the husband is rescued by (of
all men in the world!) the minister of the chapel he had
�3
forsaken. He loaths and despises this preacher, yet he tells
him all his domestic secrets and reveals to him all his
motives. Nay more, he wastes a great of denunciation on
his rescuer, and vehemently protests his intention to do for
himself despite his watcher’s “lynx-eyes.” Why all this
pother? Earnest suicides are usually reserved and very
rarely make a noise. Why not hold his tongue and quietly
seize the first opportunity ? But Mr. Tennyson’s heroes are
generally infirm of purpose. He can make his characters
talk, but he cannot make them act.
Another defect of Mr. Tennyson’s heroes is their abnormal
self-consciousness. The hero of “ Maud ” rants about him
self until we begin to hope that the Crimea will really
settle him. The hero of “ Locksley Hall” is a selfish cad
who poses through every line of faultless eloquence, until at
last we suspect that “ cousin Amy ” has not met the worst
fate which could befall her. And the hero of “ Despair ”
is little better. After powerfully describing the walk with
his wife to the breaker’s edge of foam, he says that they
kissed and bade each other eternal farewell. There he
should have stopped. But he must go on with—
“ Never a cry so desolate, not since the world began!
Never a kiss so sad, no, not since the coming of man ! ”
This little speculation could not be verified or disproved. It
is one which selfish people usually entertain. They nearly
always think their own sorrows the greatest the world ever
saw. Fortunately, although it may be news to Mr. Tenny
son, all Atheists are not of that kind. Some of them, at
least, are capable of the heroic joys of life, and of con
suming their personal sorrows in the fire of enthusiasm for
lofty and unselfish aims.
Mr. Tennyson should remember the sad end of Brutus in
“Julius Caesar.” Perhaps he does, for some of his language
seems borrowed from it. Brutus has lost what he most
values. His country’s liberties, for which he has fought
and sacrificed all, are lost, and his noble wife has killed her
self in a frenzy of grief. He kills himself too rather than
witness the dishonor of Rome and minister to the usurper’s
pride. But he does not pule and whine. He also bids his
dearest left adieu—
“ For ever, and for ever, farewell, Cassius !
If we do meet again, why, we shall smile;
If not, why then, this parting was well made.”
And Cassius replies in the same magnanimous vein. There
�4
is a large and noble spirit which can face even suicide with
dignity and without repining.
So infected with selfishness is Mr. Tennyson’s Atheist
that he doubts the utility of virtue—
“ Does it matter so much whether crown’d for a virtue, or
hang’d for a crime ? ”
Yes, it does matter; or why does he cry out against his
son’s wickedness ? If the young man’s crime “ killed his
mother almost,” other people’s crime injures mankind, and
that is its condemnation. The real Atheist has his moral
creed founded on fact instead of fancy, and therefore, when
things go wrong with him, he does not rail against virtue.
He knows it to be good in the long run to the human family
whatever may be his own fate.
The hero of “Despair” had evidently been a Calvinist.
He reminds the minister of his having “ bawled the dark
side of his faith, and a God of eternal rage.” And he
exclaims—
“What! I should call on that Infinite Love that has served us
so well ?
Infinite wickedness rather that made everlasting Hell,
Made us, foreknew us, foredoom’d us, and does what he will
with his own;
Better our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan !
Hell? if the souls of men were immortal, as men have been
told,
The lecher would cleave to his lusts, and the miser would yearn
for his gold,
And so there were Hell for ever! but were there a God as you
say,
His Love would have power over Hell till it utterly vanish’d
away.”
Now Calvinism is certainly not the creed any man could
regret to find untrue. And to our mind a man who could
live for years in the belief that the evils of this life are
ordained by God, and will be followed by an ordained hell
in the next life, is not likely to destroy himself when he finds
that the universe has no jailer and that all the evils of this
life end with it.
The man and his wife turn from the “ dark fatalist
creed ” to the growing dawn
“ When the light of a Sun that was coming would scatter the
ghosts of the Past,
And the cramping creeds that had madden’d the peoples would
vanish at last.”
�5
But when the dawn comes, they find that they have “ past
from a cheerless night to the glare of a drearier day.”
They are without a real God, for what deity remains is only
a cloud of smoke instead of a pillar of fire. Darwinism
they find to be very cold comfort, and they wail over them
selves as “poor orphans of nothing,” which is a comical
phrase, and one which we defy Mr. Tennyson or anybody
else to explain. If the Poet Laureate thinks that Darwinian
Atheists go about bemoaning themselves as poor orphans, he
is very much mistaken. He had better study them a little
before writing about them again. They are quite content
to remain without a celestial father. Earthly parents are
enough for them, earthly brothers and sisters, earthly wives,
and earthly friends. And most of them deem the grasp of
a father’s hand, and the loving smile on a mother’s face,
worth more than all the heavenly parentage they are satisfied
to lack.
Mr. Tennyson’s husband and wife, being utterly forlorn,
resolve to drown themselves, and the husband gives their
justication:—
“ Why should we bear with an hour of torture, a moment of
pain
If every man die for ever, if all his griefs are in vain,
And the homeless planet at length will be wheel’d thro’ the
silence of space,
Motherless evermore of an ever-vanishing race,
When the worm shall have writhed its last, and its last brother
worm will have fled
From the dead fossil skull that is left in the rocks of an earth
that is dead ? ”
Now all this will no doubt happen. Many millions of years
hence this world will be used-up like the moon; and there
fore, according to Mr. Tennyson’s argument, we should
commit suicide rather than put up with the toothache. It
will be all the same in the end. True ; but it is a long
while to the end. And people who act on Mr. Tennyson’s
principle must either forget this, or they must resemble the
man who refused to eat his dinner unless he had the
guarantee of a good dinner for ever and ever, with a dessert
by way of Amen.
Elsewhere they express pity for others as well as for them
selves—
“ Pity for all that aches in the grasp of an idiot power,
And pity for our own selves on an earth that bore not a flower;
Pity for all that suffers on land or in air, or the deep,
And pity for our own selves till we long’d for eternal sleep.”
�6
Mr. Tennyson may well make his Atheist husband say “ for
we leaned to the darker side.” This is an earth without a
flower! In every sense it is untrue. There are flowers of
beauty in the natural world, and flowers of greater beauty
in the human garden, despite the weeds. This suicidal pair
are fond of what Mr. Tennyson has himself called “the
falsehood of extremes.”
Sincere pessimists do not advocate suicide. Schopenhauer
himself condemns it as a superlative act of egoism. If here
and there a pessimist destroys himself, how can that make
things better for the masses who are governed by instinct
and not by metaphysics ? Mr. Tennyson does not see that
the most confirmed pessimist may, like George Eliot, believe
in Meliorism ; that is, not in perfection, but in improvement.
Nature, we may be sure, will never produce a race of beings
with a general taste for suicide; and it is therefore the duty
of those who deplore the ineradicable evils of life, to stay
with their brethren and to do their share towards improving
the common lot. If they cannot really make life happier,
they may at least make it less miserable, which is very much
the same thing.
Has Mr. Tennyson been reading that grand and powerful
poem of Mr. James Thomson’s, and is “ Despair ” the result?
If so, it is a poor outcome of such a majestic influence.
Mr. Tennyson has misread that great poem. Its author has
his joyous as well as his sombre moods, and he has himself
indicated that it does not cover the whole truth. Pessimists,
too, are not so stupid as to think that the extinction of a
few philosophers will affect the general life, or that a
universal principle of metaphysics can determine an isolated
case. They know also that philosophy will never resist
Nature or turn her set course. They see that she is enor
mously fecund, and is able to spawn forth life enough to
outlast all opposition, with enough instinct of self-preserva
tion to defy all the hostility of sages. And it is a note
worthy fact that the chief pessimists of our century have
not courted death themselves except in verse. Schopen
hauer lived to seventy-two ; Hartmann is one of the happiest
men in Germany; Leopardi died of disease ; and the author
of “The City of Dreadful Night’’has not yet committed
suicide and probably never will. It is one thing to believe
that, considered universally, life is a mistake, and quite
another thing to cut one’s own throat. The utmost that
even Schopenhauer suggested in the way of carrying out his
principles, was that when the human race had become far
�7
more intellectual and moral, and far less volitional and
egoistic, it would cease to propagate itself and so reaeh.
Nirvana. Whoever expects that to happen has a very farreaching faith. If the sky falls we shall of course catch
larks, but when will it fall ?
Atheists, however, are not necessarily pessimists, and in
fact few of them are so. Most of them believe that a large
portion of the world’s evil is removable, being merely the
result of ignorance and superstition. Mr. Tennyson might
have seen from Shelley’s writings that an Athest may
cherish the noblest hopes of progress. Perhaps he would
reply that Shelley was not an Atheist, but few will agree
with him who have read the original editions of that glorious
poet and the very emphatic statements of his friend Trelawny.
Does Atheism prompt men to suicide ? That is the
question. Mr. Tennyson appears to think that if it does
not it should. We cannot, however, argue against a mere
dictum. The question is one of fact, and the best way to
answer it is to appeal to statistics. Atheists do not seem
prone to suicide. So far as we know no prominent Atheist
has taken his own life during the whole of this century.
But let us go farther. There has recently been published
an erudite work * on “ Suicide, Ancient and Modern,” by
A. Legoyt, of Paris. He has given official tables of the
reasons assigned for suicides in most of the countries of
Europe; and although religious mania is among these
causes, Atheism is not. This dreadful incitement to self
destruction has not yet found its way into the officia
statistics even of Germany or of France, where Atheist
abound I
Suicides have largely increased during the last twenty
years. In England, for instance, while from 1865 to 1876
the population increased 14-6 per cent., suicides increased
27T per cent. In France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Swit
zerland and Belgium the increase is still more alarming.
But during the same period lunacy has wonderfully in
creased ; and the truth is that both are caused by the everincreasing velocity and complexity of modern life, which
makes greater demands on our cerebral power than we are
able to answer. By-and-bye this will rectify itself through
* Ze /Swicicfe, Ancien et Moderne. Etude Historique, Philosophique
Morale et Statistique. Par A. Lïgott. Paris : A. Drouin.
�8
natural selection, but for the present our brains are not
strong enough for their sudden access of work. Hence the
increase of nervous derangement, lunacy, and suicide.
But it may be urged that religion keeps down the number
of suicides which would be still more plentiful without it.
That, however, is a mere matter of opinion, which can
hardly be verified or disproved. Religion does not restrain
those who do commit suicide, and that fact outweighs all
the fine talk about its virtue in other cases.
Some Christian apologists have made much capital out of
George Jacob Holyoake’s meditation on suicide in Gloucester
jail, when he was imprisoned for “ blasphemy,” or in other
words, for having opinions of his own on the subject of
religion. Mr. Holyoake’s mental torture was great. His wife
was in want, and his favorite daughter died while he was in
prison. Fearing that his reason might forsake him, and
being resolved that the Christian bigotry which had made
him suffer should never reduce him to an object of its derision,
he prepared the means of ending his life if the worst should
happen. “ See,” say these charitable Christians, “ what a
feeble support Atheism is in the hour of need! Nothing
but belief in Christ can enable us to bear the troubles of life.”
But our answer is that Mr. Holyoake did not commit suicide
after all; while, on the other hand, if we may judge by our
own notes during the past six months, one parson cuts his
throat, or hangs, or drowns, or poisons himself, on an
average every month.
Recurring finally to Mr. Tennyson, we say that his poem
is a failure. He does not understand Atheism, and he fails
to appreciate either its meaning or its hope. We trust that
he will afflict us with no more poetical abortions like this,
but give us only the proper fruit of his genius, and leave
the task of holding up Atheists as a frightful example to
the small fry of the pulpit and the religious press.
November 14iA, 1881.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Fbeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street,
Farringdon 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
Atheism and suicide : a reply to Alfred Tennyson, Poet Laureate
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, George W., 1843-1886
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Suicide
Ethics
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 (Atheism and suicide : a reply to Alfred Tennyson, Poet Laureate), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N223
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
Alfred Tennyson
Atheism
NSS
Suicide
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5bc4fb14f898b9ba921ebddca2e59406.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mDjvrTgcHWqP-dRsknMwLIGLkEM6aPzVnVcNpmBtnTytjqsY5WLBv18yXa3GJv92uVx0uJaBxgxLTydEwR-fxGk0DUgoSy0NIAnsi6%7ElUhWTyEkMwGdpZbwSdTdfjRfHlsxkeATzXfO4AJJsb6SGuFMwX7hnjV2kpSiOET9aFZ%7ENbpqWUFD02ymFEKLurymkMd5bdR3pl8EwMpw70RLXYsZCjGE-VEyedN0L7lzShuuRMib%7EhbdiNtXhMhyeTaG2cgWFKJBSg0W3Apa70CnSAsYCWbEj8fozTK4JKRHd9vs9PI4%7EYRWmVcCWFGkHG692eSSKjOBd9fq0f%7EjFxAJJng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
564d1b26f2fe17ec4ebc97f3a624fd9c
PDF Text
Text
&A708Z
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged
THE
GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
---- BY----
CHARLES WATTS,
Editor of “ Secular Thought
Author of ‘‘ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,’’
Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” Glory of Unbelief,” li Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ‘‘ Christianity : Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,” li Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable? ” “Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
Wherein does the Glory of Unbelief Consist ? Unbelief Wide-spread
amongst all Classes. What is Unbelief ? Its True Nature Defined.
Can it be Dispensed With ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What
It has Done for the World.
TORONTO:
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide 'tr. Eait
PRICE
TEN
CENTS.
��THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF
•
The Glory of Unbelief is a phrase the relevancy of which many
persons will at first fail to recognize. It may be thought that
but little glory can surround that which has too frequently been
associated with obloquy and persecution. Yet a little reflection
will bring to view the fact that, allied with unbelief, there have
been a fidelity of conviction, a grandeur of conduct, and a bril
liancy of action that add a splendour and a lasting honour to the
fame of Unbelievers in all ages and in every clime. These are
the reformers of the world who have aspired to the true glory
spoken of by Pliny, which consists in having done something
worth the writing, having written something worth the reading,
and having made the world better and happier through having
lived in it. The Glory of Unbelief consists in its being the em
ancipator of the human mind, the liberator of human thought,
and the precursor of all advanced civilization.
Physical slavery, from its very nature, has been a curse to hu
manity, an injustice to the poor slave, and a disgrace to the up
holders of the inhuman traffic. For centuries this crying evil was
perpetuated through a devout belief that slavery was sanctioned
by a divine providence. When the period of practical unbelief
dawned emancipation followed, men condemned serfdom and re
fused to believe in its theological justification. A similar pro
cess has been observed in reference to intellectual bondage, which
for ages proved a nightmare to the human mind, depriving soci
ety of the advantages of freedom of thought and liberty of speech.
For generations the claims of ecclesiastical supremacy and priest
ly domination enslaved the intellect of the race, but with the
advent of unbelief these chains were snapped asunder and pro
portionately mental freedom was the result.
�2
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief is the basis of all Secular philosophy. So long as
people maintain a blind belief in the teachings of the past, so
long as their minds are fettered by the decrees of Councils and
the dogmas and creeds of the Church, so long will the develop
ment of Secular philosophy be retarded. Let, however, disbelief
in ancient errors be supplanted by the belief in modern truth and
Secular progress will thereby be promoted.
The fact that Unbelief extensively exists among all classes of
society is beyond reasonable doubt. It is prominent in our poli
tics, in our poesy, in our philosophy, and in the various scientific
expositions of the present day. It dominates the press, it agi
tates the pulpit, and it permeates our national seats of learning.
As the Rev. Daniel Moore in “ The Age and the Gospels ” admits
(pp. 10-14): “The tendencies to scepticism at the present day
show themselves more or less in every direction.” And the Rev.
Dr. Herbert Vaughan, in his pamphlet on “ Popular Education
in England,” written in 1868, observes (p. 53):—
“ The most thorough, the most logical, and the most distinct school
opposed to us is that of the Secularists. It would be vain to close our
eyes to the fact that their numbers are large and rapidly increasing.”
Referring to the progress of Unbelief in the English Universi
ties, the Westminster Review for October, 1860, remarks:—
“ Few, perhaps, are aware how far the decay of belief extends be
neath those walls. . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed ! When they
are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every phase, from
mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Professors, tutors, fellows,
and pupils are conscious of this widespread doubt.” “ It must be a
profound evil,” continues the writer, “ that all thinking men should
reject the national religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the
tale by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who have
long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the text-book, the
manuals for study of youth and manhood, the whole mental food of
the day; science, history, morals, and politics, poetry, fiction and
essay ; the very lesson of the school, the very sermon from the pulpit.”
This testimony, recorded some years since, has been more than
ever confirmed within the last two decades. Go into what soci
ety we may ; move in what circle of life we will; Unbelief, either
active or dormant, confronts us on every side. The clergy con
template this sceptical progress, while they acknowledge their
inability to “ stem the tide of modern scepticism.”
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
3
While there can be no reasonable doubt as to the rapid increase
of unbelief in all phases of modern life, differences of opinion
may obtain as to the nature and authority of this unbelief.
For instance, it may be asked, Can unbelief have a philosophy ?
According to the majority of men who have been trained in what
is termed, orthodoxy, and who profess to accept the popular
teachings of the Christian faith, the answer would be a most
emphatic negative. But the impartial observer of the develop
ment of modern thought will doubtless think otherwise, and con
sider that he has ample reasons for the conclusion at which he
has arrived. If there is a philosophy of belief, why should there
not be a philosophy of unbelief ? The one may be true and the
other false, still both may be formulated in philosophic terms.
Unbelief has been so long branded as a crime, and so persistently
looked upon as a sin against God and as an enemy to all human
society, that the world has come largely to argue that it
has no philosophic basis. Ever and anon it is being declared
from the thousands of pulpits in the land that unbelief is the
great bane of the age, and that what mankind needs is more
faith in dogmas, at which an orthodox preacher himself declared,
“ Reason stands aghast and Faith herself is half confounded.”
Unbelief is not only condemned as being a crime, but it is pro
nounced as the worst of crimes. The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who.
is deemed by most persons as being no mean authority on ortho
dox questions, exclaims in pious fervour : “ Talk of decrees, I will
tell you of a decree, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned?
That is a decree and statute that can never change. Be as good
as you'please, be as moral as you can, be as honest as you will,
walk as uprightly as you may ; there stands the unchangeable
threatening, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ ” This is
a sample of orthodox teaching in Christian England in this glori
ous nineteenth century—this age of progress, of civilization and
culture. The unbeliever is viewed as a man who voluntarily or
wilfully rejects the light of truth, who clings to error knowing
it to be evil, and who consequently deserves no mercy of any
God, and no consideration on the part of his fellow man. The
very name Unbeliever or Sceptic is looked upon as a byword or
.
�4
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
reproach; and the term Infidel, with many people, has a more
horrible meaning than that of thief or murderer. To quote
again from Mr. Spurgeon : “ Could you take murder and blas
phemy and lust and adultery and fornication, and everything that
is vile, and unite them into one vast globe of black corruption,
they would not equal the sin of unbelief. This is the monarch
sin, the quintessence of guilt, the mixture of the venom of all
crimes, the dregs of the mine of Gomorrah; it is the A 1 sin, the
masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the Devil.” Unbelief is
a sort of intellectual bugbear by which the simple-minded are
held in the worst kind of slavery—that of intellectual bondage.
Whenever a man begins to think differently from the Church a
hue-and-cry of “ Infidelity” is raised against him, and many are
compelled, if they would preserve their positions in business and
retain the good opinion of their fellow men, to retrace their foot
steps and enter again the fold of believers, where doubt comes
not and where enquiry has no place. For let a man be guided
by the dogmas of antiquity, declare that reason is a blind guide
and logic a weapon of the Devil; let him denounce with all the
power he can command the great and illustrious men of the earth
who have doubted the various theologies of the world, and such
a man’s respectability is safe in this world, and his salvation is
regarded as being secured in the next. “ Only believe,” says the
poet of Methodism—
‘ ‘ Only belie re, your sins forgiven ;
Only believe, and yours is heaven.”
No one can believe everything, and some must consequently
be unbelievers in all that which does not fall within the range
of his or her thought. Want of faith, therefore, so far from
being criminal, is a necessary condition of the human mind. No
one can escape it, do what he may. The Christian is an unbe
liever to the Mohammedan, the Buddhist, the Parsee, and other re
ligious devotees, as they are all unbelievers to him and to each
other. The question here is not which of these systems, or whether
any of them, is true; but the point to be observed is that the
advocate of each disbelieves in the dogma of the other, showing
that unbelief is a necessity, since the various faiths are all in
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
5
some respects antagonistic. The Agnostic is, of course, an unbe
liever ; but is any Christian minister in the world less so ? As
the great Lord Shaftesbury once remarked: “ The best Christian
in the world, who, being destitute of the means of certainty, de
pends only on history and traditions for his belief in these par
ticulars, is at best but a Sceptic Christian.” The fact is, both the
Agnostic and the Christian disbelieve in what the other teaches.
Why, then, does the Christian consider himself justified in apply
ing to the Agnostic an epithet which is used in an offensive
sense, and resent the same epithet when applied to himself ?
The Christian, no doubt, will reply that his opinions are true,
and those of the Agnostic false. But that is just the point in dis
pute and has no right to be assumed; and besides, might not the
Agnostic justify the use of the word in the same way ?
Before unbelief, even in religion, can be dispensed with advan
tageously—and even then, perhaps, it could not rationally be
discarded—three qualifications must be shown to be possessed
by the believer who talks in the language of ordinary Christian
men. First, he must be infallible; secondly, he must be strictly
honest, for infallibility does not necessarily imply honesty, and
thirdly, his system must be perfect. In the absence of any one of
these, he may mislead those who listen to and follow his teaching.
And no man can possibly have a right to proclaim a system,
which he demands to have accepted under pain of penalties in
this world, and worse penalties in some world to come, unless he
is prepared with demonstrative proof that he and his system are
possessed of these three qualifications. With regard to the first
no man can profess seriously to claim infallibility but the Pope of
Rome; and his claim is not only not attempted to be made good, but
we are told that it must be accepted without any proof whatever.
Besides, half the Christians themselves not only dispute this
claim, but denounce it in language as strong as that which they
apply to unbelievers. In fact, infallibility can only exist in
connection with Omniscience, because to be certain that one could
have made no mistake it is essential that he should have a perfect
knowledge of everything that is in any and every part of the
universe. If there be any one fact or circumstance with which
�6
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
he is unacquainted, this very fact or circumstance may contain
an additional truth not present to his mind, which, if known,
would considerably modify existing views.
The Protestant, however, does not even pretend to claim infalli
bility, and, therefore, quite unconsciously, although very ra
tionally, foregoes a great part of his authority. With him the
certainty of being right is transferred to some extent from the
individual to the system, and hence, although personally he lays
no claim to being infallible, he still demands implicit faith in his
teachings. Infallibility in his case is not in his own mind, nor
in the head of the Church, but in his text-book. The Bible, he
declares, cannot err, although he can. But, even if this claim
were established, it would not be sufficient, since it is not required
as a substitute for personal infallibility, but in addition to it.
An infallible book would be of little value without an infallible
interpreter, because a million different infallible minds will deduce
a million different conclusions, nine hundred and ninety-nine thou
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them being erroneous—and,
perhaps, the other one also—which multiplies the chances of
error so extensively that the alleged infallibility disappears.
But to claim infallibility for the Bible is really to claim it for
the writers of the various books which make up that volume,
and the same arguments hold good against its possession by
them as by the Pope of Rome or any other human being. Even
supposing that the infallibility of the original version of the
Bible were conceded, nothing would thereby be gained, since such
an infallible original is no longer in existence. The volume that we
have is simply a translation from the Greek executed by fallible,
erring men. Thus the first qualification necessary to the disposal
of unbelief we find to be absent. The second is that such
teachers must be honest. It is only stating a well-known truism
to say that all men are not honest, particularly in theological
matters. Insincerity is the great curse of the Church, too many
of its members endeavouring to make people think they believe
creeds and doctrines in which, in reality, they have no practical
faith whatever. Unless, therefore, we could be quite certain,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as to the conscientious honesty
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
7
of the infallible teacher, even his infallibility would prove of
no avail. In business matters men always endeavour to act
upon the principle that honesty is the most important element
in life. They will not, as a rule, trust a dollar in the hands of
another person, unless thoroughly convinced both of his honesty
and of his capability to comply with the terms of the agreement
made. Yet these same men will stake their all in what they term
hereafter—the supposed eternal welfare of their souls—on the
ipse dixit of a priest or minister, without any guarantee of his
honesty or competence to perform his brilliant promises. Truly
man is a remarkable being, and, under the influence of theology,
his ways are marvellously strange and past finding out. The
very course which he applauds in secular transactions he not
only ignores in religious proceedings, but adopts the very opposite.
And yet we are told that the two lines of conduct—secular and
religious—are harmonious. In spite of all reckless condemnation
to the contrary, unbelief is a necessity of the human mind, to
escape which is altogether impossible.
There is but one state of mind in which it may be said un
belief can have but little or no place, and that is in a condition
of total ignorance. Perfect knowledge would, of course, remove
all unbelief of truth; but even with it there would be unbelief
as regards error. But, as this condition is unattainable, it need
not be discussed. Total ignorance does not disbelieve, because
.there is, in that case, nothing present to the mind in reference
to which unbelief can be exercised. This will go a long way to
explain the fact that, in times of supreme ignorance, unbelief
was comparatively unknown. Priestcraft held its sway, mental
stagnation obtained, and men and women were blind believers
O
in, and followers of, the then prevailing errors. But the moment
progress, from the condition of ignorance, commenced, new
forms of thought became present to the mind, new opinions weref
perceived, new theories sprang up, investigation took place, and
unbelief became a necessary consequent. And this belief will be
sure to increase with increasing knowledge. In childhood the
first impressions we receive we naturally enough imagine to be
indisputably correct, whether in religion, in philosophy, or in the
�8
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
ordinary commonplace affairs of life. The first impressions asto religion and to philosophy we receive from our parents or
teachers, and hence tradition frequently deceives us. As Dryden
says:—
“ By education most have been misled,
So we believe because we so were bred ;
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the boy imposes on the man.”
In the morning of existence theories in abundance crowd in.
upon the mind, the major part of them only to be subsequently
dismissed as untenable, and we become, perforce of necessity,
unbelievers to much that is presented to the mind. Each indi
vidual will probably accept some different theory to the others
but all will be unbelievers in those notions which have been
rejected. Much that comes before us has to be rejected as
utterly untenable, and we are unbelievers, whether we will or no.
We shall, of course, not all arrive at the same views; but that
will make no difference to the fact of our unbelief, since each
will disbelieve that which does not accord with his own deduc
tions ; and hence he becomes an unbeliever in all that is opposed
to the conclusions at which he has arrived. This unbelief will
deepen with increasing knowledge, because, the more we know,,
the greater the variety of the theories that will present them
selves to the mind, and the larger,, therefore, the number of these
that will have to be rejected. It will follow, as a necessary
consequence, that the unbelief will be commensurate with the
knowledge possessed. It is quite possible that some truth may
be rejected by a man as error; but that does not affect the question,
•under discussion. The real position is that unbelief in the
abstract is a necessity of the constitution of the human mind,
and the more the mind is instructed and cultivated, the more
extensive will be the unbelief. Thus Scepticism arises from the
very nature of things, and has its foundation in the universal
mentality of the race; and instead of deploring this fact, it is
one that should be rejoiced at, because it is a safeguard against
error; it stimulates and enriches human thought, and ennobles
the intellectual character of mankind. As Tennyson writes:—
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
9
“ There is more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds. ”
Seeing that there is so much that must come before the
human mind to be at once dismissed, and that so many various
and conflicting theories will present themselves before the intel
lect of every person who thinks upon ever so limited a scale,
the greater portion of which will doubtless have to be rejected,
our duty in regard to the matter is as evident as the sun at
noonday. Truth is a gem of which all men are professedly in
search, and all are obligated to discover and take hold of as
much of it as possible; and the only way in which this can be
done is by rejecting the error,—or that which appears to the
searcher to be such—for his own intellectual powers are the only
tests which he can apply to ascertain what is truth and what is
falsehood. Hence he must reject that which appears to him to
be irrational, and thus so far he becomes an unbeliever. If it is
said that this unbelief refers only to error, the question will arise,
What is error ? For is it not clear that, as no two minds are
constituted alike, and as no two persons can possibly follow out,
in every particular and in precisely the same manner, the same
line of thought and investigation, the conclusions reached can
not be the same always in the case of different individuals ? It
is possible that all will discover some truth; but truth, like man,
is many-sided; and, hence, some things which seem phases of
truth to one man will be classed with error by another. Free»
thought teaches the great fundamental truth—namely, that man
has an absolute right to think freely, unfettered by tradition and
uncontrolled by creeds and dogmas. This is the essence of all
true thinking ; for no one can think successfully in shackles,
and truth can never be properly reached while thought is in
chains. Protestantism boasts that it not only allows the right
■of private judgment, but that such right is its cardinal principle
and watchword. Now, true private judgment means the right
to arrive at any opinion which can be legitimately reached by
the laws of thought and the canons of logic, or the term is a mis
leading misnomer. It was the violation of this principle that
�10
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
made the conduct of the Protestant reformers so thoroughly
inconsistent. They robbed private judgment of its real essence
by compelling its conclusions to harmonize with their own, and
thus limiting that freedom which is absolutely necessary toprivate judgment.
The Rev. George Armstrong once said of the Church of Eng
land, and the same statement is equally applicable to some other
Protestant sects :—“ I am allowed the right of pi'ivate judgment
on condition that I arrived at the opinions settled beforehand
for me by the Church.” And he remarks: “ If I deny the right
of private judgment, the Church calls me a Romanistif I
acknowledge it and act upon it, she brands me as a heretic.”
Such inconsistency as this is foreign to the genius of Freethought. Unless a person’s right to think at all is denied, he
must be permitted the full right to arrive at any conclusion
which may seem to him rational. Every man has a right to his
views, even though he stand alone in their advocacy. Infalli
bility alone can possess the right to suppress any opinion, be
cause only infallibility can declare for certain that an opinion is
necessarily an error; and as, of course, infallibility does not
exist, such right is not to be found. A strong presumption that
the opinion sought to be suppressed is an erroneous one will not
be sufficient; because, in the first place, strong presumption is
not a proof, and, in the second place, very strong presumptions
have existed in the past in favour of the falsity of certain
opinions, which only a small minority held, but which afterwards
turned out to be true. The Roman Catholic denies the right of
private judgment altogether, and yet, strangely enough, he
always makes an appeal to it when seeking to make converts.
If a man says, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and
therefore I deny that you have any such right as that of private
judgment, I ask at once, “ Why are you a Roman Catholic ?” He
will, no doubt, proceed forthwith to give his reasons, thereby
admitting that he has exercised his own private judgment in the
matter—the very thing which he refuses me the right to do.
There is, and can be, no fixed standard of belief for all men,
unless the right of private judgment be entirely given up ; nor
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
11
scarcely then, as a matter of fact, for the standard itself will
have to be accepted or rejected according to evidence.
*’he Nonconformists who were persecuted even unto death, were,
like all other believers in creeds and dogmas, unable to resist the
temptation of oppressing others, when, by a turn of the wheel of
fortune, fate gave them an opportunity of so doing. The love of
rule and of lording it tyrannically over conscience is common to
all theologies and all theologians alike—to those of eld Paganism,
mediaeval Christianity, and that of Mohammedanism. The
doctrine that a wrong belief, the holding of an erroneous creed,
will lead to the consignment of the soul to eternal fire, “ where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” prompts men
(and seems to justify them in so doing) to exert all their powers
towards preserving their fellow men from becoming a prey to
Satan and from being irretrievably lost to God. Thus the bigot
has been always found prepared to plead, in extenuation of his
intolerance, his zeal on behalf of souls. Hence he has always
been ready to—
“ Deal damnation round the land
On each I deem thy foe.”
All persecution for unbelief is a crime and should be condemned
as such. No man, or society of men, can have the right to im
pose any restriction upon the liberty of thought or speech. Who
ever persecutes “ for conscience’ sake ” invades the dearest rights
and privileges of the human race, and really endangers and im
perils its highest and most cherished interests.
The Nonconformity of the present day appears to be ashamed
of its opinions. Instead of boldly adhering to- the true principle
Df private judgment, no matter whither it may lead, it adopts a
/policy of reservation. The modern Dissenter scarcely deems it
worth his while to combat the errors of ecclesiasticismand sacerdot
alism ; he himself is half a Churchman; and henow comes forwardas
the antagonist and opponent of what he terms the “ Unbelief of
the age.” But what is this Unbelief of which we hear so much ?
Is it not a logical carrying out and application of those principles
which gave the early reformers an excuse—a legitimate and
valid reason—for endeavouring to subvert and overthrow
�12
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Romanism and its man-destroying superstitions and prostrations
of the intellect to dogma and faith. The principle of free inquiry
once given to the world, and once admitted by mankind, it is
absurd and illogical for any new “ minister ” to attempt to forge
new intellectual shackles, or to say to the human mind, “ Thus
far shalt thou come, but no farther ! ” Whoever is opposed to
this right is an enemy to human freedom. As Milton has writ
ten :—
“ This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free ;
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace :
What can be juster in a State than this ? ”
But to disbelieve is not only a right, it is also a duty ; for every
man is under an obligation to deny and to do his best to destroy
that which, after careful and deliberate examination, appears to
him to be false. No doubt the orthodox believers fear the legi
timate exercise of Freethought, simply because they are alarmed
that their own views will not stand the test; but this really
ought to be evidence to them that there is something unsound
somewhere in their connections. There is a fashion in these
matters, as in the cut of a coat, and the great masses of society
do not like to be out of the fashion. But fashion will seldom
stand criticism. “ There is more power,” said an old writer,
“in an ounce of custom than in a ton of argument.” Now, this
is just the state of things that requires to be changed. Moreover,
few will admit that they are guided by it, which is a tacit
admission that even they hold that it cannot be defended. They
profess to exercise their private judgments, to think and to
investigate even when they are bound hard and fast in the chain of
a despotic custom—which proves that they, too, recognize the
right to differ, which is really the right of unbelief.
There can be no progress without unbelief, for disbelief in an
old system must ever precede the introduction of a new one.
Progress always implies change and change is the outcome of
unbelief in that which is old and no longer able to serve the
world, added, of course, to what is considered to be a new truth.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
13
’Thus we find that those who oppose Scepticism are usually
adverse to change of any kind; their motto is, “The same yester
day, to-day, and forever.” Among such persons there exists a
deep-rooted prejudice against everything that is new, and this
stubborn clinging to the teachings of the past has sapped the
very vitals of progress and perpetuated errors and hypocrisy to
an unknown extent. The man who changes his views and
embraces a conviction contrary to that which he was known
previously to hold is usually stigmatised by all sorts of offensive
epithets among his fellow men, and often he is regarded as being
a very dangerous character. Now, change—assuming that it is
in the right direction—is always desirable, and such change must
of necessity arise out of unbelief. No man can trace the progress
■of human thought and opinion from the crude and unformed
ideas of the ancients up to the brilliant discoveries and marvel
lous inventions of the present day, without feeling a thrill of joy
run through his frame that his lot has been cast in these later
times. First one erroneous notion and then another has been
got rid of, until, although the old tree of error still stands, its
branches are shrivelled, its trunk is decaying, and its root is
loosening i-n the soil in which it stood so firmly rooted a few
centuries ago. And every step in the world’s advancement has
been brought about by unbelief. This fact is fully demonstrated
by Buckle in his “ History of Civilization.” This eminent writer,
after showing that until doubt began civilization was impossible,
-and that the religious tolerance we now have has been forced
from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that the act of
doubting is the originator, or at all events the necessary ante
cedent, of all progress. Here we have that Scepticism, the very
name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed,
and if all is really true which they from their childhood have
been taught to believe. The more we examine this great prin
ciple of Scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense
�14
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
part it has played in the progress of European civilization. . . ..
It may be said that to Scepticism we owe the spirit of inquiry
which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached
on every possible subject; has reformed every department of
practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority
of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer
'foundation; has chastised the despotism of princes; has re
strained the arrogance of the nobles, and has even diminished
the prejudices of the clergy. In a word, it is this which has
remedied the three fundamental errors of the olden time—errors
which made the people, in politics too confiding, in science too
credulous, in religion too intolerant.”
Lecky, in his “ History of European Morals,” tells us that
“nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . The splendid discoveries of physical science
would have been impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of
the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till Moham
medan science and classical Freethought and industrial indepen
dence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the intellectual
revival of Europe begin.” Thus the lesson of all history is that'
unbelief in the old has ever preceded the introduction of the new.
Christianity itself came based upon the disbelief in Paganism,,
and the Pagans, feeling outraged at the proposed change, called
the first Christians not only unbelievers, but even Atheists.
Martin Luther disbelieved in the mysteries and mummeries of
Boman Catholicism, and the result was what is called the Protest
ant Reformation. Copernicus and Galileo disbelieved in the Bible
cosmogony, with its theory of the heavens; and this Scepticism
gave birth to correct views upon the great science of astronomy.
Modern geologists reject the Bible story of Creation, and the
consequence is more faith in Nature’s records than in the absurdi
ties of the Christian Bible. In philosophy the same thing has
occurred over and over again, as also in the political world. Thus,
unbelief has ever been the herald of change and improvement,
while its enemy has always been that superstitious conservatism
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
15.
that eschews all advancement, frowns down every new discovery*,
taboos all change, and keeps its anchor firmly fixed in the errors
of the past. With such persons mildew is more sacred than sun
shine, and decay preferable to the opening violet shedding its
fragrance in the morning air.
Unbelief is always spoken of as though it were a mere
negation, whose only mission could be to doubt and destroy.
The consequence of this misconception is, that the Freethought
party is denounced as being composed of members whose aim
is to pull down, without having any desire to reconstruct. The
pious orthodox believer looks upon the Sceptic as a sort of
modern Goth or Vandal, dangerous to the well-being of society,,
and to be avoided by all who care for the public good. These
are the wild fanatical notions, born of the theological delusion,,
which are held in reference to unbelievers. But such views are
most erroneous, to say nothing of their injustice. Some of the
greatest benefactors of the race who ever lived have been
unbelievers, that is, they have rejected those creeds and dogmas
which are clung to so tenaciously by the Church. “ It is his
torically true,” remarks J. S. Mill, “ that a large proportion of
Infidels, in all ages, have been persons of distinguished integrity
a,nd honour. . . . Persons in greatest repute with the world
both by virtues and attainments, are well-known, at least to
their intimates, to be unbelievers. ... It can do truth no
good to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary
acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the
noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work,
not only of men who’ did not know, but of men who knew and.
rejected, the Christian faith” (“On Liberty ”). And Mill was
quite right, for some of the noblest men and women who have
adorned the history of their times, and given to the world a.
record of the most useful deeds, have been unbelievers. Lucretius,
Spinoza, Goethe, Humboldt, Dr. Priestley, Newton, Voltaire,
Paine, Robert Owen, Lyell, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, and Harriet
Martineau are prominent in the Pantheon of the world’s bene
factors ; and these were all unbelievers from the orthodox stand
point. In France, nearly all the scientific men are heretics
�16
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
and Germany—the most Philosophic land of modern days—is
notoriously sceptical.
Unbelief is, of course, negative on the one side ; but there is
always another aspect of it to be seen, if one will only take the
trouble to look fairly for it. Unbelief in one thing means
belief in the opposite, and it is quite possible that such opposite
may be the more worthy of the two. This is another instance
how the word unbelief is used in a sense that is most certainly
not justifiable, because it conveys an idea of reproach, and
-almost of crime; and those to whom it is applied are thereby
singled out for ignominious attack and violent denunciation. It
may probably be replied here that the word is only employed in
this sense when it refers to disbelief in things which are infallibly
true, and too sacred to be tampered with, and far too well
established to admit of the possibility of doubt in regard to them.
But the position here assumed is absurd, since things which can
be demonstrated to be true beyond the possibility of doubt
cannot be disbelieved. No sane man can disbelieve in a proposi
tion of Euclid, or even the simple statement that two and two
make four. The fact, therefore, of the very existence of unbelief
in regard to any matter proves that it has not been demonstrated
to be true. As to infallibility, that idea has already been dis
posed of. Now, to say that anything is too sacred to be tampered
with, simply means that it is sacred in the eyes of those who
accept it; for it cannot be sacred to him who disbelieves it. To
assert that I am not at liberty to disbelieve in any dogma or
principle because some one else holds it to be sacred is to say that
he is infallible, and that I must, therefore, defer to his judgment,
surrender my own right to think at all, and take my opinions
ready-made from any one who is arrogant enough to claim the
right to dictate. Moreover, this view is self-destructive, because
a half-dozen different bodies may each be claiming the same
allegiance, and, as their views will probably be conflicting and
irreconcilable, to believe the pretensions of the one would be to
-disbelieve the claims of the others. But, if a person disbelieves
he also believes ; his disbelief is the negative side of his faith‘
-and his belief is the positive side.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
17
Disbelief in an error, or in that which is held to be an error,,
by any man involves belief in the opposite of the error, which is
truth, or at all events that which is recognized as such by him
who receives it. To describe a man as an unbeliever without
having regard to what it is that he disbelieves, and consequently
what he believes as the opposite of his unbelief, is not fair to
him, and is equally unfair to those who from this description
learn to estimate his views. Unbelief and belief must run hand
in hand, and cannot be separated. The most devout believer is
equally an unbeliever with him whom the world calls “ Infidel ”
and stigmatises with reproachful terms and epithets in conse
quence of his Scepticism. They differ, of course, as to the sphere
of their faith and doubt; but the one has no more right to be
called a believer par excellence than has the other. All of us
claim to have some truth on our side, and in that truth we are
firm believers. Our faith in it is the basis of our disbelief in
error, and the mainspring of our actions in the advocacy of our
views and the efforts which we make to bring others to our own
way of thinking. We are only negationists so far as a pulling
down and a clearing of the ground may be necessary to prepare
the way for the new building that is to be erected. Just as Luther
disbelieved in Romanism and sought to destroy it, in order tomake way for Protestantism, so Secularists to-day disbelieve in
the errors of the Church, and are thereby inspired to work for the
establishment of greater and grander truths than theology ever
rocognized or the Church ever possessed. The old Church called
Luther an unbeliever, and it was right so far; but a large por
tion of society came to recognize him as a true believer. His
positive work was the outcome of his unbelief, and but for that
it could have had no existence. Christianity owes its existence
to unbelief. If Christ and St. Paul had not rejected many of the
teachings of paganism and Judaism the religious change which
it is alleged occurred two thousand years ago, would in all prob
ability never have taken place. Thus unbelief has ever been
the precursor of a newer and truer faith; it is the herald of
progress, the forerunner of improvement, and the harbinger of.
coming good.
�.18
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelievers are supposed to have no right to the term sacred,
whereas it belongs to them in a much higher sense than it does
to the Church. What is truly sacred ? The beautiful in art
the true in philosophy, the noble and pure in human conduct—
these are all sacred, because they are in harmony with the higher
instincts of man, and tend to elevate and regenerate the race.
True sacredness does not consist in supernatural power, priestly
arrogance, or assumption of authority to our fellow-man. Things
are made holy by the temper and conduct of him who uses them.
Man is his own consecrator, whether in his home, at church, or
in the temple of science. Where mind speaks to mind, either
orally or in writing, and thus impresses for good : where intellect
• diffuses its choicest blessings abroad among mankind; where
learning and thought rise into higher regions of light and truth ;
where poetry illumines and art charms; where liberty goes forth
breaking asunder the chains of the captive; where knowledge
•dwells and love manifests its power ; where virtue reigns
supreme and justice bears the sway—there, and there alone, is
true sanctification to be found, encircled in the temple of Reality
and enthroned upon the pinnacle of Humanity.
Instead of regarding the term sacred as representing these
great enobling qualities and mental activities, the popular believ
ers associate it with certain places, buildings, and theological
ceremonies. For instance, Palestine is called the Holy Land, and
is looked upon as sacred in consequence of the notion that it
was the birthplace of Christianity. It is a most significant
fact that if Palestine were sufficiently prolific to produce a
religion, it has been comparatively barren in science, philosophy,
and general education. A church is termed a sacred building,
and is thought to be made so through some bishop or other
•ecclesiastical official performing a ceremony called consecration,
in which prayers are offered and forms complied with of a
strictly religious character, and thus the building becomes trans
formed into a holy temple totally unlike what it was before.
The very stones are sacred now, and cannot be used for another
.purpose without profanation. Can anything in the world be more
absurd ? Is it not derogatory to man and an insult to human
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
19
.genius ? What possible effect upon bricks and stones and
mortar and cement can the words of a bishop or any official
have ? And yet modern professors of theology stand aghast at the
folly displayed by Pagan worshippers. It would be exceedingly
interesting to have the modus operandi of this process of making
such things sacred explained to us—to be told what is the nature
of the conversion they undergo, and in what sense they differ
after consecration from their condition before.
Worse still, the same piece of theological legerdemain is
practised in our burial grounds. These, too, must be conse
crated—that is, made sacred, or sacred bones, it is feared, could
not rest in them. In cemeteries part of the ground is generally
^consecrated, and part left in its usual state. The physical
difference—and there can be no spiritual, for it will not be main
tained that mould is capable of spiritual impressions—that has
been effected by this process is more puzzling than the Athanasian Creed. How deep down does the consecration extend? And
does it cover any clods of earth that might afterwards be
brought to the spot, but which were not there at the time the
•ceremony was performed ? Is the grass that will hereafter
grow also consecrated ? And, if so, what will be the effect of the
•eating of the said grass upon the bodies of unconsecrated cattle ?
Shall we get, as a result, consecrated beef and mutton ?
But, in all seriousness, what is consecrated ground ? And
what power has priest or bishop or pope, by the reciting of any
form of words, to accomplish anything of the kind ? One of
•our poets has well written, as a rebuke to these miserable
superstitions :—
“ What’s hallowed ground ? ’Tis what gives birth
To sacred thoughts in souls of worth.
Peace ! Independence ! Truth ! Go forth
Earth’s compass round,
And your high priesthood shall make earth
All hallowed ground.”
'This is the true consecration, the real making holy; for not by
ridiculous ceremony, but by noble thoughts, is everything hal
lowed and made sacred on earth.
�20
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief leaves the mind free to receive new truths. The
greatest opponent that truth has ever had to contend with is dog
matism. A black cloud hangs over the mind of the dogmatist,
shutting out every ray of the bright and gladdening beams of
the sun of truth, and encircling all his mental powers in the
deepest darkness. To such an one improvement is nearly
impossible, and advancement in intellectual growth is never tobe dreamed of. His motto is always, “ As you were,” and his
watchword, if he has any, is like that of which Mackay preaches,
“ Backward, ye deluded nations ; man to misery is born.” When
a man dogmatically asserts that he has found all the truth which,
is capable to be found, and that his system contains perfect
verity without any mixture of error, his views become stereo
typed, and it is quite impossible that any change can take place
in his opinions. His mind is not open to receive new light from
any source whatever, and thought with him is a useless and
vain operation and investigation the quintessence of folly. For
him to receive any new truth would be to admit that what hepossessed before was in some way defective and imperfect, and
this his creed protests against with the authority of an infallible
mandate. His position is necessarily stationary ; he stands just
where his grandsires stood ages past, and where he would wish
his descendants to remain for ages to come. Now, surely un
belief is far in advance of such a condition as this, for it leaves
its possessor, without bias and prejudice, waiting the new know
ledge that is continually to be had for the seeking. It allows his
mind full scope to grow and advance in wisdom, because he does
not for one moment believe that he has reached aperfection beyond
which it is impossible to proceed. In connection with unbelief
there i-s always a certain amount of suspension of judgment—
that is to say, there is such an absence of dogmatism that any new
discovery of science, any fresh thought in philosophy, or better
and clearer ideas in religion, are always welcomed as an addition
to the stores of knowledge already in possession. A calm repose
rests on his mental powers : there is, to use the words of Harriet
Martineau, a “ clearness of moral purpose,” which “ naturally
ensues”—a “healthy activity of the moral faculties.” The un-
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
21
believer, not being biassed by any settled views which he thinks
■came from heaven, is ever ready to learn and be taught. There
is about him a lofty liberty which he alone can enjoy. From
whatever source the truth may come he is willing—nay, desirous
—to receive it. He is ever ready, as Dr. Watts observes, to—
.
“ Seize on truth where’er ’tis found,
On heathen or on Christian ground.”
The principal argument against unbelief is based upon the
supposition that we have an infallible guide, whereas the fact is
that we neither have nor can have anything of the kind ; and,
what is more, if we had such a guide, we could not understand
it, and therefore it would be no guide to us. All that man
requires is a reasonable probability, and his nature is so con
stituted that he is not capable of more. Besides, unbelief is not
voluntary, and the power of belief is not under the control of
the will.
Belief is the result of conviction, conviction of
evidence; and no man can believe either without or against
■evidence, or disbelieve in the face of evidence sufficiently strong
to carry conviction. Opinions change, theories pass away; old
faiths decay, and new ones appear in their places.
In connection with the Christian profession at the present time
we have an illustration of such inconsistency as is not to be
found in any other of the great religions of the world. History
fails to record in association with those faiths such a marked
difference between profession and action as we discover in the
Christian Church. In Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism,
there is a persistent and earnest effort to regulate personal con
duct in accordance with the alleged sayings and injunctions of
their respective founders. But it is not so with Christianity.
Where are the professing Christians to-day who even make the
attempt to adopt the advice, practice, and precepts ascribed to
Jesus of Nazareth ?' He was in every sense opposed to this
world, and, in most emphatic terms, he denounces its enjoyments,
iijs pride, its requirements, and particularly its riches. With
him, heaven was of greater importance than earth, submission a
ihigher duty than resistance, and poverty a greater virtue than
�22
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
wealth. Christ urged that practice was more valuable than pro
fession, and that the grace of God was more efficacious than the
ethics of man. Where, in the present day, do we find these
views practically endorsed even by Christians ? They are really
disbelievers to what they proclaim as being essential both for
life and for death. Consistency, where indeed is thy blush ? Before
professing Christians condemn us for our unbelief, let them show
us their genuine belief. Before they denounce us for rejecting
what we regard to be error, let them prove that they practice
that which they avow to be true. In the one case there is
honesty of purpose and sincerity of conviction; in the other
there is hypocrisy of profession and cant of fashion. Therefore
in the words of Polonius, we say to the Christian ;—
•
“ This above all, to thine own self be true ;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. ”
Wherein then consists the advantage of Unbelief ? It is the
symbol of mental freedom, the mark of intellectual dignity, the
genius of cultivated reason, the wisdom of being guided by pro
gressive thought, of replacing old fancies with new realities, of
proving all things and holding fast that which reason and
experience, not tradition and theology, decide to be true ; of
resisting to the very utmost all despotic sway over the intellect,
and of vindicating to the fullest extent the right of personal
independence. The advantage of unbelief is shown in its inspiring
mankind, not, in the words of Tyndall, “ to purchase intellectual
peace at the price of intellectual death. The world is not with
out refugees of this description, nor is it wanting in persons who
seek their shelter and try to persuade others to do the same. I
would exhort you to refuse such shelter, and to scorn such base
repose—to accept, if the choice be forced upon you. commotion
before stagnation, the leap of the torrent before the stillness of
the swamp. In the one there is, at all events, life, and therefore
hope ; in the other, none.” This, then, is the essence of unbelief
—not blind adherence to the past, but a loyal allegiance to the
ever-present. If it is asked what should a person disbelieve ? the
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
23
■answer is, everything that he cannot believe after honest investi
gation. Secularism condemns no one for not believing that
which fails to commend itself to his or her reason and judgment.
Hence, we do not believe in the necessity of priestcraft, the
wisdom of allowing the church to control the education of the
young, the necessary inferiority of women, the utility of death
bed repentance, and finality in thought, morality, or religion.
But we do believe in the right of individual opinion, unfettered
reason, moral excellence and intellectual discipline.
Unbelief asserts that every man and woman should be allowed
absolute freedom to test every religion by the light of reason,
and then either to accept one or reject all in accordance with the
dictates of his or her understanding ! By the revival of learning
at the Renaissance a great impetus and new momentum were
imparted to the human mind. The limits beyond which the
Roman Church had for centuries prohibited any advance, on
pain of the axe, the rack, the dungeon, and the stake, were now
overstepped by the aspiring, emancipated intellect. Those old
landmarks of the limits of former inquiry were now justly
despised, as the memorials of barbarian ignorance; and an appeal
was made from the dogmas of sacerdotal authority to human
nature, human science, and human thought. This latter, the
intellect, again asserted its supremacy, as it had of old time in
Greece and Rome. A bright and radiant future was before it;
it stood, as it were, upon an elevation from which it could take
a wide and enlightened survey of the complicated interests of
life. The master-spirits of the age soon proclaimed their deliver
ance from an irrational and degrading bondage, and demanded
that the nations of the European world should come out of the
darkness, the Egyptian bondage, of old Rome’s superstitions, to
emancipate themselves, to assert the dignity of their nature, and
to maintain the potency of their reason.
Mental freedom being secured, Unbelief refuses to be again
fettered; it has gone on from discovery to discovery; it has
tested the value of the cardinal doctrines of orthodox Christi
anity—tested them and found them worthless. What has now
�24
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
become of the Genesaic theory of the creation of the world ?
what of the age of the earth ? what of the origin of sin and evil ?
what of the doctrine of human depravity ? what of the belief in the
vicarious sufferings of Christ ? what of the old notion of eternal
punishment ? what of the destruction of the world by the deluge ?
what of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ? what of the miracles
of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha? what of the age of the Pentateuch?
what of the contention for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ?
whatof the testimony respecting the Jesus Christ of the four Gospels ?
It is well known what science says to all these old-world doc
trines. It simply discredits them ; treats them as figments of
the undisciplined imagination, and passes them by as unworthy
of serious notice. This has been the noble work of Unbelief.
Being unbelievers in orthodoxy we prefer fact to fiction, reality
to imagination, and good conduct to mere profession 1 In the
words of Mazzini: “We propose progressive improvement, the
transformation of the corrupted medium in which we are now
living, the overthrow of all idolatries, shams, lies and conven
tionalities. We want man to be not the poor, passive, cowardly
phantasmagoric unreality of the actual time, thinking in one
way and acting in another, bending to a power which he hates
or despises, carrying empty Popish or Thirty-nine Article formu
laries on his breast and none within. We would make man a
fragment of the living truth—a real individual, being linked to
collective humanity, the bold seeker of things to come, the gentle,
mild, loving, yet firm uncompromising apostle of all that is great,
heroic and good.” Herein lies the Glory of Unbelief.
�
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 glory of unbelief
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
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 (Happiness in hell and misery in heaven), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1088
RA1850
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
Secularism
-
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/cc8ab460d1f68ca7d6fc8bc2e3e76fbf.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WUebgu3VRCGqDbana4akeHlzKhzzsrAujQVjeTt%7EzmyFIxgsOrt7d5WeOTwPeUBslAHnxaxOXtkKDaCP0J94D-pdH-TYAlE2L60v5QF-Fy%7EhriyZ5-VrejnOj5nMmS8QUzXR1yM-IKlOC7QVlM2Wm1cz94UYONPpfzIoxTslNiSNGE675v1MY7p0z7aVtFHO5%7E%7EXfmy5axy9UnEyRIjDpoGYRSRTFdFbqki3KFuKrXhStErVwoHlu7UKfhBHe60SUoigYl1vltloarOX6HYjD%7EyjBaHGGqm2aYbo%7EYL99-I3BceBa2IcJ9qoNQcD8p4lvae47DlW1Iu3cVu56M2bvw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
acc369f1f24576bb7e304380c560c38f
PDF Text
Text
B3S
NATIONAL secular
5
conex-
THERE IS A GOD.
’•
“ This Plea for Atheism,” writes Mr. Bradlaugh in
conclusion to the pamphlet bearing that tit le, “ is put
forth as a challenge to Theists to do battle for their cause.”
The challenge we step forward to accept, but wish
beforehand our intentions to be clearly understood, and
our mode of warfare as well aB our plan of battle, briefly
explained.
If we accept, it is not with even the remotest fear as
regards the strength of our cause, which is in no want of
a champion, and has stood for ages by its own unassailable
force. Nor do we dread that our adversary may succeed
in imbuing the minds of his numerous hearers and readers
with anything like the Atheism of which he professes to
be so profoundly convinced. In so momentous a question,
however, as that of the existence of God, were he to
succeed only to raise the shadow of a doubt in the minds
of his hearers, that shadow would, we feel certain, be
attended with the most fatal results. There are moments
when men, urged onwards by the torrent of their pas
sions, would not—even though sure of eternal torments
immediately following their act—hesitate to commit crime;
and much more numerous still are the occasions on
which they would act, if they could only imagine that
they doubted of the existence of a Supreme Avenger
of guilt. We do not here intend to affirm that Mr.
Bradlaugh upholds a system of direct immorality; we only
point out the reasons which make it worth our while to
oppose him. The apparent doubt* he may too often raise
• We employ purposely the words, apparent doubt, to mean a pretext
for acting as if there were a real doubt. Whether we admit or no that
there can be a real doubt as to the existence of God, will appear in our
answers to the objections.
�THERE IS A GOD.
fig
minds of uninstructed men removes a check to crime
®jB»<'heck which, however powerless it may be in the great
^^■xysms of passion, is most certainly of continual use in
rne ordinary circumstances of life. So, in endeavouring to
’confute Mr. Brad laugh, and prove the existence of God,
we are actuated by the hope of destroying the mists he
may have raised in some minds, of hindering them from
being raised in others, and thus, of contributing indirectly
to public morality and virtue, by defending the strongest
of all checks to immorality and vice.
In this essay we shall oppose Mr. Bradlaugh’s theories
in one way, and in one way only, i.e., by appealing to
common sense. We are convinced that the common sense
of a moderately intelligent and earnest man suffices amply
to solve the problem,—and for a good reason too. If
God’s existence could be proved only by abstruse meta
physical demonstrations, the immense majority of mankind
would never understand, and consequently would have a
right to doubt them. But one cannot at the same time
be a doubter and a believer; so iu that case the immense
majority of men would have a right to be practically
Atheists. That, of course, is what we must necessarily
deny ; and our denial supposes that the fact of God’s
existence can be made clear, even to the uninstructed, by
the only method of reasoning which they possess,—com
mon sense.
We therefore, keeping as closely as possible to this plan
of action all through,* except where the arguments of our
adversary oblige us to follow him on to metaphysical
ground, intend firstly to state the objections against
Theism, which have led Mr. Bradlaugh to reject that doc
trine, expounding his arguments, not of course at length
and in his own terms, but with their full force of argument,
and indeed trying rather to add strength to them than to
* We must make an exception for one of the proofs of God’s exist
ence, based upon the existence of eternal truth ; but this proof is so
beautiful and so conclusive to a reflecting- mind that we could not leave
it out. As for the others, if they are found too metaphysical, we can
only say that we have done our best to make them plain, clear, and
intelligible to all.
’
�THERE 13 A GOD.
5
lessen their power. We shall then set forth the con
clusions to which he has arrived, or, in other words, ex
pound the Atheistic system set up by him. All this part of
the discussion is required by the commonest sense of fair
play and impartiality ; and our side being the side of truth,
we feel free to give the opposite party the first innings.
We then, of course, proceed to point out the shortcomings
of his system, and then to demonstrate the truth of our
own.
After the demonstration, we might leave Mr. Bradlaugh’s
objections unanswered ; when the truth of a proposition is
proved, the arguments against it are evidently false. Still,
it would hardly be just or polite to refuse answering such
easily solvable objections; for we may inform Mr. Brad
laugh that there are other difficulties much more subtle,
and much less easy to be apswered, than those he brings
forward. When he finds them out we shall be willing to
try our hand at solving them as well as we can. In the
meanwhile we shall endeavour to conclude this essay by
answering satisfactorily to the objections which to our
adversary appear so weighty and so important.
It will first be necessary to state them, i.e., the principal
ones. Mr. Bradlaugh has published two pamphlets on the
question of Theism ; the first entitled, “Is there a God?”
and the second, “A Plea for Atheism.” In his debates he
generally either attacks Theism connected with some
peculiar religious system, or, when he brings out a direct
argument against the existence of God, he only repeats
what has already been written in the above-mentioned
essays; so it becomes unnecessary to quote anything of
his debates, except one or two seemingly new arguments
against Mr. Cooper.
First of all, let us take some selections from the essay,
“Is there a God?” Mr. Bradlaugh accepts Professor
Flint’s definition of God : A supreme, self existent, the one
infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, unchangeable,
righteous and benevolent, Personal Being, creator and pre
server 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
�6
THERE IS A GOD.
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man. Thia defini
tion once set down, he proceeds to deny the existence of a
being corresponding to the definition.
1. * According to Professor Flint, God is the Supreme
Being. Now, (as Mr. Bradlaugh argues,) according to
reason He cannot be supreme. But what is at once su
preme and not supreme is absurd : therefore the idea of
God involves an absurdity. That God is supreme, ac
cording to Professor Flint, is undoubtedly true. That, ac
cording to reason, He cannot be supreme is also evident;
for the definition supposes Him to be infinite. Now, “su
preme" is a superlative, and includes the idea of a com
parison made between two or more individuals. But there
are not, there cannot be, two infinite beings to compare
together: therefore God cannot be called infinite by relation
to any other such being. Neither can He be said to be
supreme in relation to finite beings, for between the Infinite
and the finite there is no proportion, and consequently all
comparison is impossible. But even allowing comparison
to be possible, God would not always have been supreme;
for Professor Flint affirms Creation, and God would only
have been supreme over finite beings since then ; be
fore, there could be no comparison, as there was nothing
to compare ; now, the idea of God having become supreme,
after having been otherwise, gives us to conclude that His
very definition has been changed, whereas Professor Flint
says He is unchangeable.
2. Secondly, if God existed, He would be Creator and
not Creator at one and the same time; which being absurd,
it follows that God does not exist. Creator according to
the definition itself, not Creator because of the impossi
bility of creation. Creation is the making of existence ;
now, if existence were made, before it was made nothing
existed, for what could exist when existence itself had not
been made yet? Now, it is impossible to admit that at any
moment of the past there existed nothing at all; otherwise
whence would that which now exists come from ? So
existence must have always existed, and cannot have been
• The numbers refer to the answers, infra.
�THERE IS A GOD.
7
made; therefore creation is impossible, and God is at once
Creator and not Creator: which is absurd.
3. Thirdly, God would be at the same time infinitely
benevolent and not infinitely benevolent,—a self-contra
dictory proposition. All the difficulty, admitting that Pro
fessor Flint proves Him satisfactorily to be benevolent, will
now be to demonstrate that He is not so. As is generally
admitted by Theists, God might have created a sinless world
if such had been His will.* Why therefore has He not
done so? All will allow that He might at least have made
a less sinful one, if, for instance, He had given more grace
to man, or created him with more strength of mind to
rule his passions. “ But, argue the Theists, God is not
obliged to do that; the idea of duty is incompatible with
that of the supreme and independent Being.” No answer
could be more worthless. A benevolent man is not the
man who does his duty, but one who does more than his
duty. It follows therefore that a being infinitely benevo
lent should do infinitely more than his duty, and either
create a sinless world, if that be possible; or, if not,
create at least a world much less sinful than the one in
which we live.
4. Fourthly, God would be personal and impersonal,—a
doctrine which no one in his senses can admit. The idea of
God, as stated by Professor Flint, proves Him to be per
sonal, but the same idea will also prove His impersonality.
A personal being is something limited ; now, God is either
infinite, i.e., unlimited, or not God. Therefore, if He be
infinite, He cannot be personal; but He must be so, since
He is the intelligent Maker of heaven and earth. There
fore God is a personal impersonal being.
5. Fifthly, infinite and finite. Infinite, since there are
no bounds to His perfection; finite, since He possesses
one perfection which by itself supposes limitation,—intelli
gence. Intelligence is essentially clear, definite, precise,
* We here state the argument as brought to bear upon those whose
Convictions coincide with our own, for we do not admit, with Mr. Arm
strong, that the conception of a sinless world is self-contradictory.
Against those who share his opinions the argument can be framed
otherwise, and, we believe, unanswerably.
�8
THERE IS A GOD.
and consequently limited : therefore all things intelligent
are limited beings. But God is intelligent, therefore He
must be finite; and yet we have already seen that He
cannot be so.
The following objections are taken, in substance, from
the “ Plea for Atheism.”
6. Theism checks man’s efforts, it is therefore a doctrine
Dot to be admitted. It teaches that all things depend
absolutely upon the will of God. Such teaching is a check
upon the activity of man ; for in all things we may say : If
this be contrary to God’s will it will never take place, and
if it be according to God’s will it will take place, whether
we exert ourselves or no.
7. God cannot be intelligent. Intelligence comprises
perception, memory, and reasoning. Neither of these acts
are possible to God. Perception results in the obtaining a
new idea; God, being omniscient, has the same ideas
eternally, and therefore cannot perceive. Memory recalls
the past; for an unchangeable God there is no past, and
consequently no memory. Beason implies a succession of
acts; in God there is no succession, and so He is deprived
of reason by His very immutability. If God can neither
perceive, nor remember, nor reason, can He judge or think ?
To judge is to join two ideas together ; but whatever is
joined was not joined previously, and this is contrary to
immufability. To think is to separate that which is
thought from that which is not thought; that, too, implies
change, and besides contradicts omniscience. If God
knows everything unchangeably, He must ever be un
changeably thinking of everything. But if God can neither
perceive, remember, reason, judge, nor think, He can by
no means be said to be intelligent.
8. God is not all-wise. If He were so He would not
have created beings, or parts of beings, without any use
whatever. That such beings and parts of beings exist
plentitully in nature is a well-known teaching of embry
ology, and indeed of all natural history. If therefore God
be the author of nature, He must be said not to be all-wise.
9. God is not the Creator. For creation either added to
the sum of being already existing, or it did not. If it
�THERE IS A GOD.
9
added anything, then the sum is greater than the part, and
the universe with God better than God without the uni
verse. He is therefore not infinitely good if something can
be better than He. If it added nothing, then the universe
is identically the same as God, which is contrary to Theism.
If it took anything away from the sum of being already
existing, God was not all-wise in creating ; or, if He could
not help creating, He was not all-powerful. Creation
therefore neither adds anything to, nor adds nothing to,
nor takes anything from, the sum of being. Creation
therefore is absurd.
10. Some men are not convinced of God’s existence.
Now, if God existed, He could convince men of His exist
ence, so as to leave in their minds no doubt about the
matter. If He could not, it would be because He did not
know how to, or had not enough power. Therefore He
will not; but if so, He is not infinitely good, for by so
doing He could spare men a very great deal of misery.
These are the most important arguments put forth by
Mr. Bradlaugh in the two essays to which we have already
alluded. We have been obliged to choose, for in many
places there are as many as nine or ten arguments crowded
together, with rare conciseness, in one page ; nay, some
times one argument is so worded that it may be taken in
two very different senses. But we trust we have chosen
the most important objections; and as for shortening them,
our only excuse is that it is impossible to do otherwise
without writing a commentary upon each of these essays,
(which we should do with great pleasure,) pointing out
one by one all the fallacies employed by our opponent.
11. In the debate with. Mr. Cooper, there are also two
arguments that can be mentioned, although they are but
variantes of others already stated. The first runs pretty
nearly as follows. Theism supposes a motionless cause
which is the principle of the universe, i.e., which acts to
create the world. If so, they can explain how action with
out motion is possible. That, however, is inexplicable ;
therefore the hypothesis of Theism cannot be admitted.
12. Another is : Two beings cannot be in the same place
at the same time. But God is everywhere; therefore, to
�10
THERE IS A GOD.
make room for the universe He must retire from “ some
where,” and is no longer infinite; or else He must make
the universe out of “everywhere,” that is, nowhere. The
first alternative contradicts the idea of God ; the second is
self-contradicted by facts. It follows that God has not
created the world.
Such are the difficulties which have prevailed so far upou
Mr. Bradlaugh, that he thinks himself justified in taking a
position of defiance to nearly the whole human race, and
building a system of which the denial of God’s existence
forms the principal point. This system we now wish to
state as clearly as possible.
“ I exist.* My existence is either self-existent or created.
It is not created, consequently it is self-existent, and I am
self-existent too. If that existence were created, it would
have been so either by an existence the same as itself, or
else by another existence. Neither can be allowed, and so
it is not created. It cannot have been created by an
existence the same as itself; for then it would have been
only a continuation of the same existence. It cannot have
been created by any existence different from it, for an
existence different from it would have nothing in common
with it, since what has nothing in common with another
thing can have no relation with it. Now creation is really
a relation,—the relation of cause and effect. Creation
therefore being impossible, my existence is self-existent.
“But what has just been proved for my particular
existence can be proved in exactly the same manner for all
existence. And, as all things we see have mutual relations
one with another, it follows that what seems to be different
existences is only the same existence, differently condi
tioned, otherwise they would have nothing in common.
There is therefore but one existence ; the world, which
means the same as ‘ matter,’ or ‘ universe,’ is a great
uncaused being (debate with Dr. Baylee, p. 32), infinite
and eternal. I am but a phenomenon of existence, and
all that we hear, see, or feel, are only separate phenomena,
* Debate with Dr. Baylee, page 41; Plea tor Atheism, appendix;
Debate with Mr. Cooper, passim.
�THERE IS A GOD.
11
not separate beings ; different conditions of existence, and
not different existences.”
“ These phenomena, conditions, or modes of existence
are distinguished in thought by their qualities.” Whether
the modes are really distinct from each other, or only in
thought, is not determined ; whether the qualities which
form the distinction are really different qualities or no is
not stated. “Qualities are characteristics by which in
thought I distinguish that which I think,” says Mr. Bradlaugli, and he says no more. But what if the same ques
tion be again asked, viz., whether those characteristics are
really different from each other, or only rendered different
by the process of thinking? Let us give an example of
the two distinctions. We say that Mr. Bradlaugh is really
distinct from any other man, because it seems that, inde
pendently of our thought, and whether we think about
him or no, he is not the same as another man ; and we say
that their characteristics are really different. We say
that M r. Brad laugh the philosopher can be (in thought)
distinguished from Mr. Bradlaugh the orator, and that the
characteristics of both are only distinguished in thought.
Now the question is, whether Mr. Bradlaugh admits real
distinctions or no; whether all things are, according to
him, only distinguished in thought. To this question no
answer is given in any of the debates aud essays which we
have had the occasion to Bee.
It is only now that our work begins seriously, by re
futing Mr. Bradlaugh’s system. Until this moment we
have but stated his objections and theories, and though we
promised to stand by the logic of common sense, we evi
dently did not intend meaning that such logic should
extend to our opponent. As has already been seen, Mr.
Bradlaugh brings forward some deeply metaphysical ob
jections, and his system is built upon the most metaphysical
of all ideas,—existence. We have, of course, to follow
him wherever he goes, but even in the deepest and most
entangled metaphysical problems we shall ever try to keep
an eye upon common sense.
Waiving for the present a direct answer to the objec
tions accumulated by the adversary of Theism, we think
�12
TBERE IS A GOD.
proper first of all to examine his own system. Even if his
objections were unanswerable, it would Dot follow that
his system is certain. Of his objections, not a single one
is completely new ; some,—for instance, the one against
creation,—dates as far back as Aristotle, a philosopher
well known to be by no means an A theist.* These objec
tions therefore might, if unanswerable, prove the eternity
of matter, a dual principle, positive pantheism, transcen
dentalism, or even Atheism of some sort; but they would
not necessarily prove Mr. Bradlaugh’s Atheism.
Mr. Bradlaugh argues that his own pxistence is not
created; and, according to him, the same may be said of all
existence. But why ? Because creation is the action of
one existence upon another, different from it,—which is
absurd. If Mr. Bradlaugh sees very clearly the absurdity
of one thing acting upon another, different from it, so
much the better for him. For our part, we do believe,—
and shall continue so to do until further notice,—that the
hammer of the smith is different from the inass of red-hot
iron drawn out of the forge, and that the difference in
question does not hinder it from acting on the said mass of
metal. We believe that two prize-fighters are not identi
cally one and the same being, and yet they act upon one
another very forcibly. In our humble opinion, confirmed
by these facts and many others, two different beings can
act upon each other.
Let us, however, examine the axioms brought forward to
sustain the system. What has nothing in common with
another has no relation with it. If you mean by “ having
in common,” to be identically the same, we should think
that nothing has anything in common with another by the
very fact that it is something else. Two drops of dew,
two blades of grass, suppose them as like as you will ; or
take, if you like better, two atoms of exactly the same size,
form, and intensity and direction of movement. We have
said, the same size, and we can say so in one point of view,
* We will, however, give Mr. Bradlaugh credit for having found
these objections out “all by his own self.” Otherwise, how could he *
not be aware that they have all been answered a thousand times, from
the days of Tertulliuu to those of Leibnitz and of Clarke ?
�THERE 19 A GOD.
13
for in our mind the size is the same ; but the expression is
no longer exact if we apply it to the reality t hat exists.
Each has its own size ; that size happens exactly to resem
ble the size of the other; but the quality, though perfectly
alike, is not identically the same. If therelore you take
things in that light, your axiom proves far too much. No
two things have anything in common in that sense; conse
quently, according to you, no two things can act upon
each other, or have any relation with each other. Causes
are no more, effects exist no longer, and ail relations
vanish away.
If, on the contrary, you take the word, “to have in
common,” to mean the possession of something that, al
though not really and identically the same in both, is
exactly alike, owing to a fundamental similitude in both
natures, then indeed we must admit the axiom. The
hammer, were it not as solid as the iron, and more so,
would not be able to act upon it; its action therefore
depends on the mutual solidity of both, one, however,
being greater than the other. A lady could hardly act
upon a prize fighter in the boxing way, because they have
little in common to render a contest possible. If Mr.
Bradlaugh takes it in this manner we admit the axiom.
But now let us see how it works. Is it true that one
existence is either totally identical with another, or so
distinct, so different, as to have nothing alike,* having
either everything in common, or nothing in common,
without a medium ? In the first signification of the word
this might be true; one existence is completely and
totally different from another, for the very reason that it
is another. Every particular and individual thing exists in
a way that excludes participation with any other, whatever
it may be. If A is A, and B is B, then A is by no means
and in no wise B, and B is by no means and by no wise A.
This is not metaphysics ; it is mere common sense. Ask
the simplest-minded boor whether he be auy thing else but
* It is so in Mr. Bradlaugh’s system, for by existence he understands
whatever exists ; there can therefore be but one. But we are now
attacking the demonstration of his system, to defend which he has no
right to suppose the conclusion as already demonstrated.
�14
THERE IS A GOD.
himself: the answer would soon be made, and unhesi
tatingly. Yes, this is true ; but in this souse the axiom,
we have already seen, is false. Because I am not anybody
else, it does not follow that I have no relation with any
body else.
It is only true in the second sense: things which have
nothing in common, {i e., nothing alike in their nature,)
can have no relation with each other. Well, precisely iu
this sense it is monstrously untrue to say that two exist
ences have either everything in common or nothing iu
common. They can have, as everybody is aware, like
qualities, and even like essences. All men possess intelli
gence to a certain degree, and by means of this intelligence
they can act upon each other. Stones are not intelligent,
and precisely from this point of view men cannot act upon
stones, nor stones on men. But both have in common that
they are solid bodies, capable of movement; as such they
can and do act reciprocally. So we see that in the grand
argument by which Mr. Bradlaugh proves his own exist
ence to be uncaused and eternal, if we admit one part we
must deny the other, unless, as we pass from the former to
the latter, we change the sense of the words.
Now, by changing the sense of words we may prove a
great many things as we go along, to the entire satis
faction of weak-minded people and idiots. For instance—
Puss is a cat;
A cat is a whip ;
A whip is a member of parliament;
A member is a limb ;
A limb is a part of the body;
Therefore Puss is a part of the body.
But, it will be said, this is manifest nonsense that any
body can see through, and if Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
resembled this one you would not want to write against it.
We should certainly not want to write against it if
everybody was as familiar with the two senses of the words
“ in common " as with the two senses of the words cat,
whip, member. Unfortunately it is not so. Words are
often employed without attention to their precise sense,
and if there are two different senses, of which the difference
�THERE 18 A GOD,
15
does not seem great, the difference is often overlooked.
This may be allowed in ordinary conversation, not in
philosophical debate. A few grains weight, more or less,
matters little at the grocer’s; at the druggist’s the same
difference in quantity may matter a good deal. And the
drugs furnished by the latter, though sufficiently pure for
medical purposes, may be rightly considered by the
analytical chemist as miserably impure. Between Mr.
Bradlaugh’s argument and the ridiculous string of non
sense quoted above, the difference is in the matter only,
not in the manner.
However, let us for the present say no more of the
reasoning in question, and scrutinize with a little closer
attention the system which it is intended to uphold. Ac
cording to Mr. Bradlaugh, the words “matter,” “uni
verse,” and “ existence,” are synonymous. The whole
universe is one great uncaused being. Of that being, each
phenomenon is but a separate condition. Every man, for
instance, exists, i.e., possesses existence, but existence is
identically the same in all. Possessing existence, he is a
being, and yet there is but one being,—the universe. To
explain matters yet more clearly, a stone, a tree, a dog,
and a man, are all the same being, but in a different way.
Here you have the being existing stonily, there arborescently, further on doggedly, and humanly at last. It
weighs in the stone, grows in the tree, barks in the dog,
and thinks in the man. Stone, tree, dog, and man are all
outward appearances, nothing more, somewhat in the same
way (we imagine) that a single drop of dew or prism of
crystal can be seen red, blue, yellow, or green at the same
time by different spectators. Whether the theory be
poetical or no we shall not attempt to decide; as our
opinion is decidedly that “ truth alone is beautiful,”
“Bien n’est beau que le vrai...... ”
we shall only examine whether it be true.
And firstly, let us remark the unpleasant fact that this
theory sets Mr. Bradlaugh by the ears with nearly all
mankind. We do not speak only of the more intelligent
part of men, deeply read in science and in philosophy.
�16
THERE TS A GOD.
We do not even allude to the class of ordinary intelli
gence ; we take the very lowest class of all, and appeal to
those whose uncultured stolidity brings them almost to
the verge of idiocy itself. To them we would say: “A
very intelligent gentleman is of opinion that whatever he,
you, anybody, or anything else may be, we are not several
beings, but only one ; that if you see any difference be
tween yourselves and the clods of earth which surround,
you, it is a mistake to think there is any difference in
reality, it only appears so. Whatever exists in you is
absolutely the same as what exists in the clods of earth ;
you seem to be different, and that is all.” What would
their answer be ? We need not anticipate it.
The system is not only contrary to the universal con
viction, but also to the senses, i.e., to those organs which
set us in communication with the external world. Mr.
Bradlaugh,'having brought forward his one existence, or
oDe being, must necessarily admit that nothing else exists
besides it. Well then, what are the phenomena which we
see going on before our eyes? Are they beings ? No, of
course. Are they one Being? My senses tell me they
are not. I see the balloon ascend and the stone fall. Can
one and the same being receive at the same time two con
trary movements?
Why, even a mathematical point
cannot be imagined thus, much less a real being. Will
you say that these phenomena, modes, conditions,—or
whatever you may call them,—are not really distinct
appearances of the Being, but only Actively so, only seemings of which all the difference proceeds from our own
thought, and has no foundation in the world that is? But
it is impossible for us, when we feel cold or heat, to think
that cold and heat have no foundation but in our thoughts.
If your doctrine of Atheism denies the real difference of
phenomena, we should, to follow it, have to make first of
all a blind act of faith, not in the veracity, but in the
absolute mendacity of our senses. All becomes a dream,
and you cannot expect any reasonable man to admit that.
If, on the contrary, you admit their real difference, your
theory is doomed ; for when I see the balloon and the
stone, and think that they are the same being possessed
�THERE IS A GOD.
17
with contrary movements, I think an absurdity. You
might have escaped this result, if you had anywhere said
that the phenomena in question, which we call substances,
are parts of the same great being. But you nowhere em
ploy that expression ; and rightly, from your point of view;
for to break up one existence into innumerable parts would
be the ruin of your doctrine.
If we turn to the faculty of self-consciousness, we find
other and perhaps greater difficulties still. “ Doubt as I
may,”* says Mr. Bradlaugh, “I cannot doubt of my own
existence.” But seif-consciousness, by the very same act
by which it reveals our existence to us, reveals it as some
thing limited, individual, clearly distinct from all that is
not ourself. In Mr. Bradlaugh’s system our existence is
not different from all existence, and is therefore infinite,
universal, mingling confusedly both us and all other
phenomena together in one great whole. Now the ques
tion is, whether conscience lies, in revealing our existence
to ourselves as it does. If it does not lie, Mr. Bradlaugh’s
system is overthrown ; for either conditioned existence is
the same as existence in itself, or it is not. If it is the
same, it cannot lose all the qualities of existence, merely
by being conditioned. If it is not the same, we may beg
to remark that all existence is conditioned, and that there
fore the one existence, infinite, eternal, indistinctly the
same in all and under all phenomena, is nothing else but
a myth, a creature of imagination. But let us suppose
that Mr. Bradlaugh prefers saying that self-consciousness
is wrong ; that existence is the same in all, but that it
seems—only seems—to self-consciousness to be distinct
from all. The reply comes immediately : “ As the very
same act gives you the knowledge of your existence, and
of the manner of your existence, you cannot separate the
one from the other; you cannot doubt of the manner iu
which you really exist, without doubting of your very exist
ence. You cannot impugn a document that tells against
you, without also attacking the favourable clauses it con
tains. You cannot take down the sail that carries you
where you do not wish to go, without being abandoned to
• Discussion with Dr. Baylee, p. 41,
2
�18
THERE IS A GOD.
the mercy of the waves.” Self-consciousness is the faculty
that tells us what we feel, and in what way we feel it. If
I deny that in doing so it expresses the truth, if I am not
as I feel that I ain, it might as well be that I am not,
although Ifeel that I am. Mr. Bradlaugh has, we believe,
no way of escape from these difficulties, unless indeed he
should affirm that his self-consciousness tells him his
existence is infinite, eternal, and universal; or, at least,
that it gives him no information whatever about it. This
would evidently close the discussion under that head.
Another fact at least as unpleasant is, that Mr. Brad
laugh’s system is the negation of all arithmetic. We
should have been less inclined to note this disagreement, if
our adversary did not continually point out and exaggerate
the contradictions he finds, (or thinks he finds,) between
arithmetic and the different sorts of Theism. He even
makes merry about them, and needs, though at the cost of
spoiling his mirth, to be reminded that those who live in
glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.
Addition is the foundation of all arithmetic, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s system is contrary to addition. Every school
boy that knows how to read knows that one and one are
two, and one are three, etc. Let us take any object, A
for instance. A exists, or is, i.e., A is being (according to
logic). . But what being is A? Is it all being, or only
some being? It all being, then necessarily nothing can be
added to it. But we can say the same of B, C, D, or any
other object of thought of which being can be predicated
in the same way. Then all together, instead of making up
several beings, (though each is everything!) only make one,
and there is an end of addition. If A is one, (by which unit
we designate all being,) and B is one, then A added to B
ought to make two ; and they only make one. But let us
fancy that the other alternative is taken ; each is only some
being. Then again, if A is distinct from B, A is some
being, B is some other being, and both together, (each
separately being one,) form two beings. But no, that
cannot be ; A is distinct from B, but neither is distinct
from being; and as there is only one, the being A, added to
the being B, cannot form more than one. You can add
�THERE IS A GOD.
19
np phenomena as much as you like, you will never come to
more than an addition of phenomena. Jones exists, there
fore Jones is a being; Smith exists, therefore Smith is a
being ; Brown exists, therefore Brown is a being. But
are Smith, Brown, and Jones, taken together, three beings?
Not in the least ; they are only one being and three
phenomena. Not having had the opportunity of putting
these difficulties to Mr. Bradlaugh himself, we naturally
try to find the most reasonable reply he could make. He
might, it is true, avoid the difficulty to a certain extent, by
saying that one can exist without being ; that he can with
perfect truth say at the same time, “ I exist, and I am not
a being.” But this would only open the way to other and
greater objections ; besides, we should be sorry to load
with unnecessary absurdities a system so heavily laden
already.
By a process resembling that already followed, it might
easily be shown that the system contradicts the ruleB of
subtraction, multiplication, and division; but the proof is
the same, and repetition would be tedious. Should Mr.
Bradlaugh try to escape by saying that his system allows
the counting up of phenomena, and operating upon them
as if they were beings, the terrible question always returns,
Are these phenomena really distinct from each other and
among themselves, or are they but phantoms of the brain ?
If the distinction is real, then there is in them something
real on which the real distinction is founded, and that
something, distinct in each, exists separately from the one
existence mentioned, which is contrary to monism.* If
not, these phenomena are only a succession of seemings, all
false, and to which no reality belongs. Four are not really
* For if one thing exists separately from another, there must be a
sufficient reason for the separation ; and as there is nothing in the
“existing” which is not in “existence” (its intrinsic principle), we
must seek the sufficient reason in “existence” itself. If, therefore,
two phenomena are separate from each other, that quality, “ separate”
must be found in their existence also. Thus their existence is
separate in each. But what is separate is not one, but many, in so
far as it is separate; so, at least under one point of view, there
would be many existences. This is so far contrary to monism ; for
it would be absurd to suppose that many existences could at the same
time be only one, under the same point of view, i. e. as individuals.
�20
THERE IS A GOD.
more than two, but only appear so, like four quantities
added together, all equal to zero. If there is nothing
distinctly real in phenomena, a farthing and a million
sterling only seem to be different, but are not so. A
farthing is existence conditioned in a certain phenomenal
way. A million sterling is the very same existence con
ditioned in the very same way, which way (not which
existence) is repeated 960,000,000 times; but this way
is only an appearance, and so its repetition makes no
difference whatever on the total amount. We doubt, how
ever, whether capitalists, (solvable ones at least,) would be
willing to adopt this very original manner of considering
money.
Finally, all science is destroyed by the system in ques
tion. Either the one existence is distinct from the pheno
mena, or no. If distinct, the phenomena exist apart, and
there are more existences than one. If not, each pheno
menon is existence it self, only modified by the mind:
infinite in itself, rendered finite by our mind ; eternal in
its nature, but mentally circumscribed by time. All that
our mind tells us of these phenomena, eveu with indubit
able evidence, is false, totally false. All that we can learn
of the sun, the stars, the earth, is absolutely untrue.
History, geography, chemistry, physics, all give way, all
are useless pursuits of knowledge. All that is, we know
already ; why should we strive to ascertain that which
only seems ?
We should much regret any unintentional unfairness to
Mr. Bradlaugh as to the exact understanding of his sys
tem ; but even if we had misunderstood him, it would not
be our fault. Our opponent, in all his essays and debates,
keeps to offensive warfare for the most part, and is much
more occupied in at tacking other systems than in stating
his own. A few pages contain all that he says in its favour ;
he does not even appear to dream that anything can be
said against it, and supposes that, with all its consequences,
it will be taken for granted. That we feel some degree of
hesitation in taking it thus will perhaps be understood,
after the perusal of the defects we think we perceive
therein. But Mr. Bradlaugh is very clever, and may be
�THERE IS A GOD.
21
able still to show us that all is right; that existence and
phenomena are identical, though different; that the
addition of several beings to each other only forms one,
although they are many ; and that, while we cannot doubt
of our existence, because we are aware of it, we can still
doubt whether we exist in the manner of which we are
aware. And yet, even though Mr. Bradlaugh should
prove these wondrous things, we submit, that it is hardly
worth while to leave the mysteries of Theism for others
darker still, whether or no there be a direct demonstration
of the existence of a Deity.
Of such existence, however, there are demonstrations,
and in great ’number, some of which we now desire to
bring forward, after having made a few preliminary re
marks concerning one of Mr. Bradlaugh’s assertions.
He complains that the greatest difficulty in a discussion
is to know what is meant by the word “ God ;” because, if
we do not agree about the sense of the word, we shall not
even know what we are disputing about; and to prove
that different meanings are given to the word, he shows
that Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, Arians, Trinitarian Pro
testants, and Catholics, have different views of the attri
butes of God. To this it will be sufficient to reply that all
have the same definition of the u-ord, but a different one
of the Being that the word is intended to name. The
starting point is the same for all ; but, the directions taken,
being various, the goals at which they arrive are various
too. But what can it matter about the goal, if the starting
point is identical for all ? Wherever false systems or
gross ignorance have come to wrong conclusions about
anything, we have the same confusion as to consequent
reasonings upon primitive ideas. Would it not be ridicu
lously absurd for anybody to pretend that we do not
know what is meant by the word “Man”? And yet we
can say that Plato defines him to be “ a two-legged animal
without wings or feathers;” that Aristotle calls him, “a
reasonable animal;” that de Bonald says he is “an intelli
gence served by organs;” that the Christian philosophers
of the middle ages affirm him to be “ an immortal spirit,
substantially united to a mortal body;” that modern
�22
THERE IS A GOD.
naturalists give him the title of “a bimanous mammal-”
and that the negroes of the Gabon coast confound him
with the gorilla, whom they call “ the stupid old man."
Now, from all these expressions, representing widely
different ideas, we might, by the same process of reasoning
that Mr. Bradlaugh uses, gather that nobody really knows
what is meant by the word man.
We^ therefore start from a mere verbal definition of the
word “God,” and afterwards prove that a Being answering
to the sense of the definition really and positively exists.
1 hat is all we intend to do, and we wish it to be understood
at the very outset. Were we to go farther our essay
would become a theological treatise, which We do not wish
it to be. At the bare fact of God’s existence, once proved,
we stop short, admitting of course implicitly all those of
His attributes which may be by argument deduced from
that fact, but not attempting to prove them. Should Mr.
Bradlaugh therefore condescend to examine our demon
strations, let him take the definitions as we give them ;
for as we are to bring forward several demonstrations, so
several definitions shall also be given.
lhe apparent difference of definitions by no means
interferes with the sense of the word itself; only we shall
adnnt that from some it is not possible to draw the idea of
a God infinite in being; but that is of no consequence, if
we can deduce the idea from other definitions. We shall
therefore draw up two series: of adequate definitions and
of inadequate ones. Mr. Bradlaugh will of course not
mn to observe that such proofs as do not demonstrate a
God infinite in being do not demonstrate what is required.
We reply that they prove the existence of a being ausweryig to the definition ; if they do not demonstrate Him to
be infinite, others do; it suffices that they do not prove
Him to be finite. Should our adversary again take excep
tion to our defining the sense of one word in two different
wavs, we can refer him to a well-known example in
geometry. Euclid defines a line as “length without
breadth,^and Legendrecalls it, “the intersection of two
surfaces.
Both define the same word in the same sense
perfectly well, but from different points of view. Differ-
�THERE 13 A GOD.
23
ently worded definitions do not therefore argue different
significations, but different manners of expressing those
significations.
We must also allow that none of our demonstrations
prove immediately, and without the help of farther reason
ing, the unity of God. But they prove that there is
at least One. It is only afterwards that the impossibility
of several Gods appears. This remark applies to some of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s complaints. He would wish for an argu
ment that proved immediately the existence of one, infinite,
eternal, omniscient, immeasurable, all-good Creator. If
such a proof were possible, on its being brought forward
he would doubtless complain again, and insist that it be
given him in one single argument and were it to be thus
given, he would find it still too long. Let him carry this
system of cavilling into the domains of other sciences, and
ask, for instance, why chemical nomenclature and notation
throw no light upon the phenomena of the viscous fermen
tation, or why the Pons' Asinorum is unable to prove that
a sphere is equal to the two-thirds of the circumscribed
cylinder. The answer from both chemist and geometrician
would be, “ Have patience, my friend, we shall come to
that in good time.” Il time is allowed to the geometrician
and the chemist, should it be refused to the theologian ?
Adequate Definitions.—I. By the word “ God,” I
mean the principle of all existence. II. By that word I
mean the priuciple of all possibility. III. By that word I
mean a Being, (or beings, if there be more than one,) to
whom there is none superior. IV. By that word I mean
a Being answering to the idea we have of the Infinite, i.e.,
perfection without end.
Inadequate Definitions.—I. The principle of all
change and variation. II. The principle of all movement.
III. The author of all moral obligation.
First Proof.—All existence must have an existing
principle. Now, this priuciple I call God. (I. Det.)
Therefore God exists.
All existence must have an existing principle. By “ prin
ciple,” I mean a sufficient reason for its existence. Now,
�24
THERE IS A GOD.
evidently nothing can exist without there being a sufficient
reason for its existing.
Existing. If the principle were only ideal and imaginary,
it could not be a sufficient reason for that which exists.
In this proof we have not demonstrated that God is
separate from the universe; so, if this demonstration were
taken apart, Mr. Bradlaugh might say that his views
coincided w'ith our own, that lie admits existence to be its
own principle, that therefore existence is God, or that all
is God.
But we object to the demonstration being taken apart
from the refutation of Mr. Bradlaugh’s theorv ; having
amply shown that the theory of one existence only is ab
surd, we cannot admit that Mr. Bradlaugh quite agrees with
us. True, he might still plead that even if there be many
existences, each of them may be self-existent, or containing
in itself the principle of its being, and that there might
thus be as many gods as there are atoms. We reply,
firstly, that if that were the case, the strength of our
argument would be in no wise diminished. If it pleases
anybody to say that every atom is a God, he may do so
(until proved to be absurd); but he has not the right to
say there is none. We may also answer that the idea of
an atom having in itself the principle of its existence is
contrary to common sense. If it were self-existent, it
would be necessary; if necessary, the supposition that it
might not have existed is absurd ; and yet who would have
missed it? It is only a contingent, not a necessary part
of the universe. Besides, the principle that gives exist
ence, gives all perfection, since existence is the fountain
of perfection. If our atom possessed that fountain in
itself, it would be infinite in all things, for nothing could
bound it except itself, and nothing can limit itself. In
finite therefore in all things, in dimensions, in activity, in
beauty, and at the same time being only an atom, it would
be in all a most elementary and imperfect being. Now,
if anybody was to tell us that all the water of the ocean
was contained in a dew-drop, we should very naturally ask,
How is the dew-drop so little ? And if we see a poor man
who gets by his work only just enough to live, and no
�THERE IS A GOD.
$
,
25
more, and are told that he has an unlimited credit at the
banker’s, the question arises, Why is he not better off?
only in the latter case the answer might be, Because he
does not choose to be so ; whereas a being that is its own
principle can by no means change its nature, and choose
to be otherwise. A man cannot by a wish become a stone:
whatever is essential is necessary.
But this again is a digression. We do not mean to
attack Polytheism now ; we do not mean even to attack
Pantheism. We prefer, if agreeable to all parties, doing
one thing at a time: and, as Mr. Bradlaugh calls himself an
Atheist because he denies all definitions of God, we defy
him to deny this definition, or attack this demonstration.
Second Proof.—Whatever is possible must have an
existing and intelligent principle. Now, that principle I
call God. (II. Def.) Therefore God exists.
We must subjoin to this argument a few words of ex
planation. “Whatever is possible,” means only whatever
is not absurd, i.e., whatever is simply and absolutely true
without reference to time or place. Thus the multiplica
tion table, though invented by Pythagoras, contains a
series of truths which were only discovered by him, and
which were true as independently of him as they are of
the things to which they are applied. Were there not two
calculable beings in the world, still two and two would
make four. In the same manner they are independent of
human reason, that only perceives, but does not makei
them. Were all mankind to go mad, and no longer to
admit that two and two are four, it would be none the less
true for their denial. What is there in that truth ? A
simple possibility, a mere intelligibility, expressed by a
formula independent both of existence and of man.
Now we say that whatever is possible must have an
existing principle, and to prove it we return to the defini
tion of a principle, i.e., a sufficient reason. Would a pos
sible being be the sufficient reason of what is possible?
No ; for nothing would ever have been possible if nothing
had existed. Possibility therefore depends on a certain
existence ; not mine, nor yours, nor any existence which
we know to be subject to change and mutability. Now,
�26
THERE IS A GOD.
the something on which possibility depends is called its
principle, and we call that principle God.
Nextly, we affirm that the principle in question must be
intelligent; not as men are said to be intelligent, since we
have seen that the intelligibility and consequent truth
of things possible has nothing whatever to do with man,
and is completely independent of him. But, knowing
them to be intelligible since all eternity, we ask, Can
anything be eternally intelligible without there being
something eternally intelligent I Fancy for an instant
that intelligence disappears totally from the universe ;
nothing is intelligible any longer. The difference between
the absurd and the non-absurd,—-consisting only in the
contradiction of characteristics, which contradiction cannot
subsist without intelligence,—ceases at once. Now, if
Mr. Bradlaugh does not hesitate to affirm that there is no
difference between what is absurd aud what is not, we
shall not trouble him any longer with our affirmation of
an eternal intelligence; but until he shall make that
declaration we are free to maintain that all eternal,
immutable, and necessary truths depend (to be what they
are) on an eternal, immutable, necessary, and intelligent
existing principle; and this principle we call God.
As already stated, we do not by this argument intend to
prove the unity of God, since that is quite out of the
question for the present. Plato was, if we mistake not,
the first who employed this manner of reasoning, and he
argued thence the existence of ideal forms, unchangeable,
necessary, and eternal. If by “ideal forms” he meant
beings existing separately, these “forms” were so many
gods, and his philosophy ended in Polytheism. However,
though this conclusion might have been false, the argu
ment, as we have stated it, is true, and the number of
gods is, we repeat, only a secondary question. If Mr.
Bradlaugh is struck by its efficacy, he is by no means likely
to fall into the error of Plato ; not being very partial to
the idea of God, one God is probably the most he can
admit, and if he does, we shall ask him no more.
Third Proof.—There exists at least one Being to
�THERE IS A GOD.
,
27
whom none is superior. Now, that Being to whom none
is superior I call God. (Def. III.) Therefore God exists.
It is impossible for Mr. Bradlaugh to take exception,
even in his system, to such an argument; as he admits
only one being, no others can be superior to it, and there
fore his one being is God. But we have already proved
the absurdity of supposing that there is only one being in
the world. There being therefore several, we proceed to
prove our argument from this starting point.
We first of all take for granted, as a fact known by all
who are in their senses, that there is a difference in the
perfection of some beings. We think it not at all hard to
be obliged to admit that Hamlet is superior to Caliban,
that the elephant is something more than the oyster, and
the palm-tree than the blade of grass.
If this be granted, common sense will at once see that
in the series of all beings, some being above others, there
must be some, (or, still more probably, one.) that are
the highest of all, i.e., to whom none is superior : for the
number of existing beings cannot possibly be infinite, and
therefore must be terminated at both ends if we ran»e
them by order of perfection. Anybody can see that no
number can be infinite if he reflects that it would be the
greatest of all numbers possible. Let us suppose that
a hundred quintillions be called infinite; then what would
be a hundred quintillions plus one? And how can any
number be innumerable ?
To those who prefer a more mathematical demonstration
we can give one such. Let x represent the whole number
of beings, ranged by order of perfection, and let us take at
random any part of the more perfect beings: x* will
represent the more perfect part, x" the less perfect. But
among the beings represented by xi, are all equal in per
fection or no ? If all are equal, then we have already the
leing (or beings) to whom none is superior, and the problem
is solved. It not, then by a similar process we find x™
aud xlv; xM representing the more perfect part of the
beings represented by x*. Aud as the number each time
diminishes regularly by at least one unit, it is evident that
we must in time solve the problem, simply by repeating
�28
THERE IS A GOD.
our mode of reasoning often enough. And whether we
come at last to one being who is above all others, or
to several equal to each other, and to which no others are
equal, the question is henceforward, not between Atheism
and Theism, not between Pantheism and the doctrine
which it contradicts, but between Polytheism and Mono
theism. With a Polytheist we should now be willing to
open the debate ; but Mr. Bradlaugh could hardly be con
sidered as such, and so we avoid entering into useless
details.
Fourth Proof.—An absolutely Infinite Being, taken
as we conceive it in our minds, must be either absurd, or
merely possible, or really existing. Now, it is neither
absurd nor merely possible. Therefore it exists, and
therefore (acc. to Def. IV.) God exists,*
We take for granted, first of all, that we possess the
idea of an Infinite Being, i.e., whose perfection is ab
solutely without limit in every way. Secondly, that this
idea is a real idea, i.e., an intellectual representation of an
object. To these two postulata self-consciousness must
bear testimony.
This being settled, we proceed to notice that the Infinite
cannot be absurd if we have a real idea of it. Of a thing
absurd we cannot properly have an idea; as, of a round
square, we have two ideas, the idea of round, the idea of
square; and, if we see that it is absurd, we have, besides,
t he idea of conflict between the two thus brought together.
But not only we have not any idea of conflict when we
say: perfection without end, i e., perfection without imper
fection, or (what comes to the same) being without nonbeing; not only we do not seize the conflict, but the two
intelligible notes of the idea are blended together in one;
that is, we have of the Infinite a true idea. We think
that this fact will be evident to any one who takes the
trouble to examine his thoughts as they occur to him in
* Many, we know, justly criticize the argument a priori for God’s
existence, in which one proves a fact from simple possibilities, and
passes thus from the ideal to the real order of things. But our argu
ment is only exteriorly like the one we allude to. It argues from a fact
to a fact: from the fact of our having the idea of the Infinite, to the
existeuce which this idea implicity includes.
�THERE IS A GOD.
29
' the mind’s laboratory: and so, the Infinite cannot be
absurd.
Still less can the Infinite be a merely possible being.
Non-existence is a very great limitation, a very con
siderable non-entity, and, though not the strongest
possible, yet still a strong negation of being. “ A living
dog is better than a dead lion,” says the proverb ; and
there is no doubt that a merely possible man is incom
parably less perfect than an existing grain of sand. Now
we have already said that our idea of an Infinite Being,
not absurd, supposes Him to have all imaginable per
fections, absolutely without limit. Therefore, if the
Infinite Being were merely possible He would be ab
solutely perfect and at the same time very imperfect,
which is inadmissible. Therefore, in the idea we have of
the Infinite, we must comprise that of real existence,
much in the same way as in the word “I” we comprehend
the idea of our own existence.
Therefore, God exists.
One objection to all the preceding demonstrations has
been perhaps already made by the reader. Setting aside
the possibility of Polytheism, and supposing each demon
stration to prove the existence of a single being, it follows
that we have:
1st. The Being who is the principle of all existence.
2nd. The Being who is the principle of all possibility.
3rd. The Being to whom none is superior.
4ih. The Being whose perfection is infinite.
Assuming tor an instant that these are different beings,
* each very great in his way, but not one and the same,
which of them are we to call God ? And, as long as it is
not proved that they are one and the same, we have the
right, as we please, either to call each of them God, or to
withhold the name from all.
The answer is that, according to our definitions, we
cannot withhold the name, if the Being answering to the
name be proved to exist. We are consequently at liberty
either to consider God as one being, or as four, so long as
it is not proved that these four are one: that the principle
of all existence is also that of all possibility, has no
�30
THERE IS A GOD.
superior, and is infinite. But, once more, and for the last
time, the question of God’s existence is quite different
from that of the numerical unity of the Divine essence.
We must now rapidly set forth a few proofs which by
themselves would not demonstrate the existence of God,
according to all the plenitude of the idea, but which
nevertheless are useful, if employed together with the
proofs already given : what may be wanting to these in
depth will be supplied to them by the former; and on the
other hand, the latter will perhaps be more perspicuous to
certain minds. However, we only use these arguments as
secondary and auxiliary ones, knowing that against some
of them many objections may be raised; they are thus only
stated for the sake of fuller illustration of the subject,
and because we consider the existence of God as a fact
already settled by the four proofs just laid down.*
“ God,” has been previously defined as “the principle of
all change.” By “change,” we understand the passage
from one state to another, by which a beiȣ, having before
existed in one manner, exists afterwards differently. Now,
nothing can change itself alone, without any intervening
cause whatever. Cold water, for instance, is not warm,
and will never become warm of itself; if, therefore, we find
that it has become warm, we naturally conclude that
something external has acted upon it, whether as a pro
ductive or as an occasioning cause. In cold water there
is only the possibility of warmth, not actual warmth ; and
if this mere possibility were left to itself, the water would
doubtless remain eternally cold. In general, nothing can
give itself what it has not; unless, indeed, we admit that *
it is possible to draw money out of an empty purse.
Something external must act upon the water, in order
to change its state. This external agent is subject to the
question: In acting upon the water does it change? does
* Some will be surprised to find that neither in the preceding nor in
the following proofs, any mention is made of the well-known argument
drawn from the order of the universe, that denotes a supreme Intelli
gence. The reason is that the proof, though good, has been so much
impugned in the very principles on which it is based, by the modern
school of Positivists, that it would take too much space to establish
properly here.
�THERE IS A GOD.
31
it pass from the inactive to the active state? If it acts
without change then it is a principle, and as such comes
under the denomination of God. If it changes, then some
other external agent determines the change, which agent
is itself liable to the same enquiry. Now this question
may recur again and again ; but still we must come to an
end at last. An infinite Beries of agents is absurd,
because all such series must be so ■ and even were it not
absurd in itself, it could not be admissible here. If you
construct in imagination an infinite series of agents, you
destroy the very principle of change; for you put it
nowhere. Each particular agent is but the transmitter
(so to speak) or conductor, not the real principle of
change; and if you tell me that change has no beginning,
no origin, you may as well tell that you have received a
letter that had passed through an infinite series of postal
stations, without having been sent off by anybody. An agent
which only produces change by changing itself, is nothing
else but a medium of transmission, not a principle, and, as
all change supposes some degree of activity or actuation,
when I see that activity or actuation I have the right to
inquire whence it proceeds. If my researches lead me
higher and higher, farther and farther, to a First Prin
ciple of mutation, which must exist if mutation exists, I
call this principle God, and affirm its existence. If you
say that there is no first principle of mutation, you deny
that there is any principle, and according to you, that
most universal phenomenon has no sufficient reason for
being what it is.
Another definition describes God as the principle of all
movement. Inertia is the first mechanical law of matter.
And yet matter moves. You will say : It moves because
it is moved by other matter; one ball pushes another for
ward and is itself urged on by a third. Yes: but who
gave the impulsion to the third ? You reply : We do not
know how movement came into the world ; but in the
world it is, and the universe is so fortunately arranged
that no movement is ever lost, but passes on from one
body to another, and so on ; until at last it returns to the
�32
THERE TS A GOD.
place whence it came. By that means we can very well
do without the notion of a First Mover.
You can, can you ? Whether that may be true philo
sophically speaking we do not know; we prefer submitting
your hypothesis to the test—the terribly severe test—of
common sense.
Take an uneducated countryman, as ignorant, as likely
to be imposed upon as you can possibly imagine one.
Show him a circular railroad, of, say a mile, in circum
ference. The whole of this railroad is crowded with
carriages, which form, so to speak, a circular train. There
is no engine, no locomotive; and yet the train moves on ;
one carriage touches another, and communicates the move
ment which it has itself received. Then tell the man that
nobody has set all these in movement; that the carriages
move each other, and that thus the whole moves on ; that
t he idea of a first mover is a totally useless supposition, and
that, since every part moves each other, the whole can be
considered as self-moving. It is very much to be doubted
whether he would take you in earnest; and he would
certainly be right not to do so. And yet there are philo
sophers who claim to be in earnest, and wish us to believe
the great movement of the universe (of which almost every
material part—indeed every material part taken as such—
is quite as inert as any railway carriage) to proceed from
itself, and pass ou from one portion of matter to another,
without having to refer to any First Principle of Move
ment whatever.* Why should that which is absurd and
nonsensical on a small scale, become reasonable and
philosophical on a large one? For our own part, we see
in such a system nothing but magnified absurdity and
gigantic nonsense.
By a third definition, God is called the Author of moral
obligation. We do not, absolutely speaking, allow this
* Mr. Bradlaugh seeks to elude the difficulty by defining the uni
verse as “all that is necessary for the production of every pheno
menon.” He might as well define the train in question as “the
carriages in movement, and all that is necessary to set them in move
ment.” He would thus, by a confusion of terms, be able to say that
the train moves itself, since he therein comprises the mover. But thia
is mere shuffling.
�THERE IS A GOD.
33
proof to be a good one; for we can only deduce the idea
of moral obligation from that of the existence of God : it
would consequently be a vicious circle to prove the exis
tence of God by moral obligation. However, for those
who do admit the existence of moral obligation, the proof
is valid, and runs thus:
Certain acts we know to be wrong, and therefore for
bidden. Now, what is “to forbid?” Is it merely the
promulgation of a consequence: If you act thus, you will
suffer thus? Murder, for instance. “If you commit
murder and are caught, you will be hanged; and even if
you are not caught, you will have to suffer from fears of
the law, and sorrow for having destroyed a member of the
human race.” Is that all ? Then let us suppose that
from a murder committed no evil consequences should
arise in this world: that it is impossible for the action to
be detected, and equally impossible for any sorrow to arise,
the man killed having been the object of the most deadly
hatred on the part of the murderer. Well ; would murder
in this case still be forbidden? Of course it would, all
reply. But then, by whom could it be forbidden ? By
society? Society can go no further than impose a penalty ;
and, if this penalty be eluded, society’s prohibition is vain.
By the murderer’s own nature? But the murderer’s own
nature has prompted him to do deliberately what he has
done; he has not acted under the impulse of passion, but
with cold-blooded craft. How can nature forbid that
which she herself does? You will say that human nature
recoils from murder. So it does in general; but human
nature taken in general is but an abstraction, and an ab
straction cannot forbid a real concrete being. This human
nature at least, i.e.t the murderer’s, has not recoiled, since
it has acted. Now, if man be responsible to none but to
his own nature, his nature will absolve him in each par
ticular case of crime which it has not hindered him from
doing. And yet murder is forbidden? By whom? By
the Author of moral obligation, whom we call God.
Take another instance. Is suicide forbidden ? If we are
answered in the negative, we can only prove it to be so by
God’s eternal prohibition; but we have a great majority
�34
THERE JS A GOD.
of men who consider it; in no case to be allowed. To
those then, we say : Who can forbid it? A man is utterly
wretched in this world. Society cannot punish him for
suicide, by which he escapes all punishment; by destroying
his own human nature he does not punish himself; on the
contrary, he liberates himself from a state which he feels
to be unbearable. Besides, to diminish the sum of misery
in the world may appear a good and virtuous action. And
yet, is suicide forbidden? Yes. Who can forbid it?
Only One on whom human nature depends, and who, in
dependently of punishment, can say with truth: Man has
no right to do wrong. And indeed, all men would, if God
did not exist, have the right to do wrong and suffer the
consequences. According to the Atheist, if a man were
deliberately to choose that which is wrong, taking upon
himself all consequences, he would have not only the
physical power to act thus, but also the moral right.
Each human being has the moral right to do whatever he
chooses, if only he have no physical restraint upon him.
And if this doctrine be contradictory to any one’s idea of
right and wrong, he must confess that by that idea he
implicitly admits the existence of God.
Our work,—all but the part which refers to Mr. BradJaugli’s objections,-:—is now ended. Before we give our
answers to these objections, we wish to say a few words as
to the manner in which he came by them. Sages of all
times, from the first ages of the world’s existence up to
the present day, have by the preceding arguments been,
satisfied, even to the most absolute certainty, that there
exists a God. This great question once answered, they
take up a second as important as the first (if possible),
though entirely dependent upon it, viz.: What is God ?
What may be the nature of that existing and Infinite
Principle of all? By dint of deep thought and profound
meditative labour, they have succeeded in finding out
some of His attributes, which, on one hand, are as certain
as the facts which'prove His existence, since they are only
strict inferences drawn therefrom; and which, on the
other, involve many mysterious problems, so wonderfully
luminous that they almost seem self.contradictory : just as
�THERE IS A GOD.
35
the sun emits a blinding light. So Mr. Bradlaugh collects
all he can find in the way of mysteries, and having brought
them together, says: God must have these and those
attributes; now each of them contradicts the other, there
fore, the idea of God is absurd. He ought, however, to
remember that we only draw our different inferences as to
the attributes of God after having proved His existence;
so our opponent ought first of all to prove invincibly that
our demonstrations are of no value, and only then to
attack those attributes, which are all based upon the said
demonstrations. If God be an absurd being, there must
certainly be a flaw in the proof; why then not point it out
more clearly?* So long as Theists are able to defend
their demonstrations—and that will be very long indeed—
let him not trouble himself about anything else. So long
as any one proof remains standing, it will be an insur
mountable obstacle to Atheism. When we are reduced to
silence, and the existence of God, instead of being an in
dubitable truth, is evidently proved to be a mere hypo
thesis, why, then it will be time to examine whether or no
that hypothesis be absurd. What would become of
science, were a similar method to be pursued, and the
great truths it proclaims to be denied on account of the
minute difficulties which those truths involve? Such
objections are unfair, unless put with the intention, not to
overthrow the truth, but only to cast more light upon the
darker sides of the question. It is therefore in this sense
alone that we are willing to answer them, considering our
answers as only a development of that most fundamental
answer to all difficulties—the demonstration.
1. What strikes Mr. Bradlaugh first of all is, that if
God be Infinite, He cannot be called Supreme. If He
were only the most perfect of all finite beings, He might
receive that title; but, as soon as He is proved to be In
finite, it is impossible. He will not allow us to say that
the Infinite is greater or less than the Finite, or even
» Mr. Bradlangh does indeed assail the demonstrations of the
existence of God ; but, strange to say—or rather, nof at nil strange to
Bay,—he dismisses the most important of them with a few words and
accumulates all the strength of Iris arguments upon the least important.
�36
THERE IS A GOD.
equal to it, if lie follows up his principle, for we are not
permitted to institute any comparison between them ; the
reason is, we suppose, in the axiom : between the Infinite
and the Finite there is no proportion. But how did he
come by the axiom ? was it not by comparing them
with each other? It is, therefore, only in a limited
sense, and not absolutely (as Mr. Bradlaugh does) that we
can say, that there is no proportion. The very axiom
indeed, can be put under the form of a proportion, thus:
The Infinite is to the Finite, as 1 (or any number) is
to 0.
Now the want of proportion between 0 and 1, does not
hinder us from saying that 1 is greater than 0.
But, let us take a more direct view of the question.
That there is between the Infinite and the Finite, con
sidered as such, any other relation than that of inequality
must of course be denied; but that of inequality exists.
If so, the idea “greater than” can at once be applied to
the Infinite in relation with the Finite. But is the idea
“supreme” anything more? It only affirms besides, what
we already know, viz.: that there is nothing greater than
the Infinite.
Moreover, we can consider God independently of His
Infinite attribute, and simply as one of the immense series
of beings. We at once see that He occupies the first rank,
above all others; for it is absurd to suppose that a real
being cannot be classed with other real beings, if we
abscind from what sets him apart from them. Every day
we see naturalists place man at the head of the animal
kingdom, along with monkeys, butterflies, snails and star
fishes, merely because they abscind from the faculty of
reason that sets man apart from all other beings.* Seeing
then that God is First of all things existing and possible,
we can surely call Him supreme by relation to them.
Thus, as Infinite, God is above all finite beings; as a
Being, He is at the head of the whole series. In both
ways He is entitled to be called Supreme.
• And they are perfectly right so to do, reason not being a faculty
that belongs to natural history, which ought only to describe exterior
characteristics of the animated and inanimate world.
�THERE IS A GOD.
37
We shall now try the value of Mr. Bradlaugh’s objection,
by putting it in the same way to other subject-matter.
The Queen cannot be called the supreme ruler of the land,
for she would be supreme either in relation to another
queen, or to subjects. Another queen there is not; but,
“supreme ” means, “ the first of all in a series ;” now, it is
impossible for the Queen to be the first of all her subjects,
since she is no subject. It is, perhaps, a very pretty play
upon words,—we are no judges of such things; but it is
nothing better than that.
He adds to this difficulty a short remark in which he
says, that even if God were Supreme now, He would not
always have been so, the fact of Creation being admitted.
We shall only notice in reply, that the word “ supreme”
is a title referring to the existence of other beings, not to
the nature of God in itself; therefore, even if there were a
change in the idea, it would not be a substantial change in
God, as considered before and after Creation. If I stand
still, and a carriage passes from my left to my right, I may
be said to have been, first at the right of the carriage,
then at the left: and yet my position has not changed in
the least. Suppose the Queen of England, (to return to
our comparison) were one morning to find herself alone in
her kingdom, all her subjects having died suddenly, she
would, of course, be no longer queen ; but would that in
volve any change whatever in her? Titles which proceed
from an external relation are merely names which may be
applicable or no, according as the relation changes.
2. Our adversary fares no better with the next objection,
against the creation of the world. “Creation is the
making of existence.” Of all existence? We deny it
formally; never did we think that God made Himself,
although He is His own principle. Of some existence?
That we are willing to admit. Creation is the making of
a finite, contingent and temporal existence by an Infinite,
necessary, and eternal one. So, before that temporal
existence was, something existed already; and it is grossly
unfair to represent Theism as supposing nature commence
ment, in the sense which Atheists give to “nature,” i.e.}
all that is.
�38
THERE IS A GOD.
Let us try an adaptation of Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
on creation, and prove that it is impossible to light a fire.
To light a fire is to produce heat: now heat cannot be
produced; for, before heat was produced it was nowhere,
and there was no such a thing as heat in the world. But
I cannot look back to a moment when there was no heat,
for I know that all bodies possess, and ever have possessed,
more or less of it. Consequently, to light a fire is an
impossible undertaking. Such an argument, applied to
the lighting of a fire, would have brought its author to a
cell in Bedlam; applied to the creation of the world, it has
raised him to a seat in the parliament of England.
3. The argument against God’s benevolence has the
merit of being rather more specious. “A benevolent man
is one who does more than his duty; a being infinitely
benevolent ought to do infinitely more. God, in not
creating a sinless world, has not done infinitely more :
consequently God is not infinitely benevolent.”
Indeed ! Pray, what is the duty of God ? He has none,
and owes us nothing. The Supreme Being can be by no
means bound by duty towards those who depend upon
Him in all. Owing us nothing, it follows that in whatever
world we live, and however little God may have done for
us, He will have done infinitely more than His duty, if it
be true that something is infinitely more than nothing, and
that any number is infinitely more than zero. Even the
most ardent Atheist will confess, we hope, that existence
is better than non-existence, that to have a chance of being
happy is better than to be utterly deprived of that chance.
Well, all of us have both existence and a chance of being
happy. God, by that gift, does infinitely more than He
ought, and shows thereby His infinite benevolence. Why
does God not do more still, since our world is not perfect?
That we do not know, and if Mr. Bradlaugh wanted only
to prove that man is not omniscient, he would easily gain
his point; but as a proof that God is not benevolent it fails
completely. We fancy that our opponent is led astray by
a false idea of infinite action, which in his mind would be,
“ to do as much as one possibly can.” Now the fact is,
that an act can be infinite in itself, and yet produce only
�THERE IS A GOD.
y
39
finite results, on account of the debility and imperfection
of the matter on which it works.
4. Another difficulty arises. God cannot be personal,
because He is either infinite or not God. Now, all ideas
of “personality” give us also the idea of limitation. We
beg leave simply to deny the latter proposition without
more ado. Personality we consider as the highest sub
stantial perfection of an intelligent being. If the being in
question involves in its essence limitation and imperfection,
personality will no doubt be limited and imperfect, not
because it is personality, but because it belongs to such
a being. Thus, God having been demonstrated to be in
finite, it follows that His personality is also infinite.
5. This brings us to the next question, whether an in
telligent being can at the same time be infinite. We have
not to ask whether in every known case intelligence is
limited, but whether the very idea of intelligence argues
limitation ; and we answer in the negative. Intelligence
is essentially clear: is the Infinite essentially dim? Intelligence is something definite and precise: is the Infinite
indefinite and vague? Let Mr. Bradlaugh have the kind
ness to go back to our definition of the Infinite Being,—one who possesses perfection without end. Therefore the
Infinite must be infinitely clear, infinitely definite, infinitely
precise, since precision, definitenesBj and clearness are
perfections. All those qualities are qualities of intelligence, and intelligence is itself a perfection ; consequently
God must be intelligent, because He is infinite.
6. “ Theism checks man’s efforts,” says Mr. Bradlaugh.
That depends. A certain Theism, infected by fatalism,
certainly does so. If we believe that whatever happens
happens necessarily according to God’s will alone; if we
annihilate the liberty of man, and suppose that all that is
to happen must take place antecedently to any display of
human activity, and without his choice having any effect
upon that which shall be, then we certainly check man’s
efforts in the most fatal way. But this is far from being
Theism itself, since a great many schools of Theistic doc
trine have declared in the most emphatic manner their
abhorrence of this error. The only effect which we can
�40
THERE IS A GOD.
discern in the ordinary doctrine of submission to the will
of God is that we learu
“ To mend what can,
And bear what can’t be mended
and not only to bear, but be glad of it, since we know that
it is the will of the All-good. A seeming evil menaces us;
our duty is to exert ourselves to the utmost in order to
ward off the peril. But if all our endeavours are useless,
if the seeming evil does really fall upon us, then we are
happy ; for we know that the evil is only a seeming one,
and in reality a great good, since it comes from the Allgood. A true Theist is the most happy of men ; if suc
cessful, he is happy for having done what he wished to do ;
if unsuccessful, he is still more happy for not having done
what was against the Divine will.
But a still more evident proof that Theism does not
check man’s efforts is, that Fatalism can exist independently
of any Theistic doctrine; for Fatalism springs merely from
the denial of human liberty, not from the affirmation of
the power of God. Substitute to “ God’s almighty will ”
the “ laws of nature,” and you have modern fatalism, of
which, if we are not much mistaken, Mr. Bradlaugh is
himself an adept, for he seems clearly to deny free-will iu
man.* Now if, instead of all things proceeding from the
eternal decree of an intelligent being, all proceeds from
the everlasting law of an unintelligent one, we are at a loss
to see how this sort of Atheism differs from that kind of
Theism ; both have the same maxim : What is ivas to he,
and could not be otherwise. Why then give ourselves any
trouble? is the natural consequence of both. We here
detect a second stone which Mr. Bradlaugh throws, un
mindful of the fragility of his own dwelling.
7. The argument we have next quoted, though directed
against God’s intelligence, only proves that the intelligence
of God is of a different nature from ours; which, seeing all
His other attributes, and the immeasurable distance be
tween His nature and ours, was certainly a very likely
conclusion. AV e perceive new ideas, remember old ones,
• “ What did Jesus teach ?” p. 7, “Heresy,” p. 49.
�THERE IS A GOD.
41
and attain by reasoning to higher knowledge. God is
omniscient, and therefore neither perceives, remembers,
nor reasons; consequently, (according to Mr. Bradlaugh,)
to know everything signifies to be without intelligence!
If so, why should not the highest degree of intelligence be
to know nothing? Cannot the gentleman see that if God
does not perceive, remember, or reason, it is because He
does not want those faculties, but has the grand faculty of
omniscience, which transcends and supersedes them all?
Why do we perceive? To fill up a defect in our intelli
gence, which is never in possession of all it is able to know.
Why remember? Because another defect renders our
intelligence unable to have everything present to its mental
vision at the same time. And we reason only to supply a
third defect, which is, that we cannot at once see all the
relations of all ideas one with another, and all the con
clusions that flow therefrom. Mr. Bradlaugh’s enumera
tion of the acts of intelligence is, in fact, only the enu
meration of the defects in our intelligence. Perfect in
telligence is that which knows everything at one glance,
with an implicit judgment contained in that glance. God
has but one idea; this idea represents everything that is,
that was, that will be, and contains in itself all true judg
ments, as the idea of existence affirmed, (z.e , of the identity
between the subject and the predicate,) is comprised in the
idea “I.” Such is the rapid and imperfect outline of God’s
intelligence, which we give for want of space to add more.
“Judgment,” says Mr. Bradlaugh, “implies the joining
of two ideas.” Explicit judgment may do so; implicit
judgment supposes the two ideas joined in one already.
And the one idea which God has, being infinite, being God
Himself, is equal to an infinite multitude of human ideas.
“To think is to separate what is thought from what is not
thought.” Yes, in man, since man’s mind is not able to
think of all things at once and without confusion. But
the Divine is not the human nature ; His thought embraces
all, abscinds from nothing, unites all things in one vast
affirmation, without concentration of mind on one par
ticular object to the detriment of the rest. God’s mind is
concentrated upon all things together. And thus Mr.
�42
THERE IS A GOD.
Bradlaugh’s objections prove only this,—that our intelli
gence is of a very bounded and feeble description, obliged
to aid its flickering gleam by numerous faculties, which,
while they help its action, declare openly its radical
infirmity; just as the numerous members and organs of
the lower animals at the same time supply a want and
reveal an imperfection.
8. “ But G-od is not all-wise, having created beings and
parts of beings that are of no use.”
Of no use? We cannot find words to treat such pre
sumptuous ignorance as it deserves: but here silence is
best, the silence of scorn : not for our opponent, but for his
objection. Besides, another has, long ago already, in
sublimer language than we can command, joined the highest
flight of poetry to the soundest accents of reason in con
demnation of such temerity. Our only answer will be
a quotation from the immortal author of the “ Seasons.”
“Let no presuming impious railer tax
Creative Wisdom, as if aught was made
In vain, or not for admirable ends.
Shall little haughty ignorance presume
His works unwise, of which the smallest part
Exceeds the narrow vision of her mind ?
As if upon a full-proportioned dome,
On swelling columns raised, the pride of art,
A critic fly, whose feeble ray scarce spreads
An inch around, with blind presumption bold,
Should dare to tax the structure of the whole ?
And lives the man, whose universal eye
Has swept at once the unbounded scheme of things,
Marked their dependence so,-and firm accord,
As with unfaltering accent to conclude
That this availeth nought ?”*
9. Creation is again brought forward. “ The sum of
existence,” say you, “ cannot change.” But we also, who
believe in the creation, admit that, and we are algebraically
right. Let us discuss the question algebraically, not that
we intend thereby to decide whether or no algebra can be
applied to philosophical reasoning, but merely as a manner
of stating rather more clearly the point in discussion.
Call what existed before the creation, 00, (i.e., the
* Thompson, “Seasons,” (Summer.)
�THERE IS A GOD.
43
Creator,) and what existed after, CO + a, («.<?., the Creator
and things created ;) we say,
y'
*
00 = 00 + a ;
and we defy any man who knows algebra to say that our
equation is a false one: for nothing finite, however great,
can add anything to that which is infinite already. The
existence or the non-existence of creatures adds nothing
whatever to the sum of existence, or, to speak with more
exactitude, it adds comparatively nothing. Now, the
infinite, to which you add something that is comparatively
nothing, is like a quantity to which you add another in
finitely small; it becomes no greater than it was before.
And yet a may be as real as you like, as great as you like,
as distinct as you like from the infinite, the result will be
always the same. But if things are so according to
algebra, the most precise of all sciences, what more will
you have? If exactitude itself fails to content you, how
can we hope to satisfy your objections?
10. “Some men are not convinced of God’s existence.”
Thereupon Mr. Bradlaugh builds an argument to prove
that the Deity is either not all-wise, or not all-powerful, or
not all-good. To reply, we begin by denying the basis.
There is no man who is not convinced of God’s existence.
Some may be so ignorant that they have never thought
about the matter. Some there are who perversely refrain
from thinking about it; others may strive to raise clouds
before a truth as bright as the sun, accumulate objections
without number, and pile up difficulties without end. But
the honest doubt of a man who wishes sincerely to see his
way to what is true, there certainly is not. And as neither
pride, nor passion, nor wilful ignorance can be laid to the
charge of God; as, moreover, ignorance, it not guilty, is
not punished, we are right in affirming that there are
practically no Atheists. “ The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God.” Not in his mind, even though he is a
fool: conviction will not enter there. Where then? In
his heart. That is, “ I wish that there be no God. I have
settled that there ought not to be one. I am determined
to seek every reason to prove to myself that there is none.
�44
THERE IS A GOD.
But all that is useless, and the Atheist only succeeds in
being an Atheist in his heart, and remains a fool. Cer
tainly, the expression is strong; but should we use a softer
one for a man who by every possible effort of will strove
to elude the evident truth that two sides of a triangle are
greater than the third ? Now, the existence of God is not
one whit less evident. Of course we do not by these
remarks mean to say that Mr. Bradlaugh is anything but
a very clever man; we only regret he should waste such
abilities as his in so hopeless a cause.
11. He considers Theism as inadmissible, because it
cannot show “ how the first cause, which is motionless,
can have moved to make the world.” In this reasoning
there are two weak points. Firstly, Theism is not bound
to show how things are ; it suffices that it shows that they
are so : and that we have done already. Secondly, we
deny that the First Cause moves to make the world. It
acts without moving. How is that ? we cannot understand
it, but it is proved to be so. “ Action” is not synonymous
with “movement.”* In movement we find an imperfec
tion, a variation, a constant change, which may perhaps
be essential to the action of finite beings, but certainly
not to that of the Infinite One. An eternal immutable
Act, which in eternity is the principle of God’s own
existence, and in time that of all other beings,—such is
God. No movement, no mutation, but a calm, undying,
unchangeable Activity. How can that be ? No man
knows : but nothing is further from absurdity than this
act, the perfection of all acts, and from which every shade
of passivity and inertia is banished.
12. And now we come to the last recorded objection,
which argues either that God, being everywhere, made
the universe nowhere, or that, if the universe is nowhere,
* On the contrary, we find in Mechanics that with levers of the first
class, where the force is applied to the shorter arm, the less the acting
force moves, the greater is the movement it produces: for the shorter
the arm where the force is applied, the longer the other which is put
in motion. Here we have, therefore, a very strong action combined
with very little movement, which produces a very considerable move
ment of matter. Therefore, to act is to produce movement, but not
necessarily to be moved oneself, at least, not at all in proportion with
the intensity of the act.
�THERE IS A GOD.
45
God is not everywhere : and that, by the reason that two
existences cannot be together in the same place. Mr.
Bradlaugh is certainly very pardonable for bringing
forward this difficulty, as it coincides perfectly with his
views on the question. He says he is unable to conceive
anything else but matter, and that for him the words
“ matter” and “ existence” have the same sense. Now
matter is universally allowed to be impenetrable, so that
two different bodies cannot occupy the same place. If,
therefore, we imagine God as a body, the argument might
be very difficult, if not impossible to answer. But that
is precisely what we deny ; God, according to our point
of view, is purely spiritual. Now, though an immaterial
being may occupy space as well as a material one, it does
not occupy space in the same way. It is not extended
into quantitative parts by the proportionate parts of space
which it occupies : it is only present by its action in space,
and that is all. Besides, do we not every day see
examples—not of bodies, it is true,—but of phenomena
which compenetrate each other? A room is full of air; if
you speak in the room, it will be filled with sound. How
is it that sound and air exist at the same time in the same
place ? Because they do not exist in the same way. You
are in a railway carriage ; the train goes full speed, and
you walk across from one window to another. Your body
is in movement, but animated at the same time by two
different motions : one, interior, that proceeds from itself;
another, exterior, that comes from the train. How can
two different movements exist in the same body at the
same time ? Because they do not exist in the same way.
I know that these examples only prove co-existence for
phenomena, and not for substances ; but we say that if
phenomena have the power of co-existing thus, we can
suppose that a substance which is not a body can possess
like qualities. All we humbly beg and pray our adversary
to allow us, is that a spiritual substance can exist and
occupy space in a different way from a corporeal one; it
is very hard to refuse us so little. And yet he grounds
his argument upon the fact that it is absurd to suppose
a spirit that does not behave exactly like a bodily sub-
�46
THERE IS A GOD.
stance. If that is the starting-point, of all his philosophy,
and a self-evident proposition which cannot be proved,
and which it is ridiculous to deny, we are surely in a
very hard case: but then, why so much reasoning? If
spiritualistic philosophy denies your very first principle,
you had better leave it alone, and not seek to prove its
falsity by means of a principle which it denies. If
Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes,
Leibnitz and Clarke, were all so mad as not to have
seen what is self-evident, why should you dispute against
their conclusions, which of course are still more foolish ?
Either agree that your axiom is not self-evident, and then
prove your axiom by something besides itself, or abandon
discussion altogether.
Let us, in conclusion, sum up the whole debate in few
words.
1st. It is certain that in the universe there are many
beings, since everybody admits, or ought to admit, that
there are many phenomena, each existing separately from
the other : for separate existence is all we require for the
notion of a being.
2ndly. Of all the beings which we see or know directly,
not one possesses in itself the principle of its existence.
There must therefore exist another Being, which is at once
its own and their principle of existence. That principle
we call God.
3rdly. All objections here stated against the existence
of that, Being, drawn from its demonstrated attributes,
although they take an obviously unfair advantage, may be
and have been successfully answered.
4th ly. Therefore, Mr. Bradlaugh’s difficulties are utterly
worthless, his doctrines ridiculously absurd, and his
attempts to shake the demonstration of God’s existence
hopelessly inefficient.
5t hly. All this does not in the slightest degree interfere
with hia being, privately and personally, a very remarkable
man.
PRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
There is a god : a reply to Mr Bradlaugh's "Plea for atheism"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Winterton, Francis
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Derby
Collation: [3]-46 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Printed by Richardson and Son
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N699
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 (There is a god : a reply to Mr Bradlaugh's "Plea for 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
Charles Bradlaugh
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3aaa58cd9e6980e8093a73428d7c1d28.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uhnhk6RJhnzyEcym1exvmjVyN27hnBiLJpp5lyWCgBtr3Qlq3xPspXXxq3THkDCdBKrja9w99oqiGtFbHMwO5O4bj9toxnGB4Vgqx61CKjNCRuyYhqg0LKo5ZViCB5wr31BQRchZB9Et54ELFAqVIvnDf73rI7PpiJqcZ67OFRj01YMAd%7ExJmnreJ4q-Dun4hHhbFIOrxGLvi4P1Md31fzh5cCxg8-6bLznttAdNyGpSndh%7EzKpVyqRswWxJVTJ8cgHfcyzkJHjtK6JlucCtr%7E1w6I24cQIjQ8%7ECv0AuV1ouDtxgWq4uscaniCzv%7E8bmDqtRacOpWHyMIHgpQ3qqxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de7fb5c29702b05d959d422d53307d01
PDF Text
Text
THE
Logic of Death,
Qi, fclju sfyonlb i^re
fear to
?
By G. J. Holyoake.
“Even in the 'last dread scene of all’ personal conviction Is sufficient to produce
calmness and confidence. There was one, who for three months suffered agonies
unutterable, who evAla-imod in his anguish, ‘ So much torture, O God, to trill a
poor worm! Yet if by one word I could shorten this misery, I would not say it.
And at lasi^ folded his arms, and calmly said, ‘ Now I die!’ Yet this man was
an avowed infidel, and worse, an apostate priest.”—Spoken by Father Nbwmah
yn the Oratory of St. Philip Neri) of Blanco White.
[EIGHTIETH THOUSAND—
ENLARGED AND REVISED EDITION.]
LONDON:
AUSTIN & Co., JOHNSON’S COURT, E.C.
1870.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�il
' I1'
Hi
I
J
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH
When the cholera prevailed in London in 1848, many were carried
away without opportunity or power to testify to the stability of
those conclusions which had been arrived at when life was calm, and
the understanding healthy. The slightest summary of opinions,
concientiously prepared, would have been sufficient to prevent mis
representation after death, provided the person who had drawn up
such statements had strength to revert to them, and to make some sign
that a conviction of their correctness remained. Mr. Hetherington
and myself drew up brief statements of tenets which appeared to us
to be true. He, as we know, sealed his in death. In several lectures
delivered, at the time when no man could calculate on life an hour,
I recited the grounds on which the Atheist might repose, and it has
since appeared that their publication would be useful. The book, of
which a second volume has since appeared, entitled 4 The Closing
Scene,’ by the Rev. Erskine Neale (in which the old legends about
infidel death-beds are revived), lauded by the Times, and patronised
by the upper classes, is proof that there are some priests going up and
down like roaring lions, seeking consciences which they may devour,
and proof of the necessity of some protest on this subject.
Since my trial before Mr. Justice Erskine, in 1842,1 have in some
measure been identified with sceptics of theology, and many ask the
opinions of such on death. If the world ask in respect, or curiosity,
or scorn, I answer for myself alike respectfully and distinctly. I love
the world in spite of its frowning moods. For years I have felt
neither anger nor hatred of any living being, and I will not advisedly
resuscitate those distorting passions through which we see the errors
of each other as crimes.
In my youth I was in such rude contact with the orern realities of life,
that the visions with which theology surrounded my childhood were
eventually dispelled, and now (so far as I can penetrate to it) I look
at destiny face to face. Cradled in suffering and dependence, I was
emboldened to think, and I took out of the hands of the churches,
where I was taught to repose them, the great problems of Life, Time,
and Death, and attempted the solution for myself. It was not long
hidden from me that if I followed the monitions of the pulpit, the
�4
THE EOGJC OF DEATH.
Those who must answer for themselves, have the right to think for themselves.
responsibility was all my own : that at the ‘ bar of God,’ before which
I was instructed all men must one day stand, no preacher would take
my place if, through bowing to his authority, I adopted error. As I,
therefore, must be reponsible for myself, I resolved to think for
myself—and since no man would answer for me, I resolved that no
man should dictate to me the opinion I should hold: for he is impo
tent indeed, and deserves his fate, who has not the courage to act
where he is destined to suffer. My resolution was therefore taken,
and I can say with Burke, ‘ my errors, if any, are my own: I have
[and will have] no man’s proxy.’
In the shade of society my lot was cast, and there I struggled
for more light for myself and brethren. For years I toiled, with
thousands of others, who were never remunerated by the means of
paltriest comfort, and whose lives were never enlivened by real
pleasure. In turning from this I had nothing to hope, nor fear, nor lose.
Since then my days have been chequered and uncertain, but they have
never been criminal, nor servile, nor sad: for the luxury of woe, and the
superfluous refinement of despair, may be indulged in, if by any, by
those only who live in drawing-rooms—sorrow is too expensive an
article to be consumed by the cottager or garreteer. The rightminded in the lowest station may be rich, accepting the wise advice
of Carlyle:—‘ Sweep away utterly all frothiness and falsehood from
your heart: struggle unweariedly to acquire what is possible for every
man—a free, open, humble soul; speak not at all, in any wise, till
you have somewhat to speak; care not for the reward of your
speaking : but simply, and with undivided mind, for the truth of your
speaking: then be placed in what section of Space and of Time soever,
do but open your eyes, and they shall actually see, and bring you
real knowledge, wondrous, worthy of belief.’ Thus have I en
deavoured to see life; and it is from this point of view that I explain
my conceptions of death.
The gates of heaven are considered open to those only who believe
as the priest believes. The theological world acts as if we did not come
here to use our understandings, as if all religious truth was ascertained
2000 years ago, and we are counselled to accept the conclusions of the
Church, on pain of forfeiting the fraternity of men, and the favour of
God. I know the risks I am said to run, but ‘ I am in that place,’ to use
the expression of brave old Knox, ‘ in which it is demanded of me to
speak the truth; and the truth I will speak, impugn it whoso lists.'
And after all, the world is not so bad as antagonism has painted it.
It will forgive a man for speaking plainly, providing he takes care to
speak justly. To give any one pain causes me regret; but, while I
respect the feelings of others, I, as conscience and duty admonish me,
respect the truth more—and by this course I may be society’s friend,
for he who will never shock men may often deceive them.
It becomes me therefore to say that I am not a Christian. If I
could find a consistent and distinctive code of morality emanating
from Jesus I should accept it, and in that sense consent to be called
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
fl
The four tenets of the popular theology.
•
Christian. Butl cannot do it. Nor am I a believer in the Inspiration
of the Bible. That which so often falls below the language of men,
I cannot, without disrespect, suppose to be the language of God.
Whatever I find in the Bible below morality (and I find much), I
reject; what I find above it, I suspect; what I find coincident with
morality (whether in the Old Testament or the New), I retain. 1
make morality a standard. I am therefore the student of Moralism
rather than Christianity. It seems to me that there is nothing in
Christianity which will bear the test of discussion or the face of day,
nothing whereby it can lay hold of the world and move it, which is
not coincident with morality. Therefore morality has all the strength
of Christianity, without the mystery and bigotry of the Bible.
But I am not a Sceptic, if that is understood to imply general doubt;
for though I doubt many church dogmas, I do not doubt honour, or
truth, or humanity. I am not an Unbeliever, if that implies the
rejection of Christian truth—since all I reject is Christian error.
There are four principal dogmas of accredited Christianity which I
do not hold:—
1. The fall of man in Eden. 2. Atonement by proxy. 3. The siy
of unbelief in Christ. 4. Future punishment.
A disbeliever in all these doctrines, why should I fear to die ? I
will state the logic of death, as I conceive it, in relation to these
propositions.
1. If man fell in the Garden of Eden, who placed him there ? It is
said, God! Who placed the temptation there ? It is said, God!
Who gave him an imperfect nature—a nature of which it was fore
known that it would fall? It is said, God! To what does this amount?
If a parent placed his poor child near a fire at which he knew it
would be burnt to death, or near a well into which he knew it would
fall and be drowned, would any deference to creeds prevent our giving
speech to the indignation we should feel ? And can we pretend to
believe God has so acted, and at the same time be able to trust him ?
If God has so acted, he may so act again. This creed can afford
no consolation in death. If he who disbelieves this dogma fears to
die, he who believes it should fear death more.
2. Salvation, it is said, is offered to the fallen. But man is not
fallen, unless the tragedy of Eden really took place. And before
man can be accepted by God he must, according to Christians, own
himself a degraded sinner. But man is not degraded by the misfortune
of Adam. No man can be degraded by the act of another. Dis
honour can come only by his own hands. Man, therefore, needs not
this salvation. And if he needed it, he could not accept it. Debarred
from purchasing it himself, he must accept it as an act of grace. But
can it be required of us to go even to heaven on sufferance? We
despise the poet who is a sycophant before a patron, we despise the
citizen who crawls before a throne, and shall God be said to have
less love of self-respect than man ? He who deserves to be saved thus
hath most need to fear that he shall perish, for he seems to deserve it.
�6
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The offence of sin reaches not to Deity. Proof by Jonathan Edwards.
3. Then in what way can there be a sin of unbelief ? Is not the
understanding the subject of evidence ? A man, with evidence before
him, can no more help seeing it, or feeling its weight, than a man with
his eyes or ears open can help seeing the stars above him or trees
before him, or hearing the sounds made around him. If a man
disbelieve, it is because his conviction is true to his understanding.
If I.disbelieve a proposition, it is through lack of evidence; and the
act is as virtuous (so far as virtue can belong to that which is inevit
able) as the belief of it when the evidence is perfect. If it is meant
that a man is to believe, whether he see evidence or not, it means that
he is to believe certain things, whether true or false—in fine, that he
may qualify himself for heaven by intellectual deception. It is of no
use that the unbeliever is told that he will be damned if he does not
believe; what human frailty may do is another thing; but the judg
ment is clear, that a man ought not to believe, nor profess to believe,
what seems to him to be false, although he should be damned. The
believer who seeks.to propitiate Heaven by this deceit ought to fear
its wrath, not the unbeliever, who rather casts himself on its justice.
4. There is the vengeance of God. But is not the idea invalidated
as soon as you name it ? Can God have that which man ought not
to have—vengeance ? The jurisprudence of earth has reformed itself;
we no longer punish absolutely, we seek the reformation of the
offender. And shall we cherish in heaven an idea we have chased
from earth ? But what has to be punished ? Can the sins of man
disturb the peace of God? If so, as men exist in myriads, and action is
incessant, then is God, as Jonathan Edwards has shown, the most
miserable of beings and the victim of his meanest creatures. Surely
we must see, therefore, that sin against God is impossible. All sin is
finite and relative—all sin is sin against man. Will God punish
this which punishes itself ? If man errs, the bitter consequences are
ever with him. Why should he err ? Does he choose the ignorance,
incapacity, passion, and blindness through which he errs ? Why is
he precipitated, imperfectly natured, into a chaos of crime ? Is not
his destiny made for him ? and shall God punish eternally that sin
which is his misfortune rather than his fault ? Shall man be con
demned to misery in eternity because he has been made wretched,
and weak, and erring in time ? But if man has fallen at his
conscious peril—has thoughtlessly spurned salvation—has wilfully
offended God—will God therefore take vengeance ? Is God with
out magnanimity? If I do wrong to a man who does wrong to
me, I come down (has not the ancient sage warned me ?) to the
level of my enemy. Will God thus descend to the level of vindic
tive man? Who has not thrilled at the lofty question of Volumnia
to Coriolanus ?—
‘ Think’st thou it honourable for a noble man
Still to remember wrongs?’
Shall God be less honourable, and remember the wrong done against
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
|
Christ’s death the great testimony against eternal retribution.
him, not by his equals, but by his own frail creatures ? To be un
able to trust God is to degrade him. Those passages in the New
Testament which we feel to have most interest and dignity, are the
parables in which a servant is told to forgive a debt to one who had
forgiven him; in which a brother is to be forgiven until seventy
times seven (that is unlimitedly): and in the prayer of Christ,
where men claim forgiveness as they have themselves forgiven
others their trespasses.
What was this but erecting a high
moral argument against the relentlessness of future punishment of
erring man ? If, therefore, man is to forgive, shall God do less ?
Shall man be more just than God ? Is there anything so grand in
the life of Christ as his forgiving his enemies as he expired on the
cross ? Was it God the Sufferer behaving more nobly than will God
the Judge? Was this the magnificent teaching of fraternity to
vengeful man, or is it to be regarded as a sublime libel on the
hereafter judgments of heaven ? The infidel is infidel to falsehood, but
he believes in truth and humanity, and when he believes in God, he
will prefer to believe that which is noble of him. Holding by no
conscious error, doing no dishonour in thought, and offering his
homage to love and truth, why should the unbeliever fear to die ?
Seeing the matter in this light, of what can I recant ? The perspicuity
of truth may be dimned by the agonies of death, but no amount of
agony can alter the nature of moral evidence.
To say (which is all I do say) that theology has not sufficient
evidence to make known to us the existence of God, may startle those
who have not thought upon the matter, or who have thought through
others—but has not experience said the same thing to us all ? Where
the intellect fails to perceive the truth, it is said that the feelings
assure us of it by its relieving a sense of dependence natural to man.
How ? Man witnesses those near and dear to him perish before his
eyes, and despite his supplications. He walks through no rose-water
world, and no special Providence smoothes his path. Is not the sense
of dependence. outraged already ?
Man is weak, and a special
Providence gives him no strength—distracted, and no counsel—
ignorant, and no wisdom—in despair, and no consolation—in distress,
and no relief—in darkness, and no light. The existence of God,
therefore, whatever it may be in the hypotheses of philosophy,
seems not recognisable in daily life. It is in vain to say, ‘God
governs by general laws.’
General laws are inevitable fate.
General laws are atheistical. They say practically, ‘ We are without
God in the world—man, look to thyself: weak though thou mayest
be, Nature is thy hope.’ And even so it is. Would I escape the keen
wind’s blast, I seek shelter—from the yawning waves, I look up, not
to heaven, but to naval architecture. In the fire-damp, Davy is
more to me than the Deity of creeds. All nature cries with one voice,
‘ Science is the Providence of man.’ Help lies not in priests, nor in the
prayer : it lies in no theories, it is written in no book, it is contained
in no theological creed—it lies in science, art, courage, and industry.
�8
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
Atheism suspensive worship.
Some who regard all profession of opinion as a mere matter of
policy, and not of the understanding, will tell me that I can believe as
I please, and that I may call the Deity of theology what name I please:
forgetful that names are founded on distinctions, and that he who does
not penetrate to them is unqualified to decide this matter. It is in
vain to say believe as I please, or entitle things as I please—philoso
phical evidence and classification leave no choice in the matter.
The existence of God is a problem to which the mathematics of
human intelligence seem to me to furnish no solution. On the
threshold of the theme we stagger under a weight of words. We
tread amid a dark quagmire bestrewed with slippery terms. Now
the clearest miss their w.Q,y, w the cautions stumble, now the
strongest fall.
If there be a Deity to whom I am indebted, anxious for my grati
tude or my service, I am as ready to render it as any one existent, so
soon as I comprehend the nature of my duty. I therefore protest
against being Cviisidered, as Christians commonly consider the
unbeliever, as one who hates God, or is without a reverential spirit.
Hatred implies knowledge of the objectionable thing, and cannot
exist where nothing is understood. I am not unwilling to believe in
God, but I am unwilling to use language which conveys no adequate
idea to my own understanding.
Deem me not blind to the magnificence of nature or the beauties of
art, because T Zflerjc’et their language differently from others. I
thrill in the presence^of the dawn of day, and exult in the glories of
the setting sun. Whether the world wears her ebon and jewelled
crown of night, or the day walks wonderingly forth over the face of
nature, to me—
‘ Not the lightest leaf but trembling teems
With golden visions and romantic dreams.’
It is not in a low, but in an exalted estimate of nature that my rejec
tion of the popular theology arises. The wondrous manifestations of
nature indispose me to degrade it to a secondary rank. I am driven
to the conclusion that the great aggregate of matter which we call
Nature is eternal, because we are unable to conceive a state of things
when nothing was. There must always have been something, or
there could be nothing now. This the dullest feel. Hence we arrive
at the idea of the eternity of matter. .And in the eternity of matter
we are assured of the self-existence of matter, and self-existence is the
most majestic of attributes, and includes all others. That which has
the power to exist independently of a God, has doubtless the power to
act without the delegation of one. It therefore seems to me that
Nature and God are one—in other words, that the God whom we
seek is the Nature which we know.
I will not encumber, obscure, or conceal my meaning with a cloud
of words. I recognise in Nature but the aggregation of matter. The
term God seems to me inapplicable to Nature. In the mouth of the
�THE LOGIC OS’ DEATH.
The distinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist.
Theist, God signifies an entity, spiritual and percipient, distinct from
matter. With Pantheists the term God signifies the aggregate of
Nature—but nature as a Being, intelligent and conscious. It is my
inability to subscribe to either of these views which prevents me
being ranked with Theists. I can conceive of nothing beyond
Nature, distinct from it, and above it. The language invented
by Pope, to the effect that ‘we look through Nature up to
Nature’s God,’ has no significance for me, as I know nothing be
sides Nature and can conceive of nothing greater. The majesty of
the universe so transcends my faculties of penetration, that I pause
in awe and silence before it. It seems not to belong to man to com
prehend its attributes and extent, and to affirm what lies beyond it.
The Theist, therefore, I leave; but while I go with the Pantheist so
far as to accept the fact of Nature in the plenitude of its diverse,
illimitable, and transcendent manifestations, I cannot go farther and
predicate with the Pantheist the unity of its intelligence and
consciousness. This is the inability, rather than any design of my
own, which has exposed me to the unacceptable designation of
Atheist.
One has said, I know not whether in the spirit of scorn or suffering,
but I repeat it in the spirit of truth—‘ What went before and what
will follow me, I regard as two black impenetrable curtains, which
hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no living
man has yet drawn aside. Many hundreds of generations have
already stood before them with their torches, guessing anxiously what
lies behind.. On the curtain of futurity many see their own shadows,
the forms of their passions enlarged and put in motion; they shrink
in terror at this image of themselves.. Poets, philosophers,, and
founders of states, have painted this curtain with their dreams, more
smiling or more dark as the sky above them was cheerful or gloomy;
and their pictures deceive the eye when viewed from a distance.
Many jugglers, too, make profit of this our universal curiosity: by
their strange mummeries they have set the outstretched fancy in
amazement. A deep silence reigns behind this curtain ; no one once
within will answer those he has left without; all you can hear is a
hollow echo of your question, as if you shouted into a chasm.’*
Theology boasts that it has obtained an answer. What is it ? The
world will stand still to hear it. Worshipper of Jesus, of Jehovah,
of Allah, of Bramah—in conventicle, cathedral, mosque, temple, or in
unbounded nature—what is the secret of the universe, and the destiny
of man ? What knowest thou more than thy fellows, and what dost
thou adore? He has no secret to tell. You have still the old
dual answer of centuries, given in petulance or contempt—‘ All the
world have heard it, and so has youor, ‘ None can understand the
Infinite, and you must submit.’ The solution of the problem must
therefore be sought independently.
Separate individual man from the traditions of theology, and what
is his history? A few years ago he sprang into existence like 9
�It,
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The actuality of life apart from theology
*
bubble on the ocean, or a flower on the plain. He came from the
blank chaos of the past, where consciousness was never known, where
no gleam of the present ever pierces, no voice of the future is ever
heard. He exists—but in what age he appears, or among what people
or circumstances he is thrown, is to him a matter of accident; To him
no control, no choice is vouchsafed. His physical constitution, his
powers and susceptibilities, his proportion of health or disease, are
made for him: and fettered in nature and fixed in sphere, he goes
forth to struggle or to triumph, and encounter the war of elements
and strife of passion, and oppose himself to ignorance, error, and
interest, as best he may.
Three or four years pass away before sentient existence is lighted
with the spark of consciousness, which burns faintly, intensely, or
flickeringly till death. Gradually the phenomena of the universe
disclose themselves to man. The ocean in its majesty, or the earth in
its variety, engage him—spring is exhilarating, summer smiling,
autumn foreboding, winter stern. By day the sun, by night the moon
and stars, look down like the eyes of Time watching his movements.
Above him is inconceivable altitude—around him, unbounded dis
tance—below, unfathomable profundity; and he arrives at such idea
as man has of the infinite. What is, seems to exist of its own inherent
power. It always wvas, or it could not be. The idea of universal
non-entity is instinctively rejected. Utter annihilation never enters
into his most desultory conceptions. The sentiment of the Everlasting
seems the first fruit of meditation, as an impression of the Infinite was
the first lesson of comprehensive observation. Man stands connected
with the infinite by position, and is related to the eternal in his
origin, and an emotion of conscious dignity follows the first exercise
cf his reason—and his pride and his confidence are strengthened by
perceiving that this infinite is the infinite of phenomena, and the
eternal that of matter. He may be but the spray dashed carelessly
against the shore, or the meteor-flash that for a moment illumines a
speck of cloud—or a sand of the desert which the whirlwind sweeps
into a transient elevation with scarcely time for distinction: yet he is
sustained by conscious connection with the ever-existing,though ever
changing—his home is with the everlasting, and when he sinks, it is
into the bosom of nature, the magnificent womb and mausoleum of all
life.
As youth advances, and his experience increases, he finds his
knowledge amplified. With nothing intuitive but the aptitude to
learn, he feels that his wisdom is ever commensurate with his industry
or observation—and as even aptitude is but progressively manifested,
he perceives that to attempt the untried, is to develop his being more.
Prematurely wasted by sudden efforts to change the order of society
or influences of things, he sees that nature never hastens, and that in
measured continuity of action lies the rule of success. Neither the
* Thomas Garlyle.
�THE LOGIC Gif xmCATH.
11
The epitaph of a student of nature.
muscle of the gladiator, nor the brain of Newton, acquired at once
their volume or power—the leveling of the mountain or the raising
of the pyramid is not the result of a single hasty attempt, but of
repeated and patient efforts. Thus, while man learns that his degree
of intelligence depends upon his industry and observation, his con
quests depend on the strength of his perseverance—and he looks to
himself, to the exercise of his faculties, and the right direction of his
exertions, both for his knowledge and his power. His lot may be cast
in barbarian caves, where ignorance and wildness ever frown, or under
gilded pinnacle, where learning and refinement are lustrous : he may
have to tread the very rudimental steps of civilisation, or he may
have but to stretch forth his hand to appropriate its spoils—still what
he will be will depend on his aptitudes, and what he will acquire on
his discrimination, application, assiduity, and intrepidity.
As his improvement, so also his protection depends on his own pre
cautions. lie defends himself from the inclemency of the elements
by suitable clothing—for health he seeks the salubrious locality,
wholesome, nutritious food, exercise, recreation, and rest in due pro
portion, and observes temperance in all things. His security on land
is the well-built habitation—on the sea, the firmly-built vessel. His
relation to the external world, and the conditions of fraternity with
his fellows, are the physical and social problems he has to solve. He
sees the strength of passion and the educative force of circumstances,
and he studies them to control them. The affairs of men are a process
which he seeks to wisely regulate, not blindly and violently thwart.
The world has two ages—those of fear and love. The barbarian and
incipient past has been the epoch of fear. Even now its dark shadows
lower over us. Love has never yet emerged from poesy and passion,
has not yet put forth half its strength, nor kindness half its power.
These graceful forces of humanity, whose victory is that of peace,
have scarcely invaded the dominions of war—but Love will one day
step into the throne of Fear, the arts of peace become the business
of life, and fraternity the watch-word of joyous nations. Plainly, as
though written with the finger of Orion on the vault of night, does
man read this future in his heart. The impulse of affection that leaps
unbidden in his breast, though suppressed in competitive strife, or
withered by cankering cares, yet returns in the woodland walk and
the midnight musing, ever whispering of something better to be
realised than war, and dungeons, and isolated wealth have yet brought
us. The student of self and nature, thus impressed, goes forth in the
busy scene of life, to improve and to please. The attributes which
rationalism prescribes to man, are perennial discretion and kindness.
Thus I have believed. I accepted the order of things I found with
out complaint, and I attempted their improvement without despair—
and it might be written on my tomb,
‘ I was not troubled with the time which drova
O'er my content its strong necessities,
But let determined things to destiny
xlold unbewailed their way.’
�19
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The physical fear of death as groundless as the theological.
And looking out from the bed of death, over the dim sea of the
future, on which no voyager’s bark is seen returning, I can place no
dependence on priestly dogmas, which all life has belied. The paltry
visions of gilt trumpets and angels’ wings seem like the visions of
irony or levity. The reality it is more heroic to contemplate. The
darkness and mystery of the future create a longing for unravelment.
The enigma of life makes the poetry of death, and. invests with a
sublime interest the last venture on untried existence.
Many honest and intelligent persons, who do not feat the future,
fear the transit to it. Novelists and dramatists, in illustrating a false
theory of crime, adopted from the Churches, have drawn exaggerated
pictures of the aspects of death, through which the popular idea of
dying has become melodramatic, and as far from truth and nature, as
is the extravagance of melodrama from the pure tone of simple and
noble tragedy.
A little reflection will show us that the physical fear some have of
death is as groundless as the moral. Eminent physicians have shown
that death being always preceded by the depression of the nervous
system, life must always terminate without feeling While appre
hension is vivid, while a scream of terror or pain can be uttered, death
is still remote. Organic disease, or a mortal blow, may end existence
with a sudden pang, but in the majority of cases men pass out of life as
unconsciously as they came into it. To the well-informed, death, in
its gradualness and harmlessness, is, what Homer called it—the half
brother of sleep: and the wise expect it undisturbed; and if they
have no reason to welcome it, bear it like any other calamity.
Were we not from childhood the victims of superstitions, we should
always regard death thus; but priests make death the rod whereby
they whip the understanding into submission to untenable dogmas.
For men know no independence, and are at the mercy of every strong
imposition, while they fear to die. That ancient spoke a noble truth
who said nothing could harm that man—tyranny had no terrors with
which it could subdue him who had conquered the fear of the grave.
How often progress has been arrested—how often good men have
faltered in their course—how often philosophy has concealed its light,
and science denied its own demonstrations, only because the priest
has pointed to his distorted image of death!
Among people of cultivated intelligence the idea of a punishing
God is morally repulsive. It is rejected as a fact because demoralising
as an example. The Unitarian principle, which trusts God and never
fears him, is the instinct of civilisation: it gains ground every day
and in every quarter. The parent coerces his child in order to cor
rect him, because the parent wants patience, or time, or wisdom, or
humanity. But as God is assumed to want none of these qualities, he
can attain any end of government he wishes by instruction, for in
moral discipline ‘it is not conduct but character which has to be
changed.’ In Francis William Newman’s portraiture of Christian
attributes, he enumerates ‘love, compassion, patience, disinterested-
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The Golden Rule considered as a maxim of the Last Judgment.
aess,’ qualities incompatible with the sentiment of eternal punishment
—and as was before observed, God cannot be supposed as falling short
of the virtues of cultivated Christians. If we accept the hypothesis of
God, we must agree with Mr. Newman that ‘ all possible perfectness
of man’s spirit must be a mere faint shadow of the divine perfection.’
‘ The thought that any should have endless woe,
Would cast a shadow on the throne of God,
And darken heaven.’
The greatest aphorism ascribed to Christ, called his Golden Rule,
tells us that we should do unto others as we would others should do
unto us. It is not moral audacity, but a logical and legitimate
application of this maxim, to say that if men shall eventually stand
before the bar of God, God will not pronounce upon any that appalling
sentence, ‘ Cast them into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth;’ because this will not be doing to others as he, in
the same situation, would wish to be done unto himself. If frail man is
to ‘ do good to them that hate him,’ God, who is said to be also Love,
will surely not burn those who, in their misfortune and blindness,
have erred against him. He who is above us all in power, will be also
above us all in magnanimity.
Wonderful is the imbecility of the people! The rich man is con
ceded the holiest sepulchre in the Church, although his wealth be won
by extortion or chicane, or selfishly hoarded while thousands of his
brethren have perished, while children have grown up hideous for
want of food, while women have stooped consumptive over the needle,
and men have died prematurely of care and toil. The priest-soothed
conscience feels no terror on the pillow of plethoric affluence—then
why should the poor man be uneasy in death ? Kings and queens, who
cover their brows with diadems stained with human blood, and main
tain their regal splendour out of taxes extorted from struggling
industry, are, in their last hours, assured by the highest spiritual
authorities of their free admission to Heaven, and Poets-Laureat have
sung of their welcome there—then why should the obscure man be
tremulous as to acceptance at the hand of Him who is called the God
of the poor ? The aristocracy pass from time unmolested by death-bed
apprehensions, although they hold fast to privilege and splendour,
though their tenants expire on the fireless hearth, or on the friendless
mattrass of the Poor Law Union—then why should the people enter
tain dread ? While every tyrant who has fettered his country—and
every corrupt minister who has plotted for its oppression, or betrayed
its freedom to the ‘ Friends of Order ’—is committed to the grave ‘ in
the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection ’—why should the
indigent patriot fear to die ? While even the bishop, who federates
with the despots, and gives his vote almost uniformly against the people
—while the Priests, Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenting, work into the
hands of the government against the poor, and fulminate celestial
menaces against those whose free thoughts reject the fetters of
their creeds—while these can die in peace, what have the honest
�14
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
It is only the slave soul that imagines a tyrant God.
and the independent to fear ?
If the insensate monarch, the
sordid millionaire, the rapacious noble, the false politician, and
the servile clergyman, meet death with assurance, surely humble
industry, patient merit, and enduring poverty, need not own a
tremor or heave a sigh ! If we choose to live as freemen, let us at
least have the dignity to die so, nor discredit the privilege of liberty
by an unmanly bearing. If we have the merit of integrity, we should
also have its peace—while we have the destiny of suffering we should
not have less than its courage !
The truth is, if we do not know how to die, it is because we do not
know how to live. If we know ourselves, we know that when we
can preserve the temper of love, and of service, by which love is
manifested, and of endurance, by which love is proved, we acquire
that healthy sense of duty done which casts out fear. They who
constantly mean well and do well, know not what it is to dread ill.
And the fearless are also the free, and the free have no foreboding.
‘It is only the slave soul which dreads a tyrant God.’* Therefore—
‘ So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, that moves
To that mysterious realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry slave at night
Scourged to his dungeon; but approach thy gravo
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.’f
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH*
13
The Queen’s Views.
Since this article was written in 1849, the religions doctrine o'
death in England has entirely changed. The highest minds in
the Church of England, the most cultivated preachers among the
Dissenters have, in some cases, since originated, and in others, now
accept views similar in spirit to those advocated in these pages.
Bishop Colenso found that when the honest and clear thinking
Kafir of Natal was told of the “dreadful judgment of God,” which
an ignorant orthodox Missionary carried to him, he replied with
great simplicity but with natural dignity and resolution—‘ If
that be so we would rather not hear about it;’ and the
Bishop has found the means of proving, even from St. Paul him
self, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is alien to the genius
of Christianity and must be given up. Professor Maurice, the
most influential name in the Church of England, now teaches
that the conception of punishment by physical pain is a gross idea,
and that the sense of having incurred God’s moral displeasure is the
deepest natural punishment to the spiritual man. Her Majesty
the Queen has authorised the publication, since the death of the
Prince, of ‘ Meditations on Death and Eternity, of which the
*
leading idea is that even ‘ sudden death is a sudden benefit ’ to
those who live well, and that those ‘ who endeavour to make
amends for every fault by noble actions’ ought no more ‘to
dread to appear before God ’ ‘ than a child ought to fear to ap
pear before its loving parent, even though it had not yet con
quered all its faults.’ This is nobler and more humane doctrine
than was ever taught by authority in this country before. But
incomparably the finest passage in the whole compass of litera
ture, which depicts the spirit in which all should conduct life so
as to meet death in a patient and noble way, is from the pen of
Mazzini. It occurred in a criticism upon George Sand, in an
article in the Monthly Chronicle in 1839. It contains the whole
of that philosophy which has given to Italy its heroes and its
freedom, .and taught the Italian patriots in so many forlorn
struggles how to die without sadness and without regret. The
sublime passage is this—‘ Schiller, the poet of grand thoughts,
Las said, I Those only love that love without hope.” There is in
these few words more than poetry ; they contain a whole religious
philosophy that we do not yet well understand, but that futurity
will. Life is a mission; its end is not the search after happiness,
but the knowledge andfulfilment of duty. Love is not enjoyment,
it is devotedness. If on the path of duty and devotedness God
sends us some beams of happiness, let us bless God, and bask our
limbs enfeebled by the fatigues of the journey ; but let us not
suspend it for long; let us not say—“We have found the secret
of existence, for the action of the law of our existence cannot be
concentrated in ourselves; its development must be pursued from
'Without. And if we meet only suffering, still march on ; suffer and
�THE LOGIC i'F DEATH.
Mazzini’s Views.
ad. God will measure our progress towards him not by what
we have suffered, but by how much we have desired to diminish the
sufferings of others, by how much our efforts have been directed to
the saving and the perfecting our brethren.''' Of those who believe
in God intelligently, this is the language they hold—and those
who are not Theists, this is the doctrine they trust. People who
say they could not be happy with the convictions of the Atheist,
the Sceptic, or the Heretic, speak merely for themselves; they do
not speak for us. With regard to us, they speak of that of which
they know nothing, and of that of which they have no experience.
With their views what they say may be true. But different views
and different principles bring with them their own consolations.
Conviction makes all the difference. It is not the formal creed
which gives mental support, but the consciousness of truth and
integrity and pure intent. Nothing can disturb the peace of mind
of those armed by a fortitude founded on love and justice, on rec
titude and reason.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: Enlarged and rev. ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Eightieth thousand edition. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, G.J.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4958
CT14
N310
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Conway Tracts
Death
Death-Religious aspects-Comparative studies
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/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/e9d251061049dd89e1f0a5108bbb2bdd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qAKVodSlkzRvs5YB4tcMV81dIQqpvx1LfjgoSXb4hozg4AG4F3QuDj79ocNi7LKsESV6RxR9qBqBA5zy%7ET4Bu9gG-jQZ1usHBjoP2AM-0J2-%7EEpuFu6qanXn0HUryrSOelOFvcawaO9-AOrV67Xg49ci%7EGRqv0Cu6xgzn13DKFXoo9kzvSSW%7E1ahxubwdTYzy-c-DO1RBrita7NkSx2-bHujKa9NhjF0p6pbDQMNOLKTp9QwsiLq5k8JTcOKPIw2JNm4onhlCwlCVg%7EbBnP39s7A4uTdok7ntbuEpPeLymbmKFcINVPn%7E4RFpIr%7EC92lIanbJsgWo3Znf3lAVo57Rw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c69a8d9d69e624f857e13aba9b1728b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL secular society
HUMANITY’S GAIN from UNBELIEF.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
[Reprinted from the “North American Review” of March, 1889.J
LONDON:
•FREETHOUGrHT
PUBLISHING-
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
COMPANY,
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63
ELEET STREET, E.C.
�HUMANITY’S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
As an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has
been real gainer from scepticism, and that the gradual
and growing rejection of Christianity—like the rejection
of the faiths which preceded it—has in fact added, and
Will add, to man’s happiness and well being. I maintain
that in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and
that general progress is impossible without scepticism on
matters of religion. I mean by religion every form of
belief which accepts or asserts the supernatural. I write
as a Monist, and use the word “nature ” as meaning all
phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for
the happening of any and every phenomenon. Every
religion is constantly changing, and at any given time is
the measure of the civilisation attained by what Guizot
described as theywszte milieu of those who profess it. Each
religion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and
practice by the gradual development of the peoples amongst
whom it is professed. Each discovery destroys in whole
or part some theretofore cherished belief. No religion is
suddenly rejected by any people ; it is rather gradually
out-grown. None see a religion die ; dead religions are
like dead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is
long and—like the glacier march—is only perceptible to
the careful watcher by comparisons extending over long
periods. A superseded religion may often be traced in the
festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has
replaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be
found in popular customs, in old wives’ stories, and in
children’s tales.
�4
humanity’s GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
It is necessary, in order that my plea should be under
stood, that I should explain what I mean by Christianity ;
and in the very attempt at this explanation there will, I
think, be found strong illustration of the value of unbelief,
Christianity in practice may be gathered from its more
ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the
Greek Churches, or from the various churches which have
grown up in the last few centuries. Each of these churches
calls itself Christian. Some of them deny the right of the
others to use the word Christian. Some Christian churches
treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as heretics
or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants
in Great Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly
cruel one to the other; and the ferocious laws of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, enacted by the
English Protestants against English and Irish Papists, are
a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring
longest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political
mischief and agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the
tolerant indifference of scepticism that, one after the other,
has repealed most of the laws directed by the Established
Christian Church against Papists and Dissenters, and also
against Jews and heretics. Church of England clergymen
have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing non
conformity ; and even in the present day an effective sample
of such denunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of
orthodox catechism written by the Rev. F. A. Gace, of
Great Barling, Essex, the popularity of which is vouched
by the fact that it has gone through ten editions.
This catechism for little children teaches that “ Dissent is
a great sin ”, and that Dissenters “ worship God according
to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not ac
cording to his revealed will, and therefore their worship is
idolatrous ”. Church of England Christians and Dissent
ing Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves,
often publicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively
deny that these have any sort of right to call themselves
Christians.
In the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers
were flogged and imprisoned in England as blasphemers ;
and the early Christian settlers in New England, escaping
from the persecution of Old World Christians, showed
scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is
�humanity’s gain from unbelief.
5
customary, in controversy, for those advocating the claims
of Christianity, to include all good done by men in nomi’
nally Christian countries as if such good were the result of
Christianity, while they contend that the evil which exists
prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out
that the ameliorating march of the last few centuries has
been initiated by the heretics of each age, though I quite
concede that the men and women denounced and per
secuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are fre
quently claimed as saints by the pious of a later genera
tion.
What then is Christianity ? As a system or scheme
of doctrine, Christianity may, I submit, not unfairly be
gathered from the Old and New Testaments. It is true
that some Christians to-day desire to escape from submis
sion to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this
very tendency seems to me to be part of the result of
the beneficial heresy for which I am pleading. Man’s
humanity has revolted against Old Testament barbarism;
and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the Old Testa
ment from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments
are accepted as God’s revelation to man, Christianity has
no higher claim than any other of the world’s many
religions, if no such claim can be made out for it apart
from the Bible. And though it is quite true that some
who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament
completely in the background, this is, I allege, because
they are out-growing their Christianity. Without the
doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity,
as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam’s
fall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences
of that fall cannot be believed. Both in Great Britain
and in the United States the Old and New Testaments
are forced on the people as part of Christianity; for it is
blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority; and
such denial is punishable with fine and imprisonment,
or even worse.
The rejection of Christianity intended
throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the
Old and New Testaments as being of divine revelation.
It is the rejection alike of the authorised teachings of the
Church of Rome and of the Church of England, as these
may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the encyclicals,
�6
HUMANITY S GAIN FKOM UNBELIEJ’.
the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both
of these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity
of Luther, of Calvin, and of Wesley.
A ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is
that the progress and civilisation of the world are due to
Christianity; and the discussion is complicated by the
fact that many eminent servants of humanity have been
nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My
allegation will be that the special services rendered to
human progress by these exceptional men, have not been
in consequence of their adhesion to Christianity, but in
spite of it; and that the specific points of advantage to
human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition
to precise Biblical enactments.
A. S. Farrar says1 that Christianity “ asserts authority
over religious belief in virtue of being a supernatural
communication from God, and claims the right to control
human thought in virtue of possessing sacred books, which
are at once the record and the instrument of the communi
cation, written by men endowed with supernatural inspira
tion ”. Unbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted
authority, and deny this claim of control over human
thought: they allege that every effort at freethinking must
provoke sturdier thought.
Take one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief,
i.e., in the abolition of slavery in some countries, in the
abolition of the slave trade in most civilised countries, and
in the tendency to its total abolition. I am unaware of
any religion in the world which in the past forbade slavery.
The professors of Christianity for ages supported it; the
Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws ; the
New Testament has no repealing declaration. Though we
are at the close of the nineteenth century of the Christian
era, it is only during the past three-quarters of a century
that the battle for freedom has been gradually won. It is
scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous emancipa
tion amendment was carried to the United States Constitu
tion. And it is impossible for any well-informed Christian
to deny that the abolition movement in North America was
most steadily and bitterly opposed by the religious bodies
in the various States. Henry Wilson, in his “Itise and
1 Farrar’s “ Critical History of Fieethought ”,
�humanity’s
GAIN
from unbelief.
7
Fall of the Slave Power in America ” ; Samuel J. May, in
his “Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict ” ; and J.
Greenleaf Whittier, in his poems, alike are witnesses that
the Bible and pulpit, the Church and its great influence,
were used against abolition and in favor of the slave
owner. I know that Christians in the present day often
declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing
about the abolition of slavery, and this because men pro
fessing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these
so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women
whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this
in direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years
since the European Christian powers jointly agreed to
abolish the slave trade. What of the effect of Christianity
on these powers in the centuries which had preceded ?
The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom
whilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many
centuries Christian Spain and Christian Portugal held
slaves. Porto Rico freedom is not of long date; and
Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a Christian
King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in
Spanish America the slave trade between the Old World
and the New. For some 1800 years, almost, Christians kept
slaves, bought slaves, sold slaves, bred slaves, stole slaves.
Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool less than 100 years ago
openly grew rich on the traffic. During the ninth century
Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the
eleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in
Rome, and the profit went to the Church.
It is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was
a Christian. But at any rate his Christianity was strongly
diluted with unbelief. As an abolitionist he did not believe
Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have rejected Exodus xxi,
2-6 ; he could not have accepted the many permissions
and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to
capture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on
18th February, 1796, Wilberforce reminded that Christian
assembly that infidel and anarchic France had given
liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic
England was “obstinately continuing a system of cruelty
and injustice”.
Wilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery,
found the whole influence of the English Court, and the
�8
HUMANITY S GAIN FBOM UNBELIEF.
great weight of the Episcopal Bench, against him. George
III, a most Christian king, regarded abolition theories
with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was
utterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When
Christian missionaries some sixty-two years ago preached
to Demerara negroes under the rule of Christian England,
they were treated by Christian judges, holding commission
from Christian England, as criminals for so preaching. A
Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established
Church of England, signed the auction notices for the sale
of slaves as late as the year 1824. In the evidence before
a Christian court-martial, a missionary is charged with
having tended to make the negroes dissatisfied with their
condition as slaves, and with having promoted discontent
and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful
masters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the
Demerara abolitionist missionary to be hanged by the
neck till he was dead. The judges belonged to the Estab
lished Church ; the missionary was a Methodist. In this
the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no
worse than Christians of other sects : their Boman Catholic
Christian brethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the
Jesuits as criminals because they treated negroes as though
they were men and women, in encouraging “two slaves
to separate their interest and safety from that of the
gang ”, whilst orthodox Christians let them couple pro
miscuously and breed for the benefit of their o wners like
any other of their plantation cattle. In 1823 the Royal
Gazette (Christian) of Demerara said :
“We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by
law our property, till you can demonstrate that when they are
made religious and knowing they will continue to be our
slaves.”
When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and
most earnest abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery
address in Boston, Massachusetts, the only building he
could obtain, in which to speak, was the infidel hall owned
by Abner Kneeland, the “infidel” editor of the Boston
Investigator, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy.
Jlvery Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garri
son the use of the buildings they severally controlled.
|jloyd Garrison told me himself how honored deacons of
�humanity’s GAIN UHOM UNBELIEF.
9
a Christian Church, joined in an actual attempt to hang
him.
When abolition was advocated in the United States in
1790, the representative from South Carolina was able to
plead that the Southern clergy “did not condemn either
slavery or the slave trade ” ; and Mr. Jackson, the repre
sentative from Georgia, pleaded that “from Genesis to
Revelation ” the current was favorable to slavery. Elias
Hicks, the brave Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as
an Atheist, and less than twenty years ago a Hicksite
Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern American
Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these
abolitionist “ Friends ”.
When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in
North America, large numbers of clergymen of nearly
every denomination were found ready to defend this
infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous aboli
tionist, was driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely
because of his attacks on slaveholding. Northern clergy
men tried to induce “silver tongued” Wendell Philips to
abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits rang
with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner.
The slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed
Christian men.
Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the
•Church exerted its influence to restrain slavery, says
(“European Civilisation”, vol. i., p. 110) :
“It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery
among modern people is entirely due to Christians. That, I
think, is saying too much. Slavery existed for a long period
in the heart of Christian society, without its being particularly
astonished or irritated. A multitude of causes, and a great
development in other ideas and principles of civilisation, were
necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all iniquities.”
And my contention is that this “development in other
ideas and principles of civilisation ” was long retarded by
Governments in which the Christian Church was dominant.
The men who advocated liberty were imprisoned, racked,
and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough to
be merciless.
The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his
recent earnest volume1 on the struggles of labor, admits
1 “ Capital and Wages”, p. 19.
�10
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
that “ a few centuries ago slavery was acknowledged
throughout Christendom to have the divine sanction..........
Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the
decline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can
be defined. It was doubtless due to a combination of
causes, one probably being as indirect as the recognition
of the greater economy of free labor. With the decline
of the belief the abolition of slavery took place.”
The institution of slavery was actually existent in
Christian Scotland in the 17th century, where the white
coal workers and salt workers of East Lothian were
chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern
States thirty years since; they “ went to those who
succeeded to the property of the works, and they could be
sold, bartered, or pawned”? “There is”, says J. M.
Robertson, “no trace that the Protestant clergy of Scot
land ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew
up before their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after
republican and irreligious France had set the example,
that it was legally abolished.”
Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the
unbelief, or rather disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry.
Apart from the brutality by Christians towards those
suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to scientific initia
tive or experiment was incalculably great so long as belief
in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries,
and especially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much earlier and much more largely, but
for the foolish belief in witchcraft and the shocking
ferocity exhibited against those suspected of necromancy.
After quoting a large number of cases of trial and punish
ment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J. M.
Robertson says: “The people seem to have passed from
cruelty to cruelty precisely as they became more and more
fanatical, more and more devoted to their Church, till after
many generations the slow spread of human science began
to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy resist
ing reason and humanity to the last ”.
The Rev. Mr. Minton1 concedes that it is “ the advance
2
of knowledge which has rendered the idea of Satanic
1 “ Perversion of Scotland,” p. 197.
2 “ Capital and Wages ”, pp. 15, 16.
�HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
11
agency through the medium of witchcraft grotesquely
ridiculous”. He admits that “ for more than 1500 years
the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom ”,
and that “ the public mind was saturated with the idea of
Satanic agency in the economy of nature ”. He adds:
“ If we ask why the world now rejects what was once so
unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing
knowledge has gradually undermined the belief ”.
In a letter recently sent to the Pall Mall Gazette against
modern Spiritualism, Professor Huxley declares,
“that the older form of the same fundamental delusion—the
belief in possession and in witchcraft—gave rise in the fifteenth,,
sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries to persecutions by Chris
tians of innocent men, women, and children, more extensive,
more cruel, and more murderous than any to which the
Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the
authorities of pagan Borne.”
And Professor Huxley adds :
“No one deserves much blame for being deceived in these
matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in youth by
the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and
witchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The
majority of us are taught nothing which will help us to
observe accurately and to interpret observations with due
caution.”
The English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under
James was disfigured by enactments against witchcraft
passed under pressure from the Christian churches,
which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of the
disbelief in the Christian precept, ‘1 thou shalt not suffer a
witch to live”. The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned
to death “all persons invoking any evil spirits, or con
sulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, feed
ing, or rewarding any evil spirit ”, or generally practising
any “infernal arts”. This was not repealed until the
eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison’s phono
graph would 280 years ago have insured martyrdom for
its inventor; the utilisation of electric force to transmit
messages around the world would have been clearly the
practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that
unbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made
the road free for her upward march.
�12
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
Is it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which
has been apparent in the wiser treatment of the insane,
consequent on the unbelief in the Christian doctrine that
these unfortunates were examples either of demoniacal
possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries
under Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly
treated.
Exorcism, shackles, and the whip were the
penalties rather than the curatives for mental maladies.
From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of
the last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every
step illustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to
humanity in the unbelief not yet complete, but now
largely preponderant, in the dogma that sickness, pesti
lence, and famine were manifestations of divine anger,
the results of which could neither be avoided nor pre
vented. The Christian Churches have done little or
nothing to dispel this superstition. The official and
authorised prayers of the principal denominations, even
to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of health,
experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful
applications of medical knowledge, have proved more
efficacious in preventing or diminishing plagues and
pestilence than have the intervention of the priest or
the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold
the old faith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are
to-day termed “peculiar people”, and are occasionally
indicted for manslaughter when their sick children die,
because the parents have trusted to God instead of
appealing to the resources of science.
It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that
the Church which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the
truth has been overborne by the growing unbelief of the
age, even though our little children are yet taught that
Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for
Hezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle,
arguing for the morality of scepticism, says1 :
“ As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the
immediate finger of God, and as long as they believe that an
eclipse is one of the modes by which the deity expresses his
anger, they will never be guilty of the blasphemous presump
tion of attempting to predict such supernatural appearances.
1 “ History of Civilisation,’’ vol. i, p. 345.
�HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF.
13
Before . they could dare to investigate the causes of these
mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should believe,
or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena
themselves were capable of being explained by the human
mind.”
As in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge
to . humanity has been almost solely in measure of the
rejection of the Christian theory. A century since it was
almost universally held that the world was created 6,000
years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first man,
Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology
and Anthropology have only been possible in so far as,
adopting the regretful words of Sir W. Jones, “intelligent
and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity
of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the primi
tive world ”.
Surely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has
sprung up. against the divine right of kings, that men no
longer believe that the monarch is “God’s anointed” or
that “the powers that be are ordained of God”. In the
struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church
was mostly thrown on the side of the tyrant. The
homilies of the Church of England declare that “even the
wicked rulers have their power and authority from God ”,
and. that “such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious
against their princes disobey God and procure their own
damnation ”. It can scarcely be necessary to argue to the
citizens of the United States of America that the origin of
their liberties was in the rejection of faith in the divine
right of George III.
Will any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is
not . certain gain to humanity to spread unbelief in the
terrible doctrine that eternal torment is the probable fate
of the great majority of the human family? Is it not
gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of
the wretched and the miserable to be content with the lot
in life which providence had awarded them ?
If it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as
justification for heresy the approach towards equality and
liberty for the utterance of all opinions achieved because
of growing unbelief. At one period in Christendom each
Government acted as though only one religious faith could
be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate the
�14
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
making known, any other opinion was a criminal act
deserving punishment. Under the one word “ infidel”,
even as late as Lord Coke, were classed together all who
were not Christians, even though they were Mahommedans,
Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian
faith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore
//ors de la loi. One hundred and forty-five years since, the
Attorney-General, pleading in our highest court, said1 :
“What is the definition of an infidel? Why, one who
does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a Jew is
an infidel.” And English history for several centuries
prior to the Commonwealth shows how habitually and
most atrociously Christian kings, Christian courts, and
Christian churches, persecuted and harassed these infidel
Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were
such infidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn
as witnesses. In 1740 a legacy left for establishing an
assembly for the reading of the Jewish scriptures was
held to be void2 because it was “ for the propagation of
the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian religion”.
It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have
been accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty
years since they have been allowed to sit in Parliament.
In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate in debate3 objected “that
they should have sitting in that House an individual who
regarded our Redeemer as an impostor”. Lord Chief
Justice Raymond has shown4 how it was that Christian
intolerance was gradually broken down. “A Jew may
sue at this day, but heretofore he could not; for then they
were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce has
taught the world more humanity.”
Lord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no
right of any kind, with whom no contract need be kept, to
whom no debt was payable. The plea of alien infidel as
answer to a claim was actually pleaded in court as late as
1737.5 In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says6: “ All
infidels are in law perpetui inimici; for between them, as
1 Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29.
2 D’Costa v. D’Pays, Arab. 228.
3 3 Hansard cxvi. 381.
4 1 Lord Raymond’s reports 282, Wells v. Williams.
5 Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51.
6 7 Coke’s reports, Calvin’s case.
�humanity’s gain from unbelief.
15
with, the devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian,
there is perpetual hostility ”. Twenty years ago the law
of England required the writer of any periodical publica
tion or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give sureties
for £800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was
the last person prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance
with that law, which was repealed by Mr. Gladstone in
1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an infidel in Scot
land was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court
on condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity.
If he lied and said he was a Christian, he was accepted,
despite his lying. If he told the truth and said he was an
unbeliever, then he was practically an outlaw, incompetent
to give evidence for himself or for any other. Fortunately
all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act
on 24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a
little in this struggle through unbelief ?
For more than a century and a-half the Roman Catholic
had in practice harsher measure dealt out to him by the
English Protestant Christian, than was even during that
period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever. If the
Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation,
which to a sincere Romanist was impossible, he was in
effect an outlaw, and the “jury packing” so much com
plained of to-day in Ireland is one of the habit survivals
of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by
law excluded from the j ury box.
The Scotsman of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860
the Rev. Dr. Robert Lee, of Grey friars, gave a course of
Sunday evening lectures on Biblical Criticism, in which he
showed the absurdity and untenableness of regarding
every word in the Bible as inspired ; and it adds :
“We well remember the awful indignation such opinions
inspired, and it is refreshing to contrast them with the calm
ness with which they are now received. Not only from the
pulpits of the city, but from the press (misnamed religious)
were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P. minister
went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the
students under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress
made since then, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris,
Dr. Lee’s successor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the
Confession of Faith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did,
and yet he is considered supremely orthodox, whereas the
stigma of heresy was attached to the other all his life.”
�16
humanity’s gain from unbelief.
And this change and gain to humanity is due to the
gradual progress of unbelief, alike inside and outside the
Churches.
Take from differing Churches two recent
illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay Alexander,
a strict Calvinist, in his important work on “ Biblical
Theology”, claims that
“ all the statements of Scripture are alike to be deferred to as
presenting to us the mind of God ”.
Yet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says:
“We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred
authors] statements which no ingenuity can reconcile with
what modern research has shown to be the scientific truth—
i.e., we find in them statements which modern science proves
to be erroneous.”
At the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Con
ference at Derby, the Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the
Rev. J. G. Richardson said of the Old Testament that
“ it was no longer honest or even safe to deny that this noble
literature, rich in all the elements of moral or spiritual grandeur,
given—so the Church had always taught, and would always
teach—under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes
mistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history,
and sometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality.
It assumed theories of the physical world which science had
abandoned and could never resume; it contained passages oi
narrative which devout and temperate men pronounced dis
credited, both by external and internal evidence; it praised,
or justified, or approved, or condoned, or tolerated, conduct
which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of the Christian
alike condemned.”
Or, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by un
belief is that “the teaching of Christ ” has been modi
fied, enlarged, widened, and humanised, and that “the
conscience of the Christian ” is in quantity and quality
made fitter for human progress by the ever increasing
additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical
days.
�
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
Humanity's gain from unbelief
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review of March 1889. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N095
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 (Humanity's gain from unbelief), 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
Atheism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f6d28807ceafc657599fc1bb488aeba.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vbtJCkWpZ-gpzCsS0J2-b61CHOqCB%7EmYxHdOT5wTE3Q5cgqXFz%7E5o3h0GBPn%7E3NzIGvILc6w1cwJe5ASXSDh6CP7UaCT3c2keb2VhxxD790ZKEK4pziOwTGIJvF9HqJaaUnie3in4tObLYm2%7EavoTnch1avYaA2JtJEB0XU6Z4YGF-YapG6wk-pgmL4A-f8LBxPpmBbENuDtGzhdLtO7aoPW6iv-BzIheGGfUA4aeGWDxNMUIVCaCg6YTnvXHt6Qh7bqVzXEUbk8y8NYaaOndUw%7EPmy7R5W2QJR7zP1iolQnHiXNULVYxs3Ke5qUd8EfBlLmJcr484SpZ7hE-nB%7Ebg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9134d7056c17eb6d369fc023dc01dd2e
PDF Text
Text
■
1
-
-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WH¥ I DO NOT BELIEVE
IN GOD.
BY
I
ANNIE BESANT.
r
J./
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 887.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BBADLAUGH,
63, ELEET STREET, E.C.
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
■There is no doubt that the majority of people in most
parts of the world—save in those in which Buddhism is
supreme—believe in the existence of a God. The kind of
God may vary indefinitely, but there is generally “some God
Or other ”. Now a growing minority in every civilised
■Country finds it intellectually impossible to make the affir
mation which is necessary for belief in God, and this
growing minority includes many of the most thoughtful
and most competent minds. The refusal to believe is
unfortunately not always public, so cruel is the vengeance
Worked by society on those who do not bow down to its
dretish.es; but as John Stuart Mill said: ‘1 The world would
be. astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its
brightest ornaments—of those most distinguished even in
popular estimation for wisdom and virtue—are complete
sceptics in religion” (“Autobiography,” p. 45).
It is sad that all should not recognise that, as the late
Professor Clifford put it, Truth is a thing to be shouted
from the housetops, not to be whispered over the walnuts
and wine after the ladies have left; for only by plain and
honest speech on this matter can liberty of thought be
won. Each who speaks out makes easier speech for others,
and none, however insignificant, has right of silence here.
Nor is it unfair,. I think, that a minority should be chal
lenged on its dissidency, and should be expected to state
clearly and definitely the grounds of its disagreement with
the majority.
Ere going into detailed argument it may be well to remind
the reader that the burden of affording proof lies on the
afiirmer of a. proposition; the rational attitude of the
human mind is not that of a boundless credulity, accepting
every statement as true until it has been proved to be
false, but is that of a suspension of judgment on every
�4
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
statement which, though not obviously false, is not sup
ported. by evidence, and of an absolute rejection of a state
ment self-contradictory in its terms, or incompatible with
truth® already demonstrated. To remove this position
from the region of prejudice in which theological discus
sion is carried on, it may be well to take the following*
illustration : a man asks me, “Do you believe that Jupiter
is inhabited by a race of men who have one eye in the
middle of their foreheads, and who walk about on three
legs, with their heads under their left arms ? ” I answer
“No, I do not believe it; I have no evidence that such
beings exist”. If my interlocutor desires to convince mo
that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of;
them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence
in support of his contention. The burden of proof evi
dently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such
beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him
to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly
claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God’s existence
to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden
of proof lies on him.
Tor be it remembered that the Atheist makes no general
denial of the existence of God; he does not say, “There is
no God”. If he put forward such a proposition, which he
can only do intelligently if he understand the term “God”,
then, truly, he would be bound to bring forth his evidence
in support. But the proof of a universal negative requires
the possession of perfect knowledge of the universe of
discourse, and in this case the universe of discourse
is conterminous with the totality of existence. No*
man can rationally affirm “There is no God”, until
the word “ God ” has for him a definite meaning, and until
everything that exists is known to him, and known with
what Leibnitz calls “perfect knowledge”. The Atheist’s
denial of the Gods begins only when these Gods are defined
or described. Never yet has a God been defined in terms
which were not palpably self-contradictory and absurd ;•
never yet has a God been described so that a concept of
him was made possible to human thought. Again I fall
back on an illustration unconnected with theology in order
to make clearly apparent the distinction drawn. If I am
asked: “Do you believe in the existence of a triangle in
space on the other side of Saturn?” I answer, “I neither
�WHY I HO HOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
5
lielieve in, nor deny its existence; I know nothing about it”.
But if I am asked: “Do you believe in the existence
there of a boundless triangle, or of a square triangle ? ”
-then my answer is : “I deny the possibility of the exist
ence of such triangles”. The reason for the different
answers to the two questions is that as I have never visited
the other side of Saturn I know nothing about the exist
ence or non-existence of triangles there ; but I deny the
possibility of the existence of a boundless triangle, because
the word triangle means a figure enclosed by three limiting
lines; and I deny the possibility of the existence of a square
triangle, because a triangle has three sides only while a square
has four, and all the angles of a triangle taken together
ar® equal to two right angles, while those of a square are
equal to four. I allege that anyone who believes in a
square triangle can have no clear concept either of a
triangle or of a square. And so while I refuse to say
“there is no God”, lacking the knowledge which would
justify the denial, since to me the word God represents no
.concept, I do say, “there is no infinite personality, there
is no infinite creator, there is no being at once almighty
and all-good, there is no Trinity in Unity, there is no
-eternal and infinite existence save that of which each one
• of us is mode”. Dor be it noted, these denials are justified
.by our knowledge: an undefined “God” might be a
limited being on the far side of Sirius, and I have no
knowledge which justifies me in denying such an existence;
but an infinite God, i.e., a God who is everywhere, who
has no limits, and yet who is not I and who is therefore
limited by my personality, is a being who is self-contra
dictory, both limited and not-limited, and such a being
■ cannot exist. No perfect knowledge is needed here. “ God
is an infinite being” is disproved by one being who is not
God. “God is everywhere ” is disproved by the finding
• of one spot where God is not. The universal affirmative
-is disproved by a single exception. Nor is anything
gained by the assertors of deity when they allege that he
is incomprehensible. If “God” exists and is incompre
hensible, his incomprehensibility is an admirable reason
for being silent about him, but can never justify the affirma
tion of self-contradictory propositions, and the threatening
. of people with damnation if they do not accept them.
I turn to examine the evidence which is brought forward
�6
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
in support of the existence of God, taking “ God ” to mean
some undefined being other than and superior to the
various forms of living and non-living things on thisearth—or those forming part of the 1 ‘material universe”
in which we exist—and related to these as creator and
controller. Now the existence of anything may be sensated or it may be inferred; the astronomer believed in
the existence of Saturn because he saw it; but he also
believed in the existence of the planet afterwards named
Neptune before he saw it, attaining this belief by way of'
induction from the otherwise inexplicable behavior of
Uranus. Can we then by the senses or by the reason find
out God ?
The most common, and to many the most satisfactory
and convincing evidence, is that of the senses. A child
bom into the world has open to him these sense avenues
of knowledge; he learns that something exists which is
not he by the impressions made on his senses; he sees, he
feels, he hears, he smells, he tastes, and thus he learns to
know. As the child’s past and present sensations increase
in number, as he begins to remember them, to compare,
to mark likenesses and unlikenesses, he gathers the
materials for further mental elaboration. But this sen
sational basis of his knowledge is the limit of the area on
which his intellectual edifice can be built; he may rear it
upward as far as his powers will permit, but he can neverwiden his foundation, while his senses remain only what
they are. All that the mind works on has reached it by
these senses; it can dissociate and combine, it can break
in pieces and build up, but no sensation no percept, and
no percept no concept.
When this fundamental truth is securely grasped it will'
be seen of what tremendous import is the admitted fact
that the senses wholly fail us when We seek for proof of
the existence of God. Our belief in the existence of all
things outside ourselves rests on the testimony of the
senses. The “objective universe” is that which we sensate. When we reason and reflect, when we think of love,,
and fear, when we speak of truth and honor, we know
that all these are not susceptible of being sensated, thatis, that they have no objective existence; they belong to
the Subject universe. Now if God cannot be sensated healso must belong to the Subject world; that is, he must
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
7
be a creation of the mind, with no outside corresponding
reality. Granted that we can never know “the thing in
itself ” ; granted that all we know is only the effect on the
■mind produced by something which differs from the effect
it produces ; yet this fundamental physiological distinction
remains between the Object and the Subject worlds, that
the Object world announces itself by nervous action which
is set up at the periphery, while the Subject world results
from the centrally initiated travail of the brain.
It might., indeed, be argued by the Theist that God may
exist, but may be incognisable by our senses, we lacking
the sense which might sensate deity. Quite so. There
may be existences around us but unknown to us, there
being no part of our organism differentiated to receive
from them impressions. There are rays beyond the solar
spectrum which are invisible to us normally, the existence
of which was unknown to us some years ago, but some
of which apparently serve among light rays for the ant;
so there may be all kinds of existences in the universe
of which we are unconscious, as unconscious as we were
of the existence of the ultra-violet rays until a chemical
reagent rendered them visible. But as we cannot sensate
them, for us they do not exist. This, then, cannot avail
the Theist, for an incognisable God, a God who can enter
into no kind of relation with us, is to us a non-existent
God. We cannot even conceive a sense entirely different
from those we possess, let alone argue over what we should
find out by means of it if we had it.
It is said that of old time the evidence of the senses for
the existence of God was available; the seventy elders
“ saw the God of Israel” ; Moses talked with him “ face
to face ”; Elijah heard his “ still small voice ”. But these
experiences are all traditional; we have no evidence at
first hand; no witness that we can examine ; no facts that
we can investigate. There is not even evidence enough
to start a respectable ghost story, let alone enough to bear
the tremendous weight of the existence of God. Yet, if
some finite “God” exist—I say finite, because, as noted
above, the co-existence of an infinite God anda finite creature
is impossible—how easy for him to prove his existence;
if he be too great for our “comprehension”, as some
Theists argue, he might surely bestow on us a sense which
■might, receive impressions from him, and enable us to
�8
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
reach, at least a partial, an imperfect, knowledge of him.
But if he exist, he wraps himself in darkness; if he exist,
he folds himself in silence. Leaning, as it were, over the
edge of being, men strive to pierce the dark abyss of the
unknown, above, below; they strain their sight, but they
see nothing; they listen, but nothing strikes their ear;
weary, dizzy, they stagger backwards, and with the dark
ness pressing on their eyeballs they murmur 11 God!
Bailing to discover God by way of the senses, we turn to
such evidence for his existence as may be found by way of
the reason, in order to determine whether we can establish
by inference that which we have failed to establish by
direct proof.
As the world is alleged to be the handiwork of God, it
is not unreasonable to scrutinise the phenomena of nature,
and to seek in them for traces of a ruling intelligence, of
a guiding will. But it is impossible even to glance at
natural phenomena, much less to study them attentively,
without being struck by the enormous waste of energy,
the aimless destruction, the utterly unintelligent play of
conflicting and jarring forces. For centuries “nature”
has been steadily at work growing forests, cutting out
channels for rivers, spreading alluvial soil and clothing it
with grass and flowers ; at last a magnificent landscape is
formed, birds and beasts dwell in its woods and on its
pastures, men till its fertile fields, and thank the gracious
God they worship for the work of his hands; there is a
far-off growl which swells as it approaches, a trembling
of the solid earth, a crash, an explosion, and then, in a
darkness lightened only by the fiery rain of burning lava,
all beauty, all fertility, vanish, and the slow results of
thousands of years are destroyed in a night of earthquake
and volcanic fury. Is it from this wild destruction of
slowly obtained utility that we are to infer the existence
of a divine intelligence and divine will ? If beauty and
use were aimed at, why the destruction? If desolation
and uselessness, why the millenniums spent in growth ?
During the year 1886 many hundreds of people in
Greece, in Spain, in America, in New Zealand, were killed
or maimed by earthquakes and by cyclones. Many more
perished in hurricanes at sea. Many more by explosions
in mines and elsewhere. These deaths caused widespread
misery, consigned families to hopeless poverty, cut short
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
9
•careers of use and of promise. They were caused by
“ natural ” forces. Is “ God ” behind nature, and are all
these horrors planned, carried out, by his mind and will ?
•John Stuart Mill has put the case clearly and forcibly :
“Next to the greatness of these cosmic forces, the quality
which most forcibly strikes everyone who does not avert his
•eyes from it is their perfect and absolute recklessness. They
go straight to their end, without regarding what or whom they
crush on the road. Optimists, in their attempts to prove that
‘ whatever is, is right ’, are obliged to maintain, not that nature
‘ ever turns one step from her path to avoid trampling us into
destruction, but that it would be very unreasonable in us to
•expect that she should. Pope’s ‘ Shall gravitation cease when
you go by ?’ may be a just rebuke to anyone who should be so
silly as to expect common human morality from nature. But
if the question were between two men, instead of between a
man and a natural phenomenon, that triumphant apostrophe
Would be thought a rare piece of impudence. A man who
should persist in hurling stones or firing cannon when another
man ‘ goes by ’, and having killed him should urge a similar
plea in exculpation, would very deservedly be found guilty of
murder. In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are
hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s ,
■everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act recog
nised by human laws, Nature does once to every being that
lives; and in a large proportion of cases, after protracted
tortures such as only the greatest monsters whom we read of
ever purposely inflicted on their living fellow creatures. If, by
an arbitrary reservation, we refuse to account anything murder
but what abridges a certain term supposed to be allotted to
human life, nature also does this to all but a small percentage
of lives, and does it in all the modes, violent or insidious, in
which the worst human beings take the lives of one another.
Nature impales men, breaks them as if on the wheel, casts them
to be devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes
them with stones like the first Christian martyr, starves them ;
With hunger, freezes them with cold, poisons them by the quick
■ or slow venom of her exhalations, and has hundreds of other
hideous deaths in reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a
Nabis or a Domitian never surpassed. All this, Nature does
with the most supercilious disregard both of mercy and of
Justice, emptying her shafts upon the best and noblest indiffer
ently with the meanest and worst; upon those who are engaged
in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct
consequence of the noblest acts; and it might almost be imagined
as a punishment for them. She mows down those on whose
existence hangs the wellbeing of a whole people, perhaps the
�10
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
prospects of the human race for generations to come, with aslittle compunction as those whose death is a relief to them
selves, or a blessing to those under their noxious influence”"
(“Three Essays on Religion,” pp. 28, 29, ed. 1874).
It is not only from the suffering caused by the unde
viating course of the phenomena which from the invariable
sequence of their happening are called “laws of nature”
that we infer the absence of any director or controller of
these forces. There are many absurdities as well as
miseries, caused by the “uniformity of nature”. Dr.
Buchner tells us of a kid he saw which was born perfect
in all parts save that it was headless (“Force and Matter”,
page 234, ed. 1884). Here, for weeks the kid was a-forming,
although life in the outer world was impossible for it.
Monstrosities occur in considerable numbers, and each one
bears silent witness to the unintelligence of the forces that
produced it. Nay, they can be artificially produced, as
has been shown by a whole series of experiments, eggstapped during incubation yielding monstrous chickens. In
all these cases we recognise the blind action of unconscious
forces bringing about a ridiculous and unforeseen
result, if turned slightly out of their normal course.
From studying this aspect of nature it is certain that we
cannot find God. So far from finding here a God to
worship, the whole progress of man depends on his
learning to control and regulate these natural forces, so asto prevent them from working mischief and to turn them,
into channels in which they will work for good.
If from scrutinising the forces of nature we study the
history of the evolution of life on our globe, and the
physical conditions under which man now exists, it is
impossible from these to infer the existence of a benevolent
power as the creator of the world. Life is one vast battle
field, in which the victory is always to the strong. More
organisms are produced than can grow to maturity; they
fight for the limited supply of food, and by means of this
struggle the weakest are crushed out and the fittest survive
to propagate their race. Each successful organism stands
on the corpses of its weaker antagonists, and only by this
ceaseless strife and slaying has progress been possible.
As the organisms grow more complex and more developed,
added difficulties surround their existence; the young of
the higher animals are weaker and more defenceless at-
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
ii
■birth than those of the lower, and the young of man, the
highest animal yet evolved, is the most helpless of all, and
his hold of life the most precarious during infancy.
So clumsy is the “plan of creation” that among the
most highly-evolved animals a new life is only possibleby peril to life already existing, and the mother must
pass through long weeks of physical weariness and
hours of acute agony ere she can hold her baby in her
arms. All these things are so “natural” to us that weneed to think of them, not as necessary, but as deliberately
planned by a creative power, ere we can realise the mon
strous absurdity of supposing them to be the outcome of’
“design”. Nor must we overlook the sufferings caused
hy the incomplete adaptation of evolving animals to the
conditions among which they are developing. The human
race is still suffering from its want of adaptation to theupright position, from its inheritance of a structure from
quadrupedal ancestors which was suited to the horizontal
position of their trunks, but is unsuited to the vertical
position of man. The sufferings caused by child-birth,
and by hernia, testify to the incomplete adaptation of therace to the upright condition. To believe that all the
slow stages of blood-stained evolution, that the struggle
for existence, that the survival of the fittest with its other
side, the crushing of the less fit, together with a million
subsidiary consequences of the main “plan”, to believethat all these were designed, foreseen, deliberately selected
as the method of creation, by an almighty power, to believe
this is to believe that “ God ” is the supreme malignity, a
creator who voluntarily devises and executes a plan of the
most ghastly malice, and who works it out with a cruelty
in details which no human pen can adequately describe.
But, again, the condition and the history of the world
are not consistent with its being the creation of an
almighty and perfect cruelty. While the tragedy off
life negates the possibility of an omnipotent goodness asits author, the beauty and happiness of life negate equally
the possibility of an almighty fiend as its creator. Thedelight of bird and beast in the vigor of their eager life
the love-notes of mate to mate, and the brooding ectasy of
the mother over her young; the rapture of the song which
sets quivering the body of the lark as he soars upwards
in the sun-rays; the gambols of the young, with every
�12
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
curve telling of sheer joy in life and movement; the
beauty and strength of man and woman; the power of
intellect, the glory of genius, the exquisite happiness of
■sympathy; all these things could not find place in the
handiwork of a power delighting in pain. We cannot,
then, from the study of life on our globe infer the exist
ence of a God who is wholly good ; the evil disproves
him: nor can we infer the existence of a God who is
wholly evil; the good disproves him. All that we learn
from life-conditions is that if the world has a creator his
■character must be exceedingly mixed, and must be one
to be regarded with extreme suspicion and apprehension.
Be it noted, however, that, so far, we have found no reason
to infer the existence of any creative intelligence.
Leaving the phenomena of nature exclusive of man, as
yielding us no information as to the existence of God, we
turn next to human life and human history to seek for
traces of the “divine presence”. But here again we are
met by the same mingling of good and evil, the same
waste, the same prodigality, which met us in non-human
nature. Instead of the “Providence watching over the
affairs of men” in which Theists believe, we note that
“there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to
the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to
whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous ”.
A railway accident happens, in which a useful man, the
mainstay of a family, is killed, and from which a profligate
escapes. An explosion in a mine slays the hardwork
ing breadwinners at their toil, and the drunken idler
whose night’s debauch has resulted in heavy morning
sleep is “providentially” saved as he snores lazily at
home in bed. The man whose life is invaluable to a
nation perishes in his prime, while the selfish race-haunt
ing aristocrat lives on to a green old age. The honest
•conscientious trader keeps with difficulty out of the bank
ruptcy court, and sees his smart, unscrupulous neighbor
pile up a fortune by tricks that just escape the meshes of
the law. If indeed there be a guiding hand amid the
vicissitudes of human life, it must be that of an ironical,
mocking cruelty, which plays with men as puppets for
the gratification of a sardonic humor. Of course, the real
■explanation of all these things is that there is no common
factor in these moral and physical propositions; the
�WHY I BO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
1®
quantities are incommensurable; the virtues or vices of
a man ar® not among the causes which launch, or do not
launch, a chimney pot at his head.
Outside these “changes and chances” of human life,,
the thoughtful mind feels conscious of a profound
dissatisfaction with many of the inevitable conditions
of human existence: the sensative faculties are at
their keenest when the intelligence is not sufficiently
developed to utilise them; the perceptive faculties begin
to fail as the reflective touch their fullest development;
and when experience is ripest, judgment most trained,
knowledge most full, old age lays its palsy on thebrain, and senility shakes down the edifice just
when a life’s toil has made it of priceless value. To-,
recognise our limitations, to accept the inevitable, to amend
—so far as amendment is possible—both ourselves and
our environment, all this forms part of a rational philo
sophy of life ; but what has such self-controlled and keen
eyed sternness of resolve to do with hysterical outcries for
help to some power outside nature, which, if it existed as
creator, must have modelled our existence at its pleasure,
and towards which our attitude could be only one of bit
terest, if silent, rebellion ? To bow to the inevitable evil,
While studying its conditions in order to strive to make it
the evitable, is consistent with strong hope which lightens
life’s darkness; but to yield crushed before evil delibe
rately and consciously inflicted by an omnipotent intelli
gence—in such fate lies the agony of madness and despair.
Nor do we find any reliable signs of the presence of a
God in glancing over the incidents of human history.
We note unjust wars, in which right is crushed by might,
in which victory sides with “the strongest battalions”, in
the issue of which there appears no trace of a “ God that
judgeth the earth”. We meet with cruelties that sicken
us inflicted on man by man; butcheries that desolate a
city, persecutions that lay waste a province. In every
civilised land of to-day we see wealth mocking poverty,,
and poverty cursing wealth ; here, thousands wasted on a
harlot, and there children sobbing themselves in hunger to
sleep. Our earth rolls wailing yearly round the sun,
bearing evidence that it has no creator who loves and
guides it, but has only its men, children of its own
womb, who by the ceaseless toil of countless genera
�14
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
lions are hewing out the possibility of a better and gladder
world.
Similar testimony is borne by the slow progress of the
human race. Truth is always fighting; each new truth
undergoes a veritable struggle for existence, and if Her
cules is to live to perform his labors he must succeed in
strangling the serpents that hiss round his cradle. The
new truth must first be held only by one, its discoverer ; if
he is not crushed at the outset, a few disciples are won;
then the little band is persecuted, some are martyred, and,
it may be, the movement destroyed. Or, some survive,
and gain converts, and so the new truth slowly spreads,
winning acceptance at the last. But each new truth must pass
through similar ordeal, and hence the slowness of the up
ward climb of man. Look backwards over the time which
has passed since man was emerging from the brute, and
then compare those millenniums with the progress that has
been made, and the distance which still separates the race
from a reasonably happy life for all its members. If a
God cannot do better for man than this, man may be well
content to trust to his own unaided efforts. Weturn from
the phenomena of human life, as from those of non-human
nature, without finding any evidence which demonstrates,
or even renders probable, the existence of a God.
There is another line of reasoning, however, apart from
the consideration of phenomena, which must, it is alleged,
lead us to believe in the existence of a God. This is
the well-used argument from causation. Every effect
must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a
cause, is a favorite enthymeme, of which the suppressed
minor is, the universe is an effect. But this is a mere
begging of the question. Every effect must have a
cause; granted; for a cause is defined as that which
produces an effect, and an effect as that which is pro
duced by a cause; the two words are co-relatives, and
the one is meaningless separated from the other. Prove
that the universe is an effect, and in so doing you will
have proved that it has a cause; but in the proof of that
quietly-suppressed minor is the crux of the dispute. We
see that the forces around us are the causes of various
effects, and that they, the causes of events which follow
their action, are themselves the effects of causes which
preceded such action. From the continued observation
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
■of these sequences, ourselves part of this endless chain,
the idea of causation is worked into the human mind,
and becomes, as it were, part of its very texture, so that
we cannot in thought separate phsenomena from their
causes, and the uncaused becomes to us the incon
ceivable. But wo cannot rationally extend reasoning
wholly based on pheenomena into the region of the noumenon. That which is true of the phsenomenal universe
gives us no clue when we try to pass without it, and to
penetrate into the mystery of existence per se. To call
God “the first cause” is to play with words after their
meaning has been emptied from them. If the argument
from causation is to be applied to the existence of the
universe, which is, without any proof, to be accepted as
an effect, why may it not with equal force be applied to
“ God ”, who, equally without any proof, may be regarded
as an effect ? and so we may create an illimitable series of
Gods, each an assumption unsupported by evidence. If we
once begin puffing divine smoke-rings, the only limit to the
exercise is our want of occupation and the amount of suit
able tobacco our imagination is able to supply. The belief
of the Atheist stops where his evidence stops. He believes
in the existence of the universe, judging the accessible proof
thereof to be adequate, and he finds in this universe sufficient
cause for the happening of all pheenomena. He finds no
intellectual satisfaction in placing a gigantic conundrum be
hind the universe, which only adds its own unintelligibility
to the already sufficiently difficult problem of existence.
Our lungs are not fitted to breathe beyond the atmosphere
which surrounds our globe, and our faculties cannot
breathe outside the atmosphere of the phsenomenal. If I
went up in a balloon I should check it when I found it
carrying me into air too rare for my respiration; and I
decline to be carried by a theological balloon into regions
wherein thought cannot breathe healthily, but can only
fall down gasping, imagining that its gasps are inspiration.
There remain for us to investigate two lines of evidence,
either of which suffices, apparently, to carry conviction to
a large number of minds; these are, the argument from
human experience, and the argument from design.
I have no desire to lessen the weight of an argument
drawn from the sensus communis, the common sense, of
mankind. It is on this that we largely rely in drawing
�16
WIIY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
distinctions between the normal and the abnormal; it isthis which serves as test between the sane and the insane
no thoughtful student can venture to ignore the tre
mendous force of the consensus of human experience.
But while he will not ignore, he must judge : he must
ask, first, is this experience universal and unanimous ?
Secondly, on what experimental or other evidence is it
based ? The universal and unanimous verdict of human
experience, based on clear verifiable experience, is one
which the thinker will challenge with extreme hesitation.
Yet cause may arise which justifies such challenge.
Perhaps no belief has at once been so general, and so
undeniably based on the evidence of the senses, as the
belief in the movement of the sun and the immobility of
our globe. All but the blind could daily see the rising of'
the sun in the eastern sky, and its setting in the west; alL
could feel the firmness of the unshaken earth, the solid
unmoving steadfastness of the ground on which we tread.
Yet this consensus of human experience, this universality
of Tinman testimony, has been rejected as false on evidence
which none who can feel the force of reasoning is able to
deny. If this belief, in defence of which can be brought
the no plus ultra of the verdict of common sense, be not
tenable in the light of modern knowledge, how shall a
belief on which the sensus communis is practically non
existent, on which human testimony is. lacking in many
cases, contradictory in all others, and which fails to main
tain itself on experimental or other evidence, how shall it
hold ground from which the other has been driven ?
The reply to the question, “Is the evidence universal
and unanimous ? ” must be in the negative. The religion
of Buddha, which is embraced by more than a third of the
population of the globe, is an Atheistic creed; many
Buddhists pay veneration to Buddha, and to the statues of
their own deceased ancestors, but none pretend that these
objects of reverence are symbols of a divine power. Many
of the lower savage tribes have no idea of &od. Darwin
writes: “There is ample evidence, derived not from hasty
travellers, but from men who have long resided with
savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist,
who have no idea of one or more Gods, and who have no
words in their language to express such an idea” (“Descent
of Man,” pp. 93, 94, ed. 1875). Buchner (“Force and
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
17
Matter,” pp. 382—393) has collected a mass of evidence
showing that whole races of men have no idea of God at
all. Sir John Lubbock has done the same. When
savages reach a stage of intelligence at which they begin
to seek the causes of phenomena, they invariably postulate
many Gods as causes of the many objects around them.
A New Zealander who was told of the existence of the one
God by a missionary, asked him scoffingly if, among
Europeans, one man made things of every sort; and he
argued that as there were various trades among men, so
there were various Gods, each with his own business, and
one made trees, another the sea, another the animals, and
so on. Only when intelligence has reached a comparatively
high plane, is evolved the idea of one God, the creator and
the rurs^of the universe. Moreover this idea of “God”
is essentially an abstract, not a concrete idea, and the fancy
that there ia an entity belonging to it is but a survival of
Realism, a/meory which is discredited in everything save
in this one theological remnant.
It has been alleged by some writers that, however
degraded may be the savage, he still has some idea of
supernatural existences, and that error on this head has
arisen from the want of thoroughly understanding the
savage’s ideas. But even these writers do not allege that
the belief of these savages touches on a being who can be
called by the most extreme courtesy “God”. There may
be a vague fear of the unknown, a tendency to crouch
before striking and dangerous manifestations of natural
forces, an idea of some unseen power residing in a stone
or a relic—a fetish; but such things—and of the existence
of even these in the lowest savages evidence is lacking—
can surely not be described as belief in God.
Not only is the universal evidence a-wanting, but such
evidence as there is wholly lacks unanimity. What at
tribute of the divine character, what property of the
divine nature, is attested by the unanimous voice of human
experience ? What is there in common between the
Mumbo-Jumbo of Africa, and the “heavenly Father”, of
refined nineteenth century European Theism.? What tie,
save that of a common name, unites the blood-dripping
Tezcatlepoca of Mexico with him “ whose tender mercy is
over, all his works ” ? Even if we confine ourselves to the
Gods of the Jews, the Christians, and the Mahommedans,
�18
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
how great is the clash of dissension. The Jew proclaims
it blasphemy to speak of a divine Trinity, and shrinks
with horror from the thought of an incarnate God. The
Christian calls it blasphemy to deny the deity of the man
Christ Jesus, aqd affirms, under anathema, the triune
nature of the Godhead. The Mahommedan asserts the
unity of God, and stamps as infidel everyone who refuses
to see in Mahommed the true revealer of the divinity.
Each is equally certain that he is right, and each is
equally certain that the others are wrong, and are in peril
of eternal damnation for their rejection of the one true
faith. If the Christian has his lake of fire and brimstone
for those who deny Christ, the Mahommedan has his drinks
of boiling water for those who assert him. Among 'this
clash of tongues, to whom shall turn the bewildered
enquirer after truth ? All his would-be teachers are
equally positive, and equally without evidence. All are
loud in assertion, but singularly modest in their offers of
proof.
Now, it may be taken as an undeniable fact that where
there is confusion of belief there is deficiency of evidence.
Scientific men quarrel and dispute over some much con
troverted scientific theory. They dispute because the
experimental proofs are lacking that would decide the
truth or the error of the suggested hypothesis. While
the evidence is unsatisfactory, the controversy continues,
but when once decisive proof has been discovered all
tongues are still. The endless controversies over the ex
istence of God show that decisive proof has not yet been
attained. And while this proof is wanting, I remain
Atheist, resolute not to profess belief till my intellect can
find some stable ground whereon to rest.
We have reached the last citadel, once the apparently
impregnable fortress of Theism, but one whose walls are
now crumbling, the argument from design. It was this
argument which so impressed John Stuart Mill that he
wrote in his Essay on “ Theism ” : “I- think it must be
allowed that, in the present state of our knowledge, the
adaptations in Nature afford a large balance of probability
in favor of creation by intelligence. It is equally certain
that this is no more than a probability ” (“ Three Essays
on Religion ”, p. 174). This Essay was, however, written
between the years 1868 and 1870, and at that time the
�■WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
19
tremendous effect of the hypothesis of evolution had not
yet made itself felt; Mill speaks (p. 172) of the “recent
speculations ” on “ the principle of the ‘ survival of the
of the fittest’ ”, and recognising that if this principle were
sound “there would be a constant though slow general
improvement of the type as it branched out into many
different varieties, adapting it to different media and
modes of existence, until it might possibly, in countless
ages, attain to the most advanced examples which now
exist ” (p. 173), he admits that if this be true “ it must be
acknowledged that it would greatly attenuate the evidence
for ” creation. And I am prepared to admit frankly that
until the “how” of evolution explained the adaptations
in Nature, the weight of the argument from design was
very great, and to most minds would have been absolutely
decisive. It would not of course prove the existence of an
omnipotent and universal creator, but it certainly did
powerfully suggest the presence of some contriving intel
ligence at work on natural phenomena. But now, when
we can trace the gradual evolution of a complex and highly
developed organ through the various stages which separate
its origin from its most complete condition ; when we can
study the retrogression of organs becoming rudimentary
by disuse, and the improvement of organs becoming
developed by use; when we notice as imperfections in the
higher type things which were essential in the lower: what
wonder is it that the instructed can no longer admit the
force of the argument from design ?
The human eye has often been pointed to as a trium
phant proof of design, and it naturally seemed perfect in
the past to those who could imagine no higher kind of
optical instrument; but now, as Tyndall says, “Along
list of indictments might indeed be brought against the
eye—its opacity, its want of symmetry, its lack of achro
matism, its absolute blindness, in part. All these taken
together caused Helmholtz to say that, if any optician sent
him an instrument so full of defects, he would be justified
in sending it back with the severest censure” (“On
Light”, p. 8, ed. 1875). It is only since men have made
optical instruments without the faults of the eye, that we
have become aware how much better we might see than
we do. Nor is this all; the imperfections which would
show incompetence on the part of a designer become inte
�20
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
resting and significant as traces of gradual development,
and the eye, which in the complexity of its highest form
seemed, notwithstanding its defects, to demand such great
intelligence to conceive and fashion it, becomes more in
telligible when we can watch it a-building, and, as it were,
See it put together bit by bit. I venture to quote here
from a pamphlet of my own a very brief statement of the
stages through which the eye has passed in its evolution:
“ The first definite eye-spot that we yet know of is a little
colored speck at the base of the tentacles of some of the
Hydromedusse, jelly-fish in common parlance. They are
only spots of pigment, and we should not know they were
attempts at eyes were it not that some relations, the Discophora, have little refractive bodies in their pigment
spots, and these refractive bodies resemble the crystalline
cones of animals a little higher in the scale. In the next
class (Vermes), including all worms, we find only pigment
spots in the lowest; then pigment spots with a nerve
fibre ending in them; pigment spots with rod-shaped cells,
with crystalline rods ; pigment spots with crystalline cones.
Next, the cones begin to be arranged radially; and in
the Alciopidse the eye has become a sphere with a lens
and a vitreous body, layer of pigment, layer of rods, and
optic nerve. To mark the evolution definitely in another
way, we find the more highly developed eye of the
adult appearing as a pigment spot in the embryo, so
that both the evolution of the race and the evolution
of the individual tell the same story. In the Echino
derma (sea-urchins, star-fishes) we find only pigment
spots in the lower forms, but in the higher the rod-shaped
cells, the transparent cones projecting from pigment cells.
In the Arthropoda (lobsters, insects, etc.,) the advance
continues from the Vermes. The retina is formed more
definitely than in the Alciopidm, and the eye becomes more
complex. The compound eye is an attempt at grouping
many cones together, and is found in the higher members
of this sub-kingdom. In the lowest vertebrate, the Amphioxus, the eye is a mere pigment spot, but in the others
the more complex forms are taken up and carried on to
the comparative perfection of the mammalian eye” (“Eyes
and Ears”, pp. 9, 10). And be it noted that in the
most complex and highly developed eye there is still the
same relation of pigment layer, rod layer, cone layer,
�WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
21
seen in its earliest beginnings in the Discophora and the
worms.
The line of argument here applied to the eye may be
followed in every instance of so-called design. The ex
quisite mechanism of the ear may be similarly traced, from
the mere sac with otoliths of the Medusse up to the elabo
rate external, middle, and internal ears of man. Man’s
ear is a very complex thing. Its three chambers ; the
curious characteristics of the innermost of these, with its
three “semi-circular canals”, its coiled extension, like a
snail-shell, called the cochlea, its elaborate nervous mechan
ism ; the membrane between the middle and outer cham
bers, which vibrates with every pulsation of the air; we
can trace all these separate parts as they are added one to
one to the auditory apparatus of the evolving race. If we
examine the edge of the “ umbrella ” of the free-swimming
Medusa, we shall find some little capsules containing one
or more tiny crystals, the homologues of the inner ear; the
lower forms of Vermes have similar ears, and in some there
are delicate hairs within the capsule which quiver con
stantly ; the higher worms have these capsules paired and
they lie close to a mass of nervous matter. Lobsters and
their relations have similar ears, the capsule being some
times closed and sometimes open. In many insects a
delicate membrane is added to the auditory apparatus, and
stretches between the vesicle and the outer air, homologue
of our membrane. The lower fishes have added one semi
circular canal, the next higher two, and the next higher
three : a little expansion is also seen at one part of the
vesicle. In the frogs and toads this extension is increased,
and in the reptiles and birds it is still larger, and is curled
a little at the further end. In the lowest mammals it is
still only bent, but in the higher it rolls round on itself
and forms the cochlea. The reptiles and birds have the
space developed between the vesicle and the membrane,
and so acquire a middle ear; the crocodile and the owl
show a trace of the external ear, but it is not highly
developed till we reach the mammals, and even the lowest
mammals, and the aquatic ones, have little of it developed.
Thus step by step is the ear built up, until we see it com
plete as a slow growth, not as an intelligent design.
And if it be asked, how are these changes caused, the
answer comes readily : “ By variation and by the survival of
�22
WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
the fittest ”. Since organisms and their environments re-act
on each other, slight variations are constantly occurring;
living organisms are ever in very unstable equilibrium,
chemical association and disassociation are continually going
on within them. Some of these changes are advantageous
to the organism in the struggle for existence; some are
indifferent; some are disadvantageous. Those that are
advantageous tend to persist, since the organism possessing
them is more likely to survive than its less fortunate com
petitors, and — since variations are transmissible from
parents to progeny—to hand on its favorable variation to
its young. On the other hand the disadvantageous varia
tions tend to disappear, since the organism which is by
them placed at a disadvantage is likely to perish in the
fight for food. Here are the mighty forces that cause evo
lution ; here the “ not ourselves which makes for righteous
ness”, i.e., forever-increasing suitability of the organism
to its environment.
It is, of course, impossible in so brief a statement as
this to do justice to the fulness of the explanation of all
cases of apparent design which can be made in this fashion.
The thoughtful student must work out the line of argu
ment for himself. Nor must he forget to notice the argu
ment from the absence of design, the want of adaptation,
the myriad failures, the ineptitudes and incompetences of
nature. How, from the point of view of design, can he
explain the numerous rudimentary organs in the higher
animals ? What is the meaning of man’s hidden rudimen
tary tail? of his appendix coeci vermiformis? of the
branchial clefts and the lanugo of the human being dur
ing periods of ante-natal life ? of the erratic course of the
recurrent laryngeal? of the communication between the
larynx and the alimentary canal ? I might extend the list
over a page. The fact that uninstructed people do not
appreciate these difficulties offers no explanation to the
instructed who feel their force; and the abuse so freely
lavished on the Atheist does not carry conviction to the
intellect.
I do not believe in God. My mind finds no grounds
on which to build up a reasonable faith. My heart revolts
against the spectre of an Almighty Indifference to the pain,
of sentient beings. My conscience rebels against the
injustice, the cruelty, the inequality, which surround me
�WHY" I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
23
on every side. But I believe in Man. In man’s redeeming
power; in man’s remoulding energy; in man’s approach
ing triumph, through knowledge, love, and work.
��
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
Why I do not believe in God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N074
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 (Why I do not believe in 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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/28972e27d591285fe8c40c74b0daf119.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LLpxcuRKY81gHQLTUB3C5imc3sMXIYbjQCa3AAVgUTiLyLjrNso1zzJ149VZHjQyzJxMqN-q3DO3RYsHsivfGtEYyo4vELOEgWlEGrbwBhMKVv9oIsbWd1h2kMx3DI5WFJNrrPmGO2PMq-FA8TBXgsBxj-RkWWsNyAoXUNqwL7L0D7ZVQfsMtvwuZRzcr5SEuAjf9YtltvIk1UNcN8FFVULM6JrG6-oZ%7Ee9QSbGupEmQXWdR9bYbQcpeZ9Cdh%7EMbhXogNtcJfHre1v1xEDmnsrhBtyjD1-1C%7EPjpfoEXDQO3SBWOWkd96coH3wF0lJx5Ix-QURqIvBwzkIOh4-bl8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d4d97a6a7f1e1d50f9fd42fe59f2dd8f
PDF Text
Text
THE
No. 25.] LANGHAM HALL PULPIT.
[june30,i878
(tljmm lU'itljx'i’
ism. Smmdmni, nnr
■ —:
aWFW/L
JL
-v ■
i
*
/w>
SZEZRGXZEOIT
PREACHED AT THE LANGHAM HALL, JUNE 23rd, 1878, BY
REV. CHARLES VOYSEYV
1 Cor. xiv. 8.—“ If the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
who shall prepare himselffor the battle ? ”
A Conference was held at South Place Chapel, Finsbury,
on the 13 th and 14th inst. convened by means of the following
circular.
a,
Pt.ACJ CHAPEL,
*
11 South Place, Finsbury,
London, E.C.
The Minister and Committee of the Religious Society meeting at South Place
solicit your attendance at a General Conference of Liberal Thinkers, to be held
here on June 13th and 14th, 1878, from 12 to 5 p.m. each day, for the discussion of
matters pertaining to the religious needs of our time, and the methods of meeting
them.
In assuming the initiative in this matter, our Society has no disposition to
commit anyone who may accept this invitation to any opinions held by its minister
or members. It is actuated by a desire to promote the unsectarian and liberal
religion of the age, now too much impeded by isolation and by misunderstandings
among those really devoted to common aims, and to utilise its building and organiza
tion for that purpose.
At the proposed Conference it is hoped that persons may be gathered who,
though working in connection with particular organizations, yet acknowledge no
authority above Truth, and are interested in the tendency to that universal religion
which would break down all partition walls raised by dogma and superstition between
race and race, man and man.
It is believed that light and strength may be gained for each and all by earnest
and frank consultation concerning such subjects as the relation of liberal thinkers
S0UTI1
Rev. C. Voysey’s sermons are to be obtained at Langham Hall,
43 Great Portland Street, every Sunday Morning, orfrom the Author
(by post), Camden House, Dulwich, S.H.
Price one penny.
�2
to the sectarian divisions of the world; their duties of negation and affirmation, and
the practical methods of advancing their principles.
The proposed meeting will he informal in its constitution, no regular represen
tation being at present in view, the assembly being thus left free to adopt any prac
tical course for the future that shall appear desirable.
A careful report of the proceedings will be printed.
Your reply, whieh it is hoped will be favourable, together with the names and
addresses of such persons as you believe would be interested in the proposed Con
ference, may be sent to Mr. MONCURE D. CONWAY, Hamlet House, Hammer
smith, London, W.
I will ask any candid religious person what possible objection
he could make to the terms of this circular. Indeed, I will go
further, and say, that it reflects great credit on those who drew
it up, and that, had the programme but been adhered to, few
conferences could have been more timely or more useful. The
wonder is that there was not a rush of earnest religious men
from every Church and Sect in the kingdom to bear their part
in discussing the religious needs of our time, and the methods
of meeting them. The archbishops and bishops in their
palaces, the deans and dignitaries of the Church, clergy of all
shades of opinion, ministers of religion among the Noncon
formists, active influential laymen, peers of the realm, mem
bers of Council and Legislature, philanthropists of every
school—in short, all men and women who are above frivolity,
and whose lives are occupied in useful work, might well have
been expected to be drawn together by such an invitation, by
such an admirable project. The object was exalted, it was set
forth in plain terms, free
office; and, lest any should
be deterred by a knowledge of the traditions or present charac
teristics of the place of assembly, the promoters wisely and
laudably stated in their circular that they had no desire to
commit any of the attendants of the Conference to their own
particular views.
Speaking for myself, it disarmed all opposition, and I was
ready at once to throw myself into the scheme, and to con
tribute, to the best of my power, to the deliberations of the
assembly. Looking round at the various schools of religious
thought, I could not but feel that the proposed object of the
Conference belonged even more to us than to any other asso
ciation. Our work was inaugurated, and has been manfully
maintained for no other purpose in the world than to study the
religious needs of our time, and to endeavour to meet them.
The very defects of our work are in one sense its merits. We
have aimed at providing a path easy and pleasant for those
who were weary and footsore in their search after reasonable
religion. We have tried to make the transition from old to
new as gentle and safe as was consistent with strict integrity.
�We have thrown away nothing that we could conscientiously
retain; we have retained nothing that we could not conscien
tiously use. We have added nothing that did not give promise
of being a grateful substitute for cast-off forms. It is not
perfect; it is purposely left open to correction and improve
ment, to suit our spiritual growth and the new needs of a
coming time. But from first to last it is an effort to recog
nize the religious needs actually before our eyes, and to meet
them with a reasonable satisfaction. A Conference professing
to be an interchange of thought on such a theme between
really religious people could not fail to be an attraction for us;
and again I say the proposal deserved our high appreciation
and our genuine thanks.
But the promise so fair, so fascinating, was only made to be
broken. The expectations raised by it were doomed to disap
pointment. Compared with the terms of the circular by which
the Conference was summoned the meeting was a signal failure.
In the first place we heard little or nothing of the “ religious
needs of our time,” and a great deal of downright, and some
vulgar, Atheism; one of the speakers going so far as to wish
to expunge the very name of religion from the face of the
earth. Allusions were also made to recent prosecutions for
illegal publications and were designated as “tyrannous.”
Women’s rights [which in one place and on some lips is a
term signifying all that is just and good and pure, and in
another place and on otherIip£^plies just the opposite] were
imported into the discussion; and when we Remember what
this phrase is associated with in America, we cannot but fear
that the reference to it in connexion with these prosecution s
was as dangerous to morals as to religion.
Speeches of this
tendency were not checked, but greeted with vociferous ap
plause. Very soon it became manifest that the main object
of the Conference as stated in the circular was ignored or
forgotten, and superseded by an entirely new one. This was
the formation of an association of all “Liberal thinkers ” for
their protection against the social and other consequences of
Their free thought. It was proposed to swamp all differences
between Atheists and Theists, and to unite for political and
social aims. In short the Conference wished to drop religion
altogether out of its programme, or to treat Faith in God as
a matter of perfect indifference or of curiosity, and only to
be tolerated in any members of the Association, so long as
they kept it out of sight and did not obtrude it upon the notice
of the body corporate.
�4
Considering the position I occupy, and the work which by
your faithful exertions I have been enabled to carry on for
so many years, I could not but think that such an assembly
was the very last place in which I ought to be seen.
I
formally withdrew from it on the ground of my objection to
certain speeches, and the evident favour with which they were
received.
If Liberal thinkers, as they call themselves, hold, to any
appreciable extent, atheism in religion, radicalism in politics
and socialism in morals, they are of course at liberty to make
any alliance they please, and for any object that may take
their fancy; but it is monstrous to expect to be joined by
those to whom atheism is a distressing and dangerous evil, to
whom radicalism is utterly distasteful, and to whom socialism
is revol ting.
*
To unite such wholly discordant elements for
any purpose would be a foolish enterprise; but when it is pro
fessed that they should coalesce in order to prosecute some
end which is called “ religious,” the absurdity is too palpable
to require exposure.
No doubt every man who has devoutly thought for himself
in matters of religion is more or less averse from the orthodox
dogmas; and in this one point alone could there ever be found
a meeting-place or common ground for the Theist and Atheist.
It was thought by some speakers at the Conference that this
would be sufficiently wide to^admit nf organised co-operation
between the two; but I venture to think that it could not be
made available without the entire submission and suppression
of religious belief, and the consequent dominance of Atheism.
There is a vast number of Theists, who, like myself, feel that
notwithstanding all our repugnance to orthodoxy and our de
sire to sweep it away, we are nearer in our sympathies to the
Orthodox than we are to the Athejst—at least such types as
were heard at the Conference. If in fact it were deemed de
sirable to organise a league to destroy any objectionable form
of thought, it would be more natural, and I think more wise,
for TheistB to join with the orthodox against Atheism than
• The term radicalism, I think, is somewhat ambiguous. Some may call them
selves “ radicals,” who do not hold what I here mean by radicalism. It is the
extreme of opposition to the constitution and aristocratic institutions of the country.
It seeks revolution, and only waits its opportunity to overthrow existing authority.
It avails itself of every chance to vilify and endeavour to bring into contempt es
tablished law, and desires nothing so much as a commune. But in objecting to it,
I do not forget that this kind of radicalism is not confined to socialist agitators and
low prints, but is exhibited in one of its aspects by that section of the clergy who
band together to set the law of England at defiance, and to pour contempt on our
Highest Courts of Justice,
�5
for Theists to join with the Atheists to put down orthodoxy.
But I question the advantage of such organizations at all. I
believe that the determined resistance offered by the power
ful, the influential and the lovers of order in our middle classes,
to the very beginning of free thought in religion, is due
entirely to the dread as to where it may lead. In religion,
they say, it may land us in utter Atheism; in politics it may
end in radicalism and revolution; in social morals to their
corruption and decay.—The dread of these evils has not only
kept back many excellent and generous-minded persons from
daring to think at all independently on religion ; but is now
keeping away from our side many who are quite convinced of
the superiority of our beliefs over those of orthodoxy, and who
would not scruple to come forward and help us boldly, if they
were quite sure that there was no danger of any of those evils,
and that they would run no risk of being mixed up with that
class of “ Liberal thinkers.”
If such an alliance as was proposed at the Conference were
to be entered into between Theists and such Atheists, it would
entirely frustrate the end in view, viz., the dissolution of or
thodoxy. . In my opinion, even if our feeling and taste
permitted it, such an alliance would have the effect of making
orthodoxy stronger than ever, of consolidating its loose and
crumbling walls, and of firing its defenders with a fresh
enthusiasm in its defence. / Jhey would feel not only that
their religion was in danger, but their social and moral peace
was threatened too; and the struggle which would then be
really undertaken on behalf of the common welfare of society
would give new security and new life to the dogmas which had
been attacked. Not by elements such as made themselves
manifest at South Place will orthodoxy ever be dethroned.
Free thought in religion was not the only or the chief object
sought by some of the promoters of this alliance. Free thought
means on their lips much more than that; and it is this arriere
pensee which lovers of order really dislike even more than they
dread Atheism.
The Conference will have done good, however, if it should
prove to have led to a better and more accurate discernment
of our own work and objects; if it should lead to the correc
tion of those misunderstandings and misrepresentations where
by we suffer from undeserved suspicions and lose the help of
those#whose sympathies we have already gained. We let it be
known then, once for all, that our sole purpose is a religious
one; that our quarrel with orthodoxy is not that it is too reli
�6
gious, but not religious enough ; that we want to elevate and
strengthen faith in the Living God and not to knock it down
and trample on it; that we aim at the preservation of social
order and of all domestic virtues, to deepen the respect of man
to man and not to sow the seeds of class-hatred and party
strife ; to seek after all new truth wherever it may be found;
but always to regard our treasure as a precious trust for the
benefit of mankind. The Atheistical party at South Place,
were apt to wind up their speeches by some brilliant appeal
on behalf of humanity. Let them not forget that our belief
in God adds to the sentiment the highest sanction and man
date of conscience, and that we are not one whit behind them
in desiring and seeking to release mankind from its burdens.
Let them and ourselves also remember that the best and
highest of philanthropists are still religious men, orthodox
Christians or orthodox Jews, and believers in God, and that it
is really an affectation on their part or on ours, if they or we
pretend to be setting up an altogether fresh standard of
human brotherly love. No doubt orthodox people need deli
verance from some bondage—such as we call superstition,
sacerdotalism, and spiritual fear. But do we not also need
deliverance from our own class of prejudices, bigotry and
intolerance, and much irrepressible conceit of which Atheism
is the most prolific mother ? If we wish to uproot the errors
of orthodox people we must show them some better and higher
truths in their place. If we wish to give them better spiritual
food, we must provide a real banquet for their hungering
and thirsting souls, and not make them sit down before empty
tables. It is hard enough for the most joyous and enlightened
believer to gain a hearing for his higher truth about God and
human destiny from orthodox people; how then can they be
expected to listen to those who not only deny God’s existence
altogether, but trample on His holy name in jubilant
blasphemy ?
We must, however, record our deep regret that that kind of
Atheism or Agnosticism (which is so often forced upon the
wearied and baffled mind rather than sought by the rebellious
and proud spirit) should be exposed to social disabilities. Too
often, men cannot help their convictions, especially in matters
of religion. No honest convictions should ever be visited with
punishment, not even with disrespect. On this ground I would
never have raised my voice against unbelievers, of whom I have
always spoken respectfully. But it is quite another matter
when an alliance is offered for our acceptance, by which our
�7
whole position and work would be compromised. Then is the
time when a protest may fairly be made; and the line drawn
in conspicuous colour between that party and ourselves; so
that no one may have the shadow of an excuse for suspecting
us of sympathies from which we utterly revolt. It is the
common right of all to make known our own individual posi
tions, our beliefs, our denials, our aims, social, or political or
religious; and therefore I felt bound to repudiate, with what
emphasis I could summon, all complicity with the opinions,
sympathies, and purposes expressed by the majority at the
South Place Conference of Liberal Thinkers.
I feel it also my duty to express profound regret that the
word “ religion ” has found a place in the list of the Rules of
the Association. It will mislead thousands, it has misled
some already. If the new Association care for what is generally
understood by religion, by all means let them adopt the right
name for it; but if in one breath they vilify and ridicule
religion, or give definitions of it, carefully excluding not only
the name but all idea of God, and then say that the promotion
of religion is one of their chief objects, then I deliberately
accuse them of making a fraudulent use of words—for what
purpose I do not assign—but nevertheless a wilful perversion
of a word which to 99 out of every 100 persons has a meaning
diametrically opposed to the meaning it has on the lips of the
Association.
r' '
I bear them no ill-will. I can but regret that men are so
divided as we are and must be in our present state of partial
knowledge. I am sorry that I have had to protest against
their proceedings, and to decline an alliance with them. But
I should have been far more full of regret and even of shame
had I left it uncertain whether I approved of their scheme or
not; had I left a single loop-hole for the accusation that my
sympathies were enlisted on their side.
�•••',»/ o IT ♦Taai.irtw■ > • d
?h - z
T ' t, .•. .T . ' .
*
f
!1!f iBil -Olh.
<> Ot fc.
k
■ f fl fr i -f t»:,» ■
*
- #ft T H ? 1i ©'' > ;■
r<t;k» he,i Tiuff
„S r
■
ffft fapi♦y.’h’tJS O’-r JMflij v ■■» ': tf 'tflKYIl C T .' 1 f
It; ’ M * i 1 ) ‘Of
i> ar ii .Ho/if
<y?ja
tikrtl
hwhi rbffif
i» irxrii Xj
’.i 1 IflO
iad f 4
■ tnw- uj
(jl s,
LONDON.
Printed by UPFIELTWrREEN, Tenter Street,
Moorgate Street, E.C.
■\Sj|
' ■ nn as’ii-i
'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
Theism neither radicalism, socialism, nor atheism: a sermon preached at the Langham Hall, June 23rd, 1878
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 7 p. ; 23 cm.
Series: Langham Hall Pulpit
Series No.: 25
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Langham Hall Pulpit, June 30, 1878. Printed by Upfield Green, Moorgate Street, E.C.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1878
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5588
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theism
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 (Theism neither radicalism, socialism, nor atheism: a sermon preached at the Langham Hall, June 23rd, 1878), 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
Radicalism
Theism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/039f85d57739473055160d530101a9c2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d3sAeUpgbwz9dKQH4-zt95GtjqWgqZiQjaX3wlOgpZW65ZrI5AWMVNli1naITtU3PgLJZl8kvuriO%7E%7EYDPc5wFxNwZf3RpCMaxVpfAvxAQLWCD3P8Q-WvuVc9G-tmNgPBNhpHsctQOJdDX5sSmMWKyTV3Kv-l12tb9Y2u-9%7EFoUy8Wk04sZFK028c4C72s9PBnM5-pFq6OgMasg2lh1kuE0fsSB3QItqOMbuIpDRoqbvC1p2A26psfPefVhSmCQCJat3mfs2JbCOBgR30f3rybov%7EjgWmQFVmmvtLFk5VfdM2mIRVEM6B0pLQt1-1oDpkA0ESaV%7EZRMAG2hrhbgl3g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9246adee2c3aedf0d33f69a2e5c79445
PDF Text
Text
FROM
Christian Pulpit
Secular Platform
BY
JOHN
LLOYD
PRICE SIXPENCE
London:
THE PIONEER PRESS, 2 NEWCASTLE ST., E.C.
1903
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2 Newcastie-street, London, E.C.)
BACON, LORD
Pagan Mythology: or, the Wisdom of the
Ancients. 6d., postage l|d.
BENTHAM, JEREMY
Church
of
England Catechism Examined,
a
Wi”Ch narrowly escaped prosecu
tion. With Introduction by J. M. Wheeler. Is
postage 2d.
’
Utilitarianism. 3d, postage id.
COHEN, C.
Outline
of Evolutionary Ethics.
A plain
exposition of the nature of Morality from the stand
point of the doctrine of Evolution. 6d., postage Id.
Foreign Missions ; Their Dangers and Delusions.
A complete exposure of the Missionary movement,
rull of figures from the Societies’ own reports
showing how the money is spent, where it is spent,
and what are the results. 9d., postage, Id.
COLLINS, ANTHONY
Free Will
and Necessity.
Reprinted from
1715 edition, with Biography by J. M. Wheeler, and
Freiace and Annotations by G. W. Foote. Is.
p. 2d.; superior edition, on superfine paper, cloth
2s., postage 3d.
’
Huxley says that “ Collins writes with wonderful power
and closeness of reasoning.”
*
FEUERBACH, LUDWIG
The Essence of Religion. God the Image of
Ma.n. Man’s Dependence upon Nature the Last and
.< xrU y Source of Religion. Is., postage l|d.
No one has demonstrated and explained the purely
human origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig .
Feuerbach.”—Buchner.
8 1
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FROM
CHRISTIAN PULPIT
TO
SECULAR PLATFORM
BY
JOHN
LLOYD
London:
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle Street, E.C,
1903
�PRINTED BY THE PIONEER PRESS
AT
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C
�( Reprinted from
the
“ Freethinker.” )
I.—INTRODUCTORY.
It is a stupendous leap from the high and lonely
prison of the preacher to the low, wide, and free ros
trum of the Atheist, and such are the risks connected
with it that no one should ever take it except in
obedience to the stern voice of duty.
Recently, it
fell to my lot to be solemnly called upon to take such
a perilous jump, and to turn such a bewildering
somersault; and I am now obliged to testify that the
event formed the most serious and unforgettable
crisis of my life.
I can honestly state that it was
my supreme crisis, and that I feel it to be my duty,
as well as privilege, to furnish the reader with a minute
description of the various circumstances which com
bined to render it absolutely inevitable. I think I would
be justified in characterising it, further, as a typical
experience, through which hosts of others, ere long, will
be necessitated to pass. Be it known, therefore, that for
upwards of twenty years I occupied the Christian pulpit,
and won a moderate amount of notoriety in it. I was
what is called “a popular preacher,” a fact which was
both pleasing and inspiring to me.
I trust I shall not
lay myself open to the charge of egotism when I affirm
that, during the last fifteen years of my professional
career, the churches in which I officiated were too small
to accommodate the eager crowds. Of course, it often
happens^ that popularity is no proof of superior excel
lence. The most notorious person in Great Britain at
�4
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
the present moment is Samuel Herbert Dougal, the
brutal murderer and clever forger. Let a man leave
the ruts in which the wheels of society have been
accustomed to run, and become eccentric in his ways,
and he will soon become an object of public curiosity.
Everybody will be anxious to catch a glimpse of him,
and, if possible, to hear him speak. In my own case, I
am afraid that the chief element whieh contributed to
my popularity was a lurking suspicion, on the part of
the people, that I was not quite sound in the faith. To
myself, however, the most painfully conscious fact was
the knowledge that the faith was not sufficiently sound
in me. I was theologically eccentric.
I must emphasise this point. It has always been my
devoutest wish to hold the Christian faith unhesitatingly,
firmly, and in its orthodox completeness ; but, unfortu
nately for my peace of mind, the wish never blossomed
into serene fulfilment. It had been carefully handed
down to me, as a sacred legacy, through a long line of
ancestors, and I had been trained to believe that to
doubt it, or to cherish it languidly and falteringly,
would have been a heinous sin against God. During
childhood and youth, and for at least one year of my
ministerial career, I did hold it with tightest grip, and
was prepared to defend it against all opponents. I
must here explain that, in the school of theology in
which I was brought up, the Christian Faith was
synonymous with Calvinism, and that the only enemies
of it, with whom I was familiar, were Socinians or
Arminians. To me, Calvinism was the only true faith,
and all who denied it were outside the pale of the
Church of God, and would be damned for ever.
I
shuddered as I thought of the awful doom that awaited
benighted Wesleyans and Unitarians in the next world.
I placed John Calvin on the same level as the apostle
Paul, and pitied all who had the audacity to differ from
these two giants. Of atheistical teachers, who rejected
even Christianity and the Bible, I at first knew nothing.
Arminians were bad-enough, in all conscience, and their
chance of entering heaven at death was infinitesimally
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
5
small; but infidels and Atheists were too-deep sunk in
moral filth even to be mentioned in respectable society.
They were black emissaries from the Bottomless Pit,
whom the Devil had succeeded in making as desperately
wicked as himself.
With my up-bringing, I would
rather have faced a thousand deaths than ventured to
peruse the diabolical writings of such reprobates as
Voltaire and Tom Paine! But soon after my ordination,
my intellectual grasp of Calvinistic theology slackened,
and ere long gave way altogether. My precious inheri
tance crumbled into white dust about my feet, and was
blown to the four winds before my very eyes; and I
discovered, to my unutterable horror, that I was doomed
to be an unbeliever. In my awful misery I went into
retirement, there to examine the very roots of the old
beliefs. Had I been wise, or wisely advised, I would
have there and then abandoned the Christian ministry,
and qualified for some other profession. But I fought
my doubts, and in some measure overcame them.
Then, unfortunately, I resumed my former work, but
necessarily without the former intellectual assurance. I
persuaded myself to believe that there were still two
sovereign truths to which I could passionately cling—
namely, the Fatherhood of God at one extreme, and, at
the other, the Brotherhood of Man.
During the
remainder of my professional career, I proclaimed these
two doctrines with considerable fervor, and as vehemently
denounced Calvinism, my first love. Intellectually, I
could not demonstrate and fully justify the Divine
Fatherhood, but emotionally it was a source of incalculable
satisfaction to me. Whenever difficult questions arose
(such as, If God be a Father, all-wise and all-good, how
is it that the world is the habitation of so much cruelty,
injustice, and suffering ? If God is infinity or the Abso
lute, how can He be a person ? and, if He is not a
person, how can He be our Father <*), I intellectually
ignored, while emotionally triumphing over them. In
calm, meditative moments, I was often inexpressibly
distressed by the puzzling problems that crowded upon
me ; but my feelings always came to my rescue, enabling
�6
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
me to sail pleasantly on the ocean of maudlin sentiment.
This was a state of things that could not possibly con
tinue. No man can be, for any length of time, intel
lectually a thorough Agnostic, and emotionally an ardent
believer.
As I now look back upon it all, it is an
insoluble mystery to me how I managed to occupy so
anomalous a position for so long a time. In part, the
explanation is, that I honestly and strenuously en
deavored to believe that the spiritual faculty in man is
infinitely superior to the intellectual. But the attempt
turned out a miserable failure. At last, the intellect
won a glorious victory over mere emotionalism, and, in
consequence, my sentimental adherence to, and enjoy
ment of, Christianity and the Bible began gradually to
diminish. Then I was necessarily obliged to abandon
my profession, and to adopt Secularism, based on
Atheism, as my only possible creed.
Another explanation is to be found in a circumstance
which, to some extent at any rate, extenuates my mis
take. You are doubtless aware that noteven a conscious
hypocrite can be serenely and uniformly happy. He
lives a double'life, and is in constant dread lest people
should perceive that he is wearing a mask, and playing
a part. But, surely, inconceivably greater is the misery
of a simple, honest man who is striving to act honorably
in a totally impossible position.
He is perpetually
running up and bruising his knuckles against a dead
wall, in entire ignorance of the fact that there is a way
of preventing so useless and disastrous a performance.
I hat is an accurate description of my experience for
many years. I had been most assiduously trained, from
earliest childhood, in the narrowest of creeds, and
dogmatically taught to look upon it as the only true
creed ; my parents had been similarly trained and
taught in their childhood; for many generations before
my birth, my ancestors had successively occupied high
and prominent positions in the ecclesiastical life of their
country ; and, as an inevitable consequence, even the
idea of renouncing for ever, not merely the old orthodox
Calvinism, but also Christianity itself, was intolerably
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
7
repugnant to me. Indeed, during the earlier years, such
an idea never once suggested itself to my imagination.
I was, rather, dominated by the depressing conviction
that the intellectual collapse of my faith was the out
come of some unknown but serious spiritual defect or
fault, or, perhaps, the penalty of some hidden but most
real sin against God. Hence, I multiplied and itensified
my devotions, and knocked persistently at heaven’s door,
passionately pleading for pardon and the restoration of
my vanished treasure. The laws of heredity and environ
ment rendered it impossible for me to contemplate a life
of Atheism except with indescribable aversion and
horror.
The object of the following articles will be to explain,
on the one hand, how I was literally forced into the
Christian ministry, and, on the other, how I was, with
equal literalness, forcibly, though gradually, driven out
of it.
�FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
II.—CHILD-LIFE IN A PURITAN HOME.
Surely no man in his senses would ever dream of
pronouncing an unqualified and extravagant eulogium
on Puritanism. That it possessed several wholly admir
able and fascinating qualities cannot be denied ; but it
is equally clear that, as a scheme and philosophy of
human life, it was deplorably one-sided and utterly mis
leading. Thinking only of its courageous insistence on,
and inflexible adherence to, Righteousness, Carlyle and
Ruskin deeply loved and loudly praised it, declaring
with mournful pride that they were the last surviving
exponents of it in England; but, thinking chiefly of its
unlovely and repellent attributes, I am tempted to
denounce it in the bitterest and most vehement terms at
my command. My blood boils and rushes furiously
through my veins, as I look back upon my childhood
and youth, and realise how sadly and completely they
were darkened and blighted by the grim, black shadow
and; cruel; tyranny^ of Puritanism. I thankfully admit,
that in my parents^ were abundantly exemplified the
brighter and nobler features of the darksome system.
My father and mother were living incarnations of honor,
honesty, truth, and righteousness, and their love for their
children knew no bounds. In my references to them, I
hope I shall not employ a single disrespectful or disloyal
word. I am convinced that their affection for me never
wavered, and_that, to secure what they believed to be
my highest good, they would have cheerfully made all
necessary sacrifices. But, while fully admitting the
integrity and.sublimityofwtheir_character, as well as the
purity and nobleness of their motives, I cannot close my
eyes to the mournful .fact, that they were the means of
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
9
Utterly spoiling my child-life, and of wofully handicap
ping my whole future. Their conception of life and
character was fundamentally mistaken. They looked
upon the world through colored spectacles, and never
saw it in its true light and beauty.
The first formative heresy instilled into my impres
sionable mind was, that life on earth is a series of disci
plinary experiences, the sole object of which is to prepare
us for the perfect life in heaven. Heaven was an in
effably happy realm, in which the inhabitants incessantly
sang psalms and hymns, to the accompaniment of golden
harps, while earth was the abode of griefs and groans,
with interludes of heart-breaking and spirit-crushing
dirges and threnodies. All amusement was said to be
of the devil, and should be forcibly suppressed. All
music had to be severely in the minor key. Laughter
deserved hottest denunciation, while, on Sunday, not
even a smile could be tolerated. Pleasure of all kinds
was ruthlessly excluded. Once I laughed out over some
humorous passage in the Bible, for which I received
such an emphatic castigation from my father, that I
have not been able to forget it to this day. At this
moment, I can still see the old man’s grandly wrathful
face, and hear his stern rebuke: “Your stupid levity
over God’s own Book, my boy, is rank blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, for which the Great Judge may,
any minute, strike you down dead.” I trembled with
fear, and repressed my merriment, but failed to under
stand why it was wrong for a little boy to laugh at
ludicrous things. People of the world could eat and
drink and be merry, singing bright, joyous songs ; but
they were on the high road to hell, in which they would
have to weep and gnash their teeth to all eternity. And
yet, I remember that whenever I passed an inn or tavern,
and heard light-hearted, merry singing, I would stand
still, strangely thrilled and attracted : there was some
thing in me which, in spite of all my training and strong
convictions, irresistibly responded to the stirring strains.
But I was quickly brought to my senses byfcthe reflec
tion, that my enjoyment of such things was another
�IO
FROM CHRiSTIAN PULPIT
proof of the existence of original sin in my soul, and of
the fact that as yet I had not been born again.
Because of the same misconception of the nature and
meaning of human life, play, even in its mildest forms,
was regarded as being of the world worldly, in which
only the unregenerate indulged. Even little children
played marbles and span tops under severe parental
protest. Sometimes a lot of us would steal away into a
distant field, in order to have a clandestine turn at foot
ball ; but one of our number had to act as sentinel, that
no one might come upon us unawares. During my
childhood, I never saw an adult taking part in any sport
whatever. Even as recently as twenty years ago, the
Principal of a College, who was an ordained minister,
was solemnly reprimanded by his Presbytery for giving
encouragement to the sinful sporting spirit of the age, by
allowing himself to be elected President of the College
Cricket Club ; and had some of the pious brethren had
their way, he would have been deposed from the ministry.
I shall never forget the funereal tones in which children
were exhorted, at class-meetings, to abstain from all
irreverence and frivolity, and give themselves to prayer
and Bible-reading. Our parents, too, kept dinning the
same lesson in our ears: “ Remember, children,” they
used to say, “ that you are always in the presence of
holy God, and that in his sight seriousness is the most
becoming grace.”
And this brings me to the sole cause and root of the
whole matter, namely, the Puritanical conception of God,
which can only be characterised as pagan, cruel, monstrous.
The Puritan’s Deity was a heartless tyrant, who would
not permit little children to give free and full vent to the
very nature which he himself had bestowed upon them.
How persistently I was reminded that God was watching
me, and that every lie I told, and every wrong I did,
were recorded in his Books, and would be read out
against me at the Day of Judgment. To please him, it
was necessary to think about him all the time, read the
Bible with diligence, pray without ceasing, and go to
church three or four times on Sunday, and ever so
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
11
many times during the week. God’s eye was ever upon
me, so that there was no possibility of saying or doing
anything without his knowing about it.
On one occasion, I joined a number of boys in a
nutting expedition, thereby flatly disobeying my mother.
O how sweet was that stolen pleasure, while it lasted,
and how my whole being was thrilled, to its core, with
delight; but it was a short-lived bliss, for on my return
I had administered to me a never-to-be-forgotten punish
ment. Moreover, within a few hours after this motherly
chastisement, a fierce thunderstorm burst upon the com
munity, which was construed into a visible token of
heaven’s displeasure at my sinful behavior ; and after
almost every vivid flash, I was thus comforted : “ What
a mercy it did not strike you, my boy ; how good God
is thus to spare you.”
God’s tyranny cast its black and all-withering shadow
upon everything. I deliberately affirm that life was
not worth living; but, then, it was infinitely better to
live sadly and mournfully for a few years on earth, and
after death be endlessly happy in heaven, than to enjoy
a sinful life on earth, and afterwards grill and burn for
ever and forever in hell. Consequently, the better a
man became the more miserable he was. Lugubrious
ness was a sign of superior saintliness. It was openly
stated that a well-known and pre-eminent man of God,
who was a brilliant scholar, being able to speak with
fluency seven different languages, a profound theo
logian, and an authoritative interpreter of the eternal
decrees, had never been known to laugh. He was one
of the holiest men that ever lived, being so like him of
whom it is recorded that he wept bitteriy on several
occasions, but not that he laughed even once ; and chil
dren, especially, were advised to aim at a similarly
exalted type of piety.
This unrelieved lugubriousness of temper was always
in strong evidence at the public services of the church.
At such times everybody looked tremendously solemn, as
if thermal universal conflagration were about to begin,
and every two or three minutes all the best people
�i2
FROAf CHRlStlAff PUtPlT
vigorously sighed, moaned, grunted, groaned, or cried
“ Amen.” I can see them now, those elders and deacons
of enviable holiness, with their hair brushed down their
foreheads, arrayed in badly-fitted garments of home
made cloth, seated in the Big Pew immediately in front
of the Pulpit, and staring with fixed eyes upon the
preacher, who was vehemently shouting out God’s
gracious message in Christ. O what eloquent croakers
those superior men of God were, and how some of the
children wondered whether they would ever be old and
pious enough to be allowed a like high privilege!
In those days, to be a member of the Church was
identical with being saved. Every church member held
a certificate for heaven.
Hence, to be cut oft from
church membership was the most awful calamity that
could befall a person. Outside was the big world, lying
under the wrath of the Great Judge because of its sins,
and doomed to spend all eternity in the flames of hell;
and to be flung back into such a wretched world was the
greatest curse conceivable. Within my recollection, a
young woman was so thrust out for allowing a man of
the world to fall in love with, and be married to, her.
In excommunicating her, the officiating minister brutally
assured her that, were she to die before she repented and
was readmitted to membership, she would undoubtedly
be committed to the unquenchable flames of Gehenna.
Poor soul, she was frightened almost out of her wits ; and
yet her only crime consisted in marrying a thoroughly
honest, upright, and good man, who did not happen to
be within the pale of the Church.
Children’s meetings were frequently held, at which
the youngsters were drilled in Bible history and the
catechisms. • In all such gatherings, the dominant note
was that God sat on his throne, night and day, watching
the behavior of children on earth, and that, unless their
conduct was in harmony with the teaching of the Church
and their parents, he would most certainly cast them
into the outer darkness, where they would wail and
shudder in infinite torment for ever.
Such was the training of a child in a Puritan home
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
13
thirty or forty years ago, and naturally the consequences
were most disastrous. During all my childhood days I
never knew what it was to be spontaneously happy, or
genuinely and unreservedly young. I always had an
old head, filled with fears and forebodings, on my young
shoulders.
Of necessity, therefore, mv nature was
warped, and my character became wofully one-sided.
There was a whole realm of delightful and educative
experiences to which I was a total stranger, and to this
day I have suffered infinite loss in consequence. A
friend, similarly trained in childhood, told me the other
day that he never knew what it was to be young until
he was fifty years of age.
When will parents learn that childhood should be a
period of natural, spontaneous, and ebullient happiness,
and that any training that robs it of that desirable
quality, however well-intentioned, is in the highest
degree iniquitous ? At the bar of justice and common
sense Puritanism stands utterly, absolutely, and eternally
condemned.
�T4
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
III.—LOOKING TOWARDS THE PULPIT.
Nothing was more natural than that a boy, carefully
brought up in . a strictly Puritan home, should be
resolutely ambitious to enter the ministry of the
gospel.
Consider, for a moment, the theological
atmosphere in which the training would naturally be
conducted.
Many of my readers are fully aware
that the philosophy of the plan of salvation, as ex
pounded on the hearth-stone, from the pulpit, and
at most of the ordinary meetings of the church,
would be arrestingly realistic. By eating the for
bidden apple, Adam incurred the righteous wrath of
heaven, and in consequence of that one sinful act all
his descendants were involved in the same inexorable
doom. We have all inherited original sin; or, in
other words, we are all held and accounted guilty
of a sin we have never committed, or, more accurately,
of a sin we have committed in him as our divinely
appointed head. God hates the whole human race,
and has created a lake of fire and brimstone in which
to consume it for ever. Every one of us is justly
doomed to eternal shame and suffering. Such is the
immutable decree of heaven, and there is absolutely
no escape from it. Ours is a doomed world, and
there is not a single ray of hope for it. In this
stern, dark dogma I was most scrupulously indoctri
nated. But, fortunately, there are three persons in
the blessed Trinity, and we were assured that one
of them has always had a tender, compassionate
heart. Although the Father is, and always was, in
himself utterly implacable, and violently determined to
inflict an all-crushing punishment upon the objects of
his well-deserved indignation, the Son cherished feelings
�To SECULAR PLATFORM
i5
of yearning pity and forgiving sympathy towards them,
and passionately besought the P atherly heart to graci
ously spare them. The Supreme Ruler of the Universe,
however, showed himself relentlessly unpropitious, and
emphatically disinclined either to withdraw or to modify
the high claims of his justice. Said the Son: . “ My
heart bleeds with compassion for the condemned sinners
of the earth, and I am prepared to do all within my
power to deliver them from thy fierce wrath. Wilt thou
not punish me, and acquit them ? Wilt thou not empty
the vials of thine anger into my soul, and bestow upon
them thy free and full forgiveness ?” In response to so
moving an appeal, the Father entered into a solemn
covenant with his Son, known in theology as the
Covenant of Grace, according to which the Son was to be
accepted as a substitute for a chosen number of man
kind, and to endure, in his own innocent person, the
awful punishment due to them on account of their sins.
Hence, in order to secure the complete deliverance of
the Elect, the second person in the blessed Trinity came
down to earth, was born as a man, lived, toiled,
suffered, died on the Cross, rose from the dead, and
returned to heaven as the perfect Redeemer of his
people.
I know how utterly absurd all this will appear to all
who were not brought up to believe it, and even to me
now its most prominent feature is its absolute un
believability.
But the most extraordinary and in
credible teaching of theology is yet to be described.
We were told that the three persons in the glorious
Trinity had each his own peculiar share in the grand
work of redemption. The work of the Son consisted
in offering himself up as an infinite atonement for the
sins of the Elect, which he did on the Cross of Calvary,
and the Father’s work was, partly, to accept the offered
atonement as all-sufficient, and, partly, to arrange for
the actual administration of the Covenant of Grace.
Now, this administration of the Covenant was entrusted
to the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Trinity, as
his special share of the sublime work. He was there-
�l6
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
fore commissioned to descend into the world in order to
discharge his administrative duties.
But as the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate, he
was obliged to work through mediums and agents. As
a pure ghost he had to enter into chosen vessels, and fill
them to overflowing, before anything could be accom
plished. The chosen vessels were the apostles and their
duly ordained successors, who are usually known now
as clergymen, ministers of the gospel, or men in Holy
Orders, whom I was instructed to regard as the repre
sentatives of the Holy Ghost, commissioned by him to
explain the Covenant of Grace to their fellow-beings,
and to urge all to believe the gospel. Of course, the
non-elect had no chance whatever of being saved ; but,
as no one knew who the elect were, it was necessary
to preach the gospel to all without distinction. In every
congregation some of heaven’s chosen ones would surely
be found, and on hearing the word of life they would
savingly receive it, and be snatched as brands from the
•burning. Thus the extending of the offer of salvation
to all alike was only a trick to get at the elect, and
gather them into the gospel net.
Such was the creed on which I was nourished in my
childhood, and having inherited from my ancestors an
ardent temperament, and being from a child abnormally
sensitive and sympathetic, I was naturally most power
fully affected by it. My heart melted into tears of pity
for the miserable sinners round about me. I burned
with the desire to make known to them what God, for
Christ’s sake, had agreed to do for them. Of course,
there was the possibility that I did not happen to be one
of the elect myself, although I had fervently swallowed
the whole creed, and accepted Christ as my Redeemer.
Indeed, nobody could be absolutely sure of his election.
Even the brightest and most confident faith had a back
ground of fear and trembling. But I passionately
yearned to tell all within my reach that Christ had
offered himself up as an all-meritorious sacrifice for the
sins of his sheep, whom God, for his sake, was prepared
to forgive, justify, and sanctify, that at death they might
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
17
ascend and occupy splendid mansions in the sky. And
thus I resolved to become a minister.
My father was the senior deacon of the church, and
the most prominent member of society in the community,
in consequence of which fact I enjoyed several high
privileges that did not fall to the lot of ordinary children.
For example, most of the itinerant preachers who
visited our little Bethel were my father’s guests during
their stay. Ah, how well I remember those holy men of
God. What an infinite honor it was to entertain them,
and with what deep, rich joy my parents waited on them,
and offered them the choicest fare that love could
procure! With what tremulous reverence I used to
regard them, and with what grateful avidity I treasured
up all their precious sayings ! They were not made of
common clay. They were the mouthpieces of Jehovah,
and their sermons came down to them as sacred gifts
from heaven. As I thought of them my soul was on
fire with envy, and O how fervently I prayed God to
appoint me to the same exalted vocation. Sometimes
one of these semi-divine beings would condescend to
speak to me, and at once my whole being quivered with
proud delight. “ What would you like to be when you
grow up, my boy ?” he would ask, and tremblingly I
would answer, “ A preacher, sir.” “ That is a good boy,”
he would add, gently stroking my hair; “ I hope God
has called you, for without his special call no one has a
right to enter the pulpit.” I felt the truth of his words,
and gave myself more than ever to prayer, assuring the
Supreme Being that if he permitted me to become a
preacher, I would do my best to be an honor to him.
At times, I almost fancied I could hear his welcome
voice distinctly calling me to the sacred profession.
But when, at fifteen, failing to restrain myself any
longer, I appealed to the church for permission to
exercise my preaching gifts, my request was firmly
refused, the church being evidently sceptical as to my
possessing such gifts to exercise. Still, the fire burned
in my bones, and preach I must, at whatever cost,
used to go up to the mountain top, and deliver eloquent
�IS
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT*
and all-convincing discourses to a congregation of sheep,
lambs, and lapwings. The sheep were somewhat dense,
and responded but slowly to my passionate appeals, but
the lapwings rewarded me with inspiring applause. I
little thought, at the time, that the lovely birds were only
trying to decoy me away from the vicinity of their muchcherished.’ nests.
Eventually, however, the church
accepted me as an accredited candidate for the sacred
profession, and started me on the preparatory course. I
was then the proudest and happiest young man in all the
land. For weeks I walked on air and partook of angels’
food. To keep down my pride a messenger of Satan
occasionally came to buffet me with this hateful insinu
ation : “ What if thou art not one of God’s elect, after
all ? What if thou art thyself, by heaven’s decree, a
miserable castaway ?” But to prevent my sinking into
utter despair, a messenger of God would breathe into
me the consolation that arose from the fact that the
church had chosen me, and that it was through the
church God was accustomed to reveal his will.
O blind, misguided, and superstition-ridden fool that I
was, and knew it not.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
*9
IV.—AT THE DIVINITY HALL.
Soon after my enrolment as a ministerial candidate
I entered the University, at which I was privileged to
spend four laborious years. At the conclusion of this
purely academic course, I was admitted to the Divinity
Hall, wherein three interesting and revealing years were
passed. A Divinity Hall, or Theological Seminary, is
one of the most wonderful and unique institutions on
earth. The curriculum includes the Hebrew Language,
Biblical Exegesis, Homiletics, Ecclesiastical History,
and Systematic Theology. In my youthful estimation,
the Professors were demi-gods. How delightfully omni
scient and authoritative they were ! They knew every
thing, could answer every question, solve every problem,
penetrate every mystery, and annihilate every difficulty.
They talked about God with as much familiarity as if
they had stood behind his back and peeped over his
shoulders while he was framing his Eternal Decrees.
They could supply us with all sorts of exact information
about Election, the Incarnation, and the Unseen World.
They were all more or less rigid Calvinists, and each
lecture they delivered stated a doctrine, presented irre
futable proofs of its truth, and triumphantly demolished
all objections to it. All who held different views from
those expressed by them were denounced as dangerous
heresiarchs. Indeed, our Professors were to be regarded,
not as vendors of mere views or opinions, but as divinelyappointed proclaimers of sovereign truths revealed in the
Bible.
Arminians were hopelessly, if not judicially,,
blind, because they deliberately refused to use their
spiritual eyes. All “ isms,” other than Augustinism or
Calvinism, were of the Devil, and destined to pass
away. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, America, one of
the most illustrious champions of the Old School Calvin
ism, was said to have refused to shake hands with
�20
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
William Ellery Channing, the renowned Unitarian,
because he verily believed that Unitarianism had not a
single Scriptural leg on which to stand, and that Uni
tarians could not be recognised as genuine members of
the household of God.
At our Hall, a cold and narrow literalism reigned
with sublime dignity. The fable of the Fall in Genesis,
with its Adam and Eve, garden, apple, and serpent, was
treated as a unique historical fact. The doctrine of the
Trinity was explained in the most painfully mechanical
style. The Professor of Dogmatic Theology assured us,
with calm confidence, that it w7as the simplest, as -well as
the most important, doctrine contained in the Word of
God. He told us what distinctions and resemblances
there were between the three persons, in what exact
relations they stood to one another, and what distinctive
work each of them did. The fact of the incarnation of
God in Christ, according to him, involved the Immacu
late and Miraculous Conception. He explained to us
that it was just as easy for Omnipotence to create the
body and soul of Christ in Mary’s womb as it had been
to form the first man out of the dust of the ground, and
the first woman out of a male rib. Christ was Humiliated
Deity—Deity punishing himself for the sins of man.
The Incarnation was, therefore, the Supreme Miracle.
I smile as I think of it all now; but then I solemnly
believed it. To-day I regard it as a puerile superstition;
but then it impressed me as a truth revealed to us by the
Holy Spirit. All other dogmas were dealt with in pre
cisely the same way ; but space does not allow me to
give any further examples.
Occasionally the Professors were targets at which
thoughtful and sceptically-inclined young men fired
awkward and staggering questions; but not one of the
shots ever proved fatal. The theological skin was so
thick and hard that nothing could have penetrated it.
Here are a few samples of the type of question asked,
and answer given :—
Student : Professor, what real sin was there in
Adam’s act of eating the forbidden fruit ?
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
21
Professor : No sin at all, except in the sense that it
was a violation of a Divine commandment. The com
mandment was a positive, not a moral, one ; and surely
the Supreme Being has a perfect right to impose what
commandments he pleases on the creatures of his hand.
Student : AVas it right of God to elect some to
eternal life, and leave all others to their doom ?
Professor: Yes, certainly; because the exercise of
mercy is purely optional with the Deity. It was an act
of stupendous condescension, on his part, to choose a
certain number to be saved through the atoning death of
his only begotten Son. Justice demanded that the whole
human family should be consigned to endless torment in
hell-fire. The damned arc only inheriting what they
richly deserve, and cannot fairly blame the Judge. But
salvation is of grace alone.
Student : Is it right to punish a person for ever after
death for a limited number of sins committed during a
limited number of years on earth ?
Professor : Yes ; because every sin, however small it
may appear, is yet infinite, and deserves infinite and end
less punishment.
Student : How do we know that Christ rose from
the grave on the third day, and ultimately ascended to
heaven ?
Professor : Simply because the Bible says so. What
ever the Bible says is of necessity true, because it is the
utterance of God himself. One miracle demands another.
You must always bear in mind that the miraculous birth
necessitated the miraculous uprise from the tomb.
I cannot tell whether the young men who asked such
questions were satisfied with the dogmatic answers given
or not; but I can give my word of honor that I was more
than satisfied. To me the appeal to Holy Writ was
absolutely conclusive, and to question it would have
been a sign of incorrigible depravity.
Of course,
etiquette did not permit students to argue with their
Professors, who were more infallible than the Pope of
Rome. My conviction was that the Bible was the final
court of appeal, the verdict of whic^i should settle alj
�22
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
disputes.
Some people stumbled at miracles, for
example, and irreverently asked: “ In the name of
common sense, how can you believe that the whale
swallowed Jonah, and flung him out again unharmed ?”
Vehemently I answered: “Common sense has nothing
whatever to do with the matter. Had the Bible affirmed
that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would have believed
it quite as readily.” To me, then, the Bible was the
Word of the living God, and could not err. The
doctrines of the Christian Religion, as interpreted by
our Professors, was clearly revealed in the Scriptures,
and he was doubly blind and an unmitigated fool who
was impertinent enough, either to doubt them, or to
accept the Arminian interpretation of them.
That was the way in which I was trained and equipped
for my profession. My ancestors, my child-life at home,
the church in which I was brought up, and the Pro
fessors at the Seminary, all contributed to the develop
ment within me of an astonishingly firm adhesion to
what was called genuine orthodoxy. I left the hall a
gigantic believer. The supernatural was far more real
to me than the natural. Everything between the two
covers of the Old Book was God’s revealed truth. If
people told me that miracles were violations of natural
laws, I frankly admitted it, well knowing that in order
to facilitate the fulfilment of the noble purposes of
heaven, a higher law had a perfect right to make in
roads upon and subjugate a lower. If some weak-minded
friends experienced great difficulty, in believing in a
special Divine Revelation, I could astonish them with
the bold assertion that my only difficulty would have
been not to believe in it. My appetite for believing
knew no bounds, and was never entirely satisfied. And
this infinite appetite and capacity for blindly believing
constituted my stock-in-trade when I stood on the
threshold of the active ministry. Ah me, the pity and
the misery of it all! It lies on my memory like a horrid
nightmare.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
23
V.—THE FIRST YEAR OF PROFESSIONAL
LIFE.
The day of my ordination to the ministry of the glorious
Gospel of the blessed God was the greatest, grandest,
and gladdest in my whole history. At last, the harvest
of my ambition was fully ripe, and about to be gathered
into the barn of enjoyment. My wildest dreams and
brightest hopes were on the eve of veritable fulfilment.
Unanimously invited to the pastorate of a large city
church, possessing the entire confidence of a congrega
tion that had had experience of me as a preacher for
several months prior to the tendering of the invitation,
and having just listened to extravagant encomiums pro
nounced upon me by famous ministers who took part in
the ordination service, I was elated with joy unspeakable
and full of glory. I scarcely knew whether I was in
heaven or on earth. I felt as if I were automatically
floating on an ocean of holy peace. As I looked back
upon the past, I was confident that exceptionally high
and fruitful privileges had been lavishly showered upon
me in childhood and youth. While comparing notes
wTith my chums at the Divinity Hall I discovered that,
even at sixteen years of age, not one of them knew the
meaning of the word “ theology,” while I was a distin
guished champion of the faith at ten. I had drunk
theology with my mother’s milk, and had been, during
all my teens, systematically drilled in the art of contro
versy. Had I no excuse for cherishing a little pride and
self-complacency ? And as I looked forward to the
future, bright stars of hope shone upon and illuminated
the far-stretching pathway.
There never had been such a preacher as I was fully
determined to become. The Celtic fire, sanctified by
the grace of God, blazed away in all my veins. I was
deeply sensible of the reason why the majority of
churches were empty, and entertained no doubt that
�24
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
mine would soon be full. My sermons would aim at
converting two predominant classes of people, namely,
the open, reckless sinners who were rushing on to hell
at express speed, and those characterised by St. Paul as
natural or psychical men, who neither cared for nor
believed in the higher and nobler realities. In the faces
of shameless sinners I would vigorously shake hell,
painted in the most lurid colors, and I would drive the
natural man out of every stronghold in his possession,
and force him to surrender, openly confessing that his
case was utterly hopeless. Certainly, my part of the
city would be completely transformed within a few
months. I would frighten sinners and argue naturalists
right into the kingdom of God. Such was my program.
I little dreamed that the Fates were all the time laughing
in their sleeves at my ineffable stupidity.
For a time I did, undoubtedly, occasion not a little
sensation in my own immediate neighborhood. My out
spoken denunciation of everything I believed to be sin
soon attracted attention. Crowds flocked to hear me
preach. I had invincible energy and boundless enthu
siasm ; and I spared nobody. A text from which I
frequently discoursed was this : “ Ye serpents, ye offspring
of vipers, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell ?” The
sufferings of the damned were never more vividly and
realistically portrayed than in those crude addresses of
my early ministry. I could not have depicted them
better had I actually seen and experienced them for a
thousand years. I remember once taking a Sunday
afternoon service at a neighboring church, and speaking
on this my then favorite theme. At the close the
minister intervened, and said: “I thank God for this
afternoon’s message. It is so refreshing and reassuring
to hear God’s own truths so boldly and uncompromisingly
proclaimed. Alas, not all ministers in this city (with an
obvious reference to a popular preacher who did not
believe in endless punishment) preach the Gospel on this
awful subject. But woe be to us if we withhold this
revealed truth from our people.” In the extra-orthodox
churches I was immensely popular, People admired my
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
2^
courage in putting so much fire and brimstone into my
sermons. Not one of my discourses was a sugar-coated
pill. But I was not nearly so successful with St. Paul’s
natural man. I soon perceived that he had a mind of
his own, and was astonishingly difficult to move. I
brought out my heavy artillery, and vigorously bom
barded the castle of his naturalism, but failed to make
the least impression upon it. I had fondly hoped that
he would have quickly surrendered, readily acknow
ledging the superior cogency of my arguments; but
instead of that coveted result, I found my own armor
sadly riddled with his shot, while he remained untouched
in his strongly fortified position. My signal failure with
him gave me a painful sense of disappointment, but I
comforted myself with the soothing reflection that, had
it not been for his intellectual stupidity and spiritual
obstinacy, I would have gained a magnificent victory
over him.
On the whole, however, my first year of professional
life was fairly satisfactory. My faith in the Divine
Verities continued unfaltering and undimmed for many
months. My acceptance of the Bible was complete,
without even a shadow of reservation; and I was
joyously loyal to all the doctrinal standards. I was a
firm believer in the efficacy of prayer ; and, when the
late Professor Tyndall issued his famous Prayer-Test, I
was horrified at the blasphemous audacity of his pro
posal. I pitied the poor scientist as an unregenerate
natural man.
Bye-and-bye, however, dark, ominous
clouds began to gather in my hitherto clear ecclesiastical
sky.
In the middle of each week a well-attended
Prayer-meeting was held in a large hall adjoining the
church. It was my custom to deliver a short address
on some religious topic, and then to call upon several
people to engage in prayer. Among those who usually
responded were two of the office-bearers. They were
both exceedingly fluent, and people always liked to hear
them.
They were well-read, intelligent, and devout
men ; but, unfortunately, it was softly whispered that
their unctuous rectitude was only a thin coat of veneer,
�26
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
covering and hiding a character that was radically
putrid. The one was said to be living continually in
grossest immorality, and the other to be the biggest
scoundrel out of prison. By degrees, the half-smothered
whisper grew into a loud rumor, behind which it was
evident there was too much truth. It was an insoluble
mystery to me how these men could offer up such fervent,
heart-stirring prayers, while pursuing such iniquitous
and God-defying practices. Thus two of my right-hand
men were consummate hypocrites. Was it possible that
they really believed in a holy, truthful, and loving God,
or were they simply playing at religion ?
I was
staggered and bewildered, and knew not what to think.
In course of time, I came to the mournful conviction
that, in the world, Christians were generally looked upon
with suspicion, that in business circles they were not
always trusted, and that many of them were openly
denounced as cunning and heartless swindlers. I found
out that because of their commercial crookedness and
social insincerity the members of a particular sect were
universally loathed, and the more I mingled with men
the more deeply convinced I became that such aspersions
were only too well founded. People who professed to be
better were really worse than their neighbors, and shielded
themselves under the cloak of religion. To-day I am
bound sorrowfully to admit that the tendency of adhesion
to the popular type of religion is to make people hypo
critical and immoral. Their professed peace with God,
the fact of their regeneration, their dream of eternal
blessedness in heaven, and their comforting conviction
that they shall never see hell except at a safe distance,
are dependent, not in any sense or degree on their char
acter, but on their faith in Christ, for whose sake and in
whose merits alone they are accepted in the Divine
sight. Their faith is reckoned or imputed to them for
righteousness, and their religious exercises—their praying,
hymn-singing, church-going, Bible-reading, alms-giving
—are substituted for upright living. Christ fulfilled the
moral law in their stead, and the moment they believed
in him they were released from all moral obligation. I
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
27
remember a dear, deluded old saint saying, with
grateful tears in her eyes: “I deserve to go to hell,
and therein to burn for ever; but, blessed be his
name, my beloved Redeemer deserves that I should
go to heaven and sing his praises without end, and
I am sure God cannot say Nay to his only begotten
Son.” If there were a God of truth and love, such a
belief would be rank blasphemy; and in any case, he
who lives up to such a faith is guilty of high treason
against his own nature. I have no hesitation whatever,
therefore, in laying to the charge of all so-called Evan
gelical Churches the stupendous crime of being direct
and fruitful sources and encouragers of commercial dis
honesty, social hypocrisy, and moral stupor. In illustra
tion of the truth of this charge, John Ruskin tells us,
with burning indignation, of a wicked merchant in the
City of London who was a prominent and active member
in a suburban church. In the City he was a man that
required special watching, and one day he was guilty of
a specially tricky and fraudulent transaction. On the
following Sunday, one who knew of this dishonest
bargain, happened to attend that suburban church, and
therein saw the self-same merchant engaged in a most
solemn act of worship. At the close of the service, he
went up to him, and, with a significant look in his eye
and withering scorn in his voice, said : “You here ?”
The great man felt most uncomfortable, but after a
moment’s pause, answered: “ Here, you know, we all
assume the attitude of the poor publican, in the parable,
who smote upon his breast and tremblingly praye’d,
‘ Crod be merciful to me a sinner.' "
�28
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
VI.—THE INTELLECT IN REVOLT.
Why was I such an ardent and militant believer in the
Calvinistic Version of the Christian Religion ? Was it
because it commended itself to my reason as essentially
and eternally true ? Was it because I could prove its
divinity by a long and elaborate train of irrefragable
reasoning ? Or was it simply because I had been
diligently taught from the cradle to believe and cherish
it ? The fact is, that I was a Christian solely because I
accepted the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word
of God, and that I accepted the Bible as the only
authoritative revelation from above, because, primarily,
my parents, and all the other people I knew, so regarded,
and trained me so to regard, it, and, secondarily, because
such was the doctrine of the Church into which I had
been born. Had I beeen born and bred in a Moham
medan country, I would have been a Mohammedan on
precisely the same ground. My belief in the Bible and
Christianity came down to me as an inheritance from
my ancestors: it ran in the blood, and I was not con
sulted as to whether I would take it or not. It was a
purely mechanical, traditional, and superstitious belief,
endowed with no inherent vitality with which to fight
fop its own existence. But such is the force of the law
of heredity, and of the influence of early training, that
this dead faith remained with me to the close of the first
year of my clerical career. When anybody asked me
why I believed such-and-such a dogma, the only answer
I could make was, “ Because I find it in the Bible.”
When pressed further for the ground of my faith in the
Bible, I could only cite the teaching of the great doctors
of the Church. For the faith that was in me this was a
flimsy, fragile, and worthless reason ; but it was the only
one I had to offer.
Just at that time a most remarkable theological book
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
2<J
fell into my hands, entitled The. Limits of Religious
Thought, by the late Dean Mransel. That well-known
dignitary of the Anglican Church was an exceptionally
keen and subtle metaphysician of the school of Kant
and Sir William Hamilton.
One of the distinctive
tenets of this school crystalised into the apt phrase,
Relativity of Human Knowledge, which figured so
largely in the Lectures of Sir William Hamilton. This
is the tenet that underlies Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Syn
thetic Philosophy, and of which he makes such splendid
applications in his First Principles. M'ansel adopted this
doctrine in its entirety, and applied it to theology. His
main contention is that we cannot know the Infinite
and Eternal, all knowledge being confined to visible,
tangible, and finite objects. Hence, to our purely in
tellectual faculties, the Christian Creed is at once un
believable and unthinkable.
God is of necessity
unknown and unknowable, uncomprehended and incom
prehensible. Wre believe in him alone on the testimony
of Scripture. Our reason, acting within its own legiti
mate limits, pronounces all our theological dogmas
absurd and self-contradictory. As Christians, we are
not thinkers or reasoners, but blind believers. It was
under the influence of this monstrous teaching that
Tennyson sang, in his In Memoriam,
We have but faith : we cannot know ;
For knowledge is of things we see.
The Limits of Religious Thought is now a dead book ;
but it was marked by much logical -ingenuity and intel
lectual force, and a careful perusal of it compelled me
to pause and think. I had been instructed to regard
Calvinism as in the highest degree reasonable, although
in its nature and origin immeasurably above reason.
Times without number, as I imagined, I had success
fully championed it along purely intellectual lines. But
now I perceived, for the first time, that I had been
laboring under a fatal delusion. In reality my reason
had never had the opportunity of critically examining
the Christian Faith, and of ascertaining whether it was
in itself believable or not. I had begun life firmly
�30
Fkofvi CKRiSTiAN PULPIT
believing it, and I had taken for granted that hiy reason
gave it full support. But Dean Mansei’s book opened
my mind’s eyes, and for the first time in my life I began
to think for myself. But no sooner did I begin to think
for myself, than the foundations of my faith commenced
to tremble and crumble beneath my feet, and I realised
how completely I had been the slave of superstition and
traditionalism. The house of my faith tumbled into
awful rum, and I was flung headlong into an unfathom
able pit of pain and misery. I walked about in the
dark dungeon as one demented, weepingly bemoaning
my infinite loss. The discovery that the so-called truths
of the Bible were, not only above, but also in utter con
travention of reason brought with it a most disagreeable
sense of deprivation and impoverishment.
To be
actually. without God and without hope in the world was
a calamity too dreadful to contemplate. So deep and
poignant was my grief that I sank into utter despair.
I grew so tired of my life that I was strongly tempted
to put a violent end to it. At last a voice cried out of
the central deeps of my being, “ Thou coward ! ” and
thereupon I determined to fight my battle through to the
bitter end. But the end was not reached for several
years. Fierce in the extreme was the soul-wrestling
with Giant Doubt. What sunless days and starless
nights I wept my way through ! How incessantly and
confidently 1 prayed lor guidance to a deaf, unheeding
Deity! In my eagerness I consulted innumerable
standard books on the Evidences, wended my weary
way through ponderous Bodies of Divinity, and gave
whole nights as well as days to a prayerful study of the
Bible, yearning unspeakably all the while for the return
of my faith.
In this crisis books of science were conscientiously
eschewed as positively dangerous, because in the circles
in which I turned science was violently denounced as
irreligious and atheistical. Although I had lost my
faith in God, and Christ, and the spiritual world, I still
regarded Darwin and Tyndall as enemies of mankind.
I had not read a line of their works ; but it was my
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
31
strong conviction that Evolution was a hellish theory.
When Dr. Charles Hodge, the renowned orthodox
divine, published his little volume against it, I was
transported with delight, and contributed an impassioned
eulogy of the production to a religious magazine. It
never occurred to me to suggest that the learned divine
did not understand what the word “ Darwinism ” meant,
and was not competent to pronounce judgment against
it with such dogmatic assurance. But while thus rashly
taking sides with the theologian against the naturalist, I
was myself in an entirely atheistical frame of mind. I
was afraid of science, because I knew it could not help
me back to faith. Nor could I take any of my friends
into my confidence, for they were all such orthodox
believers that they had no patience with doubt and
doubters. Thus, in a loneliness that lacerated the very
soul, I had to wage ceaseless war, singlehanded, against
my cruel foe. How much I suffered neither tongue nor
pen can ever tell.
But the long night came to an end, the welcome light
began to dawn upon my desolate heart, and slowly two
great truths, like twin suns, appeared on the horizon,
and offered me their kindly service. As I have already
stated, these truths were the Fatherhood of God and the
Brotherhood of Man, and to them I tendered the full
homage of my being. Of course, my acceptance of the
Divine Fatherhood necessitated the reconstruction of
Christ. The deposition of the Despot and the enthrone
ment of the Father involved the overthrow of the
Calvinistic conception of the Savior. In my search for
a consistent interpretation of Jesus and his work I fell
on a most ingenious and suggestive book, entitled
Wcan'pws Sacrifice, by the late Horace Bushnell, a very
profound but shockingly heterodox theologian. In this
luminous volume, the great man maintained that we are
to regard Christ as the last and absolutely perfect reve
lation of God, and that his work consisted, not in
conciliating or propitiating a vindictive Tyrant, but in
making known the all-holy, all-merciful, and all-re
deeming Father. This was a new evangel towards
�32
PROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
which my hungry heart leaped with boundless gratitude.
Surely this was a genuine return to the simple teaching
of the Apostolic Church. And with this new-found
gospel, I returned to the pulpit, aglow with zeal, jubilantly
triumphant, and resolutely bent on scathingly denouncing
the. very theology on which I had been brought up, and
which I had previously preached with such confidence.
On the Calvinism that was once so dear and precious
in my sight I now poured scalding streams of scorn.
The exhibition of such iconoclastic vehemence filled
the church to overflowing with interested hearers, the
great majority of whom enthusiastically approved and
applauded my deliverances. A few of the older and
narrower thinkers frowned, and raved, and threatened,
and denounced, it is true; but the bulk of the people
rejoiced, and wished me God-speed in the fulfilment of
what they styled my beneficent mission.
This was my second theological house, and O with what
ardor I thanked God for having inspired me to erect it!
It was such a lovely structure, and in it I hoped to spend
the remainder of my life. Alas, little did I then think
that this house also was built upon the sand, and that, like
the foolish man of the parable, I should soon find it
tumbling disastrously about my ears.
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
33
VII.—THE INTELLECT IN BONDS.
Dogmatic theology no longer wielded its bewildering
fascination over me, but was scornfully trampled under
my feet. With those who regarded precision and defi
niteness of thought in religion as of supreme importance
I was completely out of touch. Like Dr. Bushnell, I
was firmly of the opinion that an adequate dogmatic
theology cannot exist, because spiritual facts can only
be expressed in approximative and poetical language.
This was also the contention so cleverly defended by
Matthew Arnold in his epoch-making book entitled
Literature and Dogma. His central proposition is that
Bible terms, like grace, new birth, justification, are not to
be “ taken in a fixed and rigid manner, as if they were
symbols with as definite and fully-grasped a meaning as
the names line or angle, but in a fluid and passing way,
as men use terms in common discourse, or in eloquence
and poetry, to describe approximately, but only approxi
mately, what they have present before their mind, but
do not profess that their mind does, or can, grasp exactly
or adequately.”
Such teaching suited my mood to
perfection, and with riotous joy I revelled in the two
sparkling gems, Literature and Dogma and St. Paul and
Protestantism. In these books Matthew Arnold goes so
far as to formally reject the Supernatural and the Mira
culous. “ God,” he says, “ is used in most cases as by
no means a term of science or exact knowledge, but a
term of poetry and eloquence—a term thrown out, so to
speak, at a not fully-grasped object of the speaker’s
consciousness; a literary term, in short; and mankind
mean different things by it as their consciousness differs.”
This idea was a key that opened most of the locks of the
�34
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
Bible, and I used it continually with great prolit. But
I had not the courage to mention Arnold’s name, or
even Bushnell’s, in any of my public pronouncements,
because in deeply-religious circles both were highly
suspected and execrated names.
In this way it became fashionable to decry the
intellect as an inferior faculty, a calculating machine, a
logic-grinder, which deals only with mundane and
temporal realities, but cannot even touch the higher
things of the spirit. It is doubtless extremely useful to
the scientist, or the low-grade philosopher ; but to the
preacher it has no real value. Of course, this position
was tenable only to those who believed in the existence
and possible activity, within the human soul, of a
superior faculty, “ a subjective faculty,” as Max Muller
calls it, “ for the apprehension of the infinite.” In his
Hibbert Lectures the same scholar describes it more fully
as “ a mental faculty which, independent of, nay in
spite of, sense and reason, enables man to appre
hend the infinite under different names and under vary
ing disguises.” This faculty is intuitive, inborn, and
belongs to all alike, at least potentially. It is the gift of
insight, vision, and realisation. Now, my contention
was that by the exercise of this spiritual organ we could
clearly see God and Christ, realise the spiritual world
and immortality, and become blessedly assured of our
salvation through the risen and ascended Lord. Vision,
it seemed to me, was infinitely nobler and more ennobling
than ordinary knowledge.
Many of my comrades in
the new school used to wax irresistibly eloquent in
praise and commendation of this inward eye. To the
intellect God was unknowable and inconceivable ; but
through the soul’s eye and to the heart’s need he was
most gloriously and savingly visible.
At this time I had the unspeakable privilege of an
introduction to six luminous and illuminating poets,
namely, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth,
Browning, and Tennyson, all of whom confirmed and
advanced my theological liberalism. It was to Browning,
perhaps, that I -was most deeply indebted, and I habi-
�1*0 sfecULAk PtAti'Okfvi
35
tually quoted him in my sermons. How shocked I was
when I discovered that Mrs. Sutherland Orr and others
were impertinent enough to claim him as an Agnostic.
Among prose-writers my chief instructors were Emerson,
Carlyle, and Ruskin. Of theologians, the most inspiring
by far was Dr. George Matheson, the poet-preacher of
Scotland, whose able book, Can the Old Faith live with
the New ? gave me a firmer grip of what people call the
fundamental verities of the Gospel than all other books
put together. He made a magnificent use of the intellect
in the vilification of itself. The maligned faculty glowed
and sparkled, in the most charming manner, as it sang
the praises of its rival and so-called supplanter.
What makes me dwell so long on this point is the
knowledge that there are thousands of clergymen among
us at present, who loudly glory in their alleged posses
sion and enjoyment of the spiritual faculty. They say :
“ We cannot prove the existence of God on merely intel
lectual lines ; but we know that he is because our inward
eye sees him.” “ We cannot prove the Divinity of Jesus
Christ in any outward, formal way ; but to us his
Divinity is an irresistible inference from what we have
seen and experienced of his saving grace.” Not long
ago, the Rev. R. J. Campbell, the oracle of the City
Temple, stated that he had no fear of the Higher Critics.
“ Even if they w’ere to succeed in destroying the authority
of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation,” he said, “ yet
my own experience of its gracious efficacy would enable
me to cling to Christianity as confidently and tenaciously
as ever.” On another occasion he said : “ Our faith in
Christianity is dependent, not on the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, but on our direct vision and
knowledge of Christ.” I am not at all surprised at his
making such an assertion, because I often made it
myself; but it is an impotent attitude, and dates no
further back than the date of the Higher Criticism.
Fifty years ago it was well-nigh the universal teaching
of the Pulpit that no one could be a Christian without
believing in the full inspiration of the Scriptures; and
even at present there are a few, such as Dr. Robertson
�36
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
Nicoll, who declare that if the Bible were discredited on
critical grounds, Christianity would have to be given up.
The truth, undoubtedly, is that the advanced theologians
of the present day are standing on the brink of the
chasm of scepticism, because, in the absence of an infal
lible Book, which claims to be a direct revelation from
God, Supernatural Religion must speedily collapse. In his
Literature and Dogma, Matthew Arnold’s mam object
was to make it possible for educated people who rejected
the miraculous still to believe in the Bible and Chris
tianity. What he said, in effect, was this : “ Miracles
do not happen, the belief in the personality of God is
groundless, and the hope of immortality is illusive; but,
on the whole, the Bible’s chief concern is with conduct,
which is three-fourths of human life, and, on this account,
the Bible should be retained, and we can still call our
selves Christians.” But, for once, one of the finest of
literary critics was utterly mistaken. Divest Chris
tianity of its miraculous element, and what will there be
left that is not common to all great religions ? Banish
the Supernatural from the Bible, and what will it contain
worth preserving ? Indeed, I am convinced that Arnold’s
argument inevitably leads to Atheism, not to the recovery
of faith. I am prepared to go one step further and
affirm that, at heart, the great apostle of culture was
himself a genuine Atheist.
The God in whom he
believed was only a projection or externalisation of him
self. In proof of this assertion I need give only the
following characteristic quotation : “ Bishop Wilson
says, ‘ Look up to God (by which he means just this,
consult your conscience) at all times, and you will, as in
a glass, discover what is fit to be done.’ ” To a cer
tainty we know that Bishop Wilson meant just exactly
what he said ; but to Matthew Arnold God and con
science, or God and himself, were convertible terms.
It took me many years, however, to perceive how
utterly unsound and illogical the position I occupied
really was, and how inevitable would be the alternative
between a return to the simple, blind, unreasoning, but
strong faith of my childhood, and an advance to open
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
37
and unadulterated Atheism. There is no safe and per
manent half-way house between emphatic, unequivocal,
and old-fashioned Supernaturalism and plain, unadorned
Secularism. Mr. Campbell, though by no means an
orator, is yet a most magnetic speaker, and will always
have a large following of non-thinkers ; but I am certain
that his theological attitude and style of reasoning, if
reasoning it can be called, are calculated, in the long
run, to make more infidels than believers. Without one
definite seat of authority, to which to refer all debateable
points, religion cannot survive.
During the Middle
Ages it was the Church that settled all disputes. All its
official findings were infallible and universally binding.
The Reformation shifted the seat of authority from the
Church to the Bible; and for many generations Pro
testants worshipped the Book with as complete a homage
as Catholics did the Pope. The Protestant Reformation
did nothing more than exchange one seat of authority
for another. But in our day the only authoritative voice,
acknowledged by the leaders of British Free Churchism,
is that of individual experience; and the people who
decline to listen to, and follow, it, are declared to be
destitute of the spiritual organ. Every preacher is now
an infallible pope in his own society. The result is that
we have a million popes instead of one ; and it is a very
significant fact that no two of them agree on a single
subject. Each has a different kind of spiritual faculty
from all the others ; and the consequence is that all of
them deliver different and conflicting spiritual judgments.
The intellect is in bonds, but this very multiplicity of
contradictory voices is a sure sign that the day of its
glorious emancipation is hastening on. The Church is
slowly committing suicide at the instigation of its own
rulers, and the time is not far off when its tomb will be
adorned with green grass and lovely flowers. This is a
prophecy which is already in the process of fulfilment, as
every careful student of the signs of the times is bound
to admit.
�3§
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
VIII.—THE REIGN OF EMOTIONALISM.
When a man of an ardent temperament discovers that
the position he occupies is intellectually weak and in
defensible, he is almost sure to fall back on emotional
ism. That was the temptation that came to me, and to
which I readily yielded. With what infinite relish I
kept repeating to myself Matthew Arnold’s famous
saying : “ The true meaning of religion is, not simply
morality, but morality touched by emotion.''' During this
second period of my religious history, my theology
assumed a purely sentimental form, and pretended to
deal with facts as distinguished from theories. Dogmas
no longer appealed to me as true, although I had not the
temerity to reject them as false; but the great facts
which the dogmas endeavored to imprison within the
stone walls of scientific definitions appeared more vital
and precious than ever to me, and I hugged them with
kindling affection. There were doctrines which it was
my delight to hold up to ridicule and scorn; but there
were others on which I was silent, because I did not
understand them. Among these was the doctrine of
the Trinity. It was wholly inexplicable to me that
three infinite persons constituted but one God. Indeed,
there was something positively repulsive in the idea,
calmly held and seriously championed by many learned
doctors, that the second infinite person was eternally
born of the first, and that the third eternally proceeded,
without either birth or creation, from the other two.
Face-to-face with such inscrutable mysteries, I emotion
ally clung to the sweet Bible-verse, “ God is love." 1
was equally incapable of comprehending the Immaculate
Conception and Virgin Birth of Christ, or the mystical
union of the Divine and Human Natures in the con
stitution of his theanthropic person, which was no
longer merely the second person in the Trinity, but a
kind of new person miraculously brought into existence
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
39
through the Incarnation. No theologian on earth ever
pretended to understand that strange doctrine; and yet
it found a place in every standard work on theology.
Not one of the twenty different theories of the Atone
ment commended itself to my reason, although some
of them were more acceptable than others ; and so I
contented myself with proclaiming the living fact that
lay behind them all. To me Christ was. the visible
image of the living God, and his only mission in the
world was to reveal the Divine love.
Towards miracles, as such, I maintained a sceptical
attitude. With Huxley, I fully admitted their possibility,
but was not clearly convinced that a single genuine
miracle had ever happened; nor could I appreciate the
ground on which Christian apologists rejected all miracles
except those recorded in the Bible. Consequently, I
never preached on the subject, nor did anxious inquirers
privately press me to give an opinion on it. I knew what
evidential value the majority of theologians attached to
the miraculous, and what emphasis was laid on the
assertion that the proof from miracles was the only
proof on which we could absolutely rely in the refutation
of the arguments of unbelief. Archbishop Whately was
confident that all Catholic miracles would turn out to be
impostures, or capable of a natural explanation, “ but
that Bible-miracles would stand sifting by a London
special jury, or by a committee of scientific men.”
Dean Mansel argued that “ if the reality of miracles as
facts is denied, the whole system of Christian belief with
its evidences, all Christianity, in short, so far as it has
any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation
to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown at
the same time.” Mozley, Westcott, and Farrar ex
pressed themselves to the same effect. But while fully
aware of the theological contention that “ miracles and
the supernatural contents of Christianity must stand or
fall together,” still I somehow felt that it was a fallacy
and could not stand. But what was I to do with the
Resurrection of Christ, which was universally regarded
as the corner stone of the Christian Religion ? If J
�40
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
denied the miraculous, how could I believe that Christ
rose from the dead ? Must I not exclaim, in the poet’s
mournful words,—.
Far hence he lies
In the lorn Syrian town,
And on his grave, with shining eyes,
The Syrian stars look down ?
But if I denied that Christ rose again, how could I, for
a moment longer, be a Christian minister ? Well, I
must confess that I took refuge in a mean and cowardly
subterfuge. I contended, with a few others, that Christ’s
Resurrection was to be understood poetically and
spiritually, not literally and mechanically. I deluded
myself into believing that the Apostle Paul, also,
accepted and interpreted the doctrine in precisely the
same way. I think it was Clough, in his exquisite
poem, in two parts, entitled Easter Day, who first sug
gested the subterfuge to me. What a spiritual resur
rection signified, it would have been most difficult to
explain ; but the belief in it was emotional, and conse
quently did not require to have its contents too minutely
described.
I was satisfied with merely feeling that
somehow and somewhere Christ still lived. It was a
degrading, soul-killing subterfuge, though I knew it not
at the time ; but it enabled me to imagine and feel that
I was a believer when in reality I was not.
To the more thoughtful and intelligent people such
preaching lacked precision, definiteness, and clearness,
and the preacher was severely censured by them. But
with the people as a whole I never lost touch. I was
capable of rising to such an exceptionally high pitch
of fervor that I never failed to secure the sympathy
and support of the crowd. Besides, the presence of a
crowd had such a magical and transforming effect upon
me that my natural enthusiasm more than doubled its
power. The dormant fire in my constitution was fanned
into white and furioufe heat ; and if ever I spoke with
convincing effect it was because I so deeply felt what I
said. Argumentatively I may have been deplorably
weak and vulnerable ; but emotionally I was gloriously
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
41
strong and unassailable. And it is incontrovertible that a
miscellaneous, popular assembly responds much more
quickly and heartily to sentiment or feeling than to logic.
Earnestness, accompanied by kindling eloquence, is
infinitely more convincing to a multitude than the most
perfect and lucid argument ever framed.
Towards the close of the period under consideration, I
was, to all intents and purposes, nothing but an emo
tional and superficial expounder of the Christian
Religion. To my intellect, Christianity was almost
painfully false, but to my heart, it was irresistibly true.
On week days I was frequently a rampant Agnostic or
Atheist, but on Sundays and in the pulpit always a redhot believer. It was a pitiable condition, in the extreme,
to be in; but there was then absolutely no help for it.
I did my utmost to keep under and silence the intellect,
in which endeavor I occasionly succeeded ; and I did it
in the name and for the sake of what I verily believed to
be a higher and nobler faculty. Words can never tell
what soul-agonies I endured, what cruel crises I passed
through, and to what self-loathing I more than once
subjected myself. What kept me going was the con
viction that somehow the highest and best in my nature
still witnessed to the blessed reality of Revealed Religion;
and on Sundays, as I stood face-to-face with crowded
congregations, this conviction completely swayed my
whole being.
But the worst has yet to come, and must have a whole
chapter to itself. Arnoldism will never work, except
disastrously. The public has never been able to appre
ciate the fine distinction between literature and dogma.
On the contrary, the public is perpetually reducing
poetry to prose, and treating literature itself as if it were
dogma. A follower of Arnold in the pulpit cannot fail
sooner or later to commit suicide. He puts one meaning
into a word, a literary and poetical one, and his hearers,
another ; and he cannot but be aware of the fact. The
consequence is that he degenerates into a miserable
play-actor, a process I shall describe in the next
chapter,
�7
42
FROM CHRISTIAN PURPIT
IX.—PLAY-ACTING IN THE PULPIT.
In theory, Arnoldism is exquisitely beautiful and
irresistibly fascinating; but, in practice, it proves
wofully complicating and confusing. It leads to all
sorts of insincerities and hypocrisies.
A long time
ago a famous actor, on being asked by a clergyman,
“ Why is play-acting so much more successful than
preaching ?” answered, “ Because we treat fiction as
if it were truth, and you present truth as if it were
fiction.” It was a witty, apt, and, if both preacher and
actor believed the Bible to be the Word of God, emi
nently true answer. In numerous instances, it must be
confessed, the pulpit is such a signal failure because the
fire of enthusiasm does not burn in it, or because so
many preachers are empty-headed and empty-hearted
triflers. They do not doubt, because they are too lazy
to think. To them, the ministry is solely a “ living,”
an easy and respectable “ billet,” and they would forsake
it to-morrow did it not allow them to spend their days
in luxurious indolence. But there are other ministers
to whom laziness is not a besetting sin, and who cannot
complain of non-success in their work. The chief source
of their weakness is that they proclaim fiction as if it
were truth, thoroughly believing it, for the time being,
to be truth. We are assured that, while on the stage,
first-rate actors verily feel as if they were the characters
they represent, which, for the time, they doubtless are.
Judging by my own experience, and by observation of
other cases, pulpit play-acting reveals itself in various
ways.
In the first place, no sooner had I adopted Arnoldism,
and commenced to treat the Bible as literature, than I
discovered that I dared not preach all I knew. In
course of time, I came into possession of a large body of
esoteric truths, which were of too dangerous a character
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
43
to be communicated to a mixed congregation. I was
positively certain that the Pentateuch was not written,
even the earlier and simpler portions of it, for many
centuries after Moses’ time. I knew well enough that
the Mosaic Economy was a late and gradual develop
ment, and that from the time it began to assume a
definite shape the prophets and the priests became
sworn enemies, proofs of which fact abound in the
prophetical writings themselves.
It was as clear . as
noonday to me that Genesis is a collection of interesting
legends, traditions, and myths; that Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are by no means historical,
but purely fabulous, symbolical, or eponymous char
acters, and that the stories of Creation, the Fall, and the
Flood are fables, borrowed from Babylonian and other
sources.
It was not hidden from my eyes that the
Historical Books were extremely crude and imperfect,
full of contradictions and discrepancies ; that the two
Chronicles, in particular, were written with the object
of representing the priesthood of the later Jewish
Church as an institution that had existed continuously,
and in its entirety, from the time of Moses, and that of
history in the modern sense they contained none.
Dr. Torrey boldly asserts that there are no mistakes
of any kind in the Bible—an assertion that makes
one wonder whether the popular evangelist can be
even an honest man.
From the time I began to
treat the Bible as literature, I have not been able to
shut my eyes to the fact that it contains innumerable
mistakes—historical, chronological, numerical, and
moral. But although I had full knowledge of all these
things, I had to be silent about them in the pulpit,
because of the danger that any public reference to
them might disturb the people’s simple faith in the
inspiration of the Book.
If I ever mentioned the
Higher Criticism at all, it was merely for the purpose
of emphasising the fact that if the Bible is inspired
no criticism, however hostile in spirit and aim, can
inflict any permanent injury upon it.
It was also
undeniable that as yet the Critics themselves were
�44
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
not quite sure of their ground, inasmuch as they hotly
disagreed with, and contradicted, one another.
Nor
could it be forgotten that some of the most advanced
and iconoclastic among them were yet firm advocates
of the moral and spiritual supremacy of the Volume,
and stood in the front rank of evangelical preachers.
On these grounds, as far as I possibly could, I kept my
congregation in the dark as to what was being done by
Biblical scholars, and continued to treat the Bible as
the supreme seat of authority in religion. Its history
might be glaringly inaccurate; its geology, hopelessly
chaotic, and its astronomy, ludicrously antiquated;
but then it was not written to teach these lower,
earthly sciences, but to be an infallible guide in all
matters affecting the destiny of the soul. Such was
the attitude taken up by theologians as soon as they
realised the impossibility of retaining the exploded
theory of verbal inspiration and inerrancy; and we
preachers feebly followed their example.
But, after
all, preachers have no moral right to withhold im
portant knowledge from their congregation, nor can
they do it without seriously weakening their position
and doing themselves irreparable harm.
In the second place, I found that, having adopted
the literary and poetical method of interpreting
Scripture, I attached other and, as I fondly fancied,
larger and worthier meanings to the great theological
terms than those which they popularly bore.
This
was an excessively risky game to play, but it was
played in the sincere hope that genuine good might
be the result.
For instance, the generality of the
people believed God to be an infinite and eternal
person, clothed with so many natural and moral
attributes of absolute perfection, with whom, through
the merits of Christ, they professed to be in intimate
and soul-making communion.
They told him all
their troubles, confessed to him all their sins, implored
him to pardon and release them, and besought him to
grant them sundry little favors. To me, on the other
hand, God was the name loosely given to the sum-total
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
45
of ideal virtues and. moral excellencies, communion with
whom signified active admiration for and an ardent
desire and effort to possess and exhibit, such noble
qualities. I spoke of him as if he were a person ; but I
did so in a loose, poetical, or literary sense. I addressed
him as Father, Friend, Savior, meaning just this : that
at the core or heart of things is constructive, healing,
saving Love.
In maintaining this attitude I was
enormously helped and comforted by Henry Drummond’s
exquisitely beautiful book, entitled The Ascent of Man.
Its teaching was nebulous, vague, poetical, almost
fantastical ; but to me, at that time, irresistible. The
law of the Universe was Love, and only that which
opposed the glorious purposes of love could be called
sinful.
There were numerous other terms, such as
atonement, regeneration, justification, immortality, which I
treated in the same ambiguous and passing way. The
object I had in view was the gradual conversion of the
people to my way of looking at things.
But my success in the realisation of that object was
most discouragingly small. It is cocksure dogmatism
that always moves the multitude ; and even I, in my
most Arnoldian mood, was supposed to be speaking
dogmatically. There were but few who took me in my
own sense, and those few soon lost all interest in the
popular religion and ceased to attend its various meet
ings. I was all the time on the high road to Secularism,
though at that time I had not the least suspicion of it.
Some of those who joined me in the strange pilgrimage
soon outstripped me in speed, and arrived at the inevitable
destination years before I did. One of these was a man
of exceptional intellectual brilliancy, dowered with a fine,
lively imagination, and privileged, above most, to live
close to Nature’s heart. What deep joy was mine when
I had succeeded in winning him to my side ; but his
stay with me was wonderfully brief. He perceived,
almost at once, that the position I occupied was illogical,
irrational, and impossible, and his sense of perspective
drove him at a furious pace straight on to Naturalism or
Monism, in which he found intellectual peace and heart-
�46
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
rest. We are both together again now, sharing each
other’s joy, as well as responsibility.
When will ministers learn that theological liberalism
is only a stage in the journey either to Rome or to
Atheism ? Many of us remember how Newman, in a
book of startling novelty, assigned that fact as the chief
reason why he was obliged to become a Catholic—to
bow in lowliest reverence to a corporate authority—in
order to preserve his faith in religion. At one time he
and his younger brother, Francis William, stood on
practically the same platform ; but one day they parted
company, John Henry going down to Rome and
becoming a Cardinal, while Francis William climbed
towards, and almost reached, the domain of pure
Naturalism.
Theology cannot be liberal, and live.
Based on an infallible revelation from heaven, it must
remain stationary for ever, or die. No progress is
possible, except the progress out of it. Newman was
philosopher enough to perceive this; and he made his
escape in time.
The next chapter will explain how my deliverance
came.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
47
X.—THE EMANCIPATION OF THE
INTELLECT.
Everybody knows that play-acting is a species of
hypocrisy, this Greek word being the term originally
employed to describe the theatrical profession ; and it
would be equally a truism to say that play-acting, how
ever acceptable and successful on the stage, always
destroys the legitimate power of the pulpit. Above
everything else the preacher needs sincerity. At all
costs he must say what he means, and, to the deepest
roots of his being, mean what he says. If he speaks
hesitatingly, falteringlv, apologetically, or with numerous
reservations, explanations, and comments, he thereby
robs himself of more than half his natural power, and
completely cripples the influence of his ministry. He
occupies a lower platform than Samson did when he
made sport for the people.
Besides, although the
intellect may not be the strongest and noblest of our
mental faculties, it is anything but safe and wise to per
manently ignore and snub it. Sooner or later the day
of its revenge will come, which to the play-acting
preacher will be a dreadful day of swift judgment. In
my case the terrible day arrived much later than it would
have done had I been of a cooler, calmer, and more
reflective temperament.
Let me, now set down in order some of the causes
that led up to my emancipation, or indicate a few of the
stages in my journey from Supernaturalism to Secu
larism. They are these :—
1. Loss of faith in the infallibility and Divine authority
of the Bible.
2. The consequent relegation of Religion to the sphere
of faith, feeling, and individual experience.
�48
FROM CHRISTIAN PULRlt
3. Realisation of the forced nature of all devotional
exercises, in the cultivation of which the Closet
and the Church are but forcing-pits.
1. In connection with the passing of the Bible it is a
highly significant fact that the most effective agents in
the process have been professional theologians, trained
exegetes, accredited representatives of the Church. The
Bible has been mortally wounded in the house of its
nominal friends. The Faith has been stabbed to the
heart by its own official champions. Prominent among
these, at the present time, are Canons Driver and Cheyne,
of the Etablished Church of England, and Professor
George Adam Smith, of the United Free Church of
Scotland. I utterly fail to see how any honest, unbiassed
person can carefully study and understand Canon Driver’s
famous Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
and his lucid Commentaries on several Old Testament
Books; Canon Cheyne’s Introduction to the Booh of Isaiah,
together with his numerous Commentaries, critical articles
in theological and expository magazines, and the great
and scholastic Encyclopedia Biblica, of which he is chief
editor; and, in particular, Professor George Adam
Smith’s startling book entitled Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the Old Testament, without being unavoidably
driven to the conclusion that the Bible is not, in any
superior or special sense, the word of God, and must be
subjected to the same canons of criticism as all other
books. At any rate, that was the inevitable effect the
study of such works had upon me.
2. But how can Supernaturalism stand without the
support of a specially inspired and infallible Book ?
There are still a few simple-minded and honest-hearted
people who, in spite of all the discoveries of modern
criticism, dogmatically maintain that, if the Bible is
fallible and bristles with blunders, there can be no escape
from the hateful inference that Christianity is overthrown.
Such people are the only consistent Christians extant.
But the bulk of present-day apologists refer for authority,
not to the Bible, but to the experience of living believers.
They eloquently exclaim : “ Religion does not live in a
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
49
book, but in the hearts and lives of its devotees. As
plants and flowers are grandly independent of the very
best Botanical text-books, so is Christianity of the Bible.”
The first great divine that formulated this argument in
England was the late Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, in a
book of immense interest, entitled The Living Christ and
the Four Gospels. He firmly believed in the authenticity
and inspiration of these documents ; but his argument
was that as Christianity came into healthy and vigorous
existence before a single line of the Four Gospels was
written, so it could likewise survive their utter destruc
tion. According to this argument, in its latest develop
ment, the Christian Religion, in its present sublimated
and etherealised form, is not vitally associated with the
miraculous birth, benevolent life, peerless teaching,
redemptive work, sacrificial death, and triumphant resur
rection of a historical Christ, but roots itself, rather, in
the personal experience of every genuine Christian, and
refers to the same source for its supreme and final
evidence. Consequently, Christ is not so much a his
torical person as a spiritual force in the souls of believers;
—that is to say, he is an unseen and omnipotent Being,
who in some mystic, inexplicable sense really dwells, as
a seed or germ, in every human soul ; in that of the
Mohammedan, the Confucian, or the Buddhist no less
than in that of the professing believer in Christendom.
Now, if this universally indwelling spiritual Christ gets
fair play, whether the gospel be heard and accepted or
not, he will certainly grow and develop into the ideal
stature. In those who make a spontaneous surrender to
him, he soon comes to conscious life ; and they worship
him with glowing devotion. They enjoy full communion
with him, as if he still actually existed somewhere, or as
if he were a person with a unique history lying behind
him. And yet, in spite of all this, they coolly assure us
that “ Christianity is not a system of intellectual truths,
but a practical and vital experience of the heart,” and
that “ Christ is not a fiction of the theologians, not a
prophet of Galilee, but an indwelling power whereby we
are evolved upward to the perfect spiritual stature of
�5°
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
man.” Quite recently, I heard the Rev. R. J. Campbell,
at the City Temple when'he affirmed, with his own pecu
liarly quiet and infectious’fervor, that this spiritual Christ
is now germinally present in the lowest and worst char
acter on earth. To those who venture to cast suspicion
on such an assertion, these modern apologists say : —■
“ You are blind, and there are whole regions of spiritual
apprehension of which you know nothing. Intellectually
you may, perhaps, be our equals or superiors; but
spiritually we are immeasurably above you, and possess a
faculty which enables and entitles us to judge you,
although you cannot judge us. We have allowed the
indwelling spiritual Christ to have his way with us to
such an extent that we already know all things.” They
affect a sublime indifference to all historical, critical, and
theological problems, saying : “ You may. smash up the
historical and intellectual setting to smithereens , but
when you have done that, you have not yet touched real
Christianity.” What, then, in the name of all the
wonders, is real Christianity ? Is it only the. creation of
the sanctified imagination of a few duly ordained clergy
men ? And is the same thing true of Christ himself ?
The late Professor Bruce, who wielded such an enormous
influence in his day, regarded the historicity of the Four
Gospels as absolutely essential. All the Epistles might
utterly disappear, without our suffering any radical loss,
for at best they were but human interpretations and
commentaries; but the moment we abandoned the
Gospels, Christianity would be entirely undermined.
And is it not true that Professor Bruce was literally and
profoundly right ? If it is or can be proved that Christ
never lived at all, or never lived as reported in the docu
ments, does not his spiritual existence in the souls of
believers become an empty dream? Surely a nonhistoric lesus cannot be in any sense a real person, nor
can a religion founded on an imaginary being possess
any objective reality, whatever the experience of its
devotees may say. The moment we give up our faith m
the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the moment
we admit that miracles do not happen, and have not
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
51
happened, that same moment we strip Christianity of all
its distinctive features as a Revealed Religion, and bring
it down to the level of all the great ethnic religions.
With this discovery came my emancipation (from all
superstitious slavery, and the full redemption of my soul.
A necessity was laid upon me to renounce, the Super
natural, and to find all I needed within the limits of the
natural. I substituted conscience for God, reason for
faith, common sense for prayer ; and for the first time in
my life I found mental rest and joy. •
3. But there was a third element that contributed to
my deliverance, namely, the conviction that all religious
exercises are artificially forced. Let us take prayer as an
example. As a child, I was systematically taught to
regard praying as an imperative duty, which everyone
should piously endeavor to discharge. I was also con
tinually reminded of the sorrowful fact that, ever since
the Fall in Eden, mankind had been sinfully disinclined
to bend their knees before the God of Heaven. Hence,
even to those who were born again through faith in
Christ, prayer did not come naturally. There was an
old man within them still who violently rebelled against
it; so that, in order to become proficient and find enjoy
ment in it, a necessity was laid upon them to crucify the
indwelling villain, and extend to his rightful successor,
created within them by the Holy Ghost, a firmer and
more welcome lodgment. But, in spite of all my des
perate efforts to bring about the death and ejectment of
the ancient Adam, in spite of all my passionate appeals
to God to come to my assistance in the matter, prayer
was never a joyous and strengthening exercise to me.
It continued to the end to be a hard, difficult, and un
illumined duty, which only my sense of loyalty to Christ
enabled me to perform at all. This constitutional dis
inclination to pray I then attributed to a fundamental
lack of spirituality, to some incompleteness of surrender
to God in Christ, or to some abnormal activity of the
persistent old scamp in my heart; and I tried to pray all
the more. After a while, I noticed that there was nothing
extraordinary or peculiar about my experience, but that
�52
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
the experience of all other children and adults was prac
tically the same. Of course, as long as I believed in
the Edenic Catastrophe, and the consequent imputation
of guilt and transmission of depravity to the whole race,
it was easy enough to account for the innate disinclina
tion to pray : it was a sign, proof, and direct consequence
of that hideous and hell-creating event. But as soon as
it became imperative to repudiate that damnable dogma,
because it flatly contradicted both reason and history,
there was no possibility of avoiding the atheistic con
clusion that religion, in the form of belief in and com
munion with an infinite and eternal Person, is un
natural, irrational, and injurious, and that for Christ,
with the whole paraphernalia of Atonement, Sacrifice,
and Salvation from hell, there is absolutely no need.
This is why adults are never religious unless they have
had religion forced down their throats in their youth.
This is why ministers and their assistants have to be so
busy attending to the religious education of the children ;
and it is to this incontrovertible fact that we owe SundaySchools, Bands of Hope, Societies of Christian Endeavor,
and even the regular services of the Churches. The
idea that underlies all ecclesiastical institutions, con
sciously or unconsciously, is that man is not by nature a
religious being, and that all religious convictions, beliefs,
and practices must be drilled into him by a long and
most laborious course of teaching. All religion originates
in superstition ; and it is a statement capable of amplest
verification that in proportion as superstition loses its
hold upon the common people, religion becomes a dead
letter. If the churches were to suspend operations from
next Sunday, in less than a hundred years Christianity
would be a thing of the past. We know that during the
last fifty or sixty years theology has been steadily aban
doning, one by one, positions that used to be regarded as
vitally essential. The renaissance of physical science in
the nineteenth century was accompanied by a corres
ponding decadence of religion. The acceptance of
Evolution meant the consequent rejection of the Bible
and Christianity.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
53
XI.—THE INDESTRUCTIBLE REMAINDER.
Now that we have eliminated the Bible as a specially
inspired and authoritative book, and Christianity as a
miraculously revealed religion, both from our minds and
from our lives, is there anything that remains and cannot
be swept away? Yes, all that has ever had any
real and verifiable existence. We have merely rid
ourselves of unnatural and morbid developments, of
troublesome and hurtful incumbrances, or, in other
words, we have only lopped off a few injurious excres
cences. We ourselves, and Nature, of which we are an
important part, still endure. I can find no more in
external objects than is already, either active or dormant,
in myself. Man is an epitome of the Universe.
Nothing transcends the soul, because it is the sum-total
of all things in miniature. Hence, neither poet nor
philosopher ever uttered a thought that did not awaken
echoes in all minds. That which is in itself true appeals
more or less forcibly to all alike, because it is germinally
present and regnant in all natural souls. I know how
customary it is, in certain quarters, to accuse Atheists of
contradicting, in the most wilful manner, the testimony
of their own nature, and to call them liars and hypocrites.
“ At heart,” we are confidently assured, “ no man is or
can be an Atheist.” The obvious retort is that, at
heart, no man either is or can be anything else. Even
according to the teaching of orthodox theology, ever
since the Fall in Eden Atheism has been the natural
fruit of unregenerate hearts. Now that science has dis
proved the Story of the Fall it is undeniable that, by
nature, all men are Atheists. Everybody knows now
how the belief in Supernatural Beings first arose, and
how it was gradually evolved into its present forms. As
�54
l’kO'M CHRISTIAN PULPIT
I have already said, we are not naurally religious. Even
to-day children have to be diligently and painfully
trained and coaxed, often very much against their wills,
into religious beliefs and exercises, and many of them, as
soon as they arrive at years of discretion and indepen
dence, shake them off again. We do not take to religion
as naturally as we do to our food. Furthermore, un
believers are frequently taunted with their inability to
supply the world with a worthy substitute for the Christian
Religion. “ What have you to offer us in place of Chris
tianity ?” they are excitedly asked. “You must not rob
us of our religion until you can provide us with another
and better one.” We cheerfully accept the challenge ;
and our answer to it is, that the world would be im
mensely better off without its Supernatural Religions,
because they are more or less artificial and of a bedwarfing tendency.
As illustrations of the truth of this contention let us
consider a few of the great, central words of the Bible,
such as God, Christ, Sin, and Immortality. Is not the
merest tyro in theology fully aware that no two divines
are in entire agreement as to the meaning of a single
one of these terms ? It may be alleged that all theo
logians speak of God as an infinite, eternal, invisible,
and absolute Being ; and yet hosts of them admit, on
metaphysical grounds, that an infinite and absolute
Being is unthinkable. “ But,” some simple-minded
person will say, “ I must believe in God because he is
revealed in the Bible.” But several different and con
flicting gods are revealed in the Bible—in which of them
do you believe; the god who commanded human
sacrifice, or the one who forbade it : the god of war or
the god of peace: the god of vengeance or the god of
love ? These are all in the Book, and you must make
your choice between them.
“ My God,” another
exclaims, “ is the embodiment of all high and noble
qualities, and whenever I worship him it is really to
such attributes that I am paying homage.” Then your
God cannot be an infinite and self-conscious person, but
merely an idealisation, a poetic fancy, a product of your
�*ro SECULAR RLaTFoRM
55
own imagination. The only sound advice to such a
believer is this : By all means, retain and adore the
qualities, in so far as they are high and noble, rbut, or
all sakes, drop the fanciful person. The term C/mst,
also, is open to the same objection. As to who or
what Christ is there is an endless diversity of opinion.
To one disciple, he is the Son of the living God, the
only begotten; to another, the completest revelation o
the Highest ; to another, the all-sufficient expiatory
sacrifice for sin; to another, a teacher of remarkable
originality and power ; and to another still, man at his
highest and best, the supreme miracle of history. These
typical disciples represent different and contradictory
schools of Christology, which have always stood at
daggers drawn in relation to one another. In the
Middle Ages the Church sanctioned the Christology of
the Augustinian school, and tried to stamp out the other
schools by imprisoning, torturing, and burning their
representatives. But at no time was the. Church com
petent to exercise absolute authority in matters of
doctrine, because it has been repeatedly proved that she
put men to death for holding and teaching opinions
which riper knowledge has established as incontestably
true. Her character as an infallible teacher has been
completely and irretrievably shattered. Convicted, in
open court, as a false witness on many important points,
the validity of her evidence on all other subjects has
been hopelessly destroyed. If therefore we listen to our
own reason, unterrorised by any superstition, we shall
have to let the theological Christ go, with all the theories
concerning him, or put him in the same category as
Buddha, and Confucius, and Zoroaster.
The same remarks apply to the words Stn and Immor
tality. What is sin ? No two people agree. According
to some there are sins specially against God, trans
gressions against positive commands, similar to * the
Edenic one about the forbidden apple, aftd so far as one
can make out these are exclusively sins of omission.
We sin against God when we neglect to pray, to read
the Bible, to attend church, or to contribute towards the
�5^
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT’
clue maintenance of the priesthood. Then there are sins
against ourselves and sins against our neighbor, which
are variously defined according to the theological stand
point- Again, according to the ripest and most reliable
Biblical scholars, immortality is not taught in the Old
Testament at all, so that in reality the Jewish Church
concerned itself solely with the affairs of the life that
now is. Dr. George Adam Smith informs us, further,
that there are excellent Christians in present-day
Churches to whom the doctrine of a future life does not
appeal, and who have accepted Christianity merely on
the. ground of the unique exaltation and purity of its
ethical teaching. But is it not indisputable that if we
eliminate the Supernatural,^with its heaven and hell,
from the Christian Religion^nothing of distinctive value,
nothing that is not common to all great Religions,
remains ? All that is peculiar to it is purely mythical,
while all that is of real value in it is common property.
Now, face-to-face with such significant facts, my
argument is that we do not need a substitute for
Christianity, but would be much better off, in every
respect, with no Supernatural Religion whatever. But
what remains to us after we have discarded God, Christ,
and . Immortality, with all the absurd dogmas con
cerning them ?
Nature, in all the plenitude of her
glory and power. She is our kind, loving, all-sustaining
mother, in whom we live, and move, and have our
being.
She answers all our anxious questions and
solves all our vexing problems. We never appeal to
her in vain. How speedily she responds to our varying
moods, comforting us in sorrow, cheering us in des
pondency, inspiring us in weakness, weeping with us
when we are sad, and laughing with us when we are
merry. Our one business in life is to observe her laws,
and to be in perfect tune with her sweet harmonies ;
and the only sin possible to us is to be in a state of
rebellion against her wise orderings. There is only one
thing we should dread, not the wrath and punishment
of a Supernatural Being, supposed to be seated on a
glittering throne no one knows where, but the ominous
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
57
frown of our mother when we have wilfully disregarded
her beneficent injunctions. No, my friends, we do not
need another Supernatural Religion, but we do need to
return to the worship of reason, the adoration of Nature,
and the practical fulfilment of the laws of truth, and
honor, and honesty, and pity, and service. This is the
the divinest religion on earth, and yet the one most
culpably neglected. Christians are too busy preparing
for heaven to pay the slightest attention to the socfal
duties of earth. “ But,” someone cries, “ I cannot give
up my hope of heaven, and you have no right to try
to rob me of it.” Well, cherish it to your heart’s
content, so far as I am concerned ; but will you be good
enough to consider, with due seriousness, the following
practical questfons ?—
“ Is it well that while we range with Science, glorying in the
Time,
City children soak and blacken soul and sense in city slime ?”
Is it well that—
“ There among the glooming alleys Progress halts on palsied
feet,
Crime and hunger cast our maidens by the thousand on the
street ?”
Is it well that—
“ There the smouldering fire of fever creeps across the rotted
floor,
And the crowded couch of incest in the warrens of the poor ?”
Is it well, is it right, is it just that these and a thousand
other anomalies, sufferings, and cruelties should be per
mitted to continue in countries which call themselves
Christian ?
Is it well, is it consistent that you, a
professed follower of Christ, should be rapidly amassing
a colossal fortune, and faring sumptuously every day, at
the expense of the poverty and misery of your work
people ? If that is what your hope of heaven enables or
allows or leads you to do, the sooner you part with it
the better it will be for all concerned. In your sane
moments, do you not agree ? It is most lamentable to
think how Christian churches seek to win and retain the
rich by wheedling flatteries and infamous cajoleries, and
�58
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
then dole out a little charity to the poor, accom
panied by the assurance that though poor on earth
they shall be rich in heaven. In their hearts the
poor scorn charity, and cry bitterly for justice, fair
play, and the recognition of their humanity. If the
churches were true to Christ, whom they call their
Head, they would tell the rich that they cannot possibly
enter the Kingdom of Heaven until they learn, not to
bequeath their riches to good causes when they die, or
devote them to ecclesiastical purposes while they live,
and be made famous, but so to conduct their business
affairs from day to day as to preclude the possibility of
ever becoming rich. Instead of that, they are doing
their utmost to perpetuate and accentuate the terrible
injustices, inequalities, and artificial distinctions that
now obtain in Society. Our reason tells us how iniquitous
the present condition of things is, and our reason, guided
by our heart, dictates the only true remedy ; and if we
only had the courage to apply the remedy all would soon
be well. Christianity has been in the world for nineteen
hundred years, but has ignominiously failed to set it
right. Indeed, it has often succeeded in setting it quite
wrong. The reason is that it is pre-eminently the
religion of the world to come, and, consequently, concerns
itself but little with the affairs of this. When we have
detached ourselves from it we shall have time to fulfil
the common duties of the common day, and, as a result,
to restore our relations to ourselves and to one another
to their normal and healthy condition.
My story is told, and I am at rest, and can face the
future without dread. I know whence I came and
whither I am going, and I greet the unseen, whatever it
may be, with a cheer. I take my stand with Ernst
Haeckel in the tabernacle of wonder and admiration,
and I join the great Goethe in the sanctuary of sorrow
and sympathy, reconsecrating myself to the service of
the huge army of the wronged and sinned against, the
suffering and the sad. Great and honorable is the work
that lies before us, and I call upon the reader and myself
�TO SECULAR PLATfoRM
59
to awake from sloth and begin with glowing hearts to do
it. Let us unite in a grandly altruistic mission to rid
the world of debasing superstitions, to dethrone all
existing evils, to establish right relations between man
and man, to promote good will and genuine brotherhood
all round, and to fill the days and hours of this earthly
life, the only life of which we are sure, with merry
laughter- and songful joy. Such is the beneficent ministry
of the only true gospel.
�DON’T
MISS
IT
THE
FREETHINKER
One of the liveliest and most outspoken Journals in
the World.
ITS EDITOR, MR. G. W. FOOTE,
“DID” Twelve Months for “BLASPHEMY,” and has
conducted it on the same lines ever since.
Mr. C. COHEN and Mr. JOHN LLOYD
are among the regular weekly contributors.
The FREETHINKER is the only journal in England that
gives b reethought news, and attends to Freethought organi
zation, as well as advocating Freethought principles. The
FREETHINKER attacks superstition and priestcraft, which
underlie all political and social injustice, particularly as
embodied in established and privileged institutions. It
carries on, vigorously and uncompromisingly, the work of
Voltaire, of Thomas Paine, of Bradlaugh, and of Ingersoll;
and relies, as those giants did, on fearless truth expressed in
the plain languageof common sense. The FREETHINKER
is contributed to by a competent staff of skilled and earnest
writers, who aim at making all they write interesting, in the
belief that dulness is not profundity and solemnity is not
wisdom.
PUBLISHED
PRICE
EVERY
THURSDAY
TWOPENCE
ORDER FROM YOUR NEWSAGENT
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.
�READ, MARK, LEARN, AND INWARDLY DIGEST
The 20th Century Edition
OF THE
AGE OE REASON
BY
THOMAS
PAINE
With Biographical Introduction and Annotations by
G. W. FOOTE
And
a
Beautiful Portrait of Paine
PRICE
SIXPENCE
Postage of Single Copies, 2d.
Never before published
at the. price
Issued by The Secular Society, Limited
The Freethought Publishing Co., Ltd., 2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E.C.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL
Some Mistakes of Moses. Only Complete Edition
in England. 136 pp. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; paper, Is.
House of Death. Being Funeral Oration and Ad
dresses on various occasions. Is.
Christian Catechism, A. 6d.
Oration on the Gods. 6d.
Shakespeare. A Lecture. 6d.
Superstition. 6d.
The Holy Bible. A Lecture. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With Biography by J. M.
Wheeler. 4d.
Crimes Against Criminals. 3d.
Oration on Lincoln. 3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Rome or Reason ? A Reply to Cardinal Manning.
3d.
The Christian Religion. 3d.
The Coming Civilization. 3d.
The Foundations of Faith. 3d.
The Ghosts. 3d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
Ernest Renan. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field. 2d.
God and Man. Second Reply to Dr. Field. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin P 2d.
Suicide, Last Words on. 2d.
Love the Reedeemer. A Reply to Count Tolstoy’s
“ Kreutzer Sonata.”
2d.
Marriage and Divorce,
An Agnostic’s View. 2d,
�WORKS BY COL. R, G. INGERSOLL (continued)
Paine the Pioneer.
2d.
Skulls. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Household of Faith. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with
the Hon. F. D. Courdert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Three Philanthropists. 2d.
What Is Religion P (Col. Ingersoll’s last Lecture) 2d.
Christ and Miracles.
Id.
Creeds and Spirituality.
Live Topics.
Id.
Id.
Myth and Miracle.
Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Ditto. Abridged edition.
Wooden God, A.
16 pp. Id.
Id.
INGERSOLL
GEMS
ONLY A FEW LEFT.
LIFE.
A Beautiful Prose Poem, with a fine Portrait
of Ingersoll and his infant Granddaughter.
THE CREED OF SCIENCE.
A Summary of
Ingersoll’s Philosophy.
THE DECLARATION
OF THE FREE.
Inger
soll’s noble Freethought Poem.
All three exquisitely printed on Cardboard for Framing, with
beautiful lithographed border and mottoes, and a facsimile of
Ingersoll’s signature.
Price Sixpence Each.
Postage One Penny Each.
The Freethought Publishing Co., Ltd., 2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E,C.
�SOME WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. New edition, revised. Cloth, 2s. 6d. ; paper,
Is. 6d.
Bible Heroes. New edition. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; paper,
each part, Is.
Crimes of Christianity. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Flowers of Freethought. First series, cloth, 2s. 6d.;
Second series, cloth, 2s. 6d.
Bible Romances. New edition, revised. Cloth, 2s.;
paper, Is.
Book of God in the Light of the Higher Criticism.
Cloth, 2s.; paper, Is.
Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public
Debate with the Rev. Dr. James McCann. Cloth Is. 6d.;
paper, Is.
Grand Old Book, The. A Reply to the Grand Old
Man. Cloth, Is. 6d. ; paper, Is.
Infidel Death-Beds. Cloth, Is. 8d.; paper, 8d.
Letters to the Clergy. Is.
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias. Paper, 8d.
Darwin on God. 6d.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
Bible and Beer. Showing the absurdity of basing
Teetotalism on the Christian Scriptures. 4d.
Philosophy of Secularism. 3d.
Rome or Atheism ? The Great Alternative. 3d.
What is Agnosticism ? With a Defence of Atheism.
3d.
Dropping the Devil. 2d.
God Save The King. An English Republican’s
Coronation Notes. 2d.
Ingersollism Defended Against Archdeacon Farrar.
2d.
Salvation Syrup: or, Light on Darkest England. A
Reply to General Booth.
2d.
Christianity and Progress. A Reply to the Rt, Hon,
W. E. Gladstone.
Id,
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2 Newcastle-street, London, E.C.)
HONE, WILLIAM
Apocryphal New Testament. Being all the
Gospels, Epistles, and other pieces now extant, and
not included in the New Testament by its com
pilers. 3s., postage 3d.
Ancient Mysteries Described, especially the
English Miracle Plays formed on Apocryphal New
Testament Stories, from unpublished manuscripts
in the British Museum. 3s., postage 3d.
HUME, DAVID
©N MIRACLES. With Appendix, etc., by J. M.
Wheeler. 3d., postage Id.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Originally issued in two Is. parts; now complete in
one vol. Reduced to 6d., postage 2d.
On SUICIDE. With Historical and Critical Intro
duction by G. W. Foote. 2d., postage |d.
Mortality of the Soul. 4d., postage |d.
Liberty and Necessity. An Argument Against
Free Will. 4d., postage Id.
MITCHELL, LOGAN
Religion
in
Unveiled.
the
Heavens :
or,
Mythology
Cloth, 2s., postage 2d.
PAINE, THOMAS
The Rights of Man.
With a Political Biography
by J. M. Wheeler. Cloth, 2s.; paper, Is., postage 2d.
Miscellaneous Theological Works,
is.
postage 2d.
’’
Common Sense. 8d., postage id.
^S,^n ^is pamphlet that the expression “Free and
Independent States of America ” first appears, and it was
e arguments Paine here used that influenced the colonists
to rebel, and led to the establishment of the present govern
ment. This is a complete edition of Paine’s great work.
t
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2, Newcastle-street, London, E.C.)
VOLNEY’S “Ruins of Empires”
A Survey of the Revolutions of Empires.
reduced to Is. 6d., postage 3d.
VOLTAIRE’S
Cloth,
WORKS
Chinese Catechism. Dialogues between a Dis
ciple of Confucius and a Chinese Prince, before the
Christian era. Paper Is., postage 2d.
Ignorant Philosopher, The. Containing Por
traits of Rene Descartes, and Benedict Spinoza.—
As entertaining as a French Comedy. Paper, Is.,
postage 2d.
Letters on the Christian Religion. With
comments on the writings of the most eminent
authors who have been accused of attacking Chris
tianity. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
Man of Forty Crowns. Dialogues on National
Poverty; Adventures with a Carmelite, etc- Illus
trated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
MlCROMEGAS. A Voyage to Planet Saturn. By a
Native of Sirius; and Twelve others. Illustrated.
Paper, Is., postage 2d.
Philosophy of History. With Portraits of the
Empress Catherine and of Voltaire. Paper, Is.,
postage, 2d.
The Sage and The Atheist. The Princess of
Babylon. Adventures of a Young Englishman, etc.
Illustrated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
ZADIG : or, Fate. The White Bull; The Blind of
One Eye, etc. Illustrated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
WHEELER, J. M.
Footsteps of thf. Past. Cloth, reduced to 2s. 6d.,
postage 3d.
VOLTAIRE: His Life and Writings. Paper, 6d.,
postage 2d.
Bible Studies and Phallic Worship, etc.
Cloth, 2s., postage 3d.
a Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers
of at.t. Ages and Nations. Handsomely bound in
cloth. Reduced to 3s., postage 4d.
�
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
From Christian pulpit to secular platform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lloyd, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 59 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on 5 pages at end, also inside covers and on back cover. Reprinted from The Free Thinker. John Lloyd was the Rector of Llanvapley.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N439
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (From Christian pulpit to secular platform), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Free Thought
NSS
Secularism