1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/71d99e14ccd86e55e72b64b1fd87556d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kS3SmrFcAakWYnOx5zfKf-NPCntRrjUAItn1%7EzyvF4slN9isqceCbgo9kzdH74SPxbFJhowpIXn%7EOOthYJtTooSKVH4Wbkb0h1%7EKFNKgxgb%7EIOKBooTYpWWc4l%7EMuOBb6l1hzX9S-1w0k3kCSXbYVIphK451EBrrkxYGHhNVxaRFXfs5nG1EfRT28xvpWb2PhgGupqAVyVpeD0-Xd4wu2ErAgUIyR-Hfwcpj5-yo9OFBwkKIKqAqTpLmi9Z%7Exl3AyTUsojeLe%7E4c9052hEaPn5ByWETjBYft8rtZsP4glXjomvEDPL%7EN54SIeLy45iC93N7Dzb07hlgDoxHnuCIVMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8be9722d1d26d4e8dcae52d7d4e901
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A LIE IN FIVE CHAPTERS?
OB THE
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES’S
“CONVERTED ATHEIST.”
BY
G. W. FOOTE
(President of the National Secular Society').
Second Edition.
[completing
ten thousand.]
Price One Penny.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1892.
�PROLOGUE.
Stories of converted Atheists are part of the business stock
of theologians. I have disposed of some of them in my Infidel
Death-Beds. I now dispose of another in this pamphlet.
The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes is a smart young man. He
combines the revival preacher with the enterprising showman.
By means of unstinted cash, constituting a heavy drain on the
resources of Wesleyan Methodism, he has drawn together
large audiences in the West of London. But Christian ministers
complain that he has done this at the expense of their con
gregations. Neither “ infidels ” nor indifferentists are attracted.
All Mr. Hughes does is to draw away from sober churches and
chapels a number of Christians who prefer a more exciting
form of religious service.
Money, more money, was wanted for the West End Mission.
In this extremity, Mr. Hughes published a story of a converted
Atheist in the Methodist Times. It was written in the form
of a penny novel, and designed to catch pious flat-fish.^ Very
likely it has succeeded. At any rate, the story "now reprinted
in a little volume, at the modest price of eighteenpence.
My exposure is reprinted from the Freethinker, and published
at the price of one penny. My object is to get the exposure
widely circulated. I appeal to Freethinkers to distribute it
among their orthodox acquaintances. Mr. R. Forder, 28 Stone
cutter-street, London, E.C., is instructed to supply parcels of
fifty copies and upwards at trade price; that is, at the rate of
ninepence for thirteen copies.
I do not imagine that the exposure will greatly affect Mr.
Hughes or his clerical brethren. They know what pays, and
while orthodoxy has long ears they will find their profit in
tickling them. But I venture to think that the exposure will
affect a certain number of honest men and women, and open
their eyes to the arts by which a false system is supported.
�N233
A LIE IN FIVE CHAPTERS?
During August, 1889, the Methodist Times published
in five chapters the story of “ The Atheist Shoemaker ;
a Page in the History of the West London Mission.
By the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes.” Probably it was
reckoned good copy—something to tickle the ears of
Methodist readers, who are always strong on “ con
version ” ; and something to tickle the purses of the
wealthy subscribers to the new and costly experiment
of evangelising the West End. Anyhow, the author
had to undergo no very close editorial scrutiny; no
questions were asked as to the truth of the story, in
case anyone should make inquiries ; for, in fact, the
author and the editor were the same person—the
Rev. Hugh Price Alughes.
From the little we know of this gentleman we should
hot bebdisposed to accept his bare word on any matter
in which “ religion ” or “ morality ” is in question. We
had to report a meeting of the Christian Evidence
Society he attended in Exeter Hall, on May 20, 1887,
at which he told a monstrous false story about a Freethought? lecturess, and promulgated a most ridiculous
fable as to the proceedings of the Council of Nice.
*
More recently we had occasion to animadvert on his
appalling looseness of statement at a great “purity”
meeting in St. James’s Hall, where the reverend gentle
man, trusting to information he never took the trouble
to examine, perpetrated a gross libel on the Aquarium ;
a libel which he was subsequently obliged to eat every
word of, under a threat of prosecution. Mr. Hughes
may be honorable enough in private. As to that we
know nothing and care as little. But we believe his
mind is easily perverted by sentiment, and a pretty
extensive acquaintance with the history of his church
convinces us that the best of Christians have not been
* See Freethinker, May 29,1887.
�( 4 )
very particular about “ stretching” for the glory and
honor of God.
It is not our intention to assert anything worse of
Mr. Hughes’s story than that it looks a lie. This may
sound as good, or as bad, as calling it a lie straight out.
But a little reflection will show that we make a reser
vation. If Mr. Hughes furnishes us with proofs we
will confess our mistake, and apologise for throwing
a doubt upon his honor. But until then, we can only
judge upon the evidence before us, and we say
deliberately that we never met with a story which
bore more obvious marks of concoction.
To begin with, the interests of Methodism are kept
very carefully in view. When the Atheist shoemaker
goes with his pious young wife to an afternoon Con
ference, he finds himself sitting next to a parson. Now
the parson, of course, belonged to a rival church, and
it was a good stroke to make him jealous. The Atheist
remarks, “ It’s really wonderful to get such crowds as
these at the West End. This Mission is a great success.”
Whereupon the parson, “lifting his eyebrows and
sniffing in the air,” remarks that “ It costs a great deal
of money.” To which the Atheist rejoins, “ WhyTsir^
if I believed in God, I should not think all the money,
in the Bank of England too much to carry on a work
like this.” Capital! Mr. Hughes is anything but a
fool. It is a clever touch, well brought in. The
Mission does cost a good deal, the money had to be
raised by vigorous begging, and perhaps there were
subscribers who hardly thought the results commen
surate with the outlay. How judicious, then, to put
this financial reflection into the mouth of an Atheist—
a most impartial witness !—and in reply to a parson,
belonging to a church that spends a great deal more
mo ney than Methodists have the luck to lay their
hands on !
Curiously enough, again, when the sick Atheist shoe
maker, after finding Jesus by the aid of a Methodist
Sister, goes to a Convalescent Home, it turns out to be a
High Church establishment, and Sister Agatha nearly
undoes all the good work of Sister Beatrice. She asks
him to join her gospel-shop, tells him “There is only
�one Church in this country,” and says that “Dissenters
are going to heaven by the back stairs.” Could there
be a shrewder way of suggesting that Methodist Sisters
are better Christians, and better worth supporting, than
High Church Sisters ? Sectarian bitterness reigns in
the Convalescent Home. Sister Agatha gets at him,
the inmates get at him, and they get at each other ; so
that he has a two-hours’ agony and bloody sweat in
wrestling with the Devil, who asks him whether it is
worth his while to remain with this happy family of
Christians. He pulls through, however, by turning his
mind from the High Church Sister and thinking of the
Methodist Sister. More business, Mr. Hughes, more
business ! and very good business, too.
Here is another bit of business, rather more subtle
and delicate, thrown in with rarer skill, and apt to
escape a superficial reader. The Atheist’s young wife,
who goes first to the Sunday afternoon meetings, is of
Celtic origin, and “ by birth and early training a Roman
Catholic.” After hearing Mr. Hughes preach about
“the living Christ and present salvation,” she silently
absolves to “ trust that Christ more fully than she had
B.ver trusted him before.” This is one of Mr. Hughes’s
flraster-strokes. How soft and insinuating is the sug
gestion of the religious superiority of Methodism over
CatholicHfei ! It is these nice hints and flying touches
that reveal the artist.
Then again—and this is a bolder stroke of policy ; a
blow from a bludgeon, so to speak, rather than a thrust
of a fine rapier—Mr. Hughes guards himself at the very
outset against the embarrassment of prying sceptics.
The Atheist shoemaker, who is happily dispatched to
glory—not by “ the back stairs ”—in the fifth and last
chapter, willingly consented to the publication of all
the facts of his case, and indeed “ there is no reason
for concealment.” Here the unsuspecting reader would
imagine that he was going to get all the facts. But Mr.
Hughes is not so simple as that. There is a “ But ”—
not too much “ But,” but just “ But ” enough. “ Some
of those who must appear on the scene shrink from
publicity,” so fictitious names are given to all the cha
racters, including the converted Atheist, and all the
�( 6 )
clues are discreetly cut away with a single snip of the
artist’s scissors. It is the old, old story. Names, dates
and places are carefully withheld. Investigation is
baffled, and everything is left to faith.
Mr. Hughes has been pressed on this matter. Free
thinkers, we understand, have written to him. We
have seen his reply to Mr. Robert Forder, the secretary
of the National Secular Society. Mr. Hughes refers
him to the introductory paragraph, which explains why
he is unable to give information. Any other informa
tion as to the mission work is at Mr. Forder’s service,
but not this. Of course not!
Were there a substratum of truth in the story, clear
proof would remain of its having been cooked. “ One
dark night last winter,” as an opening sentence, is
enough to satisfy an intelligent reader. Conversations
are given, not in substance, but verbally, although they
took place in circumstances in which it was impossible
for them to be recorded. The Atheist’s tones, gestures,
and expression are described, although nearly every
thing happens in the writer’s absence. In short, we
have every characteristic of a pious invention.
We have now to qualify our praise of Mr. Hughes’s
cleverness by pointing out a very serious mistake. He
has fallen into the error of being too precise. This is
doubtless a merit in ordinary romances, to which it
imparts a life-like air ; but it is a glaring fault when
you are palming off lies as truth. Mr. Hughes should
have remembered that discretion is sometimes the
better part of valor. He would have been better advised
if he had made his converted Atheist older and less
notorious, and had given fewer details of his character
and personal appearance. As it is, he has drawn a
picture which, whatever are its merits, has the signal
disadvantage of being plainly apocryphal.
“ John Herbert ” was a shoemaker. He had a brother
at Northampton (Bradlaugh’s borough—how pat!),
who has become a convert to Christianity through
John’s edifying death. He was a young man, “ about
thirty years of age,” with a young wife, and apparently
no children. He was passionately fond of music. He
had “ delicate intellectual features, and deep, inquisi-
�(7)
tive, penetrating eyes.” He was a “ well-known London
Atheist.” He “ possessed a large collection of Atheist
literature. Everything ever written by Mr. Bradlaugh,
Mrs. Besant, and Colonel Ingersoll he had at his fingers’
ends.” He was an orator on Clerkenwell-green, and
seemingly at the Hall of Science. The breadth of his
fame may be seen from the following passage :—
Soon after the foregoing incidents had occurred, I asked a
journeyman shoemaker in Soho if he knew John Herbert.
“ Know him I” said he, turning round suddenly, quite aston
ished that I should ask so foolish a question. “Why everybody
knows Herbert.”
Then, striking an eccentric attitude and drawing up his tall
body to its full height, he said,
“ I tell you what it is, sir. Herbert is a far-larn’d man; he
will just suit a young gentleman like you. Why, when he used to
speak in Victoria-park there was such continuous cheering that
you could scarcely hear what he was saying. Again and again
have some of our chaps tried to get up a discussion between
him and Bradlaugh, but we could never manage it. They were
always on the same side. Ah! it would have been a fine game
if we could have made these two argue with one another.
Many of us thought that Herbert would get the best of it.
There is some extraordinary nonsense in this para
graph. “ Far-larn’d ” is a curious idiom for a Cockney
shoemaker, and the idea of Freethinkers getting up a
discussion between one of their own speakers and Mr.
Bradlaugh—chiefly, it would appear, for the fun of the
thing—is so ineffably preposterous that we fear our
readers will go into a convulsion of laughter. We want
them to do nothing of the kind, but to keep their atten
tion fixed upon John Herbert.
The Atheist shoemaker lived at Islington, occupying
a floor in an ordinary lodging-house. He was very
happy with his wife. His atheist companions said he
was under petticoat government. “ Whenever he and
his comrades arranged a day’s excursion, he stubbornly
refused to accompany them unless he was allowed to
take his devoted little wife with him.” This is one of
the richest follies in the whole of the story. Mr.
Hughes does not know that no distinction of sex is
recognised in Secular Societies, that excursions are of
rare occurrence, and that when they are “ arranged,”
�( 8 )
the male members are only too happy to have ladies in
the company.
John Herbert finally went down with his wife to
Devonshire, where it was hoped he would recover from
his illness. But he died there (of course !) and his exit
from this world to the better one promised by Metho
dists occurred some time in last spring.
Here, then, is a sufficiently detailed picture, yet w@
are unable to identify the original. We know some
thing of Freethought propagandists in London, but we
cannot call to mind a single person who answers in the
slightest degree to the description. Mr. Forder is
positive against the existence of such a person. Not
one Freethinker, among the scores who have spoken
to us on the subject, is able to recognise this wellknown London Atheist, this speaker on Clerkenwellgreen, this wonderful orator of Victoria-park, this
match for Bradlaugh.
Let us narrow the issue. When the Devil is carrying
on a long conversation with John Herbert, he remarks,
“ What you used to say in the Hall of Science and on
Clerkenwell-green is quite true.” Who could help
inferring that John Herbert was a speaker at the Hall
of Science ? But this is not all. While in Devonshire
he was prayed for—apparently with small success—by
the Methodists in London. “ It seemed to us,” Mr.
Hughes says, “ of such immense importance that he
should himself go to his old workshop, and to the Hall of
Science, and to Clerkenwell-green, and to all his former
haunts, and with his own lips tell the story of his con
version.” Again he says, “ We had thought of accom
panying him to Clerkenwell-green and the Hall of
Science, and wherever he was known, that all his old
friends might have an opportunity of sharing his im
mortal joy.” Now if this does not mean that he was a
speaker at the Hall of Science, articles and stories
might as well be composed by pulling out words at
hazard from a bag.
Who, then, are the lecturers at the Hall of Science ?
They can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand.
We know all the men and women who have lectured
there during the last ten years—not to go back farther
�(9)
—and we declare that the list does not include any
person like John Herbert, or any person resembling
him in the remotest degree. We will give Mr. Hughes
a complete list of all who have lectured there during
that period, and we defy him to name one among
them who was working as a shoemaker, or who was
“ about thirty years of age ” last winter, or who died
last spring.
Here is a clear challenge. What will Mr. Hughes
do ? Will he skulk behind his well-calculated opening
paragraph ? Will he sit silent and smile ? Will he
flatter himself that the Methodists will believe his
story though every Atheist in London should brand it
as a lie ? Or will he say that the Hall of Science
portion is a mistake, and that he was misled, or that he
wrote a little too much in the spirit of romance ? Let
him do what he will, we defy him to move without
damning himself.
We will put Mr. Hughes another poser. John
Herbert was an Atheist; he was popular ; he had many
Atheist comrades, with whom he took “ excursions.”
He was as fierce an Atheist as ever when Sister Beatrice
was brought to his bedside. Now how was it that
none of his Atheist comrades came to his sick room ?
Why did he not send to tell them of his plight ? What
will Mr. Hughes reply ? We have no hesitation in
expressing our belief that they did not come because
Mr. Hughes did not want them there. Their presence
would have thwarted his purpose. He wanted the
sick room clear for Sister Beatrice and her Methodist
spells.
Atheism is as much a terra incognita to Mr. Hughes
as equatorial Africa. His idea of Atheists is childish
in the extreme. His prevailing notion seems to be
that men become Atheists from watching the spectacle
of Christian disunion and inconsistency. Now these
phenomena are peculiar to Protestantism, which puts
an open Bible into people’s hands and foolishly expects
them all to deduce exactly the same doctrines from
such a conglomerate volume. Catholicism follows a
different plan. By means of the Church, which is the
living voice of God, it has an infallible interpreter of
�*
( 10 )
Scripture, and disunion and inconsistency are thus
reduced to a minimum. Rome boasts herself semper
eadem, and the boast is not a vain one. Still, there are
Atheists in Catholic countries ; and this single fact
explodes Mr. Hughes’s theory of Atheism.
Were Mr. Hughes to rely more on knowledge than
on imagination, he would soon discover that Atheism
is a rational and not a sentimental belief. Were every
Christian a good man—a most prodigious hypothesis 1
honest, truthful, generous, and compassionate ; were
there no serious differences of opinion amongst them ;
were they in the habit of consistently practising the
doctrines they profess ; the Atheist would probably
change the tone of his criticism, but the philosophy
of Atheism would remain unaltered.
The burden of John Herbert’s diatribes against
religion is that Christians hate and mistrust each other,
and that he and his fellow workmen are sweated by a
Christian employer. But he soon comes to think bettei’
of the Methodist circle of which Mr. Hughes is the
centre, for the simple and sufficient reason that Mr.
Hughes is the author of the story. “ I admit,” says
John Herbert, “that your kind of Christianity is quite
different. I know what you are doing for the poor.
If all Christians were like you----- .” Thus Mr.
Hughes lauds his own little ring at the expense of
other Christian bodies, and snuffles like a first-rate
Pharisee.
Sister Beatrice pays John Herbert a visit, talks the
most unmistakable Hugh-Price-Hughesese, and storms
all the Atheist’s positions in a single interview. The
orator of the Hall of Science, the match for Bradlaugh,
gives in to a Methodist young lady, who boasts not a
shred of argument, but asks him to “ accept Christ, the
Son of God,” before the sick man is persuaded that
there is a God to have a son or a daughter. After firing
off what reads like a long extract from one of Mr.
Hughes’s sermons, Sister Beatrice rises to leave ; and
the orator of the Hall of Science, the match for Brad
laugh, is so struck with the twaddle that he is on th©
point of yielding. “ If it were not such a cowardly
�(11)
business to do it on my death-bed,” he says, “I feel
almost inclined to give in.”
The next interview settles the business. John Her
bert is going to swallow the medicine, but the interest
of the story demands some reluctance. “ I can’t do
it,” he says ; “ I’ve been awful—I’ve been a ringleader.”
But Sister Beatrice holds out the spoon coaxingly. She
has a sweet voice and a fair hand ; it is ten to one she
will win. “ The agony of the spiritual struggle ”
reaches its climax, and great drops of perspiration
started out of his white forehead.” The Sister and the
wife prayed, and presently John took the medicine at
a gulf. Hallelujah 1 The two women were “ strangely
conscious ” that God was in the room. They knew
their prayer was answered, and felt no surprise when
converted John said, “It’s all right now. I’ve
given in.”
Such is Mr. Hughes’s idea of converting Atheists t
No wonder he has achieved such magnificent success
that he is obliged to conceal the identity of the only
bird he has caught.
John seemed to get better. The medicine appeared
to agree with him. He looked forward to his recanta
tion at the Hall of Science. But it never came off.
Oh dear no! Not for Hugh Price Hughes ! That meant
producing your bird, which couldn’t be done without
buying one at the poulterer’s, and the bird was out of
season. So the nameless converted Atheist, who lived
in an unspecified street in Islington, died in a name
less village in Devonshire, and was buried in an undiscoverable grave; while his dear little wife vanishes
into the infinite azure of the past, and the very memory
of this popular Atheist, who died only last spring, is
mysteriously blotted out from the minds of all the
Atheists who knew him so well. Truly, the age of
miracles is not past. Nor is it likely to be while
Methodist preachers are able to manufacture them for
a steady and profitable market.
Mr. Hughes says he called on John Herbert, some
weeks after his conversion, to give him a dose of the
body and blood of Christ ; the precious articles being
carried, to use the preacher’s own words, in “ the little
�( 12 )
Communion Service case which the ladies of Leeds
gave to my sainted father-in-law, Alfred Barrett, fortysix years ago.” Apparently the body and blood of
Christ disagreed with him. Perhaps the body was too
new, and the blood was only ten shillings a dozen.
Anyhow, we read that “John Herbert seldom sat up
after that day. He grew worse and worse.”
John took his large collection of Atheist literature
from the shelves and put it under the sofa. “He
inclined to burn them.” Oh, Hugh Price Hughes, is
your invention so barren? Could you think of
nothing but this ancient “ chesnut ” ? You might
have had them put in a glass case, marked “ Poison 1”
in one of your Sunday-schools. You might have
taken them home and read them yourself. They
would have given you a lesson in veracity ; at any
rate, they would have enabled you to write about
Atheism with a little knowledge instead of the most
contemptible ignorance.
What did become of the books we are not told. Mr.
Hughes leaves them under the sofa. Were they sold
after John’s seraphic death to a second-hand dealer,
and dispersed by him over the whole of Islington?
If so, they are likely to make more Atheists than
Mr. Hughes will ever convert.
Mr. Hughes went beyond himself in ignorance of
Atheists, and in ignorance of High Churchwomen too,
when he wrote the conversation between John Herbert
and Sister Agatha at the Convalescent Home. Sister
Agatha tries to show him the impossibility of approach
ing God except through a priest of the church, and in
doing so she plunges into “ ancient ecclesiastical
history ” and quotes “ a large number of Saints and
Fathers.” This is extraordinary on the part of a Sister
in a Convalescent Home, but John Herbert’s reply was
more extraordinary still. “ As I had been an Atheist,”
he says, “ I had not studied ancient church history.”
Mr. Hughes actually imagines that Atheists are, as
such, ignorant of ecclesiastical history; and that a
casual Sister in a charitable institution could quote “ a
large number of Saints and Fathers,” whose “ names
Herbert had never heard of before ”—this Herbert
�( 13 )
being a Hall of Science orator and a match for Brad
laugh !
Mr. Hughes is also rather loose in his arithmetic.
He introduces John Herbert as “about thirty years of
age,” and kills him off at “ the early age of twenty
eight.” Had the converted Atheist lived a little longer
he would have been a boy again. His death occurred
in the presence of his wife and “ the gardener’s wife.”
Mr. Hughes was not there, but he is able to tell us all
that happened, and every word that was said ; and of
course we are treated to “the last words of John
Herbert, the Atheist.”
Poor Mr. Hughes was very much disappointed at
losing the opportunity of assisting at his convert’s re
cantation at the Hall of Science, but he yields to the
will of the Lord, and hopes that “ this short and simple
biography ” will be made “ a blessing to Christian
Atheists and to Atheist Christians in all parts of the
world.” That the biography is “ simple” few intelligent
readers will dispute; but as to its being a blessing, there
are likely to be opposite opinions. No doubt it will
bamboozle the readers of the Methodist Times, wad bring
in subscriptions for the West End Mission. But if we
take a larger view, we shall hardly regard the deliberate
dissemination of lies as a blessing to mankind. In the
long run nothing serves us but Truth. But this is
a goddess whom the Christians seldom worship. From
the first century to the nineteenth, they have circulated
pious frauds without ablush. Amidst all its rancid
cant and maudlin sentiment, the story of Mr. Hughes’s
converted Atheist shows us that the good old trade of
lying for the Church still flourishes ; and we under
stand what Herder meant in saying that “ Christian
veracity ” deserved to rank with “ Punic faith.”
�Mb. Hughes was furnished with marked copies of the Free
thinker in which this exposure was first printed. In face of a
direct challenge from myself, as editor of that journal and
President of the London Secular Federation, he pursues a
cowardly policy of silence. Once more I defy him to prove
his story. I will pass over the details of incident and conver
sation, and challenge him again on the main point. Let him
establish the substantial truth of his narrative. Let him prove
the existence of an Atheist who lectured on Olerkenwell-green,
in Victoria-park, and at the Hall of Science; who was con
verted by Mr. Hughes or his Wesleyan Sisters; who was a
shoemaker, about thirty years of age; and who died l&st
spring. Here is a clear challenge. An honest man would
accept it. Should Mr. Hughes still decline it, I shall do more
than say his story looks a lie. I shall say it is a lie. And I
am sure every honest reader will endorse the brand.
�POSTSCRIPT TO SECOND EDITION.
(January, 189%.)
Five thousand copies of this pamphlet having been sold, and
the demand still continuing, another edition of five thousand
is now published.
Mr. Hughes has ignored my challenge. He has also ignored
the challenge of the late Charles Bradlaugh. It is time, there
fore, to fling aside all reserve, and I unhesitatingly call Mr.
Hughes’s story a lie from beginning to end. It does not
■contain even a mixture of truth; it is pure, unadulterated
falsehood.
Although the author of this fraud has maintained the
“ dignified silence ” which is customary in the prisoners’ dock,
he has in one instance exposed the hollowness of his plea that
the names of the personages of his story could not be given.
Writing to a Freethinker at Nelson, whom he took to be a
Methodist, Mr. Hughes said that the names would be given
presently. Eighteen months have elapsed, and “ presently ”
has not yet arrived.
Mr. Hughes’s concealment is even too much for Mr. Spurgeon,
who has advised him to make a clean breast of everything, and
«o disarm all critics and cavillers. But this advice is not taken,
and it never will be taken. Mr. Hughes sees the policy of not
answering questions that might tend to criminate himself. He
belongs to a very familiar species of Christians, and should
henceforth be knownas the Rev. Ananias Hughes.
�Works by G. W. Foote
2
2
2
O Q
bp
bj
b?
to
2
“THE FREETHINKER”
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
The Only Penny Freethought Paper in England.
Enlarged to Sixteen Pages.
Circulates throughout the World.
Published every Thursday.
Printed and Published by G- W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street,
London, E.O.
05
0 Christianity and Progress 0
Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy 0
A Candid Criticism.
Secularism & Theosophy 0
Rejoinder to Mrs. Besant.
The New Cagliostro ... 0
6
Open Letter to Madame
0
Blavatsky.
The Folly of Prayer ... 0
The Impossible Creed ... 0
0
Open Letter to Li>hop
0
Magee on the Sermon on
the Mount.
Salvation Syrup, or Light
on Darkest England ... 0
6
A Reply to General Booth
6; What Was Christ ?
... 0
0
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
The Shadow of the Sword 0
A Moral and Statistical
6
Essay on War.
8
3 Royal Paupers................0
0 The Dying Atheist ... 0
4 Was Jesus Insane ? ... 0
Is the Bible Inspired ?... 0
A Criticism of Luat Mundi.
Bible Romances (revised) 0
double numbers
... 0
2
4 Bible Heroes (1st series) 1
3 Bible Heroes (2nd series) 1
Both complete, in cloth 2
2
•
The Grand Old Book ... 1
A Reply to the Grand
Old Man. An Exhaustive Answer to the Right
Hon.W. E. Gladstone’s
Impregnable Rocli of Holy
Scripture.
Bound in cloth
... 1
Is Socialism Sound ? ... 1
Four Nights’ Public De
bate with Annie Besant.
Bound in cloth
... 2
Christianity& Secularism 1
Four nights’ Public De
bate with the Rev. Dr.
. Janies McCann.
Bound in cloth
... 1
Darwin on God ...
... 0
Bound in cloth
... 1
Reminiscences of Charles
Bradlaugh................0
Infidel Death-Beds
... 0
Bound in cloth
... I
Letters to the Clergy ... 1
Defence of Free Speech 0
Three Hours’ Address to
the Jury before Lord
Coleridge.
The Bible God................0
Letters to Jesus Christ... 0
Philosophy of Secularism 0
Atheism and Morality ... 0
�
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
A lie in five chapters? or: Rev. Hugh Price Hughes's "Converted atheist"
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Response to The atheist shoemaker, by Hugh Price Hughes, published in the Methodist Times, August 1889. Works by G.W. Foote listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N253
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 (A lie in five chapters? or: Rev. Hugh Price Hughes's "Converted atheist"), 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
Atheists
Conversion
Hugh Price Hughes
NSS