1
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/930287db88e8ca77edbb60dcda3f6fe6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Pl6BZPSGQk63N3DqU9OwZ8f4I9GV3ZaFRTFU4MicMIDBr7tSW6dS1RoVhG-Y207gWQ6UNzRZTd1PkxAVMwxFkagcVHh2Z0Tijno9X9gh8cS5fp%7En0GNrnlP7jX2XVFEwNZfwlrd2a6CbNDxxx41fyNdQfdYG92U2ZT7F7tRWpHdIMjhFJ0igdS4zXUVJrHOoeHVQrHta%7Ekv%7EjWHlAecUblhwMC5TZuav6o2KHpCuPVY-x79neSwqoeKUbTHV2igiNoN0YXxDeFg%7E1NUR8QFm4-H-MN2lZIx1fjJ7OASZolHllUnwmqEApv84D2WsUXWf9n2oXv-KIir2FPBW0DI76g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c92da0312d9e19449d22e0e3dcd68c3d
PDF Text
Text
BIBLE HORRORS;
OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY.
BY
ARTHUR
B.
MOSS.
LASPHEMY is a peculiar offence : only a believer in
the being whose reputation is attacked can commit it,
even then time and circumstance have to be taken into
account. The Jew cannot blaspheme the Christian God,
because he does not believe in him ; the Christian may say
what he likes against the gods of the Brahmin and Buddhist;
and the Mohammedan may speak disrespectfully of all the
gods of the nations of the earth save his own. All, how
ever, must be careful that they give utterance to their blas
phemous expressions at the proper time and place. The
Jew must not attack the Christian Deity in an English
church, nor the Christian sneer at Jehovah in a Jewish
synagogue, nor either of them ridicule the Mohammedan
Deity in a moslern in Turkey ; but in their own city, and
at the proper season, each may blacken the deity of the
other.
Ridicule has always been considered a powerful weapon
in eradicating false impressions from the human mind,
though some pious persons now declare it to be a crime
when it is used to show the fallacy of their own belief.
Do not the religious ridicule the opinions and cherished
beliefs of Freethinkers ? Did they not laugh immoderately
at what seemed to them the monstrously absurd notion of
the late Charles Darwin, that man had evolved from a
lower for-m of being? Did they not ridicule the Materialist
when he declared that he believed that the laws of nature
were sufficient to account for “all phenomena without the
meddling of the gods”? Then why should Freethinkers
abstain from using a weapon which has proved effectual in
many a controversial encounter ? The statesman uses it,
Band
�2
BIBLE HORRORS;
the historian wields it, the social reformer does not disdain
to employ it, and the popular orator knows its wonderful
power in exploding false notions.
But real blasphemy is an attack by a believer upon the
reputation of his deity. It matters not that he does it to
flatter the power or vanity or the capriciousness of his god :
the blasphemy is none the less real. Did it never occur to
the Christian that his Bible teems with such blasphemy—
indeed, is as filled with it as some of the numbers of a
blasphemous publication (in the eyes of Freethinkers) called
the War Cry. The cry of the Christians was always a cry
for blood : their appetite for it is much stronger than that
of the general occupants of the gallery at third-rate theatres
during the representation of a drama in which several
murders occur in each act and a frightful slaughter at the
end of the play. Look into the Bible, my readers, for the
record of human bloodshed. In early times the earth was
a slaughter-house and Jehovah a mighty butcher. Take
the merciless slaughter of the Egyptians, and see if it finds
its parallel in profane history. Not content with depriving
the Egyptians of water by causing Moses to turn it into
blood ; not satisfied with afflicting an unoffending people
with plagues of frogs, lice, and flies ; not satisfied with
destroying harmless cattle with a grievous murrain ; not
content with supplementing these with frightful plagues of
hail, locusts, darkness, and the slaughter of the first-born,
this Bible God allowed the Israelites to utterly “ spoil the
Egyptians,” robbing them of jewels and other valuable pro
perty, and ultimately bringing them to the Red Sea to perish
in the waves, that the Israelites might exult over their death.
And what was the cause of all this ? What had the
Egyptians done ? That God had hardened “ Pharoah’s
heart ” is the only explanation vouchsafed to us respecting
this Bible horror. And so the poor Egyptians had to suffer,
not through any fault of theirs or of Pharoah’s, but through
a fault attributable to God alone.
Barbarous deeds recorded in the Bible are of two kinds
—those perpetrated by the bloody hand of Deity himself
and those to which he gave explicit sanction. The slaughter
of the Amalekites by Joshua had the approval of the Deity;
the uplifted hands of Moses, tightly clutching the “ rod of
the Lord,” was enough to win the support of Jehovah, who
was always on the side of injustice and tyranny. This, in
�OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY.
3
all conscience, was frightful enough. But mark what soon
follows. Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders have had an
interview with the Lord. From the summit of an exceed
ingly high mountain they are witnesses of his great glory.
They behold the feet of the Infinite God ! Moses even
receives the Commandments, written by the finger of God
upon great tablets of stone. While Moses is thus “ inter
viewing ” the great God of the Jews, Aaron is among the
people seeking to satisfy their craving for a real god—one
they could see and handle, and who could assist them in
time of trouble; for their minds were sorely disturbed by
great doubts and misgivings concerning the God whom
Moses had spoken of so often, but who appeared to be so
far above the clouds that nobody could get at him. Aaron,
with Jewish simplicity, thought that a golden god was the
most appropriate for the children of Israel; he, therefore,
beset himself the task of making a Golden Calf. Retribu
tion came quickly ; but, as is usual in Biblical matters, it
fell on the wrong shoulders. No sooner did Moses discover
that the “ God in the skies ” was doubted than he took a
most effective way of removing all scepticism—a method
which has often been imitated since his day. “ Then Moses
stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s
side ? Let him come unto me. And he said unto them,
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel : ‘ Put every man his
sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate
throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of
Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three
thousand men” (Exodus xxxii. 26 — 28). Well might
Jehovah, in his Commandments, say: “I am a jealous God,
who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children.” And
might he not have added, “ The sins of the priests upon the
people ” ?
But this is not all—
“ On horror’s head horrors accumulate.”
Turn over the leaves of your Bible, and read how God com
manded Moses to war against the Midianites, slaying them
without mercy, and preserving only the maidens, that they
might satisfy the lustful craving of a brutal horde of soldiers
Numbers xxxi. 7—18). Read this for yourselves ; con
�4
BIBLE HORRORS ;
template these wicked horrors, and say if it is not a libel
upon a wise and good God to allege that he ever com
manded such wanton barbarity ! And let me abjure you
not to pollute your lips with Bible obscenities; do not
allow your children to read them either at home or at school.
They were written in a barbarous age by an ignorant people,
and they are fit only for brutal barbarians grovelling in a
very atmosphere of licentiousness.
lhe books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are
filled with stories of murders and aggressive wars, to which
Jehovah always gave his approving smile. Percy Bysshe
Shelley was an Atheist: Atheists are all supposed to be
wicked, heartless men ; yet Shelley, in his “ Declaration of
Rights,” says : “ Man has no right to kill his brother. It is
no excuse that he does so in uniform—he only adds the
infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.” Was Shelley
a greater lover of humanity than the God who is alleged to
have made us all? Is the Atheist more deeply touched by
human sorrow and pain than the Christian God ? Or are
these records of bloodshed and crime, said to have been
committed at the express will of the “ Heavenly Father,”
but a long tissue of falsehoods, written in the dark nights of
ignorance and superstition ?
Among Bible horrors the second class of crime is to give
sanction to the perpetration of barbarous deeds. This the
Christian God has frequently done, so that in all ages the
Bible has served as a text-book to which the believer could
refer to find justification for the committal of all sorts of
horrible crimes. In Leviticus xxiv. 16 we find these words:
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord he shall
surely be put to death ; and all the congregation shall cer
tainly stone him, as well the stranger as he that is born in
the land, when he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord
shall be put to death.” This passage has incited fathers to
destroy their own children ; it has induced men to break
their fellow creatures upon the rack ; to stone, to imprison,
to crucify, or consume them at the stake. No suffering has
been too intense for the blasphemer. And yet blasphemy
is a priest-invented crime, which no unbeliever ever has,
or ever can, commit.
Again, in Deuteronomy xiii. 6—io we read: “If thy
brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,
or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine
�OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY.
5
own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve
other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers
—namely, of the gods of the people which are round about
you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from one end of
the earth even unto the other end of the earth—thou shalt
not consent unto him nor hearken unto him ; neither shalt
thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt
thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him. Thine
hand shalt be first upon him to put him to death, and after
wards the hands of all the people. And thou shalt stone
him with stones, that he die.” Could wickedness go farther?
Under this injunction the bravest thinkers, the most heroic
men that have adorned the world, have suffered inexpressible
torture. Socrates despised the gods of his time. That noble
philosopher suffered death like a hero and martyr rather
than be false to conviction. Even though he was broken
with age, he had courage enough to bear without a murmur
all the tortures to which his enemies subjected him. Bruno,
Vanini, and a multitude of men and women less known to
fame, have perished under this wicked command. No
wonder that human progress was slow while a passage like
this could be effectively appealed to ; no wonder that while
religion was strong science was weak.
As long as the
Church had power the people were steeped in ignorance.
Every martyr and every hero have made the path smoother
for subsequent pioneers of progress. Let us remember this,
and let the heroism of our tortured and persecuted ancestors
give inspiration to our every thought and deed to-day.
Probably the two passages which have wrought the most
evil in the world are these : “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live ” (Exodus xxi. 18); “ Both thy bondmen and bond
women which thou hast with thee shalt be of the heathen
round about you, and they shalt serve thee for ever ” (Levi
ticus xxv. 44, 45, 46). The first passage was the court of
appeal in all cases of alleged witchcraft. Learned judges,
whose common sense in most matters was keen enough,
were, nevertheless, led to believe—upon no other authority
than this infamous passage from the alleged inspired word
of God—that witches had a real existence, and entered into
the bodies of men for evil purposes. In the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries more than a hundred thousand persons
were put to death in Germany alone as witches. In the
first year of the reign of James I. in England an Act was
�6
BIBLE HORRORS;
passed defining the crime of witchcraft with wonderful
minuteness. It says : “ Any one that shall use, practise, or
exercise any invocation of any evil or wicked spirit, or con
sult or covenant with, entertain or employ, feed or reward,
any evil or wicked spirit to or for any purpose, or take up
any dead man, etc., etc., such offenders, duly and lawfully
convicted and attainted, shall suffer death.” Soon after the
passing of this Act the popular delusion spread like an
epidemic, devastating many parts of England ; and under
this statute hundreds of men, women, and children were
mercilessly murdered with the full sanction of the people,
who were completely saturated with superstition. But if
the people were ignorant, if the judges’ minds were warped
by theological prejudice, can it be said that the Infinite
Ruler of the Universe was no better able to discriminate
between prevailing delusions and eternal truth? Is the
wisdom of God the same as the ignorance of man ? Did
a “ God of love ” look down upon this earth, and compla
cently watch the transactions of Matthew Hopkins, the
“ witch finder,” and his cowardly set of colleagues? Did
“ our Father who art in heaven ” give these deeds of blood
his warm approval, as though he had heartily declared “my
expressed will is being done”? If he did not sanction these
atrocious crimes, done in his name for his glorification, why
did he not stretch forth his almighty arm, and thwart the
wickedness of his followers ?
What shall we say of slavery ? What of a God who
describes one class of men as the “ money ” of another
(Exodus 20, 21)? There are no words in the English lan
guage strong enough with which to characterise him if it
were true ; but it is not true—it is all a libel : it is the
believer’s blasphemy of a God he pretends to worship.
The Christian has yet to learn that his highest conception
of Deity is but a reflection of himself; that no God has
ever possessed loftier sentiments or grander characteristics
than the people out of whose fertile imagination he grew.
Indeed, men have in all ages been god-makers, giving to
“airy nothing a local habitation and a name.”
rl he New Testament is not exempt from the charge that
is here made against the other fragmentary essays which go
to make up what in this country is called the “Holy Bible.”
Jesus, who is elevated by the priests to the position of an
Infinite Deity, is recorded to have said: “ If any man come
�OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY.
7
unto me and hate not his father and mother and wife and
children and brethren and sisters—yea, and his own life
also—he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26). Can it be
true that a God of wisdom and goodness would have us hate
those who are near and dear to us, and sever ourselves for
ever from them, in order that we might render service or
pay homage to one of whom no man has the smallest know
ledge ? Is it not blasphemy to suppose that a loving God
would say to his children : “ Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth ; I came not to send peace, but a
sword ” (Matt. x. 24) ? The mission of a Devil could not
be more evil in intention. It must never be forgotten that
it is in the New Testament where the appalling doctrine of
everlasting burning in hell for unbelievers is first announced
as the distinct teaching of Jesus. Vindictive women, stirred
by the irresistible passion of jealousy, have conceived the
wicked idea of torturing and disfiguring their enemies or
rivals by throwing over them a quantity of sulphuric acid ;
fiendish men have, in a moment of madness, pushed a
fellow-creature into a vat of boiling oil; and a drunken
parent has been known to hold his child’s hand in a fire for
some moments. These fearful agonies have been endured
long enough in all conscience, though only for a few brief
hours; yet the New Testament tells us that there is a loving
father in heaven who will suffer some of his children to
pass an eternity in hell, ceaselessly tormented by the flames,
but never consumed. I will not, I cannot, believe it; and,
though my countrymen may punish me for my unbelief,
though they may fine and imprison me, I shall still main
tain that a God of goodness could never be guilty of such
infinite wickedness. To say that God will punish men
endlessly in hell has always been considered man’s feeble
way of expressing his admiration of God’s justice; to deny
that he would perpetrate such a gigantic and unpardonable
crime has ever been considered the greatest blasphemy.
Number me with blasphemers, from Socrates downwards :
it is an honour to be in such company ; and with them I
am prepared to stand or fall.
That the Bible teems with records of immorality and
obscenity, which it is a criminal offence to print in all
their naked ugliness, everybody knows full well: and yet
this book is read in our national schools, and there are
good men and women who declare that they would sooner
�;\z
BIBLE HORRORS;
8
OR, TRUE BLASPHEMY.
have their children remain in the direst ignorance than have
them brought up without a full knowledge of the contents
of the Bible. Let us charitably suppose that they speak in
ignorance—that they really have not diligently perused the
Bible themselves. It is readily acknowledged that the
Bible is not an altogether bad book, that it contains passages
of rare beauty, of lofty sentiment, and profound wisdom ;
but it can never be taken as a text-book, because it abounds
in contradictions and absurdities ; and it were far better
that man should thrust it aside for ever than that he should
accept it as containing “the beginning and end of all
wisdom ”—as a book written at the special command of a
wise and good God. Let the Christians improve their
Bible ; let them eliminate these barbarous things from its
pages ; let them proclaim their belief in a nobler God and
a loftier creed. The pure, the good, the just, and the
beautiful the Freethinker will never attack ; but all that is
cruel, wicked, impure, and unjust he will always condemn,
whether it be said to come from God or from man.
' 1
-
THE
SECULAR
REVIEW.
A JOURNAL OF DAILY LIFE.
Edited by
...
Charles Watts & Saladin.
The Secular Review is strictly a Freethought Journal,
representing all phases of Advanced Thought. It also con
tains authentic information as to the progress of liberal views
in America and oil the Continent.
To order, of Newsagents, or direct from 84, Fleet Street, London.
Published every Thursday, price Twopence.
WATTS & CO., 84, FLEET STREET, LONDON. —PRICE ONE PENNY.
mJ-
�
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
Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Two marginal marks in pencil. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Watts & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5780
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Bible horrors; or, true blasphemy), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Blasphemy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ab70ae1fe94e144c80e57ed1050e694c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Gkt-8xYtO21rjQaNeUfIeJTpBMh596m9Tkbn9pgCV704lIBTTHtzmOPKXOHgP6d6ESnfHlIckYlYvE%7EP5LnN8cqubur%7EpFeJh5yBlLx5qUJNnIBJ-Gp1CijOyq10LKmHAWKZ-gTeODDtlmxSGGPILHKuQpgTwDgVs2ChesUDjRqWkpiGvGeQ2usLLkZy7p6ZMbhf5JpL0ilwBF5rSgAJtxJt7iCYpOHtLf8EOHj9b%7E5AKSAHz0suxRZH-r-Vv5jQDVr30IIapPkN5VuQJQ1vZ51bFmhy%7EnzdekhUeagekL5rJ9bgWDT2B-GzvRaklbSSwt5UBDiaZz24UPi3DJ-hPA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3af084f821dfe6c85e92b5945366a906
PDF Text
Text
1
�GS Y-l7?-
BLASPHEMIA,
What time the judges and the servile mob
Of Athens, moved by superstitious hate,
Compelled the wise and virtuous Socrates
To drink the fatal bane, the imputed crime,
For which he thus unjustly suffered death,
Was blasphemy against the Grecian gods;
A crime extinct, or all are criminals,
Since Jupiter, Apollo, and the rest
Of that divine assembly are, in these
Our more enlightened days,” by all blasphemed.
For-many nations, swayed by antique Rome,
And still, in her decadence, following her,
Have changed their deities, and worship, now,
The Jove who haunts the rock of Sinai,
Rejecting him who, on the Olympian mount,
Once reigned supreme o’er all the lesser gods :
The heavenly father and the sovereign lord
Of that heroic race of men which stands
Superlative, in olden history.
And.banished too, or but retained by name,
To mark our weekly days, are Thor, the son
Of Odin, and the other deities
Of Scandinavian birth; but, yet, from them
The Teutons and the Saxons derivate
The Pagan title which, in spite of all
Our borrowed Judaism, still maintains
Its ground against the very Elouhim
Of Moses and of Christ.* In fine, throughout
The land called Christendom, this Hebrew name
Is never uttered, and the terms in vogue,
Profane and heathenish, although they be,
Are Dio, Dios, Dieu, Gott, and God.
In records, said to be divine, and known
To be inscribed in that same tongue, wherein
The Greeks to their almighty Zeus prayed,
We come to Jesus, from whose history
We learn that when he claimed identity
With his celestial parent, named by Jews :
Jehovah, Lord of Hosts,” and “ Man of War,”
The wrathful zealots of the chosen race
Took stones to stone him, as of old they stoned
To death, the impious wretch who gathered sticks
Upon that consecrated day whereon
The Elouhistic godsf of making worlds
Grew tired, and rested from their marvellous work.
Albeit this christ his holy mission proved,
By deeds miraculous, yet still, amidst
The sacred people, there were they who said:
cc He hath a devil,” or “ Beelzebub,
u The prince of devils, lends him aid; ” and, when
*“ In the beginning the Elouhim created the heavens
and the earth.” (Genesis.) “ Eloi, Eloi, why hast thou
forsaken me ?” (Mark.)
t In the common English version of the Bible, the
word Elouhim, (or Elohim,) in spite of its plural ter
mination, is translated by the singular: God; and, in
the same unscrupulous manner, Jehovah is rendered
by the inapposite title: Lord, belonging equally to
English noblemen, the mayors of London and York, and
the bishops of the Established Church; but, as, of
course, neither of these translations are used, where
they do not suit the context, we do occasionally meet
with Gods and Jehovah.
He uttered words, as having power men’s sins
To pardon, “Who is this,” they asked, “that speaks
“ These blasphemies ? For, who can pardon sins,
“ Stive God alone ? ”
But Jesus, though the meek
Aid lowly, sometimes, in an angry mood,
Flung back these bitter taunts, and stigmatized
His enemies in no mellifluent terms:—
“ O race of vipers ! ” he exclaimed, “ ye fools
“ And hypocrites, from hell’s damnation how
“ Can ye escape ? For though indeed ye be
“ The seed of Abraham, your father is
“ The devil, from of old a murderer,
“ And father, too, of lies; his foul behests
“ Ye all obey 1 ”
The perilous result
Of these contentions, with the cunning Scribes
And self-applauding Pharisees, drew near.
The priestly council, or Sanhedrim, of
The Israelites, “ defenders of the faith,”
As taught by Moses and the prophets, soon
Brought Christ before the Roman magistrate,
Who found him guiltless ; but, in mockery
Of justice, priests and people cried aloud,
As with one voice: “ Let him be crucified! ”
And, having reached “ a place called Golgotha,”
They hanged him there, upon the accursed cross,
Between two thieves, a martyr for the truth,
Whereto these spiteful Hierosolymites
Could give no other name than “ blasphemy.”
In after time, confessors of the faith
In Jesus, sumamed Christ, both burned and hanged,
For “blasphemy,” their fellow Christian men:
Giordano Bruno, burnt in Papal Rome,
Girolamo Savonarola, hanged,
Between two “ brethren in the Lord,” and then
Consumed by fire, in Christian Tuscany.
But time would fail to tell of all who fell
Beneath the cruel torture and the sword
Of ruthless persecution, for a crim a
Unreal, whose very name is pilfered from
The Greeks, “ blind worshippers ” of deities
We now call “ false ” and “ mythological.”1
And what is “ blasphemy,” that dubious guilt,
For which the best and noblest of mankind
Have borne these ignominious penalties ?
The Athenian sage and Galilean christ,
Besides philosophers of later days,
Are there, in clearest evidence, to show
That “ blasphemy ” is oftentimes the truth,
Before it penetrates the reflex minds
Of multitudes of men. In sooth, it is
An imputation which is ever by
The many urged against the few; and, hence,
Perchance, to countless flocks of hissing geese,
The nightingale’s melodious canzonet,
In sylvan solitude, is “blasphemy.”
We kndw that all new verities which things
Affect, that long have been esteemed and held
In reverence, are doomed to bear the brunt
Of opposition led by enemies
�Whose strongest argument and loudest cry
Is “ blasphemy! ” But even the simplest truihs,
If they indeed be truths, invincibly
Withstand attacks more terrible than this.
*
For recollect, believers who, by law
Or custom, take the name of “ orthodox,”
That never yet hath blasphemy prevailed
Against the truth that two and two make four;
But, in your desperate attempts to prove
That one is three and eke those three are one,
/ (As in the doctrine of the “ Trinity,”
Invented, probably, by Brahmin priests,)
Ypu\ ■aeh the lowest depths of senselessness,
And lose yourselves in crass absurdity.
Yet, like the stolid saint of olden time,
You rJl are ready to exclaim: “We grant
“ These mysteries to be impossible,
“When scanned by reason and by common-sens s,
“ BLt therefore we believe them to be true.”
And this credulity unlimited
Is founded on dogmatic sophistries
Which gained the day, in theologic strife
Of early times, and these again are based,
Tn part, upon a heterogeneous mass
Of Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee manuscripts,
Commencing with a strailge cosmogony
And some illusive genealogies,
Which, taken at the utmost, barely give
The lapse of sixty centuries since man
First came on earth, created of its dust;
And, then, the narrative proceeds to say,
The gods (on running short of dust, perhaps,)
Made woman of a solitary rib
Of man, extracted deftly from his side,
The while he lay asleep in Paradise.
Thence follow chronicles which, page by page,
Reveal, in horrible detail, the most
Atrocious and obsceijp iniquities
Whereof humanity is capable,
Committed by a race which claimed to be
The chosen of Jehovah-Elouhim,
A god superior to all other gods!
But touching these old books, ignored, until
Translated freely in more modern days,
The obvious question that presents itself
Is this—Tf they, amongst their manifold
Abominations and absurdities,
w
Contain enunciations from the gods—
Tf there the Lord Omnipotent of all*
The gods, hath deigned to reason with mankind,
How happens it that, in the course of time,
A thousand and eight-hundred years have passed
Away, and still mankind is unconvinced ?
.Or this—Why rests for ever unfulfilled
A certain prophecy, devoid of all
- ---------- s
-----
-
Obscurity, that “knowledge of the Lord,
“ Jehovah, should extend throughout the earth
“ As water fills the sea ? ”*
To search again *
The later portions of these scriptures, there
We read that Jesus to his followers
Declared that every kind of blasphemy
Should be forgiven unto men, by God,
Except that mystery insolvable,
“ The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.”
Moreover, Paul, or Saul, of Tarsus, placed
On record, in his own behalf, the plea
That notwithstanding all his blasphemies,
Coinmitted prior to the miracle
Of his conversion to the Christian faith,
Yet mercy he obtained, because his deeds
' Were done in ignorance and unbelief.
But, now, in unbelief and ignorance,
Or else in utter heedlessness of what
These great exemplars said, no blasphemy
Will any Christian Scribe or Pharisee
Forgive his fellows, though his Lord commands
That he shall “ love his neighbour as himself,”
And never offer up his prayer to God,
For daily bread, for pardon, and for gracm
Without absolving all his enemies.
In their imperfect image men have made
The weak, revengeful, and repentant gods
Of their idolatries, and supplicate
Them in a thousand forms; but here ensues
An orison sincerely breathed by him
Who pens these humdrum metres, and which brings
Blasphemia to a pious end.
* “ Spirit of Infinity !
“ Father of the Universe!
* “ Called Theos, in Hellenic climes,
“ And God, in countries of the North,
u To thee I pray that if by me,
u Thy hallowed name hath been profaned,
cc In mercy thou wilt condescend
cc To plainly manifest thy wrath ;
CC
And not permit that men, alone,
Ct
With all their fallibility,
“ Should task themselves to vindicate
Thy power eternal and, supreme.
• *
•
“ Thou knowest I cannot choose but think
“ That either knaves or fools are they
“ Who vent on me their feeble rage,
“ Because I will not bend the knee
cc To some wild phantom they conceive
cc Of Thee, the Inconceivable.”
•
OLIVER SHERLOCK
nth. April, 1871. (
.•:ft
—
.
- ' •
♦Since these lines were placed in type, a preacher of Jesuitical chicanery, in one of the numerous clap-traps of
a sermon, has publicly declared that this prediction really has been, or was being, fulfilled, referring, for proof,
to “ the knowledge of Jehovah,” and of atfcw other things, at our^ntipodes ; thus, in the coolness of his effrontery,
setting aside more than 600 million people, or nearly three-fourths of th,e population of t^ globe, including
Buddhists, Brahmins, Mohammedans, and other “ infidels.”
.•
*
/T.*, ,
>
But the odd thing is that, only a few hours afterwards, there appears, in the newspapers, -the inteihgenrewrom
Australia thats at Baramatta, Mr. William Lorando Jones has been sentenced by Judge Simj^on'to be impfisoned
for two years, withnasd labour, and to pay a fine of one hundred pounds, for speaking dlBtespectfufiy of Moses-the*
identical offence-with which the Jews charged Jesus of Nazareth.
.
•. . ,.
This antipodean judge, to compare whom with Pontius Pilate would be a piece of grogs injustice, to thg Roman,
has delivered himself of the*above malicious sentence with a view “tp cheek mfidehty?’unconsciously imitating .
those who once tried, by similar means, ft) check christianity-thft Christianity which moires Dogberry Simpson
with the “ charity” which doth behave itself unseemly, which is puffed Wp, which is easily provoked which thinketh
evil, which beareth nothing, which endurpth nothing, and which, b^pretending to be otherwise, is the greatest sham
in the whole world.
• - ■
'
•
* u. /3.
��
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
Blasphemia : A metrical essay
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sherlock, Oliver
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 1 folded leaf ; 25 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Oliver Sherlock is pseud. for W. B. Colling.
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
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5717
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 (Blasphemia : A metrical essay), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/348182fe78f177b66fce66462b1c94f1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=We7E-EjoxQFKveji7Gl-O17udPifRnDDx2hk4WfCaZbbpTtZEMdq7S%7EK4jtmQqMO8syvwW2N-z2JgaJqBBHEZgAJiDutsHkTzIl1JAfJG8hvCT6U-iMzWiU1CfYVgSlr5e6sMW2F0XlunOUjupWJbI-P4gkMvnLEKup8s1fxyGFYy7S8%7EECEjc4aA5aXDnhu5ZrpZ-E9ZFGdpyTcUXlY6CLLPdUjN2Y5g2KtaPahh3D6noTr1tzDGX3j4apecKitgGrQeesTE78vBj-KmmPY77UXD5XY97SGBqk66I5XhGNWsgB9DSTew3ERqbgaVef2f19PsH5Xd18liMMjLjdqSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
38d97a3996907846653ac9d5b7150013
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECUI^ socnnv
Ainioos winoas tvmgitvn
/
DEFENCE OF
FREETHOUGHT
BY
COLONEL ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
BEING HIS
FIVE HOURS’ SPEECH TO THE JURY
AT THE
TRIAL FOR BLASPHEMY of C. B. REYNOLDS
AT
Morristown, New Jersey, May 19 and 20, 1887.
[Reprinted frowfthe Author's Edition.]
PRICE
FOURPENCE.
London:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C.
-
1902.
�PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING COMPANY,
2, NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, EC.
�E 2,6 49
nW
PREFACE.
In introducing to English readers Colonel Ingersoll’s magni
ficent oration in defence of the rights of free thought, free
speech, and free publication, against the charge of blasphemy,
it is fitting to briefly mention the circumstances of its
delivery.
The ex-Rev. C. B. Reynolds has for some years past been
an accredited Freethought missionary in the United States.
After the manner of some itinerant evangelists he travelled
from place to place with a tent in which he preached the
Freethought gospel. At a town called Boonton, in the
State of New Jersey, he was assailed by a party of bigots,
during the summer of 1886. They raised the cry of
blasphemy. Missiles of every kind were thrown at him by
an organised party, his tent was wantonly destroyed, and he
was compelled to seek safety in flight. An action for
damages against the town resulted in a counter action for
disturbing the peace and a threatened indictment for blas
phemy, which fell through owing to the cowardice of the
authorities.
Undaunted by his troubles, Mr. Reynolds revisited Boonton
and the other towns of New Jersey, including Morristown,
not only lecturing but widely distributing a pamphlet he had
prepared, entitled Blasphemy and the Bible.
For this pamphlet he was indicted on a charge of Blas
phemy, and after some delay brought before a Morristown
jury.
It is a curious circumstance that one of the principal pas
sages cited in the indictment had been taken bodily from an
article by G. W. Foote, entitled “ God in a Cradle,” which
appeared in the Christmas number of the Freethinker, 1884,
�IV.
PREFACE.
the year of his liberation from Holloway Gaol, after an
imprisonment of twelve months for the offence of blasphemy.
It is notable that the Colonel does not hesitate to endorse
what are really Mr. Foote’s descriptions of the baby god.
With characteristic generosity, Colonel Ingersoll undertook
the defence of Mr. Reynolds, when suffering from a throat
affection, although he had to give up an important case in
order to be present at Morristown. The proceedings com
menced on Thursday, May 19, 1887, and concluded on the
following day. Three judges sat on the bench ; Mr. Francis
Childs presiding, with two lay judges, Messrs. Quimby and
Munson. Colonel Ingersoll’s speech occupied the whole of
the afternoon and an hour of the next morning. It was
delivered in a crowded court, and made a great sensation.
Judge Childs appears to have played, in addition to his own
part, the role of counsel for the prosecution. His summing
up was directed against the accused, and he ended by saying
“ Do not acquit him by violating the law yourself.” The
jury, after taking an hour to consider the matter, found Mr.
Reynolds Guilty, and the religious farce ended by his being
condemned to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs.
Colonel Ingersoll at once handed over a cheque for the
amount. The contrast of the sentence in this case with that
inflicted in the last trial for blasphemy in England (to which
Colonel Ingersoll seems to have thought it best not to allude)
is a marked one. To kill or imprison a man for insulting
God is one thing, to fine him five pounds is another. If the
Lord’s dignity is valued at that sum in America, he has fallen
miserably from his ancient estate. It looks as if Colonel
Ingersoll’s hope would be fulfilled, and this prove the last
defence found necessary in a trial for blasphemy in America.
�COLONEL INGERSOLL’S ADDRESS.
------- ♦-------
Gentlemen of the Jury: I regard this as one of the most
important cases that can be submitted to a jury. It is
not a case that involves a little property, neither is it
one that involves simply the liberty of one man. It
involves the freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty,
of every citizen of New Jersey.
The question to be tried by you is whether a man has
the right to express his honest thought; and for that
reason there can be no case of greater importance sub
mitted to a jury. And it may be well enough for me, at
the outset, to admit that there could be no case in which
I could take a greater, a deeper interest. For my part,
I would not wish to live in a world where I could not
express my honest opinions. Men who deny to others
the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men.
I deny the right of any man, of any number of men,
of any Church, of any State, to put a padlock on the
lips—to make the tongue a convict. I passionately deny
the right of the Herod of authority to kill the children
of the brain.
A man has a right to work with his hands, to plough
the earth, to sow the seed, and that man has a right to
reap the harvest. If we have not that right, then all are
slaves except those who take these rights from their
fellow-men. If you have the right to work with your
hands and to gather the harvest for yourself and your
children, have you not a right to cultivate your brain ?
Have you not the right to read, to observe, to investi
gate, and when you have so read and so investigated,
have you not the right to reap that field ? And what is
�6
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
it to reap that field ? It is simply to express what you
have ascertained—simply to give your thoughts to your
fellow-men.
If there is one subject in this world worthy of being
discussed, worthy of being understood, it is the question
of intellectual liberty. Without that we are simply
painted clay ; without that we are poor miserable serfs
and slaves. If you have not the right to express your
opinions, if the defendant has not this right, then no man
ever walked beneath the blue of heaven that had the
right to express his thought. If others claim the right,
where did they get it ? How did they happen to have
it, and how did you happen to be deprived of it ? Where
did a church or a nation get that right ?
Are we not all children of the same mother ? Are we
not all compelled to think, whether we wish to or not ?
Can you help thinking as you do ? When you look out
upon the woods, the fields—when you look at the solemn
splendors of the night—these things produce certain
thoughts in your mind, and they produce them neces
sarily. No man can think as he desires. No man
controls the action of his brain, any more than he con
trols the action of his heart. The blood pursues its old
accustomed ways in spite of you. The eyes see, if you
open them, in spite of you. The ears hear, if they are
unstopped, without asking your permission. And the
brain thinks in spite of you. Should you express that
thought ? Certainly you should, if others express theirs.
You have exactly the same right. He who takes it from
you is a robber.
For thousands of years people have been trying to
force other people to think their way. Did they suc
ceed ? No. Will they succeed ? No. Why? Because
brute force is not an argument. You can stand with the
lash over a man, or you can stand by the prison door,
or beneath the gallows, or by the stake, and say to this
man : “ Recant, or the lash descends, the prison door is
locked upon you, the rope is put about your neck, or the
torch is given to the fagot.” And so the man recants.
Is he convinced ? Not at all. Have you produced a
new argument ?
Not the slightest. And yet the
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
7
ignorant bigots of this world have been trying for
thousands of years to rule the minds of men by brute
force. They have endeavored to improve the mind by
torturing the flesh, to spread religion with the sword and
torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by
putting their feet in iron boots; by putting fathers,
mothers, patriots, philosophers, and philanthropists in
dungeons. And what has been the result ? Are we any
nearer thinking alike to-day than we were then ?
No orthodox Church ever had power that it did not
endeavor to make people think its way by force and
flame. And yet every Church that ever was estab
lished commenced in the minority, and while it was
in the minority advocated free speech—every one.
John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church,
while he lived in France, wrote a book on religious
toleration in order to show that all men had an equal
right to think; and yet that man afterwards, clothed in
a little authority, forgot all his sentiments about religious
liberty, and had poor Servetus burned at the stake for
differing with him on a question that neither of them
knew anything about. In the minority Calvin advocated
toleration ; in the majority he practised murder.
I want you to understand what has been done in the
world to force men to think alike. It seems to me that,
if there is some Infinite Being who wants us to think
alike, he would have made us alike. Why did he not
do so ? Why did he make your brain so that you could
not b y any possibility be a Methodist ? Why did he
make yours so that you could not be a Catholic ? And
why did he make the brain of another so that he is an
unbeliever, why the brain of another so that he became
a Mohammedan, if he wanted us all to believe alike ?
After all, maybe Nature is good enough and grand
enough and broad enough to give us the diversity born
of liberty. Maybe, after all, it would not be best for us
all to be just the same. What a stupid world, if every
body said “ Yes ” to everything that everybody else
might say.
The most important thing in this world is liberty.
More important than food or clothes, more important
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
than gold or houses or lands, more important than art or
science, more important than all religions, is the liberty
of man.
If civilisation tends to do away with liberty, then I
agree with Mr. Buckle that civilisation is a curse.
Gladly would I give up the splendors of the nineteenth
century; gladly would I forget every invention that has
leaped from the brain of man ; gladly would I see all
books ashes, all works of art destroyed, all statues
broken, and all the triumphs of the world lost; gladly,
joyously, would I go back to the abodes and dens of
savagery, if that is necessary, to preserve the inestimable
gem of human liberty. So would every man who has a
heart and brain.
How has the Church in every age, when in authority,
defended itself ? Always by a statute against blasphemy,
against argument, against free speech. And there never
was such a statute that did not stain the book that it
was in, and that did not certify to the savagery of the
men who passed it. Never. By making a statute, and
by defining blasphemy, the Church sought to prevent
discussion, sought to prevent argument, sought to pre
vent a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet,
a dogma, a doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a
statute that prevents your speaking against it. In the
silence of slavery it exists. It lives because lips are
locked. It lives because men are slaves.
If I understand myself, I advocate only the doctrines
that in my judgment will make this world happier and
better. If I know myself, I advocate only those things
that will make a man a better citizen, a better father, a
kinder husband; that will make a woman a better wife,
a better mother—doctrines that will fill every home with
sunshine and with joy. And if I believed that anything
I should say to-day would have any other possible ten
dency I would stop. I am a believer in liberty. That
is my religion—to give to every other human being every
right that I claim for myself; and I grant to every other
human being, not the right—because it is his right; but,
instead of granting, I declare that it is his right—to
attack every doctrine that I maintain, to answer every
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
9
argument that I may urge; in other words, he must
have absolute freedom of speech.
I am a believer in what I call “ intellectual hospi
tality.” A man comes to your door. If you are a
gentleman and he appears to be a good man, you
receive him with a smile. You ask after his health.
You say: “ Take a chair; are you thirsty, are you
hungry, will you not break bread with me ?” That is
what a hospitable, good man does; he does not set the
dog on him. Now, how should we treat a new thought ?
I say that the brain should be hospitable, and say to
the new thought: “ Come in; sit down; I want to
cross-examine you; I want to find whether you are
good or bad. If good, stay; if bad, I don’t want to
hurt you ; probably you think you are all right; but
your room is better than your company, and I will
take another idea in your place.” Why not ? Can
any man have the egotism to say that he has found it
all out ? No. Every man who has thought, knows not
only how little he knows, but how little every other
human being knows, and how ignorant, after all, the
world must be.
There was a time in Europe when the Catholic
Church had power. And I want it distinctly under
stood with this jury that while I am opposed to
Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics ; while I
am opposed to Presbyterianism I am not opposed to
Presbyterians. I do not fight people ; I fight ideas, I
fight principles, and I never go into personalities. As
I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but Presbyterianism
—that is, I am opposed to their doctrine. I do not hate
a man that has the rheumatism ; I hate the rheumatism
when it has a man. So I attack certain principles
because I think they are wrong, but I always want it
understood that I have nothing against persons ;
nothing against victims.
There was a time when the Catholic Church was in
power in the Old World. All at once there arose a
man called Martin Luther, and what did the dear old
Catholics think ? “ Oh,” they said, “ that man and all
his followers are going to hell.” But they did not go.
�IO
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
They were very good people. They may have been
mistaken; I do not know. I think they were right in
their opposition to Catholicism, but I have just as
much objection to the religion they founded as I have
to the Church they left. But they thought they were
right, and they made very good citizens, and it turned
out that their differing from the Mother Church did
not hurt them. And then after awhile they began to
divide, and there arose Baptists and the other gentle
men, who believed in this law that is now in New
Jersey, and began cutting off their ears so that they could
hear better; they began putting them in prison, so
that they would have a chance to think. But the
Baptists turned out to be good folks—first rate ; good
husbands, good fathers, good citizens. And in a little
while, in England, the people turned to be Episco
palians, on account of a little war that Henry the Eighth
had with the Pope ; and I always sided with the Pope
in that war; but it made no difference; and in a
little while the Episcopalians turned out to be just
about like other folks—no worse—nor, as I know of,
any better.
After a while arose the Puritan, and the Episcopalian
said: “ We don’t want anything of him ; he is a bad
man and they finally drove some of them away and
they settled in New England, and there were among
them Quakers, than whom there never were better
people on the earth—industrious, frugal, gentle, kind
and loving; and yet these Puritans began hanging
them. They said : “ They are corrupting our children ;
if this thing goes on, everybody will believe in being
kind and gentle and good, and what will become of
us ?” They were honest about it. So they went to
cutting off ears. But the Quakers were good people
and none of the prophecies were fulfilled.
In a little while there came some Unitarians, and
they said : “ The world is going to ruin, sure ” ; but the
world went on as usual, and the Unitarians produced
men like Channing—one of the tenderest spirits that
ever lived; they produced men like Theodore Parker—one of the greatest brained and greatest hearted men
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
II
produced upon this continent; a good man, and yet
they thought he was a blasphemer—they even prayed
for his death—on their bended knees they asked their
God to find time to kill him. Well, they were mistaken.
Honest, probably.
After awhile came the Universalists, who said : “ God
is good. He will not damn anybody always, just for a
little mistake he made here. This is a very short life ;
the path we travel is very dim, and a great many
shadows fall in the way, and if a man happens to stub
his toe, God will not burn him for ever.” And then all
the rest of the sects cried out, “ Why, if you do away
with hell, everybody will murder just for pastime, every
body will go to stealing just to enjoy themselves.” But
they did not. The Universalists were good people, just
as good as any others. Most of them much better.
None of the prophecies were fulfilled, and yet the differ
ences existed.
And so we go on until we find people who do not
believe the Bible at all, and when they say they do not,
they come within this statute.
Now, gentlemen, I am going to try to show you, first,
that this statute under which Mr. Reynolds is being
tried is unconstitutional, that it is not in harmony with
the Constitution of New Jersey; and I am going to try
to show you in addition to that, that it was passed
hundreds of years ago, by men who believed it was right
to burn heretics and tie Quakers at the end of a cart,
men and even modest women, stripped naked, and lash
them from town to town. They were the men who
originally passed that statute, and I want to show you
that it has slept all this time, and I am informed—I do
not know how it is—that there never has been a prose
cution in this State for blasphemy.
Now, gentlemen, what is blasphemy ? Of course,
nobody knows what it is, unless he takes into considera
tion where he is. What is blasphemy in one country
would be a religious exhortation in another. It is owing
to where you are and who is in authority. And let me
call your attention to the impudence and bigotry of the
American Christians. We send missionaries to other
�12
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
countries. What for ? To tell them that their religion
is false, that their Gods are myths and monsters, that
their Saviors and apostles are imposters, and that our
religion is true. You send a man from Morristown, a
Presbyterian, over to Turkey. He goes there, and he
tells the Mohammedans—and he has it in a pamphlet
and he distributes it—that the Koran is a lie, that
Mohammed was not a prophet of God, that the angel
Gabriel is not so large that it is four hundred leagues
between his eyes—that it is all a mistake—that there
never was an angel as large as that. Then what would
the Turks do ? Suppose the Turks had a law like this
statute in New Jersey. They would put the Morristown
missionary in gaol, and he would send home word, and
then what would the people of Morristown say ?
Honestly, what do you think they would say ? They
would say, “ Why look at those poor, heathen wretches.
We sent a man over there armed with the truth, and yet
they were so blinded by their idolatrous religion, so
steeped in superstition, that they actually put that man
in prison.” Gentlemen, does not that show the need of
more missionaries ? I would say, yes.
Now let us turn the tables. A gentleman comes
from Turkey to Morristown. He has got a pamphlet.
He says: “ The Koran is the inspired book, Mohammed
is the real prophet, your Bible is false and your Savior
simply a myth.” Thereupon the Morristown people
put him in gaol. Then what would the Turks say?
They would say: “ Morristown needs more mission
aries,” and I should agree with them.
In other words, what we want is intellectual hospi
tality. Let the world talk. And see how foolish this
trial is: I have no doubt but the prosecuting attorney
agrees with me to-day, that whether the law is good or
bad, this trial should not have taken place. And let
me tell you why. Here comes a man into your town
and circulates a pamphlet. Now if they had just kept
still, very few would ever have heard of it. That
would have been the end. The diameter of the echo
would have been a few thousand feet. But in order to
stop the discussion of that question, they indicted this
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
13
man, and that question has been more discussed in this
country since this indictment than all the discussions
put together since New Jersey was first granted to
Charles the Second’s dearest brother James, the Duke
of York. And what else ? A trial here that is to be
reported and published all over the United States; a
trial that will give Mr. Reynolds a congregation of fifty
millions of people. And this was done for the purpose
of stopping a discussion of this subject. I want to show
you that the thing is in itself almost idiotic—that it
defeats itself, and that you cannot crush out these things
by force. Not only so, but Mr. Reynolds has the right
to be defended, and his counsel has the right to give his
opinions on this subject.
Suppose that we put Mr. Reynolds in gaol. The
argument has not been sent to gaol. That is still going
the rounds, free as the winds. Suppose you keep him
at hard labor a year; all the time he is there hundreds
and thousands of people will be reading some account,
or some fragment, of this trial. There is the trouble.
If you could only imprison a thought, then intellectual
tyranny might succeed. If you could only take an
argument, and put a striped suit of clothes on it; if you
could only take a good, splendid, shining fact, and lock
it up in some dungeon of ignorance, so that its light
would never again enter the mind of man, then you
might succeed in stopping human progress. Otherwise,
no.
Let us see about this particular statute. In the first
place, the State has a Constitution. That Constitution
is a rule, a limitation to the power of the Legislature,
and a certain breastwork for the protection of private
rights ; and the Constitution says to this sea of passions
and prejudices : “ Thus far and no farther.” The Con
stitution says to each individual: “ This shall panoply
you ; this is your complete coat of mail; this shall defend
your rights.” And it is usual in this country to make
as a part of each Constitution several general declara
tions, called the Bill of Rights. So I find that in the
old Constitution of New Jersey, which was adopted in
the year of grace 1776, although the people at that time
�14
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
were not educated as they are now—the spirit of the
Revolution at that time not having permeated all classes
of society—a declaration in favor of religious freedom.
The people were on the eve of a Revolution. This Con
stitution was adopted on the third day of July, 1776, one
day before the immortal Declaration of Independence.
Now, what do we find in this ?•—and we have got to go
by this light, by this torch, when we examine the
statute.
I find in that Constitution, in its eighteenth section,
this : “No person shall ever in this State be deprived of
the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in a manner
agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience ; nor
under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any
place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment;
nor shall he be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other
rates for the purpose of building or repairing any church
or churches contrary to what he believes to be true.”
That was a very great and splendid step. It was the
divorce of the Church and State. It no longer allowed
the State to levy taxes for the support of a particular
religion, and it said to every citizen of New Jersey : All
that you give for that purpose must be voluntarily given,
and the State will not compel you to pay for the main
tenance of a Church in which you do not believe. So
far, so good.
The next paragraph was not so good. “ There shall
be no establishment of any one religious sect in this
State in preference to another, and no Protestant inhabi
tants of this State shall be denied the enjoyment of any
civil right merely on account of his religious principles;
but all persons professing a belief in the faith of any
Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably,
shall be capable of being elected to any office of profit
or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege
and immunity enjoyed by other citizens.”
What became of the Catholics under that clause I do
not know—whether they had any right to be elected to
office or not under this Act. But in 1844, the State
having grown civilised in the meantime, another Con
stitution was adopted. The word “ Protestant ” was
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
15
then left out. There was to be no establishment of one
religion over another. But Protestantism did not render
a man capable of being elected to office any more than
Catholicism, and nothing is said about any religious
belief whatever. So far, so good.
“No religious test shall be required as a qualification
for any office of public trust. No person shall be denied
the enjoyment of any civil right on account of his
religious principles.”
That is a very broad and splendid provision. “No
person shall be denied any civil right on account of his
religious principles.” That was copied from the Virginia
Constitution, and that clause in the Virginia Constitu
tion was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that
clause men were entitled to give their testimony in the
courts of Virginia whether they believed in any religion
or not, in any Bible or not, or in any God or not.
That same clause was afterwards adopted by the State
of Illinois, also by many other States ; and wherever that
clause is no citizen can be denied any civil right on
account of his religious principles. It is a broad and
generous clause. This statute under which this indict
ment is drawn is not in accordance with the spirit of
splendid sentiment. Under that clause no man can be
deprived of any civil right on account of his religious
principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on
account of this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous
and savage statute, the same man who cannot be denied
any political or civil right can be sent to the peniten
tiary as a common felon for simply expressing his honest
thought. And before I get through I hope to convince
you that this statute is unconstitutional.
But we will go another step: “ Every person may
freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all sub
jects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
That is in the Constitution of nearly every State in
the Union, and the intention of that is to cover slan
derous words—to cover a case where a man, under
pretence of enjoying the freedom of speech, falsely assails
or accuses his neighbor. Of course, he should be held
responsible for that abuse.
�i6
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
Then follows the great clause in the Constitution of
1844, more important than any other clause in that
instrument; a clause that shines in that Constitution
like a star at night:—
“No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press.”
Can anything be plainer—anything more forcibly
stated ?
“No law shall be passed to abridge the liberty of
speech.”
Now, while we are considering this statute, I want
you to keep in mind this other statement:—
“No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press.”
And right here there is another thing that I want to
call your attention to. There is a Constitution higher
than any statute. There is a law higher than any Con
stitution. It is the law of the human conscience, and
no man who is a man will defile and pollute his con
science at the bidding of any legislature. Above all
things, one should maintain his self-respect; and there
is but one way to do that, and that is to live in accord
ance with your highest ideal.
There is a law higher than men can make. The facts
as they exist in this poor world—the absolute conse
quences of certain acts—they are above all. And this
higher law is the breath of progress, the very out
stretched wings of civilisation, under which we enjoy
the freedom we have. Keep that in your minds. There
never was a legislature great enough, there never was a
Constitution sacred enough, to compel a civilised man to
stand between a black man and his liberty. There never
was a Constitution great enough to make me stand
between any human being and his right to express his
honest thoughts. Such a Constitution is an insult to
the human soul, and I would care no more for it than I
would for the growl of a wild beast. But we are not
driven to that necessity here. This Constitution is in
accord with the highest and noblest aspirations of the
heart—“ No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge
the liberty of speech.”
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
17
Now letus come to this old law ; this law that was
asleep for a hundred years before this Constitution
was adopted; this law coiled like a snake beneath the
foundations of the government; this law, cowardly,
dastardly ; this law passed by wretches who were afraid
to discuss; this law passed by men who could not, and
who knew they could not, defend their creed; and so
they said: “ Give us the sword of the State and we will
cleave the heretic down.” And this law was made to
control the minority. When the Catholics were in
power they visited that law upon their opponents.
When the Episcopalians were in power, they tortured
and burned the poor Catholic who had scoffed and who
had denied the truth of their religion. Whoever was
in power used that, and whoever was out of power
cursed that, and yet the moment he got in power he
used it. The people became civilised ; but that law was
on the statute book. It simply remained. There it
was, sound asleep; its lips drawn over its long and
cruel teeth. Nobody savage enough to waken it. And
it slept on, and New Jersey has flourished. Men have
done well. You have had average health in this
country. Nobody roused the statute until the defendant
in this case went to Boonton, and there made a speech
in which he gave his honest thought, and the people not
having an argument handy, threw stones. Thereupon
Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, published a pamphlet on
Blasphemy, and in it gave a photograph of the Boonton
Christians. That is his offence. Now let us read this
infamous statute:
“ If any person shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name
of God by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproach
ing his being ”-----I want to say right here, many a man has cursed the
God of another man. The Catholics have cursed the
God of the Protestants. The Presbyterians have cursed
the God of the Catholics ; charged them with idolatry;
cursed their images, laughed at their ceremonies'. And
these compliments have been interchanged between all
the religions of the world. But I say here to-day that
no man, unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the God in
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
whom he believed. No man, no human being, has ever
lived who cursed his own idea of God. He always
curses the idea that somebody else entertains. No
human being ever yet cursed what he believed to be
infinite wisdom and infinite goodness ; and you know it.
Every man on this jury knows that. He feels that that
must be an absolute certainty. Then what have they
cursed ? Some God they did not believe in ; that is all.
And has a man that right ? I say yes. He has a right
to give his opinion of Jupiter, and there is nobody in
Morristown who will deny him that right. But several
thousand years ago it would have been very dangerous
for him to have cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just
as powerful now as he was then, but the Roman people
are not powerful, and that is all there was to Jupiter ;
the Roman people.
So there was a time when you could have cursed
Zeus, the god of the Greeks, and like Socrates, they
would have compelled you to drink hemlock. Yet now
everybody can curse this God. Why ? Is the God
dead ? No. He is just as alive as ever he was. Then
what has happened ? The Greeks have passed away.
That is all. So in all of our Churches here. Whenever
a Church is in the minority it clamors for free speech.
When it gets in the majority, No. I do not believe the
history of the world will show that any orthodox Church
when in the majority ever had the courage to face the
free lips of the world. It sends for a constable. And is
it not wonderful that they should do this when they
preach the gospel of universal forgiveness; when they
say, “ If a man strike you on one cheek turn to him the
other also ” ; but if he laughs at your religion, put him
in the penetentiary ? Is that doctrine ? Is that the
law ?
Now read this law. Do you know as I read this law
I can almost hear John Calvin laugh in his grave.
That would have been a delight to him. It is written
exactly as he would have written it. There never was
an inquisitor who would not have read that law with a
malicious smile. The Christians who brought the fagots
and ran with all their might to be at the burning, would
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
19
have enjoyed that law. You know that when they used
to burn people for having said something against
religion, they used to cut their tongues out before they
burned them. Why ? For fear that if they did not, the
poor burning victims might say something that would
scandalise the Christian gentlemen who were building
the fire. All these persons would have been delighted
with this law.
Let us read a little further
“—-Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus
Christ.”
Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor
God, was crucified ? How did they come to crucify
him ? Because they did not believe in free speech in
Jerusalem. How else ? Because there was a law
against blasphemy in Jerusalem : a law exactly like
•this. Just think of it. Oh, I tell you we have passed
too many milestones on the shining road of human
progress to turn back and wallow in that blood, in that
mire.
No. Some men have said that he was simply a man.
Some believed that he was actually a God. Others
believed that he was not only a man, but that he stood
as the representative of infinite love and wisdom. No
man ever said one word against that being for saying
“ Do unto others as ye would that others should do
unto you.” No man ever raised his voice against him
because he said “ Blessed are the merciful, for they
shall obtain mercy.” And are they the “ merciful ”
who, when some man endeavors to answer their argu
ment, put him in the penitentiary? No. The trouble
is, the priests; the trouble is, the ministers ; the trouble
is, the people whose business it was to tell the meaning
of these things, quarrelled with each other and they put
meanings upon human expressions by malice, meanings
that the words will not bear. And let me be just to
them. I believe that nearly all that has been done in
this world has been honestly done. I believe that the
poor savage who kneels down and prays to a stuffed
snake, prays that his little children may recover from
the fever, is honest; and it seems to me that a good
�20
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
God would answer his prayer if he could, if it was in
accordance with wisdom, because the poor savage was
doing the best he could, and no one can do any better
than that.
So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think
that nearly everybody was going to hell, said exactly
what they believed. They were honest about it, and I
would not send one of them to gaol—would never think
of such a thing—even if he called the unbelievers of
the world “wretches,” “dogs,” and “devils.” What
would I do ? I would simply answer him, that is all;
answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but
I would answer him in kindness.
So these divisions of the human mind are natural.
They are a necessity.
Do you know that all the
mechanics that ever lived—take the best ones—cannot
make two clocks that will run exactly alike one hour,
one minute ? They cannot make two pendulums that
will beat in exactly the same time, one beat. If you
cannot do that, how are you going to make hundreds,
thousands, billions of people, each with a different
quality and quantity of brain, each clad in a robe of
living, quivering flesh, and each driven by passion’s
storm over the wild sea of life, how are you going to
make them all think alike ? This is the impossible
thing that Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice
have been trying to do. This was the object of the
Inquisition and of the foolish legislature that passed this
■statute.
Let me read you another line from this ignorant
statute:—
“ Or the Christian religion.”
Well, what is the Christian religion ? “If you scoff
at the Christian religion, if you curse the Christian
religion.” Well, what is it ? Gentlemen, you hear
Presbyterians every day attack the Catholic Church.
Is that the Christian religion ? The Catholic believes it
is the Christian religion, and you have to admit that it
is the oldest one, and then the Catholics turn round
and scoff at the Protestants. Is that the Christian
religion ?
If so, every Christian religion has been
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
21
cursed by every other Christian religion. Is not that an
absurd and foolish statute ?
I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the
Presbyterian and tell him, “ Your doctrine is all wrong.”
I think he has the right to say to him, “You are leading
thousands to hell.” If he believes it, he not only has
the right to say it, but it is his duty to say it; and if the
Presbyterian really believes the Catholics are all going
to the devil, it is his duty to say so. Why not ? I will
never have any religion that I cannot defend, that is,
that I do not believe I can defend. I may be mistaken,
because no man is absolutely certain that he knows.
We all understand that. Everyone is liable to be mis
taken. The horizon of each individual is very narrow,
and in his poor sky the stars are few and very small.
“ Or the word of God—”
What is that ?
“ The canonical Scriptures contained in the boohs of the Old
and New Testaments.”
Now, what has a man the right to say about that ?
Has he the right to show that the book of Revelation
got into the canon by one vote, and one only ? Has he
the right to show that they passed in convention upon
what books they would put in and what they would not ?
Has he the right to show that there were twenty-eight
books called “ The Books of the Hebrews ? ” Has he
the right to show that ? Has he the right to show that
Martin Luther said he did not believe there was one
solitary word of gospel in the Epistle to the Romans' ?
Has he the right to show that some of these books were
not written till nearly two hundred years afterwards ?
Has he the right to say it, if he believes it ? I do not
say whether this is true or not, but has a man the right
to say it if he believes it ?
Now, suppose I should read the Bible all through
right here in Morristown, and after I got through I
should make up my mind that it is not a true book,,
what ought I to say ? Ought I to clap my hand over
my mouth and start for another State, and the minute
I got over the line say, “ It is not true, it is not true ? ”
Or ought I to have the right and privilege of saying
�22
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
right here in New Jersey, “ My fellow citizens, I have
read the book—I do not believe that it is the word of
God ? ” Suppose I read it and think it is true, then I
am bound to say so. If I should go to Turkey and read
the Koran and make up my mind that it is false, you
would all say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not
say so.
By force you can make hypocrites, men who will agree
with you from the teeth out, and in their hearts hate
you. We want no more hypocrites. We have enough
in every community. And how are you going to keep
from having more ? By having the air free, by wiping
from your statute books such miserable and infamous
laws as this.
“ The Holy Scriptures.”
Are they holy ? Must a man be honest ? Has he the
right to be sincere ? There are thousands of things in
the Scriptures that everybody believes. Everybody
believes the Scriptures are right when they say, “ Thou
shalt not steal —everybody. And when they say “ Give
good measure, heaped up and running over,” everybody
says, “ Good ! ” So when they say “ Love your neigh
bor,” everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes
that, and practises it, does it make any difference
whether he believes in the Flood or not ? Is that of any
importance ? Whether a man built an ark or not—
does that make the slightest difference ? A man might
deny it and yet be a very good man. Another might
believe it and be a very mean man. Could it now, by
any possibility, make a man a good father, a good
husband, a good citizen ? Does it make any difference
whether you believe it or not ? Does it make any
difference whether or not you believe that a man was
going through town and his hair was a little short, like
mine, and some little children laughed at him, and there
upon two bears from the woods came down and tore to
pieces about forty of these children ? Is it necessary to
believe that ? Suppose a man should say, “ I guess
that is a mistake. They did not copy that right. I
guess the man that reported that was a little dull of
hearing and did not'get the story exactly right.” Any
�DEFENCE OF ' FREETHOUGHT.
23
harm in saying that ? Is the man to be sent to the
penitentiary for that ? Can you imagine an infinitely
good God sending a man to hell because he did not
believe the bear story ?
So I say if you believe the Bible say so; if you do
not believe it say so. And here is the vital mistake,
I might almost say, in Protestantism itself. The Pro
testants, when they fought the Catholics, said: “ Read
the Bible for yourselves ; stop taking it from your priests ;
read the sacred volume with your own eyes. It is a
revelation from God to his children; and you are the
children.” And then they said: “ If, after you read it,
you do not believe it, and say anything against it, we
will put you in gaol and God will put you in hell.”
That is a fine position to get a man in. It is like a man
who invited his neighbor to come and look at his
pictures, saying : “ They are the finest in the place, and
I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at
them the other day said they were daubs, and I kicked
him downstairs. Now, I want your candid judgment.”
So the Protestant Church says to a man : “ This Bible
is a message from your Father—your Father in heaven.
Read it. Judge for yourself. But if, after you have
read it, you say it is not true I will put you in the penetentiary for one year.” The Catholic Church has a little
more sense about that—at least, more logic. It says:
“ This Bible is not given to everybody. It is given to
the world, to be sure; but it must be interpreted by the
Church. God would not give a Bible to the world
unless he also appointed someone, some organisation, to
tell the world what it means.” They said : “ We do not
want the world filled with interpretations, and all the
interpreters fighting each other.” And the Protestant
has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying : “ Judge for
yourself; but if you judge wrong you will go to the
penetentiary here and to hell hereafter.”
Now let us see further:—
“ Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule."
Think of such a law as that, passed under a Constitu
tion that says: “No law shall abridge the liberty of
speech.” But you must not ridicule the Scriptures.
�24
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
Did anybody ever dream of passing a law to protect
Shakespeare from being laughed at ? Did anybody ever
think of such a thing ? Did anybody ever want any
legislative enactment to keep people from holding
Robert Burns in contempt ? The songs of Burns will
be sung as long as there is love in the human heart.
Do we need to protect him from ridicule by statute ?
Does he need assistance from New Jersey? Is any
statute needed to keep Euclid from being laughed at
in this neighborhood ? And is it possible that a work
written by an Infinite Being has to be protected by a
legislature ? Is it possible that a book cannot be written
by a God so that it will not excite the laughter of the
human race ?
.Why, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable
things in the human brain. It is the torch of the mind ;
it sheds light. Humor is the readiest test of truth—of
the natural, of the sensible; and when you take from a
man all sense of humor there will only be enough left to
make a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor—no
sense of the absurd-—the Presbyterian creed, fill his
darkened brain with superstition and his heart with
hatred, then frighten him with the threat of hell, and he will
be ready to vote for that statute. Such men made that law.
Let us read another clause :—
“ And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined
not exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor
not exceeding twelve months, or both.”
I want you to remember that this statute was passed
in England hundreds of years ago—Justin that language.
The punishment, however, has been somewhat changed.
In the good old days when the king sat on the throne—
in the good old days when the altar was the right-bower
of the throne—then, instead of saying : “ Fined two
hundred dollars and imprisoned one year,” it was: “ All
his goods shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored
with a hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall be
branded with the letter B ; and for the second offence he
shall suffer death by burning.” Those were the good
old days when people maintained the orthodox religion
in all its purity and in all its ferocity.
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
25
The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this
case is : Is this statute constitutional ? Is this statute
in harmony with that part of the Constitution of 1844
which says: “ The liberty of speech shall not be
abridged ” ? That is for you to say. Is this law con
stitutional, or is it simply an old statute that fell asleep,
that was forgotten, that people simply failed to repeal ?
I believe I can convince you, if you will think a moment,
that our fathers never intended to establish a government
like that. When they fought for what they believed to
be religious liberty, when they fought for what they
believed to be liberty of speech, they believed that all
such statutes would be wiped from the statute books of
all the States.
Let me tell you another reason why I believe this.
We have in this country naturalisation laws. Persons
may come here irrespective of their religion. They
must simply swear allegiance to this country ; they must
forswear allegiance to every other potentate, prince, and
power; but they do not have to change their religion.
A Hindoo may become a citizen of the United States ;
and the Constitution of the United States, like the Con
stitution of New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty.
That Hindoo believes in a God—in a God that no
Christian does believe in. He believes in a sacred book
that every Christian looks upon as a collection of false
hoods. He believes, too, in a Savior—in Buddha.
Now, I ask you: When that man comes here and
becomes a citizen—when the Constitution is about him,
above him—has he the right to give his ideas about his
religion ? Has he the right to say in New Jersey :
“ There is no God except the Supreme Brahm ; there is
no Savior except Buddha the Illuminated, Buddha the
Blest ” ? I say that he has that right; and you have no
right, because in addition to that he says, “You are
mistaken; your God is not God ; your Bible is not true,
and your religion is a mistake,” to abridge his liberty of
speech. He has the right to say it; and, if he has the
right to say it, I insist before this Court and before this jury
that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it;
and, in giving those reasons, in maintaining his side, he
�26
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
has the right, not simply to appeal to history, not simply
to the masonry of logic, but he has the right to shoot
the arrows of wit and to use the smile of ridicule.
Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought
not to stay in it.
So the Persian—the believer in Zoroaster, in the
spirits of Good and Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will
finally triumph for ever—if that is his religion, he has the
right to state it, and the right to give his reasons for his
belief. How infinitely preposterous for you, one of the
States of this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to
come to your shores. You do not ask him to renounce
his God; you ask him to renounce the Shah. Then,
when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of every
other citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and
to denounce yours.
There is another thing. What was the spirit of our
Government at that time ? You must look at the leading
men. Who were they ? What were their opinions ?
Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the
defendant in this case ? Thomas Jefferson—and there
is in my judgment only one name on the page of
American history greater than his; only one name for
which I have a greater and tenderer reverence, and that
is Abraham Lincoln, because of all men who ever lived
and had power, he was the most merciful. And that is
the way to test a man. How does he use power ? Does
he want to crush his fellow-citizens ? Does he like to
lock somebody up in the penetentiary because he has
the power of the moment ? Does he wish to use it as a
despot or as a philanthropist, like a devil or like a man ?
Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views
entertained by the defendant in this case, and he was
made President of the United States. He was the
author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of
the University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the
Constitution of that State that made all the citizens
equal before the law. And when I come to the very
sentences here charged as blasphemy I will show you
that these were the common sentiments of thousands of
very great, of very intellectual and admirable men.
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
27
I have no time, and it may be this is not the place
and the occasion, to call your attention to the infinite
harm that has been done in almost every religious
nation by statutes such as this. Where that statute is,
liberty cannot be ; and if this statute is enforced by this
jury and by this Court, and if it is afterwards carried
out, and if it could be carried out in the States of this
Union, there would be an end of all intellectual progress.
We should go back to the dark ages. Every man’s
mind, upon these subjects at least, would became a
stagnant pool, covered with the scum of prejudice and
meanness.
And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the
people been friends ? Here we are to-day in this
blessed air—here amid these happy fields. Can we
imagine, with these surroundings, that a man for having
been found with a crucifix in his poor little home had
been taken from his wife and children and burned—
burned by Protestants ? You cannot conceive of such
a thing now. Neither can you conceive that there was
a time when Catholics found some poor Protestant con
tradicting one of the dogmas of the Church, and took
that poor honest wretch—while his wife wept, while his
children clung to his hands—to the public square,
drove a stake in the ground, put a chain or two about
him, lighted the fagots, and let the wife whom he loved
and his little children see the flames climb around his
limbs—you cannot imagine that any such infamy was
ever practised.
And yet, I tell you, that the same
spirit made this detestable, infamous, devilish statute.
You can hardly imagine that there was a time when
the same kind of men that made this law said to
another man : “You say this world is round ? ” “Yes,
sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow on the
moon.” “ You have ? ” Now can you imagine a society
outside of hyenas and boa constrictors that would take
that man, put him in the penitentiary, in a dungeon,
turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted
from the book of human life ? Years afterwards some
explorer amid ruins finds a few bones. The same spirit
that did that, made this statute—the same spirit that
�28
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
did that, went before the grand jury in this case—
exactly. Give the men that had this man indicted the
power, and I would not want to live in that particular
part of the country. I would not willingly live with
such men. I would go somewhere else, where the air
is free, where I could speak my sentiments to my wife,
to my children, and to my neighbors.
Now this persecution differs only in degree from the
infamies of the olden time. What does it mean ? It
means that the State of New Jersey has all the light
it wants. And what does that mean ? It means that
the State of New Jersey is absolutely infallible—that it
has got its growth, and does not propose to grow any
more. New Jersey knows enough, and it will send
teachers to the penitentiary.
It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished
all that it is ever going to accomplish. Religions are
for a day. They are the clouds. Humanity is the
eternal blue. Religions are the waves of the sea. These
waves depend upon the force and direction of the wind,
that is to say, of passion; but Humanity is the great
sea. And so our religions change from day to day,
and it is a blessed thing they do. Why ? Because we
grow, and we are getting a litte more civilised every day;
and any man that is not willing to let another man
express his opinion, is not a civilised man, and you know
it. Any man that does not give to everybody else the
rights he claims for himself, is not an honest man.
Here is a man who says, “ I am going to join the
Methodist Church.” What right has he ? Just the
same right to join it that I have not to join it—no more,
no less. But if you are a Methodist and I am not, it
simply proves that you do not agree with me, and that I
do not agree with you, that is all. Another man is a
Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or is convinced that
Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any man
that would persecute him on that account, is a poor
barbarian, a savage ; any man that would abuse him on
that account is a barbarian, a savage.
Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to
belong to any Church. How are you going to judge
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
29
him ? Judge him by the way he treats his wife, his
children, his neighbors. Does he pay his debts ? Does
he tell the truth ? Does he help the poor ? Has he got
a heart that melts when he hears grief s story ? That
is the way to judge him. I do not care what he thinks
about the bears, or the flood; about bibles or gods.
When some poor mother is found wandering in the
street with a babe at her breast, does he quote Scripture,
or hunt for his pocket-book. That is the way to judge.
And suppose he does not believe in any Bible whatever ?
If Christianity is true, that is his misfortune, and
everybody should pity the poor wretch that is going
down the hill. Why kick him ? You will get your
revenge on him through all eternity; is not that
enough ?
So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not
by theories, not by what we happen to believe, because
that depends very much on where we were born.
If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would
have been a Mohammedan. If I had been born among
the Hindoos, I might have been a Buddhist; I can’t
tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on oatmeal, I
might have been a Covenanter; nobody knows. If I
had lived in Ireland, and seen my poor wife and children
driven into the street, I think I might have been a
Home Ruler; no doubt of it. You see it depends
on where you were born ; much depends on our sur
roundings.
Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not
Mohammedans, and there are men born in this country
who are not Christians—Methodists, Unitarians, or
Catholics ; plenty of them who are unbelievers ; plenty
of them who deny the truth of the Scriptures; plenty
of them who say : “I know not whether there be a God
or not.” Well, it is a thousand times better to say that
honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in
God.
If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor,
you want his honest opinion. You do not want to be
deceived. You do not want to talk with a hypocrite.
You want to get straight at his honest mind ; and then
�3°
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
you are going to judge him, not by what he says, but by
what he does. It is very easy to sail along with the
majority ; easy to sail the way the boats are going;
easy to float with the stream; but when you come to
swim against the tide, with the men on the shore
throwing rocks at you, you will get a good deal of
exercise in this world.
And do you know that we ought to feel under the
greatest obligations to men who have fought the pre
vailing notions of their day ? There is not a Presbyterian
in Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the
man that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they
were in the minority ; not one. There is not a Methodist
in this State who does not admire John and Charles
Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner of that
new and despised sect when it was in the minority.
They glory in them because they braved public opinion,
because they dared to oppose idiotic, barbarous and
savage statutes like this. And there is not a Universalist
that does not worship dear old Hosea Ballou ; I love
him myself; because he said to the Presbyterian
minister : “You are going around trying to keep people
out of hell, and I am going around trying to keep hell
out of the people.” Every Universalist admires him
and loves him because, when despised and railed at and
spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for the eternal
mercy of God. And there is not a solitary Protestant
who does not honor Martin Luther: who does not
honor the Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor
girl who was tied out on the sand of the sea by Episco
palians, and kept there till the rising tide drowned her,
and all she had to do to save her life was to say, “ God
save the kingbut she would not say it without the
addition of the words, “ If it be God’s will.” No one,
who is not a miserable, contemptible wretch, can fail
to stand in admiration before such courage, such self
denial, such heroism. No matter what the attitude of
your body may be, your soul falls on its knees before
such men and such women.
Let us take another step. Where should we have
been if authority had always triumphed ? Where should
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
31
we have been if such statutes had always been
carried out ? We have now a science called astronomy.
That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of
human thought than all things else. We now live in an
infinite universe. We know that the sun is a million
times larger than our earth, and we know that there are
other great luminaries millions of times larger than our
sun. We know that there are planets so far away that
light, travelling at the rate of one hundred and eightyfive thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand
years to reach this grain of sand, this tear we call the
earth ; and we now know that all the fields of space are
sown thick with constellations. If that statute had been
enforced, that science would not now be the property of
the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible,
and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For
what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would
the world have the science of astronomy expunged from
the brain of man ? We learned the story of the stars in
spite of that statute.
The first men who said the world was round were
scourged for scoffing at the Scriptures. And even
Martin Luther, speaking of one of the' greatest men
that ever lived, said: “ Does he think with his little
lever to overturn the Universe of God ?” Martin
Luther insisted that such men ought to be trampled
under foot. If that statute had been carried into
effect, Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler,
the discoverer of the three laws, would have died with
the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind would
have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted. And
what else ? If that statute had been carried out, the
world would have been deprived of the philosophy of
Spinoza; of the philosophy, of the literature, of the
wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of Voltaire, the
greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life,
the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a
nation and helped to civilise a world.
If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the
books that enrich the libraries of the world could not
have been written. If that statute had been enforced,
�32
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now
known as “ The Cosmos.” If that statute had been
enforced, Charles Darwin would not have been allowed
to give to the world his discoveries, that have beencof
more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever
uttered. In England they have placed his sacred dust
in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New Jersey,
and this statute could have been enforced, he would
have lived one year at least in your penitentiary.
Why ? That man went so far as not simply to deny
the truth of your Bible, but absolutely to deny the
existence of your God. Was he a good man ? Yes,
one of the greatest and noblest of men. Humboldt,
the greatest German who ever lived, was of the same
opinion.
And so I might go on with the great men of to-day.
Who are the men who are leading the race upward and
shedding light in the intellectual world ? They are the
men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr.
Spencer could not publish his books in the State of New
Jersey. He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned ;
and yet that man has added to the intellectual wealth of
the world.
So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholz ;
so with the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of
modern times.
You may not agree with these men, and what does
that prove ? It simply proves that they do not agree
with you, that is all. Who is to blame ? I do not
know. They may be wrong, and you may be right;
but if they had the power, and put you in the peniten
tiary simply because you differed from them, they
would be savages; and if you have the power and
imprison men because they differ from you, why then, of
course, you are savages.
No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love
men that have a little horizon to their minds ; a little
sky, a little scope. I hate anything that is narrow and
pinched and withered and mean and crawling, and that
is willing to live on dust. I believe in creating such
an atmosphere that things will burst into blossom. I
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
33
believe in good will, good health, good fellowship,
good feeling, and if there is any God on the earth, or
in heaven, let us hope that he will be generous and
grand. Do you not see what the effect will be ? I am
not cursing you because you are a Methodist, and not
damning you because you are a Catholic, or because
you are an Infidel; a good man is more than all of
these. The grandest of all things is to be in the highest
and noblest sense a man.
Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the
defendant in this case, has done. Let me read the
charges against him as set out in this indictment.
I shall insist that this statute does not cover any pub
lication, that it covers simply speech, not in writing,
not in book or pamphlet. Let us see :—
“ This Bible describes God as so loving that he drowned the
whole world in his mad fury.”
Well, the great question about that is, is it true ?
Does the Bible describe God as having drowned the
whole world with the exception of eight people ? Does
it, or does it not ? I do not know whether there is any
body in this country who has really read the Bible, but
I believe the story of the Flood is there. It does say
that God destroyed all flesh, and that he did so because
he was angry. He says so himself, if the Bible be
true.
The defendant has simply repeated what is in the
Bible. The Bible says that God is loving, and says
that he drowned the world, and that he was angry. Is
it blasphemy to quote from the “ Sacred Scriptures ? ”
“ Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things,
ever supposed it could be.”
Well, the Bible does say that he repented having
made man. Now is there any blasphemy in saying that
the Bible is true ? That is the only question. It is a
fact that God, according to the Bible, did drown nearly
everybody. If God knows all things, he must have
known at the time he made them that he was going to
drown them. Is it likely that a being of infinite
wisdom would deliberately do what he knew he must
undo ? Is it blasphemy to ask that question ? Have
�34
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
you a right to think about it at all ? If you have, you
have the right to tell somebody what you think; if
not, you have no right to discuss it, no right to think
about it. All you have to do is to read it and believe
it—open your mouth like a young robin, and swallow
worms or shingle nails, no matter which.
The defendant further blasphemed and said that:—
“An all-wise, unchangeable God, who got out of patience
with a world which was just what his own stupid blundering
had made it, knew no better way out of the muddle than to
destroy it by drowning I ”
Is that true ? Was not the world exactly as God
made it ? Certainly. Did he not, if the Bible be true,
drown the people ? He did. Did he know he would
drown them when he made them ? He did. Did he
know they ought to be drowned when they were made ?
He did. Where, then, is the blasphemy in saying so ?
There is not a minister in this world who could ex
plain it—who would be permitted to explain it, under
this statute. And yet you would arrest this man and
put him in the penitentiary. But after you lock him in
the cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible
that a good and wise God, knowing that he was going
to drown them, made millions of people ? What did
he make them for ? I do not know. I do not pretend
to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course,
you cannot answer the question. Is there anything
blasphemous in that? Would it be blasphemy in me
to say I do not believe that any God ever made men,
women, and children, mothers, with babes clasped to
their breasts, and then sent a flood to fill the world with
death ?
A rain lasting for forty days, the water rising hour
by hour, and the poor wretched children of God climb
ing to the tops of their houses, then to the tops of the
hills. The water still rising—no mercy. The people
climbing higher and higher, looking to the mountains
for salvation, the merciless rain still falling, the in
exorable flood still rising. Children falling from the
arms of mothers—no pity. The highest hills covered,
infancy and old age mingling in death, the cries of
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
35
women, the sobs and sighs lost in the roar of the waves,
the heavens still relentless. The mountains are covered,
a shoreless sea rolls round the world, and on its billows
are billions of corpses.
This is the greatest crime that man has imagined,
and this crime is called a deed of infinite mercy.
Do you believe that ? I do not believe one word of
it, and I have the right to say to all the world that this
is false.
If there be a good God, the story is not true. If
there be a wise God, the story is not true. Ought an
honest man to be sent to the penetentiary for simply
telling the truth ?
Suppose we had a statute that whoever scoffed at
Science, whoever by profane language should bring the
Rule of Three into contempt, or whoever should attack
the proposition that two parallel lines will never include
a space, should be sent to the penetentiary, what would
you think of it ? It would be just as wise and just as
idiotic as this.
And what else says the defendant ?
“ The Bible God says that his people made him jealous''
“ Provoked him to anger."
Is that true ? It is. If it is true, is it blasphemous ?
Let us read another line—
“ And now he will raise the mischief with them: that his
anger burns like hell."
That is true. The Bible says of God : “ My anger
burns to the lowest hell.” And that is all that the
defendant says. Every word of it is in the Bible. He
simply does not believe it, and for that reason is a
“ blasphemer.”
I say to you now, gentlemen, and I shall argue to the
Court, that there is not in what I have read a solitary
blasphemous word; not a word that has not been said in
hundreds of pulpits in the Christian world. Theodore
Parker, a Unitarian, speaking of this Bible God, said:
“ Vishnu, with a necklace of skulls; Vishnu, with
bracelets of living, hissing serpents, is a figure of Love
and Mercy compared to the God of the Old Testament.”
That we might call “blasphemy,” but not what I have read.
�36
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
Let us read on :—
“ He would destroy them all were it not that he feared the
wrath of the enemy.”
That is the Bible, word for word. Then the defendant,
in astonishment, says:—
“ The Almighty God afraid of his enemies !"
That is what the Bible says. What does it mean ?
If the Bible is true, God was afraid.
“ Can the mind conceive of more horrid blasphemy ?”
Is not that true ? If God be infinitely good and wise
and powerful, is it possible he is afraid of anything ?
If the defendant had said that God was afraid of his
enemies, that might have been blasphemy; but this man
says the Bible says that, and you are asked to say that
it is blasphemy. Now, up to this point there is no blas
phemy, even if you were to inform this infamous statute,
this savage law.
“ The Old Testament records for our instruction in morals
the most foul and bestial instances of fornication, incest, and
polygamy, perpetrated by God's own saints ; and the New
Testament endorses these lecherous wretches as examples for all
good Christians to follow.”
Now, is it not a fact that the Old Testament does
uphold polygamy ? Abraham would have gotten into
trouble in New Jersey; no doubt of that. Sarah could
have obtained a divorce in this State ; no doubt of that.
What is the use of telling a falsehood about it ? Let us
tell the truth about the patriarchs.
Everybody knows that the same is true of Moses.
We have all heard of Solomon, a gentleman with five
or six hundred wives, and three or four hundred other
ladies with whom he was acquainted. This is simply
what the defendant says. Is there any blasphemy about
that ? It is only the truth. If Solomon were living in
the United States to-day we should put him in the penetentiary. You know that, under the Edmunds’ Mormon
law, he would be locked up. If you should present a
petition signed by his eleven hundred wives you could
not get him out.
So it was with David. There are some splendid things
about David, of course. I admit that, and pay my
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
37
tribute of respect to his courage; but he happened to
have ten or twelve wives too many, so he shut them up,
put them in a kind of penetentiary, and kept them there
till they died. That would not be considered good
conduct even in Morristown. You know that. Is it
any harm to speak of it ? There are plenty of ministers
here to set it right; thousands of them all over the
country, every one with his chance to talk all day Sunday,
and nobody to say a word back. The pew cannot reply
to the pulpit, you know; it has just to sit there and take
it. If there is any harm in this, if it is not true, they
ought to answer it. But it is here, and the only answer
is an indictment.
I say that Lot was a bad man. So I say of Abraham
and of Jacob. Did you ever know of a more despicable
fraud practised by one brother on another than Jacob
: practised on Esau ? My sympathies have always been
with Esau. He seemed to be a manly man. Is it
blasphemy to say that you do not like a hypocrite, a
murderer, or a thief, because his name is in the Bible ?
How do you know what such men are mentioned for ?
May be they are mentioned as examples, and you
certainly ought not to be led away and induced to
imagine that a man with seven hundred wives is a
pattern of domestic propriety, one to be followed by
yourself and your sons. I might go on and mention the
names of hundreds of others who comfhitted every con
ceivable crime in the name of religion ; who declared
war, and on the field of battle killed men, women, and
babes, even children yet unborn, in the name of the most
merciful God. The Bible is filled with the names and
.crimes of these sacred savages, these inspired beasts.
Any man who says that a God of love commanded the
commission of these crimes is, to say the least of it,
mistaken. If there be a God, then it is blasphemous to
charge him with the commission of crime.
But let us read further from this indictment:—
“ The aforesaid printed document contains other
^scandalous, infamous, and blasphemous matters and
.things to the tenor and effect following, that is to say ”—
Then comes this particularly blasphemous line :
�38
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
11 Now, reader, take time and calmly think it over.”
Gentlemen, there are many things I have read that I
should not have expressed in exactly the same language
used by the defendant, and many things that I am going
to read I might not have said at all, but the defendant
had the. right to say every word with which he is
charged in this indictment. He had the right to give
his honest thought, no matter whether any human being
agreed with what he said or not, and no matter whether
any other man approved of the manner in which he
said these things. I defend his right to speak, whether I
believe in what he spoke or not, or in the propriety of
saying what he did. I should defend a man just as
cheerfully who had spoken against my doctrine as one
who had spoken against the popular superstitions of my
time. It would make no difference to me how unjust
the attack was upon my belief, how maliciously ingenious ;
and no matter how sacred the conviction that was
attacked, I would defend the freedom of speech. And
why ? Because no attack can be answered by force, no
argument can be refuted by a blow, or by imprisonment,
or by fine. You may imprison the man, but the argu
ment is free ; you may fell the man to the earth, but the
■statement stands.
The defendant in this case has attacked certain
beliefs thought by the Christian world to be sacred.
-Yet, after all, nothing is sacred butthetruth, and by
truth I mean what a man sincerely and honestly
believes. The defendant says :—
“ Take time to calmly think it over : Was a Jewish girl the
mother of God, the mother of your God ? ”
The defendant probably asked this question supposing
that it must be answered by all sensible people in the
negative. If the Christian religion is true, then a Jewish
girl was the mother of Almighty God. Personally, if
the doctrine is true, I have no fault to find with the
statement that a Jewish maiden was the mother of God.
Millions believe that this is true; I do not believe it;
but who knows ? If a God came from the throne of the
universe, came to this world and became the child of a
pure and loving woman, it would not lessen, in my eyes,
the dignity or the greatness of that God.
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
39
There is no more perfect picture on the earth or
within the imagination of man than a mother holding
in her thrilled and happy arms a child, the fruit of
love.
No matter how the statement is made, the fact
remains the same. A Jewish girl became the mother
of God. If the Bible is true, that is true, and to repeat
it, even according to your law, is not blasphemous, and
to doubt it, or to express the doubt, or to deny it, is not
contrary to your Constitution.
To this defendant it seemed improbable that God was
ever born of woman, was ever held in the lap of a
mother ; and because he cannot believe this he is charged
with blasphemy. Could you pour contempt on Shake
speare by saying that his mother was a woman—by
saying that he was once a poor, crying, little helpless
child ? Of course he was ; and he afterwards became
the greatest human being that ever touched the earth,
the only man whose intellectual wings have reached from
sky to sky ; and he was once a crying babe. What of
it ? Does that cast any scorn or contempt upon him ?
Does this take any of the music from Midsummer Night's
Dream, any of the passionate wealth from Antony and
Cleopatra, any philosophy from Macbeth, any intellectual
grandeur from King Lear? On the contrary, these
great productions of the brain show the growth of the
dimpled babe, give every mother a splendid dream and
hope for her child, and cover every cradle with a sublime
possibility.
The defendant is also charged with having said that
“ God cried and screamed."
Why not ? If he was absolutely a child he was like
other children—like yours, like mine. I have seen the
time, when absent from home, that I would have given
more to have heard my children cry than to have heard
the finest orchestra that ever made the air burst into
flower. What if God did cry ? It simply shows that
. his humanity was real, and not assumed; that it was a
tragedy ; real, and not a poor pretence. And the defen
dant also says that, if the orthodox religion be true, that
the—
�4°
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
“ God of the Universe kicked, and flung about his little arms,
and made aimless dashes into space with his little fists.”
Is there anything in this that is blasphemous ? One
of the best pictures I ever saw of the Virgin and Child
was painted by the Spaniard, Murillo. Christ appears
to be a truly natural, chubby, happy babe. Such a
picture takes nothing from the majesty, the beauty, or
the glory of the incarnation.
I think it is the best thing about the Catholic Church
that it lifts up for adoration and admiration a mother;
that it pays what it calls “ Divine honors ” to a woman.
There is certainly goodness in that; and, where a
Church has so few practices that are good, I am
willing to point this one out. It is the one redeeming
feature about Catholicism that it teaches the worship of
a woman.
The defendant says more about the childhood of Christ.
He goes so far as to say that—
“ He was found staring foolishly at his own little toes.”
And why not ? The Bible says that “ he increased
in wisdom and stature.” The defendant might have
referred to something far more improbable. In the same
verse in which St. Luke says that Jesus increased in
wisdom and stature will be found the assertion that he
increased in favor with God and man. The defendant
might have asked how it was that the love of God for
God increased.
But the defendant has simply stated that the child
Jesus grew as other children grow; that he acted like
other children ; and, if he did, it is more than probable
that he did stare at his own toes. I have laughed many
a time to see little children astonished with the sight of
their feet. They seem to wonder what on earth puts the
little toes in motion. Certainly, there is nothing blas
phemous in supposing that the feet of Christ amused
him, precisely as the feet of other children have amused
them. There is nothing blasphemous about this; on
the contrary, it is beautiful. If I believed in the exist
ence of God, the Creator of this world, the Being who,
with the hand of infinity, sowed the fields of space with
stars as a farmer sows his grain, I should like to think
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
41
of him as a little dimpled babe, overflowing with joy,
sitting upon the knees of a loving mother. The
ministers themselves might take a lesson even from
the man who is charged with blasphemy, and make an
effort to bring an infinite God a little nearer to the
human heart.
The defendant also says, speaking of the infant
Christ,
“ He was nursed at Mary's breast."
Yes, and if the story be true, that is the tenderest fact
in it. Nursed at the breast of woman. No painting,
no statue, no words can make a deeper and tenderer
impression upon the heart of man than this: The
Infinite God, a babe, nursed at the holy breast of
woman.
You see these things do not strike all people the
same. To a man that has been raised on the Orthodox
desert, these things are incomprehensible. He has been
robbed of his humanity. He has no humor, nothing
but the stupid and the solemn. His fancy sits with
folded wings.
Imagination, like the atmosphere of Spring, wooes
every seed of earth to seek the blue of heaven, and
whispers of bud and flower and fruit. Imagination
gathers from every field of thought and pours the
wealth of many lives into the lap for one. To the
contracted, to the cast-iron people who believe in
heartless and inhuman creeds, the words of the defendant
seem blasphemous, and to them the thought that God
was a little child is monstrous.
They cannot bear to hear it said that he was nursed
at the breast of a maiden, that he was wrapped in
swaddling clothes, that he had the joys and sorrows of
other babes. I hope, gentlemen, that not only you, but
the attorneys for the prosecution, have read what is known
as the “Apocryphal New Testament,” books that were
once considered inspired, once admitted to be genuine,
and that once formed a part of our New Testament.
I hope you have read the books of Joseph and Mary, of
the Shepherd of Hermes, of the Infancy and of Mary, in
which many of the things done by the youthful Christ
�42
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
are described; books that were once the delight of the
Christian world; books that gave joy to children,
because in them they read that Christ made little birds
of clay, that would at his command stretch out their
wings and fly with joy above his head. If the defen
dant in this case had said anything like that, here in
the State of New Jersey, he would have been indicted ;
the orthodox ministers would have shouted “blas
phemy,” and yet these little stories made the name of
Christ dearer to children.
The Church of to-day lacks sympathy ; the theologians
are without affection. After all, sympathy is genius. A
man who really sympathises with another understands
him. A man who sympathises with a religion instantly
sees the good that is in it, and the man who sympathises
with the right, sees the evil that a creed contains.
But the defendant, still speaking of the infant Christ,
is charged with having said :—
“ God smiled when he was comfortable. He lay in a cradle
and was rocked to sleep."
Yes, and there is no more beautiful picture than
that. Let some great religious genius paint a picture
of this kind; of a babe smiling with content, rocked in
the cradle by the mother who bends tenderly and
proudly above him. There could be no more beautiful,
no more touching picture than this. What would I
not give for a picture of Shakespeare as a babe, a
picture that was a likeness; rocked by his mother ? I
would give more for this than for any painting that now
enriches the walls of the world.
The defendant also says that—
“ God was sick when cutting his teeth."
And what of that ? We are told that he was
tempted in all points, as we are. That is to say, he was
afflicted, he was hungry, he was thirsty, he suffered the
pains and miseries common to man. Otherwise, he was
not flesh, he was not human.
“ He caught the measles, the mumps, the scarlet fever, and
the whooping cough."
Certainly he was liable to have these diseases, for he
was, in fact, a child. Other children have them. Other
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
43
children, loved as dearly by their mothers as Christ
■could have been by his, and yet they are taken from
the little family by fever ; taken, it may be, and buried in
the snow, while the poor mother goes sadly home,
wishing that she was lying by its side. All that can
be said of every word in this address, about Christ and
about his childhood, amounts to this; that he lived the
life of a child; that he acted like other children. I
read you substantially what he has said, and this is
considered blasphemous.
He has said that.
“ According to the Old Testament, the God of the Christian
world commanded people to destroy each other.”
If the Bible is true, then the statement of the de
fendant is true. Is it calculated to bring God into
•contempt to deny that he upheld polygamy, that he
ever commanded one of his generals to rip open with
the sword of war the woman with child ? Is it blas
phemy to deny that a God of infinite love gave such
■commandments ? Is such a denial calculated to pour
contempt and scorn on the God of the orthodox ? Is it
blasphemous to deny that God commanded his children
to murder each other ? Is it blasphemous to say that he
was benevolent, merciful, and just ?
It is impossible to say that the Bible is true and that
God is good. I do not believe that a God made this
world, filled it with people, and then drowned them. I
do not believe that infinite wisdom ever made a mistake.
If there be any God, he was too good to commit such an
infinite crime, too wise to make such a mistake. Is this
blasphemy ? Is it blasphemy to say that Solomon was
not a virtuous man, or that David was an adulterer ?
Must we say, when this ancient king had one of his
best generals placed in the front of the battle, deserted
him and had him murdered for the purpose of stealing
his wife, that he was “ a man after God’s own heart ? ”
Suppose the defendant in this case were guilty of some
thing like that. Uriah was fighting for his country,
fighting the battles of David, the king. David wanted
to take from him his wife. He sent for Joab, his com
mander-in-chief, and said to him :—
�44
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
“ Make a feint to attack a town. Put Uriah at the
front of the attacking force, and when the people sally
forth from the town to defend its gate, fall back, so that
this gallant, noble, patriotic man may be slain.”
This was done, and the widow was stolen by the king.
Is it blasphemy to tell the truth, and to say exactly what
David was ? Let us be honest with each other ; let us
be honest with this defendant.
For thousands of years men have taught that the
ancient patriarchs were sacred, that they were far better
than the. men of modern times, that what was in them
a virtue is in us a crime. Children are taught in Sundayschools to admire and respect these criminals of the
ancient days. The time has come to tell the truth about
these men, to call things by their proper names, and
above all to stand by the right, by the truth, by mercy,
and by justice. If what the defendant has said is
blasphemy under this statute, then the question arises,
Is the statute in accordance with the Constitution ? If
this statute is constitutional, why has it been allowed to
sleep for all these years ? I take this position : Any law
made for the preservation of a human right, made toguard a human being, cannot sleep long enough to die ;
but any law that deprives a human being of a natural'
right if that law goes to sleep it never wakes, it sleeps
the sleep of death.
I call the attention of the Court to that remarkable
case in England where, only a few years ago, a man
appealed to trial by battle. The law allowing trial by
battle had been asleep in the statute book of England
for more than two hundred years, and yet the Court
held that, in spite of the fact that the law had been
asleep (it being a law in favor of a defendant), he was.
entitled to trial by battle. And why ? Because it was.
a statute at the time made in defence of a human right,,
and that statute could not sleep long enough or soundly
enough to die. In consequence of this decision the Par
liament of England passed a special act doing away for
ever with the trial by battle.
When a statute attacks an individual right the State
must never let it sleep, When it attacks the right of
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
45
the public at large and is allowed to pass into a state of
slumber, it cannot be raised for the purpose of punishing
an individual.
Now, gentlemen, a few words more. I take an
almost infinite interest in this trial, and before you
decide, I am exceedingly anxious that you should under
stand with clearness the thoughts I have expressed
upon this subject. I want you to know how the
civilised feel, and the position now taken by the leaders
of the world.
A few years ago almost everything spoken against the
grossest possible superstition was considered blasphemous.
The altar hedged itself about with the sword ; the priest
went in partnership with the king. In those days
statutes were levelled against all human speech. Men
were convicted of blasphemy because they believed in
an actual personal God; because they insisted that God
had body and parts. Men were convicted of blas
phemy because they denied that God had form. They
have been imprisoned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and they have been torn in pieces for
defending that doctrine. There are few dogmas now
believed by any Christian Church that have not at some
time been denounced as blasphemous.
When Henry VIII. put himself at the head of the
Episcopal Church a creed was made, and in that creed
there were five dogmas that must of necessity be believed.
Anybody who denied any one was to be punished—for
the first offence with fine, with imprisonment, or branding;
and for the second offence with death. Not one of those
five dogmas is now a part of the creed of the Church of
England.
So I could go on for days and weeks and months, show
ing that hundreds and hundreds of religious dogmas, to
deny which was death, have been either changed or aban
doned for others nearly as absurd as the old ones were.
It may be, however, sufficient to say that, wherever the
Church has had power, it has been a crime for any man
to speak his honest thought. No Church has ever been
willing that any opponent should give a transcript of his
mind. Every Church in power has appealed to brute
�46
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
force, to the sword, for the purpose of sustaining its
creed. Not one has had the courage to occupy the open
field. The Church has not been satisfied with calling
infidels and unbelievers blasphemers. Each Church has
accused nearly every other Church of being a blas
phemer. Every pioneer has been branded as a criminal.
The Catholics called Martin Luther a blasphemer, and
Martin Luther called Copernicus a blasphemer. Pious
ignorance always regards intelligence as a kind of
blasphemy. Some of the greatest men of the world,
some of the best, have been put to death for the crime
of blasphemy—that is to say, for the crime of endea
voring to benefit their fellow-men.
As long as the Church has the power to close the lips
of men, so long, and no longer, will superstition rule this
world.
“ Blasphemy ” is the word that the majority hisses
into the ear of the few.
After every argument of the Church has been answered,
has been re/uted, then the Church cries : “ Blasphemy !”
. Blasphemy is what an old mistake says of a newlydiscovered truth.
Blasphemy is what a withered last year’s leaf says to
a this year’s bud.
Blasphemy is the bulwark of religious prejudice.
Blasphemy is the breastplate of the heartless.
And let me say now that the crime of blasphemy, as
set out in this statute, is impossible. No man can
blaspheme a book. No man can commit blasphemy by
telling his honest thought. No man can blaspheme a
God or a Holy Ghost or a Son of God. The Infinite
cannot be blasphemed.
In the olden time, in the days of savagery and super
stition, when some poor man was struck by lightning,
or when a blackened mark was left on the breast of a
wife and mother, the poor savage supposed that some
God, angered by something he had done, had taken his
revenge. What else did the savage suppose ? He
believed that this God had the same feelings, with
regard to the loyalty of his subjects, that an earthly
chief had, or an earthly king with regard to the loyalty
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
47
or treachery of members of his tribe, or citizens of his
kingdom. So the savage said, when his country was
visited by a calamity, when the flood swept the people
away, or the storm scattered their poor houses in frag
ments : “We have allowed some Freethinker to live:
someone is in our town or village who has not brought
his gift to the priest, his incense to the altar ; some
man of our tribe or of our country does not respect our
God.” Then for the purpose of appeasing the sup
posed God, for the purpose of again winning a smile
from heaven, for the purpose of securing a little sunlight
for their fields and homes, they dragged the accused man
from his home, from his wife and children, and with all
the ceremonies of pious brutality, shed his blood. They
did it in self-defence; they believed that they were
saving their own lives and the lives of their children ;
they did it to appease their God. Most people are now
beyond that point. Now, when disease visits a com
munity, the intelligent do not say the disease came
beqause the people were wicked; when the cholera
comes, it is not because of the Methodists, of the Catho
lics, of the Presbyterians, or of the Infidels. When the
wind destroys a town in the far West, it is not because
somebody there had spoken his honest thoughts. We
are beginning to see that the wind blows and destroys
without the slightest reference to man, without the
slightest care whether it destroys the good or the bad,
the irreligious or the religious. When the lightning
leaps from the clouds it is just as likely to strike a good
man as a bad man, and when the great serpents of flame
climb around the houses of men, they burn just as gladly
and just as joyously the home of virtue as they do the
den and lair of vice.
Then the reason for all these laws has failed. The
laws were made on account of a superstition. That
superstition has faded from the minds of intelligent
men and, as a consequence, the laws based on the
superstition ought to fail.
There is one splendid thing in nature, and that is
that men and nations must reap the consequences of
their acts—reap them in this world, if they life, and in
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
another if there be one. That man who leaves this
world a bad man, a malicious man, will probably be
the same man when he reaches another realm, and the
man who leaves this shore good, charitable, and honest,
will be good, charitable, and honest, no matter on what
star he lives again. The world is growing sensible
upon these subjects, and as we grow sensible, we grow
charitable.
Another reason that has been given for these laws
against blasphemy, the most absurd reason that can by
any possibility be given. It is this. There should be
laws against blasphemy, because the man who utters
blasphemy endangers the public peace.
Is it possible that Christians will break the peace ? Is
it possible that they will violate the law? Is it pro
bable that Christians will congregate together and make
a mob, simply because a man has given an opinion
against their religion ? What is their religion ? They
say, “ If a man smites you on one cheek, turn the other
also.” They say, “ We must love our neighbor as we
love ourselves.”
Is it possible, then, that you can
make a mob out of Christians, that these men, who
love even their enemies, will attack others, and will
destroy life, in the name of universal love ? And yet,
Christians themselves say that there ought to be laws
against blasphemy, for fear that Christians, who are
controlled by universal love, will become so outraged
when they hear an honest man express an honest
thought, that they will leap upon him and tear him in
pieces.
. What is blasphemy ? I will give you a definition ; I
will give you my thought upon this subject. What is
real blasphemy?
To live on the unpaid labor of other men ; that is
blasphemy.
To enslave your fellow-man, to put chains upon his
body ; that is blasphemy.
To enslave the minds of men, to put manacles upon
the brain, padlocks upon the lips ; that is blasphemy.
To deny what you believe to be true, to admit to be
true what you believe to be a lie; that is blasphemy.
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
49
To strike the weak and unprotected, in order that you
may gain the applause of the ignorant and superstitious
mob ; that is blasphemy.
To persecute the intelligent few, at the command of
the ignorant many; that is blasphemy.
To forge chains, to build dungeons, for your honest
fellow-men ; that is blasphemy.
To pollute the souls of children with the dogma of
eternal pain ; that is blasphemy.
To violate your conscience ; that is blasphemy.
The jury that gives an unjust verdict, and the Judge
who pronounces an unjust sentence, are blasphemers.
The man who bows to public opinion against his
better judgment and against his honest conviction, is a
blasphemer.
Why should we fear our fellow-men ? Why should
not each human being have the right, so far as thought
and its expression are concerned, of all the world ?
What harm can come from an honest interchange of
thought ?
I have been giving you my real ideas. I have spoken
freely, and yet the sun rose this morning, just the
same as it always has. There is no particular change
visible in the world, and I do not see but that we are
all as happy to-day as though we had spent yesterday
in making somebody else miserable. I denounced on
yesterday the superstitions of the Christian world, and
yet, last night I slept the sleep of peace. You will
pardon me for saying again that I feel the greatest
possible interest in the result of this trial, in the
principle at stake. This is my only apology, my
only excuse for taking your time.
For years I
have felt that the great battle for human liberty,
the battle that has covered thousands of fields with
heroic dead, had finally been won. When I read
the history of this world, of what has been endured,
of what has been suffered, of the heroism and
infinite courage of the intellectual and honest few,
battling with the countless serfs and slaves of kings
’ and priests, of tyranny, of hypocrisy, of ignorance and
prejudice, of faith and fear, there was in my heart the
�5o
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
hope that the great battle had been fought, and that
the human race, in its march towards the dawn, had
passed midnight, and that the “ great balance weighed
up morning.’’ This hope, this feeling, gave me the
greatest possible joy. When I thought of the many
who had been burnt, of how often the sons of liberty
had perished in ashes, of how many of the noblest
and greatest had stood upon scaffolds, and of the
countless hearts, the grandest that had ever throbbed
m human breasts, that had been broken by the tyranny
of Church and State, of how many of the noble and
loving had sighed themselves away in dungeons, the
only consolation was that the last Bastille had fallen,
that the dungeons of the Inquisition had been torn
down and that the scaffolds of the world could no
longer be wet with heroic blood.
You know that sometimes, after a great battle has
been fought, and one of the armies has been broken,
and its fortifications carried, there are occassional strag
glers beyond the great field, stragglers who know
nothing of the fate of their army, know nothing of
the victory, and for that reason, fight on. There are
a. few such stragglers in the State of New Jersey.
They have never heard of the great victory. They do
not know that in all civilised countries the hosts of
superstition have been put to flight. They do not
know that Freethinkers, Infidels, are to-day the leaders
of the intellectual armies of the world.
One of the last trials of this character, tried in Great
Britain,, and that is the country that our ancestors
fought, in the sacred name of liberty, one of the last
trials in that country, a country ruled by a State
Church, ruled by a woman who was born a queen, ruled
by dukes and nobles and lords, children of ancient
robbers, was in the year 1842. George Jacob Holyoake,
one of the best of the human race, was imprisoned on
a charge of Atheism, charged with having written a
pamphlet and having made a speech in which he had
denied the existence of the British God. The Judge
who tried him, who passed sentence upon him, went
down to his grave with a stain upon his intellect and
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
51
upon his honor. All the real intelligence of Great
Britain rebelled against the outrage. There was a trial
after that to which I will call your attention. Judge
Coleridge, father of the present Chief Justice of
England, presided at this trial. A poor man by the
name of Thomas Pooley, a man who dug wells for a
living, wrote on the gate of a priest that, if people
would burn their Bibles and scatter the ashes on the
lands, the crops would be better, and that they would
also save a good deal of money in tithes. He wrote
several sentences of a kindred character. He was a
curious man. He had an idea that the world was a
living, breathing animal. He would not dig a well
beyond a certain depth for fear he might inflict pain
upon this animal, the earth. He was tried before Judge
Coleridge on that charge. An infinite God was about
to be dethroned, because an honest well-digger had
written his sentiments on the fence of a parson. He
was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison.
Afterwards, many intelligent people asked for his pardon,
on the ground that he was in danger of becoming
insane. The Judge refused to sign the petition. The
pardon was refused. Long before his sentence expired
he became a raving maniac. He was removed to an
asylum, and there died. Some of the greatest men in
England attacked that Judge, among these Mr. Buckle,
author of The History of Civilisation in England one of the
greatest books in this world. Mr. Buckle denounced
Judge Coleridge. He brought him before the bar of
English opinion, and there was not a man in England
whose opinion was worth anything who did not agree
with Mr. Buckle, and did not, with him, declare the
conviction of Thomas Pooley to be an infamous outrage.
What were the reasons given ? This, among others.
The law was dead; it had been asleep for many years;
it was a law passed during the ignorance of the Middle
Ages, and a law that came out of the dungeons of
religious persecution ; a law that was appealed to by
bigots and by hypocrites, to punish, to imprison an
honest man.
In many parts of this country people have entertained
�52
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
the idea that New England was still filled with the
spirit of Puritanism, filled with the descendants of those
who killed Quakers in the name of universal benevoence, and traded Quaker children in the Barbadoes for
rum, for the purpose of establishing the fact that God is
an infinite father.
Yet the last trial in Massachusetts, on a charge like
this, was when Abner Kneeland was indicted on a charge
of Atheism. He was tried for having written this
sentence: “ The Universalists believe in a God which I
do not.” He was convicted and imprisoned. Chief
Justice Shaw upheld the decision, and upheld it because
he was afraid of public opinion ; upheld it although he
must have known that the statute under which Kneeland
was indicted was clearly and plainly in violation of the
Constitution. No man can read the decision of Justice
Shaw without being convinced that he was absolutely
dominated either by bigotry or hypocrisy. One of the
judges of that court, a noble man, wrote a dissenting
opinion, and in that dissenting opinion is the argument
of a civilised, of an enlightened, jurist. No man can
answer the dissenting opinion of Justice Morton. The
case against Kneeland was tried more than fifty years
ago, and there has been none since in the New England
States ; and this case that we are now trying is the first*
ever tried in New Jersey. The fact that it is the first
certifies to my interpretation of this statute, and it also
certifies to the toleration and to the civilisation of the
people of this State. The statute is upon your books.
You inherited it from your ignorant ancestors, and they
inherited it from their savage ancestors. The people of
New Jersey were heirs of the mistakes and of the
atrocities of ancient England.
It is too late to enforce a law like this. Why has it
been allowed to slumber ? Who obtained this indict
ment ? Were they actuated by good and noble motives ?
Had they the public weal at heart, or were they simply
endeavoring to be revenged upon this defendant ? Were
they willing to disgrace the State in order that they
might punish him ?
I have given you my definition of blasphemy, and
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
53
now the question arises, What is worship ? Who is a
worshipper ? What is prayer ? What is real religion ?
Let me answer these questions.
Good, honest, faithful work is worship. The man
who ploughs the fields and fells the forests, the man
who works in mines, the man who battles with the
winds and waves out on the wide sea, controlling the
commerce of the world; these men are worshippers.
The man who goes into the forest, leading his wife by
the hand, who builds him a cabin, who makes a home
in the wilderness, who helps to people and civilise and
cultivate a continent, is a worshipper.
Labor is the only prayer that Nature answers; it is
the only prayer that deserves an answer—good, honest,
noble work.
A woman whose husband has gone down to the gutter,
gone down to degradation and filth; the woman who
follows him, and lifts him out of the mire, and presses
him to her noble heart until he becomes a man once
more ; this woman is a worshipper. Her act is worship.
The poor man and the poor woman who work night
and day in order that they may give education to their
children, so that they may have a better life than their
father and mother had; the parents who deny them
selves the comforts of life, that they may lay up some
thing to help their children to a higher place—they are
worshippers; and the children who, after they reap the
benefit of this worship, become ashamed of their parents,
are blasphemers.
The man who sits by the bed of his invalid wife—a
wife prematurely old and grey—the husband who sits by
her bed and holds her thin, wan hand in his as lovingly,
and kisses it as rapturously, as passionately, as when it
was dimpled—that is worship ; that man is a worshipper;
that is real religion.
Whoever increases the sum of human joy is a wor
shipper.
He who adds to the sum of human misery is a blas
phemer.
Gentlemen, you can never make me believe, no statute
can ever convince me, that there is any infinite Being in
�54
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
this universe who hates an honest man. It is impos
sible to satisfy me that there is any God, or can be any
God, who holds in abhorrence a soul that has the
courage to express its thought. Neither can the whole
world convince me that any man should be punished,
either in this world or the next, for being candid with
his fellow-men. If you send men to the penetentiary
for speaking their thoughts, for endeavoring to enlighten
their fellows, then the penetentiary will become a place
of honor, and the victim will step from it, not stained,
not disgraced, but clad in robes of glory.
Let us take one more step.
What is holy ? What is sacred ? I reply that human
happiness is holy, human rights are holy. The body and
soul of man, these are sacred. The liberty of man is
of more importance than any book; the rights of man
more sacred than any religion, than any Scriptures,
whether inspired or not.
What we want is the truth ; and does anyone suppose
that all of the truth is confined in one book, that the
mysteries of the whole world are explained by one
volume ?
All that is, -all that conveys information to man, all
that has been produced by the past, all that now exists,
should be considered by an intelligent man. All the
known truths of this world, all the philosophy, all the
poems, all the pictures, all the statues, all the entrancing
music; the prattle of babes, the lullaby of mothers, the
words of honest men, the trumpet calls of duty—all
these make up the Bible of the world; everything that
is noble and true and free you will find in this great
book.
If we wish to be true to ourselves, if we wish to
benefit our fellow-men, if we wish to live honorable
lives, we will give to every other human being every
right that we claim for ourselves.
There is another thing that should be remembered
by you. You are the judges of the law as well as
the judges of the facts. In a case like this you
are final judges as to what the law is, and if you
acquit no Court can reverse your verdict.
To pre
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
55
vent the least misconception, let me state to you
again what I claim :—
First. I claim that the Constitution of New Jersey
declares that-—
“ The liberty of speech shall not be abridged.”
Second. That this statute, under which this indict
ment is found, is unconstitutional, because it does abridge
the liberty of speech ; it does exactly that which the
Constitution emphatically says shall not be done.
Third. I claim, also, that under this law—even if it
be constitutional—the words charged in this indictment
do not amount to blasphemy, read even in the light,
or rather in the darkness, of this statute.
Do not, I pray you, forget this point. Do not forget
that, no matter what the Court may tell you about the
law—how good it is, or how bad it is—no matter what
the Court may instruct you on that subject—do not
forget one thing, and that is, that the words charged in
the indictment are the only words that you can take
into consideration in this case. Remember that, no
matter what else may be in the pamphlet; no matter
what pictures or cartoons there may be of the gentle
men in Boonton who mobbed this man in the name of
universal liberty and love, do not forget that you have
no right to take one word into account except the
exact words set out in the indictment, that is to say,
the words that I have read to you. Upon this point
the Court will instruct you that you have nothing to do
with any other line in that pamphlet; and I now claim
that should the Court instruct you that the statute is
constitutional, still I insist that the words set out in
this indictment do not amount to blasphemy.
There is still another point. This statute says : “ Who
ever shall wilfully speak against.” Now, in this case
you must find that the defendant “wilfully” did so
and so, that is to say, that he made the statements
attributed to him knowing that they were not true.
If you believe that he was honest in what he said, then
this statute does not touch him. Even under this
statute a man may give his honest opinion. Certainly
there is no law that charges a man with /‘wilfully”
�56
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
being honest “ wilfully ” telling his real opinion—
“ wilfully ” giving to his fellow-men his thought.
Where a man is charged with larceny, the indictment
must set out that he took the goods or the property
with the intention to steal, with what the law calls
the animus furandi. If he took the goods with the
intention to steal, then he is a thief; but if he took the
goods believing them to be his own, then he is guilty
of no offence. So in this case, whatever was said by
the defendant must have been “wilfully” said. And
I claim that if you believe that what the man said was
honestly said, you cannot find him guilty under this
statute.
One more point: This statute has been allowed to
slumber so long, that no man had any right to awaken
it. For more than one hundred years it has slept; and
so far as New Jersey is concerned, it has been sound
asleep since 1664. For the first time it is dug out of
its grave. The breath of life is sought to be breathed
into it, to the end that some people may wreak their
vengeance on an honest man.
Is there any evidence—has there been any—to show
that the defendant was not absolutely candid in the
expression of his opinions ? Is there one particle of
evidence tending to show that he is not a perfectly
honest and sincere man ? Did the prosecution have
the courage to attack his reputation ? No. The State
has simply proved to you that he circulated that
pamphlet, that is all.
It was claimed among other things that the defen
dant circulated this pamphlet among children. There
was no such evidence—not the slightest. The only
evidence about schools, or school-children, was that
when the defendant talked with the bill-poster, whose
business the defendant was interfering with, he asked
him something about the population of the town and
about the schools. But according to the evidence, and
as a matter of fact, not a solitary pamphlet was ever
given to any child, or to any youth. According to the
testimony, the defendant went into two or three stores,
laid the pamphlets on a show case, or threw them upon
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
57
a desk, put them upon a stand where papers were sold,
and in one instance handed a pamphlet to a man. That
is all.
In my judgment, however, there would have been no
harm in giving this pamphlet to every citizen of your
place.
Again I say that a law that has been allowed to sleep
for all these years, allowed to sleep by reason of the good
sense and by reason of the tolerant spirit of the State of
New Jersey, should not be allowed to leap into life
because a few are intolerant, or because a few lacked
good sense and judgment. This snake should not be
warmed into vicious life by the blood of anger.
Probably not a man on this jury agrees with me
about the subject of religion. Probably not a member
of this jury thinks that I am right in the opinions that
I have entertained and have so often expressed. Most
of you belong to some Church, and I presume that those
who do have the good of what they call Christianity at
heart. There may be among you some Methodists. If
so, they have read the history of their Church, and they
know that when it was in the minority it was persecuted,
and they know that they cannot read the history of that
persecution without becoming indignant. They know
that the early Methodists were denounced as heretics, as
ranters, as ignorant pretenders.
There are also on this jury Catholics, and they know
that there is a tendency in many parts of this country
to persecute a man now because he is a Catholic. They
also know that their Church has persecuted in times
past, whenever and wherever it had the power ; and they
know that Protestants, when in power, have always per
secuted Catholics ; and they know in their hearts that all
persecution, whether in the name of law or religion, is
monstrous, savage, and fiendish.
I presume that each one of you has the good of what
you call Christianity at heart. If you have, I beg of
you to acquit this man. If you believe Christianity to
be a good, it can never do any Church any good to put
any man in gaol for the expression of opinion. Any
Church that imprisons a man because he has used an
�58
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
argument against its creed will simply convince the
world that it cannot answer the argument.
Christianity will never reap any honor, will never reap
any profit, from persecution. It is a poor, cowardly,
dastardly way of answering arguments. No gentleman
will do it, no civilised man ever did do it, no decent
human being ever did, or ever will.
I take it for granted that you have a certain regard, a
certain affection, for the State in which you live—that
you take a pride in the Commonwealth of New Jersey.
If you do, I beg of you to keep the record of your State
clean. Allow no verdict to be recorded against the
freedom of speech. At present there is not to be found
on the records of any inferior Court, or on those of the
supreme tribunal, any case in which a man has been
punished for speaking his sentiments. The records have
not been stained, have not been polluted, with such a
verdict.
Keep such a verdict from the reports of your State,
from the records of your Courts. No jury has yet, in
the State of New Jersey, decided that the lips of honest
men are not free, that there is a manacle upon the
brain.
For the sake of your State, for the sake of her reputa
tion throughout the world, for your own sakes, for the
sake of your children, and their children yet to be, say
to the world that New Jersey shares in the spirit of this
age; that New Jersey is not a survival of the Dark
Ages; that New Jersey does not still regard the thumb
screw as an instrument of progress; that New Jersey
needs no dungeon to answer the arguments of a free
man, and does not send to the penitentiary men who
think and men who speak. Say to the world that,
where .arguments are without foundation, New Jersey
has confidence enough in the brains of her people to feel
that such arguments can be refuted by reason.
For the sake of your State, acquit this man. For the
sake of something of far more value to this world than
New Jersey, for the sake of something of more impor
tance to mankind than this continent, for the sake of
human liberty, for the sake of free speech, acquit this man.
�DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
59
What light is to the eyes, what love is to the heart,
liberty is to the soul of man. Without it there come
suffocation, degradation, and death.
In the name of Liberty I implore—and not only so,
but I insist—that you shall find a verdict in favor of
this defendant. Do not do the slightest thing to stay
the march of human progress. Do not carry us back,
even for a moment, to the darkness of that cruel night
that good men hoped had passed away for ever.
Liberty is the condition of progress. Without liberty
there remains only barbarism. Without liberty there
can be no civilisation.
If another man has not the right to think, you have
not even the right to think that he thinks wrong. If
every man has not the right to think, the people of New
Jersey had no right to make a statute or to adopt a
Constitution, no jury has the right to render a verdict,
and no Court to pass a sentence.
In other words, without liberty of thought, no human
being has the right to form a judgment. It is impos
sible that there should be such a thing as real religion
without liberty. Without liberty there can be no such
thing as conscience, no such word as justice. All human
actions (all good, all bad) have for a foundation the idea
of human liberty, and without liberty there can be no
vice and there can be no virtue.
Without liberty there can be no worship, no blas
phemy, no love, no hatred, no justice, no progress.
Take the word Liberty from human speech and all
the other words become poor, withered, meaningless
sounds ; but with that word realised, with that word
understood, the world becomes a paradise.,
Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am
not blaming the prosecution, nor the prosecuting
attorney. The officers of the Court are simply doing
what they feel to be their duty. They did not find the
indictment. That was found by the grand jury. The
grand jury did not find the indictment of its own
motion. Certain people came before the grand jury and
made their complaint; gave their testimony, and upon that
testimony, under this statute, the indictment was found.
�6o
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT.
While I do not blame these people (they not being on
trial), I do not ask you to stand on the side of right.
. I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to
discharge a public duty, than to be absolutely true to
conscience, true to judgment, no matter what authority
may say, no matter what public opinion may demand.
A man who stands by the right against the world cannot
help applauding himself, and saying : “I am an honest
man.”
I want your verdict; a verdict born of manhood, of
courage; and I want to send a despatch to-day to a
woman who is lying sick. I wish you to furnish the
words of this dispatch; only two words; and these
two words will fill an anxious heart with joy. They
will fill a soul with light. It is a very short message ;
only two words ; and I ask you to furnish them : “Not
guilty.”
You are expected to do this, because I believe you
will be true to your consciences, true to your best
judgment, true to the best interests of the people of
New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty.
I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again,
under the flag of the United States, that flag for which
has been shed the bravest and best blood of the world ;
under that flag maintained by Washington, by Jefferson,
by Franklin, and by Lincoln ; under that flag in defence
of which New Jersey poured out her best and bravest
blood ; I hope it will never be necessary again for a man
to stand before a jury and plead for the Liberty of
Speech.
�Freethought Publications
THE AGE OF REASON (The Twentieth Century Edition).
By Thomas Paine. With a Biographical Introduction
and Annotations. By G. W. Foote. And a Beautiful
Portrait of Paine. Price 6d. Postage of single copies,
2d. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d.
THE BIBLE HANDBOOK for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. Edited by G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball.
A new edition, revised, and handsomely printed. Cheap
Edition, paper covers, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s. 6d.
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT.
By G. W. Foote.
First Series. Fifty-one Selected Articles and Essays;
221 pages. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; postage 3d. Second Series
(cloth), 2s. 6d.
BIBLE ROMANCES. By G. W. Foote. The Second
(Revised) Edition Complete.
160 Pages. Bound in
Cloth. Price Two Shillings.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and the
late J. M. Wheeler. 224 pp., cloth, 2s. 6d.; postage 3d.
Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities.
No pains have been spared to make the work a complete,
trustworthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christi
anity. The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
FOREIGN MISSIONS : Their Dangers and Delusions.
C. Cohen. Price 9d.
By
THE GRAND OLD BOOK. A Reply to the Grand Old
Man. By G. W. Foote. An Exhaustive Answer to the
Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s Impregnable Roclc of Holy
Scripture, Is. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d., postage l|d.
�Fpeethought Publications (continued).
THE BOOK OF GOD. By G. W. Foote. How the Bible
Stands in the Light of the Higher Criticism: with
Special Reference to Dean Farrar’s Apology, In paper
covers, Is.; bound in cloth, 2s.
Colonel Ingersoll wrote to the author:—
“ I have read with great pleasure your Book of God. You
have shown with perfect clearness the absurdity of Dean
Farrar’s position. I congratulate you on yonr book. It
will do great good, because it is filled with the best of
sense expressed with force and beauty.”
PAGAN MYTHOLOGY. By Lord Bacon.
6d.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED.
By the great Jeremy Bentham. A masterly work which
narrowly escaped prosecution. Is.
FREE WILL AND NECESSITY.
Huxley says :—
By Anthony Collins.
“ Collins writes with wonderful power and closeness of
reasoning. ’ ’
Is.
Superior edition, cloth, 2s.
BIBLE HEROES. From Adam to Paul. By G. W. Foote.
200 pages ; cloth, 2s. 6d.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’
Public Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr.
McCann. Is.; cloth, Is. 6d.
DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote. A Full Account of
Darwin’s Views on Religion. 6d.
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH. Three Hours’ Address to
the Jury in the Court of Queen’s Bench before Lord
Chief Justice Coleridge. By G. W. Foote. 4d.
INFIDEL DEATH BEDS. A Faithful Account of the Last
Hours of famous Freethinkers. By G. W. Foote. 8d.
cloth, Is. 3d.
�Fneethought Publications (continued).
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote.
Is.
128 pp,
THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. By G. W. Foote. A candid
Criticism of Mr. Wilson Barrett’s Play. 6d.
THEISM OR ATHEISM? Four Nights’ Public Debate
between G. W. Foote and the Rev. W. T. Lee. Is.
WILL CHRIST SAVE US ?
By G. W. Foote.
6d.
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach. Is.
Buchner says:—
“No one has demonstrated and explained the purely
human origin of the idea of God better than Feuerbach. ’ ’
LIBERTY AND NECESSITY. By David Hume. 4d.
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION. By
David Hume. A Masterpiece. 6d.
ESSAYS IN RATIONALISM. By Charles Robert Newman
(Atheist brother of Cardinal Newman). With preface
by G. J. Holyoake, and Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
Is. 6d.
THE RIGHTS OF MAN. By Thomas Paine.
Political Biography. Is.; cloth, 2s.
With a
Published Every Thursday,
“THE FREETHINKER.”
and Most Outspoken
in the World.
One of the Liveliest
Journals
Edited by G. W. Foote. Price Twopence.
Send for Specimen Copy. Post Free.
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, Ltd.,
2 Newcastle-strbet, Farringdon-street, E.C.
�WORKS BY THE LATE R. G. INGERSOLL,
/
z
.....
The House of Death. ■
Funeral Orations and j
Addresses, is.
Mistakes of Moses, is.
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Devil. 6d.
Superstition. 6d.
Shakespeare. 6d.
The Gods. 6d.
The Holy Bible. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone.
With an Introduction by
G. W. Foote. 4d.
Rome or Reason ? A
Reply to Cardinal Man
ning. 4d.
Crimes against Criminals
3d.
Oration on Walt Whit
man. 3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Paine the Pioneer. 2d. ;
Humanity’s Debt to
Thomas Paine. 2d.
Ernest Renan and Jesus
Christ. 2d.
Three Philanthropists.
2d.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
The Ghosts. 3d.
What Must We do to be
Saved ? 2d.
What is Religion ? 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin ? 2d.
Last Words on Suicide.
2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
God and Man. Second
reply to Dr. Field. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Limits of Tolera
tion.
A Discussion
with the Hon. F. D.
Coudert and Gov. S. L.
Woodford. 2d.
Household of Faith. 2d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
Marriage and Divorce.
2d.
Skulls. 2d.
The Great Mistake, id.
Live Topics, id.
Myth and Miracle, id.
Real Blasphemy, id.
Why am I an Agnostic? 2d.
Christ and Miracles.
id.
Creeds and Spirituality.
id.
The Christian Religion.
3dOrders to the amount of 5s. and upwards sent post free.
London:
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING Co., Ltd.,
2 Newcastle 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
Defence of freethought by Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll : being his five hours' speech to the jury at the trial for blasphemy of C.B. Reynolds, at Morristown, New Jersey, May 19 and 20, 1887
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 60, [3] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "Works by the late R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 81e in Stein checklist.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N337
G5779
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Defence of freethought by Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll : being his five hours' speech to the jury at the trial for blasphemy of C.B. Reynolds, at Morristown, New Jersey, May 19 and 20, 1887), 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
Blasphemy
Charles B Reynolds
Litigation
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-New Jersey-Morristown
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/800fc040e22b699c8089dfc59e0bace9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WRLubWIz-TDz8XzZImyP75p%7EQ4j0oGQVY0t6-TSFNyq2mP%7EDOmHI9bS6kRRYjziF6ljaCo8zn2FYue4wI9ysEOQLT41fYIKt7QpcGDLg5avhhCSfvIBdNlGNHxE7cJZbuk9v-oQ-Hfyaf-JQlQfYJ3AXpoLb17-dKJDW9pKDIVjKR12d0xzcXj3VE0Za-PQfoY-pXE5gtkAWjnwu-zOOK0WINChYV7Mydaa9UgoXMaaJLRbrCV0IRtre26cpYuSm40304nbHEgLya8UndyoTqGcjxdUal%7Ehcu%7E2KLEpGZEVq9peZRYQVWdxkH3J%7E7r-8lkwID5amcv7xam4W-drmpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3cc2425044d0a6626c12de58fa51760d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SEOULS SOCIETY
DO I BLASPHEME?
AN ORATION
>
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
B. FOBDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1893.
�Do I Blaspheme ?
Ladies and Gentlemen,—Nothing can be more
certain than that no human being can by any possi
bility control his thought. We are in this world—we
see, we hear, we feel, we taste; and everything in
nature makes an impression upon the brain, and that
wonderful something enthroned there, with these
materials, weaves what we call thought, and the brain
can no more help thinking than the heart can help
beating. The blood pursues its old accustomed round
without our will. The heart beats without asking leave
of us, and the brain thinks in spite of all we can do.
This being true, no human being can justly be held
responsible for his thought, any more than for the
beating of his heart, any more than for the course pur
sued by the blood, any more than for his breathing the
air. And yet, for thousands of years, thought has
been held to be a crime, and thousands and millions
have threatened us with eternal fire if we give to others
the product of our brain I Each brain, in my judg
ment, is a field where nature sows the seed of thought,
and thought is the crop that man reaps, and it certainly
cannot be a crime to gather it; it certainly cannot be
crime to tell it, which simply amounts to the right to
sell your crop or exchange your product for the product
of another man’s brain. That is all it is. Most brains
—at least some—are rather poor fields, and the orthodox
�( 5 )
the sea, was better than prayers, better than the
influence of priests; and that you had better have a
good captain on board, attending to business, than
thousands of priests ashore praying.
We also found that we could cure some diseases, and
just as soon as we found that we could cure disease we
dismissed the priest. We have left him out now of all
of them, except it may be cholera and small-pox.
When visited by a plague some people get frightened
enough to go back to the old idea—to go back to the
priest—and the priest says, “ It has been sent as a
punishment.” Well, sensible people began to look
about; they saw that the good died as readily as the
bad; they saw that disease would attack the dimpled
child in the cradle and allow the murderer to go un
punished ; and so they began to think, in time, that
it was not sent as a punishment; that it was a natural
result; and thus the priest has stepped out of medicine.
In agriculture we need him no longer; he has nothing
to do with the crops. All the clergymen in this world
can never get one drop of rain out of the sky; and all
the clergymen in the civilised world cannot save one
human life. They tried it. Oh, but they say, “We
do not expect a direct answer to prayer ; it is the reflex
action we are after.” It is like a man endeavoring to
lift himself up by the straps of his boots ; he will never
do it, but he will get a great deal of useful exercise.
The missionary goes to some pagan land and there finds
a man praying to a god of stone, and it excites the
wrath of the good man. I ask you to-night, does not
that god answer prayer just as well as ours? Does he
not cause rain ? Does he not delay frost ? Does he
not snatch the ones that we love from the grasp of
death, precisely the same as others ? Is not the reflex
action as wholesome in his case as in ours ? Yet we
have ministers that are still engaged in that business.
They tell us that they have been “ called ”; that they
do not go into their profession as other people do, but
�( 7 )
take from the world the solace of orthodox Christi
anity ? ” What is that solace ? Let us he honest.
What is it ? If the Christian religion be true, thegrandest, greatest, noblest of the world are now in
hell, and the narrowest and meanest are now in
heaven. Humboldt, the Shakespeare of science,, the
most learned man of the most learned nation—with a
mind grand enough to grasp not simply this globe, but
this constellation—a man who shed light upon the
whole earth, a man who honored human nature, and
who won all his victories upon the field of thought—
that man, pure and upright, noble beyond description,
if Christianity be true, is in hell this moment. That
is what they call “solace,” “tidings of great joy.”
La Place, who read the heavens like an open book, who
enlarged the horizon of human thought, is there too,
Beethoven, master of melody and harmony, who added
to the joy of human life, and who has borne upon the
wings of harmony and melody millions of spirits to the
heights of joy, with his heart still filled with melody—
he is in hell to-day. Robert Burns, poet of love and
liberty, from whose heart like a spring gurgling and
running down the highways have come poems that have
filled the world with music and added lustre to human
love—that man who, in four lines, gave all the philo
sophy of human life; he is there with the rest.
Charles Dickens, whose genius will be a perpetual
shield, saving thousands and millions of children from
blows; who did more to make us tender with children
than any other writer that ever touched a pen—he is
there with the rest, according to our Christian reli
gion. A little while ago there died in this country a
philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, a man of the
loftiest ideal, a perfect model of integrity, whose mind
was like a placid lake and reflected truths like stars.
If the Christian religion be true, he is in perdition
to-night. And yet he sowed the seeds of thought, and
raised the whole world intellectually to a high plane.
�()
greatest woman the English-speaking people ever pro
duced ; she is with the rest. And this doctrine is called
“ glad tidings of great joy.”
Who are in heaven ? How could there be much "of
a heaven without the men I have named, the great men
who have endeavored to make the world grander; such
men as Voltaire, such men as Diderot, such men as the
•encyclopedists, such men as Hume, such men as Bruno,
such men as Thomas Paine ? If Christianity is true,
that man who spent his life in breaking chains is now
wearing the chains of God; that man who wished to
break down the prison walls of tyranny is now in the
prison of the most merciful Christ. It wrill not do. I
can hardly express to you to-night my contempt for
such a doctrine; and if it be true, I make my choice
to-day, and I prefer hell.
Who is in heaven? John Calvin I John Knox!
Jonathan Edwards ! Torquemada !—the builders of
dungeons; the men who have obstructed the march of
the human race. These are the men who are in
heaven; and who else ? Those who never had brain
enough to harbor a doubt. And they ask me : “ How
can you be wicked enough to attack the Christian
religion ?”
“ Oh,” but they say, “ God will never forgive you if
you attack the orthodox religion.” Now, when I read
the history of this world, and when I think of my
fellow men; when I think of the millions living in
poverty, and when I know that in the very air we
Breathe and the sunlight that visits our homes there
lurks an assassin ready to take our lives, and even when
we believe we are in the fulness of health and joy, they
are undermining us with their contagion—when I know
that we are surrounded by all these evils, and when I
think what man has suffered, I do not wonder if God
can forgive man, but I do often ask myself, “ Can man
forgive God?”
There is another thing. Some of these ministers—
�(11)
ing at the map. What is blasphemy ? It is what the
mistake says about the fact. It is what last year’s leaf
says about this year’s bud. It is the last cry of the
defeated priest. Blasphemy is the little breastwork
behind which hypocrisy hides; behind which mental
impotency feels safe. There is no blasphemy but the
open avowal of your honest thought, and he who
speaks as he thinks blasphemes.
What is the next thing? That I have had the
hardihood—it doesn’t take much—to attack the
sacred Scriptures. I have simply given my opinion.
And yet they tell me that the book is holy—that you
can make rags, make pulp, put ink on it, bind it in
leather, and make something holy. The Catholics have
a man for a Pope ; the Protestants have a book. The
Catholics have the best of it. If they elect an idiot
he will not last for ever, but it is impossible for us to
get rid of the barbarisms in our book. The Catholics
said, “We will not let the common people read the
Bible.” That was right. If it is necessary to believe
it in order to get to heaven, no man should run the risk
. of reading it. To allow a man to read the Bible on
such conditions was to set a trap for his soul. The
right way is never to open it, and when you get to the
day of judgment, and they ask you if you believe it,
say, “ Yes, I have never read it.” The Protestant gives
the book to a poor man and says, “ Read it, you are at
liberty to read.” “ Well, suppose I don’t believe it
when I get through?” “ Then you will be damned.”
No man should be allowed to read it on these conditions.
And yet Protestants have done that infinitely cruel
thing. If I thought it was necessary to believe it I
would say, never read another line in it, but just believe
it and stick to it. And yet these people really think
that there is something miraculous about that book.
They regard it as a fetish—a kind of amulet—a some
thing charmed, that will keep off evil spirits, or bad
luck; stop bullets, or do a thousand handy things for
�( 13 )
potence is simply all-powerful, and what good would
strength do with nothing ? The weakest man ever born
could lift as much nothing as God. And he could do
as much with it after he got it lifted. And yet a
doctor of divinity tells me that this world was made of
omnipotence.
And right here let me say that I find even in the
mind of this clergyman the seeds of infidelity. He is
trying to explain things. That is a bad symptom. The
greater the miracle the greater the reward for believing
it. God cannot afford to reward a man for believing
anything reasonable. Why, even the scribes and
Pharisees would believe a reasonable thing. Do you
suppose God is to crown you with eternal joy, and give
you a musical instrument for believing something when
the evidence is clear? No, sir ! The larger the miracle
the more the faith. And let me advise ministers of
Chicago, and of this country, never to explain a miracle.
A miracle cannot be explained. If you succeed in
explaining it, the miracle is gone. If you fail, you are
gone I My advice to the clergy is, use assertion; just
say, “ it is so,” and the larger the miracle the greater
the glory reaped in believing it. And yet this man is
trying to explain, pretending that God had some raw
material of some kind on hand.
And then I objected to the fact that he didn't make
the sun until the fourth day, and that, consequently,
the grass could not have grown ; could not have thrown
its mantle of green over the shoulders of the hill, and
that the trees could not blossom and cast their shade
upon the sod without some sunshine. And what does
this man say ? Why, that the rocks, when they crys
tallised, emitted light—even enough to raise a crop by.
And he says, “ Vegetation must have depended on the
glare of volcanoes in the moon.” What do you think
would be the fate of agriculture depending on “ the
glare of volcanoes in the moon ” ? Then he says “ the
aurora borealis.” Why, you couldn’t raise cucumbers
�( 15 )
us believe that the infinite God of the universe made
the worm that was at the root of Jonah’s vine on
purpose to vex Jonah. Great business I
The theologians admit that David and Solomon didmany bad things, but they say the wrath of God pur
sued them, and they were punished for their crimes.
And yet David is said to have been “ a man after God’s
own heart,” and if you will read the twenty-eighth
chapter of first Chronicles you will find that David
died full of years and honors. So I find in the great
book of prophecy, concerning Solomon: “ He shall
reign in peace and quietness, he shall be my son, and I
will be his father, and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom for ever.” Was that true ? Does that look
like “ being pursued by the wrath of God ? ”
It won’t do. But they say God couln’t do away
with slavery suddenly, nor with polygamy all at once;
that he had to do it gradually, that if he had told these
Jews you mustn’t have slaves, and one man that he
must have one wife, and one wife that she must have
one husband, he would have lost the control over them
notwithstanding all the miraculous power he had dis
played. . Is it not wonderful that, when they did all
these miracles, nobody paid any attention to them?
Isn’t it wonderful that, in Egypt, when he performed
these wonders, when the waters were turned into
blood, when all the people were smitten with disease
and covered with horrible animals, isn’t it wonderful
that it had no influence on them ? Do you know why
all these miracles didn’t affect the Egyptians ? They
were there at the time. Isn’t it wonderful, too, that
the Jews who had been brought from bondage, had
followed cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, who
had been miraculously fed, and for whose benefit
water had leaped from the rocks and followed them up
and down hill through all their journeyings, isn’t it
wonderful when they had seen the earth opened and
their companions swallowed, when they had seen God
�( 17 )
foundling hospital, “ Home for Religious Liberty 1”
It won’t do.
, ,
, .
What is the next thing I have said 1 1 have taken
the ground, and I take it again to-day, that the Bible
has only words of humiliation for women. 1 he Bible
treats woman as the slave, the serf, of man, and
wherever that book is believed in thoroughly woman is
a slave. It is the infidelity in the Church that gives
her what liberty she has to-day. Oh, but says the
gentleman, think of the heroines of the Bible. How
could a book be opposed to woman which has pictured
such heroines ? IVell, that is a good argument.
® s
answer it. Who are the heroines ? The first is Esther.
Who was she 1 Esther is a very peculiar book, and
the story is about this :—Ahasuerus was a king.
is
wife’s name was Vashti. She didn t please him. He
divorced her and advertised for another. A gentleman
by the name of Mordecai had a good-looking niece, and
he took her to market. Her name was Esther. 1
don’t feel like reading the whole of the second chapter,
giving the details of the mode of selection. It is suffi
cient to say she was selected. After a time there was a
gentleman by the name of Haman, who, I should think,
was the cabinet, according to the story. And this man
Mordecai began to put on considerable style because
his niece was the king’s wife, and he would not bow,
and he would not rise, or he would not meet this gentle
man with marks of distinguished consideration, so he
made up his mind to have Mordecai hanged, lhen
they got out an order to kill the Jews, and Esther went
to see the king. In these days they believed in the
Bismarckian style of government-all power came from
the king, not from the people, and if anybody went to
see the king without an invitation, and he failed to
hold out his sceptre to him, the person was killed, just
to preserve the dignity of the monarch. When Esther
arrived he held out the sceptre, and thereupon she
induced him to rescind the order for killing the Jews,
l
�.(19)
comes from the tomb, and I think that sometimes there
must be some mistake about it, because when he came
to die again thousands of people would say, “ Why,
he knows all about it.” Would it not be noted?
Would it not be noted if a man had two funerals?
You know it is a very rare thing for a man to have
two funerals.
Now, then, these are all the heroines they bring
forward to show you how much they thought of woman
in that day. In the days of the Old Testament they
did not even tell us when the mother of us all (Eve)
died, nor where she is buried, nor anything about it.
They do not even tell us where the mother of Christ
sleeps, nor when she did. Never is she spoken of after
the morning of the resurrection. He who descended
from the cross went not to see her; and the son had no
word for the broken-hearted mother.
The story is not true. I believe Christ was a great
and good man, but he had nothing about him miraculous
except the courage to tell what he thought about the
religion of his day. The New Testament, in relating
what occurred between Christ and his mother, mentions
three instances. Once, when they thought he had been
lost in Jerusalem, when he said to them, “Wist ye not
that I must be about my father’s business ?” Next, at
the marriage of Cana, when he said to his mother,
“ Woman, what have I to do with thee ?”—words
which he never said; and again from the cross, “Mother,
behold thy son”; and to the disciple, “Behold thy
mother!”
J
So of Mary Magdalene. In some respects there is
no character in the New Testament that so appeals to
us as one who truly loved Christ. She was first at the
sepulchre ; and yet when he meets her, after the resur
rection, he had for her the comfort only of the chilling
words, “ Touch me not?” I don’t believe it. There
were thousand of heroic women then, there are thou
sands of heroic women now. Think of women who
�(21 )
good in the neighborhood where she resides. I have
never had any other opinion. I was endeavoring to
show that we are now to have an aristocracy of brain
and heart—that is all; and 1 said, speaking of Louis
Napoleon, that he was not satisfied with simply being
an emperor, and having a little crown on his head, but
wanted to prove that he had something in his head, so
he wrote the life of Julius Cossar, and that made him
a member of the French Academy; and speaking of
King William, upon whose head had been poured the
divine petroleum of authority, I asked how he would,
like to ^change brains with Haeckel, the philosopher.
Then I went over to England, and said, “ Queen Vic
toria wears the garments of power given her by blind
fortune, by eyeless chance, whilst George Eliot is
arrayed in robes of glory woven in the loom of her own
genius.” Thereupon I am charged with disparaging a
woman. And this priest, in order to get even with me,
digs open the grave of George Eliot and endeavors to
stain her unresisting dust. He calls her an adulteress
—the vilest word in the languages of men, and he
does it because she hated the Presbyterian creed;
because she, according to his definition, was an Atheist;
because she lived without faith and died without fear;
because she grandly bore the taunts and slanders of the
Christian world. George Eliot carried tenderly in her
heart the faults and frailties of her race. She saw the
highway of eternal right through all the winding paths
where folly vainly plucks with thorn-pierced hands the
fading flowers of selfish joy; and whatever you may
think, or I may think, of the one mistake in all her sad
and loving life, I know and feel that in the court where
her conscience sat as judge, she stood acquitted pure
as light and stainless as a star. George Eliot has
joined the choir invisible, whose music is the gladness
of this world, and her wondrous lines, her touching
poems, will be read hundreds of years after every
sermon in which a priest has sought to stain her name
�( 23 )
should say, “ That can’t be; the Herald has the largest
circulation of any paper in the world.”
Three hundred millions of Christians, and here are
the nations that prove the truth of Christianity—
Russia, 80,000,000 of Christians, I am willing to admit
it, a country without freedom of speech, without
freedom of press, a country in which every mouth is a
bastile and every tongue a prisoner for life, a country
in which assassins are the best men in it. They call
that Christian. Girls sixteen years of age, for having
spoken in favor of human liberty, are now working in
Siberian mines. That is a Christian country. Only a
little while ago a man shot at the Emperor twice. The
Emperor was protected by his armor. The man was
convicted, and they asked him if he wished religious
consolation. “ No.” “ Do you believe in a God ?”
“ If there was a God there would be no Russia.”
Sixteen millions of Christians in Spain; Spain, that
never touched a shore except as a robber ; Spain, that
took the gold and silver of the New World and used
it as an engine of oppression in the old; a country in
which cruelty was worship and murder was prayer, a
country where flourished the Inquisition. I admit that
Spain is a Christian country. If you don’t believe it
I do. Read the history of Holland, read the history of
South America, read the history of Mexico—a chapter
of cruelty beyond the power of language to express.
I admit that Spain is orthodox. If you go there you
will find the man wh© robs you and who asks God to
forgive you, both Christians! Spain is a country
where infidelity has not made much headway, but
where we see now a little dawn of a brighter day,
where such men as Castelar and others, who begin to
see that one school-house is equal to three cathedrals,
and one teacher worth all the priests. Italy is another
Christian nation, with 28,000,000 of Christians. In
Italy lives “ the only authorised agent ” of God—the
Pope. For hundreds of years Italy was the beggar of
�( 25 )
Pagan; it is human. Our fathers retired all the gods
from politics. Our fathers laid down the doctrine that
the right to govern comes, not from the clouds, but from
the consent to be governed. Our fathers knew that •
if they put an infinite God into the Constitution there
would be no room left for the people. Our fathers
used the language of Lincoln, and they made a govern
ment of the people, for the people, by the people.
This is not a Christian country. A gentleman, in one
of my lectures, interrupted me to ask, “ How about
Delaware ?” I replied : There was a man in Washing
ton, some twenty or thirty years ago, who came there
and said he was a Revolutionary soldier and wanted
a pension. He was so bent and bowed over that the
wind blew his shoe-strings into his eyes. They asked
him how old he was, and he said fifty years. “ Why,
good man, you can’t get a pension, because the war
was over before you were born. You mustn’t fool us.”
“ Well,” said he, “ I’ll tell you the truth; I lived sixty
years in Delaware, but 1 never count those years, and
hope God won’t.” And these Christian nations which
have been brought forward as the witnesses of the
truth of the Scriptures, owe 25,000,000,000 dols.,
which represents Christian war, Christian swords,
Christian cannon, Christian shot, and Christian shell.
The sum is so great that the imagination is dazed in
its contemplation. That is the result of loving your
neighbor as yourself.
The next great argument brought forward by these
gentlemen is the persecution of the Jews. We are
told in the nineteenth century that God has the Jews
persecuted simply for the purpose of establishing the
authenticity of the Scriptures, and that every Jewish
home burned in Russia throws light on the gospel, and
every violated Jewish maiden is another instance that
God still takes an interest in the holy Scriptures. That
is their doctrine. They are “ fulfilling prophecy.”
The Christian grasps the Jew, strips him, robs him,
�( 27 )
cerity of the martyr, and the barbarity of his persecutors.
That is all it proves. But you must remember that this
gentleman who believes in this doctrine is a Presbyterian,
and why should a Presbyterian object ? After a few
hundred years of burning he expects to enjoy the
eternal auto-da-fe of hell—an auto-da-fe that will
be presided over by God and his angels, and
they will be expected to applaud. He is a Presby
terian ; and what is that ? It is the worst religion of
this earth. I admit that thousands and millions of
Presbyterians are good people—no man ever being half
so bad as his creed. I am not attacking them. I am
attacking their creed. I am attacking what this
religion calls “ Glad tidings of great joy.” And accord
ing to these “ tidings,” hundreds of billions and billions
of years ago our fate was irrevocably and for ever
fixed; and God, in the secret counsels of his own in
scrutable will, made up his mind whom he would save
and whom he would damn. When thinking of that
God I always think of a mistake of a Methodist
minister during the war. He commenced the prayer—
and never did one more appropriate for the Presby
terian or Methodist God go up—“ O, thou great and
unscrupulous God.” This Presbyterian believes that
billions of years before that baby in the cradle—that
little dimpled child basking in the light of a mother’s
smile—w’as born, God had made up' his mind to damn
it; and when Talmage looks at one of those children
who will probably be damned he is cheerful about it;
he enjoys it. That is Presbyterianism—that God made
man and damned him for his own glory. If there is
such a God I hate him with every drop of my blood;
and if there is a heaven it must be where he is not.
Now think of that doctrine I Only a little while ago
there was a ship from Liverpool out eighty days with
the rudder washed away: for ten days nothing to eat
—nothing but bare decks and hunger ; and the captain
took a revolver in his hand, put it to his brain and said,
�(29 )
The Bible is not inspired. Ministers know nothing
about another world. They don’t know. I am satis
fied there is no world of eternal pain. If there is a
world of joy, so much the better. I have never put
out the faintest star of human hope that ever trembled
in the night of life. All I can say is, there was a time
when I was not: after that I was ; now I am. And it
is just as probable that I will live again as it was that
I could have lived before I did.
But they say to me, “ If we let the churches go,
what will be left ? ” The world will still be here.
Men and women will be here. The page of history
will be here. The walls of the world will be adorned
with art, the niches rich with sculpture; music will be
here, and all there is of life and joy. And there will be
homes here and the fireside, and there will be a common
hope without a common fear. Love will be here, and
love is the only bow on life’s dark cloud. Love was the
first to dream immortality. Love is the morning and
the evening star. It shines upon the cradle; it sheds
its radiance upon the peaceful tomb. Love is the mother
of melody, for music is its voice. Love is the builder of
every home, the kindler of every fire upon every hearth.
Love is the enchanter, the magician that changes
worthless things to joy, and makes right royal kings
and queens of common clay. Love is the perfume of
that wondrous flower, the heart. Without that sacred
passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts, and
with it earth is heaven, and we are gods.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
16
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
". 0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler ...
...
...
... 0 4
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
0 3
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE
...
...
0 3
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
...
" 0 3
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
..
0 2
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
... o 2
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
.
0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
...
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
...
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
o 2
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
..’
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE*’
0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
...
.’
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC?
” o 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
.
0 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
o 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
0 1
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
0 ,
LIVE TOPICS
...
”■ 0 j
REAL BLASPHEMY
..’
0 1
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
..
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
”* 0 1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Do I blaspheme? an oration
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 29 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 76b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N341
G5788
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 (Do I blaspheme? an oration), 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
Blasphemy
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ec986aaae98a63ec7309e026025a049.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=B7EctPvEkYdLUAsVWVZ433D4Po66L%7EOFWUcRHMOZ9oFhdQ-JQjwa8nRUY%7E5FbYwBQTkndb0qo-gjRS9L16uDjsk5KzfUHpIcRXLMk-nd84ojcnh1Z5eTZotWc5B1iYyAZULrW1-lQbibDiuqg7iD7DcC9U95TLHKOkxyUfm5gCFJN07izys9cJieWMQRaOh7iKz2UFjuQYlwO-CKV6RTojKpd-9ZzhqMKJno-HqjeybG9EnzAGDoIQ7EQx2Ij20-J5r1rwQCFmPLjfNUuRFoGMYDKVmmww7IHnmEUg9HVTI-v6OFzcPhl90rMXXcGDetxIJyDZ4YLFHsNVzU9P50Hw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
01a2596ed5af2b721490eca08857fbc7
PDF Text
Text
JL
LECTURE
BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Delivered in the Brooklyn Theatre on February 22, 1885, to
three thousand people.
Price One Penny.
LONDON :
THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY
' AU
28 Stonecutter Street.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY RAMSEY AND FOOTE,
AT STONECUTTER STREET. E.O.
�827*3
REAL BLASPHEMY.
-------------4-------------
Ladies and Gentlemen ¡—There is an old story of a
missionary trying to convert an Indian. The Indian
made a little circle in the sand and said, “ That is what
the Indian knows.” Then he made another circle a
little larger and said, “ That is what missionary knows,
but outside there the Indian knows just as much as
missionary.” I am going to talk mostly outside that
circle to-night. (Laughter.)
First—What is the origin of the crime known as
blasphemy ? It is the belief in a God who is cruel,
revengeful, quick-tempered and capricious ; a God who
punishes the innocent for the guilty ; a God who listens
with delight to the shrieks of the tortured and gazes
enraptured on their spurting blood. You must hold
this belief before you can believe in the doctrine of
blasphemy. You must believe that this God loves
ceremonies ; that this God knows certain men to whom
he has told all his will. It then follows that, if this
God loves ceremonies and has certain men to teach his
will and perform these ceremonies, these men must
have a place to live in. This place was called a temple,
�4
and it was sacred. (Laughter.) And the pots and
pans and kettles and all in it were sacred, too. No one
but the priests must touch them.
Then this God wrote a book, in which he told his
covenants to men, and he gave this book to priests to
interpret. While it was sacrilege to touch with the
hands the pots and pans of the temple, it was blas
phemy to doubt or question anything in the book. And
then the right to think was gone, and the right to use
the brain that God had given was taken away, and
religion was intrenched behind that citadel called blas
phemy. God was a kind of juggler. He did not wish
man to be impudent or curious about how he did
things. You must sit in audience and watch the tricks
and ask no questions. In front of every fact he has
hung the impenetrable curtain of blasphemy. Now,
then, all the little reason that poor man had is useless.
To say anything against the priests was blasphemy,
and to say anything against God was blasphemy ; to
ask a question was blasphemy. Finally, we sank to the
level of fetishism. We began to worship inanimate
things. If you will read your Bible, you will find that
the Jews had a sacred box. In it were the rod of Aaron
and a piece of manna and the tables of stone. To touch
this box was a crime. You remember that one time,
when a careless Jew thought the box was going to tip,
he held it. God killed him. (Laughter.) What a
warning to baggage smashers of the present day !—
(Great laughter.) We find also that God concocted a
hair-oil, and threatened death to any one who imitated
it. And we see that he also made a certain perfume,
and it was death to make anything that smelt like it.
It seems to me that is carrying protection too far—
(Laughter.)
�5
It has always been blasphemy to say,£< I do not know
whether God exists or not.” In all Catholic countries
it is blasphemy to doubt the Bible, to doubt the sacred
ness of the relics. It always has been blasphemy to
laugh at a priest, to ask questions, to investigate the
Trinity. In a world of superstition, reason is blas
phemy. In a world of ignorance, facts are blasphemy.
In a world of cruelty, sympathy is a crime ; and in a
world of lies, truth is blasphemy.
Who are the real blasphemers ? Webster offers the
definition : “ Blasphemy is an insult offered to God by
attributing to him a nature and qualities differing from
his real nature and qualities and dishonoring him.
A very good definition, if you only know what his
nature and qualities are. (Laughter.) But this is not
revealed ; for, studying him through the medium of
the Bible, we find him illimitably contradictory. He
cammands us not to work on the Sabbath day, because
it is holy. Yet God works himself on the Sabbath day
The sun, moon and stars swing round in their orbits,
and all the creation attributed to this God goes on as
on other days.
He says, Honor thy father and mother ; and yet this
God, in the person of Christ, offered honors and glory
and happiness an hundredfold to any who would desert
their father and mother for him. “ Thou shalt not kill,”
yet God killed the firstborn of Egypt, and he com
manded Joshua to kill all his enemies, not sparing old
or young, man, woman or child—even an unborn child.
“ Thou shalt not commit adultery,” he says, and yet
this God gave the wives of defeated enemies to his
soldiers of Joshua’s army. Then again he says, “ Thou
shalt not steal.” By this command he protected the
inanimate property and the cattle of one man against
�6
the hand of another, and yet this God who said “ Thou
shalt not steal,” established human slavery. The pro
ducts of industry were not to be interfered with, but
the producer might be stolen as often as possible.
“ Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
And yet the God who said this said also, “ I have sent
lying spirits unto Ahab.” The only commandment
he really kept was “ Thou shalt have none other gods
but me.”
Is it blasphemous to describe this God as malicious ?
You know that laughter is a good index of the character
of a man. You like and rejoice with the man whose
laugh is free and joyous and full of good will. You
fear and dislike him of the sneering laugh. How does
God laugh ? He says, “ I will laugh at their calamity
and mock at their misfortunes,” speaking of some who
have sinned. Think of the malice and malignity of
that in an infinite God when speaking of the sufferings
he is going to impose upon his children ! You know
that it is said of a Roman emperor that he wrote laws
very finely, and posted them so high on the walls that
no one could read them, and then he punished the people
who disobeyed the laws. That is the acme of tyranny :
to provide a punishment for breach of laws the
existence of which was unknown. Now we all know
that there is a sin against the Holy Ghost which will not
be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come.—
Hundreds of thousands of people have been driven to
the insane asylum by the thought that they had com
mitted this unpardonable sin. Every educated minister
knows that that part of the Bible is an interpolation,
but they all preach it. What that sin against the Holy
Ghost is, is not specified. I say, “ Oh ! but my good
God, tell me what this sin is.” And he answers,—
�“ Maybe, now, asking is the crime. Keep quiet.” So
I keep quiet and go about tortured with the fear that I
have committed that sin.
Is it blasphemy to describe God as needing assistance
from the Legislature ? (Laughter.) Calling for the aid
of a mob to enforce his will here ? Compare that God
with a man—even with Henry Bergh. (Applause.)
See what Mr. Bergh has done to awaken pity in our
people and call sympathy to the rescue of suffering
animals. And yet our God was a torturer of dumb
beasts. Is it blasphemy to say that our God sent the
famine and dried the mother’s breast from her infant’s
withered lips ? Is it blasphemy to say that he is author
of the pestilence ; that he ordered some of his children
to consume others with fire and sword ? Is it blas
phemy to believe what we read in the 109th Psalm ?
If these things are not blasphemy, then there is no
blasphemy. If there be a God, I desire him to write
in the book of judgment opposite to my name that I
denied these lies for him. (Great applause).
Let us take another step ; let us examine the Presby
terian Confession of Faith. If it be possible to commit
blasphemy, then I contend that the Presbyterian creed
is most blasphemous, for, according to that, God is a
cruel, unrelenting, revengeful, malignant, and utterly
unreasonable tyrant. I propose now to pay a little
attention to that creed. First, it confesses that there is
such a thing as a light of Nature. It is sufficient to
make man inexcusable, but not sufficient for salvation;
just light enough to lead men to hell. Now imagine a
man who will put a false light on a hill-top to lure a
ship to destruction. What would we say of that man ?
What can we say of a God who gives this false light
of Nature which, if its lessons are followed, results in
�8
/
hell ? That is the Presbyterian God. I don’t like
him. (Laughter.) Now it occurred to God that the
light of Nature was somewhat weak, and he thought
he’d have another burner. (Great laughter.) There
fore he made his book and gave it to his servants, the
priests, that they might give it to man. It was to be
accepted not on the authority of Moses, or any other
writer, but because it was the word of God. How do
you know it’s the word of God ? You’re not to take
the word of Moses, or David, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah, or
any other man, because the authority of their work
has nothing to do with the matter ; this creed expressly
lets them out. (Laughter.) How are you to know
that it is God’s word ? Because it is God’s word. Why
is it God’s word ? What proof have we that it is God’s
word ? Because it is God’s word.
Now, then, I find the next thing in this wonderful
confession of faith of the Prespyterians is the decree
of predestination.
“ III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory,
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and
others foreordained to everlasting death.
“IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their
number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased
or diminished.
“ V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God,
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his
eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good
pleasure of his will, has chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory,
out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of
faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any
other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him
thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
I am pleased to assure you that it is not necessary to
understand this. (Laughter.) You have only to believe
it. (Laughter.) You see that by the decree of God some
�9
men and angels are predestinated to heaven and others
to eternal hell, and you observe that their number is so
certain and definite that it can neither be changed nor
altered. You are asked to believe that billions of years
ago this God knew the names of all the men aud women
whom he was going to save. Had ’em in his book,
that being the only thing except himself that then
existed. He had chosen the names by the aid of the
secret council. The reason they called it secret was
because they knew all about it. (Laughter.) In making
his choice, God was not all bigoted. He did not choose
John Smith because he foresaw that Smith was to be a
Presbyterian and was to possess a loving nature, was to'
be honest and true and noble in all his ways, doing
good himself and encouraging others in the same. Oh,
no ; he was quite as likely to pick Brown in spite of
the fact that he knew long before that Brown would be
a wicked wretch. You see he was just as apt to send
Smith to the devil and take Brown to heaven—and all
for “ His glory.” This God also blinds and hardens—
Ah ! he’s a peculiar God. If sinners persevere, he will
blind and harden and give them over at last to their
own wickedness instead of trying to reclaim them.
Now we come to the comforting doctrine of the total
depravity of man, and this leads us to consider how he
came that way. Can any person read the first chapters
of Genesis and believe them unless his logic was assas
sinated in the cradle ? We read that our first parents
were placedin a pleasant garden ; that they were given
the full run of the place and only forbidden to meddle
with the orchard ; that they were tempted as God knew
they were to be tempted ; that they fell as God knew
they would fall, and that for this fall, which he knew
would happen before he made them, he fixed the curse
�10
of original sin upon them, to be continued to all their
children. Why didn’t he stop right there ? Why
didn’t he ki-ll Adam and Eve and make another pair
who didn’t like apples ? Then, when he brought his
flood, why did he rescue eight people if their descend
ants were to be totally depraved and wicked ? Why
didn’t he have his flood first and drown the Devil ?
(Laughter.) That would have solved the problem and
he could then have tried experiments unmolested. The
Presbyterian Confession says this corruption was in all
men. It was born with them, it lived through their
life, and after death survived in the children. Well,
can’t man help himself ? No. I’ll show you. God’s
got him. (Laughter.) Listen to this.
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability
of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a
natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in
sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to pre
pare himself thereunto.
So that a natural man is not only dead in sin and unable
to accomplish salvation, but he is also incapable of
preparing himself therefor. Absolutely incapable of
taking a trick.—(Great laughter.) He is saved, if at all,
by the mercy of God. If that’s the case, then why
doesn’t he convert us all ? Oh! he doesn’t. He
wishes to send the most of us to hell—to show his
justice. (Laughter and applause.) Elect infants dying
in infancy are regenerate. So also are all persons
incapable of unbelief. That includes insane persons
and idiots, because an idiot is incapable of unbelief.
Idiots are the only fellows who’ve got the deadwood on
God. (Laughter and applause.) Then according to
this, the man who has lived according to the light of
Nature, doing the best he knew howto make this earth
�11
haPPy, will be damned by God because he never heard
of his son. Whose fault is it that an infinite God does
not advertise ? (Great laughter.) Something wrong
about that. I am inclined to think that the Presbyterian
Church is wrong. (Applause.) I find here how utterly
unpardonable sin is.
There is no sin so small but it is punished with hell,
and away you go straight to the deepest burning pit
unless your heart has been purified by this confession
of faith—unless this snake has crawled in there and
made itself a nest. Why should we help religion ? I
would like people to ask themselves that question.
(Loud applause.) An infinite God, by practising a
reasonable economy, can get along without our assist
ance. Loudly this confession proclaims that salvation
comes from Christ alone. What then becomes of the
savage who, having never known the name of Christ,
has lived according to the light of Nature, kind and
heroic and generous, and possessed of and cultivating
all the natural virtues ? He goes to hell. (Laughter.)
God, you see, loves us. (Laughter.) If he had not
loved us what would he have done ? The light of
Nature then shows that God is good and therefore to
be feared—on account of his goodness—(laughter)—to
be served and honored without ceasing. And yet this
creed says that on the last day God will damn any one
who has walked according to this light. It’s blasphemy
to walk by the light of Nature. (Laughter.)
The next great doctrine is on the preservation of the
saints. Now there are peculiarities about the saints.
(Laughter.) They are saints without their own knowledge or free will; they may even be down on saints—
(laughter)—but it’s no good. God has got a rolling
hitch on them, and they have to come into the kingdom
�12
sooner or later. (Laughter.) It all depends on whether
they have been elected or not. God could have made
me a saint just as easy as not, but he passed me by,
(Laughter.) Now you know the Presbyterians say I
trample on holy things. They believe in hell and I
come and say there is no hell. I hurt their hearts,
they say, and they add that I am going to hell myself.
(Laughter.) I thank them for that, but now let’s see
what these tender Presbyterians say of other churches.
Here it is : This confession of faith calls the Pope of
Rome Antichrist and a son of perdition. Now there are
forty Roman Catholics to one Presbyterian upon this
earth. Do not the Presbyterians rather trample on the
things that are holy to the Roman Catholics, and do
they respect their feelings ? But the Presbyterians have
a Pope themselves, composed of the Presbyters and the
preachers. This confession attributes to them the keys
of heaven and hell and the power to forgive sins.
“ The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church, hath therein
appointed a government in the hand of church-officers, distinct
from the civil magistrate.
“IL To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are
committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively, to
retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent
both by the word and censures; and to open it unto penitent
sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from
censures, as occasion shall require.
Therefore these men must be infallible, for God would
never be so foolish as to trust fallible men with the
keys of heaven and hell. I care nothing for their keys,
nor for any world those keys would open or lock. I
prefer the country. (Applause and laughter,) We
are told by this faith that at the last day all the men
and women and children who have ever lived on the
earth will appear in the self same bodies they have had
�13
when on earth. Every one who knows anything, knows
the constant exchange which is going on between the
vegetable and animal kingdom.
The millions of atoms which compose one of our
bodies have all come from animals and vegetables, and
they in their turn drew them from the animals and
vegetables which preceded them. The same atoms that
are now in our bodies have previously been in the
bodies of our ancestors. The negro from Central Africa
has many times been mahogany, and the mahogany has
many times been negro. (Laughter.) A missionary
goes to the cannibal islands, and a cannibal eats him,
and dies. The atoms which composed the missionary’s
body, may compose in a great part the cannibal’s body.
(Laughter.) To whom will those atoms belong on the
morning of the resurrection ? (Laughter.)
How did the Devil, who had always lived in heaven
among the best society, ever happen to become bad ?—
If a man surrounded by angels could become bad, why
cannot a man surrounded by devils become good ?
Here is the last Presbyterian joy. At the day of
judgment the righteous shall be caught up to heaven,
and shall stand at the right hand of Christ, and share
with him in judging the wicked. Then the Presbyte
rian husband may have the ineffable pleasure of judg
ing his wife and condemning her to eternal hell, and the
boy will say to his mother—echoing the command of
God—“Depart, thou accursed, into everlasting tor
ment !” Here will come a man who has not believed
in God. He was a soldier who took up arms to free the
slave, and who rotted to death in Anderville Prison
rather than accept the offer of his captors to fight against
freedom. He loved his wife and his children, and his
home and his native country and all mankind, and did
�14
all the good he knew. God will say to the Presbyte
rians, “ What shall we say to this man ?” and they
will answer, “ Throw him into hell !” (Laughter.)—
Last night there was a fire in Philadelphia, and at a
window fifty feet above the ground Mr. King stood
amidst flame and smoke, and pressed his children to
his breast one after the other, kissed them, and threw
them to the rescuers with a prayer. That was a man.
At the last day God takes his children with a curse,
and hurls them into eternal fire. That’s your God as
the Presbyterians describe him. Do you believe that
God—if there is one—will ever damn me for thinking
him better than he is ? If this creed be true, God is
the insane keeper of a mad-house.
We have in this city a clergyman who contends that
this creed gives a correct picture of God, and further
more says that God has the right to do with us what
he pleases—because he made us. If I could change
this lamp into a human being, that would not give me
the right to torture him, and if I did torture him, and
he cried out, “ Why torturest thou me ?” and I replied,
“ Because I made you,” he would be right in replying,
“ You made me, therefore you are responsible for my
happiness.” No God has a right to add to the sum of
human misery. And yet this minister believes an
honest thought blashemy ! No doubt he is perfectly
honest; otherwise he would have too much intellectual
pride to take the position he does. He says that the
Bible offers the only restraint to the saving passions of
man. In lands where there has been no Bible, there
have been mild and beneficent philosophers, like
Buddha and Confucius. Is it possible that the Bible
is the only restraint, and yet the nations among whom
these men have lived, have been as moral as we ? In
�15
Brooklyn and New York you have the Bible, yet du
you find that the restraint is a great success ? Is there
a city on the globe which lacks more in certain direc
tions than some in Christendom, or even the United
States ? (Laughter.)
What are the natural virtues of man ? Honesty, hos
pitality, mercy in the hour of victory, generosity. Do
we not find these virtues among some savages ? Do
we find them among all Christians ? (Applause.) I
am also told by these gentlemen that the time will
come when the Infidel will be silenced by society.
Why, that time came long ago. Society gave the hem
lock to Socrates. Society in Jerusalem cried out for
Barrabas, and crucified Jesus. In every Christian
country society has endeavored to crush the Infidel.
Blasphemy is a padlock which hypocrisy tries to put
on the lips of all honest men. At one time Christianity
succeeded in silencing the Infidel, and then came Dark
Ages, when all rule was ecclesiastical; when the air
was filled with devils and spooks ; when birth was a
misfortune, life a prolonged misery of fear and torment,
and death a horrible nightmare. They crushed the
Infidels, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, wherever
a ray of light appeared in ecclesiastical darkness. But
I want to tell this minister to-night, and all others like
him, that that day is past. (Cheers and great applause.)
All the churches in the United States cannot even
crush me. (Renewed cheering.) The day for that has
gone, never to return. If they think they can crush
Freethought in this country, let them try it.
What must this minister think of you and the citzens
of this Republic when he says, “ Take the fear of hell
out of men’s hearts, and a majority of them will become
ungovernably wicked”? Oh! think of an angel in
�lieaven having to allow that he was scared there ! This
minister calls for my arrest. He thinks his God needs
help, and would like to see the police crush the Infidel.
I would advise Mr. Talmage—(hisses)—to furnish his
God with a rattle, so that when he is in danger again,
he can summon the police immediately ! (Laughter.)
I’ll tell you what is blasphemy. It is blasphemy to
live on the fruits of other men’s labor, to prevent the
growth of the human mind, to persecute for opinions’
sake, to abuse your wife and children, to increase in
any manner the sum of human misery. I’ll tell you
what is the true Bible. It is the sum of all the actual
knowledge of man, and every man who discovers a new
fact adds a new verse to this Bible. It is different
from the other Bible, because that is the sum of all that
its writers and readers do not know. (Applause.)
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Real blasphemy : a lecture, delivered in the Brooklyn Theatre on February 22,1885, to three thousand people
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Stein (Item 6). Printed and published by Ramsey and Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N387
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 (Real blasphemy : a lecture, delivered in the Brooklyn Theatre on February 22,1885, to three thousand people), 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
Blasphemy
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4dff90fbd0fc402a9893605bcbf788ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OpMtNnF1gxlfZGzM9VA24O%7EV33avl6SCyIBh%7E1Xlk6AUehPAcqLBDznsQZhoSgKAHsu1LuNZrFMYJl5t9nAbXpdWnkcoXtiUkLqlbdzTm7Cc64hCTG9liM7Qg5k3RDWs5QONnFTKUrQjhvfen8rNN3Ywsq9IA2YEgqNpYO7OjhtpeyUtvDdvKOIvqx6FKiXhB6CAOWKmKhupL4rfCrtZRPht6790LNuxdIdjCZqhVRW0HWzbnk15TstoLpUSZDHxFpAEzKYSJqdnprJE2%7E9ceeyGrhq%7Ef5weuS3WLId65utq0gf87%7ESm-vzV5uNEJ1nI3dQz3Y1RbDIx5yw7qZcRPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
43dd6fd9f38f7a6dd8d770e14a850b30
PDF Text
Text
LIBRARY
South Place Ethical Society
Rec'd.. ..... 1908...............
Ack’d.......................................
Source.. C.Qnway.....fninily
ciassR*.. Q.0K....tr.....i,Dle..
cat. in.
detail. .19713
2
�REFLEXIONS
ON THE
BLASPHEMY PROSECUTION.
A better
TO
THE HON. JUSTICE NORTH
A.
HINDU.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGIIT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63,
FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1 883.
PRICE THREEPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTBD BY ANNIE BE8ANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C
�REFLEXIONS ON THE BLASPHEMY PROSECUTIONS.
To
THE
Sir,
Hon. JUSTICE NORTH,
Private communications from British subjects in
the Eastern portion of her Majesty’s dominions professing
the respective faiths of Brahmanism, Parseeism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, and Islamism have recently been received in
this country, denouncing in terms of uniformly intense
indignation the despotic and fanatical bias animating your
judicial procedure, from the beginning to the end of the
trials of the three men condemned to imprisonment on
the charge of “ blasphemy.” The incoherent definition of
the law on the subject expounded by you, and the totally
inadequate legal evidence on which you demanded from
the jury the conviction—especially of Mr. Foote—has
filled many of my friends in India, and several Indian
gentlemen at present studying law in England like myself,
with blank amazement. In refusing bail for the alleged
culprits after the discharge of the first jury, and angrily
interrupting the above-mentioned gentleman in his defence,
your zeal for Christian orthodoxy completely eclipsed the
judicial dispassionateness and impartiality Indians have been
accustomed to associate with the administration of law by
a modern English Judge. Unwittingly you exchanged the
functions of a dispenser of justice for those of a vindictive
prosecutor and a bigoted theological partisan. The travesty
of biblical narratives, conscientiously believed by the defen
dants, rightly or wrongly, to be fictitious, and morally as
well as intellectually mischievous, was openly regarded by
you as a service rendered to the Christian “ devil,” and
consequently on a level with a flagrant offence against
essential morality. In the pious homilies you uttered in
“ summing up ” and delivering sentence, you confounded
theological polemics with law, and most uncharitably
�4
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
assumed that true morality was impossible apart from
Christian belief. In so doing you prostituted your position
to the level of a vulgar and superstitious “ drum ecclesi
astic,” ignorant of the primary elements of the science of
comparative religion.
Writing of the features of the trial purely on its merits,
I have no concern with the eesthetic aspect of the carica
ture of Christian doctrines which in your judgment seemed
to constitute the gravamen of the prosecution. I have no
personal knowledge of the defendants, nor of the writings and
pictorial representations attributed to them. But it may
fairly be stated, in passing, that as the creed you so piously
championed consigns the unfortunate victims of your reli
gious malediction to the fires of an eternal hell hereafter,
some more conspicuous exhibition of commiseration with
them under the circumstances would have redounded more
signally to your credit, both as a sincere orthodox believer
and as a humane man. The Christian God, who is repre
sented in the gospel narrative as welcoming back with
fatherly tenderness his prodigal son, could, I fear, hardly
view with complacency the relentless inhumanity in which
you, a professed Christian judge, displayed such eagerness to
inflict on those you could at most regard as theological
errants condign punishment, while denying them oppor
tunities for preparing their defence which you would have
readily conceded to seducers of women or fraudulent bank
rupts. To your vision the open ridicule of what was
honestly believed to be a mythological development is a
graver crime than theft or wife-beating. The impression
conveyed to the minds of my Indian friends by this notorious
trial—to say nothing of other cases in which we heretics
think we have lately been denied justice—is that vigilance
has become quite as imperative in this country to ensure
that judges shall not abuse the prerogatives with which they
are invested as to check wanton obstruction in Parliament.
Again, your contradictory exposition of the law of blas
phemy—as if you were striving to protect from legal risk
learned and scientific sceptics while venting ill-disguised
bitterness upon a rougher type of opponents to Christianity
-■-was extremely marked. At the first trial you defined
blasphemy as a denial of the existence of God or ridicule of
the Trinity. In this you agreed with Mr. Justice Stephen,
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
5
in his “ History of the Criminal Law of England,” that
“ blasphemy consists in the character of the matter published,
and not in the manner in which it is stated.” But at the
second trial you effected a sudden and clumsy change of
front — possibly endeavoring to place yourself more in
accord with the New Criminal Code introduced by the
present Government—and represented blasphemy to be “ any
contumelious reproach or profane scoffing against the Chris
tian religion or the Holy Scriptures, and any act exposing
the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion to ridicule,
contempt, or derision.” The latter definition evidently im
plies that the mere attacking of the sacred books and
dogmas of Christianity with elaborate argument is not in
itself blasphemous, always provided the manner in which the
controversy is conducted is free from all tendency to ridicule.
When to these shifting and incongruous definitions of the
law is added the doubtful nature of the evidence on which
the men were convicted, and the barbarous treatment they
suffered by your direction between the two trials, there is
room for the suspicion that their conviction was on your
part a foregone conclusion.
Can there be any pretence to justice in the distinction
involved in your second definition between a blow dealt to
Christianity in a cultured volume published by Longmans or
Williams and Norgate, and the same act done through an
obscure penny sheet known chiefly to a limited section of
the artisan class ? In fact, if the damage done to the
fashionable creed is to be measured by the publicity given to
the hostile opinions advanced in these respective instances,
and by the extent to which educated minds are influenced
by these opinions, it must be obvious that the prosecution of
the authors and publishers of the more scholarly works is by
far the more urgent desideratum.
Do you require to be told that the learned professions and
the thoughtful among the mercantile and trading classes
who read the more costly sceptical treatises are honey
combed with doubts and, in many cases, confirmed objec
tions to the Christian faith ? If the highest Christian
authorities are to be believed, all sections of the community
in Great Britain are already, more or less, hopelessly sunk
in unbelief. Last year the Archbishop of York, at the
annual meeting of his diocese, told his clergy that “ the
�6
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
battle before them now was not with sects and heresy, but
one waged for the very existence of Christianity itself” In
August last Cardinal Manning declared that only 2 per cent,
of the population of London and Berlin attended any church at
all. At the Glasgow Free Church Presbytery meeting of
30th March, 1882, it was stated that “ out of a population
of 700,000 in the city and suburbs, a census showed that
only 135,932, that is, 16^ per cent., attended any place of wor
ship
and I have good reason to believe that even this
estimate is in excess of the reality. One reverend speaker
at the same meeting remarked that “ a great proportion of
the working classes in particular had no practical connexion
with the Church—not only the intemperate and depraved,
but the sober, industrious, and respectable among them.
Though fulfilling in a sort of commendable way very many
duties connected with their positions in life, they were yet un
connected with the Church of Christ.” In 1878 the Home
Mission of the same church reported that “ all the agricul
tural laborers of Scotland live in a state of heathenism.”
Another religious body in 1877 gravely asserted that “ there
were not a dozen Christians in Skye, though the population of
that island is 24,000 ! ” In the “ Journals ” of the late Dr.
Norman MacLeod we have answers to religious questions ad
dressed by him to intending participants in the membership of
his own church, illustrating the amazing ignorance prevail
ing among people otherwise exemplary, even in educated
Scotland, respecting the most elementary Biblical stories.
“ Who led the children of Israel out of Egypt ? Eve. Who
was Eve? The mother of God. What was done with
Christ’s dead body ? Laid in a manger. What did Christ
do for sinners? Gave his son. Any wonderful works
Christ did? Made the world in six days. Any others?
Buried Martha, Mary and Lazarus. What became of them
afterwards ? Angels took them to Abraham’s bosom.
What had Christ to do with that ? He took Abraham.
Who was Christ ? The Holy Spirit. Are you a sinner ?
No.” I venture to assert that there are multitudes of at
tendants upon Christian ordinances throughout England and
Europe whose acquaintance with the essentials of this faith,
if tested by similar methods, would be found not less
absurdly deficient. Yet to guard from ridicule tales and
dogmas which one large, morally-conducted section of the
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
7
community regard with absolute indifference, and another
equally large but more cultivated section regard with dis
belief, based on prolonged and serious investigation, the law
is set in motion, a judge forgets that mental equilibrium
traditionally characteristic of the Bench, and men whose
lives are reputed to be morally blameless are visited with the
loss of personal liberty!
On the other hand, when we pass into the realms of
literature and science, deliberate repudiation of the historical
and religious authority of both the Old and New Testaments
is not the exception, but the rule. The following eloquent lan
guage of Professor Huxley is endorsed by tens of thousands
of the most cultivated and eminent public writers throughout
Europe and America, despite the antagonism of the passage
with your recent decision. “ Everywhere priests have broken
the spirit of wisdom, and tried to stop human progress by
quotations from their Bibles or books of their saints. In this
nineteenth century, as at the dawn of physical science, the
cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of
the philosopher, and the opprobrium of the orthodox. Who
shall number the patient and earnest seekers after truth from
the days of Galileo until now, whose lives have been em
bittered and their good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of
bibliolators ? Who shall count the host of weaker men,
whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to
harmonise impossibilities; whose lives have been wasted in
the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into
the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the
same strong party ? It is true that if philosophers have
suffered their cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished
theologies lie about the cradle of every science, as the
strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history re
cords that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly
opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists,
bleeding and crushed if not annihilated, scotched if not slain.
But orthodoxy learns not, neither can it forget, and though
at present bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as
ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the
beginning and the end of sound science, and to visit with such
petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those
who refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Mr. John Morley, M.P., the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette,
�8
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
in the revised edition of his work on Voltaire, has uttered
burning words on the same side which have lately been
quoted in a well-known weekly: “ There are times when it
may be very questionable whether, in the region of belief,
one with power and with fervid honesty ought to spare the
abominable city of the plain just because it happens to
shelter five righteous. . . . The partisans of a creed in whose
name more human blood has been violently shed than in any
other cause whatever, these, I say, can hardly find much ground
for serious reproach in a few score epigrams'' In praising
Voltaire’s protest against the popular creed, he refers to
“ its mean and fatuous and contradictory idea of an omnipotent
God, who gave us guilty hearts so as to have the right ofpunish
ing us, and planted in us a love of pleasure so as to torment vs
the more effectually by appalling ills that an eternal miracle
prevents from ever ending, who drowned the fathers in the
deluge and then died for the children, who exacts an account of
their ignorance from a hundred peoples whom he has himself
plunged helplessly into this ignorance." Defending the attacks
of Voltaire on organised Christianity, Mr. Morley (p. 236)
says: “ He saw only a besotted people led in chains by a
crafty priesthood: he heard only the unending repetition of
records that were fictitious, and dogmas that drew a curtain
of darkness over the understanding. Men spoke to him of
the mild beams of Christian charity, and where they pointed
he saw only the yellow glare of the stake; they talked of
the gentle solace of Christian faith, and he heard only the
shrieks of the thousands and tens of thousands whom faith
ful Christian persecutors had racked, strangled, gibbetted,
burnt, broken on the wheel. Through the steam of inno
cent blood which Christians for the honor of their belief
had spilt in every quarter of the known world, the blood of
Jews, Moors, Indians, and all the vast holocausts of hereti
cal sects and people in eastern and western Europe, he saw
only dismal tracts of intellectual darkness, and heard only
the humming of the doctors, as they served forth to congre
gations of poor men hungering for spiritual sustenance the
draff of theological superstition.”
The conviction is rapidly gaining ground among grave and
independent inquirers that so-called historic religions are just
as legitimate a subject of critical examination, and, if mythi
cal, of banter, as the comparative merits of Tory and Liberal
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
9
politics. In the political sphere it is happily no longer
viewed as incompatible with good government and social
order to assail opinions that are deemed false and unjust by
individuals or parties in the State, and to employ unsparing
invective and ridicule when such weapons are considered
expedient, in order to discredit these opinions. A large and
growing army of scholars, after bestowing many years of
sincere study on the alleged facts and doctrines of Judaism
and Christianity, have been driven by the irresistible force
of evidence to renounce both these systems, as resting on
superstitious legends and contradictory statements which it
is impossible to reconcile with verifiable history. It is the
conscientious belief of the same class of students, that the
practical results of Jewish and Christian faiths have been
the very reverse of conducive to the intellectual, moral, and
physical advancement of our fellow-subjects. If so, what
reasonable grounds have these religions or any others to
claim immunity from the “ fierce light” of free inquiry, and
if believed to be erroneous and injurious, why should they
be shielded from the shafts of sarcasm it is esteemed not
unlawful to direct against political and social theories and
organisations supposed to be obnoxious ? The late Pro
fessor de Morgan truly said, “ Belief is a state not an act of
the mind.” “ I shall believe has no existence,” he adds,
“ except in a grammar.” To prosecute and imprison men,
therefore, for convictions—the issue of study and reasoning
—and for caricaturing the religious notions of opponents
which they honestly and intelligently hold to be adverse to
the public good, is just as monstrous as it would be for the
strongest political party in the country to institute proceed
ings against an adverse political minority for employing
comic cartoons to expose what the latter should happen to
regard as untrue and pernicious. There no longer exists
any risk of losing one’s head in England for constitutional
opposition to monarchical institutions, even by the aid of
sarcastic cartoons and the advocacy of Republicanism. The
time is not far distant when equal freedom will be allowed
in striving to put down the established faith.
Indeed, ever since the dawn of history the representatives
of rival religions have fought their battles with ridicule and
jest as well as with fire and sword; and so far as the veil
separating historic from prehistoric times can be lifted in
�10
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
the tablet inscriptions of India, Egypt, Assyria, and Europe,
there is good reason to believe that religious passions were
displayed by the Lingaites and the Yonites, with a similar
disregard of taste and humanity, in their solemn contentions
as to whether the male or female principle in nature was
the proper object of pious veneration. It is no longer
doubted by scholars that what imparted zest in the eyes of
the cultured Greek to the sneering gibes of Aristophanes
and the profane inuendoes of Euripides—pointed at con
temporary divinities—was that the philosophers of those
days had come to look upon the mythological and cere
monial structure around them, so jealously guarded by an
ignorant, cringing, and superstitious priesthood, as simply a
huge sham to be laughed down. Much the same feeling
was doubtless present in the mind of Cicero when he
wondered how two augurs could meet and keep their gravity,
considering the puerile notions they professed, and the in
anities of the Roman temple service, from which their living
was derived. Assuming—but only for the sake of argument
—the narrative of the prophet Elijah’s contest with the
priests of Baal on Mount Carmel to be genuine, could any
attack upon the religion of the latter appear more grossly
insulting or more blasphemous to them than the insinuation
that the cause of their prayers not being answered by the
Phoenician deity was that he might either be asleep or away
on a hunting expedition? Moreover, Jesus is reported in
the gospel story to have been actually charged with blas
phemy by the Jews of his day.
But although the ultra-Protestant party, with whom you
sympathise, had no scruple, in the heat of past controver
sies with Roman Catholics, about caricaturing the Pope, his
cardinals, and their doctrines, in pictures which could not
fail to be extremely provoking to conscientious adherents
of the Catholic faith, your own co-religionists have ever be
trayed a thin-skinned sensitiveness and an air of outraged
infallibility when the lex talionis has been applied by sceptics
in a similar fashion to themselves. When any of their
beliefs have been ridiculed by pictorial squibs they have
invariably taken the highest possible ground, and posed as
the privileged recipients of heaven’s secrets, and the possessors
of a supernatural key of interpretation, of which they claim
to have a chartered monopoly. Do you forget that the
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
11
establishment of Christianity is very largely indebted indeed
to the aid of ridicule and abuse which it applied to other
faiths ? Milman, in his book on “ Latin Christianity,” says
that religious pictures with a strong dash of both these
qualities in them were used alternately with bloody perse
cution in converting the Bulgarians. It is principally
by pictures of ideal “ Holy Families,” “ Crucifixions,”
“ Madonnas,” of the burial and resurrection and ascen
sion of Jesus, of the various alleged miraculous exhibitions
of his power in turning water into wine, conversing with
Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration, prevent
ing Peter from sinking, agonising in the garden of Geth
semane, etc., etc., that the adhesion of the priest-ridden and
the credulous has been gained to the Christian faith. I
venture to believe that in the dissemination of Christianity
the art of the painter and the sculptor has played quite as
powerful a part as the preacher’s tongue. It is the con
firmed persuasion of Agnostics, Comtists, Secularists, and
men of science in our day that all the Bible representations
of miracles are the creations of superstitious ages. If, then,
the inculcation of Christian beliefs is so widely due to the
influence of pictures, can there be anything intrinsically
wrong in answering and ridiculing pictures, or the teaching
these convey, believed to have no groundwork in nature and
authentic history, by pictures designed to expose a wild
delusion, by which the minds of millions are enchained in
darkness, and their lives rendered cheerless and unprofitable ?
I may here take the opportunity of stating, from personal
knowledge, that Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries,
in India and China, spend a considerable portion of the
time redeemed from their mutual denunciation of each
other’s churches, in flagrantly misrepresenting the true sig
nificance of the ancient religions they vainly seek to displace
by their own conflicting and repulsive dogmas.
I respectfully ask, as a subject of the Queen, and as a
native of that portion of Her Majesty’s Empire which is
immeasurably the most populous, if blasphemy laws, framed
in a benighted age, are to be revived in England for the
purpose of silencing a few poor men without social import
ance, who have presented ludicrous pictures of miracles at
tributed to the days of the Hebrew patriarchs, prophets and
kings, and to the lifetime of Jesus—miracles, the incredibility
�12
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
of which is proclaimed no less distinctly, if in a style more
in accord with the canons of refined taste, by scholars and
men of science—is no protection to be afl'orded by British rule
in India and Ceylon to the feelings of Brahmins, Mahometans,
Parsees and Buddhists, which are outraged daily by the vulgar
onslaughts of half-educated Christian missionaries, who so far
from having the most elementary acquaintance with Eastern
faiths, do not in any competent manner even understand their
own ? The profound intimacy of many of the natives
in India and China, according to their several creeds, with
the Vedas, Zenda-Vesta, Tripitika, Taotseekeng, Lykeng
and the Sastras, and the earnest dependence the mass of
Eastern people place on these and other sacred books for
spiritual strength and guidance, render them peculiarly sen
sitive to what they hold to be the blasphemy of true religion
in the preaching of an upstart, intolerant, and persecuting
faith like Christianity—a faith, moreover, not only the
junior of some Indian systems by thousands of years—but
only indorsed, even nominally, by a small minority of the
inhabitants of the world. To give some idea of the light in
which educated natives in India view the faith that is
guarded by the penal enactments of the blasphemy laws in
this country, it may be mentioned that many Hindus have
for years openly defied Government influence, preached
against missionary teaching, and circulated broadcast pla
cards cautioning the people against Christianity. Here are
extracts from one of these mural prints : “ Leave these
fanatics .... they cannot answer a simple question seri
ously put to them in connexion with what they say; they
SENSELESSLY ABUSE YOU AND YOUR FAITHS without having
studied them at all; they are hirelings working against truth
and common sense, and against the dictates of conscience for
a paltry piece of earthly bread. ... You know well that
their harangues cannot stand discussion. Do not waste
time with impostors ; serve the God of the universe heartily;
He alone will save all who so serve Him.”
These words exhibit an attitude of the higher order of
native mind—becoming daily more conspicuous—towards
the religion which silences those who ridicule it in England
with imprisonment; and which is at the same time impu
dently obtruded upon cultivated Hindus under the patron
age of Church of England dignitaries and Nonconformist
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
13
missionary societies. If the long-suffering Brahmins were
to show their resentment by sending propagandists to
sneer down Christianity, through the press in Lon
don, in the ribald tone often adopted with impunity
by unlearned Christian advocates in the East towards
the older faiths, the hospitality of a gaol would be
promptly provided for them. The accustomed oppo
nents of Christianity in this land of social, political, and
religious anomalies, are mostly met with an imputation of
base motives or an ebullition of unreasoning and fanatical
sentiment. Sober and honorable argument, derived from
first-hand historic sources, Christians — apparently from
conscious weakness—as a rule, studiously avoid. But in
the name of even-handed justice, if there are to be blasphemy
laws so appropriately administered by judges of your own
calibre in England against foes of Christianity, why should
my fellow-countrymen in the East be denied laws to put
down Christianity which appears to them as blasphemously
repugnant as the grotesque representations of Bible tales in
the Freethinker can possibly be to English Christians ?
Are you aware that out of a total population of 1,474
millions on the globe considerably less than one-third are in
any sense whatever Christian? After 1700 years of pro
selytism by the pulpit, the missionary, the press, by whole
sale slaughter—as in the Crusades and the Thirty Years’
War—by imprisoning, thumbscrewing, choking, quartering,
drowning, and burning enormous holocausts of martyrs
throughout Europe for the sin of sincere heresy, this is the
entire external result. General Forlong, in his recent learned
work on the faiths of mankind,1 remarking on the religious
statistics referred to above, says : “ It especially behoves
the Protestant to be undogmatic and humble, for though
assisted largely both by the secular and spiritual arm, and
with all the most approved machinery of sectarial combina
tion and discipline, only some 71 millions out of the total
1,474 millions have even nominally joined his churches, and
from none is the falling away becoming more prominent,
and in none is half-heartedness more the rule than in the
best Protestant communities.” In presence of these incontro
vertible facts the enforcement of a blasphemy law—especially
1 “Rivers of Life,” etc. (Quaritch), vol. ii., p. 590.
�14
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
in a country where not more than one-eighth of the adult popula
tion attend any place of worship, where the State Church is
virtually disowned by more than half the worshipping com
munity, and where a fervent religionist is often regarded by
the multitude as one to be treated, in common worldly
transactions, with suspicion, amounts to intolerable in
solence. But your bearing as an English judge repre
senting the Inquisition spirit of the dominant faith, and
partially usurping the functions of a Protestant pope,
in lecturing and condemning the editor, publisher, and
vendor of the Freethinker, becomes still more objectionable
when it is remembered that your judgment and sentence
de facto include 1,074 millions out of 1,474 millions of the
human race, since the estimated number of Christians of
all descriptions only amounts to 400 millions. By the
definition of the English law of blasphemy you consign, in
spirit, to prison in the persons of these culprits 550 millions
Buddhists, 240 millions Mahometans, 180 millions of Hin
dus, 2 millions Seiks, 8 millions Jews, and 94 millions of
other and nondescript faiths, who reject with scorn and
contempt the special Christian doctrines fenced round by
the blasphemy laws. Nay, the dimensions of your devout
audacity have not yet been adequately measured. At least
one-third of the 400 millions set down as Christians openly
or secretly repudiate orthodoxy, and these also are poten
tially included in your judicial excommunication and sentence
of imprisonment. Even the venerable Lord Shaftesbury—
himself an acknowledged stickler for Christian “ Evangelicism ”—shows a vastly more intelligent appreciation of the
teaching of religious statistics on this head than you seem
to do. When Lord Redesdale brought forward his Bill a
year ago for the imposition of a Theistic test in the Upper
House, the former peer frankly urged in opposition : “ A
law of this kind passed in our day would be in absolute and
unqualified discord with all the opinions, feelings, and
tendencies of men around us.” He added that “ those who
allowed the existence of a First Cause, but deny his inter
vention in the affairs of men, who admit no revelation of a
future state, or any system of rewards and punishments, may be
counted by myriads.” This is strikingly attested by an
examination of Max Muller’s estimate (1871—78) of the
world’s religions, corrected to date by General Forlong.
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
15
Against 648 millions, or 44 per cent, of the population of
the earth (including Christians, Islamis, Jews, etc.), who
believe in a personal god, a soul, and immortality, there are
826 millions, or 56 per cent, of the entire population of the
earth, who deny or doubt a future life and the existence of
a soul apart from matter. Among the latter unbelieving or
agnostic element there are many millions who have reached
the convictions to which they cling after prolonged, anxious,
and learned inquiry, and all such—branded by you as blas
phemers in posse or in esse—who hear of your judgment and
the pious harangue which accompanied it, must take your
words as a personal affront, in so far as these non-Christians
concur with the victims of your judicial bias in rejecting
Christianity as a historical illusion, a philosophical ana
chronism, and a misleading scheme of morals.
By your indiscreet zeal for the faith dominant in England
because established by law, you and your co-abettors of a
resentful orthodoxy have defeated the end ordinary pru
dence would have sought to attain by totally opposite
means. You have dragged into notoriety an obscure print,
the very existence of which was only known to an extremely
restricted circle, who had already been long alienated from
popular creeds and churches. The Freethinker was never
advertised, as learned sceptical works usually are, in the
great publishers’ lists, in the daily press, and in the cultured
weeklies, monthlies, and quarterlies, sold at railway book
stalls and obtainable in public reading rooms. This illstarred prosecution, with which your name will be as imperishably associated as that of Jeffreys with the “ bloody
assize,” has done for the spread of the Freethinker precisely
what the malicious and unconstitutional persecution of Mr.
Bradlaugh by Mr. Newdegate, Sir Henry Tyler and other
morbid religionists in the House of Commons, has done for
the victimised junior member for Northampton, in increasing
his power as a teacher and his popularity as a leader among
the toiling millions of the land.
Again, the most deplorable aspect in the exposure of
Bible faith to scorn by the three defendants immediately in
question is not only the supposed discord between unsophisti
cated reason and many of the contents of the Christian
sacred books on the one hand, and the evidence in sup
port of the authenticity on the other, but it is the melan
�16
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
choly and senseless inconsistencies in the creeds and prac
tices of Christians themselves.
In one of the opening “ sentences” of the Morning Ser
vice of the Church of England Prayer Book the clergyman
reads: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteous
ness.” But as the same Service proceeds reason is staggered
by the unexpected announcement that confession of sin is
not enough to secure forgiveness: “ Whosoever will be
saved before all things [i.e., notwithstanding above, beyond
and before repentance, confession, and the turning away
from evil ways] it is necessary that he hold the Catholic
faith, which faith except everyone do keep whole and un
defiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” And what
is this faith ? The bewildered penitent must believe that
“ the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God yet “ we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to
say there be three Gods or three Lords ” ! If these meta
physical propositions were found dissociated from religion
they would be looked upon by the bulk of sane men as
simply nonsense. Again, one of the articles informs
us that the true God is “ without body, parts, or
passions,” while the Church commands that Christ, who
was a man with “ body, parts, and passions,” is to be
worshipped as God. A passage in the Old Testament,
adopted by the Prayer Book, tells us that “ the Lord is a
man of war,” and in another place the same book declares
Him to be “ the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”
Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the son of
Joseph, and almost in the same breath is represented as owing
his physical existence solely to conception in the womb of
a virgin, “ by the power of the Holy Ghost.” How a spirit
could possibly be the parent of a human being, brought into
the world by the ordinary parturition of a pregnant woman,
however, remains totally incomprehensible. The prayer
perpetually ascends from Anglican priests : “ Give peace in
our time, O Lord.” Nevertheless, the Church is incorpo
rated with the State, and the state is engaged at intervals in
sanguinary encounters with foreign tribes and governments,
and is most frequently actuated by flagrant worldly ambition
in making war. But the flexible and accommodating piety of
the clergy and their credulous followers, who do not pause
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
17
to contemplate the iniquitous inconsistency thus practised, is
ever ready to petition the Christian deity, whenever war is
declared, to destroy and “confound” the foes of their
sovereign, whether these foes be Christians or Pagans. In
seasons of excessive drought, “ bishops and curates ” with a
preposterously selfish, ungrateful and unscientific disregard
of the unalterable laws of nature, implore God to interfere—
he can only do so by a miracle—and, at more than a risk of
the serious disturbance of natural forces, and of inconveni
ence to dwellers in other parts of the globe (which an answer
to prayer renders inevitable) pray that sufficient moisture
should fall to nourish the crops. A corresponding violation
of physical law is similarly demanded by the ecclesias
tical authorities when the watery element in the sky un
duly preponderates, and fair weather is asked for. The
same line of remark applies with equal appropriateness to
“ prayers for the sick.” These irrational proceedings might
be excusable in times before the principles of science were
understood. But for a body of instructed men to continue
so ludicrous an outrage on reason, looks very much, in these
days of popular scientific education, like the deliberate and
hypocritical perpetuation on their part, from interested
motives, of a childish delusion. The mummeries connected
with “ baptismal regeneration,” “ partaking of the body and
blood of Christ,” with the rites of “ Confirmation,” and the
“ Burial of the Dead,” are only fit to be relegated to the
same category of effete superstitions. The mystery-monger
ing forms gone through in “consecrating” bishops with
nolo episcopari on the lips of the candidates for office, and
the passionate hankering after palaces, princely incomes,
and episcopal dignities, in their hearts, constitute the most
revolting form of sacrilege and blasphemy that could well be
imagined. We are taught that God “ before the founda
tion of the world hath constantly decreed, by his counsel
secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those
whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to
bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels
made to honor.” At the same time, with transcendent theo
logical incongruity, the Christian preacher charges upon his
unbelieving hearers the entire responsibility for not comply
ing with the invitations proffered to them, to enter the
“ kingdom of God,” and to cultivate a spiritual and moral
�18
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
life. The inference deducible from these contradictory
dogmas is, that God is either unable or unwilling to over
come the obstacles of salvation presented by the declared in
disposition of the human will. If he is unable, he obviously
cannot be omnipotent. If, on the contrary, he be omnipo
tent and is unwilling, he is chargeable with cruelty in not
devising suitable means to ensure the adoption by mankind
of the appointed course leading to eternal happiness. But
the injustice of the supreme being in permitting a single
member of the human family to perish, is rendered still
more apparent by the consideration that a complete “ atone
ment” has been actually made for the express purpose of
propitiating divine justice, and removing the moral barriers
said to be opposed, by the governmental character and rela
tions of the deity, to the deliverance of transgressors from
the penal consequences of sin. There is here involved, con
sequently, a further imputation on the divine perfections.
Although a vicarious substitute has been provided and
accepted for sinners of all time, a certain indispensable con
dition of mind is, nevertheless, required on their part. To
the attainment of this condition the vast majority seem
utterly unequal, and heavenly wisdom has strangely omitted
to make the necessary provision for supplying this lack of
moral power in those who die unsaved, to enable them to
take practical advantage of the sacrificial merits of the in
nocent victim—the second person of the godhead—who
underwent the full measure of suffering needed to expiate
their sins. I defy any reasonable person to ponder these
repellent doctrines without feeling contempt and disgust
for the tyrannical and capricious character in which they
exhibit the Almighty. For the honor of those very idea
lised attributes of justice, kindness, and truth, to which all
rightly constituted minds instinctively do homage, we are
bound to loathe and scout the portraiture of an immoral
God enforced by orthodox Christianity, and even the coarsest
caricatures are not to be despised, if by their aid reverence
for so odious a deity can be dislodged from people’s minds
and aversion inspired instead.
The highest accredited authority on Christian morals,
Jesus himself, forbids swearing under all circumstances
whatsoever: “ swear not at all.” Yet the clergy and ad
herents of the National Church are at the present moment
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
19
moving heaven and earth to obtain signatures to memorials
addressed to Parliament, begging that the un-Christian
method of swearing allegiance, by members preliminary to
taking their seats, shall be retained. In the fervor of
clerical zeal to enforce a religious test—for the sole purpose
of excluding a certain legally-elected representative who
happens to disbelieve in the unintelligible tenet of “ a per
sonal God,” but who in preferring affirmation to an oath is
more Christian than Christians themselves—they are madly
Aying in the face of the plainest Christian precepts, and jus
tifying their conduct in so doing as promoting the “ greater
glory of God ” 1
The three leading sections composing the Church and the
clergy profess, in public ceremonial, to be members of one
happy Christian family, whose motto is, according to the
prayer of their Master, “ forgive us our trespasses as we for
give them that trespass against us.” But if a Ritualist like
Mr. Green should trespass on “LowChurch” notions of the
rubrics, and multiply altar decorations, even though with
the avowed object of exalting the commonly acknowledged
founder of Christianity, the boasted charity and brotherly
love of that religion, loudly maintained in theory, is sum
marily set aside in practice, and the well-meaning trans
gressor is compelled to expiate his offence in the same abode
with felons and murderers. “ High,” “ Low,” and “ Broad”
pastors alike pray for spiritual guidance, to understand the
one revelation given in the Bible, and respectively believe
the solicited boon to be attainable. But no sooner do they
rise from their supplications than they appear to forget the
most elementary amenities of civilised life, and indulge in
bitter mutual objurgations against each other, as possessed
by deadly error. What shall we say of the congregations
which statedly worship in churches and chapels throughout
Christendom? Heaven forbid that those associated with
them who are thoughtful, generous, and true-hearted should
be ignored; but what are these bodies, as a rule, except
centres of bigotry, nests of scandal, hotbeds of envy, malice,
worldliness, and all uncharitableness? The history of
Christianity has been almost one unvarying recoi’d of
priestly ambition, division, jealousy, heartburning, and
strife, alternating with brutal cruelty. Christian sects have
largely degenerated in this country into boundary-lines of
�20
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
social distinction. People of ancient family, and others of
the British Philistine type, who vulgarly aspire to the imitation of the external trappings of social greatness, conform
to popular religious appointments rather to escape the sus
picion of being odd than from any intelligent conception of
the meaning of religion, which has been long since buried
from the multitude in dogmatic Shibboleths and the dreary
routine of ecclesiastical forms. The time was when, under
the Roman Empire, to exchange fashionable Paganism for
a religion then despised by statesmen and philosophers
afforded some guarantee for earnestness and sincerity. But
churches and sects have long been refuges for semi-imbeciles,
fanatics, and hypocrites, who suffer grievously in mental
strength and noble aim when compared with those elevated
and wholesome natures outside psalm-singing institutions,
who view Christianity as a huge excrescence abnormally
superinduced upon real human interests, and who are per
fectly satisfied in following the dictates of physical and
moral law written upon the constitution of the universe.
The class of blasphemers most potent for evil to orthodox
creeds and churches is not the candid, though sneering,
sceptic. The true foes of Christendom are the traitors in
the. Christian camp. It is the insincere formalists—and
their name is legion in all Christian bodies—who openly
avow with a light heart most stupendous beliefs which really
serious thinkers would deem it appalling to conceive or
utter, and who persistently belie their faith by a tortuous
and sensual life. How many tens of thousands every Sun
day, including the highest ranks in wealth and social position,
confess themselves “ miserable sinners ” not only with a total
absence of becoming emotion, but with the fixed intention
of returning, when their hollow forms of devotion have been
decently gone through, to their gluttony, whoredoms, cheattying, their grinding down of the poor, their fighting
for unjust “ vested interests,” their fluttering amidst the
jewelled shams of fashionable society, their participation in
the organised tricks of finance and trade. The real blas
phemers, who are fast undermining the Christian faith, are
those shameless self-deceivers who assent to the doctrine
that the deity omits from his perpetual and faultless record
no thought, word, feeling, purpose, or action attributable to
them, who believe in a quenchless hell for heartless wrong
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
21
doers, and who nevertheless live from day to day as if their
repetitions of creeds and prayers were an unblushing false
hood, as if God, heaven, and hell were visionary phantoms,
and as if their real aim was to draw down the scorn and
hatred of rational minds upon the whole fabric of their
faith and practice. This is the canker to be chiefly feared,
and the one that is ceaselessly gnawing at the root of Chris
tianity. By this insidious influence within its own pale it
is destined ultimately to crumble and decay. But the great
dignitaries of the church are too busy in warding off the
imaginary earthquakes and thunderstorms of Atheism by
which they fancy the ark to be endangered, to watch the rapid
progress of dry-rot, of intellectual supineness, spiritual
insensibility, and moral turpitude, in the very pillars and
foundations of the structure. With infatuated blindness
the clergy and those who echo their feeble whine of
distress about “ infidelity,” vainly suppose they can avert
the impending decomposition of creeds and rituals by
sending to prison obscure inventors of lampoons against
the faith, by reiterating holy catchwords about “ the pro
fanation of the oath,” and “ blotting the name of God out
of the statute-book,” by memorialising Parliament to commit
the injustice of refusing his seat to a man who has honestly
tried, without success, to believe in the Yaveh of the Jews
and the Trinity of the Christians. The spectacle, though
sad, has its ludicrous aspect, reminding one somewhat of the
Laputan philosophers on their floating island, soaring in
ether above the solid earth, lost in profitless abstractions
which bore no practical relation to the sublunary realities
beneath them. But the day of reckoning is on the wing,
when the laity and clergy alike will be roused, nolens nolens,
from the swoon of delusion into which they have been
lulled by a stupifying orthodoxy. They will then be
abundantly convinced that, instead of prints like the Free
thinker deriving their power to make Christianity ridiculous
from any profane love in their editors of bringing exalted
realities into contempt, the sting was given to atheistic sneers
—whether expressed in words or in caricatures—by the
awaking sense of doubt in the heart of Christendom itself
as to whether there is not after all something unsound and
grotesque in its whole system of doctrine and practice
answering to the dreaded homethrusts of the “infidel.”
�22
Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
I have but touched the fringe of the tangled mass of
Christian incoherencies. Many volumes might be written,
setting forth the “ pious frauds,” forgeries, inventions, and
interpolations in classic and patristic writings resorted to by
those concerned under Constantine, as well as before his day,
in bolstering up the hollow pretensions of Christianity to be
a supernatural revelation. The accumulation of proof in
respect of these extensive and varied lying machinations has
become, during the last half-century, simply overwhelming,
as those who will take the trouble to study the right books
on the subject without prejudice may easily discover for
themselves. It is now found just as impossible for students
who^have given the requisite amount of time and attention
to the question to believe in the miraculous stories of the
Old and New Testament as to believe in the Olympian
gods or in the suckling of Romulus and Remus by a
wolf. Let the blasphemy laws do their worst, and let their
penalties be equitably extended, as they ought to be, to
cultivated and University-bred “infidel” writers; the sooner
will the disestablishment and downfall of Christianity be
accomplished. Let the clergy and the more bigoted among
the laity try with redoubled effort to stamp out Atheism at
the cost of Atheists being denied their just political rights,
and the numbers will be the more rapidly swelled who
execrate the fanaticism, oppression, and injustice for which
ecclesiastical authorities of every grade and of every age
have been notorious. Unbelievers look in vain in the
statute-book of this “ Christian nation ” for any law the
protection of which they can invoke against the malicious
and wilful misrepresentations of their conscientious convic
tions by Christian priests and their votaries. But as those
enslaved by the popular faith are in so far incapacitated
from impartially seeking truth and doing justice, the gross
unfairness of this one-sided arrangement is never acknow
ledged by them.
I only wish to say in conclusion that the blasphemy laws
—as every intelligent reader of history knows—are but the
relics of a superstitious age. They belong to a time when
the doctrine was enforced by rulers on the people at the
point of the bayonet, that kingcraft and priestcraft were
equally sacred, mutually dependent on each other for sup
port, and must stand or fall together as God-given institu-
�Reflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
23
lions. Christianity, in some form most plastic to the
political aims of the monarch, was adopted and sustained by
the State. Ranks of priests, from the curate to the Arch
bishop, were developed—corresponding to the graduated
positions of the people in the social scale—for the purpose of
making “ the divine right ” of sovereigns and their claims
upon the absolute obedience of their subjects religiously felt
in every class, from the beggar to the peer. Heirs of
hereditary titles and estates have always been loudest in
upholding Christianity, but particularly that phase of it
which happened to form a buttress to the recognised social
distinctions in the country. Hence the bitterness with
which every description of Nonconformity has—until the
power of the latter became a strong political factor—been
ostracised and hunted down. The sovereign, for expedient
political reasons, assumed the august function of “ by the
Grace of God Defender of the Faith,” and it became indis
pensable that those rubrics and modes of service should be
appointed by the State best fitted to exalt the monarch in
the eyes of the people as pre-eminently “the servant of
God,” born to rule and to be obeyed. The alliance between
the State and the Church became so inextricably close that
it was regarded as equally sinful to cast ridicule upon the
monarchy and upon the State faith. The suppression of
reproachful criticism, in reference to the political adminis
tration of the country, was carried to the last pitch of in
tolerance by the Stuarts. But now-a-days it appears to be
possible for persons of avowed Republican principles to
discharge creditably official duties as Cabinet ministers.
Proportionate freedom, however, is still withheld by law in
opposing the State religion. Monarchy may be jeered at
with impunity, but the religion of the State is still guarded
from infidel taunts by blasphemy laws, and hard penalties en
forced by pious judgesenflamed with superstitious and partisan
acrimony against jesting critics of the faith. Nevertheless, I
make bold to predict, sir, that the days of Christianity as a
religion credited by independent thinkers are numbered.
It has already been mortally “ wounded in the house of its
friends,” and the occasional offence of outsiders is that they
now and then betray their undisguised satisfaction at the
accelerated progress of its dissolution. The resuscitation of
your superannuated and expiring religion cannot be effected
�24
lieflexions on the Blasphemy Prosecution.
by heavy sentences, and sermonic platitudes directed from
the judicial bench against rank sceptics, as if such men could
or would destroy any true thing in the earth. The convulsed
rancor you displayed through the trial in question, and the
harsh punishment you inflicted, were alike an unconscious
tribute on your part to power in the culprits which you
foolishly exaggerated, a painful confession that Christianity
was too weak to withstand the sarcasm of its foes without
the aid of the secular arm, and without a glaring violation
of that charity towards the erring which Christians are
never weary of extolling as the crown and glory of their
religion. I commend to you the sentiment of Carlyle, at
the close of his essay on Voltaire: “It is unworthy a reli
gious man to view an irreligious one with alarm or aver
sion, or with any other feeling than regret and hope and
brotherly commiseration. If he seek truth is he not our brother,
and to be pitied? If he do not seek truth is he not
STILL OUR BROTHER, AND TO BE PITIED STILL MORE ? ”
Ra Mohun Bhotgee.
�
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
Reflexions on the blasphemy prosecution : a letter to the Hon. Justice North by a Hindu
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bhoygee, Ra Mohun
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical reference. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The prosecution of G.W. Foote and others over the Christmas issue of The Freethinker. Signed Ra. Mohum Bhoygee.
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
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N076
CT74
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 (Reflexions on the blasphemy prosecution : a letter to the Hon. Justice North by a Hindu), 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
Blasphemy
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/54715001690907906009c90ce7ae9c60.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d440pNduAWqssKccadu3hXAzpbukSeq8qk1WYnCDjMU8uPgbvzwlu-f3lM3OTPDasfMWuX7B0HtgOVQe9dU1y-vIpB-nRud0savz3%7E64atVCRNEc6r1qlZ2V0lfXSe%7EPoRQoI3Vr9RoJqwNNJy6PjNXmE-6B%7E-y-SFOi3LGe7Pi2fT3jkZEXACPz1Bl2nSH-uF7okxSwTkxVvf9Eb4a%7E1RBBf56A1GpSVdxD0rb7PHooFkbF7ZqGBK9y9dqX-L0EAuDRhiuOmRk6wnKY-yqAIAoJUUO0r8hvhs0laS3QZ5ewwOcrdl8Md7aM9LP-nWA7WrffbL%7EIfHHlKMRGbWnmmw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6adebb82b5f4179638a64451bdb92e83
PDF Text
Text
I&jl.
£2-35 7
N'73
November, 1912
THE BLASPHEMY LAWS:
What they are, and why they should be
abolished.
“ Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to
argue freely according to conscience, above all
other liberties.”—Milton.
There have been more prosecutions for blasphemy during the
PAST YEAR than during the previous FIFTY YEARS. There
have been more prosecutions for SPOKEN blasphemy during the
past FIVE YEARS than during the previous HUNDRED
YEARS. What has become of our boasted freedom of speech?
What are the blasphemy laws; and why should they be per
mitted to continue?
During the first five centuries of Christianity in
England the legal prohibitions of heresy were few and
unimportant. The Church relied upon its terrible power
of excommunication to punish the man who dared to
exercise the right of private judgment. But when the
authority of the Pope was rejected by a large and
increasing number of persons, excommunication lost its
power, and in the fourteenth century it was complained
that there were “evil persons” who “expressly
despised ” the censures of the Church, and refused to
submit to its condemnation. At this period the aid of the
law was called in and there commenced a series ol
enactments for the extirpation of heresy by burning,
imprisoning, and fining the heretic. In addition to the
statute law, heresy also became a criminal offence under
what is known as common law, the law, i.e., which
has its origin in custom and acquires legal force through
the repeated decisions of more or less famous judges;
or which expresses the views of the judges without
warrant of legislature or custom. The statutes for the
�punishment of “offences against religion’’ still in force
are :—
I. Depraving, despising, or reviling the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper, (i Ed. VI, c. i.)
II. To speak in derogation, depraving, or despising of
the Book of Common Prayer, (i Eliz., c. 2, s. 3.)
III. An Act for |he more effectual suppression of blas
phemy and profaneness. (9 Wm. Ill, c. 35.)
IV. An Act to prevent certain abuses and profanations on
the Lord’s Day. (21 Geo. III. c. 49.)
V. An Act for the punishment of blasphemy in Scotland.
(6 Geo. IV, c. 47.)
To these must now be added Section 54 of the Metro
politan Police Act, 1839, and Section 28 of the Town
Police Clauses Act, 1847, which give the police power to
take persons into custody for using profane language
in public places. In the cases of Mr. Jackson at Leeds
in April, 1912, and Messrs. Chasty and Muirhead at
Ilkeston in the following month, the magistrates held
that profanity is indistinguishable from blasphemy.
The common law as to blasphemy was settled in 1676
by Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale. The learned
judge then laid down that “ Christianity, being parcel
of the laws of England, therefore to speak in reproach
of the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the
law.” This was the accepted reading of the law for
two centuries. So late as March, 1883, Mr. Justice
North, in trying Messrs. Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp,
said that it was blasphemy to deny the existence or
providence of God ; or to ridicule the persons of the
Trinity, or the Cnristian religion, or the Holy Scriptures
in any way. In April of the same year, however, Lord
Coleridge, in his celebrated summing up, gave what was
virtually a new reading of the law. Specifically
contradicting former rulings, he said that it was no
longer true that Christianity was part of the law of the
land, but that “ if the decencies of controversy are
observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be
attacked without the person being guilty of blasphemy.”
This ruling in effect put the law upon an entirely new
footing. It was traversed at the time by several learned
lawyers, and in 1886, in the case of Dr. Pankhurst v.
Thompson, Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Manisty
both expressed their disagreement with Lord Coleridge’s
�ruling, but it has recently been reiterated and confirmed
by Mr. Justice Phillimore and Mr. Justice Darling in
Mr. Boulter’s case, 1908-9, Mr. Justice Horridge in the
cases of Messrs. Stewart and Gott, 1911, and by Mr.
Justice Eldon Bankes in Mr. Bullock’s case, 1912.
All laws against heresy or blasphemy are laws for the
repression of opinion, and Lord Coleridge’s reading of
the law does not alter that fact or remove the danger of
prosecutions. Who is to decide what are the “ decen
cies of controversy ” ?
Are twelve antagonistic
jurymen to be the censors? What would be the
decision of twelve Belfast Orangemen who had
to try a Catholic speaker, or twelve Catholics
who were trying a bitter Protestant lecturer? Is
it reasonable to expect a more impartial verdict from
twelve Christians in trying a Secularist for an attack
upon their faith? The Secularist is, in effect, tried by a
packed jury. At its best, Lord Coleridge’s law as to
spoken or written blasphemy is a law which gives im
munity to “the scholar and the gentleman’’ whilst
denying it to the poor and unlearned. Can anyone de
fend the retention of a law which discriminates between
two classes of the community in this way?
Moreover, experience shows that these police prose
cutions are a complete failure even from the point of
view of the prosecution. So far from promoting
moderation of speech, by rousing resentment they
actually lead to the use of violent language. Free
thinkers to whom coarseness in controversy is extremely
repugnant are placed in a very awkward position.
There is something invidious in trying to moderate the
violence of those who are open to prosecution. It is
impossible to remonstrate with such a speaker publicly,
since the remonstrance might set the law on his track
and be used against him on his trial. It is equally diffi
cult to remonstrate privately with those embittered by
the imprisonment of their friends. The law, as it is
administered to-day, is an engine for silencing, not the
advocates of scurrility, but the advocates of moderation.
Further, even if Lord Coleridge’s law has superseded
that of the previous 200 years in regard to spoken or
written heresy., the old reading still obtains in regard
to legacies, contracts, and the guardianship of children.
A legacy bequeathed for the purpose of propagating
�opinions subversive of the Christian religion was held
to be contrary to the law so recently as 1903. The
question as to the “ decencies of controversy ” or the
place in which the opinions were to be propagated did
not arise. The legacy was invalid simply because it
was inconsistent with Christianity.
If a parent
publishes his or her Atheistical opinions, the
Court may hold (and has held) that as a reason for
depriving such parent of the custody or guardianship
of the children. Contracts for purposes involving the
publication of heretical opinion can be (and have been)
broken with impunity. It has even been held that
there is no copyright in heretical books.
It is argued that these laws are obsolete. If they
are obsolete, then nothing could be more simple or more
straightforward than to abolish them. The proof that
they are not obsolete is, first, that they are enforced;
second, that their abolition is resisted. So long as there
are people who oppose the abolition of the blasphemy
laws, so long may we be quite sure that there are people
who desire to see them enforced. The only way to ensure
that no one shall be imprisoned or otherwise punished
for his opinions is to take away the power to punish.
Public opinion ought to be the one and only censor of
the “ decencies of controversy.”
Freedom to criticise, freedom to express opinion, is
one of the most valuable rights a man can possess, and
should belong to the uncultured quite as much as to the
cultured. We therefore plead for the entire abolition
of the power to prosecute for the expression of opinion
in matters of religion.
Those who value the right to speak freely, according
to conscience, above all other liberties, are urgently
requested to join the Committee for the Repeal of the
Blasphemy Laws, and should send in their names at
once to the Secretary.
The following Societies are already represented on
the Executive Committee :—The British and Foreign
Unitarian. Association, the National Secular Society,
the Positivist Society, the Rationalist Press Associa
tion., the South Place Ethical Society, and the Union of
Ethical Societies.
Issued by the Commit'ee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws,
South Place Institute, Finsbury, 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 blasphemy laws : what they are, and why they should be abolished
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: The Committee was constituted in 1912 by the NSS, RPA, Union of Ethical Societies and the British and Foreign Unitarian Society. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1912
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N173
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 blasphemy laws : what they are, and why they should be abolished), 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
Blasphemy
NSS
South Place Ethical Society
-
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 God idea : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lennstrand, Viktor
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Translated from the Swedish. "For delivering which the Author was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for Blasphemy in Sweden" [Title page]. Lennstrand (1861-95) was a Swedish freethought activist and writer.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N437
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini [1850-1898]
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Blasphemy
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 God idea : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/93e08ca5fa231fb9d3d97e0a569680dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UrwExhazoEtMk1KCdKLgHaM9OfxLnXmCk68fkEASdRF9X5C1-ZShpC4OKYnPgHYzrscjr-ubl589GM1gXa17ROt%7Ev5Ug8TKnou7AUh%7ER5yw3d27lXxEIANXCSjcJhXhH42JWzreUv-wAVj2Y0ssoVkEGbGpyiaTs3QCAzZqnraVh6vhOQjbogdrpi%7Ei8wYpfenT-IavUuQjRClMJaM1fIw3ubfFZW%7EcuZdMptPpl7BgYZJREoJIxhjvlLhqnfmPJcF4CzfWXxyDnaTdMfePaThl7cqBWsr665jYP9c8Uw8J09w0FJBSNBx4z53wdsmvQIe9pWOOSAGYiPkMVvON5XA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7c133988696936e2d69f3e55f443e1c4
PDF Text
Text
THE LAWS
RELATING TO
BLASPHEMY AND HERESY:
AN ADDRESS TO FREETHINKERS.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�THE LAWS
RELATING TO BLASPHEMY AND HERESY:
AN ADDRESS TO FREETHINKERS
By Charles Bradlaugh.
-------- —>------------
Laws to punish differences of opinion are as useless as
they are monstrous. Differences of opinion on politics are
denounced and punished as seditious, on religious topics as
blasphemous, and on social questions as immoral and
obscene. Yet the sedition, blasphemy, and immorality
punished in one age are often found to be the accepted,
and sometimes] the admired, political, religious, and social
teaching of a more educated period.
Heresies are the
evidence of some attempts on the part of the masses to find
opinions for themselves. The attempts may be often foolish,
but should never be regarded as deserving of punishment.
Buckle tells us that it was “ Early in the eleventh century
the clergy first began systematically to repress independent
inquiries by punishing men who attempted to think for them
selves” (Compare Sismondi, “Hist, des Frangais,” vol. iv.,
pp. 145, 146 ; Neander’s “Hist, of the Church,” vol. vi., pp.
365, 366; Prescott’s “Hist, of Ferdinand and Isabella,”
vol. i., p. 261, note). Before this, such a policy, as Sismondi
justly observes, was not required : “ For several centuries
the Church had not been troubled by any heresy, the
ignorance was too complete, the submission too servile,,
the faith too blind.”
As knowledge advanced, the
opposition between inquiry and belief became more
marked; the Church redoubled her efforts, ahd at the
end of the twelfth century the Popes first formally
called on the secular power to punish heretics; and
the arliest constitution addressed inquisitoribus hcerczticce
pravitaiis is one by Alexander IV. (Meyer, “Inst. Jud.,”
�4
THE LAWS RELATING TO
vol. ii., pp. 554, 556. See also on this movement, Llorente,
“ Hist, de l’lnquisition,” vol. i.,p. 125 ; vol. iv., p. 284.) In
1222 a synod assembled at Oxford caused an apostate to be
burned ; and this, says Lingard (“ Hist, of England,” vol.
ii., p. 148), “is, I believe, the first instance of capital punish
ment in England on the ground of religion.”
Opinion, however erroneous, or held by however few or
many, should never be subject of legal penalty or stigma.
J. S. Mill says: “ If all mankind, minus one, were of one
opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in
silencing mankind.”
Lecky, in his “ History of Rationalism,” shows us how
earnest faith in exclusive salvation tends to create a persecut
ing spirit:—
“ If men believe with an intense and realising faith that
their own view of a disputed question is true beyond all
possibility of mistake, if they further believe that those who
adopt other views will be doomed by the Almighty to an
eternity of misery, which, with the same moral disposition,
but with a different belief, they would have escaped, these
men will, sooner or later, persecute to the full extent of their
power. . If you speak to them of the physical and mental
suffering which persecution produces, or of the sincerity and
unselfish heroism of its victims, they will reply that such
arguments rest altogether on the inadequacy of your realisa
tion of the doctrine they believe. What suffering that man
can inflict can be comparable to the eternal misery of all who
embrace the doctrine of the heretic? What claim can human
virtues have to our forbearance if the Almighty punishes
the mere profession of error as a crime of the deepest
turpitude ? If you encountered a lunatic, who, in his
frenzy, was inflicting on multitudes around him a death of
the most prolonged and excruciating agony, would you not
feel justified in arresting his career by every means in your
power—by taking his life if you could not otherwise attain
your object ? But if you knew that this man was inflicting
not temporal, but eternal death, if he was not a guiltless,
though dangerous madman, but one whose conduct you
believed to involve the most hideous criminality, would
you not act with still less compunction or hesitation ? ”
In the House of Lords, in the month of May, 1877, Lord
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
5
Selborne, in the debate on the Burials Bill, called attention
to the existing laws of this country as affecting heresy. It
is proposed in this address to state those laws as exactly as
possible, and this the more especially as some unthinking
persons seem to imagine that the right of free speech in this
country has been completely won, and that there is, therefore,
no longer any necessity for petitioning parliament either for
the repeal of the statutory penalties or for the removal of
the common law disabilities and abolition of the common
law offence.
A very able legist, to whom I am indebted for some most
valuable suggestions, classifies the penalties and disabilities
for heresy under the following heads :—
1. The infliction of punishment for the publication of
words hostile to the Established Church or religion.
2. Deprivation of civil rights in consequence merely of
holding what are called unsound views.
3. Mere social penalties or denial of justice, not by the
law but by abuse of the law.
Here the legal positions are alone treated.
In 1857, in the Queen v. Thomas Pooley, Mr. Justice
Coleridge, at Bodmin, directed the jury that “ Publications
intended in good faith to propagate opinions on religious
subjects, which the person who publishes them regards as
true, are not blasphemous merely because their publication
is likely to wound the feelings of those who believe such
opinions to be false.”
This dictum of Mr. Justice Coleridge, while wise and
humane, is distinctly at variance with the rulings by other
judges, who have held that any denial of Christianity is
blasphemous and punishable by the common law. The
view of Mr. Justice Coleridge is also opposed to the statute
9 and 10 Will. III., c. 32, which statute makes mere denial
of the truth of the Bible a blasphemous libel.
In Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’s “Digest of the Criminal
Law,” chap, xvii., p. 97, “Offences Against Religion,” he
gives the following alternative definitions of blasphemy:
“ Every publication is said to be blasphemous which com
tains, 1 st, Matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible,
or the Book of Common Prayer, intended to wound the
feelings of mankind, or to excite contempt and hatred
against the Church by law established, or to promote
immorality. Publications intended in good faith to propa
�6
THE LAWS RELATING TO
gate opinions on religious subjects, which the person who
publishes them regards as true, are not blasphemous
(within the meaning of this definition) merely because their
publication is likely to wound the feelings of those who
believe such opinions to be false, or because their general
adoption might lead, by lawful means, to alterations in the
constitution of the Church by law established;” or, 2nd,
“ a denial of the truth of Christianity in general, or of the
existence of God, whether the terms of such publication are
decent or otherwise;” and, 3rd, “any contemptuous reviling
or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the
Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England, as by
law established, whatever may be the occasion of the publi
cation thereof, and whether the matter intended to be
published is, or is not, intended in good faith as an argu
ment against any doctrine or opinion.”
Very much would depend on the temper of the judge and
jury who tried the case, as to which of the above definitions
would be adopted, and it is submitted that this uncertainty
ought not to be allowed to continue, for in time of excite
ment and against an unpopular defendant the common law
is susceptible of being interpreted with great harshness.
Sir James Stephen says that there is authority for each of
the above views, and that Lord Coleridge allows him to say
that the first definition correctly states the law as laid down
in the Queen v. Pooley, tried at Bodmin Summer Assizes, in
1857, before Mr. Justice Coleridge.
Folkard, “Law of Slander and Libel,” chap. 33, p. 593,
says (see also “ Russell on Crimes,” by Prentice, vol. iii.,
P- T93):—“The first grand offence of speech and writing is,
speaking blasphemously against God, or reproachfully con
cerning religion, with an intent to subvert man’s faith in
God or to impair his reverence of him ;” and on p. 594 he
says: “ Blasphemy against the Almighty, by denying his
being or providence, contumelious reflections upon the life
and character of Jesus, and, in general, scoffing, flippant
and indecorous remarks and comments upon the Scriptures,
are offences against the common law.”
The law as laid down by Folkard goes farther than Sir J.
F. Stephen’s first proposition, and I am inclined to think
that a hostile judge would have justification for the harder
vievy.
The cases decided declare that the statutory law on bias-
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
1
phemy is intended to supplement the common law, not in
any way to annul it or abrogate it. This decision goes
against the usual and fairer doctrine that where a statute
prescribes a particular mode of proceeding, and affixes a
particular punishment to the offence, there, unless there be
an express saving of the common law, the only mode of
proceeding is under the statute. In the case of the King v.
Richard Carlile, in 1819, Lord Chief Justice Abbott said
(3 Barnewall and Adolphus, p. 162):—
“I consider it to be perfectly clear that the 9 and 10 Will. III.,
c. 32, did not take away the common law punishment for this offence.
Its title is ‘ An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy
and Prophaneness,’ and the preamble recites the object to be ‘for the
more effectual suppressing of the said detestable crimes.’ And, for
this purpose, it imposes certain disabilities on persons convicted, which
are of a very high and severe nature. But it appears to me that the
legislature intended not to repeal the common law on this subject, but
to introduce certain peculiar disabilities as cumulative upon the penalties
previously inflicted by the common law. The very severe nature of
these disabilities might well induce them to introduce provisions of
the nature contained in the second and third sections of the Act.”
And Mr. Justice Bayley, concurring, said:—“ Here Taylor's case decided that blasphemy was a misdemeanour
at common law, and the statute does not make it more than a misde
meanour. The punishment, therefore, given by the Act is cumulative
on the punishment at common law.”
Mr. Justice Holroyd was of the same opinion, and Mr.
Justice Best said :—
“ So far from the statute of William containing provisions so incon
sistent with the common law as to operate as a repeal by implication,
as far as it applies to the offence of libel, it seems intended to aid the
common law. It is called ‘ An Act for the more effectual suppression
of Blasphemy and Prophaneness.’ It would ill deserve that name if it
abrogated the common law, inasmuch as, for the first offence, it only
operates against those who are in possession of offices, or in expecta
tion of them. The rest of the world might with impunity blaspheme
God, and prophane the ordinances and institutions of religion, if the
common law punishment is put an end to. But the legislature, in
passing this Act, had not the punishment of blasphemy so much in
view, as the protecting the Government of the country, by preventing
infidels from getting into places of trust. In the age of toleration in
which that statute passed, neither Churchmen nor sectarians wished to
protect in their infidelity those who disbelieved the Holy Scriptures.
On the contrary, all agreed that as the system of morals which regu
lated their conduct was built on these Scriptures, none were to be
trusted with offices who showed they were under no religious responsi
bility. This Act is not confined to those who libel religion, but
�8
THE LAWS RELATING TO
extends to those who, in their most private intercourse by advised con
versation admit that they disbelieve the Scriptures. Both the common
law and the statute are necessary, the first to guard the morals of
this people, the second for the immediate protection of the Govern
ment.”
The “ Commentaries on the Laws of England,” by N
Broom and E. A. Hadley, devote chapter 5 to offences
against religion; but Broom and Hadley are quite wrong in
writing (p. 53) as if the enactment of 9 and 10 William III.,
cap. 32, was the first step of the civil power to interpose for
the punishment of blasphemy.
The statute 9 William III., cap. 35, usually known as the
9 and 10 William III., c. 32, is as follows :—“ An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and Pro
faneness.
“ Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed and pub
lished many blasphemous and impious opinions contrary to the doctrines
and principles of the Christian religion, greatly tending to the dishonour
°f Almighty God, and may prove destructive to the peace and welfare of
this kingdom ; Wherefore, for the more effectual suppressing of the
said detestable crimes, be it enacted by the King’s most excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and
temporal, and the commons of this present Parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, that if any person or persons having
been educated in, or at anytime having made profession of, the
Christian religion within this realm shal, by writing, printing, teach
ing, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity
to be God, or shal assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or
shal deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of
the.Old and New Testament to be of divine authority, and shal, upon
indictment or information in any of his Majesties Courts at West
minster, or at the assizes, be thereof lawfully convicted by the oath of
two or more credible witnesses, such person or persons for the first
offence shal be adjudged incapable and disabled in law to all intents
and purposes whatsoever to have or enjoy any office or offices,
imployment or imployments, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, or
any part in them, or any profit or advantage appertaining to them,
or any of them. And if any person or persons so convicted as
aforesaid shal at the time of his or their conviction, enjoy or possess
any office, place, or imployment, such office, place, or imployment
shal be voyd, and is hereby declared void. And if such person or
persons shall be a second time lawfully convicted, as aforesaid, of all
or any the aforesaid crime or crimes that then he or they shal from
thenceforth be disabled to sue, prosecute, plead, or use any action or
information in any court of law or equity, or to be guardian of any
child, or executor or administrator of any person, or capable of any
legacie or deed of gift, or to bear any office, civil or military, or
benefice ecclesiastical for ever within this realm, and shall also suffer
imprisonment for the space of three years, without bail or mainprize
from the time of such conviction.
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
9
“Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that
no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for any words
spoken, unless the information of such words shal be given upon oath
before one or more justice or justices of the peace within four days after
such words spoken, and the proscution of such offence be within three
months after such information.
“ Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforsesaid, that
any person or persons convicted of all, or any, of the aforesaid crime
or crimes in manner aforesaid, shal, for the first offence (upon his, her,
or their acknowledgment and renunciation of such offence, or erronious
opinions, in the same court where such person or persons was or were
convicted, as aforesaid, within the space of four months after his, her,
or their conviction) be discharged from all penalties and disabilities
incurred by such conviction, any thing in this Act contained to the con
trary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”
The words italicised were repealed by the 53 Geo. III.,
c. 160, but this last-mentioned Act is now treated as a spent
statute, and no longer appears in the revised statute book.
How far Unitarians are again liable to indictment in conse
quence of 53rd Geo. III., c. 160, having been erased from
the statute book, is a matter for their legal advisers.
The statute 60 Geo. III. and 1 Geo. IV., c. 9, contained
various provisions for securing, by recognizances with sure
ties, the payment of fines inflicted for the publication of
blasphemous libels in newspapers and pamphlets. The
last prosecution under this statute was “ The Attorney
General v. Bradlaugh,” and on this failing, in 1869, the
statute itself was repealed by the 32nd and 33rd Viet.,
c. 24.
Short says, 11 Law of Libel,” p. 310 :—
“ The Scotch law is not different from the English law on the sub
ject of blasphemous libels. An Act of 6 Geo. IV., c. 47, after reciting
the expediency of making the crime punishable in the same manner as
if committed in England, enacted that any person convicted of blas
phemy shall be liable to be punished only by fine or imprisonment, or
both, at the discretion of the Court ; and that if any person after being
so convicted shall offend a second time and be convicted, he may be
adjudged, at the discretion of the Court, either to suffer the punishment
of fine or imprisonment, or both, or to be banished from the United
Kingdom, and all other parts of the Sovereign’s dominions, for such
term of years as the Court in which such conviction shall take place
shall order; and in case the person so adjudged to be banished shall
not depart from the United Kingdom within thirty days after the pro
nouncing of such sentence, for the purpose of going into banishment,
he may be conveyed to such parts out of the dominions of the Sove
reign, as the Sovereign, by the advice of the Privy Council, may
direct. If the person sentenced to be banished, after the end of forty
days from the time the sentence has been pronounced, is at large within
�Io
THE LAWS RELATING TO
any part of the United Kingdom, or any other part of the Sovereign’s
dominions, without some lawful cause, before the expiration of the term
tor which the offender has been adjudged to be banished, every such
offender being so at large and being thereof convicted, shall be transported to such place as the Sovereign shall appoint for any term not
exceeding fourteen years. This statute still remains in force with the
exception of the provisions as to punishment by banishment, which are
repealed by 7 Will. IV. and 1 Viet., c. 5.”
I shall not trouble here as to the jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical Courts j the legist I referred to early in this
address writes : “ So recently as 1842 and 1845 proceedings
have been taken in the Ecclesiastical Courts for publishing
doctrines contrary to the articles of religion ; but it may, I
think, be regarded as certain that this jurisdiction, so far as
laymen are concerned, is extinct to the extent to which the
temporal courts have assumed jurisdiction to punish blas
phemy.”
. The common . law is, in every matter, gathered from the
dicta of judges in reported cases, and the leading cases are
mostly collected in Folkard. The first instance, he says,
of a “ prosecution for words reflecting on religion,” is of
one Atwood, convicted in the 15th year of James I. (Croke’s
Reports, Jacobus, 421), for saying, “ the religion now pro
fessed was a new religion within fifty years; preaching is
but prating and hearing of service more edifying than two
hours’ preaching.” I cannot tell why Folkard calls this the
first prosecution for words against religion, as I find several
other reported cases earlier in date, the first reported being
that of John Wickliffe, 51st Edward III. (1377), and in
6th Richard II. (1383); then the case of William Sautre,
2nd Henry IV. (1400); of William Thorpe, 8th Henry IV.
(I4°7)l J°hn Badby, 10th Henry IV. (1409); Sir John
Oldcastle, 1st Henry V. (1413). The case of Sautre is the
only one specially important here, and this only because of
the legal notes on the statutes against heresy of Richard III.,
c- 5? 2nd Henry IV., c. 15, 1st and 2nd Philip and Mary,
c. 6, added to the report. As the 1st Elizabeth, c. 1, s. 6,
repealed all the then existing statutes as to heresy, I quote
only the final note :—
“ So that at this day a person convicted of heresy is liable only to
excommunication, and such pains and disabilities as persons standing
excommunicated for any other offence (which, however, are not very
light), for if the excommunicate person be not reconciled to Holy
Church within forty days, he is liable to be taken by the civil powers
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
II
- under the writ de excommunicato capiendo, and to, be imprisoned until he
be so reconciled.”—(Cobbett’s “ State Trials,” Vol. i., p. 176.)
This, apparently, might still be enforced, and. Corner’s.
“ Crown Practice ” provides for the issue and execution of
the writ de excommunicato capiendo.
The next case reported in Cobbett’s “State Trials,” vol. v.,
801, is of proceedings in the House of Commons against
James Nayler for blasphemy. James Nayler is incorrectly
called a Quaker, but seems to have been a religious mad
man who had been formerly an officer under Cromwell.
His case is only important here from the language of the
Lord Commissioner Whitelocke in giving judgment. It
was sought to put Nayler to death, and Whitelocke, who
■ gave judgment against this punishment, said : “ I think it
not improper first to consider the signification of the word
blasphemy, and what it comprehends in the extensiveness
of it; and I take it to comprehend, the reviling or cursing
the name of God, or of our neighbour.” And Gregorius
Turonensis, in his appendix, Cap. 51, has, 1 Liberare
poteras de blasphemia hanc causam.’ From whence the
French word Blasme (now written blatne} and our English
Blame. Spelman says it is £ increpare, vel convitiis aliquam
afficere.’ Params derives it from /3>Awtsj tA (pufBiv, i,e. lsesio
famae. And this in relation to men as well as to God.”
The Lord Commissioner Whitelocke further said:—
“It is held that the Ordinance of the Long Parliament concerning
blasphemy is not now in force, and I do agree to that opinion ; nor do
I know any other law in that case. That ordinance cost much debate,
and therein was a. great diversity of judgments ; and so I presume we
shall again find it, whensoever these matters shall fall under considera
tion. The objection was very weightily urged : That there is a law in
force against heresy, as appear by the writ De Haretico combtirendo,
which (they say) was by the Common Law ; and that blasphemy is an
heresy within.that law, by which he may be put to death. This objec
tion may receive a clear answer.
“I am not of opinion, that heresy was punishable by the Common
Law with death, notwithstanding the writ De Hceretico comburendo be
m the Register ; for it is not in the ancient manuscript registers, which,
indeed, is a true part and demonstration of the Common Law.
But this writ was of later date, and brought in by Arundel, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, in Henry IV. ’s time, for the punishment and
suppression of Lollards, who were good Christians, and of the same
profession that we are. But the bloody practice of that prelate did not
work with the effect he intended, as appears (blessed be God) at this
<ak" pet, if it should be admitted that heresy was punishable by death
at the Common Law, that cannot include blasphemy.
�12
THE LAWS RELATING TO
“ They are offences of a different nature; heresy is Crimen Judicii, an
erroneous opinion ; blasphemy is Crimen Malitia, a reviling the name
and honour of God. Heresy was to be declared in particular, and by
tie four first General Councils. But the blasphemy in this Vote is gene
ral ; and I do not find it reckoned in those Councils for heresy.
“ I remember a case in our Book of Henry VII., where the bishop
committed one to prison for a heretic, and the heresy was denying ‘ that
tythes were due to his parson.’ This at that time was a very great
heresy, but now I believe some are inclinable to think that to say
‘ tythes are due to the parson,’ is a kind of heresy.
“ So in this case, that which now may be accounted blasphemy, and
the offender to be put to death for it, in another age the contrary may
be esteemed blasphemy, and the offender likewise put to death for
that.”
The writ de heretico comburendo was abolished in 1677 by
the.following statute of 29 Charles II., cap. 9, which I quote
entire, because of the importance of its final clause—
“An Act for takeing away the Writt De Heretico cumburendo.
Bee it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majestie by and with the
advice and consent of the lords spirituall and temporall and commons
in this present Parlyament assembled and by the authoritie of the same
that the writt commonly called breve de heretico comburendo with all
processe and proceedings thereupon in order to the executeing such
writt or following or depending thereupon and all punishment by death
in pursuance of any ecclesiasticall censures be from henceforth utterly
taken away and abolished any law statute canon constitution custome or
usage to the contrary heretofore or now in force in any wise notwith
standing.
“ Provided alwayes that nothing in this Act shall extend or be con
strued to take away or abridge the jurisdiction of Protestant Arch
bishops or bishops or any other judges of any ecclesiasticall courts in
cases of atheisme blasphemy heresie or schisme and other damnable
doctrines and opinions but that they may proceede to punish the same
according to his Majesties ecclesiasticall lawes by excommunication
deprivation degradation and other ecclesiasticall censures not extending
to death in such sort and noe other as they might have done before the
makeing of this Act anything in this law contained to the contrary in
any wise notwithstanding.”
The Ordinance of the Long Parliament referred to by
the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke, was dated 2nd May,
1648, and ordains, that whoever should maintain any one of
the several opinions (there called Errors), unless he would
abjure the same, or after abjuration shall relapse, should be
guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. While it is clear
that this ordinance ceased, the statute book does not enable
me to trace its repeal, nor do I know how it was determined.
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, under the head “ Heresies,”
says :—
“ Every person who is guilty of atheism, blasphemy, heresy, schism,
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
13
or any other damnable doctrine or opinion (not punishable at common
law) may, upon conviction thereof before a competent ecclesiastical
court, be directed to recant the same and to do penance therefor, and to
be excommunicated and imprisoned for such term, not exceeding six
months, as the Court pronouncing the sentence of excommunication
may direct.”
Under the head “ Denying Truth of Christianity,” &c.,
Stephen says :—
“Everyone commits a misdemeanour and upon conviction thereof is
liable to the punishments hereinbefore mentioned, who having been
educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian
religion within this realm, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised
speaking, denies the Christian religion to be true, or the holy scriptures
of the Old and New Testament to be of Divine authority.”
Folkard says in Rex v. Taylor the defendant was con
victed upon an information for saying that “Jesus Christ
was a bastard and whoremaster ; religion was a cheat; and
that he neither feared God, the devil, nor man.” Hale, C.J.,
obseryed: “ that such kind of wicked and blasphemous
words were not only an offence against God and religion,
but a crime against the laws, state, and government, and,
therefore, punishable in this (?>., King’s Bench) court; that
to say religion is a cheat is to dissolve all those obligations
whereby civil societies are preserved ; and Christianity being
parcel of the laws of England, therefore, to reproach the
Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.” It
seems clear that this poor man was a raving lunatic. He
claimed to be Christ’s younger brother.
To quote once more my legist friend
“ If we consider the observations of Lord Justice Hale, we shall be
led to doubt whether a judgment was ever pronounced in a civilized
country, by an eminent man, which contrived to pack so much
nonsense in so little space. His observation that Christianity is part
of the law of England, introduced a legal conundrum of which gene
rations of lawyers have gravely tried to find the meaning, though,
hitherto, without any success. What follows is an amusing nonseqtiitur. If Christianity is part of the law, surely, like all other parts
of the law, it may be spoken against. We have not yet got to the point
that it is a crime to object to a bad law, or propose a good one. When
the learned judge tells us that to say religion is a cheat is to dissolve
all the obligations of society, he omits a few rather essential links. It
contains no fewer than five assumptions. First of all, he assumes that
no society can exist which has no religion. Secondly, he assumes
that no society can exist which does not profess the Christian religion.
Thirdly, he forgets that before society can be dissolved, religion must
first be dissolved ; he assumes that if anyone expresses his opinion that
religion ought to be dissolved, that is the same thing as actually per
suading everyone to adopt his views. A bedlamist blows the trumpet
�14
THE LAWS RELATING TO
and forthwith the whole edifice of religion falls to the ground. Every
one of these assumptions is contradicted by every-day experience, and
yet it. is upon such a tissue of puerile and unproved assumptions that
the criminal court in England have assumed jurisdiction to punish any
person who contradicts the generally received opinions on religion. It
is worthy of notice that the excellent man who simply repeated on the
Bench the nonsense he had been taught in school, was a firm believer
in witchcraft, and quotes both Scripture and legislators in favour of the
doctrine that we ought not to suffer a witch to live. In 1664 Sir
Matthew Hale sentenced two old women to be hung in Suffolk He
said the reality of witchcraft could not be disputed, ‘ for, first the
Scriptures had affirmed so much; and, secondly, the wisdom of all
nations had provided laws against such persons, which is an argument
of their confidence of such a crime (Lecky, 1., p. no).”
In the cases of Clendon and Hall,'5 says Folkard, <£ the
defendants were convicted of having published libellous
reflections on the Trinity j and it does not seem to have
been doubted in those cases that they were offences at
common law.”
The note on these cases in Strange’s “ Reports ” is very
brief, and the point which Folkard. says was not doubted,
does not seem to have been argued.
“ In the case of Rex v. Woolston, the defendant had been
convicted of publishing five libels, wherein the miracles of
Jesus Christ were turned into ridicule, and his life and con
versation exposed and vilified. It was moved in arrest of
judgment that the offence was not punishable in the tem
poral courts ; but the Court declared they would not suffer
it to be debated whether to write against Christianity in
general was not an offence of temporal cognisance. It was
contended on the part of the defendant, that the intent of the
book was merely to show that the miracles of Jesus were not
to be taken in a literal but in an allegorical sense, and, there
fore, that the book could not be considered as aimed at
Christianity in general, but merely as attacking one proof of
the divine mission. But the Court was of opinion that the
attacking Christianity in that way was attempting to destroy
the very foundation of it; and though there were professions
in the book to the effect that the design of it was to establish
Christianity upon a true foundation, by considering those
narratives in Scripture as emblematical and prophetical,
yet that such professions could not be credited ; and that
the rule was allegatio contra factum non est admittenda.
And the Court, in declaring that they would not suffer it to
be debated whether writing against Christianity in general was
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
15
a temporal offence, devised that it might be noticed that
they laid their stress upon the term general, and did not in
tend to include disputes between learned men upon parti
cular controverted points; and Lord Raymond, C.J., in
delivering the opinion of the Court, said, ‘ I would have it
taken notice of, that we do not meddle with any differences
in opinion, and that we interfere only where the very root
of Christianity is struck at; ’ and with him agreed the whole
Court.”
This case is reported in Strange, 834, Fitzgibbon, 64, and
Barnard, 162 ; but the difficulty is that a judge trying the
question, say on Colenso’s “ Commentary on the Penta
teuch,” might hold that in parts of this you had the very
root of Christianity assailed.
The following is the report of Woolston’s case, given in
Fitzgibbon Pasch, 2 George II., B. R. page 64 :—
“The defendant having published several discourses on the Miracles
of Christ, in which he maintained that the same are not to be taken
in a literal sense, but that the whole relation of the life and miracles of
our Lord Christ in the New Testament is but an allegory, several in
formations were brought against him, in which it was laid that the
defendant published those discourses with an intent to vilify and sub
vert the Christian religion ; and he, being found guilty, Mr. Morley
moved in arrest of judgment, that those discourses did not amount to
a libel upon Christianity, since the Scriptures are not denied, but
construed and taken in a different meaning from that they are usually
understood in ; and by the same reason that making such a construction,
should be punishable by the common law, so it would have been
punishable by the common law before the Reformation, to have taken
the doctrine of TransubStantiation allegorically; now as the common
law has continued the same since the Reformation that it was before
whatever was punishable by it before, continues so likewise since the
Reformation ; so that this being not now a crime by the common law,
nor was it before the Reformation, when it was held literally a part of
Christianity ; neither is the allegory made by the defendant, by the
same reason, a crime punishable by the common law ; so that if this
be a crime, it must be of ecclesiastical conusance ; and it may be of a
very dangerous tendency to encourage prosecutions of this nature in
the temporal couits, since it may give occasion to the carrying on of
prosecutions for a meer difference in opinion, which is tolerated by
law : he urged that the defendant would have been proceeded against
upon the Statute 10, W. III., cap. 32, by which, for denying
Christianity, the first offence incapacitates the offender to hold any
office, &c., so that this Act having chalk’d out a special method of
punishment, and being made for the benefit of the subject, the defen
dant should be proceeded against according to its direction ; then he
offered, that though it should be admitted, the discourses did amount
to a libel upon Christianity, yet the common law has not cognisance of
such an offence ; but it being opposed, that this should now be made a
�16
THE LAWS RELATING TO
question, it having been settled in Taylor’s case, I Vent., 293, and in
other instances ’twas answered by—
“Raymond, Chief Justice: Christianity in general is parcel of the
common law of England, and therefore to be protected by it; now
■whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity, tends manifestly to a
dissolution of the civil government, and so was the opinion of my
Lord Hale in Taylor’s case; so that to say an attempt to subvert the
established religion is not punishable by those laws upon which it is
established is an absurdity ; if this were an entirely new case, I should
not think it a proper question to be made; I would have it taken
notice of, that we do not meddle with any differences in opinion, and
that we interfere only where the very root of Christianity is struck at,
as it plainly is by this allegorical scheme, the New Testament, and the
whole relation of the life and miracles of Christ being denied ; and
who can find this allegory.
“As to the 9 and 10 W. III., ’Tis true, where a statute introduces
a new law, and inflicts a new punishment, it must be followed ; but
w’hen an Act of Parliament only inflicts a new punishment for an
offence at common law, it remains an offence still punishable as it
was before the Act; so ’tis in a case of forgery, which notwithstanding
the 5 Eliz. remains still punishable, as it was before the statute; and
with him agreed the whole Court.”
The next case in Folkard is that of Jacob Ilive. “An
information was filed against him by the AttorneyGeneral (afterwards the famous Lord Camden), for
publishing a profane and blasphemous libel, tending to
vilify and subvert the Christian religion, and to blaspheme
our Saviour Jesus Christ, to cause his divinity to be denied,
to represent him as an impostor, to scandalize, ridicule,
and bring into contempt his most holy life and doctrine,
and to cause the truth of the Christian religion to be
disbelieved and totally rejected, by representing the same
as spurious and chimerical, and a piece of forgery and
priestcraft.” This case is to be found in the reports of
Hilary Term, 1756.
“ In the case of Peter Annett an information was ex
hibited against him in Michaelmas Term, 1763, by the
Attorney-General, for a certain malignant, profane, and
blasphemous libel, entitled ‘ The Free Inquirer,’ tending to
blaspheme Almighty God, and to ridicule, traduce, and dis
credit his Holy Scriptures, particularly the Pentateuch, and
to represent, and cause it to be believed, that the prophet
Moses was an imposter, and that the sacred truths and
miracles recorded and set forth in the Pentateuch were im
positions and false inventions, and thereby to diffuse and
propagate irreligious and diabolical opinions in the minds of
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
His Majesty’s subjects, and to shake the foundations of the
Christian religion, and of the civil and ecclesiastical govern
ment established in this kingdom. Being convicted on this
information, the defendant was sentenced by the Court of
King’s Bench to one month’s imprisonment in Newgate, to
stand twice in the pillory (once at Charing Cross and once
at the Royal Exchange), then to be confined in Bridewell
gaol, and kept to hard labour for one year, and to find
security for his good behaviour for the remainder of his
life.” The punishment of pillory was finally abolished on
30th June, 1837, by 1st Victoria, cap. 23, having been
already swept away in many cases by 56 Geo. Ill,
cap. 138.
“ In the case of John Wilkes, an information was exhibited
against him in Hilary Term, 1763, by the Attorney-General
(Sir Fletcher Norton), for publishing an obscene and impious
libel, tending to vitiate and corrupt the minds and manners
of His Majesty’s subjects; to introduce a total contempt of
religion, modesty, and virtue ; to blaspheme Almighty God;
and to ridicule our Saviour and the Christian religion ” (see
Jesse’s “Life of George III.,” vol. i., p. 210; Phillimore’s
“ George III.,” vol. i., p. 374).
“ In The King v. Williams the defendant was (tried at
Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, and) convicted
of having published a libel, intituled, ‘ Paine’s Age of
Reason,’ which denied the authority of the Old and New
Testament, and asserted that reason was the only rule by
which the conduct of men ought to be guided, and ridiculed
the prophets, Jesus Christ, his disciples and the Scriptures.
Upon being brought up for sentence, Mr. Justice Ashurst
observed that such doctrines were an offence not only
against God, but against law and government, from their
direct tendency to dissolve all the bonds and obligations of
civil society ; and upon that ground it was that the Chris
tian religion constituted part of the law of the land; that if
the name of our Redeemer was suffered to be traduced,
and his holy religion treated with contempt, the solemnity
of an oath, on which the due administration of justice de
pended, would be destroyed, and the law would be stripped
of one of its principal sanctions—the dread of future
punishment.” It this ruling be correct, it would involve
that all argument against eternal torment would be in
dictable.
B
�THE LAWS RELATING TO
The case of Kingw. Williams is reported in 26 How;ell’s
“ State Trials,” p. 664, and is specially noteworthy for the
brave defence made by the counsel for the prisoner, Mr.
Stewart Kyd, who was frequently interrupted by Lord
Kenyon, but who persevered most gallantly. Mr. Erskine,
who was counsel for the prosecution, said : “ Every man has
a right to investigate, with decency, controversial points
of the Christian religion; but no man, consistently with a
law which only exists under its sanction, has a right to deny
its very existence,” and he contended that “ the law of
England does not permit the reasonings of Deists against
the existence of Christianity itself.” Mr. Kyd, in the course
of his defence, examined the words “ blasphemously, impi
ously, and profanely,” used in the indictment. He said,
“ Blasphemously” is derived from two Greek words, which
signify, “ to hurt, to injure, or to wound, the fame, character,
reputation, or good opinion.” “ Profanely ” is derived more
immediately from a Latin word, which signifies “ a sacred
place, a place set apart for the local worship of some
divinity; a place where the favoured votaries may be
received to a more immediate communication with the
object of their adoration : in the language of ancient legends,
a fane.” “ Profane,” when applied to place, comprehends
all that 'is not thus considered as holy ground : when applied
to men it is considered as a term of reproach; implying
that they are unworthy to approach the sacred spot; un
worthy to have communication with the favoured votaries :
to do anything “ profanely,” therefore, is to do it “ in a
manner, or with an intention, to offend that which is
esteemed holy;” or, as all subordinate divinities are now
banished from hence, “ in a manner, or with an intention
to offend the one supreme God.” “ Impiously” is derived
from the Latin word pius, which expresses the attachment,
affection, respect, or reverence which is due from man to
some other being to whom he stands in the relation of an
inferior; as between a son and a father, it expresses filial
affection; as between man and the Deity, it expresses the
constant and habitual reverence due from the former to the
latter; to do anything “ impiously,” therefore, is to do it
££ in a manner or with an intention inconsistent with
that reverence which is due from a man to his Creator.”
It is plain, therefore, that according to the different
systems of religious opinions which men embrace, they will
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
I9
apply the epithets of blasphemous, impious, and profane
reciprocally to each other, and frequently, I will venture to
say, with equal justice.”
“ In the case of the King v. Eaton, in Easter Term,
1812, the defendant was convicted upon an information
filed by Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Attorney-General, of having
published an impious libel, representing Jesus Christ as an
impostor, the Christian religion as a mere fable, and those
who believed in it as infidels to God. Upon being brought
up to receive judgment, though his counsel addressed
the Court in mitigation of punishment, no exception was
taken to the legality or propriety of the conviction. It
appears, therefore, to have been long ago settled that blas
phemy against the Deity in general, or an attack upon the
Christian religion individually, for the purpose of exposing
its doctrines to contempt and ridicule, is indictable and
punishable as a temporal offence at common law. The
same doctrine has been fully recognised in several subse
quent cases. [The King v. Eaton is reported in 31 Howell’s
“State Trials,”927. Lord Ellenborough,in summing up,said:
“ In a free country, where religion is fenced round by the
laws, and where that religion depends on the doctrines that
are derived from the sacred writings, to deny the truth of the
book which is the foundation of our faith, has never been per
mitted.” Eaton was sentenced to the pillory and to eighteen
months’imprisonment.] In Rex v. Carlile, where the defendant,
having been convicted of publishing two blasphemous libels,
was in Mich. 7, 60 Geo. III., sentenced to pay a fine of
^1500, to be imprisoned for three years, and to find sure
ties for his good behaviour for the term of his life.
“ Also, in the case of Rex v. Waddington, and in Rex v.
Taylor, who was sentenced to pay a fine, and to suffer one
year’s imprisonment, for a blasphemous discourse. And in
a still more recent case, it was held to be an indictable
offence at common law to publish a blasphemous libel of
and concerning the Old. Testament, and Lord Denman,
Chief Justice, directed the jury that if they thought the
publication tended to question or cast disgrace upon the
Old Testament, it was a libel.”
The King against Waddington is reported in Barnewall
and Creswell, vol. i., p. 26, and was argued 14th November,
1822, as follows :—
“ This was an information by the Attorney-General against the defen
�20
THE LAWS RELATING TO
dant for a blasphemous libel. The effect of the libel set out in the in
formation was to impugn the authenticity of the Scriptures; and one
part of it stated that Jesus Christ was an impostor and a murderer in
principle, and a fanatic. The defendant was tried at the Middlesex
sittings after last Trinity Term and convicted. Before the verdict was
pronounced, one of the jurymen asked the Lord Chief Justice whether
a work which denied the divinity of our Saviour was a libel. The
Lord Chief Justice answered that a work speaking of Jesus Christ in
the language used in the publication in question was a libel, Christianity
being a part of the law of the land. The defendant, in person, now
moved for a new trial, and urged that the Lord Chief Justice had mis
directed the jury by stating that any publication in which the divinity
of Jesus Christ was denied was an unlawful libel; and he argued, that
since the 53 Geo. III., c. 160, was passed, the denying one of the
persons of the Trinity to be God was no offence, and, consequently,
that a publication in support of such a position was not a libel.
“Abbott, C.J.—I told the jury that apy publication in which our
Saviour was spoken of in the language used in the publication for
which the defendant was prosecuted was a libel. I have no doubt
whatever that it is a libel to publish that our Saviour was an impostor
and a murderer in principle.
“Bayley, J.—It appears to me that the direction of my Lord Chief
Justice was perfectly right. The 53 Geo. iii., c. 160, removes the penal
ties imposed by certain statutes referred to in the Act, and leaves the
common law as it stood before. There cannot be any doubt that a
work which does not merely deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, but
which states him to be an impostor and a murderer in principle was, at
Common Law, and still is, a libel.
“ Holroyd, J.—I have no doubt whatever that any publication in
which our Saviour is spoken of in the language used in the work which
was the subject of this prosecution is a libel. The direction of the
Lord Chief Justice was therefore right in point of law, and there is no
ground for a new trial.
“Best, J.—My Lord Chief Justice reports to us that he told the jury
that it was an indictable offence to speak of Jesus Christ in the manner
that he is spoken of in the publication for which this defendant is in
dicted. I cannot admit of the least doubt that this direction was
correct. The 53 Geo. III., c. 160, has made no alteration in the Com
mon Law relative to libel. If previous to the passing of that statute, it
would have been a libel to deny in any printed work the divinity of the
second person in the Trinity, the same publication would be a libel
now. The 53 Geo. III., c. 160, as its title expresses, is an Act to re
lieve persons who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity from certain
penalties. If we look at the body of the Act to see from what
penalties such persons are relieved,- we find that they are the
penalties from which the 1 Wm. and Mary, sec. I, c. 18, exempted all
Protestant Dissenters, except such as denied the Trinity, and the penal
ties or disabilities which the 9 and 10 Wm. III. imposed on those who
denied the Trinity. The 1 Wm. and Mary, sec. 1, c. 18, is, as it has
been usually called, an Act of Toleration, or one which allows Dissenters
to worship God in the mode that is agreeable to their religious opinions,
and exempts them from punishment lor non-attendance at the Estab
lished Church, and non-conformity to its rites.
The legislature in
passing that Act only thought of easing the consciences of Dissenters,
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
2T
and not of allowing them to attempt to weaken the faith of the mem
bers of the Church. The 9 and 10 Wm. III. was to give security to
the Government, by rendering men incapable of office who entertained
opinions hostile to the established religion. The only penalty imposed
by that statute is exclusion from office ; and that penalty is incurred
by any manifestations of the dangerous opinion, without proof of in
tention in the person entertaining it either to induce others to be of
that opinion, or in any manner to disturb persons of a different per
suasion.
“ This statute rested on the principle of the Test Laws, and did not in
terfere with the common law relative to blasphemous libels. It is not
necessary for me to say, whether it be libellous to argue from the Scrip
tures against the divinity of Christ ; that is not what the defendant
professes to do. He argues against the divinity of Christ by denying
the truth of the Scriptures. A work containing such arguments, pub
lished maliciously (which the jury in this case have found), is by the
common law a libel; and the legislature has never altered this law,
nor can it ever do so whilst the Christian religion is considered to be
the basis of that law.”
In the case of Rex v. Burdett, 4 Barnewall and Alder-,
son, p. 132, Mr. Justice Best said : “ Every man may fear
lessly advance any new doctrines, provided he does so
with proper respect to the religion and government of the
country.”
The more recent case above referred to by Folkard is
the case of the Queen v. Henry Hetherington, reported in 5
Jurist, p. 330 (Hilary Term, 1841). Mr. Thomas, counsel
for Henry Hetherington, moved in arrest of judgment or
for a new trial—
“ L. C. J. Denman.—You are too late to move for a new trial; the
practice is to move within the first four days of Term, and then to
postpone the argument until the party is brought up for judgment.
. “ Mr. Thomas then, in arrest of judgment.—The offence laid in the in
dictment is not punishable at Common Law. The indictment sets out a
libel only upon the Old Testament, and there is no caseof an indictment
for a publication in discussing matters contained in the Old Testament.
All the cases of indictment for blasphemy against the Holy Scriptures
are for matters directed against Christianity and religion together. The
first case which is said to have decided that Christianity is part and
parcel of the Common Law of England is in the Year Book (34 Hen. VI.,
p. 40); but that opinion seems to be founded on a mistranslation
[The case was quare impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln ; and the
passage, which is obscure, is as follows
Priast. Atielx Leis que ils
de Saint Eglise ont en ancien Scripture, covient a nous a donner
credence ; car ceo Common Ley sur quel touts mannieres Leis sont
fondes. Et anxy, Sir, nous sumus obliges de connotre lour Ley de Saint
Eglise ; et semblablement ils sont obliges de connotre nostre Ley.” It
may be thus translated :—“As to such laws as they of the Holy Church
have in ancient Scripture, it is proper for us to give credence; for that
�22
THE LAWS RELATING TO
[as it were] common law, on which all sorts [of] laws are founded.
And thus, Sir, we are obliged to take cognisance of their law of Holy
Church ; and likewise they are obliged to take the same cognisance of
our law.” Wingate evidently grounds his third maxim on the above
passage : “ To such lawes as have warrant in Holy Scripture, our law
giveth credence, et contra.” Maximes, p. 6] ; and all the cases down
to R. v. Woolston, 2 Str. 834, S. C. more fully in Fitzg. 64, proceed
upon that mistranslation. R. v. Taylor (3 Keb. 607 ; 1 Ventr. 293),
in which Hale, C.J., said ‘The Christian religion is a part and parcel
of the laws of England, ’ is a leading authority ; but what reliance can
be placed on the opinion of that judge on this matter, seeing he held
witchcraft punishable at common law ? (6 How. “ St. Tr.,” 701, 702).
[Lord Chief Justice Denman.—Hale, C.B., refers to the enactments
of the statute law, and expressly to the Act of Parliament “which,” he
says, “hath provided punishments proportionable to the quality of the
offence.”] Besides, at the time of the case referred to, all witnesses
must have been sworn on the Bible or New Testament, but that is now
altered ; and, therefore, the reason for holding that an attack upon
Christianity would dissolve and weaken the bonds of society, viz., by
overthrowing or weakening the confidence of testimony given in courts,
of justice, no longer exists.
“ Lord Chief Justice Denman.—There is no ground for granting a
rule in this case. Though in most of the cases, I believe not in all, the
libel has been against the New Testament ; yet the Old Testament is
so connected with the New that it is impossible that such a publication
as this could be uttered without reflecting upon Christianity in general;
and, therefore, I think an attack upon the Old Testament of the nature
described in the indictment is clearly indictable. It is our duty to
abide by the law as laid down by our predecessors, and, taking the cases
which have been referred to as assigning the limits within which a publi
cation becomes a blasphemous libel, the publication in question is one.
As to the argument, that the relaxation of oaths is a reason for depart
ing from the law laid down in the old cases, we could not accede to it
without saying that there is no mode by which religion holds society
together but the administration of oaths ; but that is not so, for religion,
without reference to oaths, contains the most powerful sanctions for
good conduct ; and, I may observe, that those who have desired the
dispensation from the taking of oaths to be extended, have done so from
respect to religion, not from indifference to it.
“ Littledale, J.—The Old Testament, independently of its connection
with and of its prospective reference to Christianity, contains the law of
Almighty God ; and, therefore, I have no doubt that this is a libel in
law as it has been found to be in fact by the jury.
“Patterson, J.—The alleged mistranslation of a passage in the Year
Book referred to is not material, because there are other abundant
authorities ; and it is certain that the Christian religion is part of the
law of the land. The argument is reduced to this, that an indictment
for libel is to be confined to blasphemy against the New Testament.
But such an argument is scarcely worth anything because it is impossible
to say that the Old and the New Testament rare not so intimately con
nected, that if the one is true, the other is true also ; and the evidence
of Christianity partly consists of the prophecies in the Old Testament
• “ Rule refused.”
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
23
The following are the notes of W. C. Townsend, Recorder
of Macclesfield, appended to his extremely imperfect report
of the trial of Mr. Moxon, who, on June 23, 1841, was, on
the prosecution of Henry Hetherington, found guilty of
blasphemy in publishing Shelley’s Works, and I give these
notes here as bearing upon the ruling in Taylor’s case;—
“ Archbishop Whately, in his preface to the ‘ Elements of
Rhetoric,’ has cited a declaration of the highest legal autho
rity, that Christianity is part of the law of the land, and,
consequently, any one who impugns it is liable to prosecu
tion. What is the precise meaning of the above legal maxim
I do not profess to determine, having never met with any one
who could explain it to me, but evidently the mere circum
stance that we have religion by law established does not of
itself imply the' illegality of arguing against that religion.
It seems difficult to render more intelligible a maxim
which has perplexed so learned a critic. Christianity was
pronounced to be part of the common law7, in contradistinc
tion to the ecclesiastical law, for the purpose of proving that
the temporal courts, as well as the courts spiritual, had juris
diction over offences against it. Blasphemies against God
and religion are properly cognizable by the law of the land,
as they disturb the foundations on which the peace and good
order of society rest, root up the principle of positive laws
and penal restraints, and remove the chief sanctions for
truth, without which no question of property could be
decided, and no criminal brought to justice. Christianity
is part of the common law as its root and branch, its main
stay and pillar—as much a component part of that law as
the government and maintenance of social order. The
inference of the learned archbishop seems scarcely accurate,
that all who impugn this part of the law7 must be prosecuted.
It does not follow, because Christianity is part of the law of
England, that every one who impugns it is liable to prose
cution. The manner of and motives for the assault are the
true tests and criteria. Scoffing, flippant, railing comments,
not serious arguments, are considered offences at common
law, and justly punished, because they shock the pious no
less than deprave the ignorant and young. The law is
clearly laid down in 4 Blackstone, 59 ; 1 Hawkins’s ‘ Pleas
of the Crown,’ c. 5 ; 1 Viner’s Abrid., p. 293 ; 2 Strange,
p. 834; and 1 Ventris, 293. We may argue against the
government by kings, lords, and commons, but must not
slander and revile them.
�:4
THE LAWS RELATING TO
“The meaning of Chief Justice Hale cannot be expressed
more plainly than in his own words. An information was
exhibited against one Taylor, for uttering blasphemous
expressions too horrible to repeat. Hale, C. J., observed
that:
“‘Such kind of wicked, blasphemous words were not only an
offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, state, and
government, and, therefore, punishable in the Court of King’s Bench.
For to say religion is a cheat, is to subvert all those obligations whereby
civil society is preserved; that Christianity is part of the laws of
England, and to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion
of the law.’
“To remove all possibility of further doubt the Commis
sioners on Criminal Law have thus clearly explained their
sense of the celebrated passage :—•
“ ‘The meaning of the expression used by Lord Hale that “Chris
tianity was parcel of the laws of England,” though often cited in sub
sequent cases, has, we think, been much misunderstood. It appears
to us that the expression can only mean, either that as a great part of
the securities of our legal system consist of judicial and official oaths
sworn upon the gospels, Christianity is closely interwoven with our
municipal law ; or that the laws of England, like all municipal laws of
a Christian country, must, on principles of general jurisprudence, be
subservient to the positive rules of Christianity. In this sense Chris
tianity may justly be said to be incorporated with the law of England,
so as to form parcel of it; and it was probably in this sense that Lord
Hale intended the expression should be understood. At all events, in
whatsoever sense the expression is to be understood, it does not
appear to us to supply any reason in favour of the rule that arguments
may not be used against it; for it is not criminal to speak or write
either against the common law of England generally or against par
ticular portions of it, provided it be not done in such a manner as to
endanger the public peace by exciting forcible resistance, so that the
statement that Christianity is parcel of the law of England, which has
been so often urged in justification of laws against blasphemy, however
true it may be as a general proposition, certainly furnishes no addi
tional argument for the propriety of such laws.’
“ If blasphemy means a railing accusation, then it is, and
ought to be, forbidden.
“ The following judicious opinion of the Commissioners
on Criminal Law, in their sixth report, will, we think, meet
with general assent:—
“ ‘ The course hitherto adopted in England respecting offences of
this kind has been to withhold the application of the penal law, unless
in cases where insulting or contumacious language is used, and where it
may fairly be presumed that the intention of the offender is not grave
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
25
discussion but a mischievous design to wound the feelings of others, or
to injure the authority of Christianity, with the vulgar and unthinking,
by improper means. For although the law distinctly forbids all denial
of the being and providence of God, or the truth of the Christian reli
gion, works in which infidelity is professed and defended have been
frequently published, and have undergone no legal question or prosecu
tion ; and it is only where irreligion has assumed the form of blasphemy
in its true and primitive meaning, and has constituted an insult both to
God and man, that the interference of criminal law has taken place.
There is no instance, we believe, of the prosecution of a writer or
speaker, who has applied himself seriously to examine into the truth in
this most important of all subjects, and who, arriving in his own con
victions of scepticism or even unbelief, has gravely and decorously
submitted his opinions to others, without any wanton and malevolent
design to do xmischief. Such conduct, indeed, could not be properly
considered as blasphemy or profaneness; and at the present day, a
prosecution in such a case would probably not meet with general appro
bation. On the other hand, the good sense and right feeling of mankind
have always declared strongly against the employment of abuse and
ribaldry upon subjects of this nature, and although many judicious and
pious persons have thought with Dr. Lardner that it was prudent and
proper to allow great latitude to manner, the application of the penal
law to cases of this kind has usually met with the cordial acquiescence
of public opinion.’ ”
The difficulty is, that what a prosecuting counsel or a
bigoted jury may consider ribald and abusive in one case,
an enlightened judge and tolerant jury may hold to be fair
argument in another. Shelley’s poems were then held to be
blasphemous, and as the law stands could be again indicted
to-day, yet one may certainly affirm that public opinion
would now unanimously ridicule any such indictment.
It is a curious illustration of the growth of public opinion
that the present Lord Blackburn on delivering judgment in
the Queen v. Hicklin, said : “ I hope I may not be under
stood to agree with what the jury found, that the publica
tion of ‘Queen Mab’ was sufficient to make it an indictable
offence.”
The most modern amongst the reported cases are found
in Scotland, Paterson’s case, i Brown, 627, and Robinson’s
case, 1 Brown, 643. Paterson’s case is thus summarised by
Shortt, p. 309 :—
“A person accused of wickedly and feloniously publishing, vend
ing, and exposing for sale certain blasphemous books containing a denial
of the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures and the Christian
religion, and devised, contrived, and intended to asperse, vilify, ridi
cule, and bring them into contempt, was not allowed, in his speech to
the jury, to quote passages from-the Bible for the purpose of justifying
his opinion of it. ‘No animadversions,’ said the Lord Justice Clerk,
�26
THE LAWS RELATING TO
‘ can have the slightest effect in making the Court swerve from its duty
We tell you what the law is, that the publication of works tending to
vilify the Christian religion is an offence in law; and it is no an ,wer
to say that, in your opinion, the passages contained in those works are
true, and that the Bible deserves the character ascribed to it. If you
can show that the Lord Advocate has mistaken the meaning of these
passages, that they do not deny the truth of the Bible, that they do
not vilify it, that is a point of which the jury will judge.”
In charging the jury, his lordship thus stated the law :—
“The Holy Scriptures and Christian religion are part of the statute
law of the land ; and whatever vilifies them is therefore an infringement
of the law. There can be no controversy in a court of justice as to the
merits or demerits of a law. Our duty is to interpret and explain the
law as established, while it is yours to apply it. Now the law of
Scotland, apart from all questions of Church Establishment or Church
government, has declared that the Holy Scriptures are of supreme
authority. It gives every man the right of regulating his faith or not
by the standard of the Holy Scriptures, and gives full scope to private
judgment regarding the doctrines contained therein ; but it expressly
provides that all ‘blasphemies shall be suppressed,’ and th. t they who
publish opinions ‘contrary to the known principles of Christianity,’
may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the civil
magistrate. This law does not impose on individuals any obligation
as to their belief. It leaves free and independent the right of private
belief, but it carefully protects that which was established as part of
the law from being brought into contempt.”
All deeds, contracts, agreements, trusts or bequests,
which are for the purpose of promoting the utterance or
publication of blasphemy or heresy are void or voidable.
A limited liability company for a hall avowedly for antiChristian lectures would be an illegal undertaking. A
trustee shown to entertain heretical opinions may be re
moved from his trusteeship if that trusteeship involves the
guardianship or education of any child, and if the child
be made a ward of court; a legacy left avowedly for the
propagation of views legally definable as blasphemous or
heretical will be void. The only course for any one desirous
by bequest to aid Freethought is to leave the money, without
restriction in words, to an individual deemed reliable, but
there is then no remedy if the legatee misapplies the funds.
In the case of Bradlaugh v. Edwards, an action brought for
arresting the plaintiff, when he had only uttered the words,
“ Friends, I am about to address you on the Bible,” Lord
Chief Justice Erie, in the Court of Common Pleas, declared
that a wrongful imprisonment, which might have prevented
the intended utterance of heretical views, was not a tort for
which the plaintiff could recover any damages.
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
27
In the case of Cowan v. Milbourn, on appeal from the
Court of Passage at Liverpool, it was held by the Court of
Exchequer that,—
“ The delivery of lectures with the object of endeavouring to show
that the character of Christ was defective, and his teachings erroneous,
and that the Bible was no more inspired than any other book, is
illegal; and where the defendant having agreed to let certain rooms to
the plaintiff for the purpose of delivering lectures afterwards discovered
that the object of the lectures was to propound such doctrines, declined
to allow the rooms to be used for such purposes, in an action by the
plaintiff for breach of contract, it was held, that the defendant might
justify on the ground that the plaintiff intended to use the rooms for
illegal purposes, and a plea to that effect was held to be an answer to
the action.*
This case is reported in Exchequer Reports, and it must
not be forgotten that this is a very modern decision.
Referring particularly to this case, the above-quoted legist
writes :—“ It follows clearly, that if contradicting the pre
vailing religious opinion is a crime, that the courts of law
will be bound to withhold their support to any legal trans
action which is tainted with heresy. Therefore, any con
tract having for its object the publication or promulgation
of opinions which the law will regard as blasphemy, will
necessarily be illegal. The point was decided, if I may
say so, with every circumstance of aggravation, in the
Court of Exchequer in 1867.
The Secretary of the
Liverpool Secular Society hired rooms for two lectures
the subjects of which were advertised in these terms—‘ The Character and Teachings of Christ; the former
defective, the latter misleading,’ and ‘ The Bible shown to
be no more inspired that any other book.’ The Court of
Exchequer, on the authority of the statutes 9 and 10
Will. III., held that ‘it was illegal to deny the Christian
religion to be true or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine
authority. That was the ground taken by Baron Bramwell.
Chief Baron Kelly went, however, a great deal farther, and
said that to maintain that the character of Christ was
defective or his teaching misleading ‘ is a violation of the
first principle of the law, and cannot be done without
blasphemy.’ Baron Martin was apparently ashamed of the
law which he had to administer, and said ‘ I protest against
the notion that this is any punishment of the person advo
cating these opinions. It is merely the case of the owner
of property exercising his rights over its use.’ Here the
�28
THE LAWS RELATING TO
learned Baron was wrong, for he had by contract parted
with his right to use for the times at which the lectures
were to be delivered. Nevertheless, it is but right we
should acknowledge a protest against bigotry from the
Bench.”
Any building, lecture-hall, room, or public place open for
discussion or lectures on Sunday, by payment or ticket, for
which payment has been made, is illegal, and the proprietor
and promoters may be prosecuted for penalties.
Formerly all persons who disbelieved in God, or in a
future state of rewards and punishments, were held to be
incompetent as witnesses ; but after the argument of the
case of Bradlaugh v. De Rin a statute was passed, 32 and
33 Viet., c. 68 (Evidence Amendment Act, 1869), which
enacts—
“ That if any person called to give evidence in any court, whether in
a civil or criminal proceeding, shall object to take an oath, or shall be
objected to as incompetent to take an oath, such person shall, if the
presiding judge is satisfied that the taking of an oath would have no
binding effect on his conscience, make the promise and declaration, the
form of which is contained in the same section.”
The 33 and 34 Viet., c. 49, s. 1, passed after Mr. Brad
laugh’s evidence had been refused by an arbitrator, enacted
that “presiding judge” shall be deemed to include any
person having authority to administer oaths (see Russell on
Crimes, by S. Prentice, vol. iii., p. 28).
And in consequence of the proceedings taken by the
National Secular Society in the case of ex parte Lennard,
on April 20, 1875, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Jus
tices Blackburn, Mellor, and Field, sitting in Banco in the
Court of Queen’s Bench, made a rule absolute for a manda
mus to compel Mr. Woolrych, the magistrate, to take the
evidence of a witness who had declared himself an Atheist.
This does not apply to Scotland, where Atheists and unbe
lievers are still incompetent as witnesses.
Following the above cases the Supreme Court at Sydney
has decided in a recent case, Reg. v. Lewis, that by 40 Viet.,
No. 8, s. 3, known as the Evidence Further Amendment
Act, 1876, and which is founded on the English Act 32 and
33 Viet., c. 68, a person who has no religious belief is com
petent to give evidence.
Heretical jurymen are still in a position of doubt and
difficulty, for although many judges of superior courts and
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
29
many coroners are now allowing jurymen who object to be
sworn to affirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869
and 1870, it is by no means clear that jurymen are covered
by those statutes.
On this I again let my legist speak :—“ One of the most
common, as it certainly is one of the most absurd, argu
ments for religious prosecution has been that the admini
stration of justice rests upon oaths, and oaths rest upon
religion, and, therefore, everything tending to weaken
religion tends to destroy the basis of justice. Even when
I turn to a great American work on criminal law, published
so recently as 1868, I find that venerable old fallacy trotted
out with all the innocence imaginable. I do not mean, of
course, that a man whose mind is imbued with religion is
indifferent to the solemnity of an oath, but such a man
would not be indifferent to truth or justice.
The oath has
a value only in the case where a man is so destitute of moral
principles that he would readily bear false witness against
his neighbour, but is so miserably superstitious that he will
tell the truth under an oath from fear of hell fire. The
fact is, that it is the authority of the Courts to punish
perjury with imprisonment which alone gives any semblance
of reality to oaths.
When no temporal punishment is
annexed to false swearing we never find that all the terrible
sanctions of an oath have the smallest effect on even
religious men. So far is it from being true that the admini
stration of justice rests upon oaths, on the contrary, the
value of the oaths depends on the substantial fact that
perjury is a misdemeanour.”
Under the head of “ Depraving the Book of Common
Prayer,” Sir J. Stephen says:—
“ Every one commits a misdemeanour and is liable upon conviction
thereof to the punishments hereinafter mentioned, who does any of the
following things, that is to say :
“ Who in any interlude, play, song, rhymes, or other open words,
declares or speaks anything in derogation, depraving, or despising of
the Book of Common Prayer, or of anything therein contained, or any
part thereof; or,
“ Who by open fact, deed, or open threatenings, compels, causes, or
otherwise procures or maintains any parson, vicar, or other minister, in
any cathedral or parish church or chapel, or in any other place, to sing
or say any common or open prayer, or to minister any sacrament other
wise or in any other manner or form than is mentioned in the said
book.
“ Who by any of the said means unlawfully interrupts and lets any
�3°
THE LAWS RELATING TO
parson, vicar, or other minister, in any cathedral or parish church or
chapel, in singing or saying common or open prayer, or ministering the
sacraments, or any of them, in the manner mentioned in the said book.
“For the first offence the offender must be fined one hundred marks,
and in default of payment within six weeks after his conviction, must
be imprisoned for six months.
“For the second offence the offender must be fined four hundred
marks, and in default of payment as aforesaid must be imprisoned for
twelve months.
“For the third offence the offender must forfeit to the Queen all his
goods and chattels and be imprisoned for life. ”
And he has also the further offence of “ Depraving the
Lord’s Supper”—
“ Everyone commits a misdemeanour who depraves, despises, or
contemns, the sacrament of the supper and table of the Lord, in con
tempt thereof by any contemptuous words, or by any words of depraving,
despising, or reviling, or by advisedly in any other wise contemning,
despising, or reviling the said sacrament.”
Shortt, in “ The Law relating to Literature and Works of
Art,” says (p. 304)
“In America the question has been more fully discussed than with us
and the doctrines laid down by the Courts of that country are much
more consonant to the tolerant views of the present, day than any which
can be extracted from our own authorities.
“In the People v. Ruggles, after a verdict and sentence for
blasphemous words spoken against Jesus Christ, Kent, C.J., on
appeal, said :—‘ After conviction we must intend that the words were
uttered in a wanton manner and, as they evidently import, with a wicked
and malicious disposition, and not in a serious discussion upon any
controverted point in religion. The language was blasphemous, not
only in a popular, but in a legal sense; for blasphemy, according to
the most precise definitions, consists in maliciously reviling God or
religion, and this was reviling Christianity through its Author. The
jury have passed upon the intent, or quo animo, and if those words
spoken, in any case, will amount to a misdemeanour the indictment is
good. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious
opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any
religious subject, are granted and secured ; but to revile, wiih malicious
and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole
community, is an abuse of that right.’ Another American judge speaks
still more plainly : ‘No author or printer,’ says Duncan, J., ‘who
fairly and conscientiously promulgates opinions with whose truth he is
impressed, for the benefit of others, is answerable as a criminal. A
malicious and mischievous intention is, in such a case, the broad bound
ary between right and wrong; it is to be collected from the offensive
levity, scurrilous and opprobrious language, and other circumstances,
whether the act of the party was malicious.’ And the criminal code of
New York speaks in a similar tone—Art. 31, extracting a definition
from existing common law decisions, describes blasphemy as consisting
in ‘ wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumacious
�BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
31
reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost,
the Holy Scriptures, or the Christian religion
and Art. 32 adds—‘If
it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the words complained of were
used in the course of serious discussion, and with intent to make known
or recommend opinions entertained by the accused, such words are not
blasphemy.’ ”
Shortt adds that—“ No such liberal exception as obtains
in America in favour of the honest and temperate expression
of opinions opposed to the received doctrines of religion is
made by any of our authorities.”
The object of the foregoing address is to induce Free
thinkers to agitate more earnestly for such changes as shall
render the law more fair in its operation. The changes
needed are—1. The repeal of all the statutes inflicting penalties for
opinion (as the 9 and 10 William III., c. 35) or placing
hindrances in the way of lectures and discussions (as the
21 Geo. III., c. 49.)
2. The introduction into the repealing Act of some
words which shall annul the present penal and disabling
effect of the common law.
Or, failing the above,
3. That no prosecution for blasphemous libel shall be
permitted unless authorised by the fiat of the AttorneyGeneral, and that upon any such prosecution so authorised
it shall be lawful for the accused to plead that the words
complained of were bona fide used in the advocacy of
and with intent to make known or defend opinions enter
tained by the accused, and that if the jury find such plea
proved it shall be a good defence to any indictment.
It is also necessary to extend the Evidence Amend
ment Act (1869) and the Evidence Further Amendment
Act (1870) Scotland.
5. To make the provisions of those Acts as clearly applic
able in England, Ireland, and Wales to jurymen as they now
are to witnesses.
' To those who contend that religious persons should be
protected from words of coarse insult against their faith or
ceremonies, I will once more quote my legist friend:__
“ There may undoubtedly be occasions where masses of
antagonistic and inflammatory religious opinions are heaped
�32
THE LAWS RELATING TO BLASPHEMY AND HERESY.
up ready for a conflagration, and that a word of insult may
be sufficient to set it on fire; but surely it would be better
to deal with such an act simply on the ground of its being
calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. There is, on
the other hand, always a danger that a jury may see insult
where none was intended. We were made familiar last year,
in the record of French tribunals, with a new and singular
offence, called ‘ insulting the Marshal;’ and we have ob
served that remarks which outside the heated atmosphere of
a French election contest would be regarded as fair, not to
say tame, criticism have been declared by the sensitive judges
of France to be ‘insults.’ Moreover, so long as clergymen
habitually insult and grossly libel their opponents, it is
hardly fair that the punishment should be always on one
side. If the clergy would set the example of fairness and
moderation and decency in controversy, it would be quite un
necessary to pass laws to protect their tender feeling from the
rough handling of Freethought lecturers. And we must re
member that the demented creature Pooley was sentenced to
twenty-one months’imprisonment for ‘insulting’the estab
lished religion. In the present state of feeling in this country
there is very little harm done in the way of insulting the
dominant faith, but there is no small danger that when reli
gious antipathies are once excited we shall have construc
tive insults readily found by those who wish to send men
to prison.”
�
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 laws relating to blasphemy and heresy: an address to freethinkers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh., 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1878
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT80
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 laws relating to blasphemy and heresy: an address to freethinkers), 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
Blasphemy
Conway Tracts
Free Thought
Heresy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b22d3950b975f037595fdcdb398e37ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v9ikRTi4ChdxjO4UZ1vzOPKugCRwKh534VaM5jqSS2U27P9I7hH0jpdj5zbopEURowSV2Dzc4FzHapf3cSpTPd-PNGGOYBGze%7E1B9YKyZbjlc7%7EUaPrHuSkP%7EiuhBbAZ7MWyNyfK5WCcnccQb1eV1w4bbAkSrJ8REXSKE3sKztTkI-V8tSj--Mxre1u16pKcmS7Z3QDZYm-6NUWYm5ds2D8-nZfHLNoX08rWd%7EHs9sL6gAdVZukUKX7c1YDxm1MqnvyD80%7Erbg%7E6U3GghAn2mLAJbpG9kAVXyXu6FLxdHiGnzMGHcZc4Bh36zKdnwS8IprPu1hNVOJBFv9ZyPDghpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d33eba880e163ea77a022c677b861a45
PDF Text
Text
62-03
HATIONALSECUEARSOCffiTY
Michael Servetus.
A DISCOURSE SUGGESTED BY THE
* BLASPHEMY
PROSECUTION
OF
1883,
• ♦
. Delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne,
It
7
;
BY THE
REV. HERBERT V. MILLS.
--------- o----------
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
o-
COLNE:
R. Hyde & Sons’, “Times” Office’, Exchange-street.
i
�©ruth be silent because torn* fnrtons/'
YOUNG.
. *W '
\ ■ r >»,
i .^1 .?-l M ?L i i
-/
- /
�MICHAEL SERVETUS.
AM sorry that in taking up the life of Michael Servetus I am
perforce obliged to express my opinion of John Calvin. Many
of my fellow-townsmen have been led to regard John Calvin as a
source of credit to tli& Christian Church; they are looking up to him
with that peculiar reverence given by the Catholic Church to some
of the saints. Hero-worship is an attitude of the mind which
ought not to be rudely handled. It ennobles far more than it
debases : for when a hero is truly worshipped his vices are reverently
forgotten, and only the nobler traits in his character and career are
remembered. And I am sure it is so in the case of John Calvin. If
therefore, I am compelled to-night to dwell upon foul traces of per
secution which stain his history, I would not have the Calvinists of
this town believe that I charge them with admiring the qualities
which I here denounce; nor would I have them imagine that I find
nothing in Calvin wort hy of regard.
I
The attitude of Calvin towards Servetu!s is a fitting subject for
meditation at this present time, because the imaginary crime of
blasphemy was that which gave rise to the persecution of Servetus
and his final martyrdom- I have called it an imaginary crime: I
believe it to be as impossible and as absurd as the charge of witch
craft. To stigmatise as a blasphemer every man who opposes the
established and popular religion of the day, is to make the chief
merit of all great lives, blasphemy. If this is blasphemy, then
Christ was chief amongst blasphemers. Martin Luther and John
Wesley were opponents of established religions, and were hence in the
strictest legal sense, blasphemers. It is well known to you that
efforts are now being made to secure the repeal of the Blasphemy
Laws. For many years past they have been regarded as quite
obsolete, and have consequently been allowed to remain on the
Statute Book without molestation. But it has suddenly been shewn
that the penalties under the Blasphemy Laws are still applicable to
English men and English women of this generation. They have
this year been imposed upon three men found guilty of the charge.
Now it is of no consequence to us to know the details of any othei’
offences of which these three men may or may not have been guilty
�4
Theii* charge is “ blasphemy,” their imprisonment is for “blasphemy.”
That, and nothing else. .And if we take anything else into consider
ation we shall forget our duty.
Suppose that some man guilty of theft was tried in court upon
an indictment charging him with teetotalism, and that he were
sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for being a teetotaller,
how would the total abstainers rise up in indignation! There are
people no doubt who would say, “ Oh, never trouble about it. If he
had not been imprisoned for this he would have been imprisoned for
his theft; it is all the same.” “ But,” you retort, “ total abstinence
is a virtue; his conviction as it now stands is an insult to us;
so long as he is suffering for a virtuous thing he is a martyr and not
a convict, and we object to have a thief posing as a martyr on our
account.” All this, and much more would be said by these indignant
temperance people. And they would be right. Their best interests
would be at stake.
But in addition to the strong feelings which would naturally be
excited in the circumstance I have suggested, there is, in the real
case, another stimulating feature : there is the hearty detestation
which all liberal men feel, of the very name of the offence called
blasphemy. It is a word which suggests inhumanity and cruelty of
the most revolting nature. Its historical associations within the
past three hundred years are almost enough to make any man
ashamed of the human race. When I look back to the year 1619
and find a crowd of fiendish Hollanders beheading the grand-pen
sionary Barneveldt at the age of seventy-two, “ for having,” says
his sentence, “ used his uttermost endeavours to vex the Church of
God,’1 I do not marvel at the indignation which has been recently
called forth. The indictment against Barneveldt is a literal rendering
of the offence which has procured the imprisonment of the three
Freethinkers.
I regard it therefore, as a spirit of Christian 'patriotism which
is now urging men to do their utmost to obliterate from the statutes
of our time these Blasphemy Laws. They are utterly incompatible
with Christ’s religion. I cannot imagine any man pleading for the
retention of these laws, if he had learnt the lesson of doing unto
others as he would have them do to him. The advocate of these
ancient laws practically says to his fellowbeings—“ Thou shalt believe
�as I beTievdi^v enithough thou canst not, or I will bind thee to do
one of two things, -either to maintain eternal silence, or to speak
always falsely and to act hypocrisy.” It is manifest that such an
attitude is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the lessons of
Christ. But I regret to acknowledge that it is in complete accord
ance with the attitude hitherto taken by the majority of those who
have'called themselves Christians.
There never was a leader so belied by his followers as Christ,
^he late Emperor of China once said—“ I notice that wherever
Christians go, they whiten the soil with human bones ; and I there
fore will not have Christianity in my empire.” What an impeachment
of the Christians ! and how miserably, disgracefully true it is ! He
gave us a gospel of peace and forgiveness. “ Wherever Christians go
they whiten the soil with hitman bones." How faithless have the
Christians been ! He gave us a gospel of love. “ Wherever Christian s
go they whiten the soil with human bones.” How cruelly have the
Christians crucified their Lord ! How have they slighted and spurned
him who said—“ If ye love me keep my commandments ! ” Christi
anity is a gospel of liberty, a gospel of toleration, a gospel of faith
in the Truth—for the Truth’s sake. And yet we enforce a law against
what is called “ blasphemy ” in the year 1883, and thousands of
professing^Christians are'exulting over the severity of the penalties.
What an exposure of^their faithlessness !
We have therefore to learn a lesson for the hour from the
martyrdom of Servetus. Whilst we are reflecting upon the ignorance,
the bigotry, and the unchristian intolerance of that sixteenth century
which gave Servetus bitter scorn in return for love and faithful
service, whilst we regard it as a spirit hostile to the mission of
Christ, let us not for a mement lose sight of the fact that it is a
spiritual disease prevalent to-day amongst many who claim to be his
followers.
Servetus was a’physician and a literary man; and he was eminent
in both departments. He was author of many books upon religious,
geographical, and^physiological subjects. He edited a folio edition
of Pagninus’s J,Bible. He lived contemporaneously with Luther,
Melancthon, and_John Calvin. Being a man of original mind and
honest intentions, he resolved to examine scrupulously all matters
that fell in his way, and, he naturally took up a position in both
�science and religion which was opposed to the notions then current.
It has been claimed on his account that he discovered the circiilaipM
of the blood. A great part of the credit of this discovery is beyond)
doubt due to him. It is now conceded that he was the first to expound
the true way in which the blood passes from the right side of the
heart through the lungs to the left side. But although this explan
ation was published by Servetus in 1553, Harvey has been credited
with the whole discovery, who was not born until 1568. I suppose
the exact tiuth is that both men were eminently deserving of grati
tude for their devotion to physiological science, and for the light
which they were able to throw upon this particular branch of it. I
may add, however, in passing, that the circulation of the blood was
never definitely proved even in Harvey's time. No one at that
time was able to show how the blood passed from the final branching
of the arteries into the final branching of the veins. The literal
proof, which consisted in the exhibition of the capillary tubes, was
reserved for Malpighi’s microscope. The account of the discoveries
of Servetus upon this subject, is contained in his book entitled
“ Christianismi Bestitutio,” or the restoration of Christianity. This
book was so bitterly hated by the people, and was greeted with such
craven fear by the learned, that Calvin seized upon it as a pretext for
causing Servetus to be apprehended and cast into prison on a charge
of heresy.
Calvin has denied this charge, but with all reliable historians
his denial is considered as additional proof of his detestably low
qualities. Seven years before Calvin had compassed his cruel end,
he wrote a lettei’ to Peter Viret, in which he said that if ever Servetus
should come to Geneva, he would not allow him to return from it
alive. It is also asserted on good authority, that there is in existence
at the present day, in Paris, another letter written to Farel seven
years before the martyrdom of Servetus, in which the following
sentence occurs in the handwriting of John Calvin:—“ Servetns has
lately written to me and sent meat the same time a large book. . .
He offers to come hither if I like it, but I will not engage my word ;
for if he comes and if any regard be had to my authority, I will not
allow him to escape with his life.”
Calvin at that time was a man of great influence in Geneva.
His dictum in almost all religious matters was regarded as final, and
he was so thoroughly accustomed to this deference, that when
�1
Servetus denied the doctrine of the Trinity and exposed the false
basis, upon which Calvin’s harsh system was resting, all his former
reverence for the learning of Servetus was put aside, and he became
inBnt upon his speedy death. Do you wonder that Servetus rejected
the doctrine of the Trinity ? It was the most natural thing in the
world. With a heart set free from superstition, and an independent
judgment, no other result is possible. Of all theological impositions
there has never been anything propounded so bewildering to reason
as this. Heathendom never prostrated the intellects of its votaries
before such palpable contradictions as are contained in the unchristian
idea of a three-in-one Deity. It is a doctrine obscure in its origin,
lame in its occasional efforts at reconciliation with nature, and unable
to live in the light of free enquiry. You ask, •* Why then has it
existed so long ? ” and my reply is this :—“ It has been maintained
by brute force.” If nature had not been tampered with, the doctrine
of the Trinity would long since have passed into that obscurity
which engulphs all that is worthless and false. But alongside this
dogma there has been inculcated the idea that free enquiry in
religious matters is sinful. Even those who have made a sacred
principle of the right of private judgment have hitherto been
timorous in their defence of it, and have contended only for half
measures. But in the time of Servetus there were none who dared
to maintain on his behalf the inherent right of the human mind to
the exercise of all its faculties. In the eyes of Calvin there was no
crime so great as the effort to oppose the popular religion of the
day. Idleness and debauchery were regarded as virtues when they
stood in comparison with heresy. In order to avoid threatening
dangers, Servetus made his escape, and assuming another name, went
to live at Vienna. Calvin traced his footsteps, and suborned men to
expose him. He was apprehended and cast into prison, but having
a good reputation in the town, he was treated with unusual
kindness. Men who were not blinded by religious intolerance could
discern in Servetus nothing but virtue, industry, and simplicity.
He lived with God in such untroubled love,
And clear confiding, as a child on whom
The Father’s face has never yet but smiled ;
And with men even, in such harmony
Of brotherhood, that whatsoever spark
Of pure and true in any'.human heart
Flickered and lived, it burned itself towards him
In an electric current through all bonds
�8
Of intervening race and creed and time,
And flamed up to a heat of living faith
And love, and love’s communion, and the joy
And inspiration of self-sacrifice.
Calvin, however,was not to be defeated in his intention ; and Serveti®,
finding further traces of his diabolical design, it dawned suddenl*
upon his mind that Calvin was not merely his theological opponent
but his mortal enemy; and, seizing upon a suitable opportunity, he
escaped from his confinement, and determined to settle at Naples as
a physician.
I cannot understand whether it was a panic of fear that seized
him, or whether it was a desire to talk with Calvin in private and
utter some remonstrance concerning his cruelty towards him; but
certain it is, that notwithstanding the fact that Calvin was allpowerful there, he travelled by way of Geneva, and Calvin, who had
heard of his escape from Vienna, and that he was coming towards
Geneva on his way to Naples, was on the watch for him, and he had
scarcely arrived in the city before he was apprehended and cast into
prison. Thirty-eight separate indictments were preferred against
him, and the name of all the indictments was heresy. The thirtyseventh is a fair example of the rest, in which it is said that Servetus
in a printed work had defamed the doctrine preached by Calvin, and
decried and caluminated it in every possible way, contrary to a decree
passed on the 9th of November in the preceding year., which had
pronounced that doctrine sacred and inviolable.
He admitted all that was truth in the indictments. He would
utter no falsehood even to save his life.
When the trial had been going on for seven days, Calvin came
into court and opposed Servetus in person ; and then, two days
afterwards, fearing that death might not be the penalty, the Procureur-General brought in no less than thirty new indictments
which related chiefly to his personal history. Servetus, whilst
refusing to abandon the truth, endeavoured to defend himself. Cal
vin drew up a written reply to this defence, which was put into
the hand of Servetus as he stood before the judge on the 15th
September. Calvin had taken a fortnight in its preparation ; Ser
vetus was called upon to refute it extemporaneously. But he took
no further notice of it than to express briefly the extreme contempt
�9
which, he felt for its author, and to add—“ In a cause so just, I am
firm; I have not the least fear of death.”
On the 26th October, Servetus was condemned to be burnt to
cleath in a slow fire as a warning to all reformers, that they
should not dare to oppose the popular notions of their time. A
message was sent immediately to Calvin to tell him of the judge’s
decision, and sacrificing duty to pleasure, he put aside every work
and appointment, and made great haste, in ordei’ that he might
witness the execution.
In a letter written on the Sth September by Calvin, he says,—
‘ The judges will be very cruel, very unjust to Christ and the doctrine
which is according to Godliness, and they will be real enemies of the
Church if they are not moved by the horrible blasphemies with
which so vile a heretick assails the Divine Majesty.” The sentence
passed upon Servetus was this :—“ We condemn thee, Michael
Servetus, to be bound and carried to the Lieu de Champel, and there
to be tied to a stake, and burnt alive with thy book, written with
thine own hand, and printed, till thy body is reduced to ashes ; and
thus shall thou end thy days to serve as a warning to others who are
disposed to act in the same manner. And we command you, our
lieutenant, to cause our present sentence to be carried into effect.”
On the morning of the day following, Servetus was visited in
prison and urged to recant. They implored him to say that Christ
was God. What a useless assertion it would have been, seeing that
Servetus had proved his belief in the opposite 1 But it only proves
to us the fact that when the spirit of persecution is abroad, being a
bad thing in itself, it draws after it all the most diabolical vices of
the lower nature. The love of truth is rudely trampled under foot;
the command “ Thou shalt not kill,” is set at defiance ; mercy and
toleration are cast forth as if they had no right to a place in the
human heart, and we find both men and women revelling and rejoic
ing in the cruel death of a fellow-being. Servetus was desired to
deliver an address to the crowd before his execution, but he had
other things to think about, and refused to do so. Calvin described
this silence as “ proof of his beastly stupidity those are his words.
The pile consisted of wooden faggots, many of them still green and
with leaves upon them. The poor victim was fastened to the trunk
of a tree fixed in the earth, his feet reaching to the ground. A crown
of straw sprinkled with brimstone was placed upon his head. His
body was bound to the stake with an iron chain, and a coarse twisted
�10
rope was loosely thrown round his neck. His book was next fastened
to his thigh. He then begged the executioner to put him out of his
misery as speedily as possible. The fire was lighted, and he cried
out most piteously as. the flames scorched his flesh,—for he had an
extremely sensitive nervous organisation, and he felt the pain keenly.
Some of the bystanders, at last, out of compassion, supplied the fire
with fresh fuel, hoping to put an end to his misery. One writer tells
us that a strong breeze sprang up and scattered the flames, and that
Servetus was writhing in the fire between two or three hours.
Many attempts have been made to screen Calvin from odium. I
for one am not interested in his impeachment. I care nothing for
discussion concerning such individuals, but it is of vital importance
to you and me that we should realise what a horrible and degrading
thing is this spirit of persecution for blasphemy. It is reckoned a
crime more vile than robbery or fraud. Men may kill thmr wives in
quarrel and yet escape with lighter punishments than are awarded
to those who try to be reformers in their own time. The persecutor
says that blasphemy or heresy is an injury to God. God is infinite,
and the punishment must be commensurate with the greatness of
the Being injured. Now it is just absffrd beyond all other things,
that you should think such a thing possible. How can any man
injure God? Or how can any human law-court defend God? Is it
not sacrilege of a viler kind to set up a magistrate as the protector
of Almighty ? What more blasphemous thing could we be called
upon to tolerate than that ?
There is nothing more degrading in all the annals of the world
than this same spirit of persecution which has recently sent three
journalists to prison for an impossible offence. It behoves us, as we
respect our own rights, to do all we can to protest against the ver
dict. It behoves us, as we love our country and take pride in its
greatness, to use every effort for the repeal of all such enactments.
I have very little more to say to you to-night by way of appli
cation. You have glanced hastily with me at the influence of these
laws against heresy in the case of Calvin and Servetus, and you
know that the same laws still exist in this country and that they are
not obsolete. In the year 1861, in the Court of Common Pleas, Lord
Chief Justice Erie, in giving judgment said—“ There are opinions
which are in law a crime.” Little attention was paid to this state
ment at the moment. Recent circumstances, however, have proved
�11
two things : first, the truth of the words spoken; and second, the
ufrgent need of an agitation in favour of the immediate and total
repeal of all Heresy and Blasphemy Laws. It is a mistake to suppose
that they can serve any good purpose. I am not called upon in this
discourse to recapitulate the reasons which exist in favour of political
or religious liberty. To many of you they are perfectly familiar. It
is manifest that where discussion is forbidden, all progress is tram
meled. If in those countries where idols of wood and stone are
worshipped it is reckoned a criminal offence to oppose the popular
religion, there will be few facilities for improvement; but if free
discussion is permitted and encouraged, all their bad institutions
will be exposed, and the good ones will be better understood and
appreciated. Their useless idols will be dethroned, and there will be
progress,—for no matter how long the struggle may be continued,
truth will infallibly come out victorious. The attitude which ought
to be taken up by Unitarians is that described by the poet Henry
Taylor, in “ Isaac Commenus.”
“ Whatsoe’er possible evils lie before,
Let us sincerely own them to ourselves
With all unstinting unevasive hearts
Reposing in the-eonsciousness of strength,
Or ferventejhope to be endowed with strength
Of all-enduring temper,—daring all truth.”
Let me in conclusion urge upon you the importance of a singleminded action in this matter. I would, for our own sake, that it had
been a Unitarian and not an Atheist who was imprisoned. I dare
say we cannot defend oui' position without being misunderstood.
But this is of no consequence. Our duty is plain. They who call
themselves the Freethinkers are suffering falsely, and therefore
unjustly. All other questions are merged into this, and until they
are released and the Act is repealed, the nation lies under a cloud of
ignominy painful to contemplate. My earnest wish is, that we may
all be able to do something to help on the 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
The martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mills, Herbert V.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Colne
Collation: 11 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Michael Servetus was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and Renaissance humanist. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a heterodox view of the Trinity and Christology. After being condemned by Catholic authorities in France, he fled to Geneva where he was burnt at the stake for heresy by order of the city's governing council. Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Hyde & Sons
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
N489
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne), 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
Blasphemy
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Heresy
Michael Servetus